Is the liturgy man-made?

[truthfinder]

I think it would be more productive to talk about liturgy in its approved forms and go from there.  Any discussion of the aberrations and abuses by the likes of Cardinal Mahony does not get to the core of the question.  We know abuses are man-made.  

[Ark]

Bugnini's liturgy is man-made. His intentions behind the alterations were worldly and man-centered.

[Ark]

Gaudiem et spes, Chapter 12, is the core of the problem.

[truthfinder]

This was posted today on NLM: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2015/04/reforming-canon-of-mass-some.html#.VTwDByFViko

It's a summary of posts by Fr. Hunwicke, and I found it rather interesting.  I was skimming through it with this post in mind.  

[truthfinder]

Sorry, got threads mixed up.  

Edited April 25, 2015 by truthfinder

[Ark]

This was posted today on NLM: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2015/04/reforming-canon-of-mass-some.html#.VTwDByFViko

It's a summary of posts by Fr. Hunwicke, and I found it rather interesting.  I was skimming through it with this post in mind.  

Great article! The part on whether the novus ordo and  Traditional Latin Mass are the same or different rites was particularly fascinating:

Quote:

"This inevitably leads to the question, addressed in the fourth article, of whether the addition of new Eucharistic prayers (or ‘anaphoras’, if you prefer) makes the Novus Ordo a different Rite from the classic Roman Rite, which never had any Canon other than that found in the ancient Roman sacramentaries and the Missal of St Pius V. He begins by pointing out that various scholars, not all of them conservatives, have held the position that they are essentially different rites.

"Fr Joseph Gelineau, described by Bugnini himself as “one of the great masters of the international liturgical world”, a liturgical radical who wholeheartedly applauded what happened after Vatican II, did not make (the) claim (that they are the same rite). He wrote “We must say it plainly: the Roman rite as we knew it exists no more. It has gone. … Fr Aidan Nichols points out that ‘the Rite of Paul VI contains more features of Oriental provenance than the Roman Rite has ever known historically, and notably in the new anaphoras, for these are central to the definition of any eucharistic style.’ ”

"He further notes that the presence of so many features imported from other rites led the Anglican scholar Dr G. G. Willis to define the modern Roman Rite as a “hybrid”. Fr Zuhlsdorf has stated a similar position on various occasions, that the identity of the two Forms, Ordinary and Extraordinary, as one Rite, is essentially a legal fiction: a good and useful legal fiction, to be sure, but a legal fiction nonetheless. (In a future article, I plan to offer some considerations of my own on this matter.) In any case, Fr Hunwicke declares that it is a cause worth taking seriously, to restore the Roman Rite to use by using exclusively the Roman Canon. The GIRM itself has pointed to this by saying, in each edition it has been through, that “This Prayer may be always used” (Editio tertia para 365. ‘semper adhiberi potest’); a comment it makes about none of the other anaphoras.

"He is also very careful to state, in clear and very red letters at the end of the fourth article, that the status of the Novus Ordo as a different Rite does make it any way invalid.

"The ecumenical implications of this question should not be lost on anybody, for if a formal Epiclesis is indeed essential to the Eucharistic Consecration, the unavoidable conclusion is that the Roman Rite has always been invalid.