Organic Development in the Catholic Liturgy: Distinguishing Improvements from Corruptions 

Thank you very much, Scott. That describes my own experience to a T. In my case, it took me about twenty years of "ROTR" efforts to reach the conclusion that it was like pushing a heavy vehicle up a steep incline that was smeared with vaseline. Might I ask you to send me an email? I'd like to be in touch.

I would love to hear a bit if why it's an ultimately futile goal from you're perspective. Not to burden you or put you on the spot.

@@loulasher I've written about this in a few places, e.g.: onepeterfive.com/reform-of-the-reform-doomed/

I am convinced he believed what he said, but was too timid, for the most part, to follow through in action. And he was divided and tormented, as most modern theologians who still believe the Faith are. Then there are those who are not divided and tormented because they actually do not believe the Faith. I won't say any names...

@@DrKwasniewski I appreciate your thoughtful remarks.

It seems you don't read the comments people make to your ill-informed remarks. This is exactly NOT the case with the Divine Liturgy if one takes a broader look at culture and how sacral or hieratic languages develop. Yes, in many linguistic spheres the vernacular will be used (as when the Divine Liturgy is offered in English, as throughout the United States), but there are many exceptions. Greek speaking churches/patriarchates use liturgical Greek, not vernacular. Some patriarchates use Arabic and others alongside Greek. Slavic Orthodox churches have always used exclusively liturgical Church Slavonic. Recently, Eastern modernists managed to introduce vernacular, but not everywhere. Russians still use only Slavonic. Even though Serbians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Belarusians, Ukrainians use much vernacular, Slavonic is still in use. The Romanian Orthodox Church used Church Slavonic/liturgical Greek from 10th to 17th century, when it was replaced by Romanian (which was nevertheless influenced by Church Slavonic, making it quite non-vernacular). The Georgian Orthodox Church uses old literary Georgian as liturgical language. The Coptic Orthodox use literary Coptic language as liturgical language. Even though its use diminished during long Muslim rule (replacing it by Arabic), it's still alive and it's being reintroduced. The Ethiopian Orthodox use Ge'ez as liturgical language, not one of many vernaculars. The Syrian Orthodox use classical Syrian and Arabic. Use of Arabic is related to centuries of Muslim rule. The Armenians use a classical literary Armenian. Moreover, what do we mean by "vernacular"? Old Church Slavonic, for example, was created so that the Slavs could understand the liturgy, but at the same time, it was created to translate a very fancy liturgical Greek. And historically, in most cultures there was by definition a large gap between literary language and spoken language, much larger than is typical today, both because more people today are literate, and because high literary language has basically disappeared. As for Pope Damasus and Latin, your statement is refuted here: www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2023/02/was-liturgical-latin-introduced-as-and.html

He was closely involved in Vatican 2, yes, but he has also distanced himself from some of the most extreme interpretations and applications of it. He was a step back toward sanity. We need a Benedict XVII to continue where he left off, and to undo the many destructive innovations of Francis.

No, not at all. Actually only about half a word is missing. The videographer said there was a glitch. Here is the sentence I was speaking: "However, as we must always remind over-eager papal apologists, anything of any significance in the liturgy can never be considered 'merely disciplinary'..."

@@DrKwasniewski Thanks!

Fr. Reese is an irrevelant modernist who speaks to an echo chamber consisting of equally elderly Jesuits.

No, their Lex Credendi forbids it. It's also very telling that in that sentiment alone is revealed the fact that the Theology of the Novus Ordo is *different.* Sometimes, the snake outs himself if you pay attention. I have no idea when the Jesuit order was hijacked, but whenever I see 'S.J.' next to a priest's name I instantly put my guard up and will avoid when possible. I have no idea when or what seminaries were hijacked, because not all Jesuits are modernist heretics to the 33rd degree, but they do seem to be the majority. It is only fitting, truly, that the order most renowned for intellectuality in the Church would be the one to be taken over to become the smartest defenders of the modernist heresy.

Pace Jorge Bergoglio what we have rather is a Pope of Surprises.