(quote) Paul-866591 said: Summorum is a very interesting document. It is short, just 29 separate, comparatively short paragraphs that occupy less than 4 typewritten pages.
The first 7 paragraphs provide a short concise history of the Mass and the Pontiffs who were instrumental in making changes.
He states the purpose for publishing Summorum in paragraphs 8 and 9. In neither does he say anything about, in your words, "Restoring the Sacred... ." In paragraph 8 he gives the background for his decision for issuing Summorum. Simply summarized he says that because, "... no small number of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier Liturgical forms." so Pope JPII issued his special indult (Quattuor abhinc anno) granted permission for the use of the 1962 MIssal.
Note carefully the fact that although the TLM was never suppressed nor abrogated, it still required a special indult by Pope John Paull II for the 1962 missal to be used.
Then in paragraph 9 he states his purpose, "Following the insistent prayers of these faithful (those who prefer to adhere to the Extraordinary form), long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March, 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these letters we establish the following:"
Note that nowhere does he even hint that his purpose was to restore the sacred and is insistent that his purpose is the satisfy the craving of , "... no small number of the faithful... ."
Obviously then, your statement of his purpose has no basis in fact or reality.
Your next statement that, "The point was to allow the use of the EF to reform the OF." has even less basis in fact or reality in Summorum. IN FACT the only statement that can possibly be interpreted as addressing any reform is exactly 180 degress opposite of your statement and is not found in Summorum itself but in the letter he issued to the Bishops commenting on Summorum. In paragraph 8 of that document he states, "For that matter, the two forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces CAN AND SHOULKD BE INSERTED IN THE OLD MISSAL." (Empahsis added)
As I noted in another note I wrote responding to some erroneous statements you made about Summorum in another thread where you maintained that Pope Benedict made derogatory comments about the Novus in Summorum no such statements appear in Summorum and in his letter to the Bishops on Summorum he specifically states, "It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman MIssal as if they were "two Rites." Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite."
That statement is clear that he equates the two and cannot rationally be interpreted as being derogatory of the Novus.
Continuing to make false claims about what Pope Benedict said in Summorumg or any where else about The Novus does the cause for those who prefer the TLM no good whatsoever. It even casts the motives and the preference of those TLM supporters and lovers in a bad light which they do not deserve.
I have said it before and I will repeat it here again, loving or preferring the TLM does not in itself make a person a traditionalist. Nor does loving or preferring the Novus, in itself make someone a heretical modernist.
Well, I'm glad you took the time to read the document.
If it seems like I am denigrating the OF, as you imply, I am only pointing out the absurdity of solving the issues with the EF as it was said in the 60's by replacing it with a mass where it almost seems like "anything goes." For the one issue I've heard on this thread about the EF, I can relate three or four I've seen including one that made me almost walk out of mass that day.
Take a listen to Micheal Voris' commentary that Bernard linked to. Listen to the litany of issues mentioned in the OF.
I've endured a parish where hand-holding was mandatory, as well as the inevitable "squeeze," (if you haven't, consider yourself blessed).
Army of Eucharistic Ministers where two priests and deacons are available and can distribute? Check!
Protestant or broadway themed hymns from the big three music producers? Check!
Boring or even heretical homilies? Check! (I even heard a priest give one about Judas climbing up to heaven. The demoniacs in the Gospel being simply mentally ill because we know better than the inspired authors? Yep, that too)
Churches where our Eucharistic Lord is placed in the back, or in a closet? We got those in Dayton. I was in one church which looked very traditional, with old style stained glass. Problem was there was no tabernacle either in the front or the back. Where did they take Our Lord? Who knows?
Check on that.
Some of the bad liturgical abuses, such as people being brought into the sanctuary? Had that happen.
There was even a mass where the priest brought his dog along into the sanctuary!
Come to think of it, I've just shown how banal and man-made the OF is (as Benedict XVI and Cardinal Burke have said) just from my own experiences.
Your mileage may vary, Paul, but surely you've seen your share of it too.