Don't Take "The Anchoress" Too Seriously

I spent 20 very rewarding minutes speaking with a world-class liturgical scholar this morning, and then read an "Anchoress" blog on First Things.

Something of a study in contrasts.

At one time, I read Ms. Scalia regularly; but the more I read of her work, the less I liked it.

One reason is in today's post:

My own instinct is that most Catholics would be very content with a Novus Ordo liturgy that managed to be what the Second Vatican Council actually had in mind: a vernacular liturgy meant to be like the Cross of Christ itself—both horizontal and vertical, but balanced in a way that does not over-emphasize in either direction; a modern liturgy that manages to incorporate the ancient touches that help us to remember who we are and from whence we have come.

Really? "....really had in mind: a vernacular liturgy...."??

Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. --Para. 36, 1.

But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the Liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters Para. 36, 2

"Latin.......is to be preserved." "SOME of the prayers and chants. Readings and Directives."

Both those citations are from Sacrosanctum Concilium, the document written by the Council itself, not by the Bugnini-ists who imposed their own will on the Church (and the document.)

Imagination otherwise, Ms. Scalia, actually reading the document is fruitful.