One of the contributors, (at the annoyance, not at the CMAA,) seems to be up against it differentiating between the meanings of fairly simple words:
how the Prefect for the CDW under Pope Francis could argue the following is beyond me:Really?
The Second Vatican Council never asked for the rejection of the past and the abandonment of the Mass of Saint Pius V, that formed so many saints, not even to leave Latin behind. But it is necessary at the same time to promote the liturgical reform willed by the Council itself.Perhaps I am missing something.
How is it that Cardinal Sarah can hold: 1) the Second Vatican Council did not call for the abandonment of the Mass of Saint Pius V, and 2) nevertheless the Council willed liturgical reform? These two statements seem incompatible.
Well, okay. What you are missing is the meaning of the words, apparently.
I don't know much about Cardinal Sarah's hermeneutic of the liturgy, but it seems to me that his deliberate choice to refer to the pre-Vatican II liturgy in this way is to remind us that all the interim revisions and tweaks were ALSO not an "abandonment" of the Missal as it was the day before.