N ONE of my articles, published on 22 September 2022, I provided a 1955 citation. The citation was pretty rare. (I’ve been involved with liturgical projects since the 1990s, and I’ve never seen it cited.) A perceptive reader alerted me to this article published on 11-2-2022 by Cardinal Cupich, which in all likelihood was submitted a few weeks in advance—i.e. shortly after my article appeared. A few weeks is standard, to allow for typesetting and proofreading.
Insane Coincidence? • Thanks be to God, I have become very careful vis-à-vis what I publish about other people. Calumny is a serious sin, for which reparation is virtually impossible. However, it’s difficult to believe Cardinal Cupich’s piece was written independently of my article because of the timing, and because of how rare that quote was. I will not insult your intelligence by telling you what I suspect. Whether deliberate or not, Cardinal Cupich responds directly to me. Compare Green to Green, Yellow to Yellow, Pink to Pink, and Blue to Blue:
I don’t have time to respond to Cardinal Cupich’s response to my article. Briefly, however, consider the following:
(1) Cardinal Cupich claims Vatican II mandated “recitation of the creed.”
Cardinal Cupich is mistaken. Catholics were allowed to recite the Creed along with the priest before Vatican II. Moreover, the reformers deliberately limited the recitation of the Creed. At Maria Laach Conference in 1951, progressives pushing for liturgical reform declared (resolution #6): “The recitation of the Creed should occur much less frequently.”
(2) Cardinal Cupich claims Vatican II mandated “a fixed altar from which the priest would face the people.”
Cardinal Cupich is mistaken. Vatican II said not one word about destroying the beautiful high altars or Mass “facing the people.” As a matter of fact, to this day, the Ordinary Form Missal presumes celebration ad orientem.
(3) Cardinal Cupich claims Vatican II was about: “moving from Latin to the vernacular.”
The opposite is true. Vatican II required that Latin be retained and that Gregorian Chant be given “first place” in liturgical services. The retention of Latin was not a suggestion or recommendation—it was required by the Council.
(4) Cardinal Cupich claims Vatican II restored “processions of gifts and the Gospels.”
Cardinal Cupich is mistaken. The Missale Vetustum had a splendid Gospel procession.
(5) Cardinal Cupich claims Vatican II restored “reciting in unison the Lord’s Prayer.”
Cardinal Cupich is mistaken. The Missale Vetustum allows that practice at Low Mass, and divides the singing at High Mass—i.e. the Celebrant sings one section of the Lord’s Prayer, and the congregation sings the other section.
(6) Cardinal Cupich claims Vatican II restored “singing together.”
Cardinal Cupich is mistaken. The Missale Vetustum not only allows, but even requires such a practice at High Mass.
(7) Cardinal Cupich claims Vatican II restored “periods of common silence.”
Cardinal Cupich is mistaken. I’m not even going to comment on such an assertion!
(8) Cardinal Cupich claims Vatican II restored a practice that takes place “in the eucharistic prayer, the […] people respond in the preface…”
Cardinal Cupich is mistaken. The Missale Vetustum requires that the entire congregation respond to the priest at the Preface, and it’s one of the most beautiful parts of the Mass: Habémus ad Dóminum…