In due time, we will post a round-up of articles about the Apostolic letter Desiderio desideravi on the sacred liturgy, as we did for Traditionis Custodes and the “dubia.” For the moment, however, I wish to offer only one very brief commentary of my own, mostly by agreeing with some other people.
Any imputation that critique of the post-Conciliar rite means rejection of the most recent ecumenical council is false. The letter says “I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council ... and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium...” As Phil Lawler rightly put it, this is simply a non-sequitur. And as my colleague Matthew Hazell rightly put it, there is a difference, and it is a very important one, between the Concilium and the Consilium. The post-Conciliar rite is a product of the latter and not of the former. It was not born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium, it was born as a rejection and repudiation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Even the most cursory reading of that document makes it very clear that the post-Conciliar rite was created by going FAR beyond the Conciliar mandate, and in places, flatly contradicts the very letter of that mandate. Claims to the contrary are false. This is the reality of the situation, and with all due respect for the office of the papacy, the power of the keys which Christ gave to Peter is not the power to declare reality to be something other than what it is.More simply, as this fellow also rightly put it
