GIRM - A WITNESS TO UNBROKEN TRADITION

Instruction of the Roman Missal ^

[NYer]

A WITNESS TO UNBROKEN TRADITION

6. In setting forth its decrees for the revision of the Order of Mass, Vatican Council II directed, among other things, that some rites be restored "to the vigor they had in the tradition of the Fathers";11 this is a quotation from the Apostolic Constitution of 1570, by which St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Missal. The fact that the same words are used in reference to both Roman Missals indicates how both of them, although separated by four centuries, embrace one and the same tradition. And when the more profound elements of this tradition are considered, it becomes clear how remarkably and harmoniously this new Roman Missal improves on the older one.

7. The older Missal belongs to the difficult period of attacks against Catholic teaching on the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the ministerial priesthood, and the real and permanent presence of Christ under the eucharistic elements. St. Pius V was therefore especially concerned with preserving the relatively recent developments in the Church's tradition, then unjustly being assailed, and introduced only very slight changes into the sacred rites. In fact, the Roman Missal of 1570 differs very little from the first printed edition of 1474, which in turn faithfully follows the Missal used at the time of Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216). Manuscripts in the Vatican Library provided some verbal emendations, but they seldom allowed research into "ancient and approved authors" to extend beyond the examination of a few liturgical commentaries of the Middle Ages.

8. Today, on the other hand, countless studies of scholars have enriched the "tradition of the Fathers" that the revisers of the Missal under St. Pius V followed. After the Gregorian Sacramentary was first published in 1571, many critical editions of other ancient Roman and Ambrosian sacramentaries appeared. Ancient Spanish and Gallican liturgical books also became available, bringing to light many prayers of profound spirituality that had hitherto been unknown. Traditions dating back to the first centuries before the formation of the Eastern and Western rites are also better known today because so many liturgical documents have been discovered. The continuing progress in patristic studies has also illumined eucharistic theology through the teachings of such illustrious saints of Christian antiquity as Irenaeus, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, and John Chrysostom.

ADAPTATION TO MODERN CONDITIONS

9. The "tradition of the Fathers" does not require merely the preservation of what our immediate predecessors have passed on to us. There must also be profound study and understanding of the Church's entire past and of all the ways in which its single faith has been expressed in the quite diverse human and social forms prevailing in Semitic, Greek, and Latin cultures. This broader view shows us how the Holy Spirit endows the people of God with a marvelous fidelity in preserving the deposit of faith unchanged, even though prayers and rites differ so greatly.

[ultima ratio]

Did you think the General Instruction was going to admit it was in contradiction to the Council of Trent? It is as deceptive as the liturgy itself. Here again is Cardinal Ratzinger:

"It may well be that kneeling is alien to modern culture--insofar as it is a culture, for this culture has turned away from the faith and no longer knows the One before whom kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be recovered." (The Angelus, citing Ratzinger, April 2002, p. 15.)

And again, speaking to the fact that the Council of Trent rejects the doctrinal deviations of the new Mass, he writes: "It is only by grasping that it results from the practical disqualification of Trent, that one can understand the exasperation that accompanies the fight against the possibility of still celebrating Mass according to the 1962 Missal." (Ibid., p. 19.)

[JMJ333]

We know the Church is indefectable in matters of faith and morals. Therefore, it is impossible for the bishops, in union with the pope, to err on a question of morals for the universal church. And since the “New Mass” is offered by the bishops in union with the pope, it is impossible for it to be immoral or invalid. If they think it is [and obviously they do], then then have lost faith in the indefectability of the Church. God help them.

[JMJ333]

Part of Catholic Tradition is to be obedient to lawful authority. We also have a centralized authority that defines and protects the Faith, and regulates the corporate worship of the Church. When we lose sight of that we must descend into the mash pits of Protestant sectarian chaos. My conscience, and my Catholic faith, tells me that I must obey lawful ecclesiastical authority, unless it commands me to do something immoral.

At any rate, if you believe that the bishops in union with the Pope are capable of instituting an invalid Mass and depriving the whole Catholic Church of valid sacraments, then you obviously do not believe in the indefectability of the Church.

It’s true that the Church’s infallability doesn’t extend to pastoral matters, but its authority certainly does. Do you go to Mass on a holy day of obligation? Why? Jesus never commanded that we must attend Mass on Holy days-- the feast of the Assumption, for example. That was a pastoral decision of the Church. Why do you consider yourself bound by that decision, when at the same time you deny that the Church’s authority extends to pastoral matters?

I seems to me that others who have been arguing with you are correct. You have become a Protestant. Your complaints against the Church may be different than those of the sixteenth-century Protestants, but the principle is the same. You both believe that the Church failed in a critical aspect of its mission, so much so that you must separate yourselves from her communion and worship elsewhere, in the backwaters and caves with the rest of the “faithful remnant.” The Protestants believed that the Church had corrupted her doctrines; you believe she has corrupted her sacraments. In both cases there is a lack of faith in the indefectability of the Church.

I have to go to Mass. I will pray for you.

[MarMema]

Didn't they really change the mass so that people would be more interested in attending? Wasn't it about being modern and staying with the times? Having a guitar at mass, etc?

Hasn't it always been a downfall of westernized Christianity that they push to conquer and win? To get the most numbers listed under their church heading in the guiness book. Even though the path has been described as narrow, it always seems to me that western churches are into the biggest numbers and expansion.

In fact it often seems to me that this greed and some of the vainglory attending these attempts are precisely the "prayers" which have been answered.
Almost as if our Lord said - Loss of piety and reverence, but lots of people, that's what you want? So be it.

Let the circus begin.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"'It may well be that kneeling is alien to modern culture--insofar as it is a culture, for this culture has turned away from the faith and no longer knows the One before whom kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be recovered.' (The Angelus, citing Ratzinger, April 2002, p. 15.) "

I don't think anyone takes your quotes seriously, ultima, especially of Cardinal Ratzinger, after our previous experience of tracking down what you quote, and finding that you've misrepresented whom you've quoted, especially Cardinal Ratzinger, or just made up the quote entirely.

Also, I assume that when you quote "The Angelus", you are referring to the house organ of the SSPX organization. Considering that this is an organization run by excommunicated people outside of the communion of the Holy Catholic Church, considering that none of its priests can offer a licit Mass, or generally offer a valid absolution in confession, nor validly marry Catholics, and that the Holy Father has warned all Catholics to avoid its services, because attendance thereto leads to a schismatic mentality, it is not, obviously, a reputable or reliable source of information for Catholics.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear JMJ333,

If you read a few posts further down, you will see that ultima ratio and the other anti-Catholic "traditionalists" around here have more in common with the Orthodox, whom the Holy Catholic Church regards as being in schism, than with Catholics.

sitetest

[MarMema]

This from the papist "first protestants" defender.
You, whose leader broke away in arrogance and pride, would now stoop to throw a stone. Pray hard and well.

[ultima ratio]

You are confused. I never said the new Mass was invalid. It is valid all right--but only sometimes these days, when priests trouble to use the proper form, matter and intention. Unfortunately, more and more priests are celebrating invalid Masses these days. Nevertheless, I will grant that the Novus Ordo is valid, generally speaking. But having said that, this is not saying much. A Black Mass, too, is valid, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

What I have been trying to point out is that the New Mass, despite such validity, is nevertheless harmful to the faith. It has systematically destroyed belief in the Divinity of Christ and in the Real Presence for millions of Catholics. As Pius XII said in Mediator Dei, the rule of praying is the rule of faith. If a Mass has been so thoroughly secularized so as to remove all sense of the sacred, then belief itself is seriously diminished. This is what happens with the Novus Ordo.

The second point to be made is to distinguish between the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium. The ordinary Magisterium is infallible ONLY in virtue of its repetition of a teaching or practice the Church has held since time immemorial. This would NOT include a novelty like the Novus Ordo which is doctrinally deficient and in open defiance of the Council of Trent. So your second point about indefectability would necessarily not apply.

[MarMema]

the other anti-Catholic "traditionalists" around here have more in common with the Orthodox, whom the Holy Catholic Church regards as being in schism

Well-said! I have been admiring Ultima's defense of truth, tradition, and piety for some time now.
It is also true that in our church we do not give our loyalty to men but to God and the church itself. All men are susceptible to lust for power and greed. And so Ultima's concerns make perfect sense to me.

But then you are the original schismatics, so you should be well-aquainted with this idea. You papists are the ones who broke away from the rest of the church in order to allow one man to be more powerful.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima,

"Nevertheless, I will grant that the Novus Ordo is valid, generally speaking. But having said that, this is not saying much. A Black Mass, too, is valid, but that doesn't make it a good thing."

The words of one who no longer loves the Catholic Church, comparing the normative Mass of the Latin Rite to a black Mass.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Again, you only get it part right. The Catholic tradition includes teachings of the doctors of the Church which have been officially approved. These include the teachings of Thomas Aquinas and Robert Bellarmine, each of whom have warned that obedience to superiors must be tempered by circumstances. We have the duty, they teach, NOT to obey commands which would harm the Church. Not even a pope may lawfully command us to do this.

[MarMema]

If you don't believe that ritual matters, why are you Catholic? And if you believe that ritual matters, then why isn't it also true that the correct ritual matters?

Ritual itself is about how something is done.

[sitetest]

Dear MarMema,

I haven't said otherwise.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear MarMema,

"Well-said! I have been admiring Ultima's defense of truth, tradition, and piety for some time now."

Thanks!

As you are not a Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome, it makes perfect sense that you would embrace your schism from us. And you are quite forthright about it. That's perfectly reasonable, isn't it?

The difference between you and ultima is that you're quite open about nor being a Catholic, not being in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

sitetest

[Desdemona]

I checked in early this morning before going out and about. The arguments both ways get old, but just for all of you and this thread I stayed to watch communion at my church job. We sang early so I could have left, but...

After working in a protestant church for two years, I often wonder how many Catholics have ever been in a protestant church let alone sat through service. Service has no majesty, no reverence. I sat there this morning and thought, and they make fun of us. There was so reverence. No elevation, no mystery. Nothing. The assistant took a loaf of bread and split it. The "wine" isn't even alcoholic. No eternal presence...nothing with any kind of greatness to it.

The words of the Sanctus that they use are identical to the ones we use - which do not match the exact translation. I know that. They use a Gloria Patri, but not a Gloria in Excelsis Deo. Subtle stuff.

Of late, you all know, I've switched to a more conservative parish. My mother doesn't see where I get the desire to experience the old way. Why I don't change the words of the creed and desire to sing Latin and like a Communion Rail and why I prefer Communion from a priest or a Deacon. She actually said to me, I go you to the Catholic church because of the sacraments, I don't care who administers them.

Well, I'll say this. For a while, I couldn't tell the difference. Now I can. THAT's the difference. The truth is in the details. Change enough of the details and you change the whole. That's what a lot of people are missing. That enough details are gone and corners cut, that the whole has changed.

I have to go. I'll check in later though. Translating French today.

[JMJ333]

Hello Marmema. I see you came to sling some mud.

Your constant criticizing and lambasting of Catholicism with a frequency is unbefitting of true followers of Jesus, and at times resemblles the negative campaigning of democrat politicians.

Why is Catholicism radically different Church than the Orthodox Church? Perhaps it is the the fact that the Orthodox church resmebles a circus that embraces every heretical movement that blows past them. I am not surprised by your utter hatred for the papacy because you are too busy following in the footsteps of previous orthodox into schism.

The Catholic church is the Bride of Christ, whom you have been commanded to obey by Christ Himself. Disobedience to its lawful commands is not a good thing. Our leaders will be judged by God for how well they led, but you and I will be judged for how well we followed.

I’m sure you have all sorts of reasons why the Church has failed. So do the Protestants. I imagine the only difference between you and them is that you would point to old encyclicals and other Church documents like ultima and HDMZ, where the protestants would point to Scripture. Either way, I’m not impressed. My faith is in Jesus Christ, and I believe Him when He says the Church will not fail. I believe that it has been, and continues to be, the pillar and foundation of the truth, which is something I couldn't believe if I thought its sacraments were a fraud.

And so marmema, There is only one Church, and yours isn’t it. Hear the words of St. Augustine:

"Since we are inquiring where the Church of Christ is to be found, let us listen to the words of Christ Himself, who redeemed it with His own blood: “Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and even in the whole earth.” You see then who it is with whom a man refuses to communicate who will not communicate with this Church, which is spread throughout all the world, if at least you hear whose words these are. For what is a greater proof of madness than to hold communion with the sacraments of the Lord, and to refuse to hold communion with the words of the Lord? Such men at any rate are likely to say, “In Thy name have we eaten and drunken,” and to hear the words, “I never knew you,” seeing that they eat His body and drink His blood in the sacrament, and do not recognize in the gospel His members which are spread abroad throughout the earth, and therefore are not themselves counted among them in the judgment."

[JMJ333]

We are the original schismatics? LOL. Your grasp of history is pitiful.

A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

Patriarchal See, Patriarch , Years, Heresy

Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius c.341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius c.342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul "the Black" c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite

[ultima ratio]

You make a good point. The Modernists do not dare to attack the ancient faith of the apostles frontally. They chip away at it by indirection, by suppression or by subversion. They will, for instance, suppress acknowledgment of the Real Presence by eliminating the rubrics which show respect or adoration, by shunting tabernacles off to a corner. They won't come out and attack the dogma, but they will act as if it did not exist. So too they will use subversion by subtley changing the language and structure of the liturgy so that it no longer expresses the Catholic sacrificial intention behind all traditional Masses. They do this by emphasizing those elements which express the Protestant liturgical notion that the Lord's Supper is primarily a liturgy of commemoration-- something explicitly condemned by Trent.

[JMJ333]

When cornered the truth comes out of him. Comparative to a Black Mass indeed. It seems to me that he is quick to label as evil that which is merely different and distasteful to him. If God points to someone and says, “Obey him,” I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that He will also judge how well I obeyed the one He told me to obey. He has all sorts of arcane, hair-splitting, legalistic rationalizations to excuse himself from that command.

[MarMema]

Now, now JM get it right. My criticisms are of the pope, this one, the grandstander of all time who oozes vainglory from his very pores and prefers being in the spotlight to cleaning up his own filthy floors at home, and of the modernism which has betrayed your church and is bringing it to its knees.

I liked and respected your church back when you had decent leadership and reverence in your liturgy. In fact I grew up in your church, pre-Vatican 2, back when it was about worshipping God instead of about innovation and little boys as prey.