Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Spirit of the Liturgy
Una Voce ^ | November 17, 2002 | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Posted on 11/24/2002 4:55:40 PM PST by ultima ratio

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-126 last
To: RobbyS
First read Gamber. Read Ratzinger. I have said no less than they. I have never denied the new Mass is valid. But the Novus Ordo is harmful to the faith because it suppresses Catholic doctrines and weakens the faith of Catholics generally. How many times must I say this?
101 posted on 11/26/2002 10:13:47 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Of course there's a power struggle--that's a given. We are in a war right now.
102 posted on 11/26/2002 10:17:21 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Perhaps this is the point the self-styled knee-jerk papal loyalists need to grasp:

Investing absolute power in any office actually weakens its authority, because the officeholder can not only undo any and all of the acts of his predecessor, but also have any and all of his acts undone by his successors.

Private judgment actually gives the Protestant adherent, and his pastors, more power over their traditions and doctrines than the Pope has over Catholic tradition and doctrine.

They can create all of theirs ex nihilo from the Bible or other sources without reference to anything or anyone else, if they want, because their private judgment is absolute.

In the absence of an authority with the ability to judge competing claims, it is little wonder Protestantism has experienced so many doctrinal schisms.

What the knee-jerk papal loyalists are claiming for the Pope--absolute control not only over the interpretation but also the substance of doctrine--is what every Protestant claims for himself.

While this may in the short term strengthen the power of a particular Pope, it actually weakens the authority of the office over the long term.

103 posted on 11/26/2002 10:39:31 AM PST by Loyalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
To begin with, the old Mass is explicit in what is intended in the liturgy. The priest speaks to God the Father, offering up to Him the Spotless Host, about to be made Christ's own sacrifice to the Father in expiation for our sins. You should know that Luther hated the Offertory. It was the first thing he eliminated, after he had turned the altars around to face the people. It was the beginning of his destruction of the ancient Mass--just as today.

Here is part of the prayer in the Old Mass: "Accept, O Holy Father, almight and eternal God, this unspotted host, which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present; as also for all faithful Christians, both living and dead, that it may avail both me and them for salvation unto life everlasting." It goes on to mention four times the sacrifice about to take place. We ask God to accept the sacrifice for the glory of His Name, we offer the chalice of salvation participating in Christ's redemption for our sins, and ask for the intercession of the saints.

In place of the Offertory, the Novus Ordo has placed the Jewish Berekoth, which is the Jewish grace-before-meals, word-for-word. It is a prayer of thanksgiving. There is no sense of sinfulness--on the contrary, there is the sense of entitlement--and it sets the tenor for something other than a sacrifice: the Paschal meal. The emphasis is Protestant therefore, a memorial meal service similar to the Lutheran or Methodist Lord's Supper worship service. The sacrificial features have either been disguised in some places or else eliminated altogether. The entire focus has shifted away from an offering to God of Christ's Real Body and Blood in expiation for our sins--to Christ's virtual presence in the assembly which is a virtual celebration of ourselves and the Christ in us.
104 posted on 11/26/2002 10:47:21 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
And how often must I say that nothing in writing can do anything. There is nothing in Novus Ordo itself that is subversive of Catholic doctrine. The way it was implemented did confuse Catholics, did undermine their faith in their priests, who suddenly revealed themselves to be iconoclasts.
105 posted on 11/26/2002 10:54:07 AM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The emphasis is Protestant therefore, a memorial meal service similar to the Lutheran or Methodist Lord's Supper worship service. The average Methodist minister takes great care not to have services that are like the mass. I don't know which services you have attended, but the ones I have attended follow an order of service that has not the slightest hint of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The use of grape juice and ordinary bread seems to be the norm.
106 posted on 11/26/2002 11:04:32 AM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; ultima ratio
I don't know which services you have attended, but the ones I have attended follow an order of service that has not the slightest hint of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The use of grape juice and ordinary bread seems to be the norm.

True - to an extent. As I understand it, each pastor is given perogative as to the rubrics of their service. Every now and then I have to sit through it at the church where I work. There's no majesty or reverence involved and no logical order. It's all very informal. At least in the NO Mass, there is reverence (hopefully), if nothing else.
107 posted on 11/26/2002 11:12:55 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
If you look at the "book" one would expect something like a low church episcopal service. I have yet to see one (My wife is Methodist, by the way).
108 posted on 11/26/2002 11:21:56 AM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Yet to see what, low church Episcopal?

The church where I work is Presbyterian. And very much on the liberal side of Presbyteriansim. It's really more of a social club and service can be an anything goes affair. Last week, at the children's sermon, we (three of the section leaders and the kids) did a piece called "The Daniel Jazz". I hope to heaven this never happens at Mass. I'll tell you as long as this stuff happens and I go to Mass at a church which uses more of the old than the "new", it's not confusing and I can keep the job separated from worship.
109 posted on 11/26/2002 11:29:12 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Yet to see one that looked like the low episcopal service in the Episcopal service in my home town.
110 posted on 11/26/2002 11:48:33 AM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

Comment #111 Removed by Moderator

To: RobbyS
Read the text. It is identical to the Novus Ordo in great part. The care not to have services like the Mass works in only one direction, by the way. Novus Ordo liturgists take great great care to have services as much like the Protestant Lord's Supper as possible--even to the point of utilizing Protestant hymns and presenting homilies citing the spiritual wisdom of Martin Luther rather than the saints (the last Novus Ordo I ever attended did this).
112 posted on 11/26/2002 4:27:32 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
If you are talking about the Methodists, their ministers generally follow an order of service that is similar to that used by Baptists and Presbyterians. I see no resemblence at all to the mass. As to the Lutherans, those who believe in the Real Presence have a service that was not much different from the old low maass, except they used the vernacular. Among those who do not, the tone is much more like a Methodist or Presbyterian service.
113 posted on 11/26/2002 4:44:13 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Nothing in the Novus Ordo is subversive? Give me a break. Christ Himself is actually present on the altar and the rubrics eliminate genuflections and prohibit kneeling? That is not subversive of the doctrine of the Real Presence? The words "Mystery of faith" are removed from the act of Consecration and made instead to refer to something other than the change of the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood. This is not subversive? Christ is actually and truly present on the altar and all the priest has to say about it is, "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ WILL COME again"? He's right there on the altar, for heaven's sake--and all the priest does is deflect our attention from the IMMENSITY of this fact by inviting us to consider his Second Coming. Everything about the Mass is wrong, wrong, wrong and reeks of non-belief. The old Mass makes it clear that Christ is THERE, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, and it makes it clear the Mass is a reenactment of Calvary. The new Mass has the priest consecrating the bread and wine--and then totally ignoring Our Lord's presence so that the community can proceed in its self-worship and self-praise. It's actually a Mass for non-believers, all about the assembly and how wonderful it is. Almost everybody goes to communion--because everyone is automatically deemed worthy. No one who believes in the Real Presence can bear such indifference to Christ's presence as is shown by the Novus Ordo rite. It is profoundly subversive of the Catholic faith.
114 posted on 11/26/2002 5:09:09 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
You complain about "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again?" Our Lord is indeed pressnt but under the form of bread and wine. Now we see him with the eyes of faith, but then we shall see him with the eys of flesh.
115 posted on 11/26/2002 9:26:54 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Look, if you don't see the absurdity of this, then we might as well quit right here. What is "will come" doing in this context? Why has this pronouncement become the "Mystery of Faith" instead of the change of the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood--as in the old Mass where it is clearly presented as such? If you don't see the anomaly of this, you might as well admit your lack of faith in the Real Presence--as the modernists obviously do. Is it any wonder that a generation has grown up without belief in this doctrine? In the old Mass bells are rung to alert the faithful to this tremendous event. People then adore the Sacred Host as it is elevated. Which is why we once had Benedictions as well. Which was why we once had Holy Hours. Which was why we once had visits to the Blessed Sacrament. Now it is communion in the hands, no kneeling for communion, words which deflect attention, and a tabernacle that is shunted-aside. Is it any wonder that teenagers rise for the Eucharistic Prayer with their hands in their pockets, showing no more faith in the Real Presence than Protestants? This has been a systematic suppression of a major doctrine of the Catholic faith by those who no longer believe in it. If they did, they would institute rubrics which corresponded to that belief. But it is otherwise--not only in the text and in the rubrics of the New Mass, but in the overwhelming silence on the doctrine from Rome and the bishops. The Vatican showed no alarm over the Gallup poll of '92 which indicated two-thirds of all Catholics no longer believed in the Real Presence. It instituted no further studies, no special devotions, no teachings or warnings or encyclicals to pastors. Nothing. This is not a papacy that has been dutifully protective of the deposit of faith.
116 posted on 11/26/2002 11:56:40 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Look, if you don't see the absurdity of this, then we might as well quit right here.

Yes, there is absurdity alright. Quitting is an excellent suggestion.

117 posted on 11/27/2002 5:41:53 AM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
Glad you agree with me.
118 posted on 11/27/2002 9:23:15 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The reason why so many Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence is because they have not been taught it by their priests. The "stripping of the altars" is only symptomatic of the change in teaching and the new teaching is not liberal Protestantism but something else entirely. I would put much more stress on the failure of the bishops and priests to support the encyclical on birth control. But how could they? They --many of them--had been telling us for ten years or more that the teaching was outdated. When Bill Brennan--that yellow bastard(may he rot in hell)--went against the abortion law, he already knew that the Catholic Church in the United States was already split on the issue and that the general anti-Catholicism of the rest of the country was enough to enable the Court to ignore what the bishops SAID.
119 posted on 11/27/2002 9:43:43 AM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Catholics are not taught this doctrine by their priests because is because their priests are modernists like their bishops. The reason the bishops have gotten away with such widespread apostasy, is because Rome has not been interested in disciplining them.
120 posted on 11/27/2002 1:37:32 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
"Catholics are not taught this doctrine because is because their priests are modernists like their bishops" should read "Catholics are not taught this doctrine because their priests are modernists like their bishops."
121 posted on 11/27/2002 1:40:22 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The teaching has not been that formal heresy you have been talking about but as the offical doctrinre with reservations. Sort of like the Democrats' approval of the use of force against Iraq.
122 posted on 11/27/2002 1:58:00 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Are you referring to the doctrine of the Real Presence? My point was that these so-called "spiritual shepherds" do not believe in a major doctrine of the Catholic Church and they choose for their seminaries men who are just as faithless. They don't come right out and admit this, but they persecute those who believe, and they remain silent about their own disbelief. The Vatican is uninterested in their deficiencies--which, in itself, is interesting. It should be moving heaven and earth to protect the deposit of faith. Instead it shrugs and moves on.
123 posted on 11/27/2002 2:29:38 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Well, there are those who treat the following as though these were lines of poetry rather than an article of faith.

On the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium Et Spes) The Church strives to be that spotless bride to be presented at the "wedding feast of the Lamb" The Eucharist help us to become holy, "The Lord left behind a pledge of this hope and strength for life's journey in that sacrament of faith where natural elements refined by man are gloriously changed into His Body and Blood, providing a meal of brotherly solidarity and a foretaste of the heavenly banquet." (Chapter III: Man's Activity Throughout the World)

124 posted on 11/27/2002 3:01:36 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Read what I said again. The dialectic is a process that has nothing to do with liturgical development and very little to do with doctrinal development which begins and ends with revelation.

Either you know nothing of doctrinal and liturgical development or you are trying to avoid answering the problem you posed, which is: "What is the nature/process of organic change in liturgy?"

What you deny, vehemently I might add, is that Vatican II had to happen. It had to happen for the same reason the Novus Ordo had to happen. The process, which you cannot describe, was thwarted by the centralization of ecclesial innovation and change in Rome. This centralization ended with stasis. And the institution of a museum piece of liturgy, the Tridentine. The attempt to overthrow that stasis at its foundation is inherent in Vatican II and its documents as it is in the Novus Ordo and the intentional opportunities it creates for innovation in the mass.

At one time the mass could evolve. There was room for adding and taking away. Which is how we got so many wonderful rites. But as the stasis and centralization completed itself. Catholicism's practices became a beautiful, but stagnant thing.

You're right that innovation begins and ends with revelation, but you're wrong that dialectic isn't the key to change. Dialectic is the means for conveying revelations exigencies. Go read St. Thomas, St. Augustine, et. al. and tell me that the doctrines of the church aren't arrived at through dialectic. Liturgical innovation is a smaller form of the same process.

Unfortunately Ultima, you're swimming against the stream. The irony of your position is that you want to preserve the fruit of Rome's centralization while at the same moment trying to deny her capacity to overthrow herself! Lol.

125 posted on 11/28/2002 5:13:53 AM PST by WriteOn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn
1. If the Church is "overthowing itself" as you say--and I have to agree it certainly is trying to do this ever since Vatican II--then why should we believe in it as an institution? By denouncing its own past, which it had claimed was guided by the Holy Spirit, it only makes a mockery of its present claims to divine assistance and thereby destroys its own legitimacy. Who can believe in a Church that says it was wrong for 1500 years, but that it has finally got it right? What makes its present leadership so much wiser and smarter and holier than that of the past? Is modern always better? Then where are the fruits of modernist wisdom and holiness? Why should the faithful follow such leaders and abandon all the popes and councils of the past when all the modernists have to show for post-conciliar innovations are institutional decline and moral degeneracy?

2. If what went before was so wrong, then what's going on now is a neo-Protestant revolution. But to attempt to do this--to actually lay a new foundation for faith itself--is by definition heretical. Yet this is what is happening. Rome has been instituting a new religion ever since the Council and while it may call this new entity by the same name, it's clearly not Catholicism and it can no more claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit than any other heresy can. What it actually is is a stew--a concoction comprised of Diana-fied religious sentimentality, ad hoc Protestant political correctness, a splattering of social activism, seasoned with a dash of papolotry. What it isn't is Catholicism.

3. And if this is what's going on, as you admit, then why hasn't Rome been honest and up front about it with the people? Why does it pretend nothing has changed essentially and that the thousand and one changes since Vatican II are a mere "updating", that the Mass itself has merely been accidentally altered and is not really the Protestant Lord's Supper which Trent had condemned? Why aren't the modernist bishops and cardinals and theologians honest enough to say they are scrapping doctrines such as the Real Presence, Hell and Purgatory, the Divinity of Christ, the Virgin birth, and the Resurrection? Why not admit the new religion is not unlike the agenda of the Democratic Party--a stew of feminism, gay rights, social justice, humanism, anti-capitalism--with a touch of Pope-worship thrown in, combined with a taste for auto-destruction and a distaste for the sacred?

4. Finally, following your logic, why should anyone follow such claptrap? The people who push this new "revelation" are proven pedophiles, gay activists, apostates. Their innovations have spawned crisis after crisis and scandal after scandal. There has been no springtime of ecclesial rejuvenation, but instead a long winter of discontent. So either it's ALL been a lie--or the Traditional Church was the true Church all along and this post-conciliar "overthrow" is just another heresy. There is no middle ground.
126 posted on 11/28/2002 6:43:34 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-126 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson