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 next last
To: RobbyS
Look, when did I deprecate Scripture? Is it deprecation to suggest that veneration is not the same thing as worship, or that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is more deserving of our esteem than even Scripture--that the two are not the same? You seem to do this a lot. Criticism of the papacy becomes rejection of the papacy. Making a distinction between Christ's virtual presence in Scripture and his real presence in the Sacred Host becomes deprecating Scripture. Do you think I'm ignorant of the fact that reading the Gospels derives from the reading of Scripture in the synagogue? What has this got to do with the subject at hand--a passage in the Catechism? Why even bring it up?
51 posted on 11/25/2002 9:42:48 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
There was the first editiion of the Catechism,which you have and the second one,which is the corrected version.There have been no more.

The Church is besieged by enemies on all sides,within and without,and a person with energy,a good knowledge of what the Church is and the ability to express it fairly well,like you,wastes your gifts (ammunition) by shooting at decoys and allies. I can't believe that you don't know what you are doing.

52 posted on 11/25/2002 9:57:21 PM PST by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
"Criticism" is not what you are doing; you are in effect accusing the pope of heresy; There are substantial difference between the new mass and a Lutheran service, even though a particular priest might enter into it in the same spirit as a Lutheran minister. But Luther himself presented himself to the world for many years as a "critic."and defender of tradition. Unlike later Protestants he really thought he was returning the Church to its Patristic roots.
53 posted on 11/25/2002 10:20:24 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; ultima ratio
***Unlike later Protestants he really thought he was returning the Church to its Patristic roots.***

Luther vs. Eck at Leipzig... Luther insists that he be corrected by Scripture not Patristics.

54 posted on 11/25/2002 10:31:07 PM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
They have made of a Rite a superstition

And so we are often called as well.

55 posted on 11/25/2002 10:40:17 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
You know I've gone over this ground a million times. There is such a thing as material, rather than formal, heresy. I don't presume to judge this Pope's motives or interior state. I'm sure he means well. This much I am certain of: he is no friend of Tradition. My heavens, look at the record.
56 posted on 11/25/2002 10:42:26 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
What Luther was doing was attacking Tradition. He had much in common with today's modernists. He wanted revolution and he got it.
57 posted on 11/25/2002 10:44:40 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; ultima ratio
How does your stance differ from that of the Greeks?

Ultima does indeed have all the hallmarks of a good Orthodox Christian, those being love of tradition, resistance to change, deep devotion to the liturgy in and of itself, a sprinkling of contentiousness, a strong desire to defend one's faith at all costs, and a lack of clericalism.

58 posted on 11/25/2002 10:47:35 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
Of course I know what I'm doing. I'm fighting for the Catholic faith which is being wrecked by powerful forces while Rome stands by and watches.
59 posted on 11/25/2002 10:48:31 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
I submit that Luther thought he was protecting tradition. The line was that the doctrine of indulgences as well as many features of popular Catholicism were medieval corruptions. The Greek line is that anything that is not Greek is a corruption.
60 posted on 11/25/2002 11:21:25 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Luther's view was essentially antiquarian. He repudiated the developments of a thousand years and denied infallibility to councils, but in large he still accepted Augustine as his master, at least in the same way that Aristotle accepted Plato as his. He accepted as authetic only the tradition that was consistent with the Scripture as he interpretated it. But of course his interpretation was what was logically consistent with HIS doctrine of grace. He really believe that only HE understood Paul.
61 posted on 11/25/2002 11:30:44 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
And I must say again, I do not accept your private definition of Tradition.
62 posted on 11/25/2002 11:34:23 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
<> Perhaps you were at the same sspx mass that I was. If you were, recall the priest saying the new mass was a fake. He said it really wasn't a mass at all.<>
63 posted on 11/26/2002 4:15:28 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
<> I wasn't calling you a slave of Satan to amuse you. I was calling you a slave of Satan because you are a slave of Satan. You ask for arguements, but they do not sway you. Your assertions have been defeated repeatedly, you have been shown to have been a liar on a number of occasions, you have been shown to have manufactured quotes, you have been repeatedly challenged to produce evidence that 40 or more Popes have been heretics, you have been corrected scores of times and nothing changes. You are here day after day after day after day repeating the same old lies, the same distortions, the same arrogant attacks as though you had any authority.

You broke Unity with the Catholic Church and have entered into the camp of Satan. You and your ilk are slaves of Satan. It is that clear-cut. It is that simple. <>

64 posted on 11/26/2002 4:22:57 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Bud McDuell
<> you were astute enough not to, I assume. Then why are you not astute enough not to sin when it comes to schism? Is it your thought that watching an R rated movie is worse than schism?<>
65 posted on 11/26/2002 4:34:35 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
No, it is your premises which are wrong. You wrongly assume the Pope is superior to Tradition itself, whereas he is only its protector. His office exists to guard the deposit of faith, not to undermine it. When he assaults that tradition, handed down from apostolic times, he supercedes his own authority and must be disobeyed. This is because the faith itself comes before the papacy, not the other way around.

I think it's instructive how you deal with this. You do not use actual arguments, you use verbal abuse. This has been your tactic from the beginning. When this hasn't worked, you use sarcasm or ridicule. You will post the arguments of others on occasion. What you don't do is trust your own reasoning. I don't wonder at this since your reasoning is bankrupt. There are no arguments to use against what is so compellingly self-evident. So you hurl insults.

If you had been paying attention, you would know I never said 40 popes were FORMALLY heretical, but stated they had been materially so. I posted comments making this clear several times. I stated that Robert Sungenis on CAI, in one of his posts criticizing this Pope for the Assisi prayer meetings, pointed out that Vatican I had documented more than 40 popes who had been theologically mistaken about Catholic doctrines in serious ways. I have repeatedly given this source and you either haven't read it or choose to ignore it.
66 posted on 11/26/2002 5:51:23 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
My definition of Tradition is not a private definition. It is defined by Vatican I and by the Papal Oath itself. Tradition is what is handed-down from apostolic times through the ages. It is the deposit of faith.
67 posted on 11/26/2002 5:54:42 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

Comment #68 Removed by Moderator

To: Bud McDuell
<>ME<>
69 posted on 11/26/2002 6:40:38 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
<> Wrong. I provided a link that puts the lie to that false charge. I have never said the Pope is superior to tradition. The rest of that paraghraph is pure protestantism amasquerading as traditiuonalism. Pathetic

I couldn't care less about how you charcaterise my approach. You are an SOS COWboy (Slave of Satan, Church of Winona boy) and I think that fetching appelation for you.

You STILL haven't provided any evidence for material heresy of the Popes. You STILL cite it...Pathetic SOS COWboy<>

70 posted on 11/26/2002 6:56:03 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
<> Yes, I see many things you two have in common, beginning with antipathy towards this Pope. I hope you and Ultima have a long and fruitful friendship:)<>
71 posted on 11/26/2002 7:08:05 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
No document is self-defining or self-applying but must be interpreted by a competent authority.
72 posted on 11/26/2002 7:20:23 AM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Just to play devil's advocate (because in matters of tradition, I'm more on your side than not), what is it about the break in tradition that bothers you? The banality (this annoys me), the "lowering of the bar" of excellence? Losing something that should be treasured and isn't? What?

I ask because it seems that the people who push change in liturgy also like to change their furniture every three years and constantly are buying every new gadget on the market. It's a personality trait.
73 posted on 11/26/2002 7:23:05 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
You're getting funnier and funnier. You have stated over and over that Tradition is whatever the Pope says it is, which is ridiculous. He is the servant of what he has received, not its master. There were other councils and other popes. If this Pope is not aligned with them, he is obviously out of step with Tradition, no ifs ands or buts.

It's not that complicated. In fact, it's very clear. This Pope says capital punishment is wrong, past popes have said it's an important duty of the state. This Pope apologizes to Islam, past popes have warned Islam is an aggressive religion that wins its converts by the sword. This Pope enters a synagogue to pray with Jews for the coming of their messiah, past popes have insisted on the conversion of the Jews to Christ. This Pope prays with animists and voodoo priests and witchdoctors, past popes have condemned such idolatrous practices. This Pope authorizes an acceptance of the Lutheran position on Justification, past popes have rejected the Lutheran argument. This Pope disregards time-tested canonization procedures by loading the evidence in favor of his friends, past popes have supported the need for the process to be above reproach and objective. This Pope awards the red hat to bishops who are openly apostate, past popes have disciplined bishops for signs of even minor doctrinal dissent.

So who is wrong here--someone like you who insist this Pope with his thousand innovations does not contradict Tradition, or myself who presents facts to the contrary?
74 posted on 11/26/2002 7:30:17 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
In the Tradition of the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture has NEVER been venerated the way we venerate Christ's Body, which has been ADORED. We do not worship Scripture, but we worship Christ's Presence in the Holy Eucharist.

Okay, no arguments from me. Frankly, I find myself gravitating toward older priests these days who say the first Eucharstic Prayer and really say Mass completely, not leaving things out. For one thing, the language is stronger. For another, you don't come away feeling like Mass wasn't finished. It drives me crazy that the whole part right after Offertory is now pretty much left out, that the Confiteor AND the Kyrie are not said EVERY Sunday Mass. That's what make it complete for me.

So, here I think there is some common ground.
75 posted on 11/26/2002 7:36:11 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #76 Removed by Moderator

To: RobbyS
That competent authority is the whole line of councils and popes that have preceded this Pope. Is kissing the Koran traditional? Of course not. We know it is not because past popes would have been horrified by such an act which is tantamount to early Christians kissing the feet of some imperial statue. The early Christian martyrs went to their deaths precisely so that they might not show deference to false gods. Can any one argue this is not the traditional Catholic practice, rather than what the Pope does? Would anyone also contend that a fabricated Mass is traditional? Is it something which has evolved under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and been handed-down through the ages as was the Old Mass? Of course it is not. It is the very antithesis of something traditional--and is therefore rightly suspect, having been engineered by those who had axes to grind. Well, they have ground them for all they were worth for more than thirty years and now look at the consequences: a generalized collapse of the faith even within the highest echelons of the Church itself, with corruption that is mind-boggling involving altar boys and six-year-olds. This should have clued us in long ago that something has gone terribly wrong at the top.
77 posted on 11/26/2002 7:51:41 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Would anyone also contend that a fabricated Mass is traditional? Is it something which has evolved under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and been handed-down through the ages as was the Old Mass? Of course it is not. It is the very antithesis of something traditional--and is therefore rightly suspect, having been engineered by those who had axes to grind.

Axes to grind? You give them too much credit. I still contend that the liturgy changed so drastically when ephemeral aesthetics and short attention spans came into vogue.

Some people want change just for the sake of change and because they don't seem to have anything better to do.
78 posted on 11/26/2002 7:57:18 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio; Bud McDuell
<> Happy Trails SOS COWboys. I have had some fun but you boys are just going endlessly in circles. You may attract a few followers, although I doubt it. Far more have quit your schismatic gang than have joined it over the past several years. Evidence of that is that the few renegades remaining, Ferrara, Woods et all are featured in more and more of the tired, old, schismatic websites.

I am not the only one to notice that your "support," weak as it is, comes from the occasional Calvinist or Orthodox. Happy Trails, boys....<>

79 posted on 11/26/2002 8:01:06 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Bud McDuell
<> Just a jape..I decided to see what it was like to engage in private judgement, like you and your ilk :)<>
80 posted on 11/26/2002 8:01:59 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

Comment #81 Removed by Moderator

To: Desdemona
You ask what bothers me about this break with tradition. I will tell you. Modernism rejects the Church's own past from the time of Constantine. It seeks to "update" the faith by doing so, and introduces innovations which undermine traditional beliefs. For instance they suppress the doctrine of the Real Presence by never mentioning it or fostering an agenda to correct widespread disbelief among Catholics regarding this doctrine.

What's wrong with this? Plenty. If the past 1500years was mistaken, if the Church took a wrong turn in the fifth century, despite all the evidence of subsequent councils and popes, then nothing was true. It was all just a lie or a self-deception. And if this was the case then--how can it not also be the case now? Catholicism itself collapses.

This is because Modernists can't have it both ways. They can't say, oops! we got it wrong for 1500 years but now we've turned the corner and finally have got the hang of it--which is what they are trying to say. They make high-sounding claims to having now been inspired by the Holy Spirit--but nothing they have done has born any fruit and, in fact, the opposite has happened, whatever they have touched has turned to corruption. So why should we believe such false prophets when they tell us the past was wrong but now we are right?

82 posted on 11/26/2002 8:09:35 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Bud McDuell
While some of us have some sympathy with your arguments regarding worship and liturgical forms and norms, name calling does nothing to help your cause in the matter of Catechism and Papal office infallibilty.

Knock it off.
83 posted on 11/26/2002 8:09:45 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
They make high-sounding claims to having now been inspired by the Holy Spirit--but nothing they have done has born any fruit and, in fact, the opposite has happened, whatever they have touched has turned to corruption. So why should we believe such false prophets when they tell us the past was wrong but now we are right?

I do have some sympathy with the sentiment. Oddly enough, my mother was extolling the simplicity of the new configuration in her parish and she said, "Oh, Desdemona, you'll love it. It's so simple." And I came back with, when is it going to sink in that I LIKE ornate churches and statues and votive candles. Although, the only thing they really took out was the Communion Rail (it DID look like rink dasher boards).

I have wondered why tradition was so blythely tossed aside and when I've asked, I usually do get a non-answer. But these are people who pitch "junk" as a sport. Overall, history itself isn't really valued, nor is tradition. ultima, it's not just the church. Everything is based around convenience and ease. Well, God and His church aren't convenient and living the faith certainly isn't easy. And by throwing away the old ways, some very short sighted people did some major long term damage. I'll definitely go along with that.

Frankly, when people with great gifts who offer them freely are refused merely because of a whim you do have to wonder at motive. There's far more focus on self and individual sprituality than being one part of the whole. And that's the larger culture interfering.
84 posted on 11/26/2002 8:24:37 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
No, it's not a matter of aesthetics or attentions spans, believe me. The pre-conciliar popes warned this was coming. That was why the clergy were required to take an oath to oppose modernism prior to being ordained. That was why Pius XII wrote Mediator Dei. These people were there waiting for their opening and had every intention of changing Traditional belief when they finally got their chance. It was deliberate. What they want to impose is a new religion. They are meeting unexpected resistance from the traditionalist movement--but they haven't given up and they have the Pope on their side. Think of the audacity of what they are doing: they are substituting Protestant theological principles for Catholic, but hide behind papal authority to impose this. This is despicable because it puts the faithful on the horns of a dilemma: either we choose the age-old faith and side against the Pope, or we go along with the new religion and stick with the Pope.
85 posted on 11/26/2002 8:27:33 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

Comment #86 Removed by Moderator

To: Desdemona
Why pick on Bud? Have you read the scurrilous stuff oozing out of Catholicguy?
87 posted on 11/26/2002 8:30:53 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Bud McDuell
Ha! Bravo!
88 posted on 11/26/2002 8:35:24 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Have you read the scurrilous stuff oozing out of Catholicguy?

Yes, and he is getting carried away, but you guys need to understand that the constant harping on the pope (and Vatican II, for that matter), even when he does do questionable things, is just not our brand of Catholicism.

You guys have some very good serious points to make, but attacking the pope while making them turns people off.
89 posted on 11/26/2002 8:39:33 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Maybe the better question for you is WHY?

Why are they trying to bring down the church?

Why are they trying to invent a new religion?

And why do they assume people are so stupid that they won't see it? (I actually know the answer to this one)
90 posted on 11/26/2002 8:42:46 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
You are really hung up on this Koran thing, aren't you? Anyway, your insistence on the differences between the new form of the mass and the old forms ignores how much they have in common and confuses the role played by mistranslation and misuse by liturgical zealots who were/ARE hostile to the old forms or even the doctrines behind them. Most of this has been done at the local level, where the zealots seized control and many remain in power.
91 posted on 11/26/2002 8:55:35 AM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
confuses the role played by mistranslation and misuse by liturgical zealots who were/ARE hostile to the old forms

...because it doesn't allow "liturgists" (theater producers with no responsibilty) to be creative enough. They don't know enough dogma to know what they're doing half the time.
92 posted on 11/26/2002 8:59:01 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

Comment #93 Removed by Moderator

To: ultima ratio
I didn't err. I explained the process by which doctrine is developed.

You can't possibly be claiming the Tridentine mass leaped into existence as a divinely ordained whole! Lol. The idea the liturgy hasn't been developed by the same process as doctrine is ridiculous. Your accepted the idea the liturgy evolves organically, but you can't explain the process. I am telling you the process is dialectical. Refute if you can.

Your statement that the Novus Ordo mass, doesn't have an offertory, consecration and communion is patently ignorant. You'll have to explain. Since it does, your argument that it disregards ancient structures is invalid. What fundamental Catholic doctrine is ignored that is intrinsic to the Mass?

94 posted on 11/26/2002 9:16:05 AM PST by WriteOn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Bud McDuell
They could not get away with such mischief without the consent of the ordinary, except that the religious orders do have a large measure of independence.
95 posted on 11/26/2002 9:40:17 AM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: WriteOn
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. My point was not that the Novus Ordo Mass has no Consecration or Communion--it does. What it does not have is the tri-partite sacrificial structure. This is because it has eliminated the Offertory, substituting for it the Judaic prayer of thanksgiving recited at meals. It thus deliberately converts the Sacrificial character of the Mass to a Memorial Meal--something Trent has explicitly condemned.
96 posted on 11/26/2002 9:42:03 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
This is because it has eliminated the Offertory, substituting for it the Judaic prayer of thanksgiving recited at meals.

For those of us who are ignorant souls, explain please.
97 posted on 11/26/2002 9:43:51 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Sorry if criticizing the Pope turns some of you off, but there is no other way to make these points. It is the Pope above all who stands in the way of reform and a return to the true Catholic faith. He alone has the authority to knock heads together and exert some discipline over belief and practice. He will not do this but instead presides over the wreckage of Tradition.
98 posted on 11/26/2002 9:51:40 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Here is my take on why: because the truths of the faith do not tally with liberal assumptions about the way the world works. Virgin births don't happen, therefore the Gospel account is mythical. Ditto the Real Presence, the Resurrection, the Divinity of Christ--doctrines which test the boundaries of faith by asking for our childlike credulity and assent. This is offensive to such sophisticates who buy into historical criticism as a method to explain away such dogmas. Far easier for them to reduce the miracles of faith to mere symbols and myths. In a nutshell: modernists want to justify their own blameworthy deficiency of faith by reducing what Catholics believe to a form of natural humanism. Christ warned about this. He said we had to be childlike in the way we believed, something modernists cannot be.
99 posted on 11/26/2002 10:09:24 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Here is my take on why: because the truths of the faith do not tally with liberal assumptions about the way the world works.

A power-struggle had nothing to do with it? Just over-education and a tendency to need to see to believe?
100 posted on 11/26/2002 10:11:48 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


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