Status of the Traditional Mass

Civitas Dei ^ | 10-13-05 | Fr. Anthony Chadwick

[jec1ny]

"13th October 2005, St Edward the Confessor - Status of the Traditional Mass

This information was posted on a forum:

A well placed source in Rome has notified me that on November 19, it will be formally acknowledged in a document from the Vatican curia, that every Latin-rite priest has the right to offer the Traditional Latin Mass.

Although the Novus Ordo Missae will remain the "normative," it will be a landmark decision vindicating many traditional Catholic claims that Quo Primum, and immemorial custom, forbids any future Pontiff from abrogating the primary rite of Mass in the universal Church.

Although every diocesan bishop still has the canonical responsibility to regulate the liturgies in his own diocese, it is expected that by formally acknowledging the right of every Latin-rite priest to offer the Classical Roman rite, more and more priests and seminarians at the grass-roots level will make the future bode well for Catholics attached to Tradition.

And finally, the first request of the Society of St. Pius X bishops will be fulfilled by the Vatican!"

We should take all this with a pinch of salt, wait and see if it happens on the stated date of 19th November. Also, if every Latin rite priest has the right to say the traditional Mass, very few know how to do so, and even fewer would want even to consider learning it. As previously mentioned, there is also evidence to suggest that the Pope wants to make a single rite out of something like the 1965 rite and the Pauline reforms. Will this process of fusion be a slow and progressive move? It would be a pity to see everything going back to monolithic uniformity.

I remain marked by the ideas expressed by Dr. Geoffrey Hull and others: the Roman Church is so used to imposing a single rite and doing all the others down. In a way, it was 'poetic justice' that Paul VI singled out the Tridentine Rite for discrimination, since Popes before him had persecuted the Ukrainians and pressure was put upon the French dioceses holding to their own rites until the mid nineteenth century to conform. It is time not only to promote the Tridentine Rite but also other local Uses and Rites, such as the Ambrosian of Milan, the Byzantine Liturgy of the Orientals, Sarum of England, Lyons, Rouen and Paris in France, the various distinctive uses of the religious orders and those of traditional Anglicans moving towards communion with Rome.

As for the last sentence about the Society of St. Pius X, we could very well ask ourselves the question - who cares? They are not the centre of the world!

[jec1ny]

An interesting post. I however share the good fathers doubts. The claim that the Vatican will acknowledge that any pontiff can not regulate the liturgy or abrogate a rite is absurd. Its possible Rome will acknowledge that Paul VI never formally supressed the old rite (which is true). But no Pontiff can bind any successor on matters involving the discipline of the church.

[donbosco74]

It is interesting to hear this canard of "discipline of the Church" used in regards to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. A discipline is easily seen in the practice of saying the Rosary, genuflecting, singing vespers, or fasting on vigils of holy days. But the Mass? I have to wonder if that goes too far. It's a sacrament, which, like the other 6, has three component parts. Do disciplines all have three component parts? No, huh?

Well, this thought was on my mind last night when I heard a radio broadcast in which a self-proclaimed expert on the "supernatural" (he was actually talking about preternaturral) pronounced his highly developed opinion that transubstantiation in the Catholic Mass is a form of cultism (he was apparently trying to say gnosticism). He threw it into a basket in common with such things as witch's spells, alchemy, necromancy, and even "ufology," because it involves the supposed transformation of one kind of thing into another by way of spoken words. In saner times the radio station would be in trouble for broadcasting blasphemous calumnies against the Church. As it is, this kind of thing happens regularly. In fact, our local Roger Cardinal Mahony has snuggled up to just such concepts in his speeches and writings. Several years back, he encouraged the flock to abandon our association of the actions of the priest at Mass with any notions of magic. We are just having a casual celebration, you know.

The Mass as codified in the 1570 missal was not a new concoction like the Novus Ordo was (and continues to be as it continues to morph all over the place). What Pope St. Pius V did was to carry out the directives of the long fought, infallible council of Trent (which took over 10 years and many gatherings of the bishops from all over the West before the age of machines), to put down into one book the tradition of Apostolic origin, the Mass that Jesus taught to the Apostles, and that St. Peter took to Rome. As it says very plainly in Quo Primum, any pastor of the Church (and the Pope is a pastor) who would dare to change what is contained in this missal will be subject to the wrath of St. Peter and St. Paul. Does that sound like it's just another "discipline?"

You could chime in that Peter and Paul are no longer around to bully the pope. We ought to regard those words a little more carefully. If they were to come back, most Christians might not recognize them. After all, what Protestant believes that St. Peter was the first pope, or that St. Paul was a Catholic bishop? Don't forget who it was that weilded a sword in the Garden of Olives, or who it was that ran a campaign of persecution against Christians before a providential event on the road to Damascus. Neither one was ignorant of the proper governance of the Church. They came from a time when Roman law ruled the land.

[DaGman]

As a Catholic, I'd sure like to know the explanation that the supporters of the Latin Mass have as to why the Holy Spirit has chosen them to bring back the Latin Mass rather than the Holy Spirit guiding those participants of Vatican II that moved the Church to the New Mass.

[brooklyn dave]

I hope the Latin Mass becomes more common

[jec1ny]

"It is interesting to hear this canard of "discipline of the Church" used in regards to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. A discipline is easily seen in the practice of saying the Rosary, genuflecting, singing vespers, or fasting on vigils of holy days. But the Mass? I have to wonder if that goes too far. It's a sacrament, which, like the other 6, has three component parts. Do disciplines all have three component parts? No, huh?"

You are making an elementary error in confusing the sacrament which is Holy Communion from the ceremonies by which it is confected. The sacrament is NOT the Mass. It is that which is confected at the Mass. The rites for the administration of the sacraments in the west have changed quite dramatically in some cases over the centuries. I am not even referring to the post Vatican II reforms. The rubrics of the mass have always been changeable, and have in fact been modified many many times.

"Well, this thought was on my mind last night when I heard a radio broadcast in which a self-proclaimed expert on the "supernatural" (he was actually talking about preternaturral) pronounced his highly developed opinion that transubstantiation in the Catholic Mass is a form of cultism (he was apparently trying to say gnosticism). He threw it into a basket in common with such things as witch's spells, alchemy, necromancy, and even "ufology," because it involves the supposed transformation of one kind of thing into another by way of spoken words. In saner times the radio station would be in trouble for broadcasting blasphemous calumnies against the Church. As it is, this kind of thing happens regularly. In fact, our local Roger Cardinal Mahony has snuggled up to just such concepts in his speeches and writings. Several years back, he encouraged the flock to abandon our association of the actions of the priest at Mass with any notions of magic. We are just having a casual celebration, you know."

Mahoney is not on my favorite cardinal list. But I do not see the relavence of this to the issue at hand.

"The Mass as codified in the 1570 missal was not a new concoction like the Novus Ordo was (and continues to be as it continues to morph all over the place). What Pope St. Pius V did was to carry out the directives of the long fought, infallible council of Trent (which took over 10 years and many gatherings of the bishops from all over the West before the age of machines), to put down into one book the tradition of Apostolic origin, the Mass that Jesus taught to the Apostles, and that St. Peter took to Rome. As it says very plainly in Quo Primum, any pastor of the Church (and the Pope is a pastor) who would dare to change what is contained in this missal will be subject to the wrath of St. Peter and St. Paul. Does that sound like it's just another "discipline?"

From your writing I must conclude that you are woefully ignorant of the history of the development of the western liturgy. After the 1st sentence in the preceding cited paragraph everything you wrote was pretty much wrong. St. Pius V did NOT do anything other than carry out the order of the council to find a suitable missal to replace various usages which had allowed errors to creep into them. The Venerable pontiff decided to adopt the rite of the city of Rome with some minor modifications. This missal was NOT handed down by Jesus Christ to the apostles. Nor was it used by the apostolic church. The Canon of the Pian Missal is universally dated to the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great. If what you wrote had any validity then all other rites would of course be invalid. But in fact the rite of the Roman Church was hardly the most venerable in the west. And almost all of the Eastern Liturgies are older than any of the extant rites of the west. Further the Pontiff did not seek to suppress the older liturgies. Those with more than 2 centuries of use were allowed. The Roman Rite of 1962 would not be recognizable to Christians of the 1st several centuries in Rome who more often than not celebrated Mass in Greek and not Latin. Indeed the liturgy of 1962 would not even be all that recognizeable to those who celebrated using the 1570 missal. While I concur strongly that the Novus Ordo is manifestly inferior to that which it was intended to replace, thats not the same thing as saying its unlawful or illicit. The Tridentine Rite in my opinion was never lawfully suppressed. But thats not the same thing as saying the Pope can not suppress it if he chose to do so. Canon Law is clear in stating that the Roman Pontiff is the Supreme Authority and Judge in the Church.

"Can. 331 The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power...
ß3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff."

Those who deny the authority of the pope are at the least guilty of schism.

"Can. 1364 ß1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 ß1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 ß1, nn. 1, 2 and 3."

Regarding the curse at the end of the Bull QUO PRIMUM TEMPORE (July 14th 1570); that sort of language was common in most documents issued by the Apostolic See during that era.

"You could chime in that Peter and Paul are no longer around to bully the pope. We ought to regard those words a little more carefully. If they were to come back, most Christians might not recognize them. After all, what Protestant believes that St. Peter was the first pope, or that St. Paul was a Catholic bishop? Don't forget who it was that weilded a sword in the Garden of Olives, or who it was that ran a campaign of persecution against Christians before a providential event on the road to Damascus. Neither one was ignorant of the proper governance of the Church. They came from a time when Roman law ruled the land."

Peter did not bully the Pope. He WAS the pope. You sound like you think St. Peter is still governing the Church. He is not. His successor +Benedictus XVI reigns. The rest of what you wrote has no bearing on the subject that I can discern.

A detailed discussion of the history of the of the Tridentine reforms is far beyond the scope of a post in this forum. But I would refer you to a few sites that may give you a little more background.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/civitas.dei/Mass_of_St_Pius_V.pdf

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/civitas.dei/cavendish.htm

[RoadTest]

To conduct a church service in a language unintelligable to the congregants smacks of pagan ritual (the mystery religions).

[Selous]

To conduct a church service in a language unintelligable to the congregants smacks of pagan ritual (the mystery religions

You don't really mean that, do you?

[jec1ny]

Thats silly. There have always been certain liturgical languages which have a higher place of honor. I can think of three that still do. Latin Greek and Church Slavonic

[John Locke]

To conduct a church service in a language unintelligable to the congregants smacks of pagan ritual

I can't right now recall any pagan ritual that was performed in an unintelligible language. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

[donbosco74]

Thank you for your detailed response. I have to take issue with some of the things you have said, however. Over all, it seems to me that you are attempting to defend the systematic dismantling of the Roman Rite liturgy as it has occurred over the past 80 to 95 years. You and I will probably not soon come to agreement over this story, however. Please know that the important thing here is the defense of apostolic tradition, and the good of the Church, neither one of which are being protected as the current state of affairs descends into ever more debase and profane absurdities.

Right now I'm out of time but I'll come back soon if you would like to go into some detail on these things. You have gone out on a limb accusing me of "error," and being "woefully ignorant." If you are trying to get a heated reaction from me, it isn't working, nor will it.

[jec1ny]

"You have gone out on a limb accusing me of "error," and being "woefully ignorant."

I based my opinion on what you wrote. Thats the only evidence that I had to make any judgments. Admittedly that is not a great deal upon which to base such a broad judgment, and so I will withdraw my comments and reserve judgment pending more evidence. However I flatly reject most of what you wrote regarding the history of the so called Tridentine Rite. It is factually erroneous.

"If you are trying to get a heated reaction from me, it isn't working, nor will it"

I am not. And to the extent that such was the impression conveyed I apologize. I am not a great fan of the modern rite, but I have little time or patiance for those who attack its validity or legality. By claiming that the proscription's contained at the end of the Bull QUO PRIMUM TEMPORE apply to the person of the Pope himself you are straying dangerously close to heresy. The afore mentioned bull was an essentially disciplinary document. And no Pontiff can bind his successors on any matter of discipline. Perhaps you did not intend to communicate that view. You are perfectly within your right to express as a matter of private opinion, that the reform of the liturgy was carried out in a poor manner, and that the result was (and is) manifestly inferior to that which it was intended to replace. And I would be happy to concur in that opinion. But the Pope has final authority over the liturgy of the western rite.

[donbosco74]

Whoever it is that has told you that the Mass is a mere matter of "discipline" was lying to you. The fact that you have believed it is another matter. It is false, and on that principle alone we should begin, if any sense is to be made of this disagreement.

The Bull Quo Primum was not an off-the-cuff, disposable document that any future pope can choose to ignore. Could the current pope overturn the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? What we have today is a pope who is actively countenancing the public distribution of Holy Communion to public heretics. Such an offense against the Faith of Catholics would have been sufficient for public outcry in ages past. Why not today?

In case you missed it, because of the Phenomenolgy of JPII, objective, moral acts are no longer being used as the criteria upon which moral judgments are made. According to this bad philosophy, the subjective sentiment of the individual is the touchstone of right and wrong, and because of that moral evil -- perhaps what Pope Saint Pius X was referring to when he spoke of the poison of Modernism injected into the root of the tree, killing the trunk and all the branches -- we now have a pope and bishops who decline to stand up for truth in the face of objective moral evil in front of them, because in answer to the question "what is truth" their answer is, "we don't know."

The missal that Pope Saint Pius V came out with in response to Trent is essentially no different than the missals that were in use before Trent. That Mass, the Roman Rite, was in its essential elements the same Mass that St. Peter said in Rome 1500 years before that time. If you disagree with this premise, we can go into our respective sources and compare notes. The Traditional Roman Rite found in the missal of St. Pius V cannot be compared to the Novus Ordo on several grounds, one of which is that the N.O. was entirely drawn up out of whole cloth, a new concoction, not based on tradition, but with the intention of making a "liturgy" tolerable for Protestants. The nature of it is not the nature of the Traditional Roman Rite. You can believe what you like, but that does not change the fact of history. Phenomenologically refusing to acknowlege what has taken place does not change the fact of what has taken place. It is a bit like saying that there was no sound when a tree fell in the forest because there was no one there to hear it.

That, by the way, is another maxim of corrupted modern philosophy, because it relies on the observation of an event to define the existence or quality of the event itself. What if a witness was nearby who did not want to believe that he had heard the sound of the tree falling? If he refuses to believe his own ears, who is there to tell him he has made an error? Are we to judge his intention in refusing to report the sound? What if he is crazy, does that discredit his testimony? He might not have been crazy at the time...

[jec1ny]

I am not going to address much of your post. Since it does not have bearing on the issue at hand. However a few points do call for a response.

"Whoever it is that has told you that the Mass is a mere matter of "discipline" was lying to you"

Where did I say that? The Mass is extremely important. But it is not unalterable. Never has been. Never will be. It changed fairly dramatically just from 1570 to the last edition of the pre Vatican II MISSALE ROMANUM (1962). Anyone who would suggest otherwise had best be prepared to produce evidence to support their position. I am quite prepared to do so. Just have a glance at the various Apostolic Decrees and papal bulls printed in the front of all the pre Vatican II Missals. They all lost changes ordered by the various popes.

"The Bull Quo Primum was not an off-the-cuff, disposable document that any future pope can choose to ignore."

The first part of your sentence is correct. The second is false. Quo Primum (hereafter QP for short)was an important document but its status was disciplinary NOT dogmatic. It commands the use of a set of rubrics and a missal. It lays down those exceptions the pontiff regarded as acceptable. Nothing more and nothing less. If you believe otherwise, please offer me direct quotes or specific evidence. On what do you base you claim that QP is dogmatic? Even the schismatic SSPX does not make that claim.

"Could the current pope overturn the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?"

QUO PRIMUM was NOT an infallible declaration of a dogma. Hence your comparison to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is irrelevant. Apples and oranges.

"What we have today is a pope who is actively countenancing the public distribution of Holy Communion to public heretics. Such an offense against the Faith of Catholics would have been sufficient for public outcry in ages past. Why not today?"

That is an opinion. It is also totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

"In case you missed it, because of the Phenomenolgy of JPII, objective, moral acts are no longer being used as the criteria upon which moral judgments are made. According to this bad philosophy, the subjective sentiment of the individual is the touchstone of right and wrong, and because of that moral evil -- perhaps what Pope Saint Pius X was referring to when he spoke of the poison of Modernism injected into the root of the tree, killing the trunk and all the branches -- we now have a pope and bishops who decline to stand up for truth in the face of objective moral evil in front of them, because in answer to the question "what is truth" their answer is, "we don't know."

I did miss it. Further I reject your statement as so absurd that it borders on neurotic. You are now presuming to pass judgment upon the person of the sovereign pontiff. Are you a sede vacantist by chance? That you are a schismatic at the least is no longer in doubt. That you are a heretic is something I strongly suspect but am not yet certain of. In any case your bizarre diatribe is also moot to the issue of the right of the pontiff to regulate the liturgy of the church. I can not believe you deny the authority of the Pope to regulate the liturgical norms of the church. I am in awe. Do you in fact claim that QP is a dogmatic document which has infallible standing? If so then all doubt regarding your being a heretic is removed.

"The missal that Pope Saint Pius V came out with in response to Trent is essentially no different than the missals that were in use before Trent."

This is true only back as far as the 4th century. Perhaps even as late as the sixth. I would refer you to the Catholic Encyclopedia (pre Vatican II edition) for an exhaustive discussion on the history of the Mass. The rubrics of the Mass of the early Christians bore little if any resemblance to the elaborate liturgical formalities of the Tridentine Missal. They did not even use Latin in those days. If you believe otherwise please cite your sources.

"That Mass, the Roman Rite, was in its essential elements the same Mass that St. Peter said in Rome 1500 years before that time"

In its most BASIC elements this is true. Those elements being the minimal necessary to confect a valid sacrament. That would also be true of the Mass as said today since it confects a valid sacrament though I dislike its form. It is also true of the Byzantine Liturgies. It was also true of the Ambrosian Liturgy and the Missals of Sarum and York. (Or do you also reject those liturgies as well?) It is certainly NOT true however if you are referring to the elaborate rubrics of the Tridentine Missal.

"The Traditional Roman Rite found in the missal of St. Pius V cannot be compared to the Novus Ordo on several grounds, one of which is that the N.O. was entirely drawn up out of whole cloth, a new concoction, not based on tradition, but with the intention of making a "liturgy" tolerable for Protestants."

I have already addressed my distaste for the NO. Unless you are claiming that it is invalid then your points are yet again, moot to the issue at hand. The issue of whether the liturgy was drawn up from scratch (which I agree it was) has no bearing on whether the Pope can authorize a new rite. Indeed it may even weaken your argument. For if the NO is NOT a mere revision of the previous liturgy but rather as we both agree... an entirely new rite, then you can not claim the old liturgy was altered. It was not. It was merely superseded.


"You can believe what you like, but that does not change the fact of history."

I have three degrees in history. I have seen little evidence from a historiogrpahic point of view in your arguments. You have made a lot of claims but I have seen no citations.

"Phenomenologically refusing to acknowlege what has taken place does not change the fact of what has taken place. It is a bit like saying that there was no sound when a tree fell in the forest because there was no one there to hear it."

Psuedo-philisophical babbling does not impress me. Please confine yourself to the point at hand. Your weird off track ramblings are highly distracting. I am dealing with facts. You are making claims which do not square with historical fact.

Do you accept the validity of the Byzantine Rite? What of the Coptic or Armenian Rites? Please give me a reference to a pre-4th century missal that you can point to that resembles the Tridentine in its rubrics. I have looked and found none. How many rites beyond the NO do you reject? Do you claim that QP is an infallible document proclaiming a dogma of faith? If so please cite specific evidence that it has ever been so regarded by Holy Mother Church. Please also cite some authoritative sources that confirm that it was acknowledged that the Holy See has no authority over the liturgies of the church. I am not referring to the twisted interpretation of QP by the lunatic fringe of Catholicism. I am referring to any documents which would confirm that the Popes renounced any power over the liturgy and that this was accepted at least pre-Vatican II. A casual reading of the Apostolic Decrees in the old missal right after QP will unfortunately demolish that idea right off the bat. You can find them in the front of every edition of the MISSALE ROMANUM up to 1962.

Finally, the issue here is the authority of the Pope to regulate the liturgical norms of the church. Please confine yourself to that. All of your off beat ramblings have no baring on that issue. Your presumption to pass judgment upon the person of the sovereign pontiff in clear violation of the code of canon law is truly breathtaking, but ultimately not relevant to this issue.

[donbosco74]

Well, it certainly appears that we will not be making much progress any time soon. It seems to me that you are huddled in a corner hurling invectives out of fear or something.

Please take a breath and calm down for a minute.

Here is what your first post said: "But no Pontiff can bind any successor on matters involving the discipline of the church."

I don't think I need to repeat my response to that. It was the very first thing I said. Now you are asking where you said that. You are falsely under the impression, by your very words, that the Mass "changed dramatically just from 1570 to the last edition of the pre Vatican II MISSALE ROMANUM (1962)." Wrong.

"Anyone who would suggest otherwise had best be prepared to produce evidence to support their position. I am quite prepared to do so."

Really? Are you prepared to produce a physical missal dated 1570? I am. I have a friend who recently acqired one. I know a priest who used it at Mass recently. I was in attendance at the Mass. I followed in my Fr. Lasance Missal, dated 1945, and all the words were identical. I spoke to the priest after Mass and my friend who owns the rare book (there are only a few known to exist in the world), and they assured me that every word was precisely the same as the Traditional Latin Mass we know today -- not the 1962 version, which is corrupted -- except for one thing. Do you know what that one thing is? If you are such an expert in missals, as you appear to think you are, then you should be able to answer this question:

What prayer in some copies of the missal of 1570 is sometimes not found in its usual place, but is found elsewhere in the missal; and is the content of that prayer any different in that missal than it is in the Roman Rite missals dated just before changes began in the late 1940's?

Your curious claim that one need only "...have a glance at the various Apostolic Decrees and papal bulls printed in the front of all the pre Vatican II Missals. They all lost [list?] changes ordered by the various popes," bears some correcting, even if you do assert your personal authority in education. If your three degrees in history serve you well, you would recognize the fact that those "various Apostolic Decrees and papal bulls" are merely attempts by subsequent, well-meaning popes to correct typographical and editorial errors that had gradually crept into missals after the innovation of the printing press. These popes were acting in harmony with the highly authoritative Quo Primum from a sainted pope, whom they highly revered and respected. In fact, Pope St. Pius V was the last pope to be canonized a saint for 400 years until the next one, Pope St. Pius X, who was not made a saint until just moments before the Mass they both protected to the hilt was on the verge of being altered. There were no changes in the Mass as you claim. No, you claim there were "fairly dramatic" changes.

What in the world are you talking about? Is this an example of the "bizzare diatribe" and the "weird off track ramblings" of which you accuse me so liberally? Notice, who it is that hurls the ad hominem attacks. Get a clue: if you are attempting to upset me while you claim you are not, it isn't working, my friend.

Perhaps you can name two or three of the "fairly dramatic changes" to which you refer. I'm all ears.

Regarding the Pope's power to authorize a new rite, history will be the judge. I don't claim to be an expert on Canon Law or what the Pope can and can't do. But it seems to me that everyone pretty much sat back and watched Paul VI do just that. Was he acting within his proper limits? This is a sticky question. Just because a pope does something that he can do does not mean it was morally proper. In the wake of the Novus Ordo revolution, we have so many new problems directly related to the loss of the old Mass that one would have to be insane to believe that institution of this new rite, as you and I agree was done, was the morally proper thing for Paul VI to do. Some future pope and/or some future council will have to deal with this mess.

B16 could deal with it. But I highly doubt that he will. If he does, I'll be elated to see it, but the ball is in his court.

To this theme, I have put together an Open Letter to the Pope, which I plan to post as a vanity soon, and providing the Religion Moderator does not pull it immediately, you will be able to consider joining our movement to request the wide and generous application of the Traditional Roman Rite (Latin) Mass all over the world.

I do not consider myself schismatic, sedevacantist or any other patent label. I have been to the Armenian Orthodox and Armenian Catholic rites, the Maronite rite, the Coptic Orthodox, Syrian, Greek, Russian and Byzantine, to name a few. I have to admit, that the pageantry and music is sometimes rather overwhelming, even though I don't follow the nuances very well. It has been explained to me that these non-Roman rites, which are normally rather resistant to change, are gradually finding themselves influenced toward modernization by the leadership of modern Rome.

Is this rambling again? I don't think so. We are talking about how liturgy has been changing, whether it should change, and the authority of the pope to make such changes.

[donbosco74]

Forgive me for having overlooked one item:

//"What we have today is a pope who is actively countenancing the public distribution of Holy Communion to public heretics. Such an offense against the Faith of Catholics would have been sufficient for public outcry in ages past. Why not today?"

//That is an opinion. It is also totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.//

That might appear to you as my "opinion," but I am doing nothing other than reading the news.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/international/europe/24france.html?ex=1130126400&en=ea10e497c30c78a6&ei=5070)

"...Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, give communion to Brother Roger, even though he was not Catholic."

In this article, the Times reports that "At a Eucharistic service celebrated Tuesday by a Roman Catholic cardinal for Brother Roger, a Swiss Protestant, communion wafers were given to the faithful indiscriminately, regardless of denomination." Walter Cardinal Kasper was the Catholic cardinal celebrant.

Here is what B16 is quoted as saying when Bro. Roger died recently (http://www.cathnews.com/news/508/106.php):

"Brother Roger is in the hands of eternal goodness and eternal love and has arrived at eternal joy," he [B16] said.

You might be inclined to quote the liberal spin, claiming that it was all a mistake. I'll save you the trouble. Here's the link:

http://www.cathnews.com/news/508/167.php

Notice how the Vatican deals with such an issue that "would not go away" (this infers that the Vatican WISHES that it would just go away): "the Vatican made available in July an informal, unsigned statement of explanation." Note: find both quotes in the same Cathnews paragraph.

A big issue is met with an INFORMAL, UNSIGNED statement of explanation.

Please recall that in 1960, when the Catholic world anticipated the formal release of the 3rd secret of Fatima, an informal, unsigned statement appeared in an obscure Roman periodical explaining that it would not be released, nor would it ever likely be released. Don't tell me this didn't happen, because I saw it happen in real time. I am a witness. I am also a witness of this latest repeat of the same tactic. And please don't bother to tell me I'm rambling. These two events are very closely related, and I'm showing them to you together so you might be able to see the pattern, if you have any desire to know what the pattern is. Some people prefer to pretend there is no pattern, because they see that recognizing the pattern demands that a reasoning process begin, and the process might take them where they simply don't want to go.

By the way, while you abhor the thought of analogy, let me point out that this desire to take a left turn 6 blocks ahead, simply because the present road takes one to a point of commitment up ahead, is a result of our fallen nature.

As for your claim that this is "also totally irrelevant to the issue at hand," allow me to point out that this is regarding the pope's longstanding duty to uphold Sacred Tradition, and this question of distributing Holy Communion in public "indiscriminately" and "regardless of denomination" (NY Times quote), is precisely the same topic as his duty to uphold the Sacred Tradition of Holy Mass.

The point is, if it's okay for the pope to create a new rite and call it "normative," then why would it not be okay for the pope to establish a new rule for the distribution of Holy Communion to non-Catholics in public indiscriminately? If he has the power, why can't he choose to exercise it?

[zakker500]

I came upon this thread quite by accident. I wasn't aware that the Traditional Latin Mass was such a bone of contention on FR. Some of this is so off the wall that it almost becomes humorous, if it weren't so serious. I have been in and out of the Tridentine Mass since the '60s, and consider myself very blessed to be currently able to attend in my neighborhood, on Long Island, NY. Of course, Bishop Murphy would rather get cancer before he would allow another Latin Mass in his Diocese. Our recent popes, who say that they serve the Church, sit at the right hand of the devil, showing off their bent cross for him...

[VermiciousKnid]

I'm in RVC, too, and you're right about Bishop Murphy. He was at my parish not too long ago and when I asked him about increasing the numbers of the Indult, he nearly became apoplectic.

Of course, he also very nearly fainted when I kissed his ring, too, and instructed my children to do the same.

He and I just don't see eye-to-eye on much, and I look forward to the end of his tenure or us moving off Long Island, whichever comes first.

Regards,

[donbosco74]

Thanks for your post. You are privileged to live in an area that has been one of the focal points for the destruction of Catholic Tradition for several decades. I have heard stories of how the planned, deliberate demolition has been cleverly set in motion.

The problem comes from the corruption at the top. When the local bishop excercises his "authority" (which is given to him under his oath to PROTECT Sacred Tradition) to ATTACK Sacred Tradition, then his subbordinates all too often capitulate to his nefarious demands. Sometimes, however, a priest who has the grace to perceive the evil in the works takes steps to safeguard the tradition that has been handed down to us whether by letter or by word. I have known such well-intentioned and holy men. Other times, there is a bishop who uses his authority correctly, and protects Sacred Tradition even though his fellow bishops malign him and attempt to have him ostracized. This is nothing new.

There is nothing new under the sun. In ages past, such bishops have eventually been recognized as saints, but that doesn't happen until the Church regains its sanity.

[zakker500]

I live in the town of Brookhaven. I did a Google search and found a Latin Mass that is being said by a retired priest. I used to go to Depaw in the '70s & '80s. I understand the "faithful" go to watch him on video, now that he's past away. I haven't had the opportunity to kiss a bishop's ring since I was confirmed in 1959...

[zakker500]

I think Bishop Murphy is lucky to not be indicted for his participation in the cover-up in the Boston Diocese. Meanwhile, Cardinal Law had to go hide under a rock in Rome...