Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Instruction of the Roman Missal ^

Posted on 08/31/2002 5:03:15 AM PDT by NYer


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.


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.

TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: catholicchurch; mass; missal; tradition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-179 next last
Comment #101 Removed by Moderator

To: Goldhammer
You completely distort the intention of the tribunal when you imply it grants annulments. Here is the statement of Fr. Peter R. Scott, District Superior of SSPX in N. America, which appears in his letter of August 1, 1997 (which you will find posted on

"An annulment is not created by the decision of an annulment tribunal. The function of the tribunal is simply to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there never was a marriage in the first place, that is, that there never was a true exchange of marriage vows."

Fr. Scott cites this fact: that in 1968 there was a total of 336 annulments granted by the Church in the US; in 1992 that number soared to 59,030. Worldwide the number was only 76.286--which meant that 75% of all Church annulments were taking place in the US. Obviously this has raised questions as to the validity of post-conciliar annulments. Hence the need for a tribunal to review them.
102 posted on 09/01/2002 5:43:04 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Tabernacles in most churches do NOT occupy pride of place. This is given to the CHAIRS of presiders--or of bishops. It's the priests and bishops, not Christ Himself, who hold center stage. It figures.
103 posted on 09/01/2002 5:54:36 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

104 posted on 09/01/2002 7:07:06 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
I think some of the people on these threads,who look at the criticisms of the New Order mass as dangerous to the Church need to read your gentle but clear description of exactly how lacking so many "services" are in holiness.Our spirits are supposed to soar,our hearts and our minds are to be focused on the heavens,the divine,the supernatural. Most often the homilies (that seem to go hand in hand with innovative masses) are lacking in substantive Catholic teaching.

I have talked to and written to pastors and priests who have abused the mass and they shrug their shoulders and turn away.

For thirty-five years I attended mass every Sunday at least.With the exception of some intermittant relief offered by some priests,who were orthodox,my weekly experience was ennervating. I finally gave it to God and said I will go to mass and honor you every Sunday because I am obedient,but I can't handle it much longer.I did allow myself the latitude of going from parish to parish. I decided that if a bishop,who was enthroned with his fingers crossed behind his back,ordained a priest.who also had their fingers crossed there was a chance that I was not receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.I knew that all of them were not like that so I would go from church to church knowing that at some I would receive.

One last observation,it is no wonder that Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence,after twisting the Gospels to rule out miracles,after practically having us worship one another,since we seem to be all little jesuses and jesusuettas,then we say "Christ has died,Christ is risen,Christ will come again".Well,if He's not there with us after the consecration,then what am I receiving.

Now for the really good news,there has been a major change gradually creeping in over the past three years. Whereas once I could not expect to find one good Mass unless I went to ten(I tried to go to parishes within 15 minutes of my house)now nine out of ten Masses will be reverent with good sermons.So miracles do happen,I think ours was due to a wonderful,holy strong and intelligent Vocations Director.The diocese still has far too many abusers and potential abusers but it is improving quickly.Thanks Be To God.

105 posted on 09/01/2002 7:24:59 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

Comment #106 Removed by Moderator

Comment #107 Removed by Moderator

To: Goldhammer
Do you know of any annulments granted by SSPX? I know they deny the validity of some annulments granted by AmChurch, but I have yet to hear of an annulment being granted per se by SSPX. Perhaps you can enlighten us. It is you who are predictable, by the way. I notice you do not cite the well-reasoned arguments for the existence of the tribunal given on There were four documents listed explaining the issue which very clearly present the SSPX rationale. The tribunal was necessary to deal with the annulment crisis brought on by AmChurch, not to manufacture annulments the way Novus Ordonians do.
108 posted on 09/01/2002 7:48:32 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Goldhammer
A statement of moral certitude--which is what the SSPX issues--is not intended to be a legal, canonical decree. It a tool to help priests and the faithful deal with the thousand morally complex problems that AmChurch annulments pose. But it is not an annulment per se.
109 posted on 09/01/2002 7:55:31 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
Dear saradippity,

"I think some of the people on these threads,who look at the criticisms of the New Order mass as dangerous to the Church need to read your gentle but clear description of exactly how lacking so many 'services' are in holiness.Our spirits are supposed to soar,our hearts and our minds are to be focused on the heavens,the divine,the supernatural."

Those who criticize the Mass of Pope Paul VI, and the Holy Father, and an Ecumenical Council, and the Holy Catholic Church, from the schismatic pseudo-traditionalist point of view are, indeed, dangerous to souls, precisely because of the difficulties of the past 40 years.

Whether you like it or not, their lies and falsehoods and distortions must be exposed by faithful Catholics, no matter how tedious, difficult, and demoralizing are these efforts.

Giving aid and comfort to the SSPX is giving aid and comfort to the likes of ultima ratio who compares the Mass of Pope Paul VI to a Black Mass.

Anyone who wants to be on that side, help yourselves.


110 posted on 09/01/2002 8:34:57 PM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Dear ultima ratio,

Notwithstanding your further falsehoods, here is what the SSPX pretends to do:

"The Society's marriage annulment tribunal is thus supplied with jurisdiction in each particular case, both to make a statement of moral certitude for the good of souls (i.e., there never was a marriage in the first place), and to give a decree stating this fact."

And that is what a real Catholic marriage tribunal does: it gives a decree recognizing the nullity of the marriage. That is why it is most properly called a "decree of nullity" rather than the more colloquial "annulment".

Ironically, it is the SSPX organization itself that colloquially refers to its own tribunal as a "marriage annulment tribunal". LOL.

You are proven once again to be telling falsehoods. This one is so clearly false, it makes it difficult to believe that you are not intentionally lying.

But let the record be clear, the SSPX organization, headed by the excommunicated Mr. Fellay and other excommunicated people, no longer in communion with the Holy Catholic Church led by Christ's chosen Vicar on earth, Pope John Paul II, invalidy, illicitly, without any jurisdiction at all, without any moral justification at all, in defiance of Catholic faith and law, with full culpability for its acts, "...makes a statement of moral certitude for the good of souls (i.e., there never was a marriage in the first place), and to give a decree stating this fact" of the marriage's nullity.


111 posted on 09/01/2002 8:36:01 PM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

Comment #112 Removed by Moderator

To: Goldhammer
Dear Goldhammer,

"...and it is an illegal, schismatic act whenever SSPX pretends to do it. No such decrees can be given without jurisdiction."

But this is the way of schism, the path which leads further and further away from Christ's True Church, and further and further away from Catholic Faith. They start with one small thing, and this is where it has led them.

Pretty soon, they'll be openly shouting that the Chair of Peter has been empty for 44 years and counting.

Kinda pathetic.

Thank God that so few Catholics have become enmeshed in these evil workings.

113 posted on 09/01/2002 8:46:22 PM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Bellarmine
I just couldn't let these posts pass without comment
Ah, then I have succeeded! Always feel free to comment.
He published it before the Novus Ordo was finalized.
The letter and accompanying Critical Study (later named the Ottaviani Intervention) were presented after the Novus Ordo was promulgated in 1969. The Novus Ordo was set to be made obligatory on November 30, 1969. It was precisely because of the actions of Bacci and Ottaviani that the Novus Ordo was delayed and revised.
Precisely, and precisely my point. The thing they critiqued is not the thing that today exists. Many try to use their words to justify their present day critiques of the Mass as it now exists. However, the Cardinals didn’t critique the present day Mass, they critiqued something that was changed.

In response to their concerns, the thing they critiqued was changed. They were successful. Therefore, the resort to their words to critique the present Mass is false, as they didn’t mean that by their words.

The Holy Spirit has often used individuals like Cardinal Ottaviani to implore a Pope to do his duty. It seems to me that it did so here.

After discussions with the Pope and further revisions, he withdrew the intervention. You rely on his authority and his objections for your position, be he withdrew them, and so the very authority you cite speaks against you.
The circumstances of Ottaviani’s supposed retraction are extremeley suspicious. Bacci never recanted his position.
Re Bacci: Did he retain his objections though? The thing he critiqued no longer existed, he had no reason to withdraw it. If you criticize the new tax bill, and the tax bill is voted down, do you need to withdraw your criticism? No, of course not. But then a new tax bill is proposed that is similar to the old one, but different with respect to several of the things you criticized. It is voted on, and passed. But you don’t critique this one.

One cannot necessarily assume that you approve of this new tax bill, but it is equally true that one cannot necessarily assume you disapproved either, as you haven’t spoken either way. If you want to show that either Cardinal disapproved of the Novus Ordo as it was refined, you need to quote them, not assume.

As to the circumstances of Cardinal Ottaviani’s retraction, is he a man or a mouse? Just how impotent do you view the man to be? He is responsible for his words, and you cannot both cite him as authority and cite him as lacking facilities, which is what HDMZ seems to do.

The first sentence could be read two ways: “At the Lord’s Supper, the people of God are call together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.”

Or, “At Mass, the people of God are call together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice.”

The first is Protestant, the second is Catholic. Guess which meaning all of the modernists in the church today read into it????

A time ago ultima ratio and I debated over the Sacrificial language in the GIRM. I produced a compilation of the language in the first part, and he chose not to respond to it in any meaningful way. If you like, I will produce the same for you, and you can guess what meaning was meant by the Church. I don’t care what modernists and heretics read into it. These are the Sacrificial language the Church can use that will get through to these people, any more than there is no Sacrificial language the Church can use to get through to some Trads.
Care to prove that protestants formulated the new Mass?
No, but here's what they think of it.

"The new eucharistic prayers have a structure corresponding to that of the Lutheran Mass." – Roger Schultz, Protestant observer at Vatican II

"nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant." - M. G. Siegle, Protestant professor of dogmatic theology.

Mere words, entirely meaningless. Name one Protestant that has adopted the Novus Ordo. Not a single action in 30 years to follow up on two sentences by two Protestants. That isn’t much of an approval.
They were mere observers, just as Protestants observed the Council of Trent, and were allowed to comment on it.
There were no Protestant observers at Trent. They were invited, but none came.
I hope you’ll forgive a cut and paste, as I’d hate to redo research already done. From a previous post to ultima ratio:
[patent said]They were there as advisors, as they were at Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II. They were not there to WRITE it.
[ultima said]Sources, please. Back up your statement. How do you know this? How do ou know they did not write it? How do we know they were at Trent and Vatican I, Vatican II? Who were these people. Names, please. Dates. Publishers.
[patent said the remainder]LOL. You won’t support a single statement, and now you call on me to support one of mine when I have already provided so many citations? Fine. This is a fundamental difference between us. I don’t whine about the burden, I just do it.

As to whether Protestants were at the Councils, you would only need to look at the documents themselves, which grant safe passage to the Council for Protestatns, and then also grant safe passage back, afterwards. Trent practially begged them to come, and not just to come, but to propose ideas:

Being the fifth under thc Sovereign Pontiff, Julius III., celebrated on the twenty-fifth day of January, MDLII.


Whereas, in pursuance of the decrees made in the last Sessions, this holy and universal Synod has, during these days, most accurately and diligently treated of the things which relate to the most holy sacrifice of the mass, and to the sacrament of order, with the view that, in the Session held on this day, It might publish, as the Holy Ghost should have suggested, decrees on these subjects, and on the four articles concerning the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, which had been finally deferred to this Session ; and whereas it was thought that, in the interim, there would have presented themselves at this sacred and holy Council those who call themselves Protestants, for whose sake It had deferred the publication of the said articles, and to whom It had given the public faith, or a safe-conduct, that they might come freely and without any hesitation ; nevertheless, seeing that they have not as yet come, and the holy Synod has been petitioned in their name, that the publication which was to have been made on this day, be deferred to the following Session, an assured hope being held out that they will certainly be present long before that Session, upon receiving in the meanwhile a safe-conduct in a more ample form :-The same holy Synod, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legate and Nuncios presiding, desiring nothing more ardently than to remove, from amongst the noble nation of Germany, all dissensions and schisms touchingreligion,and to provide for its tranquillity, peace and repose; being ready, should they come, both to receive them kindly, and to listen to them favourably, and trusting that they will come, not with the design of obstinately opposing the Catholic Faith, but of learning the truth, and that they will at last, as becomes those zealous for evangelical truth, acquiesce in the decrees and discipline of holy Mother Church; (this Synod) has deferred the next Session,--therein to publish and promulgate the matters aforesaid,--till the festival of St. Joseph, which will be on the nineteenth day of the month of March; in order that they may have sufficient time and leisure, not only to come, but also to propose, before that day arrives, whatsoever they may wish. And,- that It may take from them all cause for further delay, It freely gives and grants them the public faith,-or a safe-conduct, of the tenour and form hereafter set down. But it ordains and decrees, that, in the meantime, It will treat of the sacrament of matrimony,- and will give its decisions thereon, in addition to the publication of the above-named decrees, in the same Session, and will prosecute the subject of Reformation.

Trent later stated, though vaguely, that some had already been there:
The sacred and holy, ocecumenical and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,--certifies to all men, that, by the tenour of these presents, It grants and wholly concedes the public faith, and the fullest and most true security, which they entitle a safe-conduct, to all and singular the priests, electors, princes, dukes, marquisses, counts, barons, nobles, soldiers, commonalty, and to all other persons whatsoever, of what state, condition, or quality soever they may be, of the province and nation of Germany, and to the cities and other places thereof, and to all the ecclesiastical and secular persons, especially those of the Confession of Augsburg, who shall come, or shall be sent with them to this General Council of Trent, and to those that shall set forth, or have already repaired hither, by whatsoever name they are entitled, or may be designated,--to Come freely to this city of Trent, and there to remain, abide, sojourn, and to propose, speak, and treat of, examine and discuss any matters whatsoever together with the said Synod, and freely to present and set forth all whatsoever they may think fit, and any articles whatever, either in writing or by word of mouth, and to explain, establish, and prove them by the sacred Scriptures, and by the words, passages, and reasons of the blessed Fathers, and to answer even, if it be needful, to the objections of the General Council, and to dispute, or to confer in charity, without any hindrance with those who have been selected by the Council, all opprobrious, railing, and contumelious language being utterly discarded; and, in particular, that the controverted matters shall be treated of, in the aforesaid Council of Trent, according to sacred Scripture, and the traditions of the apostles, approved Councils, the consent of the Catholic Church, and the authorities of the holy Fathers; with this further addition, that they shall not be punished under pretence of religion, or of offences already committed, or that may be committed, in regard thereof; as also, that the divine offices shall not, on account of their presence, be in any way interrupted, either upon the road, or in any place during their progress, their stay, or their return, or in the city of Trent itself ; and that, upon these matters being concluded, or before they are concluded, if they, or any of them, shall wish, and whensover such is their or his pleasure, or the command and leave of their superiors, to return to their own homes, they shall forthwith be able at their good pleasure, to return freely and securely, without any let, obstacle, or delay, without injury done to their property, or to the honour also and persons of their attendants respectively,--notifying, however, this their purpose of withdrawing, to those who shall be deputed hereunto by the said Synod, that so, without deceit or fraud, proper measures may be taken for their safety.
The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Trent confirms this:
The presidents laid before the general congregation of 15 October drafts of definitions of the Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction for discussion. These subjects occupied the congregations of theologians, among whom Gropper, Nausea, Tapper, and Hessels were especially prominent, and also the general congregations during the months of October and November. At the fourteenth session, held on 25 November, the dogmatic decree promulgated contained nine chapters on the dogma of the Church respecting the Sacrament of Penance and three chapters on extreme unction. To the chapters on penance were added fifteen canons condemning heretical teachings on this point, and four canons condemning heresies to the chapters on unction. The decree on reform treated the discipline of the clergy and various matters respecting ecclesiastical benefices. In the meantime, ambassadors from several Protestant princes and cities reached Trent. They made various demands, as: that the earlier decisions which were contrary to the Augsburg Confession should be recalled; that debates on questions in dispute between Catholics and Protestants should be deferred; that the subordination of the pope to an ecumenical council should be defined; and other propositions which the council could not accept. Since the close of the last session both the theologians and the general congregations had been occupied in numerous assemblies with the dogma of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and of the ordination of priests, as well as with plans for new reformatory decrees. At the fifteenth session (25 January, 1552), in order to make some advances to the ambassadors of the Protestants, the decisions in regard to the subjects under consideration were postponed and a new safe-conduct, such as they had desired, was drawn up for them. Besides the three papal legates and Cardinal Madruzzo, there were present at Trent ten archbishops and fifty-four bishops, most of them from the countries ruled by the emperor. On account of the treacherous attack made by Maurice of Saxony on Charles V, the city of Trent and the members of the council were placed in danger; consequently, at the sixteenth session (23 April, 1552) a decree suspending the council for two years was promulgated. However, a considerably longer period of time elapsed before it could resume its sessions.

. . . .

At the eighteenth session (25 Feb., 1562) the only matters decided were the publication of a decree concerning the drawing up of a list of forbidden books and an agreement as to a safe-conduct for Protestants.

Nevertheless Protestant observers have officially attended the last two councils. The ecumenical movement among Protestants is not to be confused with an ecumenical council, although they share a similar aim.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001, entry on “council, ecumenical.” The last two councils, of course, were Vatican I and Vatican II.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

114 posted on 09/01/2002 8:47:17 PM PDT by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Forget all these long citations.
Heck yeah, who cares what the Church actually says when we have so much fun slandering it!

Not one of the things you posted is true for my parish, or for many others up here.

patent  +AMDG

115 posted on 09/01/2002 8:48:47 PM PDT by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


116 posted on 09/01/2002 9:24:11 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

Comment #117 Removed by Moderator

Great post. I can predict the responses--more insults, sarcasm and non sequiturs, plus the biggest explosion of noxious gases since
the Big Bang.
118 posted on 09/01/2002 9:45:15 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333; NYer
Actually my point was about proselytizing, not about the kissing of the Koran. But I guess I would find it blasphemous since the muslims deny Christ five or more times each day by bowing toward Mecca and chanting "God has no son".

That said, in the Orthodox church we don't take such a legalistic view of things and see God as loving and patient with us. I certainly am the worst of sinners and if I don't see myself that way I need to, and so I don't think God is going to punish JP2 for all eternity for kissing the Koran or anything close. Just to be clear, lots of us are blasphemous at times and I have been so.

It sounded from the website I visted as if JP2 was uncertain what to do and so tried to make a gesture of respect and charity. Caught off guard, as we all are at times.

A far greater travesty is that of exalting oneself, at least in our view. I guess you got that idea from my previous posts, though. LOL. It seems to me that what we have are clear differences in our expectations for leadership in the churches we love.

Here is an example of someone I feel tremendous love, gratitude, and respect for, from the EO church. This man right next to the young Russian boy in chechnya who was told to give up his cross and join the muslims and had his cut off for refusing.

What confuses me is how you can see JP2 as so wondrous when he has done nothing to compare to the lives of these two examples.

119 posted on 09/02/2002 12:32:38 AM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Also it is not good to be too invested in this transient life, nor to enjoy it so much. I am constantly battling this trend in myself. I get excited about a project in our home and then have to stop and remind myself that these things don't matter. How much time did I spend in prayer today? That's what matters.

So we call it worldliness and we see it as demon-induced. The demons tempt you, draw you into this world and away from God. Perhaps from this you can see how JP2 looks like a leader we would run from.

What I think I am coming to understand is that you don't place ascetism high on the list in your church. And so from that viewpoint, I can begin to understand how you can look up to JP2 and admire him. Perhaps this dialogue will be helpful in some way. Lord hear my prayer.

What I clearly remember from those times in gradeschool, though, is complaining to a nun about my knees hurting. And her reply, nearly vicious, that I should offer it up to the Lord as a sacrifice. A righteous reply, imho.

So what I guess confuses me is the ascetism I thought the old RC church had, and why it does not seem important to see it in your leader.

120 posted on 09/02/2002 12:52:31 AM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-179 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
Topics · Post Article

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