Skip to comments.GIRM - A WITNESS TO UNBROKEN TRADITION
Posted on 08/31/2002 5:03:15 AM PDT by NYer
A WITNESS TO UNBROKEN TRADITION
6. In setting forth its decrees for the revision of the Order of Mass, Vatican Council II directed, among other things, that some rites be restored "to the vigor they had in the tradition of the Fathers";11 this is a quotation from the Apostolic Constitution of 1570, by which St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Missal. The fact that the same words are used in reference to both Roman Missals indicates how both of them, although separated by four centuries, embrace one and the same tradition. And when the more profound elements of this tradition are considered, it becomes clear how remarkably and harmoniously this new Roman Missal improves on the older one.
7. The older Missal belongs to the difficult period of attacks against Catholic teaching on the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the ministerial priesthood, and the real and permanent presence of Christ under the eucharistic elements. St. Pius V was therefore especially concerned with preserving the relatively recent developments in the Church's tradition, then unjustly being assailed, and introduced only very slight changes into the sacred rites. In fact, the Roman Missal of 1570 differs very little from the first printed edition of 1474, which in turn faithfully follows the Missal used at the time of Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216). Manuscripts in the Vatican Library provided some verbal emendations, but they seldom allowed research into "ancient and approved authors" to extend beyond the examination of a few liturgical commentaries of the Middle Ages.
8. Today, on the other hand, countless studies of scholars have enriched the "tradition of the Fathers" that the revisers of the Missal under St. Pius V followed. After the Gregorian Sacramentary was first published in 1571, many critical editions of other ancient Roman and Ambrosian sacramentaries appeared. Ancient Spanish and Gallican liturgical books also became available, bringing to light many prayers of profound spirituality that had hitherto been unknown. Traditions dating back to the first centuries before the formation of the Eastern and Western rites are also better known today because so many liturgical documents have been discovered. The continuing progress in patristic studies has also illumined eucharistic theology through the teachings of such illustrious saints of Christian antiquity as Irenaeus, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, and John Chrysostom.
ADAPTATION TO MODERN CONDITIONS
9. The "tradition of the Fathers" does not require merely the preservation of what our immediate predecessors have passed on to us. There must also be profound study and understanding of the Church's entire past and of all the ways in which its single faith has been expressed in the quite diverse human and social forms prevailing in Semitic, Greek, and Latin cultures. This broader view shows us how the Holy Spirit endows the people of God with a marvelous fidelity in preserving the deposit of faith unchanged, even though prayers and rites differ so greatly.
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.
"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.
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.
I just couldn't let these posts pass without commentAh, then I have succeeded! Always feel free to comment.
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 didnt critique the present day Mass, they critiqued something that was changed.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.
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 didnt 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.
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 dont critique this one.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 Ottavianis supposed retraction are extremeley suspicious. Bacci never recanted his position.
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 havent 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 Ottavianis 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 Lords 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.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 dont 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.
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????
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 isnt much of an approval.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.
I hope youll forgive a cut and paste, as Id hate to redo research already done. From a previous post to ultima ratio: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.
[patent said the remainder]LOL. You wont 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 dont whine about the burden, I just do it.[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.
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.Trent later stated, though vaguely, that some had already been there:
DECREE FOR PROROGUING THE SESSION
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
<> correct. No Jurisdiction, No Ministry is axiomatic for Catholics. What is odd is this is exactly the same argument that Lefebvre made during Vatican Two. Then, he signed all the Documents, left the Council and said he didn't sign the documents and he started a ministry with jurisdiction WITHIN the legitimate Jurisdiction of legitimate Bishops.
Today, we refer to those acts as "Preserving Tradition."<>
The Second Vatican Council defined the liturgy as "the work of Christ the Priest and of His Body which is the Church.
If we go back to Vatican II, we find the following description of this relationship: "In the liturgy, through which, especially in the divine Sacrifice of the Eucharist, the work of our Redemption is carried on, the faithful are most fully led to express and show to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.
All that has become foreign to modern thinking and, only thirty years after the Council, has been brought into question even among catholic liturgists. Who still talks today about "the divine Sacrifice of the Eucharist"? Discussions about the idea of sacrifice have again become astonishingly lively, as much on the catholic side as on the protestant. People realise that an idea which has always preoccupied, under various forms, not only the history of the Church, but the entire history of humanity, must be the expession of something basic which concerns us as well. But, at the same time, the old Enlightenment positions still live on everywhere: accusations of magic and paganism, contrasts drawn between worship and the service of the Word, between rite and ethos, the idea of a Christianity which disengages itself from worship and enters into the profane world, catholic theologians who have no desire to see themselves accused of anti-modernity. Even if people want, in one way or another, to rediscover the concept of sacrifice, embarrassment and criticism are the end result. Thus, Stefan Orth, in the vast panorama of a bibliography of recent works devoted to the theme of sacrifice, believed he could make the following statement as a summary of his research: "In fact, many Catholics themselves today ratify the verdict and the conclusions of Martin Luther, who says that to speak of sacrifice is "the greatest and most appalling horror" and a "damnable impiety": this is why we want to refrain from all that smacks of sacrifice, including the whole canon, and retain only that which is pure and holy." Then Orth adds: "This maxim was also followed in the Catholic Church after Vatican II, or at least tended to be, and led people to think of divine worship chiefly in terms of the feast of the Passover related in the accounts of the Last Supper." Appealing to a work on sacrifice, edited by two modern catholic liturgists, he then said, in slightly more moderate terms, that it clearly seemed that the notion of the sacrifice of the Mass even more than that of the sacrifice of the Cross was at best an idea very open to misunderstanding.
I certainly dont need to say that I am not one of the "numerous Catholics" who consider it the most appalling horror and a damnable impiety to speak of the sacrifice of the Mass. It goes without saying that the writer did not mention my book on the spirit of the liturgy, which analyses the idea of sacrifice in detail. His diagnosis remains dismaying. Is it true? I do not know these numerous Catholics who consider it a damnable impiety to understand the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The second, more circumspect, diagnosis according to which the sacrifice of the Mass is open to misunderstandings is, on the other hand, easily shown to be correct. Even if one leaves to one side the first affirmation of the writer as a rhetorical exaggeration, there remains a troubling problem, which we should face up to. A sizable party of catholic liturgists seems to have practically arrived at the conclusion that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the sixteenth century debate; one can detect much the same position in the post conciliar discussions on the Priesthood.The great historian of the Council of Trent, Hubert Jedin, pointed this out in 1975, in the preface to the last volume of his history of the Council of Trent: "The attentive reader ... in reading this will not be less dismayed than the author, when he realises that many of the things - in fact almost everything that disturbed the men of the past is being put forward anew today." It is only against this background of the effective denial of the authority of Trent, that the bitterness of the struggle against allowing the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal, after the liturgical reform, can be understood. The possibility of so celebrating constitutes the strongest, and thus (for them) the most intolerable contradiction of the opinion of those who believe that the faith in the Eucharist formulated by Trent has lost its value.
Meanwhile the problem has been aggravated by the fact that the most recent movement of enlightened thought goes much further than Luther: where Luther still took literally the accounts of the Institution and made them, as the norma normans, the basis of his efforts at reform, the hypotheses of historical criticism have, for a long time, been causing a broad erosion of the texts. The accounts of the Last Supper appear as the product of the liturgical construction of the community; an historical Jesus is sought behind the texts who could not have been thinking of the gift of His Body and Blood, nor understood His Cross as a sacrifice of expiation; we should, rather, imagine a farewell meal which included an eschatological perspective. Not only is the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium downgraded in the eyes of many, but Scripture too; in its place are put changing pseudo-historical hypotheses, which are immediately replaced by any arbitrary idea, and place the liturgy at the mercy of fashion. Where, on the basis of such ideas, the liturgy is manipulated ever more freely, the faithful feel that, in reality, nothing is celebrated, and it is understandable that they desert the liturgy, and with it the Church.
Which brings me to the conclusion. Theology of the liturgy means that God acts through Christ in the liturgy and that we cannot act but through Him and with Him. Of ourselves, we cannot construct the way to God. This way does not open up unless God Himself becomes the way. And again, the ways of man which do not lead to God are non-ways. Theology of the liturgy means furthermore that in the liturgy, the Logos Himself speaks to us; and not only does He speak, He comes with His Body, and His Soul, His Flesh and His Blood, His Divinity and His Humanity, in order to unite us to Himself, to make of us one single "body." In the Christian liturgy, the whole history of salvation, even more, the whole history of human searching for God is present, assumed and brought to its goal. The Christian liturgy is a cosmic liturgy it embraces the whole of creation which "awaits with impatience the revelation of the sons of God" (Rom. 8; 9).
One thing should be clear: the liturgy must not be a terrain for experimenting with theological hypotheses. Too rapidly, in these last decades, the ideas of experts have entered into liturgical practice, often also by-passing ecclesiastical authority, through the channel of commissions which have been able to diffuse at an international level their "consensus of the moment," and practically turn it into laws for liturgical activity. The liturgy derives its greatness from what it is, not from what we make of it. Our participation is, of course, necessary, but as a means of inserting ourselves humbly into the spirit of the liturgy, and of serving Him Who is the true subject of the liturgy: Jesus Christ. The liturgy is not an expression of the consciousness of a community which, in any case, is diffuse and changing. It is revelation received in faith and prayer, and its measure is consequently the faith of the Church, in which revelation is received. The forms which are given to the liturgy can vary according to place and time, just as the rites are diverse. What is essential is the link to the Church which for her part, is united by faith in the Lord. The obedience of faith guarantees the unity of the liturgy, beyond the frontiers of place and time, and so lets us experience the unity of the Church, the Church as the homeland of the heart.
The essence of the liturgy, is finally, summarised in the prayer which St. Paul (1 Cor. 16; 22) and the Didache (10; 6) have handed down to us: Maran atha our Lord is there Lord, come!" From now on, the Parousia is accomplished in the Liturgy, but that is so precisely because it teaches us to cry: "Come Lord Jesus", while reaching out towards the Lord who is coming. It always brings us to hear his reply yet again and to experience its truth: "Yes, I am coming soon" (Apoc. 22; 17, 20).
Translated by Margaret McHugh and Fr John Parsons
No, you asked me to explain about the kiss. I did and then asked you a specific question, which you didn't answer, and instead switched the topic to proselytizing. I asked you to tell me what you think JP meant when he kissed the Koran, and what his intent was.
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 didnt critique the present day Mass, they critiqued something that was changed.
The GIRM is the only thing that has changed. The Order of Mass as it was first proposed in 1969 was exactly the same in 1971. Only the accompanying explanation of it changed. Therefore the original heretical GIRM was used as an explanation for the Mass exactly as it is today.
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 dont 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 havent 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 Ottavianis 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.
Again, only the GIRM changed. The Mass was exactly the same before and after. Therefore, your claim that the thing he criticized no longer existed is not true. This is why Bacci never retracted his position, and why I personally dont believe the blind and seriously ill Ottaviani did either.
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 dont 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.
What you can show me is a list of citations where the Tridentine formula has been added to the Protestant formula using the word Or or an equivalent phrase. At best you can show me something ambiguous. And yes, I will have to guess what meaning was meant by the Church, because the Church was not clear.
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 isnt much of an approval.
In 1972 the Anglican Archbishop of Southwark praised the Novus Ordo and said he used it and would like to see it made available to all Anglicans. Theres one.
You are correct about the Protestants at Trent. I was mistaken on that point.
The GIRM is the only thing that has changed. The Order of Mass as it was first proposed in 1969 was exactly the same in 1971. Only the accompanying explanation of it changed. Therefore the original heretical GIRM was used as an explanation for the Mass exactly as it is today.Of course, that was all that needed to change.
Again, only the GIRM changed. The Mass was exactly the same before and after. Therefore, your claim that the thing he criticized no longer existed is not true.Much of what was criticized was the ambiguity, and this was removed. Many of the criticisms were dealt with in the GIRM, and so the thing was different, if not as different as you would like.
This is why Bacci never retracted his position,You read minds perhaps? How can you know why Bacci did this or that? I dont generally presume people believe this or that without proof, and you dont present any here. If you wish to prove why he didnt speak on the issue again, you need to give us some quotes from him, not from your own view of what he believed.
Everyone always wants to interpret this or that persons beliefs in support of their viewpoint. It is simply my view that one cannot do this without solid proof.
and why I personally dont believe the blind and seriously ill Ottaviani did either.Ottaviani approved the Mass only one year after his intervention. I have never seen any proof that he was any blinder and more seriously ill than he had been at many other points in his life. Again, one year later:
"I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your Doctrinal Note [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS."You can claim all you like that he was ill, but that too is completely unproven.
What makes this all the more striking, is that the Cardinals didnt write the intervention in the first place. That honor is reserved to the theologians Archbishop Lefebvre assembled, and the main author is now a sedevacantist, correct? The Cardinals merely wrote the letter transmitting it, so it isnt clear that Cardinal Ottaviani actually agreed with the things said in the intervention to begin with.
Given those circumstances, that he merely passed it up the line (though he did clearly express some misgivings about the Novus Ordo) rather than writing it, and that he praised the Novus Ordo twice after the clarifications in the GIRM and from the Pope, and was well known to believe that the Roman liturgy needed to be opened up to better include the people, it is a bit of a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory to believe he wasnt capable of expressing himself only a year later.
Moreover, Cardinal Ottaviani not only wrote letters supporting the Novus Ordo, he confirmed their authenticity to others. See James Likoudis, The Pope, The Council and the Mass.
In light of all this it is rather hard to buy the theory that Cardinal Ottaviani disapproved.
What you can show me is a list of citations where the Tridentine formula has been added to the Protestant formula using the word Or or an equivalent phrase. At best you can show me something ambiguous. And yes, I will have to guess what meaning was meant by the Church, because the Church was not clear.Just because a Protestant might use the language doesnt mean it is automatically false. When the Mass is called both a celebration and a Sacrifice, both are true. The Protestant may refuse to use Sacrifice, and the Traditionalist may refuse to use celebration, but their respective refusals dont make the other word false. This is how we see the Church possessing the fullness of the truth, whereas others possess parts of it. A number of traditionalists seem to think Trent said the Mass is a Sacrifice, and that therefore no other word can ever, anywhere, be used to describe it. This is obviously not true, the Mass is both a celebration and a Sacrifice.
As the Church always has, Trent clearly understood this. To quote from it, And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, and And although the Church has been accustomed at times to celebrate, certain masses in honour and memory of the saints; not therefore, however, doth she teach that sacrifice is offered unto them, but unto God alone, who crowned them; whence neither is the priest wont to say, "I offer sacrifice to thee, Peter, or Paul;" but, giving thanks to God for their victories, he implores their patronage, that they may vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we celebrate upon earth. And since those masses also ought to be considered as truly common; partly because the people communicate spiritually thereat; partly also because they are celebrated by a public minister of the Church, not for himself only, but for all the faithful, who belong to the body of Christ. And CANON V.--If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.
Tell me, do you have to guess what Trent meant, as it wasnt clear as well? No, Trent meant both, and that is the Catholic view. It is a Protestant view to limit it to one or the other, but a Catholic accepts the fullness of the faith.
OK, that is one. He would, however, have to pray for the dead if he used the full Rite without omitting things, and that is directly contrary to the Anglican faith. I would be rather surprised to hear him say that he used the full Rite without any modifications whatsoever.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 isnt much of an approval.In 1972 the Anglican Archbishop of Southwark praised the Novus Ordo and said he used it and would like to see it made available to all Anglicans. Theres one.
Regardless, this was allegedly written in 1972? Nothing since then? Not one Protestant in 30+ years? I still think that isnt much of an approval.
The only thing that was changed was the definition of the "new mass" in the GIRM, i.e. the one that had previously shouted YES THIS IS HERESY was now more circumspect. The novus ordo missae itself remained the same.The only quotes on this thread are from sections that changed. Youre full of it.
<>Mass is also called a service. I don't have the book in front of me to provide the exact quote, but, St. Augustine, in "City of God," refers to "servitus" and the service of the Mass.
Your dispassionate and informative posts are very helpful. Poor Ottaviani, who would have thought such a chamipon of Unity as he was would have his name championed by schismatics? In what some call the First Ottaviani Intervention, the Holy Office letter to the ArchBishop of Boston re. the Fr. Feeney matter, he warned against schisms. Now, we have schismatics using Ottaviani to justify a schism. Such is the madness that strikes those in the schismatic swamps. They can't even see the absurdity of their own positions while they think themselves competent to judge Popes and the normative Mass <>
"'The words of one who no longer loves the Catholic Church, comparing the normative Mass of the Latin Rite to a black Mass.'
"The truth sometimes hurts."
Your words convict you, Bud.
It's difficult to believe that you wouldn't realize that comparing the validity of the new Mass to that of a Black Mass is denigrating of the new Mass. To compare the validity of the two is to invite further comparison, and comparison not favorable to the new Mass.
You repeat your ugliness again:
"I said the fact that the Novus Ordo is valid was not saying much. Even the Black Mass is valid."
The message here is:
Just because a Mass is valid doesn't mean it isn't evil. The Novus Ordo is valid and evil. The Black Mass is valid and evil.
And whether you like it or not, you invite further invidious comparisons.
If you realized this, and are now just hiding behind your twisting of your own words (it's kinda funny that after misquoting and mischaracterizing what others have said, you now have trouble understanding the meaning and connotations of your own words), then that's not so good. If you didn't realize this, then that suggests just how far gone you are.
"There are about three of these guys who work in tandem, probably professionals,..."
Hey, thanks for the compliment. But it's undeserved. I assure you, I'm strictly an amateur. ;-)
"...who seek to marginalize traditional Catholics"
Well, if by "traditional Catholics", you mean those who prefer the old Rite, frankly, I encourage anyone who attends an indult Mass to participate and share their riches with us. So long as they can do so without denigrating the normative Mass. There are a number of posters here who assist at the old Rite, and acknowledge that both Rites are not only valid, but fully Catholic, and beneficial to souls.
But if by "traditional Catholics", you mean those who compare the new Mass to a Black Mass, and who denigrate the normative Rite, and who participate in schismatic services from schismatic priests ordained by excommunicated bishops who are no longer in communion with the Bishop of Rome, then yes, I seek to marginalize the arguments of those folks.
<>I thought you'd appreciate this warning from the First Ottaviani intervention.
Sitetest is correct. It was a comparison and everyone reading it understood it to be a comparison. You two reveal what is in your hearts when you compare the normative mass to a black mass.
What would be your reaction to this statement; "Ultima and Bud oppose the normative mass just as Hitler opposed the normative mass when he was alive."<>