Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GIRM - A WITNESS TO UNBROKEN TRADITION
Instruction of the Roman Missal ^

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.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: catholicchurch; mass; missal; tradition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last
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.

Thus the Church remains faithful in its responsibility as teacher of truth to guard "things old," that is, the deposit of tradition; at the same time it fulfills another duty, that of examining and prudently bringing forth"things new" (see Mt. 13:52).

A thorough reading of the GIRM is indispensible in understanding the evolution of the mass from its beginnings after the death of Christ up to the present day.

1 posted on 08/31/2002 5:03:16 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Siobhan; american colleen; sinkspur; Aliska; Lady In Blue; Salvation; Polycarp; narses; ...
A thorough reading of the GIRM is indispensible in understanding the evolution of the mass from its beginnings after the death of Christ up to the present day.
2 posted on 08/31/2002 5:05:35 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Thanks! bttt
3 posted on 08/31/2002 8:21:58 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Thanks! bttt
4 posted on 08/31/2002 8:22:29 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

oops...sorry for the double post.
5 posted on 08/31/2002 8:23:19 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Glad you enjoyed it .... bttt.
6 posted on 08/31/2002 9:15:13 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
You are such a blessing to us Catholics on FR. Thank you for all you do to keep us informed as well as inspired! {{{{{hugs}}}}}
7 posted on 08/31/2002 4:38:40 PM PDT by Siobhan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; livius; sitetest; patent; Askel5; Antoninus; Diago; sandyeggo; frogandtoad; saradippity; ...
Ping!
8 posted on 08/31/2002 4:40:01 PM PDT by Siobhan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan
Given the volume of discussion on this topic, I simply had to go in search of an acceptable explanation. Do click on the link to the GIRM. Practically every word in the documentation is a link to a descriptive.

How many of have actually read the GIRM, much less the Catechism or the Bible, in its entirety. Here we sit, day in and day out, haggling over the impact of change when, it turns out, the change is nothing more than a step closer to how the mass was intended to be said, by our Lord Himself. When I get the time, I intend to go through the entire documentation.

Hope all is well with you and the family.

9 posted on 08/31/2002 4:52:18 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: HDMZ
Dear HDMZ,

Where are you getting this from?

NYer posted a link to the GIRM. Here is the actual quote from the section to which you refer, from the GIRM:

"I. General Structure of the Mass

'7. At Mass or the Lord's Supper, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice.13 For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst" (Mt. 18:20). For at the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross,14 Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the eucharistic elements.15"

Here is the link for all to see: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0012/$7.htm

Perhaps you have accidentally misquoted the GIRM. Other anti-Catholic "traditionalists" on FR have similar problems.

;-)

sitetest

12 posted on 08/31/2002 6:26:17 PM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: HDMZ; JMJ333; Catholicguy; Polycarp; narses; ultima ratio; patent; allend; Bud McDuell; ...
Dear HDMZ,

Got any more pics, H??

That you think these pictures mean to others what you think they mean to you is evidence of your need for help. Perhaps you can let us know approximately where you live (general metropolitan region), and perhaps one of the posters I've pinged may know of someone in that region who can provide you with the therapy that you so desperately need.

As ever,

sitetest
15 posted on 08/31/2002 6:48:09 PM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HDMZ
Cardinal Ottaviani's, Prefect of the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII, and 2nd in authority only to him, Condemnation of the novus ordo missae to Montini, Paul VI:

Ottaviani renounced his condemnation, in the early 70s.

As for the tiara, the sedia gesttatoria, white buskins, gloves, jeweled mitres, the cappa magna, and all the other trappings worn by the successors of fishermen, I say "good riddance."

16 posted on 08/31/2002 7:01:47 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Dear sinkspur,

"As for the tiara, the sedia gesttatoria, white buskins, gloves, jeweled mitres, the cappa magna, and all the other trappings worn by the successors of fishermen, I say 'good riddance.'"

How can you say that?!? Don't you realize that the pope wouldn't be pope without all that stuff?!? Didn't Peter and Linus and Anacletus and Clement have tiaras and all that stuff???

NO???....

... Well are you sure they were really popes??



;-)

sitetest
17 posted on 08/31/2002 7:08:29 PM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: sitetest
I have it on fairly good authority that Linus wore white sandals.

That same authority says that Paul VI refused to put on the tiara because it would have snapped his chicken neck. John XXIII wore it, but he had the aperture to support it. Pius XII wore the tiara at his "coronation," but he suffered from neck pains for weeks after.

We KNOW how essential all these externals are to the Papacy.

I remember reading that the media had a cow when JFK refused to wear a top hat to his inauguration. That, incidentally, spelled the end of the top hat, and dress hat wearing in general suffered a serious decline after that.

19 posted on 08/31/2002 7:23:05 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HDMZ
Dear HDMZ,

Can you post your garbage to a few more threads? Not enough folks are seeing how unworthy are your posts.


Thanks in advance,

sitetest
20 posted on 08/31/2002 7:23:57 PM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HDMZ
Your attempts to compensate for your limited rhetorical weaponry through the extravagant use of capitalized words and picture after meaningless picture is falling on deaf ears.
21 posted on 08/31/2002 7:25:25 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HDMZ
Who really cares? Ottaviani was not Pope, was he? He couldn't have been elected Pope on a bet. The fact is that, after John XXIII's death, the conclave wanted a Pope who would continue Vatican II. They knew Montini would.

That's the Holy Spirit speaking, pal.

22 posted on 08/31/2002 7:29:31 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Dear sinkspur,

"Who really cares? Ottaviani was not Pope, was he?"

Which fact really vitiates HDMZ's hallucinatory conspiracy theory. One doesn't go through all that trouble to "change" what can be directly countermanded by a superior authority.

sitetest
23 posted on 08/31/2002 7:33:35 PM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HDMZ
Cardinal Ottaviani's, Prefect of the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII, and 2nd in authority only to him, Condemnation of the novus ordo missae to Montini, Paul VI:
Cardinal Ottaviani published an intervention, not a condemnation. He published it before the Novus Ordo was finalized. 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 funny thing is that some of the changes are right in front of your eyes. The portion you cite from the GIRM’s article 7, as cited by Ottaviani’s intervention, read:

"The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. (*3) For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst." (Mt. 18:20) (*4)"
As changed before the Novus Ordo was promulgated, and as it is now, it reads:
'7. At Mass or the Lord's Supper, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice.13 For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst" (Mt. 18:20). For at the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross,14 Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the eucharistic elements.15"
So the very reasons for Ottaviani’s change in views are in front of your face, and they entirely negate your claims. There are literally dozens of examples of Sacrificial language now, whereas the version he objected to didn’t have these things.

Follow his example, admit that the Novus Ordo as it was changed by the Pope is perfectly valid and Catholic.

patent  +AMDG

24 posted on 08/31/2002 8:08:29 PM PDT by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HDMZ
Montini, antipope Paul VI, posing with the six protestant ministers who helped the apostate Bugnini formulate the heretical new mass.
Care to prove that protestants formulated the new Mass? They were mere observers, just as Protestants observed the Council of Trent, and were allowed to comment on it..

patent  +AMDG

25 posted on 08/31/2002 8:09:37 PM PDT by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HDMZ
You and your fellow LIARS, should be aware that this "document" of renunciation was placed in front of Cardinal Ottaviani to sign when he was in the hospital AFTER HE HAD BECOME BLIND! HE READ IT!!?? I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!!!!!
Ah yes. We can see the dramatic changes to just one small section of the Novus Ordo GIRM that were made after Ottaviani’s intervention. We can see how many of his objections were actually addressed. But when, in response to those changes, he withdraws his objections – something a normal sane person would do – we are told he wasn’t even capable enough to have really meant it.

He’s a great authority, a bulwark of orthodoxy.

Until he does something we don’t like, then he’s a blind invalid, incapable of having the Novus Ordo and the GIRM even read to him so he can see if he still has any objections or not.

What a convincing position you have there.

patent  +AMDG

26 posted on 08/31/2002 8:14:25 PM PDT by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYer
A thorough reading of the GIRM is indispensible in understanding the evolution of the mass from its beginnings after the death of Christ up to the present day.

I have read part of it, and it is most enlightening. Takes the wind out of the sails of a couple posters on FR who decry the Novus Ordo Mass. I wonder if they have ever read it.

27 posted on 08/31/2002 9:10:55 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: patent
'7. At Mass or the Lord's Supper, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice.13 For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst" (Mt. 18:20). For at the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross,14 Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the eucharistic elements.15"
So the very reasons for Ottaviani’s change in views are in front of your face, and they entirely negate your claims. There are literally dozens of examples of Sacrificial language now, whereas the version he objected to didn’t have these things.

Thank you for your research and comparison.

28 posted on 08/31/2002 9:20:19 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
The sacrificial structure of the Mass has been destroyed in the Novus Ordo. In its place is a Protestant Paschal- meal structure--in open defiance of Vatican II. You people really should start reading up on all this and stop swallowing the N.O. propaganda. Why do you suppose even Cardinal Ratzinger has admitted the Novus Ordo has huge problems? Why do you suppose Mass attendance in the West has dropped precipitously from before the N.O. was imposed? It is because Catholics resent being turned into Protestants by being forced to attend Protestant services. The Novus Ordo was designed to appeal to Protestants. Instead it continues to repel huge numbers of Catholics.
29 posted on 08/31/2002 11:49:06 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NYer
No amount of rhetoric can make a thing something it isn't. The Instruction you cite can claim it is a part of tradition all it wants--wishing doesn't make it so. Here is Cardinal Ratzinger:

"The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of a technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment." (The Angelus citing Ratzinger, April 2002, p. 19.)
30 posted on 09/01/2002 12:00:39 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patent
I just couldn't let these posts pass without comment

Cardinal Ottaviani published an intervention, not a condemnation.

“To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorised, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error. “ – Letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to His Holiness Paul VI accompanying the Critical Study

This is not a condemnation???

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.

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.

'7. At Mass or the Lord's Supper, the people of God are called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice.13 For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst" (Mt. 18:20). For at the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross,14 Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the eucharistic elements.15"

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????

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.

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.

Bellarmine

31 posted on 09/01/2002 12:01:12 AM PDT by Bellarmine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HDMZ; ultima ratio; sitetest; Salvation; Siobhan
In a word, the Instruction's definition implies none of the dogmatic values which are essential to the Mass and which, taken together, provide its true definition.

According to the documentation published at the link I provided (the official GIRM):

"3. The celebration of Mass also proclaims the sublime mystery of the Lord's real presence under the eucharistic elements, which Vatican Council II6 and other documents of the Church's magisterium7 have reaffirmed in the same sense and as the same teaching that the Council of Trent had proposed as a matter of faith.8 The Mass does this not only by means of the very words of consecration, by which Christ becomes present through transubstantiation, but also by that spirit and expression of reverence and adoration in which the eucharistic liturgy is carried out. For the same reason the Christian people are invited in Holy Week on Holy Thursday and on the solemnity of Corpus Christi to honor this wonderful sacrament in a special way by their adoration. "

Furthermore, it restores the original practice of receiving under both species ... something NOT DONE in the Tridentine Mass.

"14. Moved by the same spirit and pastoral concern, Vatican Council II was able to reevaluate the Tridentine norm on communion under both kinds. No one today challenges the doctrinal principles on the completeness of eucharistic communion under the form of bread alone. The Council thus gave permission for the reception of communion under both kinds on some occasions, because this more explicit form of the sacramental sign offers a special means of deepening the understanding of the mystery in which the faithful are taking part.21

32 posted on 09/01/2002 12:41:33 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Forget all these long citations. Instead, ask yourself some common sense questions.

1. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against kneeling? It is a posture indicating adoration. Why do they have an interest in eliminating it? Can it be they don't believe in the Real Presence?

2. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against communion on the tongue? It is far more reverent than touching the sacred species with unconsecrated hands. Can it be they don't believe in the Real Presence?

3. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against communion rails? The rails allowed the faithful to kneel easily while receiving communion--a posture of reverence and adoration. Can it be they don't believe in the Real Presence?

4. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against tabernacles being given pride of place at the center of churches? The center of the sanctuary is the immediate focal point for anyone entering. Centrality clearly signifies importance. Christ in His Blessed Sacrament is certainly more important than any presider's chair. Can it be they don't believe in the Real Presence?

5. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against ringing bells before the Consecration at Mass. In the old Mass bells were rung to alert the faithful that the Mystery of Faith was about to be enacted: the change of bread and wine into Christ's own Body and Blood. In the New Mass the words "Mystery of Faith" now refer to something else, a banal proclamation. Why does the liturgy pay so much attention to Christ's virtual presence in the Liturgy of the Word and in the assembly, but so little attention to his actual Presence as sacrificial victim? Can it be they don't believe in the Real Preence?

Can it be these people want to subvert and suppress a major Catholic dogma? Naaah! They wouldn't do such a nasty, heretical thing as that--would they?
33 posted on 09/01/2002 1:43:30 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Let me put it still another way. If you really believed Christ is present after the consecration--really and truly present in all his divinity--would you not wish to kneel and adore? If GOD HIMSELF in the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity has so condescended--what should our response be? Should it be to sing songs to ourselves and tell ourselves how wonderful we are? Should the focus be on US or on HIM? This is the debate. For two thousand years the focus had been on Christ and his sacrifice. Now instead of adoration, we are casual to the point of bored indifference. I have seen teenage kids rise for the consecration at a Novus Ordo Mass--with their hands in their pockets. That level of informality speaks volumes about what's wrong with the Novus Ordo.

34 posted on 09/01/2002 2:21:19 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: patent
Care to prove that protestants formulated the new Mass? They were mere observers, just as Protestants observed the Council of Trent, and were allowed to comment on it

<>One of the observers, Max Thurian, a protestant minister from Taize, converted and was ordained a Catholic Priest. I guess he conspired to make the Catholic Mass Protestant so he, a Protestant, could convert to Protestantism and be condemned by many of his former protestant friens. Fiendishly clever...<>

35 posted on 09/01/2002 2:32:28 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HDMZ
Cardinal Ottaviani, in obvious distress, walking next to Montini, antipope Paul VI, as he gives up the triple-tired Papal taira and the threefold mission of the Church, bestowed upon Her by Christ, to teach, to govern and to sanctify.

<> When Pope Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae, he wasn't Teaching?

<> When he reconvened Vatican Two after the death of John Paul 23rd, he wasn't governing?

<> When he ordained priests and offered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass daily, heard Confessions, administered Confirmations etec,he wasn't sanctifying?<>

36 posted on 09/01/2002 2:37:02 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer
One final word. Much has been said about how we have lost the sense of the sacred with the Novus Ordo Mass. I think there are many reasons for this, but chief among them has got to be the fact that the new liturgy is just too talky. It never shuts up. When the assembly is not giving responses, it's called upon to sing. It's always in action without a letup. So eager were the liturgists to have the faithful "participate actively" that they have eliminated any chance the assembly might have had for real prayerful interiority. Instead everything is superficial and external, with very litte chance for deep spirituality.
37 posted on 09/01/2002 2:41:14 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: patent
Ah yes. We can see the dramatic changes to just one small section of the Novus Ordo GIRM that were made after Ottaviani’s intervention.

<> It is worth noting that some commentators have referred to the "First Ottavaiani intervention" as meaning his letter from the Holy Office to the ArchBishop of Boston re Fr. Feeney. That letter condemns just the sort of private judgement that hdmz, ultima et al engage in daily. What the first Ottaviani intervention says is that their actions are no different than Feeney's:<>

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,

Your Excellency's most devoted,

+ F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.

A. Ottaviani, Assessor. (Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

<> I think this bears repeating for all those sedes and schizmeisters out there<>

and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation -------------------------------------------------------------------

38 posted on 09/01/2002 2:54:20 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
All that time you spent typing on this thread, and you've refuted nothing. I'll stick with GIRM over your stale opinions.
39 posted on 09/01/2002 7:31:17 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
One of the observers, Max Thurian, a protestant minister from Taize, converted and was ordained a Catholic Priest. I guess he conspired to make the Catholic Mass Protestant so he, a Protestant, could convert to Protestantism and be condemned by many of his former protestant friens. Fiendishly clever...

BTTT! Common sense thinking triumphs!

40 posted on 09/01/2002 8:46:15 AM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Did you think the General Instruction was going to admit it was in contradiction to the Council of Trent? It is as deceptive as the liturgy itself. Here again is Cardinal Ratzinger:

"It may well be that kneeling is alien to modern culture--insofar as it is a culture, for this culture has turned away from the faith and no longer knows the One before whom kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be recovered." (The Angelus, citing Ratzinger, April 2002, p. 15.)

And again, speaking to the fact that the Council of Trent rejects the doctrinal deviations of the new Mass, he writes: "It is only by grasping that it results from the practical disqualification of Trent, that one can understand the exasperation that accompanies the fight against the possibility of still celebrating Mass according to the 1962 Missal." (Ibid., p. 19.)



41 posted on 09/01/2002 9:16:02 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
We know the Church is indefectable in matters of faith and morals. Therefore, it is impossible for the bishops, in union with the pope, to err on a question of morals for the universal church. And since the “New Mass” is offered by the bishops in union with the pope, it is impossible for it to be immoral or invalid. If they think it is [and obviously they do], then then have lost faith in the indefectability of the Church. God help them.
42 posted on 09/01/2002 9:20:10 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Part of Catholic Tradition is to be obedient to lawful authority. We also have a centralized authority that defines and protects the Faith, and regulates the corporate worship of the Church. When we lose sight of that we must descend into the mash pits of Protestant sectarian chaos. My conscience, and my Catholic faith, tells me that I must obey lawful ecclesiastical authority, unless it commands me to do something immoral.

At any rate, if you believe that the bishops in union with the Pope are capable of instituting an invalid Mass and depriving the whole Catholic Church of valid sacraments, then you obviously do not believe in the indefectability of the Church.

It’s true that the Church’s infallability doesn’t extend to pastoral matters, but its authority certainly does. Do you go to Mass on a holy day of obligation? Why? Jesus never commanded that we must attend Mass on Holy days-- the feast of the Assumption, for example. That was a pastoral decision of the Church. Why do you consider yourself bound by that decision, when at the same time you deny that the Church’s authority extends to pastoral matters?

I seems to me that others who have been arguing with you are correct. You have become a Protestant. Your complaints against the Church may be different than those of the sixteenth-century Protestants, but the principle is the same. You both believe that the Church failed in a critical aspect of its mission, so much so that you must separate yourselves from her communion and worship elsewhere, in the backwaters and caves with the rest of the “faithful remnant.” The Protestants believed that the Church had corrupted her doctrines; you believe she has corrupted her sacraments. In both cases there is a lack of faith in the indefectability of the Church.

I have to go to Mass. I will pray for you.

43 posted on 09/01/2002 9:29:06 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Didn't they really change the mass so that people would be more interested in attending? Wasn't it about being modern and staying with the times? Having a guitar at mass, etc?

Hasn't it always been a downfall of westernized Christianity that they push to conquer and win? To get the most numbers listed under their church heading in the guiness book. Even though the path has been described as narrow, it always seems to me that western churches are into the biggest numbers and expansion.

In fact it often seems to me that this greed and some of the vainglory attending these attempts are precisely the "prayers" which have been answered.
Almost as if our Lord said - Loss of piety and reverence, but lots of people, that's what you want? So be it.

Let the circus begin.

44 posted on 09/01/2002 9:51:05 AM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Dear ultima ratio,

"'It may well be that kneeling is alien to modern culture--insofar as it is a culture, for this culture has turned away from the faith and no longer knows the One before whom kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be recovered.' (The Angelus, citing Ratzinger, April 2002, p. 15.) "

I don't think anyone takes your quotes seriously, ultima, especially of Cardinal Ratzinger, after our previous experience of tracking down what you quote, and finding that you've misrepresented whom you've quoted, especially Cardinal Ratzinger, or just made up the quote entirely.

Also, I assume that when you quote "The Angelus", you are referring to the house organ of the SSPX organization. Considering that this is an organization run by excommunicated people outside of the communion of the Holy Catholic Church, considering that none of its priests can offer a licit Mass, or generally offer a valid absolution in confession, nor validly marry Catholics, and that the Holy Father has warned all Catholics to avoid its services, because attendance thereto leads to a schismatic mentality, it is not, obviously, a reputable or reliable source of information for Catholics.

sitetest
45 posted on 09/01/2002 9:54:26 AM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Dear JMJ333,

If you read a few posts further down, you will see that ultima ratio and the other anti-Catholic "traditionalists" around here have more in common with the Orthodox, whom the Holy Catholic Church regards as being in schism, than with Catholics.

sitetest
46 posted on 09/01/2002 9:57:12 AM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
This from the papist "first protestants" defender.
You, whose leader broke away in arrogance and pride, would now stoop to throw a stone. Pray hard and well.
47 posted on 09/01/2002 10:04:39 AM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
You are confused. I never said the new Mass was invalid. It is valid all right--but only sometimes these days, when priests trouble to use the proper form, matter and intention. Unfortunately, more and more priests are celebrating invalid Masses these days. Nevertheless, I will grant that the Novus Ordo is valid, generally speaking. But having said that, this is not saying much. A Black Mass, too, is valid, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

What I have been trying to point out is that the New Mass, despite such validity, is nevertheless harmful to the faith. It has systematically destroyed belief in the Divinity of Christ and in the Real Presence for millions of Catholics. As Pius XII said in Mediator Dei, the rule of praying is the rule of faith. If a Mass has been so thoroughly secularized so as to remove all sense of the sacred, then belief itself is seriously diminished. This is what happens with the Novus Ordo.

The second point to be made is to distinguish between the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium. The ordinary Magisterium is infallible ONLY in virtue of its repetition of a teaching or practice the Church has held since time immemorial. This would NOT include a novelty like the Novus Ordo which is doctrinally deficient and in open defiance of the Council of Trent. So your second point about indefectability would necessarily not apply.
48 posted on 09/01/2002 10:04:50 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
the other anti-Catholic "traditionalists" around here have more in common with the Orthodox, whom the Holy Catholic Church regards as being in schism

Well-said! I have been admiring Ultima's defense of truth, tradition, and piety for some time now.
It is also true that in our church we do not give our loyalty to men but to God and the church itself. All men are susceptible to lust for power and greed. And so Ultima's concerns make perfect sense to me.

But then you are the original schismatics, so you should be well-aquainted with this idea. You papists are the ones who broke away from the rest of the church in order to allow one man to be more powerful.

49 posted on 09/01/2002 10:09:29 AM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Dear ultima,

"Nevertheless, I will grant that the Novus Ordo is valid, generally speaking. But having said that, this is not saying much. A Black Mass, too, is valid, but that doesn't make it a good thing."

The words of one who no longer loves the Catholic Church, comparing the normative Mass of the Latin Rite to a black Mass.

sitetest
50 posted on 09/01/2002 10:13:09 AM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-179 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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