Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: patent
Thank you for the reply patent. Here is some more...

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.

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 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.

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 don’t 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 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.

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 isn’t 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. There’s one.

You are correct about the Protestants at Trent. I was mistaken on that point.

Bellarmine

135 posted on 09/02/2002 4:26:57 PM PDT by Bellarmine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies ]


To: Bellarmine
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 don’t generally presume people believe this or that without proof, and you don’t present any here. If you wish to prove why he didn’t 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 person’s beliefs in support of their viewpoint. It is simply my view that one cannot do this without solid proof.

and why I personally don’t 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 didn’t 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 isn’t 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 wasn’t 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 doesn’t 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 don’t 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 wasn’t 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.

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.
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. There’s one.
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.

Regardless, this was allegedly written in 1972? Nothing since then? Not one Protestant in 30+ years? I still think that isn’t much of an approval.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

137 posted on 09/02/2002 8:59:17 PM PDT by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies ]

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