Skip to comments.Review of Liturgical Reform Proposed by Cardinal Sodano
Posted on 08/30/2003 10:58:53 AM PDT by Loyalist
VATICAN CITY, AUG. 29, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Four decades after the liturgical reform carried out by the Second Vatican Council, it is right to examine the way it has been implemented, in order to relaunch it, says Cardinal Angelo Sodano.
The Vatican secretary of state made that proposal in a letter to the participants in Italy's National Liturgical Week, held in the town of Acireale. The event ended today.
In the letter, which expresses the Pope's greetings to the participants, Cardinal Sodano reflected on the 1963 constitution "Sacrosanctum Concilium," approved by the council fathers.
"Forty years later, it is right to ask what the liturgical reform itself has represented for the renewal of Christian communities, to what degree the liturgy, reformed according to the indications of the council, is able to mediate between faith and life, so that it forms believers able to offer consistent evangelical testimony," the cardinal said.
At the same time, "it is useful to ask oneself with clarity and sincerity if the reform has experienced some weak point and where, and, above all, how it can be relaunched for the good of the Christian people," he added.
According to the cardinal, the challenge the Church faces today is "to translate the reform in the life of the believer, called to integrate himself in the communion that the Son desires to establish with each one, a communion that we celebrate constantly in the liturgy."
Cardinal Sodano presented these questions to the participants in the Liturgical Week and asked them to give thoughtful answers. At the same time, he offered guidelines for their answers.
"Although it can rightly be said that the conciliar reform has been carried out, the liturgical pastoral program represents a permanent commitment which enables one to draw from the richness of the liturgy the vital force that is spread from Christ to the members of the Body, which is the Church," he said.
In this connection, "perhaps some of the principles of the constitution have to be better understood and more faithfully applied," the cardinal added.
In particular, he said, "it is useful to analyze some specific topics such as, for example, the relation between creativity and fidelity, between spiritual worship and life, between catechesis and celebration of the Mystery, between liturgical presidency and role of the assembly, between formation in the seminaries and the permanent formation of priests."
This apparition (condemned) holds about as much import to a Catholic's salvation as the following:
NO MARRIED DEACONS***
"Why are you now planning to take married men, making them what you call deacons, to give the sanctity and holiness, the grace in marriage to My sheep? What right have you to change the rules and the direction? Understand well: when I appointed the Apostles there were no names given as cardinals or bishops; but Peter was the first Pope, the leader, and would you say not that the Apostles were the first bishops? And after that they chose from out of multitudes, seven whom you call deacons and listed as deacons, but they were truly priests at that time. But you do not need the procedure now. If you are willing to ask the Eternal Father, and if you do not give yourselves over to doctrines of demons, you will have priests sufficient to carry out the ministry. But what do you do now? You will seek to make instant priests, against the will of the Eternal Father! You will delude others to think that your deacons can take the Sacraments and give them as in the priesthood! A priest, My children, is a chosen man of God. A true legally-ordained priest is far superior than any man, as he represents Me in the Godhead." - Jesus, May 23, 1979
more of this absurdity at Virgin Mary's End Times Prophecies website.
Nope. But if you dig far enough, the site contains her prediction for the SuperBowl winner this January.
Nice try, but as you certainly know, the Index of Prohibited Books was lifted by Pope Paul VI in 1966, and along with them any censure formerly attached to reading them. According to your ludicrous attempt to silence me, or embarrass me, one would also be subject to censure for reading or printing Milton's Paradise and Galileo's theories on geocentricity/heliocentricity, which were also on the Prohibited Books list. Why did you take so much time to type such a huge red herring?
While I fully recognize the controversy surrounding the legitimacy of Melanie Calvet's 1879 account of her 1848 apparition, I am equally aware that her 1879 brochure, which carried the legitimate Imprimatur of the Bishop of Lecce, offended those pius souls in the Church who thought themselves above such sinful charges. And the attacks on Melanie's sanity rolled around like thunder. But today we see her prophesies coming true. As I clearly stated in my original post, I do not believe that Melanie's prophesy, "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichirst", meant that the Pope would lose the faith, which is the popular means of attacking Melanie's prophesies by the so-called "conservative Catholics", but that it could well have meant that the city would lose the faith, (which of course it did when Garibaldi's masons attacked Rome and Catholicism was diminished). We also see the biggest Mosque in the world outside of an Islamic country standing close to the Vatican. Truly, Rome is barely Catholic anymore compared to 1848 standards.
On the subject of serious irregularities , let's examine what the eminent Catholic apologist Solange Strong Hertz writes on this matter of the authenticity of the 1915 banning of certain limited articles and publications concerning La Sallette, and NOT THE APPARITION ITSELF:
"After Melanie's death in 1904 the enemies of La Salette hoped to deal the final blow to the Secret. Putting the capstone on the falsehoods and misrepresentations already in circulation, a decree was promulgated on December 21, 1915 which ordered "the faithful of all countries to abstain from treating or discussing this said question under whatsoever pretext or form, either in books, pamphlets or articles signed or anonymous, or in any other way." Although the action is duly recorded in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for December 31 of that year, certain irregularities were soon noted in its regard." "To begin with, it carries signatures of no Cardinals or members of the Sacred Congregation, but only that of its notary, Luigi Castellano. There is moreover no mention of the date on which the Holy Office presumably met to vote this piece of legislation, nor any reference to its ever having been submitted to Pope Benedict XV for final approval. Although the decree forbids all discussion of the Secret and specifies penalties to be imposed on transgressors, no censure whatever is attached to the work itself, as would be expected in the circumstances.There is not even a prohibition against possessing, reading or distributing it"!
"In other words the alleged 'decree' which has been brandished like a club over the heads of the faithful for over eighty years to prevent their hearing a message addressed 'to all our Lady's people,' has apparently never enjoyed the force of law".
Personally, because of the powerful arguments on both sides of the 1879 La Sallette account, I can't say that I fully believe or disbelieve this later account. I do know that the Fatima messages were dispersed from 1917 through the 1930's, with Sr. Lucy adding later messages from later revelations. I also know that every appartion has had it its detractors from the highest places in the Church. Catholic priests and faithful today will, (and frequently do), argue both for and against the authenticity of Medjugorje, even though two local bishops have condemned it. I have spoken with priests who have flatly told me that they don't believe in Fatima, (of course that's because they don't like the messages). So I know these things will always be contested and debated, even when they are approved or condemned. But I also know that 1848 La Sallette is a fully Church approved appartion, 'worthy of belief', and that the adversarial evidence denouncing the authenticity of Melanie Calvet's 1879 publication on La Sallette has some very serious flaws. Flaws like your own, sir, with your cunard of the long abandoned Forbidden Books Index and its abolished censures, and the 1915 document with no signatures of Cardinals or officials, just a simple notary stamp, and containing no censure for owning or reading the publications in question, which is more than unusual.
I call your attention to these very pertinent irregularities of this decree:
(1). it carries signatures of no Cardinals or members of the Sacred Congregation, but only that of its notary, Luigi Castellano.
(2). There is no mention of the date on which the Holy Office presumably met to vote this piece of legislation.
(3). There is no reference to its ever having been submitted to Pope Benedict XV for final approval.
(4). The decree forbids all discussion of the Secret and specifies penalties to be imposed on transgressors, but no censure whatever is attached to the work itself, as would be expected in the circumstances.
(5). There is not even a prohibition against possessing, reading or distributing it!
Notice that it wasn't until after Pope Pius X died in 1914 that those who detested the messages of La Sallette began to attack Melanie Calvet from the Vatican: Here is a quote from L'Osservatore Romano, under the Pontificate of Pope Saint Pius X, on 25th December, 1904,:
"Melanie revealed her Secret at the time which was indicated to her, although she knew that such an action would draw towards her the wrath of those who having lost all moral sense were attached to the chariot of the Masonic sect".
So the attacks against the veracity of Melanie Calvet have been of a Masonic origin, and surely continued on that way.
"The Secret itself is placed on the Index in 1923, and books on the Index are still forbidden. You might want to brush up on exactly what Pope Paul VI said about the Index. It remains as a moral guide for Catholics. What was once immoral cannot later become moral."
I know what Paul VI said, he said the Index of Prohibited Books was now officially suppressed, and all ecclesiatical penalities for reading such no longer have the force of law in the Church. He also stated, (paraphrase), "Persons are still obliged to take normal percautions against doctrinal error". There are no longer any ecclesiatical penalties for reading books that formerly appeared on the now abolished Index.
"Solange Hertz is not a valid interpreter of the Holy Office. In any case, their Decree is quite clear, and needs no interpretation. It forbids all discussion and dissemination of the Secret."
Solange Hertz is one of the brightest and best Catholic historians and apologists alive today. She writes brilliant defenses for the Catholic Church against Protestants and new-age attackers. According to Solange Hertz, the decree, (which I have not seen in full myself), does not forbid the reading, possession or distributing of this 1879 brochure on La Salette, but only the discussing of it.
The signatures of Cardinals are not needed for canonical effect. All that is necessary is a notary. Check with a canon lawyer if you don't believe me."
The lack of signatures by Cardinals is extremely unusual, but that was only one of several irregularities of this decree, as I noted above. It seems to me that the single sentence within the whole prophesy, "Rome will lose faith and become the seat of the antichrist", is the whole issue for the La Salette detractors. This intimidates them to the core because they feel it means the Pope, forgetting it probably refers to the people of Rome.
For me the real issue is to look at the whole of the prophesies of La Salette and see for myself if they have come to pass. I think any honest Catholic who knows the faith will be forced to admit that many of them have indeed come to pass, and that we live in the midst of others of them in this very day.
Among other things, the La Sallette prophesy speaks of:
people neglecting prayer,
churches will be locked up,
religious orders will break away,
astonishing wonders will take place on the earth and in the air,
evil books will be abundant,
The seasons will be altered
people will have great power over nature,
a false light will illumine the world,
the Pope will suffer a great deal,
homicides, hate, jealousy, lies and dissension would be seen without love for country or family,
All the civil governments will have one and the same plan, which will be to abolish and do away with every religious principle, to make way for materialism, atheism,
the devil will resort to all this evil tricks to introduce sinners in to religious orders, for disorder and the love of carnal pleasures will be spread all over the earth.
France, Italy, Spain and England will be at war.
The earth will be struck by calamities of all kinds (in addition to plague and famine which will be widespread).
People will think of nothing but amusement.
Nothing of what you list is an "irregularity". You simply don't understand how Church law works. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated by a similar decree signed simply by a notary. It was a real excommunication.
Notice that it wasn't until after Pope Pius X died in 1914 that those who detested the messages of La Sallette began to attack Melanie Calvet from the Vatican
The first books about the Secret were condemned in the pontificate of Leo XIII, with additional ones in the time of St. Pius X. Go back and look at the dates on the Index of Prohibited Books.
Here is a quote from L'Osservatore Romano, under the Pontificate of Pope Saint Pius X, on 25th December, 1904,:
The quote, if genuine, refers to the true original secret which is approved by the Church (though still not published), and not Melanie's false concoction published in 1878.
There are no longer any ecclesiatical penalties for reading books that formerly appeared on the now abolished Index.
It will be immoral to read evil books until the end of time.
According to Solange Hertz, the decree, (which I have not seen in full myself)
How can you claim that? I gave you the text of the decree in my Post 159.
As to its posession, the Decree notes the secret is under a ban (more precisely, the Holy Office forbade what you mention in 1880). If it is already under a ban, there is hardly reason to reban it when condemning its further dissemination.
It seems to me that the single sentence within the whole prophesy, "Rome will lose faith and become the seat of the antichrist", is the whole issue for the La Salette detractors. This intimidates them to the core because they feel it means the Pope, forgetting it probably refers to the people of Rome.
As well it should, since it is a quote of Martin Luther, ably refuted by St. Peter Canisius.
Who could dare deny any of this? And many of these prophesies, dealing with flight, advanced science, high technology and seasons being altered were unimaginable in 1879
I take it you've never read Jules Verne?
Anyway, here is the judgement of one Cardinal about this secret.
"In order to answer your question Monseigneur, I have just read the two pamphlets concerning which you desire to know my opinion. It is absolutely unfavourable. The authors of previous publications, to do with this secret, were condemned, if not because of the secret itself, at least because of the scope and the consequences they gave it. A similar fate awaits this present publication.
" I. - It seems, in fact, that we do not have here the secret handed by the Bishop of Grenoble's envoys to HH Pope Pius IX in 1851. In its present form, it was written by Milanie Calvat, but on various occasions and in successive fragments, and seems rather to be the result of a personal composition than an exact repetition of the original text given to Pius IX, and which is said to be no longer in the Vatican.
"II. - As it stands, this secret has no value other than as Milanie Calvat's personal statement, supported by the signature of two bishops from around Naples. Milanie seems to have been sincerely pious, but she may have been deluded, and it seems that her 'mission', instead of extending to our period, ended with the Church's recognition of the reality of the Apparition.
"III. - What is certain, according to a well informed author, is that the first versions of the secret were less developed than the last; it is probable, therefore, that under the influence of the setting in which her life ended, Milanie amplified the first form of the writing she had had sent to the Pope; for certain, we do not have here an official copy of the secret handed to Pius IX. Only the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office could, with the Pope's consent, seek out the original and so determine, against the original contents, its true authority.
"IV. - The nature of this secret, as we read it today, is so strange, arranged in such a confused manner, containing particular allusions to politics, it seems to favour, in such a very precise way, the errors of the ancient millenarists - in that it announces a renovation to be accomplished in time and on earth, unlike the teaching of the true religion about the general resurrection at the end of the world, and about the eternal happiness of the elect - that one necessarily hesitates to ascribe it a heavenly origin. Finally, and more especially, the commentator has taken such liberty in evaluating and judging the Catholic hierarchy, in all its degrees, that one wonders what basis there is for the severity of his words, which would not be out of place in the pages of a newspaper most hostile to the Christian faith. One also wonders how he allies the true piety he professes with the harshness he displays towards persons worthy of every respect.
"What aggravates the rashness of these judgements is that they are, on several occasions, given in a form that is both mocking and insulting, which is belied by the character and dignity of the persons the author sees fit to denounce.
"The holy pope Pius IX, venerable cardinals such as Mgr Perraud, Mgr Lugon and Mgr Sevin, bishops like Mgr Maurin of Grenoble, and all his predecessors down to Mgr Ginoulhiac, of such learned memory: all are included in the hurtful reproaches, which the commentator dares to attribute in the first place to the Most Blessed Virgin Herself!
"And all this is written and published, offered and distributed for those who would like to find in these pages food for their curiosity. Would they learn charity and love by learning to despise the legitimate authority of the priesthood? For, the remarkable thing is that this Christian, this Catholic, seems to savour a sort of enjoyment in scourging the leaders of holy Church, those whom he mocks in calling them 'our princes'
"You will not, therefore be surprised, Monseigneur, if I condemn these two pamphlets by Dr Mariavi, if I rebuke their spirit and their character, and if I advise the faithful not to read them.
"With my affectionate respect,
A., cardinal de Cabrihres
Bishop of Montpellier.
(Le Hidec, Les secrets de La Salette, p. 164-167)
62 Reasons Why...
In Conscience, We Cannot Attend the New Mass
Compiled by the priests of the diocese of
|2,000 years of venerable usage
Tried and True
|Fabricated in 1969
|Clearly a Sacrifice
An Altar, A Priest
|Clearly a Meal
|Centered on God
Structured for reverence
|Centered on Man
Loose structure invites abuses
One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic
Lacks all Four Marks
|Codified at Council of Trent
By a Pope Saint
(Pope St. Pius V)
For approval of six
Multitudes of saints, martyrs,
Empty seminaries, decreased
Mass attendance, massive defections!
Never Abrogated by Holy Mother Church!
|The New Mass
An Experiment That Failed!
Note: all quotes followed by an asterix "*" are from the Letter of Cardinals A. Ottaviani and A. Bacci to Pope Paul VI, dated September 25,
1969 enclosing "A Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae."
1. Because the New Mass is not an unequivocal Profession of the Catholic Faith (which the traditional Mass is), it is ambiguous and Protestant. Therefore since we pray as we believe, it follows that we cannot pray with the New Mass in Protestant Fashion and still believe as Catholics!
2. Because the changes were not just slight ones but actually "deal with a fundamental renovation ... a total change ... a new creation." (Msgr. A. Bugnini, co-author of the New Mass)
3. Because the New Mass leads us to think "that truths ... can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic Faith is bound forever." *
4. Because the New Mass represents "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent" which, in fixing the "canons," provided an "insurmountable barrier to any heresy against the integrity of the Mystery." *
5. Because the difference between the two is not simply one of mere detail or just modification of ceremony, but "all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place (in the New Mass), if it subsists at all." *
6. Because "Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment in the faithful who already show signs of uneasiness and lessening of Faith." *
7. Because in times of confusion such as now, we are guided by the words of our Lord: "By their fruits you shall know them." Fruits of the New Mass are: 30% decrease in Sunday Mass attendance in U.S. (NY Times 5/24/75), 43% decrease in France (Cardinal Marty), 50% decrease in Holland (NY Times 1/5/76).
8. Because "amongst the best of the clergy the practical result (of the New Mass) is an agonizing crisis of conscience..." *
9. Because in less than seven years after the introduction of the New Mass, priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307 -- almost 50%! (Holy See Statistics)
10. Because "The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition ... do not seem to us sufficient." *
11. Because the New Mass does not manifest Faith in the Real Presence of our Lord -- the Traditional Mass manifests it unmistakably.
12. Because the New Mass confuses the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with His MYSTICAL Presence among us (proximating Protestant doctrine).
13. Because the New Mass blurs what ought to be a sharp difference between the HIERARCHIC Priesthood and the common priesthood of the people (as does Protestantism).
14. Because the New Mass favors the heretical theory that it is THE FAITH of the people and not THE WORDS OF THE PRIEST which makes Christ present in the Eucharist.
15. Because the insertion of the Lutheran :"Prayer of the Faithful" in the New Mass follows and puts forth the Protestant error that all the people are priests.
16. Because the New Mass does away with the Confiteor of the priest, makes it collective with the people, thus promoting Luther's refusal to accept the Catholic teaching that the priest is judge, witness and intercessor with God.
17. Because the New Mass gives us to understand that the people concelebrate with the priest -- which is against Catholic theology!
18. Because six Protestant ministers collaborated in making up the New Mass: George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.
19. Because just as Luther did away with the Offertory -- since it very clearly expressed the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass -- so also the inventors of the New Mass did away with it, reducing it to a simple Preparation of the Gifts.
20. Because enough Catholic theology has been removed that Protestants can, while keeping their antipathy for the True Roman Catholic Church, use the text of the New Mass without difficulty. Protestant Minister Thurian (co-consulter for the 'New Mass' project) said that a fruit of the New mass "will perhaps be that the non-Catholic communities will be ale to celebrate the Lord's Supper using the same prayers as the Catholic Church." (La Croix 4/30/69)
21. Because the narrative manner of the Consecration in the New Mass infers that it is only a memorial and not a true sacrifice (Protestant Thesis)
22. Because by grave omissions, the New Mass leads us to believe that it is only a meal (Protestant doctrine) and not a sacrifice for the remission of sins (Catholic Doctrine).
23. Because the changes such as: table instead of altar; facing people instead of tabernacle; Communion in the hand, etc., emphasize Protestant doctrines (e.g., Mass is only a meal; priest only a president of the assembly; Eucharist is NOT the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, but merely a piece of bread, etc.)
24. Because Protestants themselves have said "the new Catholic Eucharistic prayers have abandoned the false (sic) perspective of sacrifice offered to God." (La Croix 12/10/69)
25. Because we are faced with the dilemma: either we become Protestantized by worshipping with the New Mass, or else we preserve our Catholic Faith by adhering faithfully to the traditional Mass, the "Mass of All Time."
26. Because the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: "The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidence of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord." (Par. 7 Intro. to the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69)
27. Because by means of ambiguity, the New Mass pretends to please Catholics while pleasing Protestants; thus it is "double-tongued" and offensive to God who abhors any kind of hypocrisy: "Cursed be ... the double-tongued for they destroy the peace of many." (Sirach 28:13)
28. Because beautiful, familiar Catholic hymns which have inspired people for centuries, have been thrown out and replaced with new hymns strongly Protestant in sentiment, further deepening the already distinct impression that one is no longer attending a Catholic function.
29. Because the New Mass contains ambiguities subtly favoring heresy, which is more dangerous than if it were clearly heretical since a half-heresy half resembles the Truth!
30. Because Christ has only one Spouse, the Catholic Church, and her worship service cannot also serve religions that are at enmity with her.
31. Because the New Mass follows the format of Cranmer's heretical Anglican Mass, and the methods used to promote it follow precisely the methods of the English heretics.
32. Because Holy Mother Church canonized numerous English Martyrs who were killed because they refused to participate in a Mass such as the New Mass!
33. Because Protestants who once converted to Catholicism are scandalized t to see that the New Mass is the same as the one they attended as Protestants. One of them, Julien Green, asks: "Why did we convert?"
34. Because statistics show a great decrease in conversions to Catholicism following the use of the New Mass. Conversions, which were up to 100,000 a year in the U.S., have decreased to less than 10,000! And the number of people leaving the Church far exceeds those coming in.
35. Because the Traditional Mass has forged many saints. "Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it ..." (Pope Paul VI, Const. Apost. Missale Romanum)
36. Because the nature of the New Mass is such as to facilitate profanations of the Holy Eucharist, which occur with a frequency unheard of with the Traditional Mass.
37. Because the New Mass, despite appearances, conveys a New Faith, not the Catholic Faith. It conveys Modernism and follows exactly the tactics of Modernism, using vague terminology in order to insinuate and advance error.
38. Because by introducing optional variations, the New Mass undermines the unity of the liturgy, with each priest liable to deviate as he fancies under the guise of creativity. Disorder inevitably results, accompanied by lack of respect and irreverence.
39. Because many good Catholic theologians, canonists and priests do not accept the New Mass, and affirm that they are unable to celebrate it in good conscience.
40. Because the New Mass has eliminated such things as: genuflections (only three remain), purification of the priests fingers in the chalice, preservation from all profane contact of priest's fingers after Consecration, sacred altar stone and relics, three altar clothes (reduced to one), all of which "only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated." *
41. Because the traditional Mass, enriched and matured by centuries of Sacred Tradition, was codified (not invented) by a Pope who was a saint, Pius V; whereas the New Mass was artificially fabricated by six Protestant ministers and a 33rd degree Freemason, i.e., Msgr. A Bugnini who was later exiled from the Vatican because of his ties with Freemasonry.
42. Because the errors of the New Mass which are accentuated in the vernacular version are even present in the Latin text of the New Mass.
43. Because the New Mass, with its ambiguity and permissiveness, exposes us to the wrath of God by facilitating the risk of invalid consecrations: "Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo Missae with the intention of 'doing what the Church does,' consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it!" *
44. Because the abolition of the Traditional Mass recalls the prophecy of Daniel 8:12: "And he was given power against the perpetual sacrifice because of the sins of the people" and the observation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori that because the Mass is the best and most beautiful thing which exists in the Church here below, the devil has always tried by means of heretics to deprive us of it.
45. Because in places where the Traditional Mass is preserved, the Faith and fervor of the people are greater. Whereas the opposite is true where the New Mass reigns (Report on the Mass, Diocese of Campos, ROMA, Buenos Aires #69, 8/81)
46. Because along with the New Mass goes also a new catechism, a new morality, new prayers, new Code of Canon law, new calendar, -- in a word, a NEW CHURCH, a complete revolution from the old. "The liturgical reform ... do not be deceived, this is where the revolution begins." (Msgr. Dwyer, Archbishop of Birmingham, spokesman of Episcopal Synod)
47. Because the intrinsic beauty of the Traditional Mass attracts souls by itself; whereas the New Mass, lacking any attractiveness of its own, has to invent novelties and entertainments in order to appeal to the people.
48. Because the New mass embodies numerous errors condemned by Pope St. Pius V at the Council of Trent (Mass totally in vernacular, words of Consecration spoken aloud, etc. See Condemnation of Jansenist Synod of Pistia), and errors condemned by Pope Pius XII (e.g., altar in form of table. See Mediator Dei).
49. Because the New Mass attempts to transform the Catholic Church into a new, ecumenical church embracing all ideologies and all religions -- right and wrong, truth and error -- a goal long dreamt of by the enemies of the Catholic Church.
50. Because the New Mass, in removing the salutations and final blessing when the priest celebrates alone, shows a denial of, and disbelief in the dogma of the Communion of Saints.
51. Because the altar and tabernacle are now separated, thus marking a division between Christ in His priest-and-Sacrifice-on-the-altar, from Christ in His Real Presence in the tabernacle, "two things which of their very nature, must remain together." (Pius XII)
52. Because the New Mass no longer constitutes a vertical worship between God and man, but rather a horizontal worship between man and man.
53. Because the New Mass, although appearing to conform to the dispositions of Vatican Council II, in reality opposes its instructions, since the Council itself declared its desire to conserve and promote the Traditional Rite.
54. Because the Traditional Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V has never been legally abrogated and therefore remains a true rite of the Roman Catholic Church by which the faithful may fulfill their Sunday obligation.
55. Because Pope St. Pius V granted a perpetual indult, valid "for always," to celebrate the Traditional Mass freely, licitly, without scruple of conscience, punishment, sentence or censure (Papal Bull "Quo Primum")
56. Because Pope Paul VI, when promulgating the New Mass, himself declared. "The rite ... by itself is NOT a dogmatic definition ..." (11/19/69)
57. Because Pope Paul VI, when asked by Cardinal Heenan of England, if he was abrogating or prohibiting the Tridentine Mass, answered: "It is not our intention to prohibit absolutely the Tridentine Mass."
58. Because "In the Libera Nos of the New Mass, the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned; her and their intercession thus no longer asked, even in time of peril." *
59. Because in none of the tree new Eucharistic Prayers (of the New Mass) is there any reference ... to the state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento, thus undermining faith in the redemptive nature of the Sacrifice.*
60. Because we recognize the Holy Father's supreme authority in his universal government of Holy Mother Church, but we know that even this authority cannot impose upon us a practice which is so CLEARLY against the Faith: a Mass that is equivocal and favoring heresy and therefore disagreeable to God.
61. Because, as stated in Vatican Council I, the "Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of Faith delivered through the Apostles." (Dnz 3070)
62. Because heresy, or whatever clearly favors heresy, cannot be a matter for obedience. Obedience is at the service of Faith and not Faith at the service of obedience! In this foregoing case then, "One must obey God before men." (Acts 5:29)
* Letter of Cardinals A. Ottaviani and A. Bacci to Pope Paul VI A Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae."
I've never found this to be the case, her research seems to be deep and accurate to me. I just read her defense of the Catholic Church against Protestant and liberal Catholic attacks on how Galileo was handled, and she did a masterful job presenting the facts, (scientific, theological, and historical). I finished her article and can now clearly see how all the Protestant claims that the Catholic Church was "repressive" and "hated science and progress" were bunk. Solange Hertz impeccably defends the traditional, orthodox Roman Catholic Church against asaults from modernists, freemasons, Protestants and others, perhaps this is why you don't like her?
Actually, there are canon lawyers who dispute the legitimacy of Fr. Feeney's "excommunication". In fact, he never arrived in Rome for his 'hearing' because the Vatican did not allow him his canonical right to be represented by a Canon Lawyer, nor did they ever notify him of the nature of the original charges they were bringing against him. And it is very strange that it was the Church itself, (through Cardinal Medeiros), that requested the Vatican lift the censure against Fr. Feeney, which they did without asking him to recant anything, but merely asked him to make a profession of faith. He got shafted by the modernists who seek to change the Catholic Church just as surely as Melanie Calvet did. None of your aruments are convincing, and that nonsensical cunard that I am excommunicated and "urged to confession" because I posted some excerpts of the La Sallette prohpesy was right off the wall and a carefully crafted crock of b.s. from the start.
Every Catholic knows that the Index of Prohibited Books was permanently vacated by Pope Paul VI, along with all of the Church's eccliastical penalties connected with them. And since the La Sallette apparition is fully approved, and Melanie Calvet's 1879 brochure has the Imprimatur of the Bishop of Lecce, we have the assurance there is nothing doctrinally unsound contained in the prophesies.
"The quote, if genuine, refers to the true original secret which is approved by the Church (though still not published), and not Melanie's false concoction published in 1878."
The quote has a source and a date. And it's ludicrous and downright perverse to imply that the original, UNPUBLISHED, UNRELEASED account of the apparitions of La Sallette could bring the wrath of the masonic powers to bear upon Melanie Calvet. They wouldn't even know what she said. This quote from the official Vatican Newspaper cannot possibly refer to anything but the 1879 publication. I'm beginning to see exactly what I'm dealing with here.
It is interesting to note that Jesus said that we will be held accountable for every slander and idle word we spew out against others, and that the detractors of Melanie Calvet attempt to prove her prophesy false primarily by attacking her sanity and her character. The references you have shown me do little other than assail the mental stability and character of this visionary, chosen personally by the Mother of God to pass on Her heavenly messages. Which psychiatrist interviewed her, which of the Cardinals who viciously attack her character had known her personally or had even met her?
Throughout the Old Testament the prophets got assailed, calumniated, tortured and murdered by their own, right through John the Baptist. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by the Church as a heretic, and Saint Padre Pio was forced to remain in his cell for three years, forbidden to say Mass, forbidden to answer any mail, and forbidden to hear any confessions; and he was calumniated by the Vatican Inquisitors as they claimed he made his own wounds and poured nitic acid over them. Padro Pio was also investigated by the Vatican for sexual transgressions and fraud. Certain Vatican officials wanted him destroyed.
There have always been "powers and principalities" that seek to destroy messages from Heaven, and the Vatican has been frequently wrong throughout the ages regarding many visionaries, mystics and Saints. In this particular case you have often referred me to the hearsay and embittered, unproven allegations by certain Church heirarchy regarding Melanie Calvet, and always they attack her character, raging at the prophesies that appear to reveal their own shortcomings and pierce their pride.
All any faithful Catholic believer really need know is that the Marian appartions that occurred at La Sallette to Melanie Calvet are fully Church approved, and that her 1879 brochures detailing in full the messages and secrets carry the Imprimatur of the Bishop of Lecce, allowing us to trust they are free from doctrinal error. That the Vatican decided, more than 35 years after the fact, to place certain of the various La Sallette publications on the proscribed literature list does not even necessarily condemn all that were printed, which were many. There is to this day a great confusion surrounding the 1879 brochure, the original is missing from the archives, the 1846 version remains unpublished, the Index of Prohibited Books and all their eccliastical censures have been abolished, and the original censure stated that the prophesies could not be discussed, and did not forbid them from being read, possessed, or published.
I'm tired of this little debate, nice talking with you though.
Jules Verne was a genius, and remains a literary monument, his books are still read and popular a century after his death. Now you place the "embittered, twisted, neurotic" mind of Melanie Calvet on a par with Jules Verne? You can't have it both ways.
btw, Verne never prophesied that the earth's weather patterns would be altered.
The ecclesiastical censures are abolished, but not the moral censures, which are inherent in the spreading and possession of what is false, malicious, and evil. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has reminded Catholics that this is still so:
II. Regarding the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, the Congregation states:
1. The Interpretation given by some individuals to a Decision approved by Paul VI on 14 October 1966 and promulgated on 15 November of that year, in virtue of which writings and messages resulting from alleged revelations could be freely circulated in the Church, is absolutely groundless. This decision actually referred to the "abolition of the Index of Forbidden Books" and determined that --- after the relevant censures were lifted --- the moral obligation still remained of not circulating or reading those writings which endanger faith and morals. (signed , NOTIFICATION ON VASSULA RYDEN, 4 December 1996)
I'm tired of this little debate, nice talking with you though.
Yes, you would be. Solange Hertz is not to be compared to the Magisterium the Church. And you remain in your sins and estranged from the Sacraments. The text of the 1915 Decree is perfectly clear. The dissemination of the 1879 so-called Secret of LaSalette is forbidden on pain of interdict, and you are busily spreading this so-called Secret here in violation of a valid disciplinary decree that you are well aware of the contents of.
Be careful while you are running away with your head between your legs. You cannot see where you are going and can fall into the snares of the Evil One.
A simple demand - Obey Holy Church.
Is L'Osservatore Romano really published on a Holy Day of Obligation?
What page is the quote from? What column?
Its not a real citation - just an assertion.