A Late October Liturgy Message

[AJV]

Yes, the Ottaviani Intervention helped change my views on the Tridentine Mass. Believe it or not I was once against the TLM!

Cardinal Ottaviani may not have stopped the NO, but he did help me to discover the beauty and wonder of our tradition and our Liturgy

Unfortunately Caesar, Cardinal Ottiviani never wrote the Critical Study. Some of the things criticised in it (like the genuflections) are things proposed in liturgical conferences in the 1950’s in which he himself participated. Certainly Roman cardinals would have known better than to criticize the use of red on Good Friday. At least to me, it seems certain parts of the Critical study contain errors like when it refers to the Lutherans and Calvinists teaching that the priests and people both “offer” the Lord’s supper (referring to a conjoined offering by priest and people suppsoedly taking place in the Missal of 1970). Calvinsts definitely, don’t believe in any sacrifice or offering in the Lord’s Supper. Likewise, the thing about the mediator in the Confiteor- is it to be concluded that because the server/ministers say the Misereatur after the priests confession that they are also mediators?

 

[steve_green_2]

Let’s all sacrifice and pray that maybe this is the month (Nov.) the universal indult is issued !!!

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/images/sspx-q.jpg

 

[AJV]

Yes, the Ottaviani Intervention helped change my views on the Tridentine Mass. Believe it or not I was once against the TLM!

Cardinal Ottaviani may not have stopped the NO, but he did help me to discover the beauty and wonder of our tradition and our Liturgy

Unfortunately Caesar, Cardinal Ottiviani never wrote the Critical Study. Some of the things criticised in it (like the genuflections) are things proposed in liturgical conferences in the 1950’s in which he himself participated. Certainly Roman cardinals would have known better than to criticize the use of red on Good Friday. To my knowledge, Ottavioani celebrated versus populum himself and didn’t say anything in 1958 when Bugnini and McMannus provided interpretations of a decree on versus populum allowing “tables” to be set up. At least to me, it seems certain parts of the Critical study contain errors like when it refers to the Lutherans and Calvinists teaching that the priests and people both “offer” the Lord’s supper (referring to a conjoined offering by priest and people suppsoedly taking place in the Missal of 1970). Calvinsts definitely, don’t believe in any sacrifice or offering in the Lord’s Supper. Likewise, the thing about the mediator in the Confiteor- is it to be concluded that because the server/ministers say the Misereatur after the priests confession that they are also mediators?

There is also the repeated allegation of moving toward “Protestant” forms of worship in the texts. This assumption seems to be made because of what is omitted. Nevertheless EVEN with the omissions the NO didn’t come close to the liturgical texts used by Protestants in 1970. But if anyone can show me where I would be happy to know.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

IThe point remains: in the same year, the false archbishop of Canterbury was received with signs of episcopal dignity and respect, while a true archbishop received no such signs.

Well, you haven’t supplied the exact timeline for the 1976 encounters, but could it be that when Abp. Lefebvre (why not mention his name - could his later choice to die excommunicate perhaps dampen the intended effect of your story?) met with Paul VI he was presiding over a society of clerics all of whom were suspended a divinis? Perhaps His Holiness was simply being nicer to the man not pretending to be in perfectly good standing with the Catholic Church.

 

[AlexV]

As Lefebvre himself noted with a fine sense of Gallic irony, Paul was asserting that Lefebvre couldn’t use the Tridentine Mass. So, the suspensio a divinis was clearly from the Novus Ordo.

Paul’s treatment of Lefebvre was a good example of the ecumenism of the left: tolerance and room for everything EXCEPT what we all did for centuries.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

As Lefebvre himself noted with a fine sense of Gallic irony, Paul was asserting that Lefebvre couldn’t use the Tridentine Mass. So, the suspensio a divinis was clearly from the Novus Ordo.

Paul’s treatment of Lefebvre was a good example of the ecumenism of the left: tolerance and room for everything EXCEPT what we all did for centuries.

Oh, so you’re confirming that Paul VI was wondering why a suspended cleric was rendering obedience as if all were hunky-dory?

BTW - I do find the Gallic irony rather humorous. Nice turn of the tables. But even though I don’t like all the elbow rubbing that comes off as ignoring substantive and destructive differences, I support Paul VI in treating Abp. Lefebvre with suspicion.

 

[AlexV]

And I support Lefebvre in treating a pope with suspicion who, for the first time in 400 years, abandons the codified Mass of centuries and replaces it with a fabrication of a committee and then makes it next to impossible to use the codified Mass of centuries “legally”.

 

[USMC]

There is also the repeated allegation of moving toward “Protestant” forms of worship in the texts. This assumption seems to be made because of what is omitted. Nevertheless EVEN with the omissions the NO didn’t come close to the liturgical texts used by Protestants in 1970. But if anyone can show me where I would be happy to know.

L’Osservatore Romano (The Vatican newspaper): “Liturgical reform has taken a notable step forward on the path of ecumenism. **It has come closer to the liturgical forms of the Lutheran Church.” ** (on October 13, 1967)

 

[Stu]

There is also the repeated allegation of moving toward “Protestant” forms of worship in the texts. This assumption seems to be made because of what is omitted. Nevertheless EVEN with the omissions the NO didn’t come close to the liturgical texts used by Protestants in 1970. But if anyone can show me where I would be happy to know.

AJV,

You may enjoy the four articles Father Z did regarding “pro multis”. They hit on some of these elements.

Vivat Iesus.

 

[AJV]

L’Osservatore Romano (The Vatican newspaper): “Liturgical reform has taken a notable step forward on the path of ecumenism. **It has come closer to the liturgical forms of the Lutheran Church.” ** (on October 13, 1967)

Yes, I’ve seen that quote around on various websites. I’m still trying to understand it. For starters: Obstacle one: no Lutheran Eucharistic Prayer. Obstacle 2: Paraphrases or alternative hymns/motets for the Gloria and Sanctus.Obstacle 3: No fixed Offertory prayers said by a Lutheran minister.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I believe you mean your impression of the Truth. While Truth can’t be altered, your impression can be. Thankfully, Truth is not determined by you!

Glad to see you’re not bothered too much, Thursday. You might as well get used to it because the Great and Powerful Bombay hates it when people disagree with him.

You seem determined to continue with your personal sniping and hijacking of this thread.

I would like everyone to witness once again who engages in name calling and personal attack and who doesn’t.

 

[batteddy]

Puzzleannie, if a pope said to do jumping jacks at the Consecration under pain of obedience, would we be obliged to obey?

I ask exactly this question because one “Catholic” website says we would be.

Well, I am a huge traditionalist and would see the Tridentine made mandatory again if I could…of 1954, not just 1962.

But IF the Pope did order this, we would technically be obliged to obey.

Obedience extends to everything, however silly, except for sin.

If you believe that doing jumping jacks during the consecration is somehow absolutely objectively sinful…then obedience of course would not extend to it.

But I don’t see any proscription in natural or divine law against it specifically.

Under current norms of canon law and culture, it would not be considered reverent or sacred and would be a very profane thing to do.

But IF the Pope promulgated such a directive, the action would by the very fact of that promulgation be blessed, and would thus be consecrated for worship AS sacred (and I probably would refuse to do it anywhere BUT church, seeing as it is now consecrated for sacred service)

 

[AlexV]

Where, oh where, is the great sensus fidelium?

Where, oh where, is the great Catholic living spirit of wonder and awe?

How did it get so lost in a world of “check the document and obey, otherwise welcome to disobedience, schism, and who knows what else”?

At least someone has the honesty to admit it. We must obey no matter what a pope says, so long as it’s not sin.

If he says chuck the Roman Canon, bye bye Roman Canon.

If he said chuck Gregorian Chant, bye bye.

If he said jumping jacks…get ready to jump, unless a specific Indult frees you from the Norm of Jumping Jacks.

This is sad. The Church hasn’t seen a period like this in her history for a LONG time.

 

[bear06]

Where, oh where, is the great sensus fidelium?

Where, oh where, is the great Catholic living spirit of wonder and awe?

How did it get so lost in a world of “check the document and obey, otherwise welcome to disobedience, schism, and who knows what else”?

At least someone has the honesty to admit it. We must obey no matter what a pope says, so long as it’s not sin.

If he says chuck the Roman Canon, bye bye Roman Canon.

If he said chuck Gregorian Chant, bye bye.

If he said jumping jacks…get ready to jump, unless a specific Indult frees you from the Norm of Jumping Jacks.

This is sad. The Church hasn’t seen a period like this in her history for a LONG time.

Uh, the Church hasn’t seen any of the above. What is the Pope formally teaching us today that is wrong, sin or any other way you want to put it? How about we deal with things that have happened rather than something that might (although almost certainly never will)? I want to know what the Pope (or last 3 for that matter) is directing us to do that is wrong, a sin, etc.? You like to deal with the far fetched.

 

[AlexV]

“Farfetched”.

Like telling a prelate c. 1959 that within a decade Latin would be all but nonexistent in the vast majority of Latin Rite liturgies, that the words of consecration would be changed, that there would be 4 Canons instead of 1, that dozens of saints - many ancient martyrs - would be cut from the liturgy, that significant numbers of priests would seek dispensation from their vows, that enrollments in seminaries in the West would plummet, that a new Missal would be fabricated in a Swiss hotel room and replace the tradition of centuries, that Gregorian Chant, far from being fostered and encouraged and spread, would be virtually dead in the Latin Rite in most locales, that churches would be drastically renovated, in some cases destroyed and replaced with utterly different-looking edifices…

Yeah. Farfetched.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

“Farfetched”.

Like telling a prelate c. 1959 that within a decade Latin would be all but nonexistent in the vast majority of Latin Rite liturgies, that the words of consecration would be changed, that there would be 4 Canons instead of 1, that dozens of saints - many ancient martyrs - would be cut from the liturgy, that significant numbers of priests would seek dispensation from their vows, that enrollments in seminaries in the West would plummet, that a new Missal would be fabricated in a Swiss hotel room and replace the tradition of centuries, that Gregorian Chant, far from being fostered and encouraged and spread, would be virtually dead in the Latin Rite in most locales, that churches would be drastically renovated, in some cases destroyed and replaced with utterly different-looking edifices…

Yeah. Farfetched.

Sounds like a new springtime.

Can’t wait to see what they have planned for summer.

 

[AJV]

The signs for some things were there in1959. Tables being allowed officially for example, without objection (cf. Worship I think its volume XXVII). Increasing permission for the vernacular. Temporary changes announced in the missal but priests forbidden to change things on their authority. The glorious tradition of verus populum finding no objection from Pius XII. So many saints downranked. (and speaking of saints on the calendar, how many were proposed for deletion right from 1740!)

Though are are probably right on the Canon and Consecration.

 

[LilyM]

“Farfetched”.

Like telling a prelate c. 1959 that within a decade Latin would be all but nonexistent in the vast majority of Latin Rite liturgies, that the words of consecration would be changed, that there would be 4 Canons instead of 1, that dozens of saints - many ancient martyrs - would be cut from the liturgy, that significant numbers of priests would seek dispensation from their vows, that enrollments in seminaries in the West would plummet, that a new Missal would be fabricated in a Swiss hotel room and replace the tradition of centuries, that Gregorian Chant, far from being fostered and encouraged and spread, would be virtually dead in the Latin Rite in most locales, that churches would be drastically renovated, in some cases destroyed and replaced with utterly different-looking edifices…

Yeah. Farfetched.

The first Mass was fabricated from scratch in an upper room (in an inn possibly?) in Jerusalem as I recall rightly …

and if you’d told those guys that within 20 years they’d be saying goodbye to circumcision and dietary restrictions, to synagogues - and that they’d be gasp preaching mainly to GENTILES! Their reaction would be exactly the same as yours I should imagine.

And I imagine those Jewish and Roman persecutions of the first few decades put a bit of a dampener on conversion and priesthood rates as well.

 

[bear06]

“Farfetched”.

Like telling a prelate c. 1959 that within a decade Latin would be all but nonexistent in the vast majority of Latin Rite liturgies, that the words of consecration would be changed, that there would be 4 Canons instead of 1, that dozens of saints - many ancient martyrs - would be cut from the liturgy, that significant numbers of priests would seek dispensation from their vows, that enrollments in seminaries in the West would plummet, that a new Missal would be fabricated in a Swiss hotel room and replace the tradition of centuries, that Gregorian Chant, far from being fostered and encouraged and spread, would be virtually dead in the Latin Rite in most locales, that churches would be drastically renovated, in some cases destroyed and replaced with utterly different-looking edifices…

Yeah. Farfetched.

No.Far fetched like your previous list.

Do you think that the words pro multis are essential for the Consecration? Just curious.

As far as the canons go. Isn’t the Pope in charge of the disciplines in the church and are we not to obey him? I can’t help but quote from Pastor Aeternus. I’m sure that some will accuse me of quoting out of context but I ask people to actually read the document before they buy this goofy argument which is quite a red herring. ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are **bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline **and government of the Church throughout the world.

Unless you are going to say that the Pope is doing something sinful, I’m really not sure how you could have a problem with us obeying him in regards to the canons or the saints in the liturgy. Personally, I prefer the one but I certainly would bring this up as a way of putting down Paul VI or any of the following popes.

Can anyone give me a Church document that proves we shouldn’t follow the popes in regards to these?

BTW, as for the rest of your list, when did the pope direct us to do these things. The argument is changing. You seem to on one hand ask us when we think we should obey the Pope and on the other hand you are bringing up things which the pope did not direct us to do.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Supposing Alex’s assertions are true (in tone AND fact): What precisely are we supposed to do about it? Go into schism? Refuse to go to Mass? Go to Mass and stand up and disrupt it? Chant “not valid, not valid” at the consecration? It’s either a validly promulgated Mass or it isn’t. If it is (and I don’t think the Church can offer anything other than that), just let it go, go to your indult Mass and leave the rest of us to our ignorance, pray for us, your crown will be all the brighter in Heaven. If it isn’t, tell us what precisely we’re supposed to do about it? Ask for the Tridentine? I don’t* like* the Tridentine, I don’t want it to become the ordinary (since you dislike the term normative) Mass of the Church again. So I’d be lying if I were to tell the Bishop that I’m attached to the Tridentine and he better offer it tout suite. But then, I suspect that you rather think that those NOT attached to the TLM aren’t actually Catholic. And kindly spare us repeats of the grave state of the Church and the world and how it can all be laid at the feet of the Novus Ordo. We’ve heard it all before.

You do this for one reason and one reason only: you like to stir the cat pan. You’ve bought into the idea that the “smoke of Satan” has entered the Church (yes, I know Paul VI said it, but he didn’t say it about the liturgy he promulgated) and you can’t let go of it. Most of us don’t believe that, but then, we’re witless pew-potatoes who blindly follow pope after pope (IF you can call 'em that ) over the precipice. If only we’d listen to you, if only the pope would heed YOUR warning (after all, you did a paper…).