Bishop punishes traditional/orthodox parish

[oat_soda]

“The liturgy is not a show, a spectacle, requiring brilliant producers and talented actors,” he said in interviews with Italian journalist Vittorio Messori. “The life of the liturgy does not consist in ‘pleasant’ surprises and attractive ‘ideas’ but in solemn repetitions.”

i was at world youth day and saw ‘pleasant’ suprises and talented performers. during lauds on saturday night, after the pope had spoken or one of the readings, out of no where a guy came out and started throwing hats into the air and later another guy was juggling torches. it was totally out of place as was the slash like eletric guitar solos during benediction. these are the fruits of the post vatican ii liturgical renewal. i will say though it was quite funny.

i think both bishops and popes were out of line to force the new mass on all the faithful. they should have implemented it on an experimental basis and see how it is accepted and carefully study its fruits in terms of orthodoxy and vocations. after all, it was fabricated by a committee and wasn’t organically developed from existing practices. the pope nor any bishop or priest owns the liturgy. the pope isn’t the origin of it, but God himself. they must preserve what has been handed down to them.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

oat soda:

the pope nor any bishop or priest owns the liturgy. the pope isn’t the origin of it, but God himself. they must preserve what has been handed down to them.

That being the case, the entire liturgy can simply be:“This is My Body” and “This is Blood.” That’s the only bit God Himself handed down, in His Own Voice, aside from the Our Father. All the rest was added.

The Mass has to have the correct form (the above, given us by the Second Person of the Blessed and Most Holy Trinity), the correct intent (does the priest intend to confect the Sacrifice?), and the correct matter (is he using bread containing only wheat flour and water and is he using wine?). Read the life of Cardinal Minsindty (sp.). If he managed, in prison, to come across wine or bread, he consecrated it with the barest form (the above) and consumed the Sacred Species. The point of that little story is that all the rest has risen out of the authority of the Church, is maintained by the authority of the Church, and can be altered by the authority of the Church. She cannot change the form, intent, or matter, but She can alter the rest.

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

It’s already allwed if bishops allow it. Doesn’t Pope Benedict XVI like it? It’s holy and revernt isn’t it?

 

[oat_soda]

The point of that little story is that all the rest has risen out of the authority of the Church, is maintained by the authority of the Church, and can be altered by the authority of the Church. She cannot change the form, intent, or matter, but She can alter the rest.

clearly, the authority of the church or pope is not unlimited. it for instance, can’t change what the apostles taught in matters of faith and morals, like saying the eucharist is not a sacrifice. this means the church and pope serve Tradition. they don’t make it up as they go like the mormons do.

the liturgy in as much as it is a product of the apostles, is unchangeable as well. this is why in the asyrian church of the east, they have an anaphora which lacks the words of concecration. it is valid because it is from the apostles.

to use the bible alone in a critical historical method only expresses opinions. i think the only thing written down was what was unique. most of the liturgy and details of the last supper was omitted.

the church/popes have made many imprudent decisions in the past. i think paul vi’s mass is a good example. im confident history will prove that the reform of the liturgy was carried out poorly. just read “spirit of the liturgy” by B16.

the church is one holy catholic and APOSTOLIC church and not one holy catholic and PAPAL church. our faith is founded on Word through the apostles and not on the pope. he only serves it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

oat soda:

clearly, the authority of the church or pope is not unlimited. it for instance, can’t change what the apostles taught in matters of faith and morals, like saying the eucharist is not a sacrifice. this means the church and pope serve Tradition. they don’t make it up as they go like the mormons do.

the liturgy in as much as it is a product of the apostles, is unchangeable as well. this is why in the asyrian church of the east, they have an anaphora which lacks the words of concecration. it is valid because it is from the apostles.

to use the bible alone in a critical historical method only expresses opinions. i think the only thing written down was what was unique. most of the liturgy and details of the last supper was omitted.

the church/popes have made many imprudent decisions in the past. i think paul vi’s mass is a good example. im confident history will prove that the reform of the liturgy was carried out poorly. just read “spirit of the liturgy” by B16.

the church is one holy catholic and APOSTOLIC church and not one holy catholic and PAPAL church. our faith is founded on Word through the apostles and not on the pope. he only serves it.

I’m aware of of the difference. That doesn’t mean that reformation cannot happen and it doesn’t mean that the Mass of Paul VI is bad. Abuse is bad, whether it’s in the Mass of Paul VI or the TLM (lots of other threads on that).

 

[JCB]

Deacon Ed:

Pope Benedict is quite correct. It hasn’t been prohibited –

Deacon Ed

Deacon Ed -
This is what you said in the reply to my original post which stated the mass was never prohibited:

“This is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. This is why the indult of Ecclesia Dei was established. It would not be needed if your assertion were correct.”

Now you are saying (correctly) that it hasn’t been prohibited, which was my point in the first place . In the future we hope that you will please be clear when you declare what the Roman Catholic Churches teaches for the sake of those who might be influenced.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

JCB:

Deacon Ed -
This is what you said in the reply to my original post which stated the mass was never prohibited:

Now you are saying (correctly) that it hasn’t been prohibited, which was my point in the first place . In the future we hope that you will please be clear when you declare what the Roman Catholic Churches teaches for the sake of those who might be influenced.

To be very precise, it has been suppressed. It requires permission from the local ordinary to celebrate it. Prior to Ecclesia Dei it could not be celebrated at all.

Deacon Ed

 

[twiztedseraph]

The tridentine Mass should most definitely be celebrated. Even if only for purely traditional reasons, for wanting to keep an age old custom alive. It is a very reverent rite and such a beautiful liturgy.

 

[Iohannes]

A little update. I found out that Cardinal Hoyos of (PCED) knew what was going to happen to St. Mary’s by the Sea in Surf City(Huntington Beach), but I am not sure what he did or did not do. It was in his front desk showing him that Bishop Brown will remove the Tridentine Mass despite that fact that people wanted it.

Any priest can privately celebrate the TLM.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Iohannes:

Any priest can privately celebrate the TLM.

Not true. In fact, since the Second Vatican Council the Church discourages “private Masses” saying that at least one member of the faithful (e.g., a server) should be present. For any priest to licitly say the Tridentine Mass requires the permission of his bishop. Of course, he could always say the Tridentine Mass illicitly, but why would someone choose to pray a lie?

Deacon Ed

 

[otm]

## This however means that the praxis of the Roman Church has been liturgically deficient - to put it bluntly: it has been abusive. For a long time.

Which leaves no reason to be impressed when the Church puts her foot down in future. ##

Perhaps you could be more specific as to how and why you feel that the praxis has been liturgically deficient, or abusive?

 

[otm]

oat soda:

clearly, the authority of the church or pope is not unlimited. it for instance, can’t change what the apostles taught in matters of faith and morals, like saying the eucharist is not a sacrifice. this means the church and pope serve Tradition. they don’t make it up as they go like the mormons do.

the liturgy in as much as it is a product of the apostles, is unchangeable as well. this is why in the asyrian church of the east, they have an anaphora which lacks the words of concecration. it is valid because it is from the apostles.

to use the bible alone in a critical historical method only expresses opinions. i think the only thing written down was what was unique. most of the liturgy and details of the last supper was omitted.

the church/popes have made many imprudent decisions in the past. i think paul vi’s mass is a good example. im confident history will prove that the reform of the liturgy was carried out poorly. just read “spirit of the liturgy” by B16.

the church is one holy catholic and APOSTOLIC church and not one holy catholic and PAPAL church. our faith is founded on Word through the apostles and not on the pope. he only serves it.

You might want to read an authentic history of the liturgy, one that is written by someone who has not agenda in the discussion of TLM vs. rite of Paul 6th.

 

[amarischuk]

One great short history of the liturgy is the ‘Short History of the Western Liturgy’ by Theodor Klauser. It is a highly detailed for being so short and was written just prior to Paul VI’s Novus Ordo. It is published by the University of Oxford. This book greatly altered my understanding of the liturgy and though written pre-VII is actually rather good for NO apologetics.

The leading liturgy scholar of the 20th century was Joseph Andreas Jungmann who also has several books on the liturgy including the twice (thrice) revised The Mass of the Roman Rite and the Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great. Get the early versions of the Mass of the Roman Rite (2 vols) instead of the later single volume edition which was highly edited.

Adam