Catholics vs the SSPX

[lentang2]

Just for clarification, this isn’t an SSPX video. This is a Dimond Brothers video. They are sedevacantists.

Not much of an argument to use anything from the Dimond Brothers as a credible source…

 

[BobP123]

I assume you are using the word fabricate because that is what the english version of Cardinal Ratzinger’s book says. True?
Just so you know, the word fabricate means “put together.” It is not being used in the sense of “deception”

Cardinal Ratzinger has written much more recently about the development of the liturgy. He says:
Whatever negative associations may be presented in a word like “fabricate” would seem to be offset by words like “growth and progress.”

That probably explains his watered-down version of the M.P., which was also influenced by those French and German bishops. Too bad we didn’t see the original version of the M.P.

 

[TMC]

It saddens me that some would defame and insult Archbishop Bugnini in order to win a point in an online debate. I do not know the repose of his soul, nor does any man, but I know he spent his entire life in the service of our Church and of God. The Church has repeatedly refuted the insane conspiracy theory that he conspired with Masons to subvert Christ’s Church. And to suggest that not making Cardinal shows he was not a pure or good man?? He was an Archbishop. How many great and holy priests are not even made Monsigneur? Do you suppose the Pope learned he was an idolator who tried to destroy the Church and his punishment was to retire in peace, while none of the evil he allegedly did was undone? Crazy.

If you have a problem with his life’s work, criticize it with gusto. To sit at your keyboard and idly accuse a dead priest of conspiring with evil and worse based on some website or some crackpot theory is shameful.

 

[BobP123]

You’re right. No insults necessary against Bugnini. Pope Paul already did that.

 

[TMC]

He is trying not to be devisive because now he is the Shepard where as before he could speak his mind as a mere Cardinal. Now he has to be careful how he says things because of all the opposition he is facing. Notice how he said, " and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful"
Amazing that the Mass of the Apostles was forbidden and considered harmful.

The Mass of the Apostles? I agree that the TLM is the Mass of the Apostles if that is your point. Of course NO is, too. The precise words and rubrics of of the TLM are not the same as that used 2000 years ago. Nor are the NO’s words and rubrics. But both faithfully follow the instruction “Do this in memory of me.”

 

[Indyann]

You need not knock You Tube or the internet. Had we had these tools 50 years ago Vatican II might have taken a different route.

Okay, now I am really curious. Can you explain just how You Tube would have caused VaticanII to take a different route?

 

[Sure]

That probably explains his watered-down version of the M.P., which was also influenced by those French and German bishops. Too bad we didn’t see the original version of the M.P.

Okay, that’s kind of paranoid. How about we just judge what he has written with imagining that evil people have somehow “forced” him to write something different. We can’t have much of a discussion if we read what he wrote but then say, “He didn’t really mean it.”

 

[GerardP]

Odd considering that he said Mass at a freestanding Altar.

Well, He was writing in response to the machinations of the modernist enemies within the Church. Humani Generis is another encyclical that was ringing the alarm bells. John XXIII unfortunately muffled those bells.

It’s amaing that virtually every error the Holy Father expressed has been officially adopted by his successors. (And they have the temerity to give him credit for having the most influence on the liturgical reform that resulted in Sacrosanctum Concilium which in turn the Novus Ordo is its fruit.)

The Holy Father wrote:

The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances,** provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. **

It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact,

those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice;

those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates;

those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

1. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.

In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

1. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, **on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. **The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
2. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device.

Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform;

** were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments;**

**were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; **

were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings;

and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

 

[GerardP]

I still hold that it is perfectly valid to point out that the condition of the Church was hurt by liturgical abuse. Had the OF Mass always been said properly we would not have nearly the issues we have now (or had worse in the 80’s).

If you research the issue, you’ll find that Sacrosanctum Concilium actually gives the local ordinary broad powers of determining what changes to make without defining real limits.

The main problem of the Novus Ordo is that it is built for innovation. It gains stability by imitating the TLM. But it is not the TLM and doesn’t have within it’s texts and rubrics the “articulation of the faith” as Archbishop Burke described it when comparing the Novus Ordo and the TLM.

I know you don’t like the OF Mass, but please remember when Pope Benedict says, “The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness” he might be correct.

To rephrase the Holy Father, to exclude the new rite would be a recognition of it’s lack of value (impoverishment of the texts and rubrics) and holiness. (is the product of Bugnini–the work of human and humanist hands pleasing to God? know the tree by its fruit.)

There is no theological or liturgical reason to believe that what was removed and replaced in the Novus Ordo doesn’t suit the modernist principles than it does express clearly the Catholic faith.

 

[BobP123]

Okay, now I am really curious. Can you explain just how You Tube would have caused VaticanII to take a different route?

Better communication maybe?

 

[cam100]

… the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See. – Pope Pius XII

The words of Pope Pius XII above should also be kept in mind during this debate. Although we may prefer that the TLM be the only form, we must remember that the liturgy is not subject to our discretion and approval, but to the Holy See’s.

Also, recall that the gate of hell will never prevail against the Church. Let’s say for agument’s sake that freemasons and protestants have infilltrated the Church to destroy the mass. They can try, and they can claim to have succedded, but they cannot destroy the mass, for it is protected. We can be sure that the mass that is promulgated by the Holy See will be authentic,and holy and pleasing to God.

 

[Sure]

To rephrase the Holy Father, to exclude the new rite would be a recognition of it’s lack of value (impoverishment of the texts and rubrics) and holiness. (is the product of Bugnini–the work of human and humanist hands pleasing to God? know the tree by its fruit.)

Gerard,

Come on. That’s not right. You utterly butchered the meaning of what Pope Benedict said.

The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

Re-arranging the words and the negatives as you did above does not make a true statement. Especially when reading it in context.

I could make the true statement:

“Banning GerardP from the Forums would not in fact be consistent with his value and holiness”

But, that does not mean that I could also make the true statement:

“Banning GerardP from the Forums would be a recognition of his lack of value and holiness.”

Especially without context.

Play fair!

 

[GerardP]

… the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See. – Pope Pius XII

The words of Pope Pius XII above should also be kept in mind during this debate. Although we may prefer that the TLM be the only form, we must remember that the liturgy is not subject to our discretion and approval, but to the Holy See’s.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard,

Come on. That’s not right. You utterly butchered the meaning of what Pope Benedict said.

Yes. I know. I was tempted to use the language from the CCC regarding “No Salvation Outside the Church” where they pull the same stunt with “reformulated positively it means…”

Re-arranging the words and the negatives as you did above does not make a true statement. Especially when reading it in context.

I know. I admit it. I was having a little bit of play with what the Holy Father said. Though I do believe what I wrote, I don’t think he would (at least publicly) agree with me.

I could make the true statement:

“Banning GerardP from the Forums would not in fact be consistent with his value and holiness”

But, that does not mean that I could also make the true statement:

“Banning GerardP from the Forums would be a recognition of his lack of value and holiness.”

Especially without context.

Play fair!

You’re right of course. But my more serious point is that excluding the new rite if you don’t see any value or holiness in the new rite is consistent.

It may not be what the Holy Father wants but there is a flip side to his statement for those that are not interested at all in his attempt at “peaceful coexistence” between two distinct liturgical rites sharing the same space in a single “rite” of the Church like the Odd Couple.

The Holy Father thinks the Oscar rite is going to be cleaned up by the presence of the Felix rite. But can they share the same space without driving each other crazy?

 

[stmaria]

TMC;2977350]**It saddens me that some would defame and insult Archbishop Bugnini in order to win a point in an online debate. **I do not know the repose of his soul, nor does any man, but I know he spent his entire life in the service of our Church and of God. The Church has repeatedly refuted the insane conspiracy theory that he conspired with Masons to subvert Christ’s Church. And to suggest that not making Cardinal shows he was not a pure or good man?? He was an Archbishop. How many great and holy priests are not even made Monsigneur? Do you suppose the Pope learned he was an idolator who tried to destroy the Church and his punishment was to retire in peace, while none of the evil he allegedly did was undone? Crazy.

Do you really think that Pope Paul removed Father Bugnin on a whim? He had know Bugnini for over 30 years. That were part of the reform movement in1948.

From Father Bugnini’s book { he wrote much of it in the third person]
*REFORM OF THE LITURGY *PG 8-9 “ **On May 28, 1948 **a commission for liturgical reform was appointed…Father Annibale Bugnini…was appointed secretary…In the twelve years of its existence the commission held eighty-two meetings and worked in absolute secrecy…the commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope { Pius XII}, **who was kept abreast of its work by Monsignor Montini {Pope Paul VI **}

He was first removed by Pope John and** banned from Vatican II**
Footnote pg 30 “ at the same time that Father Bugnini was dismissed from the secretariat of the conciliar commission , he was also discharged from his post as teacher of liturgy…of the Lateran university…the basis for the dismissals was the charge of being a “progressivist,” “pushy,” and an “iconoclast.”…no proof was offered, no clear justification”-October 20,1962

Here he reveals that a Bishop brought information to Pope Paul that claimed he was a freemason.

Pg –91-92 In July of 1975 Bugnini was relieved of his post as the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship, which he had held for over six years, and was sent as pro-nuncio to Iran. Here he comments on his dismissal. “Toward the end of the summer a cardinal who was usually no enthusiast for liturgical reform told me of the existence of a “dossier” which he had seen on [or brought to?] the Pope’s desk and which proved that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason…the charge was absurd, a malignant calumny…I have never had any interest in Freemasonry: I do not know what it is, what it does, or what its purposes are.”

Do you really believe that a man involved in the Church most of his life did not know what a freemason was? Was he? Who knows? But Pope Paul removed him so that that information would not be released.

 

[Sure]

Yes. I know. I was tempted to use the language from the CCC regarding “No Salvation Outside the Church” where they pull the same stunt with “reformulated positively it means…”

I know. I admit it. I was having a little bit of play with what the Holy Father said. Though I do believe what I wrote, I don’t think he would (at least publicly) agree with me.

You’re right of course. But my more serious point is that excluding the new rite if you don’t see any value or holiness in the new rite is consistent.

It may not be what the Holy Father wants but there is a flip side to his statement for those that are not interested at all in his attempt at “peaceful coexistence” between two distinct liturgical rites sharing the same space in a single “rite” of the Church like the Odd Couple.

The Holy Father thinks the Oscar rite is going to be cleaned up by the presence of the Felix rite. But can they share the same space without driving each other crazy?

Thanks for the honesty!

Of course, it is important that he didn’t exclude the new rite, therefore we can presume that he does recognize its value and holiness.

I think there is good reason to believe that the MP will lead to more good liturgy with either form. Watch out - there might even be organic development of BOTH forms!

I know sometimes your not big into submitting to the Holy Father’s ideas, but I have confidence that he has a plan and that he is guided by the Holy Spirit. If he thinks this is the best course to help the Church right now, I am on board. Now go ahead, call me whatever names you want…papolator, irresistable-lover, pope-lover, drunk…whatever.

 

[Sure]

Do you really think that Pope Paul removed Father Bugnin on a whim? He had know Bugnini for over 30 years. That were part of the reform movement in1948.

From Father Bugnini’s book { he wrote much of it in the third person]
*REFORM OF THE LITURGY *PG 8-9 “ **On May 28, 1948 **a commission for liturgical reform was appointed…Father Annibale Bugnini…was appointed secretary…In the twelve years of its existence the commission held eighty-two meetings and worked in absolute secrecy…the commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope { Pius XII}, **who was kept abreast of its work by Monsignor Montini {Pope Paul VI **}

He was first removed by Pope John and** banned from Vatican II**
Footnote pg 30 “ at the same time that Father Bugnini was dismissed from the secretariat of the conciliar commission , he was also discharged from his post as teacher of liturgy…of the Lateran university…the basis for the dismissals was the charge of being a “progressivist,” “pushy,” and an “iconoclast.”…no proof was offered, no clear justification”-October 20,1962

Here he reveals that a Bishop brought information to Pope Paul that claimed he was a freemason.

Pg –91-92 In July of 1975 Bugnini was relieved of his post as the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship, which he had held for over six years, and was sent as pro-nuncio to Iran. Here he comments on his dismissal. “Toward the end of the summer a cardinal who was usually no enthusiast for liturgical reform told me of the existence of a “dossier” which he had seen on [or brought to?] the Pope’s desk and which proved that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason…the charge was absurd, a malignant calumny…I have never had any interest in Freemasonry: I do not know what it is, what it does, or what its purposes are.”

Do you really believe that a man involved in the Church most of his life did not know what a freemason was? Was he? Who knows? But Pope Paul removed him so that that information would not be released.

stmaria,

This is lame.

It’s never been proven and what’s more it doesn’t really matter. The Mass he worked on is what it is. It doesn’t get any better or any worse if we find out that Bugnini was a freemason or wasn’t. It won’t change the text of the Missal either way.

 

[bear06]

You’re right of course. But my more serious point is that excluding the new rite if you don’t see any value or holiness in the new rite is consistent.

It may not be what the Holy Father wants but there is a flip side to his statement for those that are not interested at all in his attempt at “peaceful coexistence” between two distinct liturgical rites sharing the same space in a single “rite” of the Church like the Odd Couple.

The Holy Father thinks the Oscar rite is going to be cleaned up by the presence of the Felix rite. But can they share the same space without driving each other crazy?

Methinks that there’s a whole lot of people who might want to give Auctorum Fidei a read.

The prescription of the synod [of Pistoia] … it adds, “in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstituion and materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, 78, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

And then there’s Pope Gregory XVI:

“…[they] state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church … [which] are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion… While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). … do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope (Encyclical Quo Graviora, October 4, 1833).

I’m running out of space and Dave’s done a nice job of listing the rest of the quotes here:
itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/04/are-ecclesiastical-disciplines.html

 

[stmaria]

stmaria,

This is lame.

It’s never been proven and what’s more it doesn’t really matter. The Mass he worked on is what it is. It doesn’t get any better or any worse if we find out that Bugnini was a freemason or wasn’t. It won’t change the text of the Missal either way.

Just using Bugnini’s own words to answer the poster.
I do find it interesting that Saint Pope Pius V, who codified the Tridentine Mass, was canonized yet Bugnini and Pope Paul VI, who wrote the Novus Ordo, aren’t even considered for sainthood.

 

[bear06]

Just using Bugnini’s own words to answer the poster.
I do find it interesting that Saint Pope Pius V, who codified the Tridentine Mass, was canonized yet Bugnini and Pope Paul VI, who wrote the Novus Ordo, aren’t even considered for sainthood.

LOL! If Pope Paul VI was canonized at this early date there’d be a whole lot of people on these forums whining and crying about that too.

BTW, he has already been given the “Servant of God” title which is the first step in the canonization process so to say that he’s not ever considered for sainthood would be wrong.