B
bear06
Guest
Off the top of my head Mt. 16:18 and John 21:15-17. A Church without a foundation would crumble and a flock that was not fed would starve.
- Status
G
gorman64
Guest
Since you are not a theologian you citing of scripture is of no value…it is a untrained layman’s intrepretation of first sources.
Remember that Christ is the head of the Church…the pope is his representative…his vicar. The Church is not without it’s head during an interregnum…it is Christ who is the head.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
We’re not in an interregnum and we haven’t been in one since April 2005. It was brief. Before that, we had two in 1978, also very, very brief. Before that, there was an interregnum in 1963, brief, before that 1958, also brief. So it’s really not an issue…unless one is a sedevacanteist.
W
wynd
Guest
He may be talking about that, but it seems like you are reading into the quote something that is not there. He seems to suggest that the way the Mass itself came to exist is deficient, not simply liturgical abuses.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
Yes, he did. I am going to quote Cardinal Ratzinger again (even though someone else beat me to it):
"What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.
We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product."
latin-mass-society.org/ratzshow.htm
I do not think this is describing abuses but the actual reform itself. One of the reasons for this assertion is that this preface is to the French edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s book “The Reform of the Roman Rite”. And in that book Klaus Gamber spends pretty much the entire time critiquing the Novus Ordo Missae itself and not its abuses.
Regarding the Ottaviani Intervention, the point I was trying to make still stands even if Cardinal Ottaviani completely reversed himself later. I personally am highly suspicious of his reversal since he was practically blind and his secretary had to tell him what papers to sign. And it makes no sense that he would reverse himself when nothing of any significance in the actual Novus Ordo itself had been changed in response to his critique. However, the point is that Cardinal Ottaviani felt perfectly free to publicly critique the Novus Ordo Missae itself even if he did reverse himself later.
Regarding Fr. Fessio, I am perfectly aware that he advocates a “Reform of the Reform” and not abandoning the Novus Ordo Missae itself. Nevertheless, the point I was making is that regardless of his beliefs, he still publishes books by people who critique the Novus Ordo Missae itself and not only the abuses. One would think if that were out of bounds he would not even publish works such as “Reform of the Reform?” or “Heresy of Formlessness” by Martin Mosebach which is a strong (and very well written) critique of the Novus Ordo Missae.
Further, in another post you linked to an article by Fr. Fessio entitled, “The Mass of Vatican II”. An excellent article, by the way, thanks for the link. I would like to quote the following:
"Now, where did Canon Two come from? From what’s called the Canon of Hyppolytus, composed by a theologian who became a heretic, later was reconciled to the Church and died a martyr. Around the year 215, he wrote an outline of how Mass was celebrated in Rome. It was probably never used as a liturgical text because in the early days of the Church there was no final, written formalization of the liturgy, so this was an outline to be used by the celebrant.
Thus, the Canon of Hyppolytus was perhaps never used as a canon. If it was, it ceased being used at least 1600 years ago. Yet from the Council, which says changes ought to come through organic growth and there should be no changes unless necessary, we come to liturgists saying, “Oh, let’s pull this thing out of the third century and plug it back into the twentieth.” That’s not organic growth; that’s archeologism, specifically criticized by Pius XII in Mediator Dei.
The Third Canon was entirely made up. There has never been a canon like the Third Canon in the history of the Church, except in bits and pieces. Father Vagaggini, with the help of Father Bouyer, I believe, actually constructed it using their knowledge of liturgical history, which was enormous. But they totally invented the canon. It would be like taking piece of a carrot, a piece of a tomato, a piece of a peach and a piece of some tree, then putting them together and saying, “Well, you see that? It’s organic.” But it’s not organic; it’s constructed."
ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp
Now this quote from Fr. Fessio is precisely the type of criticism I am talking about. He is critiquing the actual reform itself, not just the abuses and in the end he even echoes Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote above.
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
Popes are protected from heresy in their public pronouncements. They may be deeply cynical in private.
What a lot of people seem to fail to understand is that a strategy can be sub-optimal without being a total disaster.
For instance let’s say I have a small software company and decide to sell only in the United States. That strategy has something going for it. It makes marketing and support easier. But it might well mean that the company makes fewer sales and lower profits than it would have otherwise because we are losing all the Eurpean and Japanese sales. However if we still make a profit, the company will not go under.
We believe that God will protect the Church from collapse, but not necesarily always inspire the Pope to make perfectly optimal decisions in his management of the institution.
P
Pater_Familias
Guest
** The supposition that the novus ordo has led to a decline in attendance must be considered but ultimately rejected as incorrect and illogical.
It may be the case in the us or europe but lets consider South Africa where i live. At my parish which covers a small geographical area there are 550 active families and 9 masses per week and not enough space. The same applies mutatis mutandis to the rest of continent and South America. Further vocations are on the rise.
If your hypothesis was correct the new mass should have led to a similar decline which it patently has not.
The problem is the evil of modernism which subsists in western society and which is assisted by liberalism and the idolising of individual rights and thought at the cost of all else. Im a conservative catholic that only knows the novus ordo and it has strengthened me -the sacrifice of the mass.
God bless
Arthur
Ad Jesu per Mariam**
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
I am a Catholic who tries to be faithful to the Magisterium… nothing more, nothing less. I don’t feel that ‘pull’ towards the TLM (the NO can be in Latin) most traditionalists do because I never grew up with it. I’ve only attended to Latin Masses in my life, and while reverent, the NO can be just as reverent when celebrated according to the GIRM. Labels are for jars, not people.
P
pnewton
Guest
No, because there actually is a pope, and has been, so there is no such chastisement.
When we talk about the conduct in the world, corruption in the church today, I have to think this indicates a tremendous lack of historical perspective. What century has not been rocked by scandal and sin, inside and outside the Church? Torture for heresy, genocide, murder in the Vatican, selling of Grace; I just don’t see the arguement that things are so worse now.
The Church’s survival through the ages is a testimony that God alone could have accomplishe such a feat.
G
gorman64
Guest
Dear pnewton:
This is all just a red herring. We are not talking about scandal and sin…torture, genocide, murder or the “selling of grace”…we are talking about what purports to be the Catholic Church teaching error. The Church cannot do this…and this She teaches us.
Modernism was called the synthesis of all heresies by a Pope and Saint. It is very, very, bad…but we know the Church will survive…because She tells us this as well.
Gorman
P.S.
This is not a chastisment? How could it be any worse???
P
pnewton
Guest
You were talking about conduct, specifically over the last 100 years. If it is a fish, you caught it.
I do not know what you mean by chastisement, in the context of getting worse. But to answer your question, we could have a plague that would wipe out a third of the world. That would be more sincere than what chastisement you are perceiving. We could go through a real long period without a valid pope, or where the pope was in question, like has happened in the past. If you can not see how it could be worse, you lack imagination. But then I don’t see modernism as a chastisement, any more than I do atheis, communism, arianism or any other -ism the church has had to deal with and oppose in the past.
G
gorman64
Guest
Sorry, I was referring to the conduct of the men in the world…the rejection of the teaching authority of the Church…not the conduct of Church authorities.
G
gorman64
Guest
Men ignoring and offending God in almost every possible way…societies that act as if God does not exist…the ignoring of even the most basic natural law…rampant naturalism.
This is much worse than a plague…souls are lost…not just lives. This naturalism that we are immersed in is evident in your response…a plague being worse than spiritual decay that deadens the souls of millions.
B
bear06
Guest
I think we’re probably on the same page but you’re not seeing it. Do you think that Cardinal Ratzinger didn’t want a reform of the liturgy?
Also, try as I might, the link to the full Fessio article is not working. Let’s try this again:
ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp
freerepublic.com/focus/religion/676348/posts
and for good measure
magisterium.net/ignored.htm
There were nine proposals that were called for and Fr. Fessio goes onto list the things that weren’t called for. As far as the nine proposals, would you think that a Mass that followed these and abandoned the things not called for would be critiqued by Cardinal Ratizinger/the Holy Father?
P
pnewton
Guest
You have me totally confused now. I thought you were saying that the behavior of the people in the world (not the Church) was resulting in chstisement of the world. You are comparing my comments about what constitute chastisement to behavior and sin in the world. Of course the sin is worse.
I so not see the gloom and doom that society has decayed and is worse now than ever. Life use to be cheaper, at the end of the Middle Ages we had the Reformation which split the Church and lost countless souls, as to a less extent, other heresies had.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Your welcome.
How fortunate for you. I haven’t had that experience.
Msgr Marcel Lefebvre, for instance, wrote:
Clearly, MSgr Lefebvre’s Jansenist claim was condemned by the Catholic Church in the 18th century. Traditionalists ought to know better.
Yes. That’s why I believe the nature of the criticism is important, and a blanket statement of being able to freely criticize approved ecclesiastical disciplinary norms because they are not infallible is misleading. If one’s criticism is that of making a holy approved liturgy even better or more relevant to the contemporary needs of a given community, then this type of criticism is most welcome.
Yet, If what I’ve said above is true, then doesn’t the disagreement between traditionalists and other Catholics often amount to a rather petty dispute? Doesn’t it amount to a “my prayer is holier than your prayer” debate? If so, is it even worth my time? Striving to make the various rites of the holy liturgy even better is a pious endeavor. But more often than not, that’s not the essence of the traditionalist view. Many actively lobby against one approved form of the holy liturgy, impiously claiming that it is either “harmful” or more cautiously stating that their liturgy is more holy.
However, I choose to pray in the local parish family God has given me, even if by doing so I have to suffer to worship with a few crazy progressivism uncles in that family I dont’ find it compelling to join the “church shopping” tendancy that has become vogue among some Catholics lately.
Lastly, I fail to see the attractiveness of pitting one approved and holy Catholic liturgy against another approved and holy liturgy. I’d rather we endeavor to make each of them better, but avoid a “my liturgy is better” contest.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I haven’t claimed it to be doctrine, nor have the Catholic theologians I’ve quoted. The term derives from Catholic theology. The essence of the teaching derives from the condemnation of Pius VI (Auctorm Fidei, 78) of the proposition that approved ecclesiastical discipline can ever be harmful or dangerous to the faithful. What Pius VI taught is doctrine, and theologians have coined the term “negative infallibility” to describe it.
Perhaps you can share with us what your theological credentials are?
I’m justdave, a mere theology student, who relies upon the expertise of others, and quotes from popes, Catholic doctors and theologians.
P
pnewton
Guest
But it did, as have all Orders of Mass. I never knew anyone thought it came from elsewhere. It is addressed in redemptionis sacramentum, so obviously it is from the Church.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Elzoro…just so I’m clear…do you think I should read that link?
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
The mistake you are making is to assume that every society reacts equally to reforms.
For instance in Holland sex education programs have led to a reduction in teenage pregnancy. In Britian they tend to lead to an increase. The reason is pretty obvious; in Britain we have a large class of girls with no realistic career prospects whilst in Holland they don’t.
Similarly the experience of independence from colonial rule was very different in North America to Africa, and different again in South America.
Similarly the seeds of the Second Vatican Council fell only in some places on fertile ground.
- Status