Has anyone changed there mind here?

[GerardP]

Well, I don’t have any formal definition handy or anything, but I’d say that the externals are that which express the internals, or substance, of the liturgy (in other words, that which gives outward form and embellishment to the substance). Thus things like priests’ vestments, various decorations of the altar, individual prayers outside of the consecration, the rubrics of the liturgy, the language, etc. are all externals.

I think we’re going to get lost if we dive into intense philosophy here with a discussion of substance, essence and whatnot.

I’ve already referenced the Ottaviani intervention and I’m basically using the words the way the bishops did.

In October 1967, the Synod of Bishops which met in Rome was asked to pass judgment on an experimental celebration of what was then called a “standard” or “normative” Mass. This Mass, composed by the Committee for Implementing the Constitutions on the Sacred Liturgy (Consilium), aroused very serious misgivings among the bishops present. With 187 members voting, the results revealed considerable opposition (43 Negative), many substantial reservations (62 Affirmative with reservations) and four abstentions. The international press spoke of the Synod’s “rejection” of the proposed Mass, while the progressive wing of the religious press passed over the event in silence. A well-known periodical, aimed at bishops and expressing their teaching, summed up the new rite in these terms:

“They wanted to make a clean slate of the whole theology of the Mass. It ended up in substance quite close to the Protestant theology which destroyed the sacrifice of the Mass.”

Unfortunately, we now find that the same "standard Mass, "**identical in substance, has reappeared as the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) recently promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969). **In the two years that have passed since the Synod, moreover, it appears that the national bishops’ conferences (at least as such) have not been consulted on the matter.

Tragically, you’re correct that some (but very few) OF Masses are invalid. (In fact I myself have witnessed, on one occasion, the priest tampering with the words of consecration, making jokes, etc.)

What do you do at that point? Are you engaging in material idolatry by worshipping bread or do you know absolutely that the consecration has occurred.

This is something that needs ex cathedra clarification. The two top theologians in the history of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure disagree on what is essential for the consecration. The Churchmen have tended to go with St. Bonaventure but it’s definitely something that needs to be clarified in this day and age of loose liturgy.

HOWEVER… This consideration does not in any way give justification for the rejection of the rite itself as promulgated by the Church. (In fact, I think it was no less than Michael Davies who once said that if the OF were always celebrated according to the rubrics there never would have been a problem.)

But he later stated that it was an experiment that failed and thought it should be abrogated.

an essential read from Micheal Davies:

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/shipwreck.htm

The critique of the New Mass which I have presented to you here has been, I hope, a legitimate exercise of the right accorded to every Catholic by Canon 212 of the New Code of Canon Law [1983] to manifest to the sacred pastors his opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make his opinion known to the other Christian faithful.** I am absolutely certain that I am manifesting my love for and loyalty to the Church by suggesting, with the utmost respect for the Holy Father,** that-----to paraphrase Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci writing in 1969 [The Ottaviani Intervention]-----as the reform has proved harmful for the subjects for whom it was promulgated, we have the right and the duty to ask him to abrogate it. The New Mass is something which-----as Dietrich von Hildebrand expressed it-----the common Father of all Christians, the Holy Father, should regret and take back, so that, as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci requested, we can be given “the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V,” which is as certain to be the Mass of our children as it was the Mass of our fathers in the Faith.

 

[MrS]

Of course he is not perfect. But you have to agree that his opinion does have more weight than anyone on these boards. He can call a council or decide to change things (ie: the release for the more general use of the TLM mass) or if he wants he can speak from the chair and make an Infallible declaration. None of us can do that except in our fantasy.

I would also think that by example, his celebration of the Mass carries more weight than any support of the many “versions” of the N.O.

When celebrated as originally intended/suggested, as an alternative to the never-abrogated EF, the N.O. is quite beautiful. But then, too many wreckovated sanctuaries don’t work well with what was intended.

And again, the “active participation” misunderstanding has also made for numerous abuses or “versions” of the N.O.

.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Well, I won’t claim to be “knowledgable”, but here’s the thing:

a.) the OF is in fact the ordinary form of the mass, promulgated by the Church and the Holy See.

b.) You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18).

If you believe b, then a can’t be invalid or inherently destructive to our faith.

:harp: :harp: :harp: :harp:

 

[James0235]

Cat,

Rereading what GerardP wrote:

Validity is not the main issue. The Black Mass is valid. The main issue is the Lex Orendi Lex Credendi, and these two rites are not on equal footing when it comes to the explicit expression of the faith.

I do see where he has a point. Its seems to me that in most cases, when the equivalent prayers are compared, the EF is more explicit than the OF. There are more references to a sacrifice occurring. There are more moments when we ask for forgiveness of our sins, etc.

Having said that, I don’t think that means the OF does these things badly at all:

**I confess to almighty God…, Lord, Have Mercy, Lord I am not worthy to receive you…, Lord, accept this sacrifice…, etc.

**These things definitely occur in the OF. But, I think he may be correct when he says that these things are more explicit in the EF.

James

 

[I_Believe]

I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable could please defend the OF of the Mass. Please.

As a fairly new Catholic, I find GerardP’s accusations and insinuations against the OF very disconcerting and confusing, and I find this link of his with OF and Black Mass just plain frightening.

To me, this is a grievous insult to our Holy Father, the Magisterium, and my own dear Bishop. All of these servants of Christ have made it clear that the OF is fully approved by the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. For someone to imply that these men are making a mistake and that Catholics are receiving something “flawed” by attending OF is disturbing.

Please, someone, defend the Church and the OF Mass!

Or is he right?

It’s to be expected. This forum has been bombarded by liberals here lately pushing their modernist agenda. Some are not catholics at all, they are trolls. Some of them, though I can’t prove it, are probably those banned and now returning. User names and email addys are a dime a dozen.

Rome has indeed approved of the OF. I’m a member of an NO parish. Rome has also approved the Forma Extraordinaria.

Have you ever heard anyone on this forum say that the NO said reverently and following the original NO Missal is fine ? I have, and I agree. But what ? Would it make liberals happy if all traditionalists were to have "THE NO IS GREAT ! " as their signatures at the bottom of every one of their posts ? Would it stop the attacks on the Catholicism of Blessed Pius V ?

Of course not. Liberals fear it.

 

[GerardP]

I found a website that has some mp3s and other audio links of speeches by Michael Davies.

dotmvt.org/New-Gospel.htm

Pictured: Cardinal Ratzinger with the late Michael Davies pictured at right.

http://www.unavoce.org/images/davies desaventhem siebenburger ratzinger.jpg

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Have you ever heard anyone on this forum say that the NO said reverently and following the original NO Missal is fine ? I have, and I agree. But what ? Would it make liberals happy if all traditionalists were to have "THE NO IS GREAT ! " as their signatures at the bottom of every one of their posts ? Would it stop the attacks on the Catholicism of Blessed Pius V ?

Of course not. Liberals fear it.

A great number will not admit or say that it is "fine.’ Also, you’re painting with a very broad brush. I’ve followed the forums for a very long time and there are very few “liberals,” properly speaking, who post here, unless we buy into the “traditionalists’” views on what constitutes a liberal, instead of the Church’s. The former generally means anyone who likes the OF or who won’t decry the Second Vatican Council or who thinks well of Pope John Paul II, etc., regardless of their actual orthodoxy, while the latter actually has a specific definition of “liberalism” and “modernism”. The forums occasionally get the odd duck or two here and there who think Joanie Chichester is dandy as candy and that Bishop Gumbleton is the last word on what it means to be a bishop, etc., but they are very few and very far between. The overwhelming majority of the people who post here are neither liberal or modernist.

 

[GerardP]

Well, I won’t claim to be “knowledgable”, but here’s the thing:

a.) the OF is in fact the ordinary form of the mass, promulgated by the Church and the Holy See.

b.) You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18).

If you believe b, then a can’t be invalid or inherently destructive to our faith.

That’s a false syllogism. A rite of the Church is a disciplinary matter. It’s not protected by the Holy Ghost. You’re extending the meaning of Christ’s promise way beyond it’s stated meaning. Popes may fail in their duty at times but “it” (ie. the Church) will not fail.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That’s a false syllogism. A rite of the Church is a disciplinary matter. It’s not protected by the Holy Ghost. You’re extending the meaning of Christ’s promise way beyond it’s stated meaning. Popes may fail in their duty at times but “it” (ie. the Church) will not fail.

The disciplines of the Church enjoy a negative infallibility. They cannot lead the faithful into impiety, which would include the English translation of the OF that you mentioned at one point. It is adequate for it’s purpose, because the Church has said that it is.

 

[GerardP]

The disciplines of the Church enjoy a negative infallibility.

No they don’t. Infallibility itself is a negative charism.

They cannot lead the faithful into impiety, which would include the English translation of the OF that you mentioned at one point. It is adequate for it’s purpose, because the Church has said that it is

Not true. Churchmen have said numerous things about it. All the Pope did was promulgate a set of books for a Liturgy in Latin. It’s not universal, it’s not a binding matter of faith and morals, it’s not infallible. A Pope can call it a big mistake and abrogate it.

 

[lampstand]

I’m dying to go to a Latin Mass. There’s a parish over an hour north of me that holds one. I’m still trying to find one closer to me in the greater Tampa area.

 

[Aragorn1]

Yes, I’ve come to love the TLM. I’m a revert who joined CA a few months before I actually went to confession and came home.

My first reaction to this forum was "when did it become ok for catholics to question Rome ? " I thought I’d stumbled upon the “renegade catholics” forum.

Then after reading the posts of some of the more informed members here, I realized that there was more to it than just a bunch of older folks that rejected the new Mass nit picking.

The liberals are the renegades. And though I put my soul in peril by turning my back on catholicism around the age of 15, I can honestly say I feel fortunate to have eliminated any possibility of becoming jaded and influenced by liberal contemporary catholics by doing so.

I don’t judge them. I can’t fault them for embracing the catholicism of VII. It’s what they were taught.

But the traditionalists have won me over. Their aguments for the preservation of the Catholicism of Blessed Pius V are rock solid.
There are members of the Curia that share our concerns.

If not for this forum, I’d have joined the nearest parish, which from what I saw at the Mass I attended there, is as liberal as it gets.
But I can’t stand in judgement of them. The Mass I attended was a celebration of our Archbishop’s 25 years of service. He was there, so he must not have minded the tambourine, guitar, keyboard, … etc.

Even if I had joined the parish before I joined CA, I’d have left it by now. I’m still a member of an NO parish, but as much as I love the Dominican Friars who run it, I’m probably going to wind up leaving it for a local diocean parish that offers both the Novus Ordo and the Forma Extraordinaria.

So yes, this forum has changed my mind.

The biggest problem with your post is that you’re driving a wedge between “the Catholicism of Pius V” and “the Catholicism of Vatican 2”. There is no distinction that can be made here unless you are willing to reject the Church outright and join the sedevacantists.

Oh, well… At least you’re not raving against the Pope and the OF. That’s more than I can say for others here.

It’s to be expected. This forum has been bombarded by liberals here lately pushing their modernist agenda. Some are not catholics at all, they are trolls. Some of them, though I can’t prove it, are probably those banned and now returning. User names and email addys are a dime a dozen.

To me one of the most blatant generalizations made by the traditionalist movement is their tendency to label everyone who disagrees with them a “liberal” and a “modernist”. Modernism is a heresy with a very specific definition: it holds that dogma can change or evolve over time and it asserts many false things about Sacred Scripture, but it is more than a mere tendency to be modern or to conform to a modern style. It seems that many traditionalists throw around as labels words that actually have definitions that are lost on said traditionalists.

And of course, anyone who disagrees with the “traditionalists” and dares defend the Pope, the Council, and the Mass must be a troll with multiple usernames, since they cannot possibly have a rational argument with which to challenge the irrefutable, rock-solid arguments of the “traditionalists”. Right?

Have you ever heard anyone on this forum say that the NO said reverently and following the original NO Missal is fine ? I have, and I agree. But what ? Would it make liberals happy if all traditionalists were to have "THE NO IS GREAT ! " as their signatures at the bottom of every one of their posts ? Would it stop the attacks on the Catholicism of Blessed Pius V ?

I have heard a few people on this forums say that, but most traditionalists refuse to concede that the OF is fine, even when flawlessly celebrated according to the rubrics.

And who is attacking “the Catholicism of Pius V”? What do you mean by the term? Do you mean to say the faith itself has changed since Pius V’s time? If so, you yourself have fallen into the heresy of modernism, which asserts that dogma can change or evolve. Or maybe you mean the Latin Mass and other old liturgical customs? If so, these things are not specific to Pius V. Regardless, no one here is “attacking” anything done by Pius V. I myself have already expressed my appreciation for the EF on this forum.

And your argument cuts both ways. If anyone here can be accused of attacking “the Catholicism of [insert Pope’s name here]”, then it’s the traditionalists. I’m not saying our faith can be split up and attributed to specific Popes, but by your own principles the traditionalists on this forum have attacked “the Catholicism of Vatican II, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and the OF Mass.”

 

[I_Believe]

A great number will not admit or say that it is "fine.’ Also, you’re painting with a very broad brush. I’ve followed the forums for a very long time and there are very few “liberals,” properly speaking, who post here, unless we buy into the “traditionalists’” views on what constitutes a liberal, instead of the Church’s. The former generally means anyone who likes the OF or who won’t decry the Second Vatican Council or who thinks well of Pope John Paul II, etc., regardless of their actual orthodoxy, while the latter actually has a specific definition of “liberalism” and “modernism”. The forums occasionally get the odd duck or two here and there who think Joanie Chichester is dandy as candy and that Bishop Gumbleton is the last word on what it means to be a bishop, etc., but they are very few and very far between. The overwhelming majority of the people who post here are neither liberal or modernist.

This forum has become infested with liberals here lately.

In my opinion, there are three general groups. Liberals, Orthodox, and Traditionalists. The Orthodox and Traditionalist don’t tend to go at it. If I were to go over to Litugy and Sacraments and start a thread titled RED, and the text of my post said simply, “what do you think”, I would be ignored or someone would ask what I meant.

If my text said " I’m a traditionalist and I say RED ! " I would be attacked with passion. Just because of the word traditionalist.

I’d be silly to do something like that wouldn’t I ? I’d be starting a baited thread.

I’m not fool enough to think the debates won’t continue here, but the liberals are here among us. They are easy to spot.

The Church’s definition of liberal, vs the average traditionalist definition ? You are right. They differ. For the time being

 

[I_Believe]

The biggest problem with your post is that you’re driving a wedge between “the Catholicism of Pius V” and “the Catholicism of Vatican 2”. There is no distinction that can be made here unless you are willing to reject the Church outright and join the sedevacantists.

Oh, well… At least you’re not raving against the Pope and the OF. That’s more than I can say for others here.

To me one of the most blatant generalizations made by the traditionalist movement is their tendency to label everyone who disagrees with them a “liberal” and a “modernist”. Modernism is a heresy with a very specific definition: it holds that dogma can change or evolve over time and it asserts many false things about Sacred Scripture, but it is more than a mere tendency to be modern or to conform to a modern style. It seems that many traditionalists throw around as labels words that actually have definitions that are lost on said traditionalists.

And of course, anyone who disagrees with the “traditionalists” and dares defend the Pope, the Council, and the Mass must be a troll with multiple usernames, since they cannot possibly have a rational argument with which to challenge the irrefutable, rock-solid arguments of the “traditionalists”. Right?

I have heard a few people on this forums say that, but most traditionalists refuse to concede that the OF is fine, even when flawlessly celebrated according to the rubrics.

And who is attacking “the Catholicism of Pius V”? What do you mean by the term? Do you mean to say the faith itself has changed since Pius V’s time? If so, you yourself have fallen into the heresy of modernism, which asserts that dogma can change or evolve. Or maybe you mean the Latin Mass and other old liturgical customs? If so, these things are not specific to Pius V. Regardless, no one here is “attacking” anything done by Pius V. I myself have already expressed my appreciation for the EF on this forum.

And your argument cuts both ways. If anyone here can be accused of attacking “the Catholicism of [insert Pope’s name here]”, then it’s the traditionalists. I’m not saying our faith can be split up and attributed to specific Popes, but by your own principles the traditionalists on this forum have attacked “the Catholicism of Vatican II, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and the OF Mass.”

Hi, I’ll reply after supper. The wife is giving me that look lol.

I will say though, Pope John XXIII is one of my favorite Popes. And he called the Council. He was very wise. And it’s a shame he was ignored.
More later.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

If my text said " I’m a traditionalist and I say RED ! " I would be attacked with passion. Just because of the word traditionalist.

I’d be silly to do something like that wouldn’t I ? I’d be starting a baited thread.

The expectation about being ‘attacked’ is what is silly.

 

[Cat]

So the gift is there, but you acknowledge that some and perhaps a lot of bishops are astray?

I am curious if you think

1] there is only one N.O. or many versions.

and

2] there is only one N.O. that was meant to be accepted or approved or approvable by the VAT II Council

and

3] if yes to 1] and 2], then what should be done to all the other versions of the N.O.? You know, the ones with abuses-turned-into-norms which have occured since and outside of any VATII direction and outside of any Vatican directive.

.

Mr. S, I am going to give you an answer that I very seldom see on this Board or hear from other people.

I don’t know the answers to your questions.

I am a fairly new Catholic. All I can do is trust my Bishop, Thomas Doran, and his priests.

I don’t have the time to read all the documents about the proper forms of the Mass and even if I did, I don’t consider this to be a good use of my time. I don’t have the spiritual gifts of administration and I don’t have a calling to enter service in a parish as a “liturgical director.”

I need to be spending time reading the Holy Scriptures and studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I try to read devotional works by the great saints, including one of my favorites to date, Imitation of Christ by Kempis. I also love the books by Louis Kaczmarek, and I love the Rosary book by de Montfort.

I also love reading biographies of the saints, especially Father Maximillian Kolbe.Remember, as a Protestant, I never knew these people existed, and I am eager to soak up their teachings and become like them.

I also enjoy attending Bible studies and classes by various Catholic teachers in our city, all of whom have been through the Ministry Formation training (two years).

And I love going to Adoration and spending time with Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. Again, remember, as a Protestant, I knew only a Jesus that I couldn’t see. Now I can see Him, present as humble Bread. I love being with Him.

I probably should read the Vatican II documents. My husband and I purchased them, but they are up on the shelf. God forgive me for not making the time to read and study them, but it just seems that other books and writings are more valuable.

Studying liturgy so that I can become a “Mass Detective” just doesn’t seem like a very good way for me to become a saint and go to heaven. Maybe it is the way for other people to please God, but not for me. I feel compelled to leave the study of these documents to others who have been called to this area of study.

So I don’t know how to answer you. I don’t even know what you are talking about when you mention different versions of NO.

I know that there are different Masses–I play piano, and I have played Creation, Angels and Saints, Christ the Teacher, People’s Mass, etc. I also have attended Life Teen Mass, which is offered once a week at our parish and is absolutely packed.

I also know that there are different prayers–one of the priests in our diocese will actually read “Eucharist Prayer Number One” before he prays. I think he has trouble with English and so he just reads what is in his book. That’s fine with me. He is a wonderful priest who really works hard and cares for all of us.

And since I haven’t read Vatican II documents, I really can’t comment on whether one form of NO was intended or not. I tend to think not, because of the diversity of human beings and cultures. But I don’t honestly don’t know the answer.

Cat

 

[ac_claire]

3] if yes to 1] and 2], then what should be done to all the other versions of the N.O.? You know, the ones with abuses-turned-into-norms which have occured since and outside of any VATII direction and outside of any Vatican directive.

Wouldn’t this be the best thing the Holy See could do about the OF: go back and clearly define and try to enforse the norms from VII? Tighten up the ambiguity that’s led to some of these differing “interpretations”…

 

[MrS]

From your vast store of knowledge, would you mind identifying these prelates you refer to so we can verify this statement.
Deacon Ed B

As a Deacon, might you know better who they are? Like a cardinal who partakes in obviously disturbing versions of the N.O., or a cardinal who thinks/thought that the Jews did not require Jesus for their salvation… etc etc…

 

[MrS]

A great number will not admit or say that it is "fine.’ Also, you’re painting with a very broad brush. I’ve followed the forums for a very long time and there are very few “liberals,” properly speaking, who post here, unless we buy into the “traditionalists’” views on what constitutes a liberal, instead of the Church’s. The former generally means anyone who likes the OF or who won’t decry the Second Vatican Council or who thinks well of Pope John Paul II, etc., regardless of their actual orthodoxy, while the latter actually has a specific definition of “liberalism” and “modernism”. The forums occasionally get the odd duck or two here and there who think Joanie Chichester is dandy as candy and that Bishop Gumbleton is the last word on what it means to be a bishop, etc., but they are very few and very far between. The overwhelming majority of the people who post here are neither liberal or modernist.

talk about a broad brush !!!

I may not agree with all your views, but this post is among your silliest

 

[MrS]

Wouldn’t this be the best thing the Holy See could do about the OF: go back and clearly define and try to enforse the norms from VII? Tighten up the ambiguity that’s led to some of these differing “interpretations”…

maybe…

And there are some here who claim to have really read the VAT II documents closely. Yet I have not seen one step forward and admit that there is both

1] an N.O. liturgy that is quite beautiful when celebrated as intended

and/but

2] an N.O. liturgy that has adapted vernacular, added an altar, changed translations, and invented many “jobs” for the laity under the guise of active partipation.

If a “traditionalist” is one who objects strongly to 2], and perhaps also perfers the EF of the liturgy… I might accept that label myself.

I support 1]… just try to find one, it is rare.

I support the EF… I am not afraid of Latin, smells and bells, or the old lady just praying the rosary because she can’t hear, does not have a hearing aid, or there was no PA system to amplify the voice of the celebrant.