Novus Ordo

[mosher]

oat soda:

i could just as well say “be careful what you mean by come home to rome in the end”. i think that as we can’t accept a union with the orthodox based on thier current practice of cogeliality, we also can’t expect the converse to be true- to demand orthodox catholic union only under the current exercise of papal prmacy.

union can only come with a more precise understanding of the pope’s role as the seat of unity. no doctrines can change, but we must be open to changes at the pratical level as much of this falls outside the realm of the sacred deposit of faith.

in much the same way, i think the current mass must evolve into a form more harmonious with the liturgy of the ages -the tridentine mass.

Good that is what I was looking for as a further clarification from you. The phrasiology that you used in the erlier post is a phrase that is often used by the heterodox that have a strage idea of a conglomeration of churches keeping their own doctrines under the philial guidence of the Pope - this is of course absurd.

 

[starrs0]

While I feel that there were somethings that Vatican II did that needed to be done it went a little overboard as people got caught up “In the spirit of renewal and reform” and did things they ought not have done. Even though it’s been with us for some 30 odd years or so I think the Novus Ordo is still a work in progress once all the kinks are hammered out I’m sure will have a Mass just as good as the Tridentine. I can’t help but wonder though if this kind of thing happened after the Council of Trent when the Tridentine was introduced?

 

[bear06]

Sorry, 'tis ecumenism. Sort of like the “i” making all the difference in “same substance” and “like substance”.

Ecumenism is to bring all Christians together, is it not? If so, we should not have to give up anything to do so…we have the true beliefs, and do not concede at all to heresy

Not quite getting the first part but I agree with you on this last paragraph. I’m just yet to see what we are giving up or conceding.

 

[bear06]

starrs0:

While I feel that there were somethings that Vatican II did that needed to be done it went a little overboard as people got caught up “In the spirit of renewal and reform” and did things they ought not have done. Even though it’s been with us for some 30 odd years or so I think the Novus Ordo is still a work in progress once all the kinks are hammered out I’m sure will have a Mass just as good as the Tridentine. I can’t help but wonder though if this kind of thing happened after the Council of Trent when the Tridentine was introduced?

It took over 100 years for some of the things in the Council of Trent to be implemented at all!

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

While I feel that there were somethings that Vatican II did that needed to be done it went a little overboard as people got caught up “In the spirit of renewal and reform” and did things they ought not have done. Even though it’s been with us for some 30 odd years or so I think the Novus Ordo is still a work in progress once all the kinks are hammered out I’m sure will have a Mass just as good as the Tridentine. I can’t help but wonder though if this kind of thing happened after the Council of Trent when the Tridentine was introduced?

While bear06 has a valid and true point, this did not apply to the Mass. The Mass supposedly “implemented” was merely codified…it had been in use for some time before the Council, and evolved slowly from the earlier forms. Vatican II was different in that it just sort of got a bunch of “They Who Know Best” together to formulate a Mass. Indeed, it is only by the intercession of Pope Paul VI that the Roman Canon stayed fairly well intact.

Not quite getting the first part but I agree with you on this last paragraph. I’m just yet to see what we are giving up or conceding.

I’m not saying we did. Someone proposed the theory that the new Mass was made to be more Portestant-friendly in the interest of bringing them closer. I commented that this would be a silly reason to change the Mass. I am not of this persuasion. The Mass was changed, in my mindframe, by Catholics “for” Catholics.

 

[Eileen_T]

*“It is rather strong to claim that the new Mass is contrary to the Council of Trent, but, displeasing as it is, it is true.”

• • Alfredo Cardinal Ottavianni

Cardinal Ottavianni served as head of the Holy Office under three popes. The Critical Study also known as The Ottaviani Intervention, completed by June 5th, was sent tp Pope Paul VI on Sept 25, 1969.

Now, I know that Cardinal Ottavianni is supposed to have retracted his words in a letter dated February 17, 1970. However, by this date Cardinal Ottavianni, who had been admitted to hospital for an eye disease in Nov.1969, was blind and would not have known what he was signing when presented with the letter by his secretary.

The secretary, Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni, had been part of the Consilium which that formulated the “New Mass”.

Many of the concerns listed in the Critical Study have come to pass, just as Cardinal Ottavianni predicted.

As a matter of interest, have those of you posting on this thread read The Ottaviani Intervention?

 

[bear06]

*“It is rather strong to claim that the new Mass is contrary to the Council of Trent, but, displeasing as it is, it is true.”

• • Alfredo Cardinal Ottavianni

Cardinal Ottavianni served as head of the Holy Office under three popes. The Critical Study also known as The Ottaviani Intervention, completed by June 5th, was sent tp Pope Paul VI on Sept 25, 1969.

Now, I know that Cardinal Ottavianni is supposed to have retracted his words in a letter dated February 17, 1970. However, by this date Cardinal Ottavianni, who had been admitted to hospital for an eye disease in Nov.1969, was blind and would not have known what he was signing when presented with the letter by his secretary.

The secretary, Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni, had been part of the Consilium which that formulated the “New Mass”.

Many of the concerns listed in the Critical Study have come to pass, just as Cardinal Ottavianni predicted.

As a matter of interest, have those of you posting on this thread read The Ottaviani Intervention?

Prove it! This is completely a conspiracy theory people spun up when they couldn’t take the fact that the good Cardinal would welcome the Pauline Mass upon hearing the pope’s discourse. He never retracted his previous statements either. You act as if nobody ever approached Cardinal Ottavianni and said “Wow! Did you really say that?!” Give me a break. Believe me, if Cardinal Ottaviani ever gave a clarification that he did not say that, it would have been broadcast loud and clear and very well documented. This is just so silly and I, for the life of me, can’t believe people actually fall for this! The Cardinal was no goof and he certainly would sit by while somebody was lying about his words. It’s also amazing to me that people would make such accusation against the Msgr. with no proof.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

bear06:

Prove it! This is completely a conspiracy theory people spun up when they couldn’t take the fact that the good Cardinal would welcome the Pauline Mass upon hearing the pope’s discourse. He never retracted his previous statements either. You act as if nobody ever approached Cardinal Ottavianni and said “Wow! Did you really say that?!” Give me a break. Believe me, if Cardinal Ottaviani ever gave a clarification that he did not say that, it would have been broadcast loud and clear and very well documented. This is just so silly and I, for the life of me, can’t believe people actually fall for this! The Cardinal was no goof and he certainly would sit by while somebody was lying about his words. It’s also amazing to me that people would make such accusation against the Msgr. with no proof.

While I don’t buy the whole tale of the “blind unknown retraction,” there is still the question of the cardinal who co-signed the intervention and is never known to have retracted the views of the document.

As for me, though, I could care less if the Intervention was genuine. Some of its predictions have indeed come true. Whether because of flaws inherent in the rite or not, these things need to be addressed.

 

[mosher]

bear06:

Prove it! This is completely a conspiracy theory people spun up when they couldn’t take the fact that the good Cardinal would welcome the Pauline Mass upon hearing the pope’s discourse. He never retracted his previous statements either. You act as if nobody ever approached Cardinal Ottavianni and said “Wow! Did you really say that?!” Give me a break. Believe me, if Cardinal Ottaviani ever gave a clarification that he did not say that, it would have been broadcast loud and clear and very well documented. This is just so silly and I, for the life of me, can’t believe people actually fall for this! The Cardinal was no goof and he certainly would sit by while somebody was lying about his words. It’s also amazing to me that people would make such accusation against the Msgr. with no proof.

I agree. Conspiritorial thinking is not healthy. What is much more productive is looking at the liturgy with a critical eye and begining a discussion about what is percieved to be deficiencies. This type of dialogue is healthy while the other is garvely deficient.