U
Uxor
Guest
From what I understand he denied freemasons in the church, but did not specifically address the Archbishop.
Q's for Traditionalists who believe Vatican II and NO were wrong/invalid:
- Status
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The Holy See issued a list of names of those charged with Freemasonry, denying that they were. Buggsy was on the list.
T
thecoach
Guest
Please specify how the Novus Ordo is problematic? In what sense?
T
thecoach
Guest
In my opinion, the spirit of V2 was dead on, but it was hijacked. There needed to be a renewal in the Church, there needed to be life breathed once again into it. However, with many good things, there were those who usurped its meaning for their own liberal purposes. WHat is really needed is for there to be a reexamination and reimplementation of the true meaning of the documents.
M
Melanie01
Guest
…weeeelllll dont hold your breath…the other side of the continuum would incandencse…the Pope treads on a tightrope made up of barb wire and he is barefoot…keep the holy father in our prayers…
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The “spirit of VII” isn’t Vatican II itself. It’s the very liberal misinterpretation of the Council. We distinguish between the two.
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
The Register of Freemasons suggests otherwise.
The English Traditionalist Catholic writer, Michael Davies, investigated the subject for his series of books on Catholic liturgical reform.(The series is called The Liturgical Revolution, the three volumes are: Cranmer’s Godly ***Order (Augustine Publishing Co., 1976; republished by Roman Catholic Books, 1995), Pope John’s Council (Augustine Publishing Co., 1977) and Pope Paul’s New Mass (Angelus Press, 1980). ***
The subject of Bugnini’s alleged Masonic membership is covered in the second and third volumes, in particular chapter xxiv of volume III Pope Paul’s New Mass) In an article published in the Australian Catholic monthly AD2000, Davies claimed that Paul VI dismissed Bugnini because of evidence purporting to prove that Bugnini was a Freemason.*(A Roman priest of the very highest reputation came into possession of what he considered to be evidence proving Mgr Bugnini to be a Mason. He had this information placed in the hands of Pope Paul VI by a cardinal, with a warning that if action were not taken at once he would be bound in conscience to make the matter public. The dismissal and exile of the Archbishop followed. How the liturgy fell apart: the enigma of Archbishop Bugnini by Michael Davies, AD2000, Vol 2 No 5 (June 1989), p. 17) *
Davies also claims that after contacting the priest who had the evidence given to the Pope that the Vatican kept the denunciation secret but that the dismissal from his post was evidence enough.(I was able to establish contact with the priest who had arranged for the “Bugnini dossier” to be placed into the hands of Pope Paul VI, and I urged him to make the evidence public. He replied: “I regret that I am unable to comply with your request. The secret which must surround the denunciation (in consequence of which Mgr Bugnini had to go!) is top secret and such it has to remain. For many reasons. The single fact that the above mentioned Monsignore was immediately dismissed from his post is sufficient. This means that the arguments were more than convincing.” Michael Davies, “How the liturgy fell apart: the enigma of Archbishop Bugnini”, AD2000, June 1989, retrieved June 17 2006.)
In a later issue the Australian seminary professor Father Brian Harrison(An Australian priest and seminary professor who has spent time in Rome ) claimed that Bugnini left a briefcase in a conference room with the evidence.( An internationally known churchman of unimpeachable integrity has also told me that he heard the account of the discovery of the evidence against Bugnini directly from the Roman priest who found it in a briefcase which Bugnini had inadvertently left in a Vatican conference room after a meeting.Fr. Brian Harrison O.S., ‘A response to Michael Davies’ article on Archbishop Bugnini’, (letter to the editor), AD2000, August 1989, retrieved June 16, 2006)
Bugnini himself while acknowledging the accusations in his memoir, strongly denied them.("In La Riforma Liturgica, Mgr Bugnini states that he has never known for certain what induced the Pope to take such a drastic and unexpected decision, even after “having understandably knocked at a good many doors at all levels in the distressing situation that prevailed” (p. 100). He did discover that “a very high-ranking cardinal, who was not at all enthusiastic about the liturgical reform**, disclosed the existence of a ‘dossier’, which he himself had seen (or placed) on the Pope’s desk, bringing evidence to support the affiliation of Mgr Bugnini to Freemasonry (p.101).*” How the liturgy fell apart: the enigma of Archbishop Bugnini by Michael Davies, AD2000, Vol 2 No 5 (June 1989), p. 17) ***
In October 1976, following the circulation of a separate list of alleged Freemasons in curial posts which included Bugnini, the Vatican issued a general denial that senior churchmen were involved in Freemasonry.(L’Osservatore Romano, (daily Italian edition), October 10, 1976)
On 4 January 1976, Bugnini’s transfer to Iran was announced.
CASE CLOSED
R
rlg94086
Guest
Question from someone new to the “traditionalist” issues:
I noticed that the question of infallibility of encyclicals and Vatican II were in question. What about the institution of the Tridentine rite? Was it made dogma, or was it instituted in the same way as the St Paul VI rite? IOW, what makes the Tridentine rite superior from a papal perspective?
Also, how long was the Church using the rite previous to the Tridentine rite?
I noticed that the question of infallibility of encyclicals and Vatican II were in question. What about the institution of the Tridentine rite? Was it made dogma, or was it instituted in the same way as the St Paul VI rite? IOW, what makes the Tridentine rite superior from a papal perspective?
Also, how long was the Church using the rite previous to the Tridentine rite?
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
A rite isn’t itself dogma, though of course it reflects dogma. All that is needed for a valid consecration is a priest and the words “the body of Christ”. However consecration outside of Mass is strictly forbidden, for good reasons, but ones that could conceivably become outdated.
The Council of Trent was called in reaction to the Protestant Reformation. One thing that the Protestants complained about was lax discipline amongst clergy. That was a negotiable demand and not necessarily unjustified, so the response was to standardise and professionalise.
Vatican II was called in response to modernism. One thing that was realised was that the schism with the Protestants no longer made much sense, and was largely a historical hangover. There were great hopes for reunion. Sadly it proved not to be. The Protestant mainstream dissolved and split into liberals and fundamentalists, both of whom present serious obstacles to full communion.
The previous big change, in Britain at least, was the abolition of the Celtic rite. The Celtic church celebrated Easter on a different date, amongst other differences. That was towards the end of the Dark Ages.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
A Mass (the ceremony by which the Holy Sacrifice is confected, that which “clothes” the Holy Sacrifice) is a discipline, not a dogma. It “contains,” for want of a better word, dogma (the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the doctrine of presenting again Christ’s Sacrifice in an unbloody manner, etc.), but the form of the Mass is itself a matter of discipline. It does to have certain essentials to be effacatious or effective (ie, the priest has to say,“This is My Body,” “This is My Blood”), but the Mass isn’t immutable in its form.
Yes, the authority invoked by Pope Paul VI (he isn’t canonized, btw) was the same authority invoked by Pope St. Pius V in the ratification of the Pian Missal. The Pian Mass was codified at the time of Trent, but that Mass had been celebrated long, long before, with large elements going back to at least the 4th century, and others even earlier. It is, indeed, a venerable rite worthy of love and reverence (I attend the vernacular Novus Ordo Mass).
From a papal perspective, in terms of authority, there is no difference in the two rites.
If you want a more substantive discourse on the Pian Missal, PM a forum member, AJV. He can fill in the gaps on the skeleton I just gave you.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Oops
. I knew it was the Paul VI rite…not sure why I added St.Thanks for the explanation…that’s the first I had heard the “TLM” referred to as the Pian Missal, so I learned something new.
I can understand why some people don’t like change, but I believe in following the Church. As I have noted on other threads, our parish priest is very faithful to Rome and has added Latin prayer/chant, beautiful vestments, etc. to our parish liturgy, and our music is choir with organ. I definitely prefer it to the first Catholic parish I attended in California with guitars (and overhead projector) and a more liberal approach to the rubrics.
T
thecoach
Guest
The distinction is your perception of the definitions.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The distinction is how the living magisterium perceives it, as well (“Rupture vs. Reform”). I recommend these two articles regarding the council. The first is by HH Pope Benedict XVI. The second is by Stephen Hand, you’ll have toscroll down a bit:
tcrnews2.com/vat2interp.html
R
RobedWithLight
Guest
Why should the Pope even do that? At best, the Pope might allow the TLM an almost equal status as the NO.
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
I believe the question was Could he, that is the Pope, abolish the Novus Ordo or overturn Vatican II? We on this thread would greatly appreciate your answer to this question. It seems that most tend to take an evasive position on this inquiry.
Respectfully and God+ Bless.
R
rlg94086
Guest
If the earlier posters were correct and the Pian and Paul VI rites are disciplines, then of course either one could be “abolished.” Again, why would he?
As far as Vatican II, I don’t know. Has any other Ecuminical Council been abolished in the past?
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
I thought modernism was called in response to Vatican II.
B
bear06
Guest
As far as the council goes, while it’s in a pope’s authority to overturn (set aside is probably a better word) a council, I’m guessing that it couldn’t be done by a future pope after it was ratified by a valid pope unless he was to declare Pope Paul VI a heretic. Pope Paul was the lawful authority at the time of the council who could ratify or set as aside the council. Since he ratified it, it is the “law of the land” so to speak. Of course a future pope doing this is a sedevacantist dream. People seem to forget that the Pope Paul VI and Pope Benedict are essentially one in the same when it comes to the ordinary magisterium. They do not contradict each other and the whole “the last 5 popes were not really popes” seems to deny the Visible Church but that’s a whole other argument that’s liable to end in a “I believe in the Visible Church but it’s just obscured” post. What would be more likely ( I don’t necessarily think it will) to happen is that a Vatican III would be called and we could be focused on something completely different than Vatican II and disciplinary changes could be made.
Now as far as the Novus Ordo is concerned…Sure, a future pope could abolish (I think supress would be a better word) it. No pope can bind a future pope in matters of disciplines. I seriously doubt it is going to happen anytime during my life but a new pope could come along in the future and bind us to some new form of the Mass or revert us to an older form should he think it spiritually best for the Church. Of course, if this happens, you can bet that there will be the same whining we’re experiencing now from one camp or another.
B
BobP123
Guest
There is too much Catholic Theology in the Mass in order to be called just a discipline. Discipline is whether you should abstain from meat on Friday not which god or God Catholics should be praying to.
If the Mass is just a discipline that any Pope can completely revise, then Trent went to a lot of trouble for nothing.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Ah, the key words you used are “completely revise.” My understanding is that there are key components that must be present in the Mass. However, how they are done can be changed…those are the parts which are discipline.
You agree that the Pauline Mass is licit, correct? I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but look to the items which would be checked off in determining the legitimacy of a Mass, and I would think you will find the essentials.
- Status