SSPX question

[Timothysis]

1. Their is controversy whether or not Cardinal Ottavani actually retracted his statement, as at the time he was blind and would not have known what he actually was signing.
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention
   fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

There is not a controversy that Cardinal Ottaviani said “.*…after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED” *in regards to the Pauline Missal. While those who champion the Cardinals original letter, few ever mention the second one he wrote, after the promulgation of the Pauline Missal, that praised the pope for the final form of the missal.

 

[franklinf]

There is not a controversy that Cardinal Ottaviani said “.*…after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED” *in regards to the Pauline Missal. While those who champion the Cardinals original letter, few ever mention the second one he wrote, after the promulgation of the Pauline Missal, that praised the pope for the final form of the missal.

Please read the links provided. Also, even if he retracted no one else did. Still valid. Furthermore, could you please explain the quote I bolded. Is there context I am missing?

 

[Timothysis]

Please read the links provided. Also, even if he retracted no one else did. Still valid. Furthermore, could you please explain the quote I bolded. Is there context I am missing?

I would need to see the quote in context.

Futhermore, can you please point to examples of protestantism in the Pauline Missal?

 

[franklinf]

I would need to see the quote in context.

Futhermore, can you please point to examples of protestantism in the Pauline Missal?

"As one of the most erudite Thomistic theologians of our time, Charles Cardinal Journet, in referring to the Pauline Rite Mass, writes:

“Let me take care to say, there is no renouncing of anything essential. . . The substance of the Mass remains absolutely the same: there is the Offertory, the Consecration. . . And the Sovereign Pontiff has recalled expressly what was not expressed sufficiently in the rubrics of the new Ordo: that the Mass is a sacrifice. He has recalled that there is a change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. All these things, which are not Protestant, are truly Catholic- and also orthodox. Thus there is the reaffirmation of the classic Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist sacrifice.” (Whitehead, 131, from Cardinal Journet and the New Order of the Mass, in Documentation Catholique #9, May 1, 1977, pages 444-445)."

Seems like the quote is saying what others have been saying.

This is going to be a circular discussion I feel like. For a good overview, read the Ottavani Intervention. Only Cardinal Ottavani “retracted” (controversy around that) - none of the other theologians did.

 

[franklinf]

Explain to me how the Mass throughout the centuries, long before the novelty of a dual language missal, conveyed Catholic teachings when the Canon of the Mass was silent with a general absence of congregational participation.

**Through proper teaching. It is clear that the Mass of All time convey Catholic teachings. Its fruits are evident. The spread of Catholicism across the world. The countless saints and martyrs. The spread of a rich culture. The fact that people would attend Mass and practice the Faith in the midst of horrendous persecution. Through the disciplines of the Mass too. The behavior and actions of the priest. Through being united by the universal language of the Church. Furthermore, you have a complete misunderstanding of congregational participation. True congregational participation is uniting your prayers with that of the priest - not rote verbal replies. **

You say “if” in your hypothetical; do you believe that the Eucharistic prayers in the Pauline Missal are “protestantized?” If so, please show examples from the missal itself as evidence of this.

Because they were very bad catholics who assumed a role of authority that they did not legitimately exercise. I hope that you are not comparing them to Pope Paul VI in union with the bishops of the Vatican II Council.

Nope, merely showing the importance of the prayers of the Mass, including those outside the consecration. They changed it because it didn’t fit their theology. The whole Mass is important - it must be solidly Catholic. Every inch of the rubrics must be. Even those disciplines you scoffed at.

 

[Timothysis]

Nope, merely showing the importance of the prayers of the Mass, including those outside the consecration. They changed it because it didn’t fit their theology. The whole Mass is important - it must be solidly Catholic. Every inch of the rubrics must be. Even those disciplines you scoffed at.

The Mass IS Catholic; it always has and always will be “solidly Catholic.” I don’t know what theology that “didn’t fit” you are referring to but it has been my experience that those who consider themselves more catholic than the pope have a very non-heterodox perception of what it means to be “catholic.” Either you are a faithful child of the Church or you aren’t; that is your business and your prerogative.

I’m done.

 

[franklinf]

The Mass IS Catholic; it always has and always will be “solidly Catholic.” I don’t know what theology that “didn’t fit” you are referring to but it has been my experience that those who consider themselves more catholic than the pope have a very non-heterodox perception of what it means to be “catholic.” Either you are a faithful child of the Church or you aren’t; that is your business and your prerogative.

I’m done.

Wow. Do you have no reading comprehension?

1. Referring to the protestants. The theology that didn’t fit was the Catholic teachings.
2. Never said the Mass wasn’t Catholic. Said that the Mass must be solidly Catholic in all aspects - the rubrics, disciplines, prayers are important. The Mass must fully convey Catholic teachings and not be open to abuse. Why did I say this? Because it is important. That is why the protestants changed it to fit their own theology. Can’t spread heresy when the Mass - as you said the source and summit of Catholic worship - is solidly Catholic.

How about in the future, instead of making veiled accusations about my heterdoxy / thoughts of superiority, you take the time to read and understand all the responses.

 

[franklinf]

Also could you please explain the quote you provided earlier. It seems that the quote is saying that the NO doesn’t fully convey the teachings of the Church, that the Pope realized that, and that the Pope then had to clarify and expressly state that the Mass is a sacrifice. Is there context missing or am I misreading anything?

 

[I_Believe]

I think the kitchen got too hot for someone

 

[Timothysis]

wow. Do you have no reading comprehension?

1. referring to the protestants. The theology that didn’t fit was the catholic teachings.

what catholic teachings are not in the mass? Please show examples from the pauline missal.

 

[franklinf]

Nooo that couldn’t be it

 

[Boulder257]

I think the kitchen got too hot for someone

I asked that this not become personal, and now you have made it that way. Perhaps my friend who decided not to continue to argue did so because he sees no point in doing so? Could it be that he decided he had made his point once and trying to beat it into someone’s head is a futile concept? Could it be that he decided that he wasn’t going to reiterate himself when he had already offered a concise and complete argument? Your smug response wreaks of Pride and is EXACTLY what I was trying to avoid in my original question.

My personal opinion which I will offer since I started the thread and am the one who proposed the original question: This is exactly why people are reserved and sometimes “run away from” the Catholic Church. How can we expect to evangelize others when we can’t get along ourselves? I respect one’s affection for certain tradition and I admire the passion that one has for it. But recognize that is what it is, an affection for a certain celebration of the same rite. To assume or imply that a person is getting less of a spiritual experience because they attend Novus Ordo is insulting, baseless, indefensible, and in direct contradiction with the teachings of the Church and every Pope since Vatican II. I offer you a rather different and apparently less applied concept: Let’s unite as brothers and sisters in Christ. When we disagree, let us do so as Jesus and not with pride or an angry heart. Let’s work together to fight the motives and powers of satan. Let’s show those who live outside of Christ the passion we ALL share for Him and the fact that some prefer to celebrate the same Rite differently, but within the prescribed magesterium of the Church. But most of all, let’s respect one another and love our brothers as ourselves. When we disagree, let us do so as Jesus and not with a prideful or angry heart.

Dominus Vobiscum

 

[franklinf]

I asked that this not become personal, and now you have made it that way. Perhaps my friend who decided not to continue to argue did so because he sees no point in doing so? Could it be that he decided he had made his point once and trying to beat it into someone’s head is a futile concept? Could it be that he decided that he wasn’t going to reiterate himself when he had already offered a concise and complete argument? Your smug response wreaks of Pride and is EXACTLY what I was trying to avoid in my original question.

My personal opinion which I will offer since I started the thread and am the one who proposed the original question: This is exactly why people are reserved and sometimes “run away from” the Catholic Church. How can we expect to evangelize others when we can’t get along ourselves? I respect one’s affection for certain tradition and I admire the passion that one has for it. But recognize that is what it is, an affection for a certain celebration of the same rite. To assume or imply that a person is getting less of a spiritual experience because they attend Novus Ordo is insulting, baseless, indefensible, and in direct contradiction with the teachings of the Church and every Pope since Vatican II. I offer you a rather different and apparently less applied concept: Let’s unite as brothers and sisters in Christ. When we disagree, let us do so as Jesus and not with pride or an angry heart. Let’s work together to fight the motives and powers of satan. Let’s show those who live outside of Christ the passion we ALL share for Him and the fact that some prefer to celebrate the same Rite differently, but within the prescribed magesterium of the Church. But most of all, let’s respect one another and love our brothers as ourselves. When we disagree, let us do so as Jesus and not with a prideful or angry heart.

Dominus Vobiscum

Really? So making veiled accusations about someone’s heterodoxy / Catholicness doesn’t make it personal?

And what was his complete and concise argument? It basically only consisted of ignoring the fact that all but one of the theologians of the O. Intervention never “retracted,” and misdirection.

 

[Boulder257]

I never said the argument was correct, only concise and complete and an accurate representation of his beliefs. Why should he take the time to say it you again? Why do you mistake his lack of reiteration as a submission to your view? Secondly, he kept the argument theological, you personally attacked.It becomes more and more apparent that you have missed the entire point of my post and only wish to argue, trying to impose your personal affections on the hearts of others.

I will offer this: Faith should come through invitation and not through indoctrination. The joy we have in Christ should be our witness to his charity, not the rigidness of our personal beliefs.

 

[franklinf]

I never said the argument was correct, only concise and complete and an accurate representation of his beliefs.Fair enough. My apologies.
Why should he take the time to say it you again? Why do you mistake his lack of reiteration as a submission to your view?**Never said that I do. ** Secondly, he kept the argument theological, you personally attacked. **Didn’t do that either.**It becomes more and more apparent that you have missed the entire point of my post and only wish to argue, trying to impose your personal affections on the hearts of others. Again, not true.

I will offer this: Faith should come through invitation and not through indoctrination. The joy we have in Christ should be our witness to his charity, not the rigidness of our personal beliefs.

 

[Boulder257]

franklinf:
I apologize that I apparently assumed your position and put words in your mouth. Not my intention at all. Instead, my intention is to bring us all together.

Pax Tecum