The Latin Mass/First Masses?

[Rykell]

Dear Catholic,

My heart sincerely goes out to you for the interior troubles that others have inflicted upon your faith. Here are a few thoughts that may help you.

In dealing with questions of theology it must be remembered that theology is not Faith. A ton of theology will not by itself produce a grain of Faith. Faith in the Catholic Church is a Supernatural, Infused, Divine Gift from God. Theology is human reasoning about God’s Gifts to man: Revelation.

From Mark Chapter 13:

5 Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many.

22 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

The Lord has left us the solemn oath that He will not abandon His flock who entrust themselves to the Church. In this is our safety net. There is nothing more satanic than to cause another to lose faith in the Church’s authentic guidance. The devil will marshall all his legions with sophistries that “seem” good and holy, arguments that theologically appeal to reason, but FAITH must be clung to in all that the Magisterium proclaims to us through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Be at peace, and let your so-called “friends” bay at the moon while you worship the Lord as the Church has guided us. Novus Ordo is the authentic Mass of today. Let no one deceive you.

Here is an interesting read that I found, but I have not been able to find this address, for it is only published in Latin at the Vatican website:

“We have called the attention of Archbishop LefebPaul VI, Address, May 24, 1976: “And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is lead by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect.

“ It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church?  For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience.  And this is said openly.

It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith…

“The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided for, with authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo [without people]. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…

“We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2.)

---

There you have it. Paul VI himself directly refutes Chris Ferrara and the false traditionalists on their two main contentions. Paul VI declares that it is “certainly not” the “free choice” of priests or faithful to not adopt the New Ordo Missae. He also denounces their assertion that the Second Vatican Council is not binding, and he indicates that the logical consequence of the position of Lefebvre, which rejects the New Mass and Vatican II, and operates independently of the hierarchy it recognizes, is to place him outside the Church.

 

[The_Catholic]

Dear Catholic,

My heart sincerely goes out to you for the interior troubles that others have inflicted upon your faith. Here are a few thoughts that may help you.

In dealing with questions of theology it must be remembered that theology is not Faith. A ton of theology will not by itself produce a grain of Faith. Faith in the Catholic Church is a Supernatural, Infused, Divine Gift from God. Theology is human reasoning about God’s Gifts to man: Revelation.

From Mark Chapter 13:

5 Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many.

22 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

The Lord has left us the solemn oath that He will not abandon His flock who entrust themselves to the Church. In this is our safety net. There is nothing more satanic than to cause another to lose faith in the Church’s authentic guidance. The devil will marshall all his legions with sophistries that “seem” good and holy, arguments that theologically appeal to reason, but FAITH must be clung to in all that the Magisterium proclaims to us through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Be at peace, and let your so-called “friends” bay at the moon while you worship the Lord as the Church has guided us. Novus Ordo is the authentic Mass of today. Let no one deceive you.

Praise the Lord and thank you.

 

[Rykell]

Catholic,

You are most welcome. I think I was still editing my post when you responded, so you may want to take another look at the additions.

God’s peace!
Ryan

 

[proudnifi]

So what are the dangers the Church is in today?

I’ve never attended the Tridentine Mass but I would like to. Also, I just came back from Mass, the Novus Ordo, and it’s beautiful! I see no problem with it. The prayers are beautiful, the hyms, the Holy Scriptual verses, etc. What are the problems that Tridentine Mass followers have against the Novus Ordo or the second Vatican council? Or is it just they prefer the Latin Mass because it’s more beautiful and poetic?

I started attending the TLM a few months ago - not sure if I’m now a “Tridentine Mass follower.” lol

I do find it to be more beautiful and poetic, yet I realize others might find the Latin and expresssions tedious/long-winded. I also like Charles Dickens.

For me, the TLM makes a strong statement that the Mass is an amazing sacrifice and gift of our merciful God who forgives us our sins and grants us salvation based on His love (certainly not on our own merits). The Novus Ordo/Pauline says this, too, but without my experience of the TLM, I would still be missing the fullness of the message - the TLM seems to make the message very clear. To paraphrase another poster, I feel that the changes aren’t wrong, just not done as well as they could have been.

The post also asked about dangers the Church faces today. There is the danger of moral relativism and a lack of understanding of the True Presence in the Eucharist. Again, from my experience, the TLM is crystal clear on the True Presence. It’s helpful for me to attend the TLM because when I attend the Pauline Rite I find I have to think a little harder to get to the same spiritual place and I think back to the TLM to remind myself of what is happening.

In short, I think the TLM offers more than beauty and poetry. The overall presentation of the message is different - but the same ultimate message.

 

[USMC]

Pax vobiscum!

The only people that believe the Mason conspiracy theories are the ones who made them up–the sedevacantists. They had to come up with a story that would make VII invalid…
In Christ,
Rand

Really? What about the Papal Encyclicals, such as Humanum Genus of Pope Leo XIII, which warned about Freemasonry? (BTW, please locate that encyclical online and read it)

And regarding Annibali Bugnini, he himself admitted that he was removed from his position by the Pope because Paul VI had been presented with “proof” that he was a Freemason. He admitted that himself! The following is taken from his book titled The Reform of the Roman Liturgy. In this quote, Bugnini is speaking of himself in the third person:

Annibali Bugnini: "What were the reasons that led the Pope to such a drastic decision [removing him from his position], which no one expected…? I knocked on many doors at all levels… Toward the end of the summer a cardinal who was usually no enthusiast for the liturgical reform told me of the existence of a dossier which he had seen on (or brought to?) [sic] the Pope’s desk and which proved that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason (Page 91).

There you have it in his own words: Bugnini himself admitted that he was removed from his position of authority because Pope Paul VI was provided with “proof” (his own words) that he was a Freemason.

You said the only people who believed in Freemason conspiracy theories were Sedevacantists. Was Pope Paul VI a Sedevacantist?

 

[Rykell]

This article points to discrepancies in USMC’s post, that “proves” Bugnini was a free mason.

Given the gravity of the accusation, and its implications regarding the underlying motivation for many of the post-conciliar liturgical changes, the greatest possible precision with regard to the facts of the case seems important. I therefore hope that you will publish the following clarifications. [In part:]

The evidence here is rather more complex than Mr Davies realises. According to Bugnini’s footnote 35 (p. 101) the accusation that he was dismissed for being a Freemason was first published in the Italian press in late November 1975. It is true that the Vatican remained silent at that stage - although it could be argued that the public announcement of his appointment as Pro-Nuncio to Iran in mid-January 1976 was seen by the Vatican as a sufficient vindication of his reputation. In June 1976, however, fresh reports began circulating in the Roman press that not only Bugnini, but over 100 other Vatican officials (including cardinals) were Masons.** This time, an explicit denial was issued by the Vatican.** Archbishop Bugnini cites it in his own defence on p. 103 of his memoirs. The daily Italian edition of l’Observatore Romano (10 October 1976), gave a blanket denial to these allegations: “Not one, we say, not one of the accused Vatican prelates has ever had anything to do with Freemasonry. We say this in order to rebut the possible accusation that silence signifies consent.” No names of any of the accused were mentioned in this denial.

1. On the other hand, I know that there are high-ranking Vatican officials, including at least one former Cardinal Prefect of a Roman Congregation, who believe that there have been and are Freemasons in high Vatican positions. I confess my own amazement when I came to realise that such ideas (whether true or false) do not originate solely amongst “crackpot” conspiracy-theorists. Indeed it is quite widely held in Rome that the Masons themselves were responsible for circulating the absurdly long list of alleged Vatican Lodge members in 1976, precisely in order to make the whole idea look ridiculous, thereby protecting the few prelates who really were Masons. 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.

REV BRIAN HARRISON, OS
Rome, Italy

 

[DustinsDad]

So what are the dangers the Church is in today?

Lack of faith, lack of catechesis - i.e. lack of understanding of, belief in and practice of the faith…on a massive scale.

You’ve got the hard numbers in the statistics (summed up pretty good here), and also the lived out experience that we all have…in our families, workplaces, neighborhoods, and society in general. Fallen away catholics, nominal catholics, broken families, divorce, impurity, etc abound everywhere you look. A society and a culture that has utterly turned its back on God and His truths - a culture and society that also seeks to destroy the innocence of our youth before they reach the 2nd grade.

You see it within the Church where homosexuality and pretatory homosexuality has inflitrated the semenaries and scandalized all of us and jepordized how many souls in the process? We see it with the ecumenism mania sweeping the church for the last several decades which has resulted in widespread religious indifference. Folks thinking that as long as they’re “basically good” they’ll waltz into heaven unscathed no matter which church they attend if any. That ain’t the message of Christ.

And you’ve got those in the hierarchy (in this country especially) who are seemingly more interested in getting involved in politics on prudential matters (immigration, economics, etc.) relating to this world than in the salvation of souls for the world to come.

Here’s a pretty good three part essayfrom Michael Davies on the “traditionalist” view of the state of the Church. Take it with a grain of salt if you wish, but the man makes some good questions and observations.

I’ve never attended the Tridentine Mass but I would like to. Also, I just came back from Mass, the Novus Ordo, and it’s beautiful! I see no problem with it. The prayers are beautiful, the hyms, the Holy Scriptual verses, etc. What are the problems that Tridentine Mass followers have against the Novus Ordo or the second Vatican council? Or is it just they prefer the Latin Mass because it’s more beautiful and poetic?

The N.O. mass is a valid mass of course (i.e. Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharistic Sacrifice) - God’s part is still perfect. It’s *our *part that has suffered I believe. As the Council of Trent stated: "…whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites…" I think alot of the wisdom of the Church over the course of the centuries was second guessed and removed in favor of an attempt to be less offensive to the world. Prayers removed, a structure more resembling of a Protestant worship service, less emphasis on the Holy Sacrifice and of the sacred, etc.

I never quite knew all this until I stumbled into a TLM one day and was “blown away” (for lack of a better phrase). My thought was immediately, “Where have they been hiding this?!?!?”

Thing is, in both masses, Christ is there, the sacrifice is the same, but in the TLM, our outwards actions reflect this reality - in the NO, it is much easier to miss the awesomeness of what is taking place. And from the state of the Church spoken of earlier, it seems that alot of folks are missing it.

Here’s a good article comparing and contrasting the two liturgies…and a more recent - and perhaps more balanced - follow up f**%between%**rom the same author several years later.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Rykell]

Michael Davies:

We simply cannot recognize this Faith in most of the religious textbooks imposed upon our children in so-called Catholic schools today; we cannot recognize it in what is imposed upon us as Catholic liturgy in many of our churches; we cannot recognize it in the prefabricated socio-political** pseudo-religious claptrap **emanating from the commissions which seem to have taken over the government of the Church from the bishops in so many countries today.

Oh PLEASE! If you are an adherent to this mentor of yours, you are free to cast your mental vote, but do not circulate it as Divine Truth among these innocent readers whom you are attempting to proselytize.

The nonsense about the phrasing in the Consecration has been refuted beautifully and publicly. Your newfound theology is flawed. It is the reasoning of man who disagrees with the Church.
Thomas Richard:

The truth rests not in extravagant extrapolations of “progressives”, nor in unwarranted reactionary stagnation of “traditionalists”, but in the living tradition grounded in the living God: in fidelity to His Catholic Church.

 

[USMC]

This article points to discrepancies in USMC’s post, that “proves” Bugnini was a free mason.

The last sentence of your quote confirms what I quoted in my post. I was careful to only say what Bugnini himself stated; viz, that Pope Paul VI removed him from his office because he was provided with evidence “which proved that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason”. Those are Bugnini’s words, not mine.

Now, the last paragraph of your quote from Fr. Harrison confims what Bugnini wrote, and provides another interesting detail.

Fr. Harrison wrote: "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."

So, according to the quote from Fr. Harrison, the “proof” Paul VI was given came from a briefcase that Bugnini left in a Vatican conference room.

Bugnini may indeed have denied being a Freemason… but is that surprising? Of course he would deny it. But he did admit that Paul VI removed him from his office because he had been given evidence that “proved that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason”.

So, what part of my earlier post do you disagree with?

 

[jimmy]

Pax tecum!

No, the Mass was never defined ex cathedra that it must be only the Tridentine Mass. That Mass was codified as the Mass for the Western Church at the Council of Trent, but other rites that had existed for 200 years or more at that time were allowed to be continued to be said (for example, the Dominican Rite). The Mass did need a reform, which is why VII called for one.

catholic.com/radio/calendar.php
Listen to the show on Friday, September 1 with Fr. James Farfaglia called “The Liturgy: Rite or Wrong”. He talks a little bit about this change to the Mass.

In Christ,
Rand

Non-sense. The mass never needed a reform. That is to say the Church made an error in its worship, which is the greatest blasphemy against the Church. To say the council of Trent was erroneous on the liturgy is to say the Church ceased to exist since the mass is the center of the Church and without it there would be no Church. The new liturgy does not compare to the old.

Can you give me one example of what needed to be changed in the liturgy? The only good things that came out of the liturgical changes were the reception of the cup by the people and the use of the vernacular. The rest worked to destroy the faith. It was poorly thought out.

 

[Rykell]

USMC:

So, according to the quote from Fr. Harrison, the “proof” Paul VI was given came from a briefcase that Bugnini left in a Vatican conference room.

1. On the other hand, I know that there are high-ranking Vatican officials, including at least one former Cardinal Prefect of a Roman Congregation, who believe that there have been and are Freemasons in high Vatican positions. I confess my own amazement when I came to realise that such ideas (whether true or false) do not originate solely amongst “crackpot” conspiracy-theorists. Indeed it is quite widely held in Rome that the Masons themselves were responsible for circulating the absurdly long list of alleged Vatican Lodge members in 1976, precisely in order to make the whole idea look ridiculous, thereby protecting the few prelates who really were Masons. 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.

This is truly hearsay, second-hand information, and the author did not physically see the information … It would never hold in a court of law. Nor would the evidence itself, unless it could be proved that someone else did not slip it into his briefcase, or that a priest just “happened” to find it when he left the briefcase opened.

In any event, we need to take seriously the position of the Vatican whom I feel has investigated the matter in ways that we are not privy to and found it to be false.

The daily Italian edition of l’Observatore Romano (10 October 1976), gave a blanket denial to these allegations: “Not one, we say, not one of the accused Vatican prelates has ever had anything to do with Freemasonry. We say this in order to rebut the possible accusation that silence signifies consent.” No names of any of the accused were mentioned in this denial.

So my conclusion is that we have no business circulating these rumors as though they were true, when we know nothing about the truth of them. I think it is eighth commandment taboos.

 

[Rykell]

Dear Dustin’s Dad,

Well now, I should have guessed where the information you provided in your link came from, because it certainly had all of the earmarks I have read elsewhere.

The Angelus is operated by the Society of St. Pius X, the schismatic group excommunicated by the Church. And you want us to imbibe this sect’s doctrine???

I am truly offended that you hid this from the readers.

 

[USMC]

Dear Dustin’s Dad,

Well now, I should have guessed where the information you provided in your link came from, because it certainly had all of the earmarks I have read elsewhere.

The Angelus is operated by the Society of St. Pius X, the schismatic group excommunicated by the Church. And you want us to imbibe this sect’s doctrine???

I am truly offended that you hid this from the readers.

Get a grip. The Angelus did not write the article, Michael Davies did. If you have a problem with the Angelus, that’s fine; but the Angelus merely printed the article that someone else wrote. If you can’t respond to the contents of the article, have the humility to admit it rather than trying to find a way to discredit it.

Again, the author of the article was Michael Davies, not the Angelus. If you have a problem with Michael Davies, then say so. But before you do, consider the following quote from the then Cardinal Ratzinger shortly after Mr. Davies death:

Cardinal Ratzinger: “I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him to be a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the faith and left us important publications especially on the sacred liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church… Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his sou to the Lord’s mercy”.

 

[Rykell]

Get a grip, USMC? Sounds pretty charitable to me.

Nevertheless, Thanks.

 

[Rykell]

After reading USMC’s high regard for Michael Davies, my instincts regarding his doctrine caused me to look further. This article appears to have very strong opposition:

Clearly, Michael Davies, the head of Una Voce International, is moving farther and farther astray, and is openly “consorting,” as one person put it, with the most extreme and distempered opponents of the Holy Father who have sprinted down the road to schism, as witness the following September, 2001, advertisements from The Remnant, the ultraist St. Paul, MN bi-weekly (published out of the editor’s mother’s cellar). These unfortunate enemies of the Holy Father are to the “right” what the National “Catholic” Reporter is to the left. Both crucify our suffering Pope and thrive financially by constant opposition to him.

What a collection of would-be magisterial authorities Davies weds! TFP splinters, rigorist Feeneyites, fallen away monks, geo-centrists and who knows what, certainly theologically untrained laymen (in Catholic theology anyway; Protestant’s have always been comfortable viewing themselves as a pure “remnant” vis a vis Catholicism),** all together to declare in many ways and forums the Pope a heretic,** according to their private judgment. The truth is shown by those whom one is bedding with—and Davies, as the reader can see, beds with the most irresponsible and disoriented enemies of the Holy Father. He raises money for them, helps sell their books and they return the favor.

The manifesto of Mr. Davies’ friends could not be more clear; it is far from a declaration of mere dissent however they may have tried, after our critique of them, to obfuscate by means of what can only be described as cynical doubletalk. They write in the same publication Mr. Davies writes for:

“In our view a possible future declaration of a sede vacante (‘the period of time when the Apostolic See is empty, as a consequence of the heresy of the Pope,’ CFN 7/2000) would take place automatically when the Church would become aware of the gravity of the present day errors and who is responsible for them.” —We Resist [The Pope] To His Face, V.3 (emphasis ours)

There is more, but forum rules ask for brevity and excerpts. I have to wonder about the truth of the article, but I have read many reports about Una Voce for which Davies is President, and also about his associates. The final truth can be learned from his own doctrine which contains many errors that have been refuted by solid theologians loyal to the Church.

 

[The_Catholic]

Lack of faith, lack of catechesis - i.e. lack of understanding of, belief in and practice of the faith…on a massive scale.

You’ve got the hard numbers in the statistics (summed up pretty good here), and also the lived out experience that we all have…in our families, workplaces, neighborhoods, and society in general. Fallen away catholics, nominal catholics, broken families, divorce, impurity, etc abound everywhere you look. A society and a culture that has utterly turned its back on God and His truths - a culture and society that also seeks to destroy the innocence of our youth before they reach the 2nd grade.

You see it within the Church where homosexuality and pretatory homosexuality has inflitrated the semenaries and scandalized all of us and jepordized how many souls in the process? We see it with the ecumenism mania sweeping the church for the last several decades which has resulted in widespread religious indifference. Folks thinking that as long as they’re “basically good” they’ll waltz into heaven unscathed no matter which church they attend if any. That ain’t the message of Christ.

And you’ve got those in the hierarchy (in this country especially) who are seemingly more interested in getting involved in politics on prudential matters (immigration, economics, etc.) relating to this world than in the salvation of souls for the world to come.

Here’s a pretty good three part essay from Michael Davies on the “traditionalist” view of the state of the Church. Take it with a grain of salt if you wish, but the man makes some good questions and observations.

The N.O. mass is a valid mass of course (i.e. Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharistic Sacrifice) - God’s part is still perfect. It’s *our *part that has suffered I believe. As the Council of Trent stated: “…whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites…” I think alot of the wisdom of the Church over the course of the centuries was second guessed and removed in favor of an attempt to be less offensive to the world. Prayers removed, a structure more resembling of a Protestant worship service, less emphasis on the Holy Sacrifice and of the sacred, etc.

I never quite knew all this until I stumbled into a TLM one day and was “blown away” (for lack of a better phrase). My thought was immediately, “Where have they been hiding this?!?!?”

Thing is, in both masses, Christ is there, the sacrifice is the same, but in the TLM, our outwards actions reflect this reality - in the NO, it is much easier to miss the awesomeness of what is taking place. And from the state of the Church spoken of earlier, it seems that alot of folks are missing it.

Here’s a good article comparing and contrasting the two liturgies…and a more recent - and perhaps more balanced - follow up from the same author several years later.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

I’m aware all of these dangers and I also think they are coming from liberalism that is spreading across America like wildfire, influencing many. But is it the Church’s fault? I don’t believe so. Maybe the Church can be doing more to help, but I can’t see blaming it on the Church. It’s mankind and his/her own free choices committing these sins. I most certainly cannot see how the Novus Ordo and V II had anything to do with this. Honestly, from what many of you are saying, and from comparing the TLM to the NO the TLM does seem more beautiful, poetic, and gets a crystal clear message. But I am fine with the NO and the message to me gets across just fine. And I wasn’t always Catholic. I was a strong Protestant following a Calvin theology system, but now I am Catholic and I have yet to see a TLM. But I would like too attend. I also think the Catholic message is not getting out crystal clear because some preists themselves do not have much faith. The more faith in one, the more it seems to pass to another by God’s Spirit.

 

[USMC]

After reading USMC’s high regard for Michael Davies, my instincts regarding his doctrine caused me to look further. This article appears to have very strong opposition:

There is more, but forum rules ask for brevity and excerpts. I have to wonder about the truth of the article, but I have read many reports about Una Voce for which Davies is President, and also about his associates. The final truth can be learned from his own doctrine which contains many errors that have been refuted by solid theologians loyal to the Church.

I wouldn’t give much weight to the article by the laymen Stephen Hand. Many self professed experts have attacked Michael Davies because he had the courage to resist certain liturgical novelties. That’s why I quoted the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger in his defense.

Michael Davies did not drift “farther and father astray” as Stephen Hand put it. If anything he softened a littled in his later years. That, in fact, is the general consensus within Traditionlists circles.

As far as his theology, it is solid. I know of nothing he wrote that is at all heretical, or even close to heresy. His “crime” was to hold fast to the teachings of the Church in a day when those teachings are being watered down and/or outrightly rejected.

He wrote a great deal on the problems with the new Mass, and the destructive consequences that the disintegration of the liturgy has produces. In this, he was in complete agreement with our new Pope, who wrote the following:

Cardinal Ratzinger: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy…”

Cardinal Ratzinger: "In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation…

"There can be no “fabricating” a liturgical movement of this kind, just as there can be no “fabricating” something which is alive. But a contribution can be made to its development by seeking to re- assimilate the sprit of the liturgy and by defending publicity that which was received. … J.A. Jungman, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, offered his definition of the liturgy of his time, as it was intended in the West, and he represented it in terms of historical research. He described it as “liturgy which is the fruit of development”. …

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.

Michael Davies wrote similarly. Unlike many of the self professed apologists, he was not afraid to declare that the emperor had no clothes. While the “party line” was the everything was flourishing, he was one of the few voices of reason who was not afraid to speak the truth. For this he was demonized by many.

However, as my earlier quote showed, our new Pope did not think this way. He said “Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the faith and left us important publications especially on the sacred liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church… Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy”.

You wrote the following:

Rykell:

"The final truth can be learned from his own doctrine which contains MANY errors that have been refuted by solid theologians loyal to the Church".

My challenge to you is this: Show me just three of the many “errors” of Michael Davies, and let’s see if I can quote a Pope who has taught the same.

 

[Rykell]

Isn’t this serious thread drift, unfair to the original poster? Maybe a separate thread? I have no wish to start a debate over this because you and I will probably never agree, since I perceive you are coming from a solid traditionalist bias. These “debates” I have found usually degenerate into disruption of unity and love between brethren.

I happen to believe that even though there are translations that some feel are not adequately portraying the mystery of faith we celebrate in every mass, the mass is valid for me as a loyal Catholic. My faith doesn’t rest in externals and incidentals, but in the sacrifice that takes place on each and every altar. Those who have a lively faith are not shaken when wording is changed, providing the essence is the same — and it is!

We leave to the Holy Spirit the divine work of moving the Church into fullness from her pilgrim infancy. All that God asks of me is to obey the present form that is being celebrated. Surely if you were a historian, you would know how much the Church has changed from age to age in external worship forms, but never in essence of the Deposit of Faith.

This continual barrage of attacks from “these vs. those” does no good whatsoever in fostering the unity Jesus prayed for, since none of us have Authority to change things, other than through prayer. Why do we beat each other to death verbally as if OUR way is right, better, holier, more true? Didn’t anybody HEAR Catholic’s heart as he expressed pain over all of this? He is not alone, for many feel the same way. We have to stop this!
(In saying “we” I’m not speaking directly to YOU personally, USMC, but in general)

Two cents, and for the length of my talk, should be worth at least a dime, no?

 

[USMC]

Isn’t this serious thread drift, unfair to the original poster?

Agreed.

Maybe a separate thread? I have no wish to start a debate over this because you and I will probably never agree, since I perceive you are coming from a solid traditionalist bias. These “debates” I have found usually degenerate into disruption of unity and love between brethren.

It depends on how they are conducted. Sometimes they are actually profitable; sometimes they aren’t.

If you would like to discuss a particular point, I would be happy to. Just start a thread. We will just have a reasonable discussion, without arguing. You may be surprised how profitable a calm and reasonable discussion can be. I am game if you are. And you can choose the subject.

 

[Rykell]

Dear USMC,

I have just been in the presence of Fr. Corapi on EWTN who gave such a powerful teaching, that I am still feeling its influence spiritually.

In a nutshell, he said that Faith is imparted, not taught. To impart Christ, we must first be filled with Christ, for our words then become “spirit and life” to our listeners. I have to agree with him that intellectually attempting to convert others with sound logic and theology is empty of life-giving impartation.

A simple humble convert who was exposed to the fire of the apostles who KNEW Jesus, got the message. Like a musician who can detect a discordant note in a symphony, is a humble soul who knows Jesus. When he comes in contact with one who knows Him only through intellectual study, vibes go off, and they know the difference and will find him out.

I felt convicted that the Lord does not want me to get into this exchange of thoughts over someone who has died and who had his own opinion of things (Davies). What good would it do for you and I to debate his ideas, whether or not they are orthodox? “He who hears you, hears Me,” Jesus said of the Church. That is where I need to keep my focus.

It was tempting to consider it, but I would become another joyless busybody who scrutinizes the affairs of others, rather than my own. Pass me some humble pie, please.