The Ottaviani Intervention

[AJV]

Canon 6. If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema…

Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.

Free from error means *doctrinal *errors. Not linguistic, stylistic or any other such ones. The Protestant articles in question were regarding the invocation of saints during the Canon (idolatory), and impiety due to the Canon’s oblationary character.

 

[AJV]

Canon 6. If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema…

Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.

Free from error means *doctrinal *errors. Not linguistic, stylistic or any other such ones. The Protestant articles in question were regarding the invocation of saints during the Canon (idolatory), and impiety due to the Canon’s oblationary character.

 

[jj2011]

I find that to be debatable since infallibility can’t be invoked in a rite that is not universal.

If this argument were to be taken literally then no rite was ever protected by indefectibility, because there was never any rite, including the TLM, that was ever promulgated literally for the universal church.

 

[AJV]

Essentially, his Canon of the Liturgy was used by the Roman Church for a couple of centuries and was even adopted by the Ethiopians. Would you have the nerve to claim that the Masses of Rome and the various Eastern Churches in that era was illicit?

That is debatable and you’ll find people on all sides of the argument since the Apostolic Traditions is one of the most complex documents to read. (Lest there be anuy confusion: I hasten to add that they aren’t traditionalists- some are even Protestants)

The Ethiopian Church adopted this anaphora many centuries later. Not that this is of any account, because with the approval of the Geez and Latin liturgical books produced under the Propaganda Fide and the fact that the Anaphora of the Apostles is the most commonly served liturgy, one can’t say its erroneous. However, it is not adopted word for word by the Ethiopians and certain statements, particularly those of a dogmatic nature such the Epiclesis are amplified or new compositions *

The second problem is that Eucharistic Prayer II is not the Canon of Hippolytus. No matter, because several concepts of that, which the early Christians understood perfectly well and in noways contradictory (such as Christ the “Messenger” or “Angel”) cannot be applied in modern setting. But the best bit is that when Eucharistic Prayer II is recited in most parishes according to the rubrics, there is nothing of Hippolytus’ Canon in it aside from the Institution and the Oblation and both of which are in altered form.

---

• There are many interpolations of intercessions, the Sanctus and its accompanying phrases, acclamations and other features common to the Ethiopian liturgy, but the basic wording of the Hippolytus anaphora is all there and substantially the same, except that the petition “send thy Holy Spirit upon the offerings of thy holy Church” is expanded to "send the Holy Spirit and power upon this bread and this cup. May he make them the Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, unto ages of ages. As to the “Send thy Holy Spirit upon the offerings of thy Holy Church”, some liturgists (for example, Dix) have argued that this itself is an interpolation

 

[GerardP]

If this argument were to be taken literally then no rite was ever protected by indefectibility, because there was never any rite, including the TLM, that was ever promulgated literally for the universal church.

That’s literally how you should take it. It’s not an argument of invalidity. It’s an argument against the presumption that a liturgy must be good and must produce good fruits because it was approved by the Holy See.

The Sacraments have form, matter and intent and infallible rulings on the essentials concerning them in most cases. (For All vs. For Many will have to be clarified at some point)

But the liturgy is an organic process that surrounds the sacrament and provides defenses against sacrilege and opportunities to put one in the proper disposition for reception of the sacrament.

 

[AJV]

Essentially, his Canon of the Liturgy was used by the Roman Church for a couple of centuries and was even adopted by the Ethiopians. Would you have the nerve to claim that the Masses of Rome and the various Eastern Churches in that era was illicit?

That is debatable and you’ll find people on all sides of the argument since the Apostolic Traditions is one of the most complex documents to read. (Lest there be anuy confusion: I hasten to add that they aren’t traditionalists- some are even Protestants)

The Ethiopian Church adopted this anaphora many centuries later. Not that this is of any account, because with the approval of the Geez and Latin liturgical books produced under the Propaganda Fide and the fact that the Anaphora of the Apostles is the most commonly served liturgy, one can’t say its erroneous. However, it is not adopted word for word by the Ethiopians and certain statements, particularly those of a dogmatic nature such the Epiclesis are amplified or new compositions *

The second problem is that Eucharistic Prayer II is not the Canon of Hippolytus. No matter, because several concepts of that, which the early Christians understood perfectly well and in noways contradictory (such as Christ the “Messenger” or “Angel”) cannot be applied in modern setting. But the best bit is that when Eucharistic Prayer II is recited in most parishes according to the rubrics, there is nothing of Hippolytus’ Canon in it aside from the Institution and the Oblation and both of which are in altered form.

---

• There are many interpolations of intercessions, the Sanctus and its accompanying phrases, acclamations and other features common to the Ethiopian liturgy, but the basic wording of the Hippolytus anaphora is all there and substantially the same, except that the petition “send thy Holy Spirit upon the offerings of thy holy Church” is expanded to "send the Holy Spirit and power upon this bread and this cup. May he make them the Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, unto ages of ages. As to the “Send thy Holy Spirit upon the offerings of thy Holy Church”, some liturgists (for example, G. Dix, A.G. Herbert) have argued that this itself is a later interpolation into the Anaphora of Hippolytus

 

[AJV]

This is an old saw. It’s obvious Ottaviani was having his elbow twisted at this point. He was also completely blind by the time this “approval letter” was written. But even if not, the arguments of the Intervention were no less applicable to the 1970 revision because the only revisions made were to the Instructions not the rite itself.

But were not the great many of the objections directed towards the Instruction?

And another problem with the Ottaviani Intervention is that the author uses a lot of exaggeration or misleading statements. Such as:

1. “altar almost always called table” (not- altar is used at least 15 times as much as “table”),
2. transubstantiation is not mentioned (true, but the GIRM adopts the wording of the Lateran Council IV and Trent in declaring that the Body and Blood are given “under the appearances of bread and wine”. Furthermore, the word “fiant” in constantly used and that definitely means transubstantiation)
3. the omission of the pall (again technically true, it was optional, but the GIRM directed that the vessels be covered [whether with a pall or something else] )
4. internal gliding not required (only if it is more precious gold)
5. thanksgiving kneeling- the priest is the Traditional Mass never makes his thanksgiving kneeling. It is to be made standing. There is no rubric pertaining directly to the thanksgiving of the faithful
6. Purification of fingers in the chalice- no they are not purified in the chalice but they are directed to be cleansed over the paten if Particles adhere.

Then there are some things which I really cannot see how the author differentiated:

1. Condemning the GIRM for expressing the wish that Particles be consecrated in the same Mass and received in communion as a disparagement to the Real Presence. In the first place, this is not a requirement, and in the second, the same wish as the GIRM is expressed in Mediator Dei by Pius XII who quotes Benedict XIV on the same matter
2. The suppression of the Veni Sanctificator as negation of the Real Presence because the Holy Spirit is not invoked, while simultaneously recognizing the fact that there are Epiclesis’ in the new Eucharistic Prayers. Don’t these perform the same function?
3. quoting the Allocution of Pius XII in Assisi to reinforce the argument on separation of tabernacle and altar, while ignoring his words on concelebration that in a true concelebration Christ acts through many priests instead of one…

And certain things still puzzle me. For example the priest as “judge and intercessor”- presumably that is because he says Indulgentiam alone (otherwise the argument of the author would be defeated since even the altar server at low Mass would be a “judge, witness and intercessor with God”). But even in the NO, the priest alone says Misereatur, does he not?

It seems to me that the author is inferring something not explicitly in the text when he interprets “sanctification” as pertaining to the people and moreover, adds “nourishment”. Likewise the criticism of the Memorial acclamations which are taken from the liturgies of the East, or even said by the priest in Hispanic and Ambrosian liturgies (I’m not arguing that these are untraditional in the Roman liturgy, but against the criticism of them as theologically deficient). Likewise the Scriptural text being taken up word for word (technically it is not, not even in the Pauline). Likewise the argument against the priest “associating the people with himself” is sophistry because the sacrifice is offered at the hands of the priest.

And so with other things throughout the Instruction which I don’t have time right now through the address. My point is that the Instruction is certainly valid at points, but it should not be accepted uncritically at face value.

 

[jj2011]

That’s literally how you should take it. It’s not an argument of invalidity. It’s an argument against the presumption that a liturgy must be good and must produce good fruits because it was approved by the Holy See.

The Sacraments have form, matter and intent and infallible rulings on the essentials concerning them in most cases. (For All vs. For Many will have to be clarified at some point)

But the liturgy is an organic process that surrounds the sacrament and provides defenses against sacrilege and opportunities to put one in the proper disposition for reception of the sacrament.

The pro multis controversy has do with the vernacular, not the Latin.

Again, I don’t even like or attend the NOM but where is the heresy in it in the promulgated original Latin? Where is it?

We hear these polemics about how the NOM “teems with” insinuations contrary to the traditional faith. Give me some.

 

[Arnobius]

Cam100, it should be worthy to note that when those “warm reception” of the New Mass were written, Cardinal Ottaviani was in his 80s, almost completely blind, ill, and sufffered from numerous vascular problems. Not to mention that shortly after allegations that Ottaviani’s rather progressive secretary Gilberto Augustoni, resigned shortly after this last letter.

Also, why would Ottaviani do a 180 and provide no explanation for it. And believe it or not, the changes made to the new mass from 1965-1969 were rather insignifigant. In fact, many historians have said that the NO was virtually entirely formulated by Bugnini by 1948.

In Logic this is known as the No True Scotsman fallacy

The no true Scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

It is named from the following example:

Argument: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Reply: “But my uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge.”
Rebuttal: “Aye, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

arguing that Ottaviani would have opposed it if he had been in good health assumes that it is not possible for a faithful Catholic to accept the Ordinary Form of the Mass and when a counter-example is asserted deny it has validity because it is a counter example is a perfect example of the fallacy.

 

[AJV]

Also, why would Ottaviani do a 180 and provide no explanation for it. And believe it or not, the changes made to the new mass from 1965-1969 were rather insignifigant. In fact, many historians have said that the NO was virtually entirely formulated by Bugnini by 1948.

I would disagree that the changes from 1965-1969 are not significant. There were some very significant ones that still form the basis of criticism against the NO

As for the NO being formulated by Bugnini, I would disagree because he did not personally write many of the prayers or the rubrics - they were written by various committees and scholars and went through numerous redactions and changes between 1965-1969 in the Ordinary alone. It seems therefore, inconceivable, that Bugnini could have everything in mind in 1948 though that was the year when he was appointed by Pius XII.

 

[AJV]

Father Bugnini added the words “which is given up for you” as did Luther.
He also removed the words “** Mystery of Faith**” as did Luther
Father Bugnini approved of the wrong translation of “pro multis” to mean “for all” instead of the correct words of Christ “for many”
Luther eliminated the words “for many”

The Large Catechism_ by Dr. Martin Luther OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR.
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/cat-14.txt

 ….And all these are established by the words by
    which Christ has instituted it, and which every one who
    desires to be a Christian and go to the Sacrament should know.
    For it is not our intention to admit to it and to administer
    it to those who know not what they seek, or why they come. The
    words, however, are these:
    
    Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was
    betrayed, took bread; and when He had given thanks, He brake
    it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is
    My body, **which is given for you**: this do in remembrance of Me.
    
    After the same manner also He took the cup when He had supped,
    gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
    this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for
    you for the remission of sins: this do ye, as oft as ye drink
    it, in remembrance of Me.

That is because Luther’s German Mass on which the text is based uses the gospel of St.Luke as its foundation which omits “for many”. Not through any quibble with “for many”, because many Lutheran liturgies include it. Luther himself had one liturgy with “for many” used.

 

[GerardP]

The pro multis controversy has do with the vernacular, not the Latin.

How relevant is that when 99.999% of Novus Ordo Masses are entirely in the vernacular?

Again, I don’t even like or attend the NOM but where is the heresy in it in the promulgated original Latin? Where is it?

I haven’t claimed there is any formal heresy in the Novus Ordo. My argument is that it is a deliberate impoverishment of the Liturgy of the Church in order to lead others into heresy and error.

We hear these polemics about how the NOM “teems with” insinuations contrary to the traditional faith. Give me some.

One right off the top of my head is the question: “What is THE Mystery of Faith” ? I’m sure if you asked random parisioners of the Novus Ordo, they would give the multiple Novus Ordo responses.

The very fact that Paul VI had to write an encyclical called Mysterium Fidei during the Council is evidence that the attack on the real Presence was manifest.

Have you read the Ottaviani Intervention that this thread is about?

For other studies

:
Fr. Schmidberger of the SSPX recently (2002) did a comparative study of the two rites.

sspx.org/miscellaneous/theology_of_the_mass.pdf

one example from Fr. Schmidberger’s study:

The various genuflections are the living expression
of the faith in the presence of Our Lord; they are signs
of reverence and adoration. In the new rite, for the
most part, they are omitted. In this context, the changes
at the Consecration are especially fatal. In the old rite,
the celebrant speaks the words of Consecration over
the bread and wine and immediately adores Christ,
whom he has just made present by his words, by a
genuflection. He then rises and elevates the consecrated
Species for the adoration of the people and kneels once
more in adoration. Such gestures express the Catholic
dogma that the validly ordained priest alone effects
the Consecration. In contrast, according to Lutheran
doctrine, the faith of the people accomplishes their
“Consecration.” In appearance, the new rite allows such
an interpretation, too–this is not necessarily so, but is
nevertheless possible. Only after speaking the words
of Consecration and elevating the consecrated Species
does the priest of the new rite genuflect in adoration.
For Protestants, Christ becomes “present” at the
elevation through the faith of the community as though
the “words of consecration” of the Protestant minister
have no effect. The new rite approximates the “look”
of a Protestant “consecration” when the priest only
genuflects after the Elevation. The ambiguity of the new
rite is visible.

Beyond that, you can research the work of Micheal Davies some of which are online or as I suggested earlier the Charles Coulombe William Beirsach line by line comparison of the missals.

 

[jj2011]

How relevant is that when 99.999% of Novus Ordo Masses are entirely in the vernacular?

I don’t know “how relevant” the Latin is, but since the critique of the NOM was written about it, I naively assumed that this was the subject of the thread.

One right off the top of my head is the question: “What is THE Mystery of Faith” ? I’m sure if you asked random parisioners of the Novus Ordo, they would give the multiple Novus Ordo responses.

The critical essay referred to this moment as the “crowning ambiguity.” In the Latin, however, this is an acclamation after the consecration taken from the Coptic Rite, which says:
*
Mortem tuam, Domine, annuntiamus, et tuam sanctam resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias.*

“We announce Thy death, O Lord, and confess Thy holy resurrection, until Thou comest.”

Does the Coptic rite have a “crowning ambiguity”?

Beyond that, you can research the work of Micheal Davies some of which are online or as I suggested earlier the Charles Coulombe William Beirsach line by line comparison of the missals.

I threw out a softball question, and this is what my interlocutors come up with?

Michael Davies agreed with me. I don’t know about Coulombe, but when I met him twenty years ago, he admitted to attending the new mass, and proceeded to prove it by mocking the hymns commonly heard there.

Anyhow, the hanging curve is still out there, for anyone who wants to take a swing.

 

[AlexV]

The Coptic Rite doesn’t have a “crowning ambiguity”, but we’re discussing a fabricated liturgy that was assembled from the disparate parts of different rites and usages by a committee in a Swiss hotel.

 

[AJV]

The Coptic Rite doesn’t have a “crowning ambiguity”, but we’re discussing a fabricated liturgy that was assembled from the disparate parts of different rites and usages by a committee in a Swiss hotel.

But then should not the objection to this part be based on the liturgical tradition of the Roman rite and similar arguments rather than trying to make it theological?

 

[AJV]

H
Have you read the Ottaviani Intervention that this thread is about?

For other studies

:
Fr. Schmidberger of the SSPX recently (2002) did a comparative study of the two rites.

sspx.org/miscellaneous/theology_of_the_mass.pdf

one example from Fr. Schmidberger’s study:

I’d love for Fr. Schmidberger to produce a source regarding this supposed “Lutheran” tendency. And also because the rubrics of the missal actually say that the priest shows the “**consecrated **Host” to the people.

As for his comparison, it also has errors in it. Two of the most blatant are where he suggests that “Infra Actionem” has been changed to “Narratio Institutionis et Consecratio”. No offense to him, but how could this mistake have been made? If he opened a Latin NO missal, not only would he find that “Narratio Institutionis et Consecratio” appears nowhere among the rubrics of the Ordinary, but also that “Infra Actionem” still appears among the rubrics of the Ordinary!
Again, astonishingly he writes “In the Novus Ordo Missae, such precious materials are no longer prescribed.” whereas the GIRM declares “Sacred vessels are to be made from precious metal. If they are made from metal that rusts or from a metal less precious than gold, then ordinarily they should be gilded on the inside.”

And again, I’m confused about certain things. For example, the priest, it is said calls down “by reason of his office” the mercy of Almighty God. But it seems to me that this formula cannot be taken as proof of priestly power for the same thing is said to the priest by a non-ordained lay person!

Actually I should be more methodical so I’ll go back to where the argument starts: the number 3. Here I feel it is a misrepresntation to say that it is the threefold repition of each invocation that refers to the Trinity and that by eliminating this, the new Mass has destroyed the symbolism. It is NOT the threefold repition of each that signifies the Trinity, but the recitation of “Kyrie(Father)…Christe (Son)…Kyrie (Spirit)” that signifies this. Otherwise, we would be in the awkward position of addressing the Father by saying “Christe eleison”. I would also put forward that for certain other parts, the number three is only to give emphasis and not to represent the Most Blessed Trinity. For example, the Agnus Dei, which the principal Person being addressed is Christ, the Lamb of God. And this is a minor point that bears little on the argument but some of the places where the good Father sees 3 signs of the Cross (e.g. Quam oblationem, Unde et memores) are usually reckoned in mystical expositions as part of 5 crosses.

Moving on, past the admirable points regarding the prayer Placeat and Suscipe, one comes to the much touted Article 7 of the 1969 GIRM. It is wholly fair that this article be criticised but people should look also at article 2 which mentions the “Eucharistic Sacrifice of [Christ’s] Body and Blood”. And again, the impression is given that the Protestant ministers were sat down around the table during the discussions, when they weren’t. And again, the argument about the paten being the “plate”. When it suits people, they’ll quote things like the Douay Catechism to give mystical reasons like the altar cloths being the burial cloths and the paten being the stone over the sepulchre. When it comes to the NO, the cloths a cloth and the paten’s a plate! The reason the Host lies on the altar, is because the subdeacon is holding the paten and the reaosn that is happening is because of the logistics of the ancient Papal Mass-which though dropped out of use, the ceremony remains.

The impression given concerning the altar is that the symbolism is totally absent from the new rite. Actually it is still there for fixed altars- they are still anointed and incense is still burned on them.

One thing that puzzles me is why the author goes after ONE article out of the entire GIRM, and that too that is not in the current GIRM. Is it because if he looked in the current one, he would find things like “A priest also, who possesses within the Church the power of Holy Orders to offer sacrifice in the person of Christ…” ?

 

[AJV]

And about the Offertory- why is there the shift in emphasis?

I should first say that in no way do I support the removal. But it should be admitted that the removal of the offertory has a different logic to it - one from which Protestantism and other such things are absent.

The argument that was put forward was:

1. The Offertory was, in the Middle Ages, regarded as at least co-essential part of the Sacrifice. If not a co-essential part then as an integral part. Thus also, do many of the expressions of the Offertory duplicate those belonging to the Canon. In the Counter-Reformation, this view was discarded by theologians such as Bellarmine and Suarez who held that the Offertory was merely ceremonial preparation and neither essential or integral to the sacrifice.
2. The proleptic nature of the Offertory in referring to the “saving victim” and “chalice of salvation” that can only be explained as a dramatic anticipation of what they will become. Sometimes I feel that it was only a matter of times before these expressions were eliminated by purists- already in the 19th century, elements of anticipation were removed from the Oriental liturgy- for example, references to Body and Blood before the consecration were changed to “bread” and “chalice” in the Malabar liturgy. The armenian liturgy also underwent similar changes

Thus it is NOT attacked because of its sacrificial character in the same way that Luther attacked the Offertory, as the article implies. Luther attacked the Offertory because he disagreed with the sacrifice on the Mas. On the other hand, many in the NO committee were perfectly happy to use phrases like “bloodless sacrifice” “propitiatory offering” and so forth, but in the Eucharistic Prayer. These terms appear in the draft texts. The removed the sacrificial references from the Offertory because they believed that (i) it was a late element (ii) a duplication and (iii) that any Offering should take place after the bread and wine have been consecrated into the Body and Blood and not before.

Now as to the Offertory,and Fr.'s argument, I’ll quote from Dr. Gihr’s work on the Sacrifice of the Mass:

The offering of the bread and wine, which previously takes place in Holy Mass, removes the bread and the wine from ordinary use and dedicates them to God, that He may change this inefficacious offering into the true oblation that works salvation.

 

[GerardP]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
How relevant is that when 99.999% of Novus Ordo Masses are entirely in the vernacular?

I don’t know “how relevant” the Latin is, but since the critique of the NOM was written about it, I naively assumed that this was the subject of the thread.

Well, I did make the comment parenthetically as an aside. But in any case, implicitly you are saying that the average vernacular Novus Ordo mass is not the Mass promulgated by Paul VI. If the point you are trying to make is that it is impossible for the Pope to promulgate a less than wonderful rite. What is the point of even caring if no one even gets to attend that rite on any given Sunday? It’s a worthless guarantee. It’s like someone handing you an iron frying pan, telling you it’s based on a gold one and that the gold one is guaranteed against rust.

**I wrote: **
*One right off the top of my head is the question: “What is THE Mystery of Faith” ? I’m sure if you asked random parisioners of the Novus Ordo, they would give the multiple Novus Ordo responses. *

The critical essay referred to this moment as the “crowning ambiguity.” In the Latin, however, this is an acclamation after the consecration taken from the Coptic Rite, which says:

Mortem tuam, Domine, annuntiamus, et tuam sanctam resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias.

“We announce Thy death, O Lord, and confess Thy holy resurrection, until Thou comest.”

Does the Coptic rite have a “crowning ambiguity”?

Hmmm…I’ll try this again. What is “What is THE Mystery of Faith?” I didn’t ask for an example of what **a **mystery of faith is that is mentioned in the Coptic Rite.

**I wrote: **

*Beyond that, you can research the work of Micheal Davies some of which are online or as I suggested earlier the Charles Coulombe William Beirsach line by line comparison of the missals. *

I threw out a softball question, and this is what my interlocutors come up with?

" …he said as he twirled his mustache." You threw out an irrelevent question that avoided the question concerning the real problems of the Novus Ordo. As I stated, I never claimed and most apologists of note have never claimed that there is overt heresy in the Latin of the Novus Ordo.

Now, if everybody is getting a well done Latin Novus Ordo then the only problems they have are the various impoverishments in the texts compared to the Traditional Latin Mass.

Michael Davies agreed with me.

I’m sure he felt honored. I remember hearing Micheal Davies call for both Paul VI and JPII to completely prohibit the Novus Ordo.

I don’t know about Coulombe, but when I met him twenty years ago, he admitted to attending the new mass, and proceeded to prove it by mocking the hymns commonly heard there.

So what is your point? Are you saying that he’s an advocate for the Novus Ordo? Are you saying that he doesn’t believe the Novus Ordo is a vehicle for diluting the faith?

Anyhow, the hanging curve is still out there, for anyone who wants to take a swing.

By the very fact that you couldn’t answer directly what “THE” mystery of faith is. I’d say that your question has been answered.

 

[jj2011]

By the very fact that you couldn’t answer directly what “THE” mystery of faith is. I’d say that your question has been answered.

If I didn’t answer your question, you’re welcome to point that out, although it doesn’t follow that I “couldn’t answer directly what “THE” mystery of faith is.”

The mystery of faith is the unbloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of the Cross through the double consecration.

That would be my answer, but if anybody has a better one, I’m all ears. I’m not aware of any dogmatic definition on this subject defining what “THE” right answer is, but will certainly stand corrected if proven wrong.

Meanwhile, I still have one question which hasn’t been answered. The critical essay says the following:

The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion…

Having been raised traditionalist even before this critique was written, I would have no problems with that statement if it applies to the ICEL vernacular. However, I would still like to know if anybody in the forum still believes that “insinuations or manifest errors” are in the original Latin, and if so, what they might be.

 

[Sure]

Gerard,

You keep throwing around the fact that you believe that the Mass is a tool to dilute the faith and foster heresy. If this is true then what does that say about seemingly good, holy and intelligent men who continue to offer this Mass. Say for example Pope Benedict, Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos, Archbishop Ranjith, Archbishop Burke, etc? It would seem they would have to be one of 3 things - either A. Cowards, B. Evil, or C. Mistaken.

So, which are they? And if it’s “C. Mistaken”, might it be just a bit far-fetched to believe that you (and all your knowledge from books and internet sites) are better informed than these obviously wise and holy men? I mean is it really feasible to believe that all of these men (and many others) got it wrong?

Thanks!