The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy

  • Thread starter Thread starter BobP123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BobP123

Guest
ihsv.com/suicide-liturgy.html

The one paragraph that struck me was:
The one thing that was the least questioned was the doctrine of liturgy, because it was so well and universally understood. The liturgy was a sacred patrimony handed down from generation to generation in the Church.
Click to expand...
Liturgy was never really questioned until after Vatican II. Why so? Because four centuries of people didn’t know any better?
 
BobP123 said:
ihsv.com/suicide-liturgy.html

The one paragraph that struck me was:

Liturgy was never really questioned until after Vatican II. Why so? Because four centuries of people didn’t know any better?
Click to expand...
Good article…so true…

But the subtleties of the devil are so great that they are tricked into consenting to the Modernist position without realizing it.

St. Paul says, “Hold fast to the traditions that you have received from us, whether by word or by letter.”

There is so little understanding concerning the doctrine about liturgy in the Church that it has become almost entirely obscured. In the Summa of St. Thomas you find next to nothing about liturgy.

A major misconception in the post-Conciliar Church is that Pope Paul VI did what Pope St. Pius V did. In fact, we’re going to see that he did something quite the opposite.

One of the main points of Traditional Catholics is to underline the importance of the Roman Rite of the Mass as opposed to the Rite of Paul VI, because of the deficiencies in the Rite of Pope Paul VI. As soon as you mention deficiencies in the Rite of Pope Paul VI, the so-called conservatives become very alarmed.

I was called a heretic for saying that

"…because the Rite of Mass contained therein is not the Roman Rite of Mass. It is not the Roman liturgy. It is what the great architect of the new Rite of Mass, Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, called a new creation. His right-hand man, Joseph Gelineau, S.J., said of the new rite, “We have to speak frankly. The Roman Rite no longer exists. It has been destroyed…”

Among the ancient Fathers we have St. John Chrysostom, who says it in one line: “Is it tradition? Ask no more.”

Cardinal Torquemada explains in quoting Pope Innocent III — in that book I just mentioned, that if the Pope should attempt to change the customs of the Church, especially the liturgical Rites, if he were to attempt to change the Church’s liturgical ceremonies, he would commit an act of schism.

We have received our sacred liturgy through the vehicle of tradition. It is not an authentic liturgy if it has not been received through the vehicle of tradition. And that is because the law of God, as it is defined by the Church and explained by St. Paul, is that the liturgy is to be handed over by the vehicle of tradition.

“…if we read very astutely the decree Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI, we’ll see that Pope Paul VI never decreed, he never promulgated, the new Rite of Mass to replace the old Rite…”

Bishop Lazo answered me, “but Rome, the Vatican, the heads of the Roman Curia, the dicasteries, they’re our Spiritual Fathers. Our relationship to them is that of filial piety to our Spiritual Fathers. So we did not expect that we needed to read their documents so astutely.” And he became very angry because he said “they took advantage of our filial piety and they tricked us.”

There are precisely two decrees in that apostolic constitution, Missale Romanum, of Pope Paul VI. He decrees that three new Eucharistic prayers are to be printed in this book. He decrees what are to be the words of consecration that are to appear in all four Eucharistic prayers. That is the only thing that he decrees in that entire document, the so-called Roman Missal. Read it carefully. You will see that there is nothing else decreed in the entire document. A new Rite of Mass is not promulgated in that decree.

Pope Paul VI merely presents a book and makes decrees on some new prayers to be printed in the book; there is nothing of a disciplinary nature in it. The new missal is not prescribed to be used, or even permitted to be used, by anyone. There is no authorization whatsoever for the use of that new missal by Pope Paul VI

Good article…Bob…will continue later. 🙂
 
BobP123 said:
ihsv.com/suicide-liturgy.html

The one paragraph that struck me was:

Liturgy was never really questioned until after Vatican II. Why so? Because four centuries of people didn’t know any better?
Click to expand...
Bishop Lazo answered me, “but Rome, the Vatican, the heads of the Roman Curia, the dicasteries, they’re our Spiritual Fathers. Our relationship to them is that of filial piety to our Spiritual Fathers. So we did not expect that we needed to read their documents so astutely.” And he became very angry because he said “they took advantage of our filial piety and they tricked us.”
 
Uxor said:
St. Paul says, “Hold fast to the traditions that you have received from us, whether by word or by letter.”
Click to expand...
And here is only the beginning of where you get in trouble with that argument.

For if you truly believe this, you could not support the liturgy we had pre-Vatican II since it has almost no resemblance to what Paul handed down to anything beyond there being a consecration in combination with some hymns and readings–NONE of which would have been New Testament readings since they didn’t even exist yet.

And of course it was in Greek rather than Latin because that was the vernacular at the time of Paul. It only became Latin 300+ years later because that was the vernacular of that time and people wanted their liturgy in the vernacular.

One of the main reasons for the Pauline Mass was in fact to bring back some of the traditons that St Paul would have been talking about as the liturgy was celebrated in the early Church.

In saying that I am not at all saying anything negative about what eventually became the Tridentine liturgy. I’m only commenting that you can’t use the concept of sticking to our original roots and apply it strictly to that liturgy as it doesn’t work with the facts.

To claim that the current liturgy is “altering the faith” is to at least imply that the Church has promulgated at false liturgy, which puts one on very shaky ground and essentially questions the validity of the Pope’s decisions in matter of liturgical discipline. I don’t think you’re really meaning to do so–or maybe you are?–but the position is hard to defend.

Peace,
 
The tridintene mass is available to any priest who wishes to celebrate it – without special permission. The pope has decreed this, so much of what is stated is moot.

However, I do not think the logic presented is sufficient to prove the point that changes of the liturgy are acts of schism.
Whence did the latin rite arise in the first place – it is not the liturgy of St. Peter! His disciple, whom the traditions were handed on to is St. Mark – and if you look up the liturgy of St. Mark, it is eastern.

Liturgies are not pristine dictates from the first apostles, and the Roman rite developed over time, through liturgical abuse no less since it deviated slowly from its own tradition to a form which was written down at much later date.

At the council of Trent, the discussion began about reforming the abuses in the Roman rite – and decided against, for the sake of preventing confusion during a time of crisis. The protestant reformation had to be dealt with first.

As to whether or not Vatican II was an opportunity for more confusion than it solved – for the protestant reformation was not crushed, but is still present – I would not argue.

However, I do not accept tradition as a singularly valid ground for defending a Liturgical action unless one can trace the tradition all the way back to the apostle’s authority or to Jesus himself.
Other than a tradition which is binding based on obedience to the pope, the liturgy is celebrated at the whim of the bishop.
That is the teaching of the early church fathers whose teaching is from the apostles themselves. The priest, deacon, and others are all brought into being through the request of the bishops – and derive their authority from them.

Do some research on the Gallican rite, the Liturgy of St. Mark, and notice the history of these rites – and that of the Roman.
I would be interested in your perspectives about how each of these came into existence, and why they were appropriate or not.
 
ncjohn said:
And here is only the beginning of where you get in trouble with that argument.

.

And of course it was in Greek rather than Latin because that was the vernacular at the time of Paul. It only became Latin 300+ years later because that was the vernacular of that time and people wanted their liturgy in the vernacular.

One of the main reasons for the Pauline Mass was in fact to bring back some of the traditons that St Paul would have been talking about as the liturgy was celebrated in the early Church.

Peace,
Click to expand...
Oh they spoke English?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
No, they spoke Greek and before that, Hebrew or Aramaic. Why do you reckon they shifted to Greek, then Latin, Uxor?
Click to expand...
I reckon they shifted from Greek to Latin because the Chair was in Rome not Greece. I think some common sense prevails here.
 
Nobody is arguing that Latin was the orginal language of the Liturgy. If we want to go back to the original Liturgical language, then we should be bringing back Aramaic. However we should of course be wary of falling into the heresy of Archeologism.

For at least 1500 years the Latin language as been the language of the Liturgy of the Roman Rite. But, despite originating as the vernacular of that time, for most of the those 1500 years Latin was limited to the clergy and the academics, the laity speaking regional variations of Latin that slowly evolved into French, Spanish, Italian and the other romance languages- but still it wasnt until 1965 that the Liturgy of the Roman Rite was allowed to be celebrated in vernacular. As the Liturgy evolved (and it did evolve- albeit slowly and organicaly, in contrast to the Novus Ordo which was devised in the late 1960s and implemented in 1970, after five years of chaotic change and experimentation in the Liturgy, and caused greater transformation in the Liturgy in that short time then there had been in 1500 years), Latin became central to it and increased the outward beauty and mystery of the Holy Rites of the Church.
 
There are precisely two decrees in that apostolic constitution, Missale Romanum, of Pope Paul VI. He decrees that three new Eucharistic prayers are to be printed in this book. He decrees what are to be the words of consecration that are to appear in all four Eucharistic prayers. That is the only thing that he decrees in that entire document, the so-called Roman Missal. Read it carefully. You will see that there is nothing else decreed in the entire document.** A new Rite of Mass is not promulgated in that decree**.
Click to expand...
Missale Romanum plainly fails to do this. It is not a law regarding the discipline of the Church. It does not command or authorize anyone to use the missal of Pope Paul VI. And this is why we find a second promulgation. Missale Romanum calls itself a promulgation. Turn the page after you reach the end of the document and you find a promulgation by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship signed by Cardinal Gut, promulgating the new missal after it was just purportedly promulgated by Pope Paul VI in Missale Romanum. Very strange indeed.
Click to expand...
It is impossible for a Cardinal Prefect of a Roman congregation, even with authorization from the Pope, to overrule and abrogate the solemn decrees of a Roman Pontiff in an apostolic constitution. That’s clear even from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. It is the embodiment of an ancient legal principle that has been in the Church’s canonical tradition for centuries and centuries: “inferior non potest tollere legem superioris”.
Click to expand...
The Council decreed that “due care must be taken to preserve the substance of the liturgical Rites”. — Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23. Then the reform was carried out and implemented and the head of the concilium (which was the body constituted by Pope Paul VI to revise the liturgy),** Monsignor Bugnini, declares that it is truly a new creation; and his right-hand man, Father Gelineau, says the Roman Rite has been destroyed. It no longer exists.**
Click to expand...
I have read the article from the link provided and I have posted these quotes above. I AM ASTOUNDED. Are these QUOTES/STATEMENTS TRUE?
 
Uxor said:
I reckon they shifted from Greek to Latin because the Chair was in Rome not Greece. I think some common sense prevails here.
Click to expand...
And do you think most of the folk in Rome understood some form of Latin? Maybe not the high, classical Latin the ecclesiastical Latin derived from, but enough that they knew what was going on?
 
One of the main reasons for the Pauline Mass was in fact to bring back some of the traditions that St Paul would have been talking about as the liturgy was celebrated in the early Church.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard this too but I don’t buy it.

It’s certainly not the tradition that is normally passed from one generation to the next. Is it normal for us to act as the cavemen did in our ordinary lives, for example?

Besides it still violates Trent.

The only question remaining is whether the new rite has existed long enough to establish a tradition in and of itself. It’s becoming dangerously close, it seems.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
And do you think most of the folk in Rome understood some form of Latin? Maybe not the high, classical Latin the ecclesiastical Latin derived from, but enough that they knew what was going on?
Click to expand...
They must of because those folks stayed loyal to the Church, much more so than today. And everything is in their native language now, so why have so many strayed?
 
BobP123 said:
I’ve heard this too but I don’t buy it.

It’s certainly not the tradition that is normally passed from one generation to the next. Is it normal for us to act as the cavemen did in our ordinary lives, for example?

Besides it still violates Trent.

The only question remaining is whether the new rite has existed long enough to establish a tradition in and of itself. It’s becoming dangerously close, it seems.
Click to expand...
Yes I think it has established its own tradition, cell phones at Mass, halter tops, cut off shorts and flip flops, shaking hands, rock groups, total disrespect for the Body of Christ and I think the forementioned all though not all of the characteristics of the New Mass have firmly set a new tradition in the Catholic Church.
 
Uxor said:
I reckon they shifted from Greek to Latin because the Chair was in Rome not Greece. I think some common sense prevails here.
Click to expand...
There is lots of evidence that Latin was used in the liturgy before it became more widely used in the 4th century. “Domine, non sum dignus” maybe?

Nevertheless Christianity flourished wherever the Latin Mass was introduced. THIS HAS BEEN TIME-PROVEN.
 
BobP123 said:
There is lots of evidence that Latin was used in the liturgy before it became more widely used in the 4th century. “Domine, non sum dignus” maybe?

Nevertheless Christianity flourished wherever the Latin Mass was introduced. THIS HAS BEEN TIME-PROVEN.
Click to expand...
Exactly…today is the example when only 33% Catholics go to Church.
 
Caesar said:
However we should of course be wary of falling into the heresy of Archeologism.
Click to expand...
That was the heresy I was looking for. Describes almost perfectly the act of using ancient practices to justify putting into the new rite.

And who knows whether the were real traditions or novelties, fads or abuses at the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top