What is with the 3rd Century?

[Deacon_Ed]

But also those in a state of grace. I don’t see the point of re-introducing a rite and changing its historic meaning to a mere hand-shake but at the same time justify the rite by saying we want to celebrate as the early christians did and as pure.

Ah, there’s the problem. Clearly the Church thought there was some benefit to the restoration of that rite (which, BTW, was never lost in the East).

Deacon Ed

 

[JKirkLVNV]

One of the problems I have with Vatican II is Archbishop Bugnini and the allegations that he was a Mason and dismissed and exiled to Iran…That doesn’t bother you?

In the early 70’s, the Holy See vehemently DENIED that Archbishop Bugnini and others were Masons. And he wasn’t dismissed. He was appointed, as you mention, the legate or nuncio to Iran. One can read into it what one will, but one should not read Free Masonry into it, as the Vatican has said that wasn’t the case.

 

[MarSarkees]

It was also never completely lost in the Latin rite. The
kiss of peace was and is still part of the Solemn High Mass.

 

[Uxor]

In the early 70’s, the Holy See vehemently DENIED that Archbishop Bugnini and others were Masons. And he wasn’t dismissed. He was appointed, as you mention, the legate or nuncio to Iran. One can read into it what one will, but one should not read Free Masonry into it, as the Vatican has said that wasn’t the case.

Do you have a link for that. I’ve read the Vatican never stated why he was, as you say appointed to the legate in Iran.

 

[Uxor]

It was also never completely lost in the Latin rite. The
kiss of peace was and is still part of the Solemn High Mass.

That is true.

 

[AJV]

But also those in a state of grace. I don’t see the point of re-introducing a rite and changing its historic meaning to a mere hand-shake but at the same time justify the rite by saying we want to celebrate as the early christians did and as pure.

In many parts of South-and SE Asia a bow is more common (besides being faster and not disrupting the solemnity). I don’t really see how the meaning has been changed *officially * (though certain parishes may well use it as meet-and-greet )

In the later times when the expulsion during Lent had largely fallen out of use, and was reserved only for the excommunicate or the most serious sins, and private confession was more common, and penitential gestures for Lent were taken on by the whole Christian faithful, those with sins were still receiving the Sign of Peace as it was given then using the brede.

And certainly one uses an amount of prudence because originally the Sing of Peace was lip-to-lip. Which would not be very edifying in a modern setting either between different genders or the same.

 

[MarSarkees]

In many parts of South-and SE Asia a bow is more common (besides being faster and not disrupting the solemnity). I don’t really see how the meaning has been changed *officially * (though certain parishes may well use it as meet-and-greet )

In the later times when the expulsion during Lent had largely fallen out of use, and was reserved only for the excommunicate or the most serious sins, and private confession was more common, and penitential gestures for Lent were taken on by the whole Christian faithful, those with sins were still receiving the Sign of Peace as it was given then using the brede.

And certainly one uses an amount of prudence because originally the Sing of Peace was lip-to-lip. Which would not be very edifying in a modern setting either between different genders or the same.

I find the whole kissing on the lips interesting. Can you point me to something that states this? Id like to read more about
it. Being from a middle eastern family, I often see family members kissing as a greeting on the cheeks. I see this also all across the middle east, but have never seen two men kiss
or women kiss eachother on the lips.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Do you have a link for that. I’ve read the Vatican never stated why he was, as you say appointed to the legate in Iran.

ad2000.com.au/articles/1989/aug1989p18_635.html

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.

 

[Uxor]

In the early 70’s, the Holy See vehemently DENIED that Archbishop Bugnini and others were Masons. And he wasn’t dismissed. He was appointed, as you mention, the legate or nuncio to Iran. One can read into it what one will, but one should not read Free Masonry into it, as the Vatican has said that wasn’t the case.

I think that would be an interesting new thread to start regarding on Archbishop Bugnini.

 

[BobP123]

I think that would be an interesting new thread to start regarding on Archbishop Bugnini.

Whether he’s a Freemason or not, the less said of him, the better. I have never heard any New Mass lover praise him, much to their credit.

 

[Uxor]

ad2000.com.au/articles/1989/aug1989p18_635.html

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.

. 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

So who do you believe.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

. 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

So who do you believe.

The Holy See, which *l’Observatore Romano *quotes. See, that’s the only objective information we have to go on. Everything else is based on heresay and innuendo and briefcases left and information passed on by unknown sources, X File stuff. It’s the Holy See that denied Buggsy was a Mason. So unless the Holy See lied…

 

[Uxor]

The Holy See, which *l’Observatore Romano *quotes. See, that’s the only objective information we have to go on. Everything else is based on heresay and innuendo and briefcases left and information passed on by unknown sources, X File stuff. It’s the Holy See that denied Buggsy was a Mason. So unless the Holy See lied…

Buggsy

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Buggsy

And something some “traditionalists” don’t consider: what if the Holy See is telling the truth (gasp! The Holy See? The TRUTH?!?!?). If the Holy See is telling the truth, then to say that the late Archbishop WAS a mason is precisely the sin of calumny.

 

[mgy100]

I keep reading from posters about how great the 3rd century is and how we have conformed to practicing as the early christians did with the Novus Ordo Mass. I read there were abuse back then, abuses with the Tridentine Mass, no Mass is perfect.

I was raised with the Tridentine Mass, never saw abuses. The words of the Consecration were not written done till in the 4th Century.

My question is those that talk about the 3rd century, are you Saints and bilocate or do time-travel?.

Actually the words of consecration were instituted by Christ after the last supper. Refer to the anafora of St. Hippolytus as well.

 

[pnewton]

If the Holy See is telling the truth, then to say that the late Archbishop WAS a mason is precisely the sin of calumny.

And passing on such false information without personal knowledge it is true would be slander and gossip.

It was asked “Who do we believe?” I never believe people with conspiracy theories that use such blantant false logic as appeal to false authority. Phrases like “high-ranking Vatican officials”, “an internationally known churchman of unimpeachable integrity” and “widely held in Rome” are classic examples of this type of error. It is a dead give away to hogwash and urban legends.

 

[ncjohn]

And something some “traditionalists” don’t consider: what if the Holy See is telling the truth (gasp! The Holy See? The TRUTH?!?!?). If the Holy See is telling the truth, then to say that the late Archbishop WAS a mason is precisely the sin of calumny.

Actually, I believe the sin is present in passing on the information as if it were true without personal knowledge that it is true. At the very least it is then gossip, impugning the character of someone without specific knowledge that something is true.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

At the request of the OP, this thread has been closed. Thank you to all who participated.