Would you like to see a phasing out of the Novus Ordo Missae leading to a return to only the TLM?

[saint_rafael]

In answer to one of the questions as to what makes a declaration a dogmatic declaration, the wording has to include ther phrase “faith of the Church” It has to say that this is the faith of the Church. If you look at he infallible decrees the reference is always made to the faith of the Church.

This decree carries the weight of law. Which must be obeyed, except of succeeding popes. Popes are above the law. They are not above dogma, but they are above Church law. In essence, they are the law.

An infallible declaration does not have to have those exact words.
Again here are the exact words that make Quo Primas infallible for all time:
**
“by our Apostolic authority . . . we order and declare . . . that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law.”**

Pope Pius V used the words “by our apostolic authority” and that Quo Primas was forever valid and law, which means it could never be abrogated.

Cardinal Hoyos when negotiating with the SSPX, acknowledged this truth in 2001, years before the Motu Proprio. Cardinal Hoyos said they couldn’t make it public then because they feared the bishops:
catholictradition.org/Eucharist/quo-primum.htm

 

[JReducation]

An infallible declaration does not have to have those exact words.
Again here are the exact words that make Quo Primas infallible for all time:
**
“by our Apostolic authority . . . we order and declare . . . that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law**.”

Pope Pius V used the words “by our apostolic authority” and that Quo Primas was forever valid and law, which means it could never be abrogated.

Cardinal Hoyos when negotiating with the SSPX, acknowledged this truth in 2001, years before the Motu Proprio. Cardinal Hoyos said they couldn’t make it public then because they feared the bishops:
catholictradition.org/Eucharist/quo-primum.htm

There you have it. It says the force of law. I said it was a legal declaration, not a dogmatic declaration.

Any pope can override, re-evaluate, re-formulate, re-structure, or re-interpret a law of a predecessor.

A law is not binding on a pope.

Cardinal Hoyos was acknoledging that this was indeed said by the Holy Father and that it had never been overruled. This is true. The Motu Proprio says that too.

This law does not prohibit another pope from autorizing and legitimating the NO. Here are the Holy Father’s word on the matter. Is he going to hell for not following a previous pope? Does he not have this authority?

****In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II obviously is and continues to be the normal form – the “forma ordinaria” – of the eucharistic liturgy. The last version of the “Missale Romanum” prior to the council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the council, will now be able to be used as a “forma extraordinaria” of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two rites.” Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite. **

We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break, which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level.

The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness. **
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24633&page=2

This is what the Holy Father has to say about the EF and the NO. Your interpretation of what previous popes have written make the Tridentine form a dogma of faith, which is not what the document says. It explicitly uses the word, “law”.

Popes cannot bind other popes by laws. Only dogmas are binding on popes.

JR

 

[EasterJoy]

I was in no way denigrating baptism. I was talking about those who equate the royal priesthood in Baptism with the sacrament of Holy Orders. The nonsense I rebuked was what Catechists and theologians have been saying for years, which is that the royal priesthood of the laity was acually part of the priesthood in the sacrament of Holy Orders. The error that both the royal priesthood and ordained priesthood make up the same sacrament.

OK, but the royal priesthood is conferred by an “actual sacrament”, correct? The royal priesthood is also understood by the Church to be a real priesthood. Peter spoke of “a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” Those in the ordained priesthood do not abandon the priesthood of the baptized when they are ordained. In fact, if they do not live lives in which the sufferings they are dealt are offered up with the sufferings of Jesus Christ, so as to be transformed by his saving Resurrection, that would be a serious handicap to their ordained priesthood. The Eucharist expresses the one Sacrifice, par excellence, but each still is an expression of the other. In that sense, it is all one seamless garment. The way I look at it, there is no reason, then, for those to whom the ordained priesthood is closed to be jealous on that account. To offer one’s life as an oblation, an oblation united to the perfect oblation of Christ, this is open to all.

It is sort of ironic to me that so many of those who do not like the idea of the “royal priesthood” are those same ones who are most eager to unite their sacrifices with the sacrifice of Christ. Obviously, they live that way, even if their esteem for the ordained priesthood makes them hesitant to express it that way. In any event, of the two sons, the one who says “no, I won’t” and yet does as the father asks, and the one who says “yes, I will” and yet doesn’t show up, it is better to be the one who does what the father asks in the end.

 

[saint_rafael]

Q:
How do you respond to Catholics who claim that Quo Primum was a disciplinary decree and not infallible? Therefore, the creation of the Novus Ordo liturgy was permissible.

Answer by Fr. Kramer:

The claim that Quo Primum was a “disciplinary decree” strongly seems to suggest that it was entirely, essentially and merely a disciplinary decree and therefore, not infallible.

It was the Council of Trent that solemnly declared anathema-----that is, it is a heresy-----to say that any pastor in the Church, whosoever he may be, has the power to change the traditional rite into a new rite. This is found in Session 7 Canon 13 on the “Sacraments in General:”

“If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema.”
For six hundred years, the Popes made a solemn profession at their Coronation, a public and solemn profession, that they did not have the power to change the liturgy. Then they invoked the wrath of God upon themselves if they should dare to change it or allow anyone to change it.

**We cannot say that Quo Primum is merely a disciplinary decree. It is disciplinary, of course, it refers to discipline. But it is a disciplinary decree based on dogma. It is rooted in dogma and therefore, it has a much greater force than something merely disciplinary. **

It has been perpetually the teaching of the Church that Catholics are bound to their customary rite. That is why, in the controversy regarding Greek versus Roman rite, which was settled by the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV, the Council solemnly defined that the Greeks are to confect the Sacraments of the Eucharist according to their customary rite and therefore, they must use the leavened bread. In the Roman Church they must follow their customary rite of their ritual church, which is the proper rite of the Roman Church.

This is what the faith dictates and decrees. That is why it has always been regarded as an act of schism if even a Pope were to attempt to change the rites, to alter the ceremonies of the liturgy. The Popes have solemnly professed for so many centuries that this is not within their power. This is also taught by the official designated theologian of the Council of Basel [which eventually moved to Florence and became the Council of Florence]. This theologian, Cardinal Juan de Torquemada, was the theologian responsible in the formulation of the doctrines that were defined at Florence, as the one I mentioned earlier. Torquemada explains that if the Pope were to change the rites, or attempt to change the rites, he would be committing an act of schism.

**Thus, regardless of Quo Primum, it had been a well established teaching of the Catholic Faith that the Roman rite cannot be trashed and replaced with a new rite. To do so is contrary to the law of God as defined by the infallible Magisterium of the Church. **

Beyond that, however, when we look at Quo Primum, we see that Pope St. Pius V refers to the Roman rite as that rite “which has been handed down in the Roman Church.” He was clearly designating that the rite in the Missal that he codified is precisely that rite which is the customary rite, “the received and ap- proved rite customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments.” Trent, Sess. 7, Cn. 13

**Therefore, the so-called Tridentine Rite of Mass is the only lawful rite that can ever exist in the Roman Church. The Tridentine Rite is the Roman Rite. And just as it would be considered absolutely outrageous for anyone to try to impose a new rite [or even the Roman rite] on the Greek Church, likewise, it is an outrage for anyone to impose a new rite on the Roman Church. **

Ironically, even the 1983 Code of Canon Law upholds the right and the duty of Catholics to adhere to their customary rites. As Roman Catholics, our customary rites are the Roman rites, the ceremonies of the Roman Rite. The Popes have professed and the Church has solemnly taught that this cannot be taken away from us. We may not defect from that rite and embrace a new rite without violating what has been taught as a doctrine of the faith in the Church down through the centuries. Quo Primum is entirely based on this teaching. It is an application of this teaching.

Thus, we cannot say that Quo Primum is merely a disciplinary decree. It is disciplinary, of course, it refers to discipline. But it is a disciplinary decree based on dogma. It is rooted in dogma and therefore, it has a much greater force than something merely disciplinary. We are not dealing with merely ecclesiastical laws because it is the application of Divine law as has been solemnly defined by the Church’s infallible Magisterium.

Being fully aware of this, Pope St. Pius V did not shrink from saying “by our Apostolic authority . . . we order and declare . . . that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law.” He declared solemnly and definitively that Quo Primum cannot ever be revoked or modified.

Why did he do this? Because it is an application of the Divine Law as defined by the Church regarding the Roman Rite specifically, the Roman Church specifically. So it is not merely disciplinary , it is a disciplinary decree rooted in the doctrine of the faith. There are other legal formulations used in other decrees saying “henceforth in perpetuity” but we are not dealing with something so simple as this. We are dealing with a very explicit pronouncement wherein he says, “by our Apostolic authority . . . we order and declare . . . that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law.”

The proper liturgy of the Roman Church is the Roman Rite. This is the faith. This is the teaching of the Church.

 

[saint_rafael]

The letter that the Pope put out to the bishops was nothing more than politics. He had to explain how the Latin Mass and N.O. could co-exist and came out with a political compromise.

It is an error though, because there cannot be two rites of the Roman rite.
The tuth is that Tridentine Mass is the true Roman rite and the Novus Ordo is a break from tradition that should have been described as an indult. The Novus Ordo has to be an indult to the infallible Tridentine Roman rite because the TLM is the Roman rite.

Again it has been show as truth that the Latin Mass can never be abrogated. The modern Church has acknowledge that. Therefore the Latin Mass forever remains the Roman Rite, with the Novus Ordo being a complete break with tradition and the 1962 missal. It was a revolution.

 

[EasterJoy]

The letter that the Pope put out to the bishops was nothing more than politics. He had to explain how the Latin Mass and N.O. could co-exist and came out with a political compromise.

It is an error though, because there cannot be two rites of the Roman rite.
The tuth is that Tridentine Mass is the true Roman rite and the Novus Ordo is break from tradition that should have been described as an indult, because the Novus Ordo has to be an indult to the infallible Tridentine Roman rite.

Whatever you and the Holy Father decide, that will be fine with me. I’ll do my best to learn Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, all three, if he says I need to.

Good luck!

 

[saint_rafael]

The Novus Ordo from the People who created it:

The commission was headed by the Progressivist Fr. Anibale Bugnini and included six Protestants. Therefore, the commission that threw overboard the ancient Latin rite and centuries of accumulated Catholic tradition, and made up a brand new one, was headed by a Progressivist and included Protestants.

Their intentions? Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.” **
**
And Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”
Source: L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.

Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of the Catholic experts involved in its formulation, stated:
**
“This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”
Source: Joseph Gelineau, S.J., Demain la liturgie (Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1979), p.10.**

traditioninaction.org/religious/m002rpMisunderstandingMass.htm#4

 

[JReducation]

The letter that the Pope put out to the bishops was nothing more than politics. He had to explain how the Latin Mass and N.O. could co-exist and came out with a political compromise.

It is an error though, because there cannot be two rites of the Roman rite.
The tuth is that Tridentine Mass is the true Roman rite and the Novus Ordo is a break from tradition that should have been described as an indult. The Novus Ordo has to be an indult to the infallible Tridentine Roman rite because the TLM is the Roman rite.

Again it has been show as truth that the Latin Mass can never be abrogated. The modern Church has acknowledge that. Therefore the Latin Mass forever remains the Roman Rite, with the Novus Ordo being a complete break with tradition and the 1962 missal. It was a revolution.

But this is the point that Benedict is making. There are not two rites. There is only one rite with two forms an ordinary and an extraordinary form.

Why would you want to call them two rites?

The priest who celebrates either the EF or the OF is ordained in the Roman Rite. They are not biritual. Both forms belong to the Roman Church and to the Roman rite.

What the council of Trent declared as infallible is that there cannot be another rite in the Roman Church. No pope has challenged that.

What the popes have done is allowed another form of the same rite

If you go to the Byzantine churches you see several forms of the same rite. There are rites and there are forms of the same rite, both in the east and now the west.

What Pius V was protecting was not the form, but the decree of the Council of Trent regarding changing the rite of the Roman Church.

The form is part of discipline. The rite is part of the teachings of the Church. None of the rites can be changed. You can’t change the Byzantine rites either. You can change the form, but the rite remains. The ontological part of the rite is always the same. The essential elements must remain.

I’m not sure if this helps.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

But this is the point that Benedict is making. There are not two rites. There is only one rite with two forms an ordinary and an extraordinary form.

Why would you want to call them two rites?

The priest who celebrates either the EF or the OF is ordained in the Roman Rite. They are not biritual. Both forms belong to the Roman Church and to the Roman rite.

What the council of Trent declared as infallible is that there cannot be another rite in the Roman Church. No pope has challenged that.

What the popes have done is allowed another form of the same rite

If you go to the Byzantine churches you see several forms of the same rite. There are rites and there are forms of the same rite, both in the east and now the west.

What Pius V was protecting was not the form, but the decree of the Council of Trent regarding changing the rite of the Roman Church.

The form is part of discipline. The rite is part of the teachings of the Church. None of the rites can be changed. You can’t change the Byzantine rites either. You can change the form, but the rite remains. The ontological part of the rite is always the same. The essential elements must remain.

I’m not sure if this helps.

JR

JR, for further clarification, explain the difference between the form and the rite. What is the essential ontological elements and what is the discipline, just so we are all on the same page.

Thanks!

 

[Aragorn1]

That is wrong. I don’t have an either/or mentality. I agree that both the meal and sacrafice aspect are present in the new Mass. I did not say the sacrafice is missing, it is there. Like you said, the meal is emphasized. It is becuause the sacrafice is so deemphasized that we have a crisis. Just ask the average Catholic about it. Most don’t even know the Mass is a sacrafice.

Where is this “de-emphasis” manifested? Can you quote a Vatican document? You advise me to “ask the average Catholic” about whether the Mass is a sacrifice. I thought this issue was about the Missal itself, the GIRM, and Vatican II; not poor catechesis and poor implementation. (You started this exchange by accusing the architects of the OF of being influenced by Protestant thinking.) I shouldn’t have to ask the “average Catholic”; I should read the actual documents themselves to learn whether the sacrificial dimension of Mass has been de-emphasized, right? You have committed a basic fallacy: conflating the original documents’ intentions with the (sometimes) bad implementation of them.

The Church and the magisteruim does not teach this, but there is so much confusion among Catholics. With the laity distributing communion, reading the scriptures, running parish finances, pastoral councils in which the parish is a democracy, and priests wearing secular clothes, the average Catholic believes there is no difference. The priesthood is not respected with awe like it was 50 years ago. Then you have Cathechists and theologians running around crazy, talking nonsense about the royal priesthood of the laity in which they are prophet, king, and priest. They blur the distinction between the real ordained priesthood and the gifts of the laity.

Again you commit the same fallacy. I guess I should have re-phrased by previous response: Where has the Pope or any authority in the Vatican (say, the CDF) called for any of the things you have described? You blame the Church’s problems on the OF and on Vatican II, yet you cannot trace the problems to them!

There is such a thing as development of doctrine.

Again you confuse doctrine with liturgy. Development of liturgy is distinct from development of doctrine.
saint rafael;3580912:

The liturgy developed organically during the centuries. What happened in the early Church happened in the early Church. The Church grew in understanding as the centuries passed. It moved on. Since the 8th century, Communion on the tongue and under one species was the norm and tradition until the New Mass.

True, all true. It seems that you are here accusing me of antiquarianism. But I have never argued for changes on the sole ground that they were practiced in the early Church. I myself would rather see Communion on the tongue re-instated as the exclusive universal norm. This is not because I believe receiving in the hands is a sacrilege, but because I believe it was inopportune to allow this practice in such an age where modern man has lost the sense of the sacred.

So I only cited the early Church in order to defend the practice against charges of sacrilege, heresy, Protestantism, and whatnot. I am not denying the organic development of liturgy, and I am not defending the re-introduction of Communion in the hand from a prudential standpoint on that ground alone.

When the Mass was codified at Trent, it had reached the highest point of development. The Mass could not be improved anymore at that point.

Look at his statement of yours, and then compare it to what you state only shortly afterward:

This did not mean future Popes could not make cosmetic changes. They could. Popes have added and deleted minor prayers.

So, the Tridentine Mass had reached the highest point of development, and could not be improved anymore? That means it’s perfect, right? Then how can you next defend Popes from making changes? I don’t care that you choose to categorize these as “minor changes”: the term is relative and the distinction you make is purely arbitrary, as long as we are dealing with the externals of the liturgy (which we are). If the Mass had reached its highest point and flat-out “could not be improved anymore”, then why would the Popes have needed to (or how could they) add and delete “minor prayers”???

 

[Aragorn1]

The Council of Trent issued anathemas to those like the Protestants, who insisted on Communion under two species. Trent said that Communion under One species, the sacred host, was sufficient because the celebrant, the priest, recieved the sacred blood.

True, but the passage from Trent you’re referring to does not issue a definitive condemnation of Communion under both Species, as if it were itself intrinsically evil. Trent was condemning the notion that Communion must be received under both in order to receive the “full Christ”. In response, Trent defined infallibly that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ is wholly and substantially contained in each particle of “bread” and each drop of “wine”. Thus there is no need to receive under both species in order to receive the full Christ (contra the Protestants). In order to emphasize this doctrine, Trent issued a disciplinary decree that Communion was to be received by the laity only under the appearance of bread. This decree was not part of the dogmatic declaration, and thus may be revoked by succeeding Popes.

ON COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES

CANON I.–If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, **all and each **of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.

CANON II.–if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.

CANON III.–If any one denieth, that Christ whole and entire -the fountain and author of all graces–is received under the one species of bread; because that-as some falsely assert–He is not received, according to the institution of Christ himself, under both species; let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, Session 21

The infallible canons say nothing about the faithful being absolutely prohibited from receiving under the species of wine for all places and all times, the declarations of future Popes notwithstanding (remember, no Pope or even Council can bind future Popes on disciplinary issues). On the contrary, the canons define that it is not necessary for salvation that the faithful ought to receive both, since Christ is wholly contained under each.

 

[saint_rafael]

Again you confuse doctrine with liturgy. Development of liturgy is distinct from development of doctrine.

No it is not becuse there are doctrines associated with the liturgy.
The Eucharist is a doctrine of the Church. The Church’s understanding of the Eucharist developed over time to the point that you had adoration and Eucharistic processions. There is the doctrine of the priesthood, etc. You have all these doctrines associated with the liturgy.

So, the Tridentine Mass had reached the highest point of development, and could not be improved anymore? That means it’s perfect, right? Then how can you next defend Popes from making changes? I don’t care that you choose to categorize these as “minor changes”: the term is relative and the distinction you make is purely arbitrary, as long as we are dealing with the externals of the liturgy (which we are). If the Mass had reached its highest point and flat-out “could not be improved anymore”, then why would the Popes have needed to (or how could they) add and delete “minor prayers”???

There is no contradiction in my statements. The Tridentine Mass had reached it’s highest point and was perfect. I am talking about the structure of the Mass itself. Adding or deleting minor prayers does not change the structure of the Latin Mass itself. All the parts of the Mass remain. Only some words and termonology was cleared up.
The New Mass was a complete revolution. They didn’t just remove some prayers, they removed whole sections of the Mass and changed everything including the language. Keeping the Roman Cannon was what saved the validity of the New Mass.

Like I wrote in an earlier post, the people who changed the Mass boasted about it:
**
Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of the Catholic experts involved in its formulation, stated:

“This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”
Source: Joseph Gelineau, S.J., Demain la liturgie (Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1979), p.10.**
**
Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.”
Source: L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.**

 

[saint_rafael]

But this is the point that Benedict is making. There are not two rites. There is only one rite with two forms an ordinary and an extraordinary form.

Why would you want to call them two rites?

The priest who celebrates either the EF or the OF is ordained in the Roman Rite. They are not biritual. Both forms belong to the Roman Church and to the Roman rite.

What the council of Trent declared as infallible is that there cannot be another rite in the Roman Church. No pope has challenged that.

What the popes have done is allowed another form of the same rite

If you go to the Byzantine churches you see several forms of the same rite. There are rites and there are forms of the same rite, both in the east and now the west.

What Pius V was protecting was not the form, but the decree of the Council of Trent regarding changing the rite of the Roman Church.

The form is part of discipline. The rite is part of the teachings of the Church. None of the rites can be changed. You can’t change the Byzantine rites either. You can change the form, but the rite remains. The ontological part of the rite is always the same. The essential elements must remain.

I’m not sure if this helps.

JR

When the New Mass came about, Catholics thought it was a revised rite that replaced the old rite of the Latin Mass. That is why I called it two rites.
**
Fair enough, Pope Benedict did say the TLM and N.O. are one rite, the Roman Rite.
That is where the problem is.**

They are two forms of one rite, but on what planet are these Masses actually the same rite? The two Masses are so radically different, so oppossed to each other they cannot be the same rite. The New Mass is a novelty not part of the Roman rite which has never been abrogated.

The Eatern Churches have rites and not forms. There is the Armenian rite, Chaldean rite, etc. A rite is a form.
**
Pope Benedict invented the terms extraordinary and ordinary forms. There is no such thing as a form of a rite. Ontologically a form and rite is the same thing.**

 

[Cat]

May I ask all the “regular” Traditionalists who post in this section if they agree with saint rafael?

If not, would you please chime in and convince me that all Traditionalists are not this extreme? Your silence is rather frightening to me.

If you agree with saint rafael, then I honestly think that the moderators of this board are making a huge mistake to allow you to have your own section of the board to spew such hatred of the Church. It makes me shiver. There are plenty of other sites online where such people can voice their views. Why allow them here?

 

[LilyM]

When the New Mass came about, Catholics thought it was a revised rite that replaced the old rite of the Latin Mass. That is why I called it two rites.
**
Fair enough, Pope Benedict did say the TLM and N.O. are one rite, the Roman Rite.
That is where the problem is.**

They are two forms of one rite, but on what planet are these Masses actually the same rite? The two Masses are so radically different, so oppossed to each other they cannot be the same rite. The New Mass is a novelty not part of the Roman rite which has never been abrogated.

The Eatern Churches have rites and not forms. There is the Armenian rite, Chaldean rite, etc. A rite is a form.
**
Pope Benedict invented the terms extraordinary and ordinary forms. There is no such thing as a form of a rite. Ontologically a form and rite is the same thing.**

But there IS a Rite of a Rite The Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carmelite and Dominican Rites, as well as the Anglican Use, are all ALSO Latin Rite. This being the case the word ‘rite’ would appear to be rather fluid in its meaning, and it’s no wonder Benedict chose to use a different word altogether.

Cut it however you will semantically, the point is there’s never been just one way Latins have said Mass. Benedict acknowledges what has been reality throughout Church history. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

May I ask all the “regular” Traditionalists who post in this section if they agree with saint rafael?

If not, would you please chime in and convince me that all Traditionalists are not this extreme? Your silence is rather frightening to me.

If you agree with saint rafael, then I honestly think that the moderators of this board are making a huge mistake to allow you to have your own section of the board to spew such hatred of the Church. It makes me shiver. There are plenty of other sites online where such people can voice their views. Why allow them here?

Cat. I agree with you. The problem is in words being used where each person understands something different. For example just the word “traditionalist” can be misleading. I consider myself a “traditionalist” in that I chose to follow Rome in all things. Others consider themselves “traditionalist” if they want to follow only those things which were pre VII. and are comfortable with that. Then there is a third group that thinks they are “traditionalist” when they do nothing but attack the Church as it is today, accusing the Holy Father of heresy, not knowing what he is doing, does not know how to talk to the people, and the list goes on and on. I have recognized that one poster is at heart SSPX from what has been posted. That mind cannot be changed as the answers jump from one topic to another and direct full dialog is thereby avoided. I think what you are seeing is that others are starting to do the same thing I did and that is to avoid giving this person a platform to spew misinformation and at times what I perceive as outright disdain for the Magisterium. Believe me, you are not alone where you come from. At times it is simply best to walk away and allow a person to remain in invincible ignorance in which they are mired. The only solution is to keep that person in sincere prayer that the Holy Spirit will touch their heart in a way that only he can do to bring them back into the fold. It is attitudes such as this that fostered the reformation.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Aragorn1]

No it is not becuse there are doctrines associated with the liturgy.
The Eucharist is a doctrine of the Church. The Church’s understanding of the Eucharist developed over time to the point that you had adoration and Eucharistic processions. There is the doctrine of the priesthood, etc. You have all these doctrines associated with the liturgy.

Of course doctrine is associated with liturgy. Liturgy reflects and expresses doctrine in its prayers and symbolism. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. But development of doctrine is not the same thing as development of liturgy. Different liturgical forms have evolved over time and will continue to do so.

There is no contradiction in my statements. The Tridentine Mass had reached it’s highest point and was perfect. I am talking about the structure of the Mass itself. Adding or deleting minor prayers does not change the structure of the Latin Mass itself. All the parts of the Mass remain. Only some words and termonology was cleared up.

If it was truly perfect there should have been no need to “clear up” words and terminology. Face it: you’re making an arbitrary distinction between “small changes” and “large changes”. The difference between the two is purely quantitative, not qualitative.

Oh, and I’d like to see some documentation for the claim that the Tridentine form was considered perfect and unimprovable for all time. (Please cite reliable sources and not traditioninaction.com or other such disreputable nonsense.)

The New Mass was a complete revolution. They didn’t just remove some prayers, they removed whole sections of the Mass and changed everything including the language. Keeping the Roman Cannon was what saved the validity of the New Mass.

The essential structure of the Mass is there, even if prayers or even what you call “whole structures” (e.g., the Psalms at the foot of the altar) were removed.

It’s the words of consecration, “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood”, together with proper matter and a validly ordained priest and the right intention, that make a Mass valid. Not the rest of the canon.

And how does changing the language change the “structure”???

Like I wrote in an earlier post, the people who changed the Mass boasted about it:
**
Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of the Catholic experts involved in its formulation, stated:

“This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”
Source: Joseph Gelineau, S.J., Demain la liturgie (Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1979), p.10.**
**
Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.”
Source: L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.**

Links and CONTEXT, please.

And no links from traditioninaction, please.

 

[Aragorn1]

When the New Mass came about, Catholics thought it was a revised rite that replaced the old rite of the Latin Mass. That is why I called it two rites.

Who care what they thought? They were wrong, as we now know since *Summorum Pontificum *came out last year. Once again, you have committed your favorite fallacy. (I’ll have to give it a name, LOL!)

**
Fair enough, Pope Benedict did say the TLM and N.O. are one rite, the Roman Rite.
That is where the problem is.**

They are two forms of one rite, but on what planet are these Masses actually the same rite?

On what planet do people contradict themselves in the same sentence? You yourself just admitted that they are two forms of the same rite, and then in the very same sentence you question the validity of what you just admitted!

The two Masses are so radically different, so oppossed to each other they cannot be the same rite. The New Mass is a novelty not part of the Roman rite which has never been abrogated.

Sez you. You’ll have to do more than mere table-pounding and question-begging to prove your case. Why don’t you try to explain why the OF is not part of the Roman rite, when B16 has clearly said it is?

Pope Benedict invented the terms extraordinary and ordinary forms. There is no such thing as a form of a rite. Ontologically a form and rite is the same thing.

Sure there are. A form of a rite is merely another usage, or expression, of the same essential rite of Mass. As you well know, the liturgy has developed over time. Since many people have clamored for the Latin Mass, B16 saw fit to make available a previous form of the liturgy. There was the Mass of Pius V, and there is the Mass of John XXIII. There are hundreds of other stages of development of the Roman rite throughout history as well. That’s all a form is: an expression of the Mass according to a particular stage in the history of liturgical development.

I like how you admitted previously that “they are two forms of one rite”, yet now you say “there is no such thing as a form of a rite”.
Oh what tangled webs you weave!

 

[AJV]

The New Mass was a complete revolution. They didn’t just remove some prayers, they removed whole sections of the Mass and changed everything including the language. Keeping the Roman Cannon was what saved the validity of the New Mass.

Even if the Roman Canon were removed (not that that would be a good thing), it would not affect validity in the slightest.

Like I wrote in an earlier post, the people who changed the Mass boasted about it:
**
Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of the Catholic experts involved in its formulation, stated:

“This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”
Source: Joseph Gelineau, S.J., Demain la liturgie (Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1979), p.10.**
**
Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.”
**

Really? Goodness he’s a poor reader. I would think a Lutheran would be aware that almost all the Lutheran churches don’t use a Eucharistic Prayer, but only the Verba. And I’d also think he was capable of reading prayers of the Missal like the “Super Oblata” or seeing that it preserves customs like Votive Masses, praying for the dead, etc., etc.

As for the Bugnini quote, I posted the original Italian on the forum recently. That’s a VERY innacurate English rendition of what he was saying.

With regard to Fr. Gileneau, I do not see the point (no offense meant). Indeed, the manner of the Mass has certainly changed. Now we can subsitute chants with hymns, and the priest’s actions are not so rubricized and umpteen other changes.

 

[Aragorn1]

When you argue every point of SR, you are making the reformers (heretics) look like they are trying to bring back the ourer traditions of the Early Church. By doing this it seems as if you are indirectly making the Mideaval Church look like it was the one in heresy and un-truth. I hope that is not what you were trying to do. I understand where you are coming from, but i think you should think about your presentation of your argument first.

I’m not trying to make the reformers look like they were doing something good for the Church. My only point was, since these things were done in the early Church, how can one attribute them to Protestantism when they were practiced by the majority of Catholics long before the Reformers? So I’m not saying the medieval Church was in error. I’m simply saying the early Church and modern Church are not.

Also the issue here is not heresy and un-truth. Those things pertain to dogma; we’re dealing with different liturgical expressions here.

Hope that clears things up!