A
AJV
Guest
I add that Trent did deferred the decision on Communion under both kinds to the Pope, who allowed it for a time.
Would you like to see a phasing out of the Novus Ordo Missae leading to a return to only the TLM?
- Status
A
Aragorn1
Guest
Saint rafael:
I notice that in your post #446, you have ignored my challenge to you that I made in post #444. I reproduce it below:
I notice that in your post #446, you have ignored my challenge to you that I made in post #444. I reproduce it below:
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
I see a recurrent statement, opinion, theme, whatever popping up over and over. That is the form etc. of the mass has changed. Please reflect on this thought just a minute. What is the mass? It is the celebration of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is at every mass celebrated. That said, what are we arguing about?. For those who say, there would be or could be no valid Eucharist, simply stated, without the Eucharist, there is no mass, whatever you chose to call it. If I don’t get hung up on what are truly incidentals, some put me in the I’m OK, your OK crowd. Not true. Our entire focus should be on the Eucharist. Don’t get hung up on the wrapping, look at the present. Jesus himself. Just think about it please. As to the how that present is brought to me and or to us, however Rome decides it can be done, because they have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is valid, VALID and definitely OK with me.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
S
saint_rafael
Guest
I was not contradicting myself, but wrote what Pope Benedict himself called it. To be more clear: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!
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!
IF the two forms are the same rite as BXVI claims, which they are not.
**
There is no such things as forms. There are rites. Within a rite you can have a use, like the Anglican Use. A use is not a form. It is an indult to the one rite.
**
"Extraordinary and ordinary forms" are inventions which have no basis in tradition. Pope Benedict invented a compromise which is error. The truth is that Novus Ordo should have been an indult to the TLM because the TLM is the form and rite of the Roman rite.
The Mass of Pius V and John XXIII are missals. They are not different rites. The TLM has been the Roman rite from Trent until 1970. The differnt missals were deletions and additions of prayers from the same TLM that did not change.
**
If you read Summorum Pontificum, you will notice that Pope BXVI authorized only the missal of John XXIII. That is an outrage. Again he seems to put compromise ahead fairness to tradition**.
A future Pope who has no ties to the mess of VII, the liturgical confusion, will clear all this up or better yet repeal the Novus Ordo revolution
B
Brian777
Guest
so you are calling Pual VI a lyer and uncharitable? that is a quote form the former Holy father. as for ad orientem, is God interested in our reactions. since when was liturgy based on someone feeling offended because “Father is turning his back on mee!” Awww isnt that sad. Well too bad, such comments only show that person’s ignorance in regards to the true meaning of versus deum posture. Which is why i think we would need major upgrade in catechesis especially on the Mass before even a small change like ad orientem/versus deum is made.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.
As to the mass facing the east (ad orientem), a Vatican spokesman said that the question had come up and that the Pope likes it, but the Vatican liturgists recommended against it. Cardianal Arenzi agreed that it could produce some “interesting” reactions. The Holy Father concurred.
Someone asked a question about the chant at the mass. The chant is what is called Plain Chant. It is different from Gregorian Chant introduced into the Church by the Benedictines and approved by Pope Gregory.
**
I do believe that we should hold our tongues when it comes to making such comments as “the devils smoke.”** It is not only uncharitable, but not true. The Church has been going through a normal period of growth, soul searching and renewal. There have been mistakes and there will always be mistakes everytime you renew something or explore it more deeply. That’s not the devil. It’s human nature.
As to the Royal Priesthood not being equal to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, there is no dispute among theologians. However, the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Sacrament of Baptism are equal sacraments. It is through Baptism that we become part of the Royal priesthood. The two sacraments are different in terms of the ontological realities which they confer on the individual, but their sacramental dignity can never be denied or separated. The Ordained Priesthood and the Royal Priesthood of the faithful cannot be separated. The Ordained Priesthood exists within the Royal Priesthood.
JR
S
saint_rafael
Guest
This is what this whole thread is about. Traditionalists want the New Mass phased out and ultimately removed. The New Mass is valid. The argument is: Is the New Mass good?
**
The Answer we propose is that is has been spiritually harmful and has cost millions upon millions of Catholics to loose their faith and identity. The priesthood is in shambles.**
Vatican II called for modest reform. The New Mass was a revolution and complete break from the tradition. In no way was it what the bishops in the council had in mind.
**
It is a crime against the Holy Spirit to claim he was associated with the horrendous New Mass. The Holy Spirit was in no way guiding Pope Paul VI’s revolution.
The New Mass was a purely governing decision and prudential ordinance.
An ordinance is no way is associated with infallibility or the protection of the Holy Spirit.
Holy spirit only guides the Papacy when the Popes use their own free will and follow the magisterium and tradition. Ex-Cathedra statements are protected by the Holy Spirit from errror. **
**
Most modern Catholics are guilty of Papal idolatry.
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, he is not God. There are limitations to the office. The Pope is a man. Like any other man, he can use his free will for good or evil. He can be a great Pope, who follows God’s will, the magisterium, tradition. He can also use his free will to be weak or evil. A Pope can be a bad Pope who teaches error and does not govern.**
B
Brian777
Guest
I see what you are saying and it makes some sense. I was wondering, on the subject of multiple rites, what ever happened to the Medieval liturgies(Sarum, Gallican, Mozarabic, and of course Ambrosian)? I m under the impression that they were abrogated by Trent, becasue the TLM is a hybrid of all of them. But either way that still proves the point. If the NO is celebrated according to the ritual and not stuffed with abuses, then we have pretty much the same situation as the Middle Ages, multiple forms of more or less the same rite. Now obviously, they all had the title of “Rite” but they all were Roman atleast in style and in allegiance to the Pope of course. But does anyone know if these ancient forms are still used in places, legally, i mean?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
B
Brian777
Guest
I am a traditionalist and I thoruoghly believe that the NO is a mistake. But, reinstating the TLM whole sale would be a mistake in the exact same form as the one commited in 1969. We need to learn how to say the NO with true reverance and according to the Roman Missal, and the TLM must be more widely used, which I have no doubt that within another decade or so it will be. But no most traditionalists are not this bad, but some are even worse…check out this website if you wanna and see what im talking about. immaculata-one.com/section_16.html
B
Brian777
Guest
Be careful you are starting to contradict urself. You say that the New mass is only governance and law, but the Old Mass is dogma. You seem to be arguing for your own means now. I.e when its in your favor it is so, when it is against you it is not so.
B
Brian777
Guest
Ok but if it didnt pertain to Dogma why were the reformers condemned and executed by stake burning? Thats all im gonna aksI’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!
M
Margarite
Guest
Same Here! I love the NO when it is said well, I love the TLM when said well, though I don’t really care about the NO in Latin, it isn’t bad. What I really love is a hybrid or half Latin/half English mass. But I agree, the Church can benefit from all of these, if the NO becomes beautiful as it should be.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
There is no contradiction.
The New Mass was based on a ordinane. The TLM was guaranteed to be the Roman Rite forever by the power of Papal infallibility in Quo Primas. I never said the old Mass was dogma. I said the the document of Quo Primas was a decree rooted in dogma and was an Ex-Cathedra statement.
**
The Latin Mass is guaranteed to survive as the Roman rite because of an Ex-Cathedra statement that it would be forever.
The Church has used it’s infallibility with the TLM.**
A
AJV
Guest
Why do you think so?
S
saint_rafael
Guest
Those words affect the consecration and transubstantiation.
The Mass would be invalid without the Roman Cannon.
The Roman Cannon has been used since the first and second centuries. The Roman Cannon is the first Eucharistic Prayer. It is hardly used by priests in the New Mass. They used the second prayer because it’s short and not offensive to Protestants.
The fact that the Roman Cannon is preserved in the Missal of Paul VI saved it’s validity.
Without the first Eucharistic prayer in the Missal, the Mass would be invalid.
To understand how the sacrafice is deemphasized, just compare the missal of John XXII and Paul VI side by side. It is clear when you compare both of them and look at the prayers.
**
Better yet read the Ottaviani intervention:**
fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html#II
B
Brian777
Guest
Oh i dont know id just like to see a pr-conciliar document that would state that or some source for your claim. Ive heard that before but its usually the opinion of Radicals and liberals not orthodox catholics, not that you are a lib or a rad, but id just like some ecclesial proof. thats all.
L
luvlife
Guest
Can someone translate please?
S
saint_rafael
Guest
This is the heretical definition of the New Mass which Bugnini and his Protestant goons submitted:
“The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”, is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)”.
Pope Paul VI had the grace and sense to remove this heretical nonsense.
I suggest every Catholic read the Ottavian intervention:
fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html#II
Cardinal Ottaviani, one of the greatest Churchmen of all time, tried in vain to stop and convince Pope Paul VI of the coming disaster that the New Mass would bring.
“The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”, is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)”.
Pope Paul VI had the grace and sense to remove this heretical nonsense.
I suggest every Catholic read the Ottavian intervention:
fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html#II
Cardinal Ottaviani, one of the greatest Churchmen of all time, tried in vain to stop and convince Pope Paul VI of the coming disaster that the New Mass would bring.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
(“pro vobis et pro multis” to “pro vobis et pro omnis”.) :
“shall be shed for you and for many” to “shall be shed for you and for all”.
Traditionalists for decades argued for Pro Multis (for many).
“For All” was an error and mistranslation. “For All” signified universal salvation, in that all will be saved.
Pope Benedict has agreed for years and ordered as Pope that all future translations use “For Many”.
A
Aragorn1
Guest
This seems to be an argument over semantics… Very well then, the OF is a different usage of the same rite (in B16’s own words).
No, the OF de facto superseded the EF when it was promulgated (though the latter was never juridically abrogated). B16 granted an indult for the previous usage, which was very generous of him as he did not have to do it (and it disgusts me to see the lack of thanks he gets for it by some trads).
By what criteria do you reject the OF then? One could just as easily say that the Mass of Paul VI is a Missal and not a different rite, and that the Roman rite has been the same from Trent until 2008! What is the essential difference between the changes in the past and the changes of 1970? The Missal of John XXIII removed the second Confiteor (before Communion). How is that not removing a section of the Mass? How do you define a “section of the Mass”? What objective standards can we use here so that we’re not merely debating semantics?
No it’s not an outrage. What did you want him to do, authorize all of the forms of the Latin Mass since Pius V??? I thought trads were in favor of strict uniformity in liturgy. Naturally, since the Mass of John XXIII was the most recent Missal, it would be logical to allow that one and not the previous ones. Anyway, what do you have against the Mass of John XXIII? Is it “modernist” to you or something?
“Fairness to tradition”??? I am shocked at this lack of gratitude. Here we have a Pope who goes out of his way and allows the EF to be celebrated universally, and we still have trads who gripe about him not going far enough by not completely abolishing the OF and not allowing all possible Missals of the EF!
I suggest you stop reading traditioninaction and read the following:
Source
- Status