FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: NCR on the Latin Mass
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A friend sent me this.This made me so angry reading this I just had to share


ncronline.org/news/spirituality/attempt-resurrect-pre-vatican-ii-mass-leaves-church-crossroads
This priest is a longtime modernist in the Oakland diocese.
Well at least you have to give him credit for being both honest and understanding the real issues. He's absolutely correct when he writes "Liturgy is not about taste or aesthetics. It is how the church defines itself. Those who rejected Vatican II and its liturgy were the first to understand the connection between liturgy and our self-understanding as church." and " The rejection of the Vatican II liturgy is a rejection of its ecclesiology and theology. "

Even though at this time I'm only open to attending "approved" EF Masses, I can't help but wonder if I'm being played for a fool. For example, this morning, we attended the DL at a Rurthenian Church. I was Orthodox for 7 years so know what "true" Orthodox worship looks like. Even though this is a very nice parish with a good and very sound priest, there was something 'off' there. It was not the same as an Orthodox liturgy and the people there do not follow Orthodox practices. For example, they only fast from dairy and meat on monday, wednesday and friday and don't abstain from wine and oil. The Orthodox are in the midst of the St. Phillip's Fast and abstain from all meat, dairy, oil and wine from November 15th until Christmas. That's what being in communion with Rome has done to their traditions. Will the same happen to those of us who attend "approved" EF Masses?

It is well past time for NCR to be stripped of their "Catholic" title.
(12-09-2012, 09:03 PM)Lateran15 Wrote: [ -> ]It is well past time for NCR to be stripped of their "Catholic" title.

Nah, that only happens to people like Michael Voris
I would take issue with the fact that this publication still is in full communion with the Pope and that they can still officially use the word "Catholic" in their title, but I imagine their local ordinary is simply just too busy for trivial matters like this.

Moving on to the article, though....

Quote:Liturgy is not about taste or aesthetics. It is how the church defines itself. Those who rejected Vatican II and its liturgy were the first to understand the connection between liturgy and our self-understanding as church.

Pope Paul VI also understood this. The rejection of the Vatican II liturgy is a rejection of its ecclesiology and theology. In his newly published book True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in Sacrosanctum Concilium, Massimo Faggioli narrates Paul's response when his philosopher friend Jean Guitton asked why not concede the 1962 missal to breakaway Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers. Paul responded:

Never. This Mass ... becomes the symbol of the condemnation of the council. I will not accept, under any circumstances, the condemnation of the council through a symbol. Should this exception to the liturgy of Vatican II have its way, the entire council would be shaken. And, as a consequence, the apostolic authority of the council would be shaken.

Paul knew that permitting the old form would be not only divisive but would call the whole council into doubt, and that would be a sin against the Holy Spirit. Now we are experiencing the unfortunate fruit of the recent permission to celebrate the extraordinary form.

If true, this section is very telling, and damning.  Oftentimes we hear stories about how Pope Paul VI was pained to see the effects wrought by the Novus Ordo or lamented the loss of aspects of Catholicism.  yet, here we have the Vicar of Christ saying "NEVER" to permitting ABL to use the 1962 missal.  NEVER.  So, I guess he only had a backbone when it came to traditionalists.  Which, I guess is funny, because traditionalists are typically the only ones to care about the office of the papacy.

Quote:Fr. Ron Schmit is pastor of St. Anne Church in Byron, Calif.

Why am I not surprised he is a pastor?  This priest has the care of souls.

Kyrie eleison.
Wouldn't it be fun to put the author on trial accused of being Catholic?  I can see the cross examination now:

True or fale: fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom!

False.

So the Psalms are wrong?

Yes...I mean no.  Which Psalms?

You don't know which one says that?

No.

But you pray it every week for decades!

When?

In your Office?

Where?

In the Liturgy of the Hours.

Oh....that...yes, of course....

You do pray your daily Office, right?

Sometimes...

So, you neglect your canonical obligations daily then, that's your evidence?

My what?

No more questions.

Acquitted...not Catholic.
(12-09-2012, 08:50 PM)GenevieveW Wrote: [ -> ]Well at least you have to give him credit for being both honest and understanding the real issues. He's absolutely correct when he writes "Liturgy is not about taste or aesthetics. It is how the church defines itself. Those who rejected Vatican II and its liturgy were the first to understand the connection between liturgy and our self-understanding as church." and " The rejection of the Vatican II liturgy is a rejection of its ecclesiology and theology. "

Even though at this time I'm only open to attending "approved" EF Masses, I can't help but wonder if I'm being played for a fool. For example, this morning, we attended the DL at a Rurthenian Church. I was Orthodox for 7 years so know what "true" Orthodox worship looks like. Even though this is a very nice parish with a good and very sound priest, there was something 'off' there. It was not the same as an Orthodox liturgy and the people there do not follow Orthodox practices. For example, they only fast from dairy and meat on monday, wednesday and friday and don't abstain from wine and oil. The Orthodox are in the midst of the St. Phillip's Fast and abstain from all meat, dairy, oil and wine from November 15th until Christmas. That's what being in communion with Rome has done to their traditions. Will the same happen to those of us who attend "approved" EF Masses?

You should have been a bit more discerning before signing up for the post-Vatican II Church. It's a good thing you extricated yourself from a band of schismatics, but sadly...
(12-09-2012, 09:26 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]I would take issue with the fact that this publication still is in full communion with the Pope and that they can still officially use the word "Catholic" in their title, but I imagine their local ordinary is simply just too busy for trivial matters like this.

Moving on to the article, though....

Quote:Liturgy is not about taste or aesthetics. It is how the church defines itself. Those who rejected Vatican II and its liturgy were the first to understand the connection between liturgy and our self-understanding as church.

Pope Paul VI also understood this. The rejection of the Vatican II liturgy is a rejection of its ecclesiology and theology. In his newly published book True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in Sacrosanctum Concilium, Massimo Faggioli narrates Paul's response when his philosopher friend Jean Guitton asked why not concede the 1962 missal to breakaway Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers. Paul responded:

Never. This Mass ... becomes the symbol of the condemnation of the council. I will not accept, under any circumstances, the condemnation of the council through a symbol. Should this exception to the liturgy of Vatican II have its way, the entire council would be shaken. And, as a consequence, the apostolic authority of the council would be shaken.

Paul knew that permitting the old form would be not only divisive but would call the whole council into doubt, and that would be a sin against the Holy Spirit. Now we are experiencing the unfortunate fruit of the recent permission to celebrate the extraordinary form.

If true, this section is very telling, and damning.  Oftentimes we hear stories about how Pope Paul VI was pained to see the effects wrought by the Novus Ordo or lamented the loss of aspects of Catholicism.  yet, here we have the Vicar of Christ saying "NEVER" to permitting ABL to use the 1962 missal.  NEVER.  So, I guess he only had a backbone when it came to traditionalists.  Which, I guess is funny, because traditionalists are typically the only ones to care about the office of the papacy.

Quote:Fr. Ron Schmit is pastor of St. Anne Church in Byron, Calif.

Why am I not surprised he is a pastor?  This priest has the care of souls.

Kyrie eleison.

Yeah and it also shows that Paul VI knew that the council was a radical break with the past.
From the article:

"Pope Paul VI also understood this.  The rejection of the Vatican II liturgy is a rejection of its ecclesiology and theology.  In his newly published book True Reform: Liturgy and Ecclesiology in Sacrosanctum Concilium, Massimo Faggioli narrates Paul's response when his philosopher friend Jean Guitton asked why not concede the 1962 missal to breakaway Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers.  Paul responded:

"'Never.  This Mass ... becomes the symbol of the condemnation of the council.  I will not accept, under any circumstances, the condemnation of the council through a symbol.  Should this exception to the liturgy of Vatican II have its way, the entire council would be shaken.  And, as a consequence, the apostolic authority of the council would be shaken.'"

Pope Paul himself knew implicitly that Vatican II was not in continuity with Tradition, as the true Roman Rite, with its centuries-old prayers, condemned the Council and what it taught.  And it's also made clear that the true Mass contains within it traditional Catholic theology and ecclesiology, while the Novus Ordo is something different (64% of the orations were replaced, 19% were altered, with only 17% left untouched).  Yet one more nail in the coffin against those who argue against the Hermeneutic of Rupture.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7