FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Ottaviani intervention?
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
(01-01-2013, 12:54 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]the six Protestants were sought for advice, not the conductors of the reform. There is a large difference.

SO why would heretics be brought in for advice? What advice could possibly be sought from heretics? If an obese man is trying to lose weight he doesn't go to McDonalds for dieting tips.
(01-01-2013, 12:54 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2013, 12:29 PM)TeaGuyTom Wrote: [ -> ]Why are we on a trad Catholic forum analyzing reasons FOR the Pauline Rite  ???  The one thing trads hold together in common IS the traditional Latin Rite. You don't hear of Pius V convening a group of monks to "write up" a new Latin rite. All changes were organically tweaked. There never was a reason to have arch-progressive Bugnini and the posse sitting in a room cutting and piecing a whole new Latin Rite.   

I mention these things to show that the narrative that the New Mass was this thing out of the blue is just false, and usually indicates to me that someone doesn't know the subject sufficiently. Thus when you say, "organically tweaked," you obviously are ignoring what I just said a post ago. They were inorganically tweaked.

The Organic Development of the Liturgy, by Alcuin Reid, p. 77, 229 Wrote:For this reason, we cannot but conclude, with Batiffol, Parsch, Taft, and others, that Saint Pius X's abolition of ancient elements of the received Tradition was to the detriment of the Roman breviary and was unprecedented in liturgical history.
...

The reservations already expressed about truncating the rite of the blessing of the palms and abolishing the Mass of the Presanctified from motives of pastoral expediency and antiquarianism and our earlier reservation about the reform of the paschal vigil, which is made obligatory in the 1956 Ordo, lead to the conclusion that this reform is a mixed blessing. A return to authenticity and some simplification are certainly not repugnant to objective liturgical Tradition. Yet antiquarianism and unfettered pastoral expediency are. It is difficult to see how the abolition of the Good Friday Mass of the Presanctified is anything other than the latter. ... One may conclude it is largely within the boundaries of both the organic development of the Liturgy and of the supervisory comptence of the bishop of Rome of the Roman rite.

(01-01-2013, 12:36 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: [ -> ]Thats what I'd like to know. The Original post was about the Ottaviani intervention. From that we went from Card. Ottaviani being an evil man who led souls to hell to every tweak and change in the TLM in the past 80 years or so. "Tweak and Change" not TOTAL rewrite by a Freemason and 6 Protestants. There is a large difference.
And crack open some more books.

I have read:
The History of the Mass by Aquilina
The Mass of the Early Christians Aquilina again
A study of The Roman Liturgy Florescu
The Ceremonies of the Mass Florescu
The Holy Mass Guranger
The Spirit of the Liturgy Ratzinger
Approaches to a theology of the liturgy Ratzinger
God is near Us the heart of the Eucharist Ratzinger
A History of Christian Worship James White
The Byzantine Rite Fr. Anastasios

Any other suggestions?
(01-01-2013, 11:28 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2013, 12:54 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]the six Protestants were sought for advice, not the conductors of the reform. There is a large difference.

SO why would heretics be brought in for advice? What advice could possibly be sought from heretics? If an obese man is trying to lose weight he doesn't go to McDonalds for dieting tips.

One of the ideas behind the reform was that it was important to avoid offending Protestants in order to reach out to them and bring them to the True Faith.  Given this assumption (which I do think was flawed) it is reasonable that they would want to ask Protestants what they found offensive.
"How can someone possibly read the Ottaviani Intervention and still think the Novus Disorder is a valid Mass?"

Because it was promulgated lawfully by the highest earthly authority on this matter, ie: the Pope.
"
(01-02-2013, 10:48 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2013, 11:28 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2013, 12:54 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]the six Protestants were sought for advice, not the conductors of the reform. There is a large difference.

SO why would heretics be brought in for advice? What advice could possibly be sought from heretics? If an obese man is trying to lose weight he doesn't go to McDonalds for dieting tips.

One of the ideas behind the reform was that it was important to avoid offending Protestants in order to reach out to them and bring them to the True Faith.  Given this assumption (which I do think was flawed) it is reasonable that they would want to ask Protestants what they found offensive.
That is how it was sold to the faithful anyway. Fifty years after implementation, however, shows it as a drastic failure, achieving the exact opposite of the supposed goals of the reform. Given the benefit of hindsight, with all the evidence we have before us, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the architects of the liturgical reform had already lost the faith and in fact did NOT believe in the dogma of One True Faith / One True Church any longer.
(01-02-2013, 12:19 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 10:48 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2013, 11:28 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2013, 12:54 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]the six Protestants were sought for advice, not the conductors of the reform. There is a large difference.

SO why would heretics be brought in for advice? What advice could possibly be sought from heretics? If an obese man is trying to lose weight he doesn't go to McDonalds for dieting tips.

One of the ideas behind the reform was that it was important to avoid offending Protestants in order to reach out to them and bring them to the True Faith.  Given this assumption (which I do think was flawed) it is reasonable that they would want to ask Protestants what they found offensive.
That is how it was sold to the faithful anyway. Fifty years after implementation, however, shows it as a drastic failure, achieving the exact opposite of the supposed goals of the reform. Given the benefit of hindsight, with all the evidence we have before us, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the architects of the liturgical reform had already lost the faith and in fact did NOT believe in the dogma of One True Faith / One True Church any longer.

I think that most, if not all of them, really believed they were helping the Church.  Hindsight shows that they made some mistakes, not that they were ill-intentioned.  I used to study theology among liberal Catholics and, compared to what I am now, used to be one myself.  I am very familiar with how they think.
(12-31-2012, 02:05 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]The Dying Flutchman,
I think your other thread gives us some really good clues as to why Paul VI approved what he did:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...602.0.html

Quote: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."


This reasoning is not new, nor necessarily nefarious.  It's the same argument that was made against permitting Holy Communion under both species to certain Utraquist groups.  The reception of the Chalice became a symbol of a condemnation of the authority of the Church to restrict it.

Just like Communion under both species, or liturgy in the vernacular, or the most traditional wording of the Nicene Creed (all otherwise benign and even holy things) were, during certain periods, seen as symbols of rebellion against Church authority, so too , sadly, was the 1962 Missal.
(01-02-2013, 10:48 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2013, 11:28 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-01-2013, 12:54 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]the six Protestants were sought for advice, not the conductors of the reform. There is a large difference.

SO why would heretics be brought in for advice? What advice could possibly be sought from heretics? If an obese man is trying to lose weight he doesn't go to McDonalds for dieting tips.

One of the ideas behind the reform was that it was important to avoid offending Protestants in order to reach out to them and bring them to the True Faith.  Given this assumption (which I do think was flawed) it is reasonable that they would want to ask Protestants what they found offensive.

Bring them to the True Faith is not the same thing as attempting to find an "as-yet-unrealized unity" which eschews an "outdated ecclesiology of return," to paraphrase.
(01-02-2013, 01:09 PM)MRose Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 10:48 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]One of the ideas behind the reform was that it was important to avoid offending Protestants in order to reach out to them and bring them to the True Faith.  Given this assumption (which I do think was flawed) it is reasonable that they would want to ask Protestants what they found offensive.

Bring them to the True Faith is not the same thing as attempting to find an "as-yet-unrealized unity" which eschews an "outdated ecclesiology of return," to paraphrase.

It could be. 
(01-02-2013, 01:41 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 01:09 PM)MRose Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-02-2013, 10:48 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]One of the ideas behind the reform was that it was important to avoid offending Protestants in order to reach out to them and bring them to the True Faith.  Given this assumption (which I do think was flawed) it is reasonable that they would want to ask Protestants what they found offensive.

Bring them to the True Faith is not the same thing as attempting to find an "as-yet-unrealized unity" which eschews an "outdated ecclesiology of return," to paraphrase.

It could be. 
Huh? You sure you've shaken remnants of liberal catholic theology (which one pope called an enemy of the faith if my memory is correct)?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7