Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians
For what it's worth: in Bishop Tissier de Mallerais' 2002 biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, published in English in 2004 by Angelus Press, the famous words from Lille regarding the new Mass being a "bastard rite" are translated:

...The new rite of Mass is an illegitimate rite, the sacraments are illegitimate sacraments, the priests who come from the seminaries are illegitimate priests...

The translator then observes in a footnote that, "[t]he French word that the Archbishop used here was bâtard. In English this has been frequently and lamentably been translated as bastard, but the vulgar nuances in the English are not at all present in the French word or in the Archbishop's meaning. By using bâtard the Archbishop is merely drawing out his metaphor on an adulterous couple (the Church and the Revolution) whose children would not be legitimate" (p.489, n.112).
Reply
thus my point. he also said it in, or something very similar to it in open letter to confused catholics.
jaynke i made nothing up regarding you. your mouth does a fair good job doing that. it hardly needs any help
sip
Reply
(09-19-2011, 08:29 PM)archdiocesan Wrote: For what it's worth: in Bishop Tissier de Mallerais' 2002 biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, published in English in 2004 by Angelus Press, the famous words from Lille regarding the new Mass being a "bastard rite" are translated:

...The new rite of Mass is an illegitimate rite, the sacraments are illegitimate sacraments, the priests who come from the seminaries are illegitimate priests...

The translator then observes in a footnote that, "[t]he French word that the Archbishop used here was bâtard. In English this has been frequently and lamentably been translated as bastard, but the vulgar nuances in the English are not at all present in the French word or in the Archbishop's meaning. By using bâtard the Archbishop is merely drawing out his metaphor on an adulterous couple (the Church and the Revolution) whose children would not be legitimate" (p.489, n.112).

And what is a bastard if not an illegitimate child?

The metaphor still stands whether you translate bâtard as "illegitimate" or "bastard".
Reply
no kiddin. maybe jaynke will say its a love child instead
bastard it is. bastard it always was. bastard it will remain until the church finds its head and heart  again and gets the abominable thing out to the trash where it belongs!!!
Reply
(09-16-2011, 04:46 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 04:39 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: The first intro to the first NO GIRM  says clearly what the NO mass is. The theology is not catholic it's Protestant

Do you have a link to this?  I would like to judge for myself.

I will see if I can help.

The old catechisms defined the Mass as “the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary in which Christ, through the ministry of the priest, offers Himself to His Father in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine.”

What then is the purpose of the new liturgy?

One can find the answer in the General Instruction published with the new Mass by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on April 6, 1969. It is the official commentary on the new liturgy, as the Congregation of Rites stated: “It is further decreed that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, also approved by Pope Paul, should come into effect on November 30, with the Order of Mass.”

And what does this original General Instruction say about the new Mass? Here is the original 1969 GIRM, approved by Paul VI, for the new liturgy:

1969 Gen. Inst. No. 7 Wrote:“The Lord’s Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst.’"

In this statement there is no mention of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, only His spiritual presence in the people. The corruption of the idea of eucharist is no accident or abuse; it seems to be the whole point of the new liturgy: eucharist is no longer to mean the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament offered at Mass as at Calvary, but rather the spiritual presence of Christ in the “gathering together of the people to celebrate.”

After much criticism, this definition was later extended to include a subordinated sacrificial nature:
General Instruction of the Roman Missal Wrote:The Structure of the Mass, Its Elements and Its Parts

I. The General Structure of the Mass

27. At Mass—that is, the Lord's Supper—the People of God is called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord, the Eucharistic Sacrifice. 37 For this reason Christ's promise applies in an outstanding way to such a local gathering of the holy Church: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst" (Mt 18:20). For in the celebration of Mass, in which the Sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated,38 Christ is really present in the very liturgical assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and continuously under the eucharistic species.

(Notice, though, that it still does not mention the propitiatory nature of the Mass, a seriously troubling omission.)

But see the problem here. Here the Mass itself is defined as "the Lord's Supper" rather "the unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary." The new liturgy presents itself as a community memorial service, which is merely complemented by Christ’s presence: namely, the continuation of the sacrifice. (This is indicated when it says, "For in the celebration of Mass...", as if to say that the sacrifice is there to make the gathering extraordinary).

It first defines the Mass as "the Lord's Supper" and then goes on to describe it as the "memorial of the Lord". And it is this memorial that is the reason "Christ's promise applies in an outstanding way to such a local gathering of the holy Church: 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst' (Mt 18:20)." It then explains why Christ's promise applies in an outstanding way: "For in the celebration of Mass, in which the Sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated,38 Christ is really present in the very liturgical assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and continuously under the eucharistic species."

So, you see, after objection was made to the new purpose of the Mass, they merely flip-flopped the purpose of the Mass to please all parties involved. The new idea of the liturgy is now the primary function of the Mass of which the Catholic doctrine is merely a helping agent. What was once the entire purpose of the Mass (the sacrifice) is now but a mere supporting element, which is all part of a broader, all-encompassing mission of ecumenism: to gather together the people of God in His name. As such, the new idea of the liturgy has been illegitimately wed to the true purpose of the Mass, as if the exclusivity of the true Mass can coexist harmoniously side-by-side with re-presented false theological ideologies under the big umbrella of ecumenism. If you've studied the complexities of Modernism, you would know that this is its very essence: not denial, but a coexistence of all religiosity--a coexistence which inevitably effects denial and, as St. Pius X warned, "lays the axe to the root of faith."
Reply
(09-20-2011, 01:26 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 04:46 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 04:39 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: The first intro to the first NO GIRM  says clearly what the NO mass is. The theology is not catholic it's Protestant

Do you have a link to this?  I would like to judge for myself.

I will see if I can help.

The old catechisms defined the Mass as “the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary in which Christ, through the ministry of the priest, offers Himself to His Father in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine.”

What then is the purpose of the new liturgy?

One can find the answer in the General Instruction published with the new Mass by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on April 6, 1969. It is the official commentary on the new liturgy, as the Congregation of Rites stated: “It is further decreed that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, also approved by Pope Paul, should come into effect on November 30, with the Order of Mass.”

And what does this original General Instruction say about the new Mass? Here is the original 1969 GIRM, approved by Paul VI, for the new liturgy:

1969 Gen. Inst. No. 7 Wrote:“The Lord’s Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst.’"

In this statement there is no mention of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, only His spiritual presence in the people. The corruption of the idea of eucharist is no accident or abuse; it seems to be the whole point of the new liturgy: eucharist is no longer to mean the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament offered at Mass as at Calvary, but rather the spiritual presence of Christ in the “gathering together of the people to celebrate.”

I agree with you that the wording of the original version was not good Catholic theology.  However, I disagree that the revised version is wrong.  Many different things are happening at the Mass.  It is not uncatholic to say that it is a gathering of the people of God.  It is uncatholic when this is the only thing said to the exclusion of all else.

Reply
(09-20-2011, 03:22 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-20-2011, 01:26 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 04:46 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 04:39 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: The first intro to the first NO GIRM  says clearly what the NO mass is. The theology is not catholic it's Protestant

Do you have a link to this?  I would like to judge for myself.

I will see if I can help.

The old catechisms defined the Mass as “the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary in which Christ, through the ministry of the priest, offers Himself to His Father in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine.”

What then is the purpose of the new liturgy?

One can find the answer in the General Instruction published with the new Mass by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on April 6, 1969. It is the official commentary on the new liturgy, as the Congregation of Rites stated: “It is further decreed that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, also approved by Pope Paul, should come into effect on November 30, with the Order of Mass.”

And what does this original General Instruction say about the new Mass? Here is the original 1969 GIRM, approved by Paul VI, for the new liturgy:

1969 Gen. Inst. No. 7 Wrote:“The Lord’s Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst.’"

In this statement there is no mention of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, only His spiritual presence in the people. The corruption of the idea of eucharist is no accident or abuse; it seems to be the whole point of the new liturgy: eucharist is no longer to mean the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament offered at Mass as at Calvary, but rather the spiritual presence of Christ in the “gathering together of the people to celebrate.”

I agree with you that the wording of the original version was not good Catholic theology.  However, I disagree that the revised version is wrong.  Many different things are happening at the Mass.  It is not uncatholic to say that it is a gathering of the people of God.  It is uncatholic when this is the only thing said to the exclusion of all else.

It is antithetical to Catholicism to subordinate--or make merely complementary--the purpose of the Mass, as infallibly defined by the Council of Trent, to a novel, ecumenical purpose.

The Holy Ghost of the Catholic religion doesn't change His mind about what the purpose of the Mass is.

If the first was by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, by whose inspiration is the second? The "wisdom of Man" (Paul VI), no doubt.

EDITED: clarity
Reply
If the Vatican and FSSPX were to reconcile, what will happen to the Priestly Society of Saint Josaphat?
Reply
I have never heard of them.
Link?
Reply
(09-21-2011, 06:34 AM)Stubborn Wrote: I have never heard of them.
Link?
Oh dear, I'm using the same avatar as you do. Guess I'll have to change it to avoid confusion... :)

Oh yes, a link. [url=http://"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Priestly_Society_of_Saint_Josaphat"]Wikipedia[/url]

There are links to pictures of Mgr. Fellay and Mgr. Williamson ordaining for the society.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)