New Missal of Benedict XVI
#21
cunctas_haereses Wrote:
Quote: Any abrupt change would result in the second Western schism.

I beg your pardon, perhaps you weren't around in 69-71 but rest assured the implementation of the Novus Ordo was a VIOLENTLY ABRUPT CHANGE that knocked people for a complete loop. It did me and all of my contemporaries, our parent's and grandparent's generations too.

Do you say the abrupt change in 1970 was something good?

It did not resulted with the second Western schism, because two popes (Paul VI and John Paul II) went along with that abrupt change.

Fortunately the reversing direction started with our Pope, and  there is serious hope that the Church would stay ONE in the right side.

I recommend you to study the Old Catholics, they have over 100 years history: what happens with those who cut off themselves from the root the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Otherwise (for those who belive that the dialectis is evil) I attended seminary in the fifties and early sixties. My philosophy professor usually gave lectures sitting but he stood up for Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Kant and Hegel.

God created our world based on the dialectics.

laszlo

Reply
#22
Pope Benedict is always coming up with his synthesis. The Hegelian hand is at it again.

This comes as no surprise. Ratzinger always was a Modernist who wanted synthesize Tradition. In 2003, he spoke of his desire to see one Mass and one rite that would be a reform of the reform. A Novus Novus Ordo in the "light of tradition".

Hopefully Trads will now show a little more caution when it comes to Pope Benedict. There has been this euphoria and madness over him for over two years now because he is seen as a traditionalist. He is not. He is laying the groundwork for a future Pope, but Benedict himself will go to the grave with his baby, Vatican II, and his New Theology or Resourcement that he can not shake off from the 50's and 60's.

I pray that he might change his mind and return to Tradition, implement restoration, and listen to Fatima. He still has time but it is running out.

Reply
#23
Slayer Wrote:It would be so much easier to just go back to Tradition since everything is already prepared.
No, it wouldn't. Making yet another massive liturgical upheaval would be like ripping a healing wound wipe open. Without a doubt, a new Missal (and presumably Office) would throw the Church into greater confusion than is already the case.

Quote:We have... The St. Pius V Missal

The Missal of S. Pius V hasn't been used for hundreds of years. In fact, the prayer was amened almost exactly 35 years after Pius V's text was released. There was another revision made thirty years after that. And then there was one after that. And another change after that.... These changes to the Mass were never as dramatic or, shall we say, traumatic as the Novus Ordo has proved to be. However it's false to think the Latin Mass we know and love is the Mass Pius V decreed.
Reply
#24
cunctas_haereses Wrote:I beg your pardon, perhaps you weren't around in 69-71

You seem to neglect the point that the situation in the episcopacy has changed dramatically.

Does anyone remember the real reason why the SSPX was "excommunicated"? It had nothing to do with Canon Law (of course, that was the surface excuse). It was because the German and French bishops threatened to break with the Church unless the Fraternity was chastised. Does anyone know why the United States has alter girls? Because the American bishops were threatening the same unless their agenda was approved. Just listen to audio recordings from the 1980s and 90s. In retrospect it's startling how real schism has come in our day. The threat is still very real.

The Modernists weren't as entrenched in the 1960s as they are now. While there is an orthodox and orthoprax clergy coming up, the liberals have the reigns of power. In addition, keep in mind that there has been a real nationalization of Christianity since Vatican II. Vernacular worship and national bishop conferences are two of the reasons why this is the case.
Reply
#25
Credo Wrote:
Slayer Wrote:It would be so much easier to just go back to Tradition since everything is already prepared.
No, it wouldn't. Making yet another massive liturgical upheaval would be like ripping a healing wound wipe open. Without a doubt, a new Missal (and presumably Office) would throw the Church into greater confusion than is already the case.

Quote:We have... The St. Pius V Missal

The Missal of S. Pius V hasn't been used for hundreds of years. In fact, the prayer was amened almost exactly 35 years after Pius V's text was released. There was another revision made thirty years after that. And then there was one after that. And another change after that.... These changes to the Mass were never as dramatic or, shall we say, traumatic as the Novus Ordo has proved to be. However it's false to think the Latin Mass we know and love is the Mass Pius V decreed.

I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that the Church should not go back and make the Tridentine Latin Mass the one and only normal Mass of the Church instead of the NO because it would rip a healing wound? How is the Church actually healing from the NO? I picked the St. Pius V Missal because (or so I thought) it was the standard Missal before the 1962 revision.
Reply
#26
I think the NO mass can be fixed. The first step is to make it clear that the rubrics should be followed to the letter, in light of tradition. That eliminates most of the problems. The revision of some of the iffy sections would not be a major change; as noted, changes have happened quite often, and the new translations for those who feel an urge to use the common tongue during mass are to be more literal. 

Reply
#27
I basically agree with you, except that Lefevbre and the bishops excommunicated themselves:

Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM

This was law at least since 1917.

The liberal bishops made difference only, that this automatic excomminication get high attention

I personally believe that the present bankruptcy of the US and most of European countries will resolve this problem too. The bankruptcy always involves dramatic changes, and the new leaders will establish new media, as happened in the early thirties in Germany. The true Church will suffer, but will come out free from wrongfull influence.

God is writing straigth in crooked lines.

laszlo

Credo Wrote:Does anyone remember the real reason why the SSPX was "excommunicated"? It had nothing to do with Canon Law (of course, that was the surface excuse). It was because the German and French bishops threatened to break with the Church unless the Fraternity was chastised. Does anyone know why the United States has alter girls? Because the American bishops were threatening the same unless their agenda was approved. Just listen to audio recordings from the 1980s and 90s. In retrospect it's startling how real schism has come in our day. The threat is still very real.

The Modernists weren't as entrenched in the 1960s as they are now. While there is an orthodox and orthoprax clergy coming up, the liberals have the reigns of power. In addition, keep in mind that there has been a real nationalization of Christianity since Vatican II. Vernacular worship and national bishop conferences are two of the reasons why this is the case.
Reply
#28
Amen

ONeill Wrote:I think the NO mass can be fixed. The first step is to make it clear that the rubrics should be followed to the letter, in light of tradition. That eliminates most of the problems. The revision of some of the iffy sections would not be a major change; as noted, changes have happened quite often, and the new translations for those who feel an urge to use the common tongue during mass are to be more literal. 
Reply
#29
I think this rumor is false.  Why would Archbishop Burke be in the know, when other Cardinals would not.  Sure he's square with Benedict XVI, but I don't think the head of Apostolica Signitura would be immediately concerned with a new Missal.
Reply
#30
Slayer Wrote:Are you saying that the Church should not go back and make the Tridentine Latin Mass the one and only normal Mass of the Church instead of the NO because it would rip a healing wound?
In this moment that it would be imprudent to the extreme to introduce a usage of Mass that 95% of the Latin Rite is totally unfamiliar with.

While one won't say the old Mass left nothing to be desired* perhaps hundreds of years from now the old Mass can be reintroduced to the Church in general as the normative usage. For now, the situation within the Church and the world is too stormy to rock the boat.

*The lack of actual Intercessions at Mass,  the old cycle of Scripture (arguably), as well as the negligence of vigil Masses would be examples of this point.

Quote:How is the Church actually healing from the NO?

Have a chat with clergy in their sixties and seventies. Then have a chat with, say, a member of the Legionaries of Christ or Fathers of Mercy. One will find that younger Churchmen are both orthodox and orthoprax. Things are getting better in the area of formation.  

Quote:I picked the St. Pius V Missal because (or so I thought) it was the standard Missal before the 1962 revision.


While the creation of the Novus Ordo was unheard of in terms of drawing-up a liturgical book, there have indeed been a number of changes made to the Mass throughout the centuries since Trent.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)