Ranking arguments against the NO
#61
(05-06-2010, 02:25 PM)Zakhur Wrote: Give liturgical scholars a few more years and they will have assembled a dossier on the New Mass that will make the CDF chair reel.  The real scholarly  grunt work has only begun.  Up till recently it was considered borderline schismatic to even analyze this missal the way people like Dr. Pristas have begun to do.  Read her papers.  You'll get a good reel out of them yourself.

Fortunately, I'm not talking about someone's opinion here.  If you know Latin, liturgical history, have familiarized yourself with the theories and activity of the Consilium that did the work, and have studied the science of liturgical prayer and the vital relationship it and the Church's dogma have developed over the centuries, the content of the New Missal, specifically as liturgical prayer, is revealed as a breach in the organic tradition of the liturgy.  This is a fact about this missal.

To say that is NOT rebellion against authority because it is the truth.  Obedience to legitimate authority is not meant to constrain one's mind to agree that a fact is not a fact.  That is a misunderstanding of the nature of obedience.

Nor does recognition of this fact imply that he who recognizes it denies that the New Missal can be used to offer a Mass.  It is perfectly capable of offering a Mass (until the CDF says otherwise).

You are not the depository of the Truth, the pope and the collegium of the Bishops is. Your statement that you represent the truth against them is clear heresy. One cannot appeal against the Pope not even to the Ecumenical Council, much less to individuals like you.
Reply
#62
(05-06-2010, 02:25 PM)Zakhur Wrote: Give liturgical scholars a few more years and they will have assembled a dossier on the New Mass that will make the CDF chair reel.  The real scholarly  grunt work has only begun.  Up till recently it was considered borderline schismatic to even analyze this missal the way people like Dr. Pristas have begun to do.  Read her papers.  You'll get a good reel out of them yourself.

Zakhur, please keep us informed of anything else you find.
Reply
#63
(05-06-2010, 02:25 PM)Zakhur Wrote: Give liturgical scholars a few more years and they will have assembled a dossier on the New Mass that will make the CDF chair reel.  The real scholarly  grunt work has only begun.  Up till recently it was considered borderline schismatic to even analyze this missal the way people like Dr. Pristas have begun to do.  Read her papers.  You'll get a good reel out of them yourself.

I think there has been a shift in Catholic academia, in general.  For a long time Iota Unum was treated like a cult book but people seem to take it more seriously now.  You description of "borderline schismatic" seems to cover the attitude to any criticism of the New Mass.  I suspect that Summorum Pontificum and Pope Benedict's attitude to tradition in general have opened the way for honest examination of the reforms.

(05-06-2010, 02:25 PM)Zakhur Wrote: Fortunately, I'm not talking about someone's opinion here.  If you know Latin, liturgical history, have familiarized yourself with the theories and activity of the Consilium that did the work, and have studied the science of liturgical prayer and the vital relationship it and the Church's dogma have developed over the centuries, the content of the New Missal, specifically as liturgical prayer, is revealed as a breach in the organic tradition of the liturgy.  This is a fact about this missal.

Yes, the evidence is overwhelming.  We are dealing with objective issues here, not preferences and opinions.

(05-06-2010, 02:25 PM)Zakhur Wrote: To say that is NOT rebellion against authority because it is the truth.  Obedience to legitimate authority is not meant to constrain one's mind to agree that a fact is not a fact.  That is a misunderstanding of the nature of obedience.

Nor does recognition of this fact imply that he who recognizes it denies that the New Missal can be used to offer a Mass.  It is perfectly capable of offering a Mass (until the CDF says otherwise).

I think that this kind of moderate and scholarly approach is going to be more effective that rhetoric and polemics. While traditional Catholicism was being marginalized, the emotional approach made sense.  Now we have an opportunity to work from within.

Reply
#64
(05-06-2010, 08:31 PM)glgas Wrote:
Quote:To say that is NOT rebellion against authority because it is the truth.  Obedience to legitimate authority is not meant to constrain one's mind to agree that a fact is not a fact.  That is a misunderstanding of the nature of obedience.

Nor does recognition of this fact imply that he who recognizes it denies that the New Missal can be used to offer a Mass.  It is perfectly capable of offering a Mass (until the CDF says otherwise).

You are not the depository of the Truth, the pope and the collegium of the Bishops is. Your statement that you represent the truth against them is clear heresy. One cannot appeal against the Pope not even to the Ecumenical Council, much less to individuals like you.

There is nothing at all heretical about his statement.  You really do misunderstand the nature of obedience.

You keep falling back on this argument.  You ask for people to show you the problems in the New Mass and when they do, you claim that it is somehow our duty as Catholics to ignore these problems.  Scholarly examination of liturgy is not pitting oneself against the Pope and bishops .  It is the duty of scholars to pursue truth and present their findings to the Magisterium who then make the decisions about how to use the information.

Liturgical theologians describe flaws in the New Mass as an act of service to the Church.  The Magisterium takes that information and uses it when deciding if the New Mass should be reformed or scrapped or retained as is. 
Reply
#65
???
Reply
#66
(05-06-2010, 10:35 PM)JayneK Wrote: There is nothing at all heretical about his statement.  You really do misunderstand the nature of obedience.

You keep falling back on this argument.  You ask for people to show you the problems in the New Mass and when they do, you claim that it is somehow our duty as Catholics to ignore these problems.  Scholarly examination of liturgy is not pitting oneself against the Pope and bishops .  It is the duty of scholars to pursue truth and present their findings to the Magisterium who then make the decisions about how to use the information.

Liturgical theologians describe flaws in the New Mass as an act of service to the Church.  The Magisterium takes that information and uses it when deciding if the New Mass should be reformed or scrapped or retained as is. 

There are only very few self evident truths, and non of them belongs to the Faith and Morality. If something is not self evident than we always shall have some doubt in the rational level against the truth of a statement. In the world of the deductibles (like the Mathematics) deduction from self evident statement could eliminate such doubt, but outside of that nothing.

The revealed system of truth is above the rational understanding, so we cannot pursue it by ourselves. This is why Jesus Christ ordered the Living Magisterium, the  pope and the college of bishops in accord The Living Magisterium has the binding and loosing power about the understanding of the truth related to the revelation and supernatural world.

If someone says, that the decision of the pope and college of bishops is wrong, (s)he appeals to his our judgment against the Pope and the college of bishops, As Eve believed to the serpent that he can tell the good from the evil, so this people belive to the Adversary that they are the competent authority to decide what is truth and what is false related to the supernatural world.

Infallible statement can possibly apply only for unchangeable things, like the Trinity, the Incarnation, the transsubstantiation etc. The rites for the Holy Mass, and not unchangeable and they were changed through the history, so selected staments from the past cannot be declared infallible is this subject.

Here is one definition of the dogma that there is no appeal against the decision of a Pope

Appeal to the General Council
[From the Bull "Exsecrabilis," Jan. 18; in the ancient Roman opinion 1459; that of today 1460]


717 The execrable and hitherto unheard of abuse has grown up in our
day, that certain persons, imbued with the spirit of rebellion, and not
from a desire to secure a better judgment, but to escape the punishment
of some offense which they have committed, presume to appeal to a
future council from the Roman Pontiff, the vicar of Jesus Christ, to
whom in the person of the blessed PETER was said: "Feed my sheep" [John
21:17], and, "Whatever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in
heaven" [Matt. 16:19]. . . . Wishing therefore to expel this
pestiferous poison far from the Church of Christ and to care for the
salvation of the flock entrusted to us, and to remove every cause of
offense from the fold of our Savior . . . we condemn all such appeals
and disprove them as erroneous and detestable.

The pope could err, but only a future pope is the competent source to define it.
Reply
#67
(05-07-2010, 08:38 AM)glgas Wrote: The pope could err, but only a future pope is the competent source to define it.

If we're never competent to question any action of the pope, then it follows that we should never question the actions of the bishops he appoints (because that would imply a mistake in his choosing them), or likewise the priests they ordain.  So we're required to just shut off our brains regarding anything about the Church, including her administrative details and interactions with the secular society.  Got it; thanks for the instruction.
Reply
#68
(05-07-2010, 08:38 AM)glgas Wrote: There are only very few self evident truths, and non of them belongs to the Faith and Morality. If something is not self evident than we always shall have some doubt in the rational level against the truth of a statement. In the world of the deductibles (like the Mathematics) deduction from self evident statement could eliminate such doubt, but outside of that nothing.

The revealed system of truth is above the rational understanding, so we cannot pursue it by ourselves. This is why Jesus Christ ordered the Living Magisterium, the  pope and the college of bishops in accord The Living Magisterium has the binding and loosing power about the understanding of the truth related to the revelation and supernatural world.

I'd say that it is a self-evident truth that when comparing two versions of the Catholic Mass, the one that better conforms to Catholic doctrine is the better Mass.  Those doctrines themselves are not self-evident and we rely on Divine Revelation for them.  But using these doctrines as the standard for evaluating and comparing the forms of Mass, is within human competence.

(05-07-2010, 08:38 AM)glgas Wrote: If someone says, that the decision of the pope and college of bishops is wrong, (s)he appeals to his our judgment against the Pope and the college of bishops, As Eve believed to the serpent that he can tell the good from the evil, so this people belive to the Adversary that they are the competent authority to decide what is truth and what is false related to the supernatural world.

The decision of the Pope is that there are two uses of Catholic Mass, one ordinary and the other extraordinary.  This decision does not logically imply that the ordinary use is doctrinally superior.  It could have been chosen as being more practical or pastorally suitable at the current time.  The decision also does not imply that there is anything wrong with saying that the extraordinary form is the superior one.  Having an opinion on this matter in no way rejects the authority of the Magisterium.
Reply
#69
(05-07-2010, 01:16 PM)JayneK Wrote: I'd say that it is a self-evident truth that when comparing two versions of the Catholic Mass, the one that better conforms to Catholic doctrine is the better Mass.  Those doctrines themselves are not self-evident and we rely on Divine Revelation for them.  But using these doctrines as the standard for evaluating and comparing the forms of Mass, is within human competence.

I am almost ready with the website comparing side by side the 1920 missal and the recently approved Translation of the New Mass. I hope you will show that murmuring the strikingly similar Latin text conforms better to the Catholic doctrine that saying or singing it with clear voice.

I am coming back from vacation in Thursday, so latest Friday you may see the evidence.
Reply
#70
(05-07-2010, 07:11 PM)glgas Wrote: I am almost ready with the website comparing side by side the 1920 missal and the recently approved Translation of the New Mass. I hope you will show that murmuring the strikingly similar Latin text conforms better to the Catholic doctrine that saying or singing it with clear voice.

I have described more than once what I consider to be the most important doctrinally significant change.  You are ignoring that to keep referring to a change that I have already said is insignificant and that I am indifferent about.  The intellectually honest thing to do is to address my point about the removal of explicit references to the Mass being a propitiatory Sacrifice.  If you do not do this, I will be forced to conclude that you are not being intellectually honest.  I will be disappointed if this happens.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)