Holy Father Says Old Mass Privately Says Bishop Fellay
(07-17-2010, 11:11 AM)timoose Wrote: Canon 214 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that the faithful are entitled to the prescriptions of their own rite. Many of the faithful of the roman rite find it impossible to recognize what takes place in their parish churches each Sunday as their own rite, despite the fact that the Vatican II liturgy constitution ordered that all existing liturgical rites should be preserved and fostered in every way. Cardinal Ratzinger has remarked: " Today we might ask: is there a Latin Rite at all any more? Certainly there is no awareness of it. To most people the liturgy appears to be something for the individual congregation to arrange."

I hope this is in context. I don;t have this book nor is my scanner working so this is the best I could do.

This exactly state that the Pope does not talks about the New Mass as it was defined, but how it is destructed by the local :Liturgical Committees or priests
This is explicitly against the strict rule of the XXI Ecumenical Council:
Quote:22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

The traditionalists are not alone to deny the primacy of the Magisterium, and act on their own. This is the problem: the lack of unity with the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church. Local Church in eother side is like the protestant churches.
(07-17-2010, 11:05 AM)Mhoram Wrote:
(07-17-2010, 09:38 AM)damooster Wrote:
Quote:He cited a chancellor of the Diocese of Trier. He has made known that 80% of the priests in the diocese deny the real presence of Christ in the Host.

Not trying to derail, but:

1. How was this determined?

2. Why don't they do something about it?

Quote:I don't know about #1, but on #2: what would you do?  There's already a shortage of priests, so they can't afford to fire 80% of them.

I'd sit them down, one by one, and ask them flat out if they believe in transubstantiation. If they don't, I would give them the boot! OK, let me take a step back and ask a legitimate question (because I don't know the answer): can a priest who does not believe in transubstantiation properly "do as the Church intends" during consecration?

Quote:And if the number of heretical priests is really that high, pushing too hard could cause a schism that leaves the real Church 1/4 the size of the breakaway one, perhaps even without a presence in many dioceses.  How many Catholics would think the breakaway church was the true one, just based on the size of its bandwagon?

Sounds kind of familiar *cough* Novus Order *cough*...

Quote:Maybe that's what needs to happen, unpleasant as it would be.  I don't know, but I don't think it's an easy call.

I agree with you. It's probably a good thing I'm not in charge! 
(07-17-2010, 09:19 AM)glgas Wrote:
(07-16-2010, 08:49 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: As Bishop Fellay said and wrote, the Church is a huge ship. We are seeing the Pope and others recognizing we're headed the wrong direction, and making a course correction, but a shop does not turn on a dime. If sudden moves are made without prudence, the result could be many more leaving the Church than would if things were repaired with some prudence and thought. Imagine how many people would voluntarily cut themselves off from the Sacraments if some of the drastic measures we think are needed were implemented.

Exactly this is what we should look for, the acknowledgment that we all are in the same ship.

And that the ship is going in the wrong direction because of human steering and it needs to be turned back by human steering.  I.e., it needs to follow the compass of the Church: its Tradition, its Scripture, and its liturgies and devotions that were proven to be the compass needle.

Or, we can be like you, claim that wherever the ship goes is fine, and not bother yelling to the Pope there is an iceberg ahead.
Magister, are you saying we need to pray for Abp. Burke to become a cardinal, and then for the Holy Father to say the EF?  :laughing:
(07-17-2010, 11:45 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Obviously if there is some grave reason to change the custom or law, then by all means, but convenience and the satisfaction of a few people is not a good reason.

But the fact that the positions needed to say such a Mass no longer exist may be.  I agree to an extent with your suggestions about reintroducing the TLM to papal Masses in the form of Low Mass or a Solemn Mass said in the presence of the pope, but at some point the question of how to handle the Solemn Mass said by the pope would have to be addressed, because there are times when it is appropriate.  So do you really think the right thing to do is appoint people to a series of defunct and now essentially meaningless positions simply for the sake of this kind of Mass?  Do you think it is totally unreasonable to make a change so that the papal Solemn Mass is more like a Solemn Mass said by a bishop?  As you correctly point out, that has not been done in about 500 years, but it has been done, so it is not without precedent.  500 years is significant, but not even close to a majority of the life of the Church.  Furthermore, the more recent allowance of a bishop saying a Solemn Mass without full pontificals would seem to set a further precedent for such a possibility.
These are Cardinal's words exactly. I have removed what Micahael Davies had added prior to this paragraph and the bit about canon law which Michael Davies had added also and you responded to in another post. I take from this that it was intended for the New Liturgy to "progress" but what happened was it failed, and in it's failure many souls were lost and to repeat his last sentence "did not provide the people with bread, but with stones."

In his preface to the French edition of Msgr. Gamber's book, Cardinal Ratzinger has this to say on the subject of post-conciliar renewal:

"What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on -the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy". What, then, does this true prophet have to say about a reform which is, in reality, a continued revolution? "The pastoral benefits that so many idealists had hoped the new liturgy would bring did not materialize. Our churches emptied in spite of the new liturgy (or because of it?), and the faithful continued to fall away from the Church in droves." And again: "In the end, we will all have to recognize that the new liturgical forms, well intentioned as they may have been at the beginning, did not provide the people with bread, but with stones."
(07-17-2010, 02:59 PM)timoose Wrote: (or because of it?)

Were those words in parentheses His Holiness' words or were those added by you or someone else?
(07-16-2010, 07:49 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(07-16-2010, 07:38 PM)Joshua Wrote:
(07-16-2010, 03:37 PM)ketchum Wrote: Would you tell me what the words mean?

Adorazione - Adoration

Propiziazone - Propitiation (appeasement)

Ringraziamento - Thanksgiving

Impetrazione - Impetration (petition)

Beautiful picture by the way!

Easy way to remember these four ends of prayer (and the Mass in particular), in order of importance, in English:  ARTS

Supplication (Petition)

That's good, especially for lovers of liturgical arts, which many of us are, but I was taught


which gives you ACTS, as in the Book of Acts.  very Biblical, good for explaining Catholic prayer to non-Catholics who think we're not allowed to read the Bible and don't understand why Bibles were once, prior to the invention of the printing press, chained to altars.

of course Contrition must lead to Reparation (and Atonement) so it's worth remembering ARTS and ACTS, and easy enough, too.

by the way, I was taught about the four forms of prayer and the acronym ACTS by an OF priest who had never said the EF, as far as i know, though he was six months past his 60th birthday and retirement for health reasons, when he died last Dec.8 so he was part of the Pius II Generation.  he taught ACTS on one of the nights he came to the RCIA class when i was on the RCIA team.

so all OF priests are not the same.  Father was very liturgically correct,  would have never had a balloon or clown Mass, and neither would any other OF priest i've known.  of course, the Latin Mass as it was in the Fifties and Sixties was far, far better. and the way he remodeled our old church into an even more traditionally beautiful and very Catholic-looking church than it was before he came to the parish has made me think that perhaps he was preparing it for a return to the traditional Mass. 

it will take some time to turn the Barque of Peter again, unless we want many Catholics swept overboard as so many were in the aftermath of Vatican II.

(07-17-2010, 02:59 PM)timoose Wrote: "The pastoral benefits that so many idealists had hoped the new liturgy would bring did not materialize. Our churches emptied in spite of the new liturgy (or because of it?), and the faithful continued to fall away from the Church in droves." And again: "In the end, we will all have to recognize that the new liturgical forms, well intentioned as they may have been at the beginning, did not provide the people with bread, but with stones."

If the Cardinal Ratzinger said that, he was wrong. There are less that 3000 Sunday TLM's with less than 600,000 faithful attending that and there are over 500,000 weekend New Masses with over 250 million faithful attending that.

Jesus Christ want to approach everybody in the earth, and apparently the TLM attracts only an extremely tiny group of Catholics, either priests and faithful. People want to understand the Mass, they want to sing there in their own language, they want to feel that they are a community gathered together. And if the get that about the Holy Sacrifice of our Lord, then that of Holy sacrifice elevated them to the unity with the Mystical Body of Christ with the Church.

John 12:32   And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.

Here is from Alcuin Reids analysis of Gamber's book

Gamber's concerns are historical, doctrinal and pastoral. He readily accepts the appropriateness of vernacular readings, and even of the pruning of some of the later accretions to the Traditional Roman Rite (Psalm 42 from the prayers at the foot of the altar, the Offertory prayers, the last Gospel). These prudential decisions can be argued about, as they were at Trent. But he staunchly defends traditions integral to the Roman Rite throughout its history, e.g., facing eastwards and the Roman Canon, and deprecates "the cold breath of realism [that] now pervades our worship" (p.13).

I ordered the book from the library.

Are you ignoring the shrinkage that followed Vatican II?  The many people who left the Church, stopped attending Mass, and who fell into heresy because they thought "we don't teach that anymore"?

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)