Liturgical Abuses Encouraged by John Paul II says Former Master of Ceremonies
#61
(05-11-2011, 02:34 PM)JayneK Wrote: The liturgical abuses can be adequately explained by positing that John Paul II was a weak pope who did not keep proper control of things.  There is no reason to assume, merely from the existence of the abuses, that he encouraged them.  Personally, I think that there is better support for an argument that he was a weak pope.

"Liturgical Abuse" is a word that is too kind, "Liturgical Profanations" is more suitable.

Did JPII lack the authority to bring all the profanations to a halt? If his predecessor PPVI  had the authority to sweep away the laws of all other Popes, saying the while that he does so under the influence of the Holy Spirit and according to the "authentic traditions" of the Popes, did JP2 not have the authority to order mere bishops to see that such profanations cease? A brief note from his desk will incapacitate a bishop permanently so certainly not!

Besides, what are the Liturgical Profanations anyway - did not the pope personally participate in them?


Reply
#62
(05-11-2011, 07:13 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(05-11-2011, 06:58 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: While I too wouldn't trust a slimebag that would play with the Mass, I also have to ask why Pope John Paul II retained him as MC after the first Papal Mass he messed up, as opposed to retaining him for however long he kept him (kept him for some amount of time long enough that it took B16 to can him). 

Why did JP2 keep Fr. Marcel around so B16 had to deal with him?  Either he was weak, blind, or nefarious or some combination.  I dunno.  It's hard to determine people's motivations.  All we can say is keeping Marini and Marcel around were both huge mistakes.

I don't like JP2 at all, really, but we need to try to be objective and fair.  My opinion is JP2 didn't see anything wrong with all the nonsense either in the Papal Masses or the local dioceses.  But, I can't say that he wanted or encouraged it, and I'm not going to take Marini's word for one, because he has a vested interest in saying what he did, and, for two, he's a scoundrel.

Same here. I wouldn't trust Marini at all. As far as JPII being a weak Pope, I can't help but think, instead, that he was a "people pleaser", who hated confrontation. Remember, that his first dream was to be an actor & actors are famous for their need for, if not adulation, at least approval.

http://danielmcinerny.blogspot.com/2011/...actor.html

JPII was at his best in front of a crowd. Think of his "world youth days".  He always seemed happiest, to me, in front of a large group of people. Actors are famous for the battles between massive egos and low self-esteem. [b"]Look at me! No, don’t look at me! Love me but don’t touch me[/b]!”. Popes are people, too. They have attributes & shortcomings & I just trust the Holy Spirit to give us the right HUMAN BEING at the right time & to infuse him with the necessary grace. I saw Pope John Paul II begin to come "into his own" in 1984 when he gave us the indult for the TLM. However, when the hierarchy fought him on it, he didn't fight back. That can be blamed on many things........his illness, his age, or his hatred of confrontation. I don't know. What I do know, is that we now have a Pope who WILL fight back. He does it in a quiet way, but he PERSISTS.


Reply
#63
(05-13-2011, 11:44 PM)DJR Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 08:59 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: Yes but how much of the error present in the Faithful today is the result of lackadaisical pastoral car by the shepherds (priests, bishops, popes, etc) who are chosen by God to bring the faithful to the truth, and the truth to the faithful. Much of the crisis is the result of apostasy from the part of the faithful, but most is from the poor efforts of the leadership.

But members of the hierarchy come from the laity.  No man is born a priest.  Every priest is a lay person first... for decades.  He becomes a priest later in life.  The reason we have weak members of the hierarchy is because those men were weak members of the laity first.  Weak laymen produce weak priests.

But upon taking that high office, they throw off the old life and answer a higher calling. This is like what came first the chicken or the egg (God created the chicken first of course  :)). The hierarchy directly influences the laity, and the holiness and good example must begin with the clergy. Without the Apostles fervent faith, no laity would have been converted. It is the duty of the clergy, and especially the apostles (bishops) to guide, strengthen and influence the flock.
Reply
#64
There is a definite parallel here between these kinds of “liturgical abuses” and the “liturgical abuses” of the 16th Century Protestants.

Thomas Cranmer [b. Nottinghamshire, England in 1489 A.D. - d. burnt at the stake in Oxford, England in 1556 A.D.], the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, came out with two of his own “liturgical abuses”, which are better known as the First Prayer Book of Edward VI of 1549 and his later Second Prayer Book of Edward VI of 1552.

For what should be obvious reasons, in some places, there are very strong, and in some cases actually identical, “liturgical abuses”!

For example: Discouraging people from kneeling to receive Communion.

Cranmer wrote that it was “Idolatry to be abhorred” to kneel before a piece of mere bread because “the natural body and blood of our saviour Christ, they are in heaven and not here” because, apparently Christ is not God? - in any event - “it is against the truth of Christ’s true natural body, to be in more places then in one at one time.” 

Quote:“For as concerning the Sacramental bread and wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful christians. And as concerning the natural body and blood of our saviour Christ, they are in heaven and not here: for it is against the truth of Christ’s true natural body, to be in more places then in one at one time.”

Here is the text of his infamous “black rubric” [N.B.  All “rubrics” are printed in red.  But this was added after the printer printed the rubrics in red.  What was left was black ink for the text and for this addition - thus its name “black rubric”]:

Quote:THE BLACK RUBRIC - Original Version

ALthough no ordre can be so perfectlye deuysed, but it may be of some, eyther for theyr ignoraunce and infirmitie, or els of malice and obstinacie, mysconstrued, depraued, and interpreted in a wrong parte. And yet because brotherly charitie willeth, that so muche as conueniently may be, offences should be taken away:  therfore we willing to dooe the same. Wheras it is ordeyned in the booke of common prayer, in the administracion of the Lordes Supper, that the Communicantes kneelynge shoulde receiue the holye Communion:  whiche thyng beynge well mente, for a sygnificacyon of the humble and gratefull acknowledgeynge of the benefites of Christe, geuen unto the woorthye receyuer, and to auoyde the prophanacion and dysordre whiche about the holye communion myghte elles ensue. Lest yet the same kneelynge myght be thought or taken otherwyse, we dooe declare that it is not mente thereby, that any adoracion is doone, or oughte to bee doone, eyther unto the Sacramentall bread or wyne there bodelye receyued, or unto anye reall and essenciall presence there beeyng of Chrystes naturall fleshe and bloude. For as concernynge the Sacramentall bread and wyne, they remayne styll in theyr verye naturall substaunces, and therfore may not bee adored, for that were Idolatrye to be abhorred of all faythfull christians. And as concernynge the naturall bodye and bloud of our sauiour Christ, they are in heauen and not here: for it is agaynst the trueth of Christes true naturall bodye, to be in moe places then in one at one tyme.    (Second Prayer Booke of Edward VI, Black Rubric, 1552.)

Let us now fast forward up to July, 2002, at which time history repeated itself with the born-again Edwardine updated “Black Rubric”, likewise oozing with its own “liturgical abuse”! 

Here is the alleged official text:

Quote:“The bishops of the United States have decided that the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion should be standing.  Kneeling is NOT a licit [lawful] posture for receiving Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States of America unless the bishop of a particular diocese has derogated from this norm in an individual and extraordinary circumstance.”  (Official “Newsletter of the United States Bishops’  Committee on the Liturgy”, July, 2002; excerpt; emphasis added).

In this document, kneeling is not only discouraged, it is actually forbidden!

I have received a number of E-Mails from people around the U.S.A. complaining about their own terrible experiences about how this “law” is being used.  Some people claim they have been arrested for kneeling (“disturbing the peace”; “disorderly conduct”; etc.).

One distinguished Catholic Politician was refused Communion because he was kneeling and wrote a letter to his Bishop about this!  Of course, his complaints were ignored!

When you compare the “Black Rubric” with the July, 2002 “No Kneel Law” of the U.S. “Bishops”, you have the same basic “liturgical abuse”!

One Catholic Archbishop in Catacombs III observed that the U.S. Bishops were doing U.S. Catholics a “favor”!  Why?  Because Cranmer was right!  It IS the sin of Idolatry to kneel before a piece of mere bread - i.e. bread that was not Transubstantiated during a Protestant Memorial Supper Meal that is not a Catholic Mass!

What do the U.S. Bishops know?!

Maybe they were well aware of what one Vatican 2 “expert” [“periti], who helped to make up the NEW mass, wrote?:

Quote:“To tell the Truth, it [the NEW mass] is a different liturgy of the Mass.  This needs to be said without ambiguity: The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists [le rite romain tel que nous l'avons connu n'existe plus].  It has been destroyed [il est detruit]”!  (Fr. Joseph Gelineau, one of the most influential members of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini's Consilium, which composed the NEW Mass, “Demain La Liturgie,” Latin Mass, November-December 1992, page 32).

“THE ROMAN RITE AS WE KNEW IT NO LONGER EXISTS.  IT HAS BEEN DESTROYED!”

What an astounding confession!

How many people know this?

With the destruction of the Roman Rite was destroyed both the ontological essence (“ens” - being - that which makes a thing to be what it is without which [sine qua non] it is not that specific thing) and also the metaphysical essence [“actus” - act - that which the ontological essence does) of the Catholic Traditional Rite of Mass were destroyed - this includes the Transubstantiation at the Double Consecration!

Church Historians identify the “liturgical abuses” of the 16th Century as the “liturgical abuses” of a non-Catholic Church which was, and still is, called the “Protestant church”. 

Therefore, on this basis, what will future Church Historians call that “church” today which has done the EXACT same thing “today” which the 16th Century Protestant church did “yesterday”? 

Might it be something like: “The 20th Century Protestant church”?

There are other similarities, between the 2 churches, even though they are separated by four centuries, but this “No Kneel Law” is extremely obvious and the Truth of its existence can not be ignored!

Thank you for reading!

God Bless You!

A Catholic Catholic
Reply
#65
It is instructive to read in the Old Testament where those who were responsible for liturgical abuses in the Mosaic Rite were killed by the wrath of God on the spot where they stood, as you read:

Quote:“And Nadab and Abiu, the sons of Aaron, taking their censers, put fire therein, and incense on it, offering before the Lord strange fire: which was not commanded them. And fire coming out from the Lord destroyed them: and they died before the Lord.”
(Leviticus 10:1-2).

IF the above liturgical abuse in the Mosaic Rite of the Old Law brought down upon the two Priests, who did this liturgical abuse, who were of the Old Testament, the wrath of God in terms of fire from Heaven which “destroyed them: and they died before the Lord”, what awaits the Priests of what some pre-Vatican 2 liturgists call the “Ancient Roman Rite” of the Catholic Church which, by the perfect institution of Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest, God the Son, replaced the Mosaic Rite of the Old Law which had only the “shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things” (Hebrews 10:1) since “the very image of the things” is the Catholic Traditional Mass!

Remember how the ex-Roman Catholic Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests, who began to change their changes of their changes to the Catholic Traditional Mass in their 16th Century Revolt - called Protestantism - a process of changing the changes of the changes of the changes which their progeny have continued by likewise always changing their changes of the changes of the changes, so much so that, with but apparently only one or two exceptions - today you find that the over 300 sects of modern day Protestantism do not even have any kind of liturgical ceremonies which they even pretend is the “mass”!

This is the effect of the efficient cause of their 16th Century ex-Roman Catholic progenitors who instituted the Protestant Memorial SUPPER MEAL, which they originally used to replace the Holy SACRIFICE of the Catholic Traditional Mass. 

Four centuries of changing the changes of the changes of the changes of the changes, has devolved into nothing being left, not only of the Holy SACRIFICE of  the Catholic Traditional Mass, but even of the various versions of the original 16th Century Protestant Memorial SUPPER MEAL!

Therefore, IF the wrath of God totally destroyed by fire “Nadab and Abiu, the sons of Aaron”, for their liturgical abuse, you can only imagine the fate of the ex-Roman Catholic Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests, who began to change their changes of their changes to the Catholic Traditional Mass in their 16th Century Revolt - called Protestantism!

So, then, what of those “Roman Catholics” of the 20th Century who likewise imitated their 16th Century counter-parts who began to change their changes of their changes of their changes to the Catholic Traditional Mass in their 20th Century Revolt, oozing with the Satanic diabolical toxic puss of liturgical abuses, which still continues today?

No wonder there is a photo, making its way around the internet, of a well-known, very popular personage in the outline of burning fire!

Is this photo not a reminder that what happened to Nadab and Abiu also awaits all of those who also engage in liturgical abuses?

Thank You for Reading!

God Bless You!

A Catholic Catholic
Reply
#66
St. Pius V said that should anyone dare to change his Mass that he would incurr the wrath of God Almighty.
Reply
#67
(05-16-2011, 07:43 PM)wulfrano Wrote: St. Pius V said that should anyone dare to change his Mass that he would incurr the wrath of God Almighty.

Isn't the Papal Bull Quo Primum Tempore (which I assume you are referencing) charging the Church to maintain the Canon of the Mass, and not the entire order of the Mass? Was there a departure, then, from the Canon of the Mass in the 1962 Missal? It is obvious that the words of the NO depart from the Canon, but I am not so sure about the EF 1962.
Reply
#68
(05-16-2011, 08:21 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 07:43 PM)wulfrano Wrote: St. Pius V said that should anyone dare to change his Mass that he would incurr the wrath of God Almighty.

Isn't the Papal Bull Quo Primum Tempore (which I assume you are referencing) charging the Church to maintain the Canon of the Mass, and not the entire order of the Mass? Was there a departure, then, from the Canon of the Mass in the 1962 Missal? It is obvious that the words of the NO depart from the Canon, but I am not so sure about the EF 1962.

St. Pius V said that his Missal was forever.
Reply
#69
(05-16-2011, 07:43 PM)wulfrano Wrote: St. Pius V said that should anyone dare to change his Mass that he would incurr the wrath of God Almighty.


That means a few popes have incurred God's wrath. 

Liturgy developing is not intrinsically evil.
Reply
#70

St. Pius V said that should anyone dare to change his Mass that he would incurr the wrath of God Almighty.
[/quote]


That means a few popes have incurred God's wrath. 

Liturgy developing is not intrinsically evil.
[/quote]

He meant essential changes like the words of consecration.  Today the NO uses the invalidating words of Martin Luther at the consecration.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)