Universae Ecclesiae released - full English text
#81
(05-13-2011, 09:32 PM)LausTibiChriste Wrote: That was it? Considering all the hype I was expecting more, though I knew I shouldn't have got my hopes up.

Well it is a clarification document after all - a dicasterial document and not a papal document, though it has full force - not exactly a new motu proprio. What would you have liked to see it say? What would've wowed you? They can't really abrogate the NO until seminarians know Latin and the TLM... So at least it could've been far more forceful in that regards, as many have pointed out.
Reply
#82
(05-13-2011, 11:21 AM)Gerard Wrote: While the TLM may be much more prominent than it was in the early years.  The Novus Ordo on average is so much worse that it was in the early 70s.  I remember the reverence and care the priests took with the Eucharist in the early Novus Ordo days.  Incense, communion on the tongue at the altar rail.   In the late 70s into the 80s that reverence and care slipped away, due to the imposition of Communion in the Hand, Communion under both species, the simplication of vestments from decent looking to the nighgowns now so prominent.

While I have to agree with your statement because of the qualified words "on average," I would say that in many places in the world the new Mass is no worse than it was in the early 1970s.  Your perspective is a U.S. one; and is it safe to assume it's from somewhere on the east coast?  Sounds like your parish was one of the holdouts, but it was definitely not the norm for those days. 

Having been in various places in the U.S., and having lived, and traveled, outside the country during those years, I can tell you that the new Mass was horrendous back then in some parts of the world and is better now, having calmed down... somewhat.  It depends on the venue.

Places like Canada, Holland, Germany, and Belgium were very progressive immediately after the council ended, and the Mass was horrible.  And it wasn't necessarily the new Mass, either.  Before the new Mass arrived, things were awful. 

When I lived in Quebec, people used to smoke in Church during Mass.  Father K would stop Mass right before the canon and ask the people to put their cigarettes out.  I saw Masses where, when it came time for Holy Communion, the priest sat down, and the people processed up to the altar, picked up a Host, and dipped it into the chalice, self-communicating.  I also saw a wedding where, at Communion time, the priest sat down, and the bride and groom distributed. 

We had folk Masses, banners, guitars, dancing, Snoopy slideshows, the whole bit.  My parish stopped using the Communion rail in 1966, before the new Mass was ever promulgated.  In 1970, we had girls on the altar; shortly thereafter, the nuns from the grade school were distributing Holy Communion.  Communion in the hand was not allowed in the U.S. until the late 70s, but places like Canada and Holland had it long before we did.

The Mass, even before the new Mass, was horrible back then, depending on where you were.  It's not any better now, but in many places it most certainly is not worse because it was really bad back then.

On average, though, as you stated, it is worse now because the holdout parishes, and there were some (I can remember about seven or eight in my former diocese), eventually gave way to the changes.  The bad parishes became bad immediately, and the good ones eventually followed them, so the average of crazy incidents has increased.
Reply
#83
(05-13-2011, 10:49 PM)DJR Wrote: While I have to agree with your statement because of the qualified words "on average," I would say that in many places in the world the new Mass is no worse than it was in the early 1970s.  Your perspective is a U.S. one; and is it safe to assume it's from somewhere on the east coast?  Sounds like your parish was one of the holdouts, but it was definitely not the norm for those days. 

You've guessed that right.  It was the whole Philadelphia archdiocese and probably part of the problem of implementing radical changes is the fact that Philadelphia was a city that generations of families stayed in.  Italians, Irish, Germans and Poles for the most part and they came over from Europe and their children bought a house down the street and their grandchildren would buy a house around the block.  The Universities and the religious orders were the areas that had the dynamism that infected the parishes and broke down the resistance. 

I agree also with the rest of your statement.  It sounds very similar to the descrptions and evidence that Charles Coulombe, Malachi Martin and more recently Michael Voris gave of pre-conciliar abuse. 


Reply
#84
(05-13-2011, 06:22 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Um...is this the same Marian Horvat that said it was common practice for the Jews to crucify Christian babies during the middle ages?

I was curious about this and just did a search on it.  You're not describing the situation accurately.  It's Ariel Toaff that wrote about it and Horvat was writing about the reaction to his book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Toaff
Reply
#85
(05-13-2011, 02:00 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 12:00 PM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: Gerard,
What year(s) did the major abuses start to take shape at the NO in these United States??
I find it ironic that Extraordinary Ministers didn't start showing up until after a directive called "Immensae Caritatis" in, I think it was January of 1973?? So up until that time laypeople were still kneeling at the Altar Rail and receving on the tongue by the ordained only?? What year did most dioceses take out the Communion Rails and introduce all those abuses to the Mass?? Did the "modernistic" churches that were constructed after 1966 include Altar Rails or no??
CITH may have started in Europe in 1969-70, but I don't think it really took hold until 1976-77 here in the states, is that correct???
Thanks in advance!

Everything was gradual and subtle from what I remember and from what I've been told by my siblings and parents. Very very slow change but constant from what I remember.  You were given only enough time to get used to the last change before the next one was promoted.  I remember intense practice sessions in the Church for recieving Communion in the Hand.  From my perspective we were taught in the early grades that "they changed everything for you!" and they would run down the TLM.  I remember this being prompted by our noticing that the priest pictured in the Baltimore Catechism did not look like what we were experiencing on alternate Fridays at Mass. That and the fact that as a class we were blatantly complaining about the pointlessness and boredom of the mass.  This was around 1975-76 that I remember that incident.   

Early on the "sign of peace" was originally one side of the Church slightly bowing to the other side and vice versa, and it gradually became a hugging orgy of people rollling around the aisles within 10 years. 
Each change was separated by a few years and "the cool priests" were the ones who were telling you to relax as they gave their sermons in the aisle and not from the pulpit.   The older folks did not help, they presented themselves as angry, mean and totally unpleasant.  It was inevitable to gravitate to the more friendly authorigy figures. 
In philadelphia Cardinal Krol was very slow to implement Vatican II, and when JPII came to Philadelphia it was reported that he gave Krol a dressing down about swifter implementation.    Schools began to have individual classroom masses, which in retrospect were litrugically abusive, the Baltimore Catechsims was abandoned.   Removing altar raisl was and still is partial.  Some Churches still have most or all of their altar raisl.  But altar rail destruction and new  construction without altar rails was all in the 1980s at its peak at least. 

And the real destruction was going on in earnest at the Universities run by the religious and out of the control of the local Ordinary.

The changes were incremental, but most of them certainly weren't gradual.  In fact, they were quite abrupt.  When my parish stopped using the Communion rail, in 1966, the change was very abrupt.  One Sunday we're kneeling for Holy Communion; the next Sunday we're standing.  That's not gradual at all. 

Ditto for the priest facing the people for Mass.  One Sunday he was facing away; the next Sunday he was facing the people.  Just like that!

My wife lived in Europe at the time, and she stated that, one Sunday, the young priest at the parish came out and made an announcement that "we have to do Mass differently from now on" and then proceeded to offer Mass facing the people.  Quite shocking for someone who is not accustomed to it.

Same thing for the disappearance of Latin, which was almost immediate and universal. 

The parish next to mine began building a new church in 1963 and completed it in 1964.  Keep in mind that this is several years before there ever was such a thing as "the new Mass."  You can see a picture of the sanctuary at the link.  The photo that is second from the bottom was taken in 1981, but that is the way the church looked in 1966.  Freestanding altar, no tabernacle.

http://www.sjohio.org/history

You can see another parish built in 1966, several years before the new Mass, here:  http://www.rcuarchitects.com/projects/stbede/2.jpg

OLG, finished in 1970, the year the new Mass was repromulgated:  http://www.rcuarchitects.com/projects/ou...race/6.jpg.

Although the next two are only outside photos, the insides are just as awful.  Built in 1960 and 1969 respectively. 

http://stcolumbkilleparish.org/History1.htm

http://www.saintleoschurch.org/index.cfm





Reply
#86
(05-13-2011, 11:00 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 10:49 PM)DJR Wrote: While I have to agree with your statement because of the qualified words "on average," I would say that in many places in the world the new Mass is no worse than it was in the early 1970s.  Your perspective is a U.S. one; and is it safe to assume it's from somewhere on the east coast?  Sounds like your parish was one of the holdouts, but it was definitely not the norm for those days. 

You've guessed that right.  It was the whole Philadelphia archdiocese and probably part of the problem of implementing radical changes is the fact that Philadelphia was a city that generations of families stayed in.  Italians, Irish, Germans and Poles for the most part and they came over from Europe and their children bought a house down the street and their grandchildren would buy a house around the block.  The Universities and the religious orders were the areas that had the dynamism that infected the parishes and broke down the resistance. 

I agree also with the rest of your statement.  It sounds very similar to the descrptions and evidence that Charles Coulombe, Malachi Martin and more recently Michael Voris gave of pre-conciliar abuse. 

Oh, Philadelphia.  Well, that makes sense.  Cardinal Krol was a decent man; he came from Cleveland and was one of the "Bishop Hoban men."

I remember many years ago, after the changes, traveling to Texas and stopping in Amarillo overnight with my family.  It was a Saturday night, so we got up the next day to look for the local chapel of the SSPX.  I couldn't find it, so I decided to take my family to the local parish to fulfill the obligation.  It was disastrous and shocking.  I had a little discussion with the young priest there; we did not see eye to eye, let's say.

Anyway, it was a horrible experience, and we were walking to the car after Mass was over when, in the parking lot, we came upon a middle aged lady walking next to a nun.  I remarked to them that I was from Cleveland, and I thought the Mass was horrible at that parish.  They stopped, and the lady said to me with a sad face, "Oh, my sister (the nun) is really upset.  She's from Philadelphia.  I guess you just do things different in the east."

I thought to myself, "Is this a different religion here, or what?"  I've always thought that Philadelphia was better off than many other dioceses.  I know for a fact it's better than Amarillo, Texas.
Reply
#87
(05-13-2011, 04:49 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 02:23 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 01:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: What else could you expect of a man who doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted?

I would like to challenge you to point out where Vetus said anything that was not true.

If Pope Benedict "doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted" then he's a heretic. Do you think the Holy Father is a heretic? Where has the Pope ever contradicted this essential Biblical and Catholic teaching, that all must convert to be saved? In his recent book, he merely discussed that the hardness of the hearts of the Jews will make it such that, on the whole, the church's efforts of evangelize them will prove largely unfruitful.

But to state that “the head of the Church of Christ on earth believes that the Jews don’t need to convert” is a blatant attempt to drag his name thru the mud, and is completely inappropriate on a Catholic discussion board.

There have been heretical popes in the past and the Church has managed to survive, thank God! Don't get your panties in a wad about this.

I'm just stating the obvious here: that you can't expect much from a pope who is clearly not known for orthodoxy and clear teaching, unless you enjoy engaging in the periodical petty games of salvaging everything a pope happens to utter. Universae Ecclesiae is just another demonstration of the shady conciliar reasoning of the past 50 years.

Finally, your irrational hysteria about anti-semitism reveals more about your own intellectual enslavement to the new order than any of my perceived prejudices. It's a sad state of affairs: the "fear of the Jews" has been present since Pentecost but it's ruling the stage since Vatican II.
Reply
#88
(05-13-2011, 11:31 PM)DJR Wrote: Oh, Philadelphia.  Well, that makes sense.  Cardinal Krol was a decent man; he came from Cleveland and was one of the "Bishop Hoban men."

Interesting that you put up the links to those horrible looking churches.  One little phenomenon I've noticed in the last few years is that some of  the most orthodox of diocesan priests get put into the most modernist (ie. new Churches)  and some of the most modernist of priests are in the some of the most traditional looking Churches.  (that's not a hard rule, you'll find good priests in traditional looking churches as well as modernists enjoying their bleak architecture. 

But the parish I was baptized in had a "new" Church  built in 1955 and you can see since it has changed very little that it's hard to push a drastic change in a more traditional looking church. ( BTW, this is the parish that Dr. David Allen White went to for instruction when he was converting to the faith.) 

http://www.saintcyril.org/tour.htm

We have a lot of architecturally good churches ready to be resurrected but we have a crop of garbage buildings also being foisted upon us. This place is a disaster and its only a few years old.

[Image: churchinsideFinal.jpg]  And the Cardinal has cleverly and effectively put a gag order and limited the number of TLMs.  We also have more priests who already know how to say the TLM but they rarely get the opportunity to do it publicly because of the de facto but "unofficial" restrictions.  If you say the TLM, you aren't allowed to say it in a decent neighborhood at a decent time.


Reply
#89
Overall, Universae Ecclesiae, is painless and simply reiterates much of the same language of the Motu Proprio. To be honest I'm rather underwhelmed except for a couple of good sections and one very bad one. One good section is the surprising call for the instruction of Latin and the TLM in diocesan seminaries. While the language used to convey this "request" is hopelessly weak and devoid of any authoritative demand, the mere fact that our reigning Pope is even daring to call on dioceses to incorporate TLM and Latin training for their seminaries is a dramatic expression of the changing mood in the Church.

The other notable positive notion is the clarification of what a "qualified" Priest is. UE states:

UE Sec. 20 - A. Wrote:Every Catholic priest who is not impeded by Canon Law  is to be considered idoneus (“qualified”) for the celebration of the Holy Mass in the forma extraordinaria.

I've run into a few occasions where a Bishop has declined the permission for a Latin Mass to be said in a parish due to the lack of a "qualified" Priest. He'd go on to invent his own criteria for what he considers "qualified" which usually involves an exaggerated process of leaving town for training and becoming perfectly fluent in the Latin language. This clarification takes away this bit of ammunition from dissident Bishops.

However the one very bad section that I've yet to see anyone dedicate any attention or commentary on is the portion dealing with the conferral of the clerical state. UE states the following:

UE Sec. 30 Wrote:... consequently, in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, one who has made solemn profession or who has been definitively incorporated into a clerical institute of apostolic life, becomes incardinated as a cleric in the institute or society upon ordination to the diaconate, in accordance with canon 266 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law.

I interpret this is saying that a man becomes an incardinated cleric upon the reception of the Diaconate, whereas a tonsured seminarian in an un-incardinated cleric.

Most will continue to interpret this (including Fr. Z) as saying that even when the minor orders are conferred (as they are with the ICKSP, FSSP, SSPX, etc.) the clerical state is not attained until the Diaconate. This interpretation is a gross distortion of sacramental realities. In addition to the 1962 Missale Romanum, the Motu Proprio allows the the Pontificale Romanum to be used among the TLM groups. It is the Pontificale that contains the rites of ordination for the Priesthood, the Major Orders and the Minor Orders among other things. Within the rite of Tonsure, it explicitly states that the clerical state is being conferred.

What are you getting at, Joshua? Well, here's the rub, folks: If someone believes that, even when the Minor Orders are conferred, the candidates do not receive the clerical state until the Diaconate then they would be forced to believe that the Church is allowing a liturgical rite to exist that contradicts itself. They are forced to believe that the rite of tonsure (which the Church allows to be used in full) which states that the clerical state is being conferred is in fact lying. In other words they believe that the Church allows a rite to exist that says God is doing something (conferring the clerical state) when, in reality, He really isn't. For anyone in the Church to make use of any liturgical rite that claims it is doing something when in act it isn't is committing the grave sin of sacrilege.

Has anyone else caught on to this ignored but very significant issue?

Reply
#90
(05-13-2011, 06:09 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: I think this thread needs less discussion of Hebrew and more discussion of Latin!

Here's an amazing analysis that a trad buddy sent me by email. He read the original Latin version first:

Quote:Point 22 is crucial. "In dioceses where priests proficient [in Latin] do not exist, it is _fas_ for diocesan bishops to sincerely seek assistance from priests from traditional priestly institutes, so they might celebrate [Mass] or teach the art of celebration." (my translation and additions)

_fas_ is a Classical Latin idiom.  _fas_, for ancient Romans, meant more than "obligation".  Literally, _fas_ was a sacred duty that must be obeyed unless the gods become angry with humanity.  With _fas_, Pope Benedict unequivocally demands that bishops supply traditional order priests if there are not enough diocesan priests for the traditional faithful.  Indeed, it is almost a divine commandment that the traditional faithful are provided with pastoral care! 

Nice.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)