Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians
Where is the problem in this text?
Reply
If there was no plm in the first edition of rh first grim hen why did the Hecht re work it?
The plm with the NO one of many is he very motive irbwas crease for an ecunincal mass heritics would have no plm  with. This is sobapperent a mohamadan I know whom ibhave taken to both a Tom and a a NO and he has Amos been to other prod gatherings (he is a rikigous sturdiest student) even said to me how shocked he was at how Protestant NO wS
regardless of his perceptions the mere fact that th NO didn't een claim to be a sacrifice hen it fiest was foeceddown the vuches and fsithfulls throat is telling. I don't spend much time arguing with prods nor do I spend much time arguing with Catholics who love a peod mass
today is the exception
Reply
(09-16-2011, 04:59 PM)tradne4163 Wrote: Where is the problem in this text?

Point 8 is problematic as it basically buys into Martin Luther's corruption theory. It does not invalidate the mass, but is a glaring deficiency.
Reply
(09-16-2011, 05:06 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 04:59 PM)tradne4163 Wrote: Where is the problem in this text?

Point 8 is problematic as it basically buys into Martin Luther's corruption theory. It does not invalidate the mass, but is a glaring deficiency.

I don't see that.  Could you expand on this point?
Reply
(09-16-2011, 05:06 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 04:59 PM)tradne4163 Wrote: Where is the problem in this text?

Point 8 is problematic as it basically buys into Martin Luther's corruption theory. It does not invalidate the mass, but is a glaring deficiency.
I see. Using bold text to highlight that would have been more helpful.
Reply
You mean 'antiquarianism"

." Today, on the other hand, countless studies of scholars have enriched the "tradition of the Fathers" that the revisers of the Missal under St. Pius V followed. After the Gregorian Sacramentary was first published in 1571, many critical editions of other ancient Roman and Ambrosian sacramentaries appeared. Ancient Spanish and Gallican liturgical books also became available, bringing to light many prayers of profound spirituality that had hitherto been unknown. Traditions dating back to the first centuries before the formation of the Eastern and Western rites are also better known today because so many liturgical documents have been discovered. The continuing progress in patristic studies has also illumined eucharistic theology through the teachings of such illustrious saints of Christian antiquity as Irenaeus, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, and John Chrysostom."
Reply
(09-16-2011, 05:11 PM)dan hunter Wrote: You mean 'antiquarianism"

." Today, on the other hand, countless studies of scholars have enriched the "tradition of the Fathers" that the revisers of the Missal under St. Pius V followed. After the Gregorian Sacramentary was first published in 1571, many critical editions of other ancient Roman and Ambrosian sacramentaries appeared. Ancient Spanish and Gallican liturgical books also became available, bringing to light many prayers of profound spirituality that had hitherto been unknown. Traditions dating back to the first centuries before the formation of the Eastern and Western rites are also better known today because so many liturgical documents have been discovered. The continuing progress in patristic studies has also illumined eucharistic theology through the teachings of such illustrious saints of Christian antiquity as Irenaeus, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, and John Chrysostom."

I don't think that this is an example of antiquarianism.  There does not seem to be an assumption that ancient practice is pure and while more recent must be corrupt.  This just seems to be saying that some other texts have become available that were helpful in presenting Eucharistic theology.
Reply
(09-16-2011, 05:09 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 05:06 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 04:59 PM)tradne4163 Wrote: Where is the problem in this text?

Point 8 is problematic as it basically buys into Martin Luther's corruption theory. It does not invalidate the mass, but is a glaring deficiency.

I don't see that.  Could you expand on this point?

Martin Luther argued the Church had corrupted the faith and hid the truth of the early Church. Point 8 (combined withe last part of point 7) seems to be saying "yep, we hid some of the truth, but for good reason. Now we have found that lost truth and have no reason to hide it so we are including it in the missal.

Point 14 also shows the naivete of this all. In that point it says the wine will now be distributed since no one no longer questions that they receive both the body and blood under one species. Fast forward 40 years and this is one of the most common heresies among the laity.

The idea that one generation knew better than the wisdom of all preceding generations is what led to so many problems in the NO. The creators of the NO failed to recognize that many ancient practices had been discontinued for good reasons that remain good reasons today.
Reply
I have read quite a bit about the creation of the liturgical services in the Church of England and what really struck me when reading about the creation of the Novus Ordo was how the creators of the Book of Common Prayer and the Novus Ordo had in many ways very similar attitudes toward the liturgy.  The people should be able to understand the liturgy in their own language, the focus on a communal meal (although the Novus Ordo does not deny the real presence neither does the 1549 Book of Common Prayer), the general downgrading of the feasts of the saints, changing the ancient readings and propers, nearly always including an Old Testament reading as the first reading, a similar approach to the psalms, the suppression of confetior and replacement with a penitential rite. 

However, even Archbishop Cramer knew better than to make the canon optional which survived mostly intact in the Book of Common Prayer of 1549. 

The result of the Book of Common Prayer was a rebellion where about 5,000 people gave up their lives rather than submit to the new liturgy.  So many of the faithful risked so much rather than to submit to the new liturgy.  In the little town of Morebath a family risked their lives hiding the black vestments banned by the Church of England in the hope that one day the old mass would be restored and they and their kin might someday have requiem masses celebrated for them.  I find it a bit sad that much of what these people lost and risked their lives for turned out to be inessential.

Now you might say there is big difference between a liturgy promulgated by the Pope and a heretic, but something to keep in mind was that Archbishop Cramner was a validly and licitly consecrated bishop appointed by Pope Clement VII (despite the latter being aware that Cramner was possibly the worst person possible to be leading the Church in England).  Rome played a very wishy-washy game regarding the status of the Church in England up until Saint Pope Pius the Great* finally made clear that the Church of England was not part of the Catholic Church and called on the faithful to cease attending the Church of England's services (nearly some 40 years after the Reformation had started in England). 

Actually, Archbishop Cramner was not officially excommunicated and stripped of his appointment to the see of Canterbury by Pope Paul IV until 25 November 1555, 6 years after the promulgation of the Book of Common Prayer. 

*I have decided to start a movement to call Saint Pope Pius V....Saint Pope Pius the Great. 
Reply
(09-16-2011, 06:42 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: I have decided to start a movement to call Saint Pope Pius V....Saint Pope Pius the Great. 

I never have agreed with you more.  :)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)