Ottaviani intervention?
#41
(12-31-2012, 08:14 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(12-31-2012, 05:27 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: This is just the beefed up version of the Sister Lucia argument.

"Sister Lucia accepted it. It must be good." Imagine a "Caiphas thinks Christ is a blasphemer" argument. Oh, what hope do any Jews have to recognize Our Lord if a member of the Sanhedrin and the High Priest, someone who should know the Messiah when He comes, cannot do it. Different things, to be sure, than Vatican II, but the same argument.

A lot of people can fall for things. It could be age, peer pressure, human respect, confusion, false obedience, and so on.

Just like the "Guatemalan Farmer" argument, the "no one objected in 1965" argument, and the newspaper clipping arguments, none of these address the traditional (SSPX or otherwise) criticisms of errors, yes, errors, in the Vatican II documents.

And Bishop Sheen and Padre Pio (who wrote a letter praising Paul VI and Vatican II, and celebrated his last mass in the vernacular facing the people).

I don't know if there's any proof that he said Mass in the vernacular. One thing he never did, though, was say the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969.
[/quote]
(12-31-2012, 08:14 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: Just because you say there are errors doesn't make it so.

True.
[
(12-31-2012, 08:14 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: What's the difference between Jansenists denouncing the Pope for the novelty of Limbo (and declaring it an error) and you? Limbo (at first glance) directly contradicts the writings of Saint Augustine and the teaching of many, many Popes.

Limbo:

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the Sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or woman in the form of the Church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians." (Dz. 696)

"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains." - De fide, Council of Florence
(12-31-2012, 08:14 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: And the difference between the High Priest and the Pope is that it was never taught that the Holy Spirit guided the High Priest.

Yes, but now you're switching up. We're weren't talking about popes, but the Sister Lucia, Bp. Sheen, Padre Pio, Card. Ottaviani accepted it argument.
(12-31-2012, 08:14 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: But, what about the errors of Pius XII.

Name them.
(12-31-2012, 08:14 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: It was Pius XII that started all the changes that trads abhor. Shouldn't we just ignore all his teachings as well?

Such as?
(12-31-2012, 08:14 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: How does Divino Afflante Spiritu square with tradition in your mind (and especially Providentissimus Deus)? Is the post-54 missal evil? Can a valid Pontiff release an evil missal?

My views on the 1955 liturgical reforms are quite clear.

You can find them here: http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index...opic=101.0
Reply
#42
(12-31-2012, 08:54 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: I don't know if there's any proof that he said Mass in the vernacular.

It's hard to hear him, but he's speaking Italian:

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn1y1-nTouM
[/video]


(12-31-2012, 08:14 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: It was Pius XII that started all the changes that trads abhor.
(12-31-2012, 08:54 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Such as?

Stay tuned...
Reply
#43
just in the field of the liturgy

laymen in the sanctuary - leo xiii
hand missals in the vernacular - leo xiii
emphasis on scripture - leo xiii
root and branch reform (offends against organic continuity) - pius x
congregational participation - pius x
increase of temporal cycle over sanctoral cycle - pius x
frequent even daily communion - pius x
age of communion decreased - pius x
vernacular - pius x
vernacular - ben xv
emphasis on scripture - ben xv
vernacular - pius xi
dialog mass - pius xi
congregational participation - pius xi
entire psalms at the antiphons (introit, offertory, communion) - pius xi
vernacular - pius xii
dialog mass - pius xii
strong reduction in the calendar - pius xii
simplification of rubrics - pius xii
congregational participation - pius xii
women in the choir - pius xii
facing the people - pius xii
emphasis on scripture - pius xii
root and branch reform (offends against organic continuity) - pius xii
entire psalms at the antiphons (introit, offertory, communion) - pius xii
lessened euch. fast to three hours - pius xii
evening masses - pius xii
saturday evening masses to fulfill sunday obligation - pius xii

I'm sure there are others too.

And of course these Popes promoted the future Popes who would continue their line of reform.

John XXIII - archbishop by pius xi, cardinal by pius xii
Paul XV - archbishop by pius xii, refused cardinalate offered to him in by pius xii in 1953
JPII - bishop by pius xii

Obviously Pius XII thought these men were worthy, even with their intimate knowledge of their life and views. Paul VI was a close friend of Pius XII, and notwithstanding any disagreements they had, he promoted him readily. The "official" traditionalist narrative doesn't square with historical fact. The line of continuity points to most, if not all, of the vii and post reforms.
Reply
#44
(01-01-2013, 10:52 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: just in the field of the liturgy

laymen in the sanctuary - leo xiii
hand missals in the vernacular - leo xiii
emphasis on scripture - leo xiii
root and branch reform (offends against organic continuity) - pius x
congregational participation - pius x
increase of temporal cycle over sanctoral cycle - pius x
frequent even daily communion - pius x
age of communion decreased - pius x
vernacular - pius x
vernacular - ben xv
emphasis on scripture - ben xv
vernacular - pius xi
dialog mass - pius xi
congregational participation - pius xi
entire psalms at the antiphons (introit, offertory, communion) - pius xi
vernacular - pius xii
dialog mass - pius xii
strong reduction in the calendar - pius xii
simplification of rubrics - pius xii
congregational participation - pius xii
women in the choir - pius xii
facing the people - pius xii
emphasis on scripture - pius xii
root and branch reform (offends against organic continuity) - pius xii
entire psalms at the antiphons (introit, offertory, communion) - pius xii
lessened euch. fast to three hours - pius xii
evening masses - pius xii
saturday evening masses to fulfill sunday obligation - pius xii

I'm sure there are others too.

And none of those are complete rewrite of of the Mass.
Reply
#45
(01-01-2013, 11:13 AM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: And none of those are complete rewrite of of the Mass.

True, but the Pius X Breviary reform and the Pius XII Holy Week reform were root and branch reforms which are readily admitted by liturgical scholars as violating against organic development/continuity. That is precisely what the New Mass was. The New Mass is a development in scope, not in method.
Reply
#46
Why are we on a trad Catholic forum analyzing reasons FOR the Pauline Rite  ???  The one thing trads hold together in common IS the traditional Latin Rite. You don't hear of Pius V convening a group of monks to "write up" a new Latin rite. All changes were organically tweaked. There never was a reason to have arch-progressive Bugnini and the posse sitting in a room cutting and piecing a whole new Latin Rite. 
Reply
#47
(01-01-2013, 12:29 PM)TeaGuyTom Wrote: Why are we on a trad Catholic forum analyzing reasons FOR the Pauline Rite  ???  The one thing trads hold together in common IS the traditional Latin Rite. You don't hear of Pius V convening a group of monks to "write up" a new Latin rite. All changes were organically tweaked. There never was a reason to have arch-progressive Bugnini and the posse sitting in a room cutting and piecing a whole new Latin Rite.   

Thats what I'd like to know. The Original post was about the Ottaviani intervention. From that we went from Card. Ottaviani being an evil man who led souls to hell to every tweak and change in the TLM in the past 80 years or so. "Tweak and Change" not TOTAL rewrite by a Freemason and 6 Protestants. There is a large difference.
Reply
#48
(01-01-2013, 12:29 PM)TeaGuyTom Wrote: Why are we on a trad Catholic forum analyzing reasons FOR the Pauline Rite  ???  The one thing trads hold together in common IS the traditional Latin Rite. You don't hear of Pius V convening a group of monks to "write up" a new Latin rite. All changes were organically tweaked. There never was a reason to have arch-progressive Bugnini and the posse sitting in a room cutting and piecing a whole new Latin Rite.   

Because we have to understand why some people want the Novus Ordo to be able to argue about it intelligently.  If we come across as ignorant people who are merely emotionally ranting about something they don't understand, who will listen to us?
Reply
#49
(01-01-2013, 12:29 PM)TeaGuyTom Wrote: Why are we on a trad Catholic forum analyzing reasons FOR the Pauline Rite  ???  The one thing trads hold together in common IS the traditional Latin Rite. You don't hear of Pius V convening a group of monks to "write up" a new Latin rite. All changes were organically tweaked. There never was a reason to have arch-progressive Bugnini and the posse sitting in a room cutting and piecing a whole new Latin Rite.   

I mention these things to show that the narrative that the New Mass was this thing out of the blue is just false, and usually indicates to me that someone doesn't know the subject sufficiently. Thus when you say, "organically tweaked," you obviously are ignoring what I just said a post ago. They were inorganically tweaked.

The Organic Development of the Liturgy, by Alcuin Reid, p. 77, 229 Wrote:For this reason, we cannot but conclude, with Batiffol, Parsch, Taft, and others, that Saint Pius X's abolition of ancient elements of the received Tradition was to the detriment of the Roman breviary and was unprecedented in liturgical history.
...

The reservations already expressed about truncating the rite of the blessing of the palms and abolishing the Mass of the Presanctified from motives of pastoral expediency and antiquarianism and our earlier reservation about the reform of the paschal vigil, which is made obligatory in the 1956 Ordo, lead to the conclusion that this reform is a mixed blessing. A return to authenticity and some simplification are certainly not repugnant to objective liturgical Tradition. Yet antiquarianism and unfettered pastoral expediency are. It is difficult to see how the abolition of the Good Friday Mass of the Presanctified is anything other than the latter. ... One may conclude it is largely within the boundaries of both the organic development of the Liturgy and of the supervisory comptence of the bishop of Rome of the Roman rite.

(01-01-2013, 12:36 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: Thats what I'd like to know. The Original post was about the Ottaviani intervention. From that we went from Card. Ottaviani being an evil man who led souls to hell to every tweak and change in the TLM in the past 80 years or so. "Tweak and Change" not TOTAL rewrite by a Freemason and 6 Protestants. There is a large difference.

You're being a bit hyperbolic there. And crack open some more books. The reform was conducted by Catholics. The charge against Bugnini is at best a charge, and the six Protestants were sought for advice, not the conductors of the reform. There is a large difference.
Reply
#50
Father Cekada's research shows that the Protestants observers had little impact on the liturgy.

Indeed, the one concern among them was the ditching of the traditional readings since most mainline Protestants used them as well. It was for this reason Agatha Christie, an Anglican, wrote to Paul VI to not end the TLM.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)