The Anglican Mass and the Novus Ordo
#11
(06-25-2013, 05:35 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: It's a shame that more care has been taken by Rome with preserving the Anglican's liturgy than our own TLM.......

If you are talking about the Mass of Paul VI, I agree.  However, if you are talking about the care taken since the promulgation of the Ordinariates, I would suggest it is about the same.  Both they, and Summorum Pontificum happened under B16 and are, in some sense, amplifications of what was put into place under JP2.  I truly believe that the TLM will continue to grow significantly in the coming years, and I hope that the Ordinariates do the same.  The TLM will grow no matter what, particularly with all of the liturgical movements, organizations, etc. that have been embraced by some bishops.  10 years ago, it would have been pretty much unthinkable for the TLM to have been celebrated by a bishop (heck even 5 years ago it was uncommon).  Now it happens much more often and in a much more public way.  The growth of the Ordinariates will largely depend on what the Anglican/Episcopal world decides to do.  If they go the route of wide spread women bishops, continue to move away from traditional morality, etc. I think we will see the Ordinariates continue to grow. 

Both are very good for the Church liturgically, as well as for other reasons.  I have made little secret of my thought that if the liturgical reforms called for by Vatican II had actually been implemented faithfully, the OF of the Mass today would closely resemble the AU Mass (vernacular, additional Bible readings, additional responses, etc.), rather than what we ended up with. 
Reply
#12
(06-25-2013, 09:05 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(06-24-2013, 10:32 AM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: It strikes me as very odd that a form of the Mass is being made available in the Roman rite of the Catholic Church that was directly a result of Cranmer's rebellion against Rome.

The Catholic Church teaches that "every useful thing by whomsoever discovered or planned, ought to be received with a willing and grateful mind" (Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris 31) and that any good Christian elements in the separated communities properly belongs by right to the Catholic Church (cf. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatis Redintegratio 3).  It's not surprising then that the Church would take what is useful and/or rightfully hers, while leaving anything contrary to the faith out.

A liturgy is either Catholic or not Catholic based upon the principles that formed it and that find expression in its liturgical construct (i.e. what it does or does not say, profess, signify, represent, and emphasize, as well as the reasons behind all of these). Thus, Cranmer's liturgy was rejected by the Church as a complete entity of itself, not because of some of the things it contained that may have been dangerous to the Faith, but as entirely unCatholic, according to the principles that formed it. Though much of its content is authentically Catholic in origin, rather than being considered partly useful or redeemable in some way, it was condemned holistically.

In the same way, the Church has never considered heresy in light of what is good or useful in it, but in light of what is opposed to the Faith, even if it is only one dangerous proposition. In fact that is what constitutes heresy, sin, or any evil: not the amount of good or usefulness that it contains, but what good is lacking. Even natural good is evil if a supernatural motive behind it is rejected. In the case of certain heresies, most of what they contain is useful and good, but it takes only one point of departure from Catholic doctrine to be evil and harmful to the Faith.

There is a reason the Church never accepted the liturgies of non-Catholics, regardless of how redeemable they may have appeared. The principles that formed them were unCatholic, and men do not gather figs from thorns or figs from thistles. What Leo XIII is talking about is that which is good and useful of itself, without being the product of unCatholic principles. Hence, Aristotelian metaphysics is good and useful because it was not formulated in opposition to the Faith or based upon anti-Catholic principles.

So the point is that sin, heresy, or even non-Catholic liturgy cannot be considered in parts--the good being somehow separated from the bad from within an entity that itself is distinguished by these constituents--but must be considered holistically according to its own nature.
Reply
#13
(06-25-2013, 07:08 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: There is a reason the Church never accepted the liturgies of non-Catholics, regardless of how redeemable they may have appeared.

That's simply not true. The 1930 reconciliation of the Syro-Malankara allowed them to continue to practice their same liturgy, with only a minor revision in the 1950s, even though they had been separated from Rome since 1653. Just like any reconciliation, you sift it through the Catholic filter, and add anything essential lacking. I don't know of any group reconciliation that forced people to adopt a foreign liturgy to them, but only to correct it. Sometimes you have to bury the hatchet. I heard no one talk about Cranmer. They talked about Newman, and Knox, and other standout converts. They also talked about how this is their form of worship. I respect that. It was thoroughly Catholic. And, of course, the Church has certified it.
Reply
#14
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=156090534574767&set=a.123497284500759.1073741828.123492761167878&type=1

Interesting little story on England as a Catholic country, and more to come in the upcoming issue of the magazine it seems. 
Reply
#15
(06-25-2013, 08:26 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(06-25-2013, 07:08 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: There is a reason the Church never accepted the liturgies of non-Catholics, regardless of how redeemable they may have appeared.

That's simply not true. The 1930 reconciliation of the Syro-Malankara allowed them to continue to practice their same liturgy, with only a minor revision in the 1950s, even though they had been separated from Rome since 1653. Just like any reconciliation, you sift it through the Catholic filter, and add anything essential lacking. I don't know of any group reconciliation that forced people to adopt a foreign liturgy to them, but only to correct it. Sometimes you have to bury the hatchet. I heard no one talk about Cranmer. They talked about Newman, and Knox, and other standout converts. They also talked about how this is their form of worship. I respect that. It was thoroughly Catholic. And, of course, the Church has certified it.

Your example makes the mistake of assuming that I am arguing that, because heretics use it, it must be heretical. That is not at all what I said; nor does it follow from the argument I made.

I am not talking about liturgies that were organically Catholic, but that are simply being used by heretics. The Church would accept such a  liturgy, even if heretics had grabbed a hold of it and modified it (the Church would simply remove the heretical modification). However, a liturgy that is based on heretical principles, developed independently from the Church, and was manufactured in opposition to the Church would be rejected by the Church. This distinction matters.

This why the liturgy of St. John Chrysostum is still authentic Catholic liturgy, regardless of the fact that it is being used by (and may have been modified by) heretics. It developed organically and is not defined by heretical principles. The case is different, however, with Cranmer's Mass, which had explicitly heretical designs in its blueprint. The Church would never accept and has never accepted a liturgy without an Offertory, for example, which was lacking from the liturgy simply because the creators of the liturgy did not believe in the sacrificial nature of the Mass, regardless of how good or useful the rest of the liturgy might have been.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)