Pope Francis: "[The Latin Mass] is rather a kind of fashion."
#51
(02-17-2014, 05:41 PM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote:
(02-17-2014, 02:16 PM)Geremia Wrote: what's that got to do with the Mass of All Ages?
The Mass is the Mass. There is no particular "mass of all the ages". Every valid Mass is a "mass of all ages" and a participation in the one Sacrifice of Christ 2000 years ago.  The TLM came into being in 1570 and Pope Pius X and Pius XII made changes to it.  But Pope Francis was merely stating that for some people it seems fashionable to attend the TLM.  But his catechetical point is that "if we do not go deep, no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us."
And we can sure see the tremendous depth that the novus ordo, an interuption of the organic development of the Mass, has wrought upon the Church. The novus ordo, and the theology that goes with it has practically destroyed the western Church.
Reply
#52
(02-17-2014, 08:02 PM)Dmorgan Wrote: is or that one, can save us."
And we can sure see the tremendous depth that the novus ordo, an interuption of the organic development of the Mass, has wrought upon the Church. The novus ordo, and the theology that goes with it has practically destroyed the western Church.
[/quote]
I disagree. The Novus Ordo mass is profound and beautiful; but faithlessness will always produce an irreverence and liturgical abuses regardless if it is a TLM or a N.O. Mass. Bad priests prior to Vatican II were known to race through jumbled Latin, not observe specific rubrics, etc.  The problem is and has always been abuses. Here is what  the Novus Ordo as seen on EWTN in the video below is supposed to look like:


And do realize that Christ is in charge of His Church, and nothing happens without Him permitting it.The problem is a lack of trust in Christ. But Archbishop Sheen observed that the tensions that developed after the Council were not surprising to those who know the whole history of the Church, and that it is a historical fact that whenever there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit as in a general council of the Church, there is always an extra show of force by the anti-Spirit or the demonic. Thus in the wake of Vatican II we have had all sorts of diabolical expressions of a twisted interpretation of the Council. But people die, and new generations come, and God renews the Church with the Church still standing, despite what some inside the Church have done to destroy the Church..
Reply
#53
(02-17-2014, 05:41 PM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote:
(02-17-2014, 02:16 PM)Geremia Wrote: what's that got to do with the Mass of All Ages?
The Mass is the Mass. There is no particular "mass of all the ages". Every valid Mass is a "mass of all ages" and a participation in the one Sacrifice of Christ 2000 years ago.  The TLM came into being in 1570 and Pope Pius X and Pius XII made changes to it.  But Pope Francis was merely stating that for some people it seems fashionable to attend the TLM.  But his catechetical point is that "if we do not go deep, no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us."

Your liturgical history is off Gabriel Serafin, and you are also over interpreting what Pope Francis said, if in fact he said it and this is only a hear say account. But the missal of 1570 was not "new" as Cardinal Ratzinger confirms:
" Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum then being used, which is the normal thing as history develops over the course of centuries. Many of his successor had likewise reworked this missal again, but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed. There is no such thing as a "Missal of Pius V", created by Pius V himself. There is only the reworking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth. The new feature that came to the fore after the Council of Trent was of a different nature. The irruption of the Reformation had above all taken the concrete form of liturgical "reforms". It was not just a matter of there being a Catholic Church and a Protestant Church alongside one another. THe split in the CHurch occurred almost imperceptibly and found its most visible and historically most incisive manifestation in the changes of the liturgy. These changes, in turn, took very different forms at the local level, so that here, too, one frequently could not ascertain the boundary between what was still Catholic and what was no longer Catholic.

In this confusing situation, which had become possible by the failure to produce unified liturgical legislation and by the existing liturgical pluralism inherited from the Middle Ages, the pope decided that now the Missale Romanum -- the missal of the city of Rome -- was to be introduced as reliably Catholic in every place that could not demonstrate its liturgy to be at least two hundred years old. Wherever the existing liturgy was that old, it could be preserved because its Catholic character would then be assured. In this case we cannot speak of the prohibition of a previous missal that had formerly been approved as valid. The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of [p. 148] the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the [Second Vatican - japhy] Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying within our own power of decision. From this it also follows that we are not to recognize the scholars and the central authority alone as decision makers, but that in the end each and every "community" must provide itself with its own liturgy. When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and the source of our life. A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church. I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to [p. 149] be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not he speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds -- partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart. This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council." MIlestones by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger pp.146-149.

C.
Reply
#54
(02-17-2014, 05:41 PM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote:
(02-17-2014, 02:16 PM)Geremia Wrote: what's that got to do with the Mass of All Ages?
The Mass is the Mass. There is no particular "mass of all the ages". Every valid Mass is a "mass of all ages" and a participation in the one Sacrifice of Christ 2000 years ago.  The TLM came into being in 1570 and Pope Pius X and Pius XII made changes to it.  But Pope Francis was merely stating that for some people it seems fashionable to attend the TLM.  But his catechetical point is that "if we do not go deep, no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us."

Please read this before you make another post wherein you talk down to us about our obvious inferior knowledge about the Mass :  http://www.scribd.com/doc/89291847/Micha...-Shipwreck

By the way, I really find it odd that we have to go through so much work to defend the Traditional Latin Mass on a Traditional Catholic message board.
Reply
#55
(02-17-2014, 08:52 PM)Cetil Wrote: as Cardinal Ratzinger confirms: . . . When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and the source of our life. A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church.
Exactly right. It is not the Novus Ordo which is the problem but abuses of the liturgy which were never called for by Vatican II. As Ratzinger continued in your quote:

(02-17-2014, 08:52 PM)Cetil Wrote: This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council." MIlestones by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger pp.146-149.


Reply
#56
(02-17-2014, 09:04 PM)Oatmeal Wrote: I really find it odd that we have to go through so much work to defend the Traditional Latin Mass on a Traditional Catholic message board.
I love the TLM and attend one regularly. But you need to understand the truth about the Novus Ordo and the hermeneutics of continuity. Abuses are abuses, but the Novus Ordo is just as profound as the TLM. Here is an article I invite you to read: CLICK HERE
Reply
#57
(02-17-2014, 09:46 PM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote:
(02-17-2014, 09:04 PM)Oatmeal Wrote: I really find it odd that we have to go through so much work to defend the Traditional Latin Mass on a Traditional Catholic message board.
I love the TLM and attend one regularly. But you need to understand the truth about the Novus Ordo and the hermeneutics of continuity. Abuses are abuses, but the Novus Ordo is just as profound as the TLM. Here is an article I invite you to read: CLICK HERE

I'm going to ignore your link, because I'm sure you ignored mine.

I'll start understanding "the truth about the Novus Ordo and the hermeneutics of continuity" when you begin to understand that the NO represents a corruption of Catholic worship as it has always been understood in the Church; that the NO has more roots in protestant heresy than Catholicism; that the NO has been a portal for all of the evil and decay that has consumed the Church in the last fifty years.  Any statement to the contrary is a denial of reality. 

“We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Reply
#58
(02-17-2014, 10:03 PM)Oatmeal Wrote: the NO represents a corruption of Catholic worship as it has always been understood in the Church; that the NO has more roots in protestant heresy than Catholicism; that the NO has been a portal for all of the evil and decay that has consumed the Church in the last fifty years.  Any statement to the contrary is a denial of reality. 
The last 50 years is just Satan waging war against the Church and calumniating Vatican II. But the authentic interpretation of the Council will prevail. A good example of the misinformation flow is as follows:

(02-17-2014, 10:03 PM)Oatmeal Wrote: “We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
This is a good example of how you've gathering information and turned it into misinformation. Your quote by Cardinal Ratzinger in context actually is defending the Novus Ordo Mass and arguing for an authentic interpretation of the of the as defined by the Second Vatican Council. What he was attacking are the abuses and misrepresentations of the N.O.  You no doubt got this quote out of context from some website attacking Vatican II..
For your own good, CLICK HERE NOW.
Reply
#59
(02-17-2014, 09:34 PM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote:
(02-17-2014, 08:52 PM)Cetil Wrote: as Cardinal Ratzinger confirms: . . . When liturgy is self-made, however, then it can no longer give us what its proper gift should be: the encounter with the mystery that is not our own product but rather our origin and the source of our life. A renewal of liturgical awareness, a liturgical reconciliation that again recognizes the unity of the history of the liturgy and that understands Vatican II, not as a breach, but as a stage of development: these things are urgently needed for the life of the Church.
Exactly right. It is not the Ovus Ordo which is the problem but abuses of the liturgy which were never called for by Vatican II. As Ratzinger continued in your quote:

(02-17-2014, 08:52 PM)Cetil Wrote: This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council." MIlestones by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger pp.146-149.

Go back and read the whole quote Gabriel, now you are grabbing things out of context. It is the Novus ordo that is the problem to some extent, hence he says: "There is no doubt this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth, thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer a living development but the product of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused us enormous harm. 
And  he is saying, we would not need a new liturgical movement had the reform been properly implemented.

C.

Reply
#60
(02-17-2014, 05:41 PM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote:
(02-17-2014, 02:16 PM)Geremia Wrote: what's that got to do with the Mass of All Ages?
The Mass is the Mass. There is no particular "mass of all the ages". Every valid Mass is a "mass of all ages" and a participation in the one Sacrifice of Christ 2000 years ago.  The TLM came into being in 1570 and Pope Pius X and Pius XII made changes to it.  But Pope Francis was merely stating that for some people it seems fashionable to attend the TLM.  But his catechetical point is that "if we do not go deep, no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us."
So, is he calling the Novus Ordo a fashion, too?

Also:
2nd Council of Nicaea Wrote:If anyone rejects any written or unwritten Tradition of the Church, let him be anathema.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)