Pope Francis: "[The Latin Mass] is rather a kind of fashion."
#61
(02-17-2014, 10:46 PM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote: 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.

Context?  You want context?  Here's the whole quote:

"What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on -the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy".

"The pastoral benefits that so many idealists had hoped the new liturgy would bring did not materialize. Our churches emptied in spite of the new liturgy, and the faithful continued to fall away from the Church in droves."

"In the end, we will all have to recognize that the new liturgical forms, well intentioned as they may have been at the beginning, did not provide the people with bread, but with stones."

That's a defense of the NO?  Really?
Reply
#62
(02-17-2014, 11:39 PM)Oatmeal Wrote:  Here's the whole quote:
"What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on -the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy".

"The pastoral benefits that so many idealists had hoped the new liturgy would bring did not materialize. Our churches emptied in spite of the new liturgy, and the faithful continued to fall away from the Church in droves."

"In the end, we will all have to recognize that the new liturgical forms, well intentioned as they may have been at the beginning, did not provide the people with bread, but with stones."

That's a defense of the NO?  Really?

Again, he's talking about the misinterpretations of Vatican II which  led to a distortion of the liturgy. Thus Cardinal Ratzinger goes on to say:

“Vatican II in its official promulgations, in its authentic documents, cannot be held responsible for this development which, on the contrary, radically contradicts both the letter and the spirit of the Council Fathers” . . .  “I am convinced that the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is due, not to the ‘true’ Council, but to the unleashing within the Church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces; and outside the Church it is due to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the West … with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, rationalistic and hedonistic stamp”.

“If by ‘restoration’ is meant a turning back, no restoration of such kind is possible. The Church moves forward toward the consummation of history, she looks ahead to the Lord who is coming.… But if by ‘restoration’ we understand the search for a new balance after all the exaggerations of indiscriminate opening to the world … well, then a restoration … is altogether desirable...”.

“In my view, a new edition [of the Missal] will need to make it quite clear that the so-called ‘Missal of Paul VI’ is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer."

Pope Benedict XVI explains the difference between the true and false Vatican II:

Reply
#63
(02-17-2014, 11:29 PM)Cetil Wrote: 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.

Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI condemned the abuses in celebrating the liturgy. As for the revision of the Roman Missal he explained:
“In my view, a new edition [of the Missal] will need to make it quite clear that the so-called ‘Missal of Paul VI’ is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer. "
Reply
#64
(02-18-2014, 02:15 AM)Gabriel Serafin Wrote:
(02-17-2014, 11:29 PM)Cetil Wrote: 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.

Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI condemned the abuses in celebrating the liturgy. As for the revision of the Roman Missal he explained:
“In my view, a new edition [of the Missal] will need to make it quite clear that the so-called ‘Missal of Paul VI’ is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer. "
He is talking about more than just abuses.
Yes, "A NEW EDITION will need to make it quite clear" ! He is saying we need a NEW EDITION! And you left out the passage just before what you cited: "But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather than that with that of continuity within a single liturgical history."

And this: "Compared with the merely external busyness which became the rule in many places, the quiet following of Mass as we knew it in former times was far more realistic and dramatic: it was sharing in the action at a deep level, and in it the community of faith was silently and powerfully mobilized."

C.
Reply
#65
So I am confused.  If V II did not bring about all the problems, just misinterpretations, etc. who is to blame?

Not being snarky but seriously.  If the bishops or the priests misread, did not understand what the V II documents were saying and were putting in place practices that were incorrect, why did nobody in authority stop them?  Doesn't the blame lay with the Pope and the bishops who let this stuff slide, grow and get out of control?  Somebody should be accountable should they not?

Like with our country right now.  You hear all this stuff about power grabs by the current administration.  Okay, then why does nobody try to stop it?  No, they just pass the blame.  Those in the position to stop the power grabs do NOTHING. 

So to me, I don't see the mess the NO church is in today as a "misinterpretation" of the council.  They did what the Pope and the bishops wanted.  Then when things go wrong and the church is suffering because of the council's ideas, they play the blame game and pass the buck. 
Reply
#66
(02-18-2014, 09:27 AM)Philomena01 Wrote: So I am confused.  If V II did not bring about all the problems, just misinterpretations, etc. who is to blame?

Not being snarky but seriously.  If the bishops or the priests misread, did not understand what the V II documents were saying and were putting in place practices that were incorrect, why did nobody in authority stop them?  Doesn't the blame lay with the Pope and the bishops who let this stuff slide, grow and get out of control?  Somebody should be accountable should they not?

Like with our country right now.  You hear all this stuff about power grabs by the current administration.  Okay, then why does nobody try to stop it?  No, they just pass the blame.  Those in the position to stop the power grabs do NOTHING. 

So to me, I don't see the mess the NO church is in today as a "misinterpretation" of the council.  They did what the Pope and the bishops wanted.  Then when things go wrong and the church is suffering because of the council's ideas, they play the blame game and pass the buck. 

You ask some very worthy questions. It looks to me that the liturgical "experts" simply took over and the bishops let them have at it. This article shows what happened:

http://www.adoremus.org/0310Benofy.html

C.
Reply
#67
The lighter side of this:


From: http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.co.uk/20...shion.html

C.
Reply
#68
The Holy Father may be on to something. This popped up on my Tumblr today:

http://la-duchessa.tumblr.com/image/77320331730

Mantillas by Dolce and Gabbana. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)