Cardinal Sarah's insightful letter on Summorum Pontificum
#11
The bottom line is there's no way to find out what, if anything, the Council Father's intended. There are only individual interpretations against the reality of what really happened. If anything the overwhelming support of the need on a global level shows that whatever the Church may or may not have intended, the Pauline Mass IS the reality, end of story.

The highest authorities in the RCC changed the Mass in its externals and that is that.  The bulk of today's Catholics (including bishops!) only know and only care about what the church celebrates now. 

Men like Cardinal Sarah can rally like minded individuals to take a stand for the ancient liturgy of the Latin Church but they are going against what has now been basically ratified and established by Vatican II (an Ecumenical council according to obedient Roman Catholics ) and the last several popes.

The Reform of the Reform or even intransigent traditionalist narratives a la sedevacantism and SSPX are barely a ripple on the surface of the global Church.

I guess I don't see any going back.  It all seems like tilting at windmills to me.  Catholics can live according to the old ways, but they are and will remain estranged from the official Church,an institution that, for all the triumphalist rhetoric of the late 19th century through the 1950s has collapsed like a house if cards at the hands of the supposed magisterium and the papacy.
Reply
#12
I personally don't see the Novus Ordo being a forever thing. Barring some Apocalyptic event (or me dying young), I truly believe that I will see the end of the NO before the end of my life.
Reply
#13
(04-12-2017, 04:13 PM)Macarius Wrote:
(04-12-2017, 01:45 PM)BC Wrote: Here are some of Jungmann's criticisms against the traditional mass:

-“The sacrifice of the Mass is not the sacrifice for the redemption of the world, but the sacrifice made by the redeemed.” (12)

-He questioned the authenticity of the words Mysterium Fidei in the consecratory formula of the wine, regarding them as an extraneous element, an unscriptural “intrusion” with no connection to transubstantiation. (13)

-He insinuated that the Catholic doctrine of the priest performing the sacrifice as an alter Christus was a later historical invention and was, therefore, by implication, a false teaching. (14)

-He accused priests of usurping the role of the laity, creating a gap between the clergy and the people and preventing the latter from participating in the liturgy. (15)

-He presented a paper at the Assisi Congress in which he placed the principal emphasis of the Mass on the “community meal aspect” and the “gathering of the People of God,” described the Mass as primarily a service of thanksgiving by the assembled community, disparaged the silent recitation of the Canon as a barrier to participation, and stated that the Mass should be in the vernacular “so that the people can speak and sing together.” (here) (16)

As all good theologians, Fr. Jungmann had many ideas and expressed many opinions. That has never made someone a heretic. Aquinas opposed the Immaculate Conception, yet we almost worship him ;) Christ never promised infallibility to his theologians. That's why sometimes they write things and others can come back and say: hey, that's nonsense. And many times the theologian himself says: yep, don't know why I wrote that when I wrote it.

I'll mention that the issue with  Mysterium Fidei goes beyond what Jungmann proposed for discussion. Suffices to look at the anaphoras of the Eastern and Orthodox liturgies to realize that there's something unique about it. Some theologians may say there's something "non-essential" about it for the purposes of consecration.

Some of the other stuff you say, I'd have to read his actual writings in context. I don't usually go by what someone said someone else insinuated. Sometimes it turns out to be a biased opinion of a website with an agenda :)

Here is the context for those quotes. If you read the article you will find them.

Jungmann’s statement in its context follows:
"Since the Council of Trent, the understanding of the sacrifice of the Mass has often been obstructed by the apologetic tendency to overstrain its identity with the sacrifice of the Cross. … Exclusive stress upon the sacrifice of Christ, and unrestricted identification of the Mass with the sacrifice of Calvary, along with the ignoring of what we, as the Church, have to seek to do on our part, leads us away from the true liturgy of the Mass. … The sacrifice of the Mass is not the sacrifice for the redemption of the world, but the sacrifice made by the redeemed.” Josef A. Jungmann, Announcing the Word of God, trans. from the German by Ronald Walls, London: Burns and Oates, 1967, pp. 114 and 117.

“What is meant by the words Mysterium Fidei? Christian antiquity would not have referred them so much to the obscurity of what is here hidden from the senses, but accessible (in part) only to (subjective) faith. Rather it would have taken them as a reference to the grace-laden sacramentum in which the entire objective faith, the whole divine order of salvation is comprised. The chalice of the New Testament is the life-giving symbol of truth, the sanctuary of our belief. How or when or why this insertion was made, or what external event occasioned it, cannot readily be ascertained.” J. A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its origin and development, Benzinger Brothers, 1950, vol. 2, pp. 200-201.

“I am sure it was not a mere accident that the primitive Church did not apply the term ιερευς [hiereus, “priest”] to either bishop or presbyter. … For, there is only one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. … The term ιερευς was therefore applicable only to Christ and to the whole communion of the faithful, the holy Church, insofar as it is joined to Christ.” J. A. Jungmann, The Early Liturgy: To the Time of Gregory the Great, University of Notre Dame Press., 1959.

“The liturgy, the public worship of the Church, which in early times set the rhythm of Christian devotion, was, in the Middle Ages, put further and further in the background in favor of private and lay devotion. Hence subjectivism and individualism in the religious life of Catholics came strongly to the forefront. All too much leeway was given to human action in opposition to the operation of divine grace. So liturgical worship languished more and more and finally became a function of the priest, at which the people, during the liturgy and in place of it, gave themselves to private devotions. … A preliminary step to this divide was the proliferation of personal prayers, recited in a low voice by the priest. With such prayers, he already began to execute his own private ritual during the Mass.” J.A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite, vol. 1, pp. 84, 104.

16. For the full text of his speech (in French), see J. A. Jungmann, “La Pastorale, Clef de L’Histoire Liturgique,” (The Pastoral Approach, Key to the History of the Liturgy) La Maison-Dieu, n. 47-48, 1956.
He criticized the silent prayers of the priest as a barrier preventing the faithful from entering into the liturgy. He compared the Canon to a veil that separated the faithful from true participation in the Mass.

At a Liturgical Congress in Munich in 1955, he called for a new understanding of the Mass, an “awakening of the meaning of the Mass as a genuine community offering” on the alleged grounds that “we lost, through the centuries, the sense of the liturgy.” (9) http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopi...gue_27.htm

Jungmann: The Eucharist Should Not Be Adored.  http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopi...gue_34.htm

Read his own words if you are interested. His contempt for how the traditional mass formed is palpable.

There were all kinds of modernist theologians who flew uncondemned before the Council, which is how we got to where we are now.
Reply
#14
He's a theologian. Nobody says a theologian is infallible when he opines. If the Church did not condemn him, neither can we. We can say we disagree because there are better opinions out there.

On the subject of adoration, he does not deny that the Eucharist is worthy of adoration (latria). He simply argues that it's not its primary purpose. As a fact, adoration of the Eucharist was introduced slowly both in the mass and in Latin liturgy. It's not present in the East at all - they don't have the concept of monstrance or perpetual adoration. He was expressing his opinion on the matter, and he did not contradict dogma. He never denied that Christ is present in body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist. He never denied the Eucharist is worthy of the cult of latria.

We must be cautious when we read things through a lens. Lenses sometimes distort things. It's not about good or bad intentions, it's really about spiritual optics and prejudices.
Reply
#15
(04-12-2017, 06:11 PM)Macarius Wrote: He's a theologian. Nobody says a theologian is infallible when he opines. If the Church did not condemn him, neither can we. We can say we disagree because there are better opinions out there.

On the subject of adoration, he does not deny that the Eucharist is worthy of adoration (latria). He simply argues that it's not its primary purpose. As a fact, adoration of the Eucharist was introduced slowly both in the mass and in Latin liturgy. It's not present in the East at all - they don't have the concept of monstrance or perpetual adoration. He was expressing his opinion on the matter, and he did not contradict dogma. He never denied that Christ is present in body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist. He never denied the Eucharist is worthy of the cult of latria.

We must be cautious when we read things through a lens. Lenses sometimes distort things. It's not about good or bad intentions, it's really about spiritual optics and prejudices.

Modernists rarely ever directly deny doctrine. They are too slippery for that. What they do is cast doubt upon doctrine. What he is arguing is that the Latin Rite Church messed up on the Liturgy for a millennium and apparently was not guided by the Holy Spirit. That kills the true Faith in his listeners. How could it not.

What the East does with the Liturgy and how it developed is its own business. It developed with some different emphases in the West.

Jungmann rehashed 16th century Protestant criticisms almost to a "T." http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopi...gue_34.htm
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)