Pope invokes ‘magisterial authority’ to declare liturgy changes ‘irreversible’
#41
We must not forget the elephant in the room today is that regardless off the enthusiasm for elements of the Tradition amongst laity and a handful of clergy the leadership of the Church is ashamed of it and thwarts it.  


Any lasting restoration MUST also include the hierarchy eventually, or it will not really take root for long.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
[-] The following 1 user Likes formerbuddhist's post:
  • Miriam_M
Reply
#42
(08-28-2017, 03:17 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: We must not forget the elephant in the room today is that regardless off the enthusiasm for elements of the Tradition amongst laity and a handful of clergy the leadership of the Church is ashamed of it and thwarts it.  


Any lasting restoration MUST also include the hierarchy eventually, or it will not really take root for long.

No doubt. One would have to hope that once the generation ordained pre-JPII dies out that there would be a lot less hostility to tradition. That's not to say that priests ordained since JPII are champions of orthodoxy/tradition, but I'd say that they're more open to tradition (especially those from the BXVI era) and being a bit more conservative in a more mainstream NO sense. Of course a lot can happen within the next 20 or so years.
Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
Reply
#43
(08-26-2017, 08:33 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: I actually cringe when I read those from Pius V and Pius X, especially Pius X arrogantly overturning the ancient Roman Psalter schema and expressly forbidding anyone to ever use it again!
You're welcome to your opinion, and perhaps you've thought through it well-enough to make clear why you think this. I hope so.

In my experience, though, people who complain about the psalter changes tend to be idealists, not realists, and thus talk about the "ancient" or "traditional" as if there is never a justified reason for changing things.

I suspect that may be your difficulty here, though, because St. Pius X was hardly "arrogant" in his changes to the psalter. You can certainly think him wrong to do so, but as he clearly says in Divino Afflatu, this came because of many complaints and petitions from the bishops and clergy. It was not as if the "good idea fairy" bit him and he just, motu proprio, decided to do this.

The "ancient Psalter" before the 1900s was used by priests who were, at worst, alone in a small apostolate in their local countryside church. They had a few hundred faithful from the surrounding village, thus, they could dedicate close to 2 hours to the Office each day (12 to 18 psalms for Matins, plus the Psalm 118 each day during the minor hours), and still manage to perform their duties. If they had a larger apostolate, in a large town or city, then they were one of several priests, and the workload was divided. Sure you had examples like the Curé of Ars, but this was the exception, rather than the rule.

This was one reason that feast days proliferated and often took over the ferias (and even Sundays): On a feast day the Office was at least two-thirds of the length of a normal Sunday or feria (only 9 psalms at Matins). If we had feasts, the office was much easier. As a result rarely was the "ancient Roman psalter" ever said in its entirety during a week. It is, therefore, a idealistic and false narrative to think that the reform "overturned" the "ancient Roman psalter", which was, practically, long-ago abandoned.

The late 19th century comes, and the demands on the secular clergy increase, though numbers do not correspondingly increase. There is more travel, more pastoral work. A full two hours for the Office is a great burden. The entire psalter is not being said each week. Many of the Sundays give way to feast days. Bishops, especially at Vatican I asked for changes.

In a sense then, all St. Pius X (or really the commission he had appointed) did was to try to work out a way to format the Office so that the clergy could return to praying the whole psalter each week, would have a less of a burden and could thus dedicate themselves more to the increasing demands for pastoral activity. The "new psalter" trims the office to about 75 minutes per day and ensures that, except for a major feast day, the whole psalter is prayed each week.

I know of no cleric who would suggest that we go back to the pre-1911 Breviary. I've heard many laymen wax eloquently about the ideals of the "ancient tradition", but these are men who have no real practical experience in praying the office.

Of note, as well, St. Pius X replaced the older Breviary, but did not "forbid" its use, except by those bound to the Office. For clerics who are obliged to recite the Office, there must be a uniformity of praxis. The older praxis no longer fulfilled the obligation. For any other purpose, the older Breviary is welcome to be used by anyone, and is not "forbidden".
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Miriam_M
Reply
#44
Not content to distort the Catholic theology of the Mass, Francis saw fit to distort history itself when he said:

… the liturgical books promulgated by Blessed Paul VI, well received by the same bishops who were present at the Council, and by now universally used in the Roman rite for almost fifty years.

Well received by the bishops?

Here is what Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani had to say in his famous “intervention” about the new rite’s reception:

In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was requested to pass a judgment on the experimental celebration of a so-called “normative Mass,” devised by the Consilium for implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a “refusal” on the proposed “normative Mass” on the part of the Synod.

In other words, only 78 of the 187 bishops present gave their approval to the rite that is “identical in substance” (Cardinal Ottaviani, ibid.) to the Novus Ordo.

https://akacatholic.com/word-for-the-week-irreversible/
[-] The following 2 users Like BC's post:
  • jovan66102, Zedta
Reply
#45
I have a question, does this mean that per Benedict XVI who said that the TLM was never revoked, , well...does this mean his Summorum Pontificum is...er uh.....well.....being revoked???
Reply
#46
(08-28-2017, 10:37 PM)GrottoAl Wrote: I have a question, does this mean that per Benedict XVI who said that the TLM was never revoked, , well...does this mean his Summorum Pontificum is...er uh.....well.....being revoked???

I have said before, and I will say again, that Francis will never revoke SP. He will chip away, destroying Traditional Orders, etc., until the Mass of the Ages is offered only in a garage in Podunk. Then, he and his sycophants will say, 'the TLM is still available. What are you whingeing about?'
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • Zedta
Reply
#47
(08-28-2017, 11:13 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-28-2017, 10:37 PM)GrottoAl Wrote: I have a question, does this mean that per Benedict XVI who said that the TLM was never revoked, , well...does this mean his Summorum Pontificum is...er uh.....well.....being revoked???

I have said before, and I will say again, that Francis will never revoke SP. He will chip away, destroying Traditional Orders, etc., until the Mass of the Ages is offered only in a garage in Podunk. Then, he and his sycophants will say, 'the TLM is still available. What are you whingeing about?'

Yep. Just like he'll never come out and say the divorced and remarried can receive Communion. He will continue to "all but say" this, but never forthrightly. He'll wink to his cronies, who will depart from Tradition, while at the same time leaving just enough cover so that the pope-worshipers can say "he didn't change Church teaching."
O unashamed intercessor of Christians, ever loyal advocate before the Creator, do not disregard the prayerful voice of sinners but in your goodness hasten to assist us who trustfully cry out to you: Intercede always, O Mother of God, in behalf of those who honor you!
Reply
#48
(08-29-2017, 11:50 AM)aquinas138 Wrote: Yep. Just like he'll never come out and say the divorced and remarried can receive Communion. He will continue to "all but say" this, but never forthrightly. He'll wink to his cronies, who will depart from Tradition, while at the same time leaving just enough cover so that the pope-worshipers can say "he didn't change Church teaching."

Maybe because Vatican I was right, and God won't let him say it.
Reply
#49
(08-29-2017, 08:19 PM)Paul Wrote:
(08-29-2017, 11:50 AM)aquinas138 Wrote: Yep. Just like he'll never come out and say the divorced and remarried can receive Communion. He will continue to "all but say" this, but never forthrightly. He'll wink to his cronies, who will depart from Tradition, while at the same time leaving just enough cover so that the pope-worshipers can say "he didn't change Church teaching."

Maybe because Vatican I was right, and God won't let him say it.

True. But we're kind of at the point after decades of postconciliar nonsense and the Vatican II disturbance (hopefully!) reaching its apotheosis in Francis that I'm not sure how much protection papal infallibility is providing when the popes studiously AVOID definitively defining anything so that they can spew error or, charitably, ambiguity.
O unashamed intercessor of Christians, ever loyal advocate before the Creator, do not disregard the prayerful voice of sinners but in your goodness hasten to assist us who trustfully cry out to you: Intercede always, O Mother of God, in behalf of those who honor you!
[-] The following 1 user Likes aquinas138's post:
  • formerbuddhist
Reply
#50
There have been apostate popes in the past. Things they decreed were redacted. One can always hope that the Gates of Hell, will still, not prevail.
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

All War is Deception
Gen. Sun

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis

Political Correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners.
George Carlin

“In a time of deceit…truth is a revolutionary act”
George Orwell
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)