Posted on 06/19/2005 9:33:26 PM PDT by Lady In Blue
Pope set to return to traditional liturgy:-
VATICAN CITY | June 19, 2005 5:11:27 AM IST
Pope Benedict XVI wants to restore the traditional ceremonial Mass in St. Peter's Basilica, with Latin instead of the vernacular and Gregorian chants.
Vatican expert Sandro Magister reported in his weekly newsletter Saturday that the pope is expected to replace Archbishop Pietro Marini, his predecessor Pope John Paul II's master of liturgical ceremonies.
Whoever follows Marini will have orders to restore the traditional style and choreography of papal ceremonies in St. Peter's.
Out will go the international Masses so dear to Pope John Paul II's heart, with such innovations as Latin American and African rhythms and even dancing, multi-lingual readings and children in national costumes bringing gifts to the altar.
Pope Benedict wants to return to the Sistine Chapel choirs singing Gregorian chant and the church music of such composers as Claudio Monteverdi from the 17th century. He also wants to revive the Latin Mass.
Archbishop Marini always planned the ceremonies with television in mind, Magister said, and that emphasis will remain. A decade ago the Vatican set up a system for transmitting papal ceremonies world wide via multiple satellites.
(UPI)
Were the consecrations of four bishops at Econe chosen by and consecrated by Marcel Lefebvre in direct violation of papal orders Canonically lawful or licit (as opposed to valid) consecrations?
Was Marcel Lefebvre excommunicated?
Did Marcel die excommunicated?
Were those adhering to SSPX adjudged by JP II to be in schism?
Four simple questions to clear any doubt: yes or no will suffice. Rationalizations are quite unnecessary.
"Four simple questions"
As long as questions are flying around, I'd like to ask one.
What would your position be if the Holy Father decreed that the consecrations were disobedient but not schismatic, granted the so-called universal indult, and freed all clergy from any obligation ever to celebrate the Novus Ordo?
In an "exchange" of opinions, ideas and information, respect is earned and not merely demanded. If your view of the papacy is that the occupant is a house functionary who is supposed to follow the notions of whomever his allegedly "in house" critics might be from moment to moment or to keep the faith "pure" as defined by J. Random traditionalist hothead or to take great care to obsess to the point of insanity so as not to perform in any way deviating from what J. Random imagines were the practices of yesteryear. JP II did a dandy job of converting souls to the faith and of driving from the Church (and rendering the appropriate judgments to effectuate it) those bent on being temites in trad clothing.
I anger easily (and justly) at those who would undermine papal authority and particularly in a time when such as excommunicated Lefebvre and his excommunicated consecratees take it upon themselves to CHOOSE bishops as well as consecrate them in the outer darkness beyond the borders of the Church while nervily claiming to be Catholic. Words, including "Catholic", have meanings. Catholicism is a body of doctrine and discipline and not a body of mere opinion or information or ideas. Luther had ideas, opinions and information, however erroneous, but he was no more a Catholic than Lefebvre just ultimately more obviously honest in his public rejection of Catholicism.
Benedict XVI is pope. The cafeteria is CLOSED.
John Henry Cardinal Newman once wrote that: "It is almost the definition of a gentleman to say that he is one who never consciously seeks to offend..." What a pleasure and a luxury it must have been to live in his time!
Will Rogers said: "I never met a man I could (or did?) not like." Of course, he never met Howard Dean or Marcel Lefebvre or the followers of either.
Can I get a Yeeeeearrrrrggggh?
"Gentleman" and "sycophantic doormat" are NOT equivalent terms. Aggression is often warranted. Rudeness has uses and ought not to be limited to use by the enemies of civilization. Many people, including SSPX schismatics, like to define themselves and get verrrrrry huffy when their self-serving self-definitions are challenged.
Someday, you may find yourself on my side of an issue (pro-life? pro-family? pro-American?) in which case you may better appreciate the style as to which you complain. If not, not. No matter.
Provide your answers to the questions in #341. Provide your ideas, your information, and (drum roll) your opinions.
There would be an obvious problem that I would not understand. Was JP II right and B-16 putatively wrong? Therefore, I really do not expect B-16 to suggest in that fashion that JP II was wrong. This is especially true in this case since B-16 headed the Holy Office at the time of the excommunication of Marcel and the Econe 4. B-16 cannot very well undermine JP II's authority and judgment without impairing his own authority and judgment. B-16 is far too wise for that.
Second obvious problem. Marcel and at least one of the Econe 4 have died, apparently unrepentant. Their final disposition was up to God but they are no longer on earth to repent their sins of disobedience and there is no evidence whatsoever that they ever did repent.
We may study history. We may prospectively create history. We are not entitled to change history retroactively.
I would join you on the barricades in cheering a universal indult or, better yet, a declaration that no indult was ever necessary or ever would be. Likewise, a flat out declaration that the Tridentine is the normative Mass of the Church (without Pope St. Pius V's ultra vires pretense of binding his successors as to every jot and tittle of the liturgy) would be welcome and perhaps a decree that no Church be built in the future in Novus Ordo style, that Tridentine Masses be offered in EVERY Catholic Church on each and every day, that Novus Ordo altars be portable and high altars restored in every Church at diocesan expense if necessary "with all deliberate speed." Remove recalcitrant bishops. Abolish all bishops' conferences. AND a whole lot more.
I was awake, aware and alive as a former Tridentine altar boy when the Tridentine Mass was effectively ripped away from us. I feel sure that I was not the only Catholic nauseated by the low rent rubrics of Bugnini, et al., to the point of considering defection to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I got over it. I even got over Paul VI ignorantly calling the Vietnam War as waged by the USA as an exercise in "racist genocide." No one ever guaranteed that popes have special gifts in inernational affairs of governments.
I don't want those who are genuinely wedded to the Novus Ordo treated as were Tridentine Catholics four decades ago.
I am skeptical as to the value of "freeing" "all clergy from any obligation ever to celebrate the Novus Ordo. Many posts by SSPXers indicate the belief that only the Tridentine Mass is valid. Thus, we would be merely formally inviting the schismatic termites into the Church woodwork. Nevertheless, it is the pope's call and not mine. I suspect that the Holy Ghost will see to it that no such imprudence will become papal policy without more.
I suspect that a restoration of Pope St. Pius X's anti-modernism campaign is in order with a modification or two. First, make it even MORE rigorous. Second, annual loyalty oaths by each and every member of the clergy or of vowed lesser orders or of those purporting to be "Catholic" educators, the oaths to be comprehensive and orthodox. Third, add to the oath an affirmation that the Novus Ordo is and was a valid Mass and that the Tridentine Mass is and was a valid Mass. Fourth, IF the oath has been taken, no one should force a priest to say a Novus Ordo Mass. Ultimately, the Novus Ordo should be suppressed as an uninspiring liturgy with little sense of the sacred and little else to recommend it but take this goal somewhat slowly in deference to people led into Novus Ordodum by the eccentric behavior of the hierarchy. Also, each of the surving members of the Econe 4 and their consecratees and ordained SSPX leaders should be required to resign and enter cloistered monasteries for life. The equivalent was imposed on Lucia of Fatima. Let her be their example. She suffered unjustly unlike them.
See #341. What are your answers?
There would be an obvious problem that I would not understand. Was JP II right and B-16 putatively wrong? Therefore, I really do not expect B-16 to suggest in that fashion that JP II was wrong. This is especially true in this case since B-16 headed the Holy Office at the time of the excommunication of Marcel and the Econe 4. B-16 cannot very well undermine JP II's authority and judgment without impairing his own authority and judgment. B-16 is far too wise for that.
Second obvious problem. Marcel and at least one of the Econe 4 have died, apparently unrepentant. Their final disposition was up to God but they are no longer on earth to repent their sins of disobedience and there is no evidence whatsoever that they ever did repent.
We may study history. We may prospectively create history. We are not entitled to change history retroactively.
I would join you on the barricades in cheering a universal indult or, better yet, a declaration that no indult was ever necessary or ever would be. Likewise, a flat out declaration that the Tridentine is the normative Mass of the Church (without Pope St. Pius V's ultra vires pretense of binding his successors as to every jot and tittle of the liturgy) would be welcome and perhaps a decree that no Church be built in the future in Novus Ordo style, that Tridentine Masses be offered in EVERY Catholic Church on each and every day, that Novus Ordo altars be portable and high altars restored in every Church at diocesan expense if necessary "with all deliberate speed." Remove recalcitrant bishops. Abolish all bishops' conferences. AND a whole lot more.
I was awake, aware and alive as a former Tridentine altar boy when the Tridentine Mass was effectively ripped away from us. I feel sure that I was not the only Catholic nauseated by the low rent rubrics of Bugnini, et al., to the point of considering defection to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I got over it. I even got over Paul VI ignorantly calling the Vietnam War as waged by the USA as an exercise in "racist genocide." No one ever guaranteed that popes have special gifts in inernational affairs of governments.
I don't want those who are genuinely wedded to the Novus Ordo treated as were Tridentine Catholics four decades ago.
I am skeptical as to the value of "freeing" "all clergy from any obligation ever to celebrate the Novus Ordo. Many posts by SSPXers indicate the belief that only the Tridentine Mass is valid. Thus, we would be merely formally inviting the schismatic termites into the Church woodwork. Nevertheless, it is the pope's call and not mine. I suspect that the Holy Ghost will see to it that no such imprudence will become papal policy without more.
I suspect that a restoration of Pope St. Pius X's anti-modernism campaign is in order with a modification or two. First, make it even MORE rigorous. Second, annual loyalty oaths by each and every member of the clergy or of vowed lesser orders or of those purporting to be "Catholic" educators, the oaths to be comprehensive and orthodox. Third, add to the oath an affirmation that the Novus Ordo is and was a valid Mass and that the Tridentine Mass is and was a valid Mass. Fourth, IF the oath has been taken, no one should force a priest to say a Novus Ordo Mass. Ultimately, the Novus Ordo should be suppressed as an uninspiring liturgy with little sense of the sacred and little else to recommend it but take this goal somewhat slowly in deference to people led into Novus Ordodum by the eccentric behavior of the hierarchy. Also, each of the surving members of the Econe 4 and their consecratees and ordained SSPX leaders should be required to resign and enter cloistered monasteries for life. The equivalent was imposed on Lucia of Fatima. Let her be their example. She suffered unjustly unlike them.
See #341. What are your answers?
thanks for the info!
You're quite welcome! (I knew that required Bibliographical Methods course in grad school would come in handy one day!)
Ninenot isn't a schismatic. And your "And we couldn't be happier!" is, at the very least, uncharitable.
Though a "close" liturgical language has generally been the case within the patriarchate of Constantinople, it hasn't always been the case in the other ones. Coptic doesn't really have any close living relatives; Alexandria still uses it, and I seem to remember the Ethiopians still use it as well in addition to Ge'ez. The Chaldean and Malabar Churches still use Syriac, which is not at all related to the vernaculars in those areas. Also, the Italo-Albanians use Greek, so there's even some precedence in Byzantine areas.
I hear what you're saying though--it's nice to have a liturgical language form where people aren't Latin/Greek speaking: Slavonic, Malayam, Ge'ez. But for whatever reason, it hasn't *generally* been the case in the Latin church until recently, although I should point out that for 300 years, Masses at the Indian missions in North America were in Latin and in "Indian". Liturgical forms of Huron, Mohawk, Algonquin and other languages were just starting to coalesce in the 1800s; unfortunately the subsequent liturgical mess broke that wonderful tradition.
And I'm in total accord with your sentiments on B16 and implementing true liturgical reform.
I cannot take seriously anyone who takes the Rockford Institute or other "paleo"delusional institutions seriously. Pearl Harbor happened. 9/11 happened. Even Charles Lindbergh served as an officer in WW II (when FDR finally let him). The America First Committee folded its tent on about 12/8/41. No signs of life have been observed at the AFC gravesite since.
Some Chicago folks may think Bernardin is/was God. No actual Catholic believes such tripe. The dupes at the Institute think that Serbia and Montenegro are ideal places: so locally eccentric (like them), so very colorful, probably have good booze too, never bother others by trying to do the right thing. Accept petty tyranny as a desireable way of life, at least for others. If the Rockford Institute crowd says that rain falls, we should start a new investigation.
I brought up SSPX/you brought up the strawman of SSPX Masses.
If you answer the SSPX questions, you can affirm or deny effectively your connections or non-connections to SSPX. If you do not see fit to answer such simople questions, I will feel free to draw the obvious conclusion as to why. We have reached a point where the SSPX are so committed to lying that they are Catholic that a simple denial of SSPX status will often not suffice. Someone who denies that Stalin was one of the worst mass murderers in human history is reasonably suspected of communist sympathies. Likewise anyone who would deny the efficacy of JP II's actions against Lefebvre, against the Econe 4 and against their schism.
If you want to talk with authority claiming Catholicism, necessarily you must reject schism. Your status vis-a-vis the schism and its excommunicated leaders is relevant.
You have so far given me no evidence to lead to a conclusion that I am wrong. If and when you do and I find the evidence credible, you will have my response that you seek and not before.
See, the deal is that a refusal to answer the basic questions on excommunicated Marcel, the excommunicated Econe 4, and the SSPX schism reasonably calls into question whether you adhere to the schism or not especially when coupled with the whining about being picked on. Therefore, you are keeping the argument on an ad hominem level by refusing to engage on substance as to the schism. If you don't fathom that, you are probably not worth helping.
I translated the entire 300+ page Aeneid in high school. Recognize humor when you see it and you will seem less like SSPX or like the paleofussandfeathers crowd.
If I fail to be arrogant in any action, I probably should avoid the action. There is no social obligation to behave meekly in defense or advocacy of truth and I would reject such an obligation if there were.
Proud to be arrogant in judgment of those who presume to judge negatively the papacy and the Church, clothed in claimed Catholicism. You ARE, by your screenname, suggesting that you are Catholic, are you not?
Eccentricity is not principle, much less some high form thereof. Freedom does not require that you not be criticized. Freedom of speech does not mean that one person's ideas are as good as another's.
I promise not to be concerned over the fact that you and another poster, both of whom apparently refuse to answer simple questions as to schism and schismatics, are somehow offended because I disagree with your respective self-assessments and suspect that you sympathize with a schism that you will not explicitly recognize as schism despite papal judgment of it as schism, and with those excommunicated leaders (excommunicated by JP II) whose excommunication you will not explicitly recognize.
Come on now. You can answer the questions. It is up to you whether you will answer the questions and up to me as to what conclusions I may draw from answers or non-answers. Although, if you actually sympathize with the "paleo" Institute crowd, how can any sensible person of any religious persuasion take you serously? Possible, yes! Probable, much less likely! Ad hominem? Perhaps, but quite correct nonetheless.
AmChurch has maintained a cafeteria for years. There is only so much one pope can do. It appears that B-16 is bent on keeping the cafeteria CLOSED. He won't have to tear down the Iron Curtain.
BTW, the cafeteria is not just a place where AmChurch leftists and poofters pick and choose but also those "Catholics" who imagine that someone died and left them to sit in judgment on JP II whether for refusing to bend to the sexual mania of the wordly, to the materialist mania of the worldly or to the remarkably anti-Catholic pretenses of the schismatics and excommunicatees of SSPX.
You ought to be praying ceaselessly for Lefebvre and the Econe 4. If it is too late for them, God will know how to apply the merits of your prayers.
Not for an angel...
IOW the angel's salutation was the original...
An annual oath would be wunnerful, wunnerful...IF and ONLY IF there were consequences for 'failure to uphold.'
It's demonstrated that there is a sizeable minority of Ordained who would be happy to swear to anything...and mean nothing.
Well, I smell something in this post. Swords-fish or ol' Whats-his-SSPX, which is it? hmmm?
(walk around, chin in hand)
Hmmmm
Gracias, senor!
You hit the nail on the head. Vatican 11 never said to
make the changes that were made. Our bishops did!!
By their fruits you shall know them. Well, I've seen
all the fruits of Vatican 2 that I can stand.
But it would be for a prayer said by we mortals. Besides, I'm not so sure that an Angel would look down apon the Mother of God.
Ahhh, yes.
Of course, the "many things which [he did not do]" were important--in YOUR humble opinion.
Most likely a few of those were important in MY humble opinion, too.
But he didn't do those things.
OUR difference lies in this: you, from your evidently elevated position vis-a-vis John Paul II (the Great) have decided that he was "hardly" a 'great man.'
OTOH, I think he was a great man for the things that he DID do, by the will of God.
Not only do you want the Pope to get straight A's--you also wish to grade him. Not likely in your lifetime, nor mine, nor God's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.