Posted on 06/04/2004 12:00:16 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
In his explanation for the decision, Maida cited the growing influence of schismatic groups within his archdiocese.
"We have much activity by schismatic churches in the Archdiocese. We have children in our Archdiocese attending schismatic schools and being drawn away from the Church. Some of our faithful are crossing the border to go into Windsor or other dioceses for the celebration of this Mass," the cardinal is quoted as stating.
Maida did not mention at the meeting that in addition to laity joining schismatic groups, he is also faced with a major emigration of seminarians from the archdiocese, and the crisis shows no signs of abating. In the year 2007 there is only one man scheduled to be ordained for the Archdiocese of Detroit, a native-born Filipino.
During the meeting Auxiliary Bishop Walter Hurley said the Tridentine Mass may be allowed in two parishes before the fall, but neither the parishes nor the frequency of the Masses has been decided.
Hurley is quoted as stating, "We are not looking to catechize new generations into the Tridentine Rite, but we are seeking to respond to those people who have identified this as a pastoral need In moving in this direction, there are certain things that must take place as we proceed. The first is that Vatican II, its authenticity, and its liturgical reforms have to be accepted as a legitimate work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. We do not want to set up something that would be divisive. We are not seeking to undermine or unravel the reforms of the Council."
The celebration of the Tridentine Mass will be coordinated under the auspices of the Archdiocesan Worship Office. "We do not want to see this as a work of a specific group of people, but rather an extension of Cardinal Maida's ministry as chief shepherd of the Archdiocese," Hurley is quoted as saying. "… All of our regional auxiliary bishops have indicated their willingness to celebrate this liturgy. The framework here is pastoral. We will not identify this as a "specific niche" of a parish; rather, this is simply something that would be offered at a parish."
The decision has been met with guarded optimism by those who have worked for the Tridentine Rite in the archdiocese, mainly because the rite – until now -- has been bitterly opposed by Maida and his chancery since Maida arrived as archbishop in Detroit in 1990. Additionally, the auxiliary bishop and chancery staff who are implementing his new decision are long-time chancery veterans who have no track record whatsoever of embracing traditional initiatives.
Many suspect the Tridentine Mass may be sparingly offered at small parishes in inconvenient locations, perhaps even in parishes hostile to traditional aspirations.
For at least the last 15 years there have been hundreds, if not thousands of requests to Maida to grant permission for the Tridentine Mass. A group of Catholics in the early 1990s filed a canonical lawsuit in the Signatura, the Vatican Court, to force Cardinal Maida to abide by Eccleiasia Dei, in which Pope John Paul II pleaded with the world’s bishops to allow a "generous application" of the indult for the Tridentine Mass. The St. Joseph Foundation assisted in that effort.
Maida opposed the lawsuit vigorously, and the legal effort ended when the Vatican ruled that with the death in 1994 of Thomas Marshall, the main signer of the complaint, the rest of signers of the petition to Rome had no standing to pursue the case.
It is noteworthy that the primary opponent of the Tridentine Mass at that time was Fr. Gerald Shirilla, professor at Sacred Heart Major Seminary and director of the Worship Department. Fr.Shirilla told a reporter for the Michigan Catholic that, regarding those who want the Tridentine Mass, "We have to fight them tooth and nail."
Fr. Shirilla was relieved of his post in 1993 when he was identified as a serial child molester, who favored young altar boys, going back more than 20 years. He never quite lost favor with Cardinal Maida, however, and was secretly re-assigned seven years later as pastor of a parish in the Diocese of Gaylord, Michigan.
Meanwhile, as the cardinal and his priests argue about the merits of the Tridentine Mass, the Detroit chapter of gay organization Dignity continues to hold its weekly Masses at Marygrove College every Sunday, and openly advertises that priests of the archdiocese celebrate its Masses. Priests of the archdiocese have never been forbidden to celebrate those gay Masses.
Cardinal Maida has always had different standards for different groups throughout his tenure in Detroit.
(Excerpt) Read more at cruxnews.com ...
Yes. Like that.
No reason to repeat the same mistake.
The 65 missal, as you can see here
http://www.coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/
Was almost identical to the 62 missal, same offertory, same canon and so on, and by the time 67 came around, the rubrics came to resmble the NO was see today, minue the women on the altar. By 67, it was all inthe vernacular, with the priest facing the people and people standing for communion in probably a majority of the parishes in the US with lay readers for the Epistle. By 69, the 65 missal was allowed to be used with multiple Canons.
Yes, the translation as we all agree was poor, and translated by people with an agenda, but that said, imagine if the 62 missal was translated by the ICEL?
No. JPII celebrates the Novus Ordo, so obviously "the Pope" doesn't.
Besides, nobody really knows exactly how the disciples conducted the Mass.
We have a pretty good idea, in the Didache.
If you haven't read it, you should.
The novus ordo was a "mistake"?
The wholesale imposition was a mistake.
1. Klaus Gamber has proven, by archeological evidence of ancient bas-reliefs, that first century liturgies were celebrated facing east toward the rising sun--just as the Jews in the Temple had offered their sacrifices--and for the same reason, to show honor to God by symbolically facing Him. This was no doubt according to the wishes of the apostles themselves.
2. The sacrifice of Melchisadech was tripartite: oblation (Offertory), immolation (Consecration), consummation (Communion). This is why the ancient Mass speaks of its sacrifice according to the Order of Melchisadech. The Novus Ordo destroyed this sacrificial structure, replacing it with a memorial meal structure, contravening Trent. Once again, you show you don't know what you're talking about.
Emulating prior celebrations is not much more than antiquity-worship; it's empty.
At the same time, there were a large number of people, including the "conservatives" who wanted to make some modifications--really, streamlining--of the TridRite.
The Novus Ordo was not what the Document on the Liturgy foresaw--it was only a few antiquity-worshippers (some of whom had serious personal disorders...) who wished to gut the whole thing and, essentially, start from scratch.
BTW, if the Roman Mass is what the Reformers wanted to put out--then how come is it that the Entrance Rite, a Psalm sung by the Schola, is NEVER USED in the NO?
There's no consistency to the claim of "how the ancients did it." The only consistency is that we get a new version every 5 years--until recently, progressively worse.
Pius X cannot bind JPII in matters of liturgy.
"Did the Lord turn His back on His apostles at the Last Supper?"
That is a loaded misrepresentation of the ad orientem stance!
Our Lord would have sat on THE SAME SIDE of the table (which was probably 'U'-shaped) as the the apsotles. The other side of the table would have been left free for the servants to bring the provisions to table.
The ad orientem celebration of Mass simply has the priest on the same side of the altar as the congregation - as it should be. The versus populum position has the priest standing on the other side of the altar as though he is some kind of demi-god.
"If we are "doing this in Memory of Me," it makes sense to gather in the faithful, as Jesus did."
Quite! - standing on the same side of the "table" as His apostles.
"In fact, if you know how the Eucharist was celebrated in the Early Church, you know that it was not done in imitation of Melchisedech."
And how do you jump to that conclusion? The very name "Eucharist" implies that it was done precisely in the manner of Melchisedech. The sacrifice of bread and wine which he offered was the Jewish "Todah" sacrifice, and the Passover itself is a modified form of Todah.
Todah means "Thanksgiving", which is why the Christian sacrifice was given the name "Eucharist" from the Greek "evkaristo" which also means "Thanksgiving". In fact the ancient rabbi's had an oral prophetic tradition that the Messianic age would be followed by the "last days" when only the Todah sacrifice would remain.
All archeological discoveries of early Christian churches show an east-west orientation that was simply carried over from the tradition of Temple and Synagogue.
"With all due respect, those who prefer the current manner of celebration are not, by that preference, "malformed in the faith.""
With all due respect I would suggest that they are ignorant of Scripture and Traditition, and do not know why worship has ALWAYS taken place with an Eastward orientation.
From the first pages of the bible God enters the Garden (sanctuary) from the east of Eden (temple). The tabernacle is erected with an Eastward orientation, the Temple is erected with an Eastward orientation, the Messiah enters the Temple from the East, and He also promises that He will return as lighting FROM THE EAST TO THE WEST.
The whole eschatological focus of the Mass for 1,900+ years had been oriented to the return of the Lord - heck in the new Mass we even say "Christ will come again" - but for some stupid unbiblical reason it was changed in 1970 because people didn't even know why it was the way it was! They just changed it because it made them "feel better"!!!
Judaeo-Christian sacrifice has never been offered "versus populum". Even those Roman basilica's whose geological topography prevented the traditional orientation, used to have the deacon's proclaim "All turn to the East" prior to the Canon of the Mass so that for the Eucharistic prayer, the congregation stood with their backs to the priest.
The change of orientation has destroyed our theological cosmology, our eschatology, and our liturgical theology. This is why even Ratzinger bemoans the "community turned in on itself which worships itself" rather than being oriented toward God.
"You know the Didache, do you not?"
I do indeed. I also know that it is hotly disputed by scholars whether this is a Christian or an early gnostic text.
Paul VI was hoodwinked, I guess. As John Paul II, poor soul, has been.
Why do you worship at the Novus Ordo, if it's such a bastard-child of the real Mass?
If the way the NO is typically celebrated is the way the early Christians celebrated it, then why are rites older than the Roman Rite, such as the Maronite rite, that date back to the eraly Christians, do not resemble the almost non liturgicla style that the NO is celebrated in so many parishes?
"The idea that, if we just brought back the Tridentine Mass and reimposed it on the entire Church, everything would be hunky-dory is just silly, on its face."
It would be a good first start. But ultimately, conversion is required. Catholic leadership should be authentically Catholic, not covertly Protestant.
As Thomas More said in "A Man for All Seasons":
Surely it's not as bad as all that!
Nothing has been refuted, Pius X notwithstanding.
What is true is that those who wished to remove the accretions in the Liturgy were successful (to paraphrase the Pope's own Master of Ceremonies).
Weird.
What do you see as the value of Novus Ordo?
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.