Posted on 06/03/2005 9:22:21 PM PDT by GOPmember
What We have Lost
...and the Road to Restoration
A critical look at the changes in the Catholic Church
This video gives you an intimate, up-close look at the destructive and wide-spread changes that have taken place in the two-thousand-year-old Catholic Church since the close of the Second Vatican Council in 1965.
Much of what you see will surprise you, maybe even shock you, and -- unfortunately -- will sadden you. "What We Have Lost" not ony exposes the external damage that has been done to the Universal Church, but goes deep behind the scenes to reveal the hidden changes; how and when they were made; and who made them.
This video asks the hard questions: Is the Church still Catholic? Has She lost the true faith? Does the clergy still truly "believe?" Can we count on today's Church to lead us to salvation? The answers found in "What We Have Lost" may bring you to anger -- or to tears. But after you see it, you will never look at the "modern" Church in the same way again.
And "What We Have Lost" is about hope. Hope in Jesus Christ and His one true Church on earth. Plus it's about the restoration of the traditional Latin Mass and the "Faith of our Fathers;" and it documents the groundswell of traditionalism within the Church, and how you can be a part of it...on the "Road to Restoration."
44. Since, therefore, it is the priest chiefly who performs the sacred liturgy in the name of the Church, its organization, regulation and details cannot but be subject to Church authority. This conclusion, based on the nature of Christian worship itself, is further confirmed by the testimony of history.
45. Additional proof of this indefeasible right of the ecclesiastical hierarchy lies in the circumstances that the sacred liturgy is intimately bound up with doctrinal propositions which the Church proposes to be perfectly true and certain, and must as a consequence conform to the decrees respecting Catholic faith issued by the supreme teaching authority of the Church with a view to safeguarding the integrity of the religion revealed by God.
46. On this subject We judge it Our duty to rectify an attitude with which you are doubtless familiar, Venerable Brethren. We refer to the error and fallacious reasoning of those who have claimed that the sacred liturgy is a kind of proving ground for the truths to be held of faith, meaning by this that the Church is obliged to declare such a doctrine sound when it is found to have produced fruits of piety and sanctity through the sacred rites of the liturgy, and to reject it otherwise. Hence the epigram, "Lex orandi, lex credendi" - the law for prayer is the law for faith.
47. But this is not what the Church teaches and enjoins. The worship she offers to God, all good and great, is a continuous profession of Catholic faith and a continuous exercise of hope and charity, as Augustine puts it tersely. "God is to be worshipped," he says, "by faith, hope and charity."[44] In the sacred liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly, not only by the celebration of the mysteries, and by offering the holy sacrifice and administering the sacraments, but also by saying or singing the credo or Symbol of the faith - it is indeed the sign and badge, as it were, of the Christian - along with other texts, and likewise by the reading of holy scripture, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church.
48. For this reason, whenever there was question of DEFINING A TRUTH REVEALED BY GODdefining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils in their recourse to the "theological sources," as they are called, have not seldom drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the liturgy. For an example in point, Our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, so argued when he proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Similarly during the discussion of a doubtful or controversial truth, the Church and the Holy Fathers have not failed to look to the age-old and age-honored sacred rites for enlightenment. Hence the well-known and venerable maxim, "Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" - let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief.[45] The sacred liturgy, consequently, does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. More properly, since the liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths, and subject, as such, to the supreme teaching authority of the Church, it can supply proofs and testimony, quite clearly, of no little value, towards the determination of a particular point of Christian doctrine. But if one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say, "Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi" - let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer. The same holds true for the other theological virtues also, "In . . . fide, spe, caritate continuato desiderio semper oramus" - we pray always, with constant yearning in faith, hope and charity.[46]
49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]
end of quote
This excerpt from Mediator Dei puts to rest both of your objections about Definitions and the Magisterium's authority over Liturgy
research Pope Paul V's decree re the the breviary. It condemns any changes in it using the same language as was used in Quo Primum
The Thomists are proclaimed destroyers of human liberty ... but since they meet the charges with eminent satisfaction ... it is not fitting for any ecclesiastical superior in the present state of affairs to remove them from their opinion. The Augustinians are reported as the followers of du Bay ... there is no one who does not see that there can be no effort on the part of anyone to cause them to relinquish their opinion. The followers of Molina and Suarez are condemned ... the Roman Pontiffs thus far have not passed judgement on this system of Molina, and so they continue in its defense and can continue ... (Benedict XIV, Letter to the Supreme Inquisitor of Spain, 1748)
If "traditionalists" simply means "those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition ... all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition" (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei), I can't see what's wrong with it - it's nothing more than a natural shorthand for what JP II says there.
Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. (St. Pius V, Quod a Nobis)
St. Pius X - Apostolic Constitution Divino Afflatu - On the Reform of the Roman Breviary. Pius XII says:
The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. ... It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. (Mediator Dei §§ 50, 58)
en of quote
Language of the epoch. No Pope can bind a future Pope in these matters
I think Vatican II gave him permission ...
Christ summons the Church to continual reformation as she sojourns here on earth. The Church is always in need of this, in so far as she is an institution of men here on earth. Thus if, in various times and circumstances, there have been deficiencies in moral conduct or in church discipline, or even in the way that church teaching has been formulated-to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself-these can and should be set right at the opportune moment. (Unitatis Redintegratio, §6)
It is still unnecessary. The Catholic Chuch has defined what is necessary to be Catholic. I posted it above. Nothing in there about labelling oneself a traditionalist while, at the same time, breaking one or more of the Bonds of Unity.
I was aping the Jesuits
"Do you think the Living Magisterium is capable of deficient conduct, being deficient in the disciplines it promulgates, and even formulating doctrine deficiently
* I'll answer again. Who are you to judge it is deficient?"
You really are incapable of giving a straight answer to this question aren't you? Your question to me is not relevant because I am not the one who is proposing that it is deficient.
You are the one who seems to believe that every discipline (including liturgical changes) and teaching that comes out of Rome is beyond reproach. That's why I wanted to know whether you think the "Living Magisterium" is ever capable of giving us deficient doctrine and deficient discipline.
How do you think your conciliar "Living Magisterium" answers this question?
They are never wrong and the Church estanlished by Jesus seldom right.
There's is a position fundamentally in harmony with protestantism excepting this - that protestants are kinder.
Thank you. I didn't have time to go look that up.
Trust you to know the quote! ;)
Me, thee, and he, don't have authority to contend against the MAgisterium.
* My answer was straight.
Your question to me is not relevant because I am not the one who is proposing that it is deficient.
*Fiddlesticks. You do it ALL the time. You know I can find numerous examples from your own posts.
"Me, thee, and he, don't have authority to contend against the MAgisterium."
You miss the point and the significance of what gbcdoj rightly quoted from this document of the Living Magisterium.
It isn't a case of he, me or thee here "contending against the Magisterium" - here you see the Magisterium contending against itself!:
"Thus if, in various times and circumstances, there have been DEFICIENCIES in moral conduct or in church discipline, or EVEN IN THE WAY THAT CHURCH TEACHING HAS BEEN FORMULATED..these can and should be set right at the opportune moment.."
Vatican II, an ecumenical council, is here laying the charges against the Church, of deficiencies in the discipline she gives us or even deficiences in the formulation of her doctrine that she teaches us.
(BTW if that is the case, how do we know that what she has just told us is exactly true? It could have been formulated deficiently.)
If previous Church doctrine has been formulated deficiently then what confidence can we have that the current Magisterium can reformulate it without deficiency?
Has there been a new gift of the Spirit given to the Church at Vatican II that will ensure that only from now on can she formulate her teaching without deficiency?
When previously in the last 2,000 years has the Magisterium made a clear distinction between the Deposit of Faith on the one hand and the Church's teaching on the other?
In this passage from the Decree on Ecumenism, you don't just have the "Spirit of Vatican II", you have the "Spirit" engraved in the "Letter" as well. If the Council Fathers are to be taken seriously in what they say here, then by alerting us to the “deficiencies, in conduct, and Church discipline or even in formulation of doctrine” they have made this a principle by which the Church is to be judged.
I am certain that it was the pre-Conciliar Church which they intended to be judged in this way.
But by creating this principle for the Church, they also set in stone the principle by which Vatican II must be judged because now, according to Vatican II itself, we must be searching for all the “deficiencies, in conduct, and Church discipline or even in formulation of doctrine” that Vatican II produced, and by extension, the “deficiencies” that the post-Conciliar Magisterium has produced.
So in actual fact, when traditionalists point out the deficiencies in the post-Conciliar teaching, the New Rite of Mass, and the way the Church has been badly governed and disciplined, they are doing nothing more than following the spirit and letter of Vatican II.
It really does seem to be you who has the problem with Vatican II here, not the traditionalists. Do you not believe its infallible?
Fortunately as traditionalists we have the 2,000 Tradition of the Church by which to measure whether and where Vatican II and the post-Conciliar Magisterium is deficient or not. And in the current climate where all is confusion and chaos and Conciliar documents make it possible to question their own veracity, Tradition is the only place any Catholic can go to measure whether any discipline, doctrine or moral conduct is deficient or not.
But this is the way that St. Vincent of Lerins always argued that it should be. And judging by what Pope Benedict has said about his role and authority, and that Vatican II must be implemented "in accordance with the 2,000 year tradition of the Church", then perhaps he agrees with him too.
“It is true that the Pope, bishops and priests do not cease to be poor men subject to errors, and often we make errors.” - Albino Luciani before he became Pope John Paul I
Apparently, you're omniscient.
Ping me when you have Magisterial Documentation TradicalIRC has been chosen by God to determine whether or not we can trust the Magisterium, of whom Jesus declared He who hears you, hears me.
Nah, I'll just inform God that he needs to send a heavenly messenger to you as I'm sure a ping won't cut it.
With all due respect to your intelligence, yours is the protestant tradition dressed-up as " Catholic traditionalism"
With all due respect, if you sit through a Lutheran service, you'd be hard pressed to distinguish it from a Novus Ordo Mass. If I am a dressed-up protestant, you my friend, are naked.
the problem is that on these threads, those who label themselves traditionalists, are, nearly to a man, ones who oppose the Living Magisterium, and attack the Popes, the Council, and the Mass.
Right. Please show me the thread where I oppose the magisterium or attack the Pope.
They are never wrong and the Church estanlished by Jesus seldom right.
Au contraire, YOU are never wrong and neither is the Church. If they still defended slavery, you would blithely say the Church is right.
There's is a position fundamentally in harmony with protestantism excepting this - that protestants are kinder.
Physician, heal thyself.
He sees the "reductionism" that had come to dominate in pre-Vat II liturgics, he sees that reductionism is "the product of an abstract sacramental theology," he sees that the Liturgy is "a living network of tradition...which cannot be torn apart into little pieces, but has to be seen and experienced as a living whole." There is little in his formulations that I can't agree with.
He readily admits, even looking at "the ruins" that he was moved by the positive aspects of the Catholic Liturgical Movement -- and in other writings, he continues to hold to the stance that reform was necessary. He furthermore states that the dangers of reform were not avoided -- in fact, that they are such that even those not opposed to the idea of reform should be able to see results of the dangers.
We Orthodox are not without our would-be liturgical revisionists, especially at places like St. Vladimir's (although they seem rather to be on the way out, without having done much damage), and I wish that the few that still worship the liturgical ground that Fr. Alexander Schmemann walked on would read this entire article. I also liked this other quotation from that same article:
The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law, but is the guardian of the authentic Tradition, and thereby the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and is thereby able to oppose those people who for their part want to do what has come into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile.
I also found it interesting that then Cardinal Ratzinger acknowledges that both Modernists and Traditionalists agree on a certain reductionism, i.e. that:
As long as the material gifts are there, and the words of institution are spoken, then everything else is freely disposable.
He goes on, though, to point out that revisionists who wish to "overcome the limits of the rite, as being something fixed and immovable, and construct the products of their fantasy, which are supposedly "pastoral", around this remnant, this core which has been spared..."
He goes on to point out that in this process, this core "is thus either relegated to the realm of magic, or loses any meaning whatever."
He speaks approvingly of the idea of "substantial continuity," which of course is a very good idea, but one subject to quite varying interpretation.
I have posed the hypothetical question of a 6th century Christian -- East or West -- walking into my Orthodox parish, or walking into my neighborhood Catholic church. Which would be more recognizable as Christian worship? There are those defenders of the N.O. who have answered me that N.O. Catholic worship would be equally recognizable as being Christian worship. I obviously feel differently.
My point is not to ask that question again, but rather to point out that those defenders of the N.O. believe that there is "substantial" -- or at least "adequate" continuity with the liturgical tradition of the West as it is.
It wouldn't appear that B16 agrees with that point of view. But he has also made it clear that nothing radical is coming, if for no other reason than that two wrenching liturgical upheavals in one generation is pastorally at least one too many.
All very interesting stuff, for us Orthodox standing on the sidelines. Finally, I very much like Ratzinger's image of the gardener. Any student of the Orthodox liturgy knows that things have changed over the centuries in the Orthodox liturgical services -- for all of our storied "fossilization." The liturgy is living, and it both changes and remains the same.
The changes are generally very slight and very slow and very peripheral. They are so slow that the superficial observer no more sees that changes have taken place than does a man watching a tree grow see it change -- although it unquestionably does grow and change -- and is still very much a tree... A wise gardener trims back the growth that is unhealthy, trims off dead branches, and waters and feeds to encourage healthy growth. It just doesn't automatically happen -- it needs tending, but neither can a tree be "constructed," like a piece of machinery. And that is what Bugnini and his ilk, with the approval of Paul VI, apparently thought they could do.
"He readily admits, even looking at "the ruins" that he was moved by the positive aspects of the Catholic Liturgical Movement -- and in other writings, he continues to hold to the stance that reform was necessary."
Even Archbishop Lefebvre went into the Council believing that some reforms of the liturgy were necessary, it was only when he saw the devastation which resulted that he turned his back on reform completely.
"There are those defenders of the N.O. who have answered me that N.O. Catholic worship would be equally recognizable as being Christian worship. I obviously feel differently."
The N.O. can be carried out very beautifully - to the point that it is almost indistinguishable from the traditional Mass, even though it still suffers from some deficient articulation of belief. However, maybe only 1 in 1,000 churches offer it in this way and I would doubt that you have experienced one. This does, though, point to the problem of the vast variation in practice (even that which is facilitated by the new Missal itself) which has effectively robbed the new Rite of any sense of coherence and inner unity.
One good test I use of whether "N.O. Catholic worship would be equally recognizable as being Christian worship." is my children's reaction when we go to a church we haven't been to before. If they turn to me and say "Daddy, are you sure this is a Catholic Church?" or "Daddy, is it ok to have Communion here?", then I know for sure (as if I didn't already) that something is very wrong there. But, if Catholic children of this modern era cannot recognize what passes for the Mass in some places, then it does prove your point that Christians of an earlier time would probably not find it "equally recognizable as being Christian worship."
"Finally, I very much like Ratzinger's image of the gardener. Any student of the Orthodox liturgy knows that things have changed over the centuries in the Orthodox liturgical services -- for all of our storied "fossilization." The liturgy is living, and it both changes and remains the same."
To be honest, even the documents of Vatican II spoke of the growth of the liturgy in this way. In one section the council Fathers were very clear that any changes in the liturgy should take the form of "organic development", and only that change which was absolutely necessary should be permitted:
"Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing."
Sacrosanctum Concilium n.23
Unfortunately, as you say, Bugnini had other ideas and the Church has been paying the price for this ever since.
It was comments like, "what's with the salad bowl?" (regarding the 'wooden ciborium' of the new priest), and "what time are we going to the Fr. G show?" from my then 10 year old that let me know it was time to leave my former parish.
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.