Author Kenneth Jones Provides Statistical Evidence of Post-Vatican II Decline in the Catholic Church

Catholic Citizens News Service ^ | 8/12/2003 | Karl Maurer

[ultima ratio]

I did not truncate the quote. It's from the first edition. You are quoting the version that was changed to make it conform more with Tradition after a great hue and cry arose from theologians and bishops all over the world. The word "Sacrifice" was then shamelessly sprinkled throughout the General Instructions to make them appear less revolutionary.

[ultima ratio]

Let me make one other point. I don't deny the word "Sacrifice" appears here and there in the New Mass--mostly after the Consecration. Nor that there is some mention of saints generically, nor that some mention of our unworthiness is given a glancing reference. Most of your responses to my objections take the form of listing here and there phrases from eucharistic prayers which are supposed to prove me wrong--"There, see, the word 'offer' is used, therefore there IS an Offertory," and so forth. (As if this is what constituted an Offertory sacrificially!)

But what is missing is the profound repetition of these elements which would render them more than superficial in terms of a sacrifice. The naming of the great saints as intercessors, beginning with the Mother of God and St. John the Baptist and the great apostles, underscores our great neediness. And so too does the constant, almost uninterrupted, assertions of compunction and unworthiness throughout the Mass, and the continual reference to the need for Christ's intercession with the Father on our behalf. These repetitions are continual and shape the Mass clearly as a sacrifice.

With the New Mass only the memorial meal aspect had this sense of reenforcement. The focus is on Christ's virtual presence in the Word and in the assembly, rather than on the Real Presence and His propitiatory sacrifice.

[Land of the Irish]

And be careful with your language! "Is" does really mean something substantial.

You don't need to lecture me. I've stopped giving you serious attention long ago.

Not only did my calendar indicate the vigil "Is" a day of fast and abstinence, my priest announced it "Is" last Sunday. And my church bulletin stated it "Is".

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The priest used to genuflect immediately after the consecration of the bread or the wine, then elevate it, then genuflect again.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Answer to your points.

1) The entire offertory, other than the Chant and the Secret, was not part of the Roman Missal until circa 1100-1200. The prayer you quote "Sucsipe, sancte Pater" was originally found in the 9th century as a prayer said by the laity as they brought their offerings to the Altar. Ergo, none of it is "necessary" to have a true Mass.

In short, there is no true Offertory--though the word "offer" is used. --- This is so Clintonian a twisting of clear words that it requires no comment to "offer" something to God is not a "true Offertory"? Come on!

2) We've been over sacrifice before. The word is attached to the word Victim, etc. I've shown this already.

In keeping with this aspect, the new missal introduces the memorial words, "Do this in memory of me" into the Consecration.

The old Missal said essentially the same thing "As often as you shall do these things, you shall do them in memory of me." Perhaps you can explain what precisely is the difference in meaning between the long sentence and short sentence. Moreover, this is clearly included within the entire consecrational formula, along with the prayer "Simili modo" before the actual words of consecration as shown by the rubric "Tunc, detecto Calice, dicit" before the prayer "Simili modo" and the rubric "Genuflexus adorat" after "Haec quotiescumque". The rubrics of the 1570 Missal dictate that the priest does not genuflect or elevate the chalice until he has said those words.

3) "Mystery of faith" is a wholly unnecessary part of the words of consecration. The theologians clearly teach these words are not necessary for a valid consecration, nor are they included in most of the rites of the Catholic Church. Your commentary is therefore meaningless as far disputing the validity or worthiness of the Mass.

4) We've gone over sinfulness already too, along with the intercession of the saints. In both the 1570 and 1970 Missals, intercession is requested at the Confiteor. The 1570 Missal also asks for it once in the offertory, once in the Canon at the Communicantes (which is a possibility in the Missal of 1970), and once after the Our Father in the Libera Nos. I would not term four times as "constant imploring", which is much more charateristic of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

You don't seem to have much familiarity with the New Mass. When you do, it might be worthwhile discussing this further. Right now, you are wasting time repeating things that aren't so.

To them the New Mass is an enactment of a Paschal Mystery in which the faithful are converted and transformed.

I agree entirely with that sentence. The sacrifice of Christ is being carried out to convert and transform us from sin and to grace. That sounds like something I would like to have happen to me. "That bloody sacrifice once to be completed on the Cross might be re-presented, and the memory of it remain even to the end of the world and its saving grace be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit." (Council of Trent, Decree on the Mass, Chapter 1)

Hilarious too, that the author of the "Ottaviani Intervention", upon which you hang your hat and derive your arguments, Fr. Geurard des Lauriers, ended his days as a schismatic quasi-sedevacantist pseudo-Bishop, "consecrated" by the madman, Archbishop Thuc. Not much of a theologian, was he, to die in such a disgraceful state, seperated from the One True Church.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I did not truncate the quote. It's from the first edition. You are quoting the version that was changed to make it conform more with Tradition after a great hue and cry arose from theologians and bishops all over the world. The word "Sacrifice" was then shamelessly sprinkled throughout the General Instructions to make them appear less revolutionary.

The only GIRM that counts is what is officially promulgated. You can quote all the drafts that you want, but you should argue from the official version, not unofficial and unfinished versions.

As I said before, you are better than this. You are an intelligent man. Argue from the sources, not drafts.

[ultima ratio]

What I quoted was not a draft, it was the first edition which was officially promulgated. The re-write came after the outcry that followed its original publication, which was done to disguise its true nature.

[ultima ratio]

1. No one argues that the prayers of the Offertory all entered the old missal at the same time. Having said this, it is nevertheless true that the most important Offertory prayer, Suscipe sancte Pater, dates back beyond the twelfth and thirteenth centuries as you say, to somewhere around the time of Charles the Bald, around the ninth century. Michael Davies, moreover, makes this important point in his "Short History of the Roman Liturgy":

"The prayers which came into the Roman Mass after the time of Gregory the Great were among the first to be abolished by the Protestant Reformers. They included the prayers said at the foot of the altar, the Judica me, with its reference to the priest going to the altar of God, and the Confiteor with its request for the intercession of Our Lady and the saints were particularly unacceptable. The Offertory prayers, with their specifically sacrificial terminolgy, and the Placeat tibi which comes after the Communion, were totally incompatible with Protestant theology.

"The fact that these prayers were incompatible with the Protestant heresy is hardly surprising as one of the reasons which must have prompted the Church to accept them, guided by the Holy Ghost, is the exceptional clarity of their doctrinal content. This tendency for a rite to express ever more clearly what it contains is in perfect accord with the principle lex orandi, lex credendi."

Luther, in other words, tossed out the Offertory precisely because it embodied the sacrificial function of the Mass which was in clear violation of Protestant theology. Bugnini did likewise--for the exact same reason.

2. The phrase "do this in memory of me," was never part of the sacramental form as it is now, but came immediately after the words of Consecration. It was also future-oriented: "As often as you shall do these things, in memory of Me shall you do them." In the new missal the command is immediate and stresses the memorial aspect of what is actually happening right there and then. This makes a huge difference.

In the new missal, moreover, the nature of the sacrificial offering which comes after the Consecration is uncertain. There is no clear sense that the sacrificial Victim--Present actually on the altar--is being offered to the Father. Instead a prayer of remembrance is proclaimed, recalling Christ's Passion, Resurrection and the fact that he will come again. But it is a remembrance and expression of hope in the future only. The Real Presence on the altar is actually ignored, though the priest has just genuflected briefly. Nothing is made clear, the focus becomes instead Christ's virtual presence in the assembly.

3. No one argues the words "Mystery of faith" is essential to the Consecration. That was not my point. My point was that they pointed to the act of Transubstantiation as the real mystery of our faith. It is at the heart of the Catholic religion. It is why we genuflect and adore. It is why we know we have Christ with us in a real and physical way that transcends the understanding of other Christians. It is THIS that is now dismissed. Instead this phrase is applied to a MEMORIAL proclamation.

4. I have never read the work of Fr. Geurard des Lauriers. One of the unpleasant features of discussing anything with you is your assumption you know a lot about where others are coming from. You are pretty offensive when you make these klunk-headed assertions.

[ultima ratio]

You write, "to 'offer' something to God is not a 'true Offertory'? Come on!"

It takes more than an offering to God to make an Offertory, which is, in fact, an OBLATION OF A VICTIM. There must be both a victim and a proposal to sacrifice. This dimension is missing from the mere recitation of a Jewish meal blessing, followed by an offer of thanksgiving. There is no mention of sacrifice, which should be key to the meaning of any Catholic Mass. This is also the reason why the priesthood itself has been diminished. Not only do other lay ministers share his priestly duties, but the sacrificial elements of the Novus Ordo obscure his genuine priesthood. He becomes, instead, a "presider" over the assembly, not one who immolates.

[ultima ratio]

the sacrificial elements obscure his priesthood=the sacrificial elements, being themeselves obscure, obscure his priesthood.

[redhead]

bumping for later read...

[Hermann the Cherusker]

4. I have never read the work of Fr. Geurard des Lauriers. One of the unpleasant features of discussing anything with you is your assumption you know a lot about where others are coming from. You are pretty offensive when you make these klunk-headed assertions.

Fr. Geurard wrote the Ottaviani Intervention. I believe you've read that, have you not? He taught at Econe for years before becoming a Sedevacantist.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

What I quoted was not a draft, it was the first edition which was officially promulgated. The re-write came after the outcry that followed its original publication, which was done to disguise its true nature.

You are right. I'll grant that point, although it is the final version that stands, and the original version was not vetted by the Holy Office before promulgation, as Pope Paul asked, thus the revision (see Davies on this in Pope Paul's New Mass). However, the original Paragraph 7 should be understood in light of the original Paragraph 2, which mentions the sacrifice of Christ and the real presence. Snippets out of context is not a way to understanding.

[ultima ratio]

Of course I've read it. But it was a composite work. Lauriers wrote it only in the sense that he smoothed out the language and organized the notes. That is why I think your reference to him as influencing my thought is ridiculous. My objections to the New Mass come from my own gut as well as study. Once I caught on to the patterns the NO was establishing and understood the underlying theology, it hurt to participate. It is a very bad liturgy, very dangerous to the Catholic faith.

[ultima ratio]

"Snippets out of context is not a way to understanding"

Maybe that's why I find what you write about the Novus Ordo problematic. Snippets out of context. Similarly with what you say about the SSPX. Snippets out of context.