Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
What more could you expect from a Sista Soulja, of the Novus Ordo?
Bishop Bruskewitz actually SPOKE with a number of Protestants! Discussed Baptism with them! Showed up at a consecration!
And....(drum roll here)....participated in an "interdenominational Service"!!!!
Egads. Next thing you know, B. will be denounced for having said "hi" to the corner Protty cop.
What Mass do you think was being celebrated say from 1964-1967 which had been so vulgarized that Fr. Gommar de Pauw coined the term hootenanny Mass to describe the first Clown Masses and the like? It certainly wasn't the Novus Ordo.
Apparently, Max, you don't believe what the Church teaches concerning the intention required to confect the Sacraments. The intention required is to do what the Church does, which the Church tells us is sufficiently manifested externally (the only forum we can judge) by using correctly the liturgical books put forth by the Church. The vast majority of Novus Ordo Masses certainly meet this requirement since the Priest says roudly and distinctly the words of the Canon in the liturgical books approved by Rome during them. So it is difficult to understand how you can claim this is a significant and widespread defect.
Nor do you apparently believe what the Church teaches concerning the form necessary to consecrate the Sacrament. It certainly does not include "which was shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins" in the form for the Precious Blood, because we know for a fact that St. Ambrose, for one, did not use such a form other than "This is my blood". You can look it up in "De Sacramentis" if you'd like, where he recites word for word the form he used, at a time when the Canon was said vocally for all to hear. Or you could just accept the opinion of the better Catholic theologians, you know, a Doctor of the Church such as St. Alphonsus de Liguori for example, whom the Popes have praised as inerrant and a sure guide in all his works. He quite clearly denies any words are necessary beyond "This is my blood".
But then perhaps you know better than the Popes and Doctors of the Church and the like?
They weren't, actually. The Novus Ordo formula of consecration is from the Mozabaric Rite.
But if he used the vernacular form of the consecration, he would be saying words that mean something different from the words which have been defined to be required for validity.
You misunderstand "De Defectibus".
All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the "matter and form", it still pertains chiefly to the "form"; since the "matter" is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the "form" ...25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, "Receive the Holy Ghost," certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power "of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord" (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no "bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross" (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3). (Leo XIII, "Apostolicae Curae")
It is obvious that the form "This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven." does indeed signify the grace of the Most Holy Eucharist - no one can deny that Christ's blood was indeed shed for all men without exception.
What is the form of the consecration of the Eucharist? ... Although the truer and more common opinion is that of St. Bonaventure, Suarez, Bellarmine, and others that the essential (words) are only these: This is the chalice of my Blood (or) This is my Blood (or words equivalent to these); nevertheless, whoever left out or changed any of the remaining words would sin gravely. ... The consecration is valid but illicit: 1) if the one consecrating says: This food, this drink, this chalice, or this thing, or what is contained under these appearances, is my Body or my Blood; 2) if he says: This chalice is the New Testament in my Blood (Lk 22); 3) This is my Body, which I took from the Virgin - This is my Blood of infinite value; 4) This is my Body - This is my Blood [changing Corpus meum to meum Corpus or changing calix Sanguinis Mei to meus Sanguis] or This is my Blood [with an ungrammatical demonstrative: Hoc est sanguis meus]. The reason why these are valid is that the same sense remains and there is no substantial change. (Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia Moralis, bk. 6, tract. 3, ch. 1, nos. 220-221.)
What's wrong with celebration?
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross ... the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass ... (Trent, Decree on the Sacrifice of the Mass)
Or with Eucharist?
Wherefore sacred writers, seeing that it was not at all possible that they should manifest by one term the dignity and excellence of this admirable Sacrament, endeavoured to express it by many words.For sometimes they call it Eucharist, which word we may render either by good grace, or by thanksgiving. And rightly, indeed, is it to be called good grace, as well because it first signifies eternal life, concerning which it has been written: The grace of God is eternal life; and also because it contains Christ the Lord, who is true grace and the fountain of all favours. (Roman Catechism, "The Holy Eucharist")
You're in denial. The following statistics--which doesn't include the horrendous increase in sex abuse cases recorded in the recently published John Jay Report--are originally from Kenneth Jones' Index of Leading Catholic Indicators:
Priests. After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests--and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70. Right now there are more priests aged 80 to 84 than there are aged 30 to 34.
Ordinations. In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent. Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, there was a net loss of 810.
Priestless parishes. About 1 percent of parishes, 549, were without a resident priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.
Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700--a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002.
Sisters. 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000--and of these, only 21,000 will be aged 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers.
Brothers. The number of professed brothers decreased from about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop to 3,100 projected for 2020.
Religious Orders. The religious orders will soon be virtually non-existent in the United States. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 38 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. There were 1,148 Redemptorist priests in 1965 and 1,128 seminarians; in 2000 there were 349 priests and 24 seminarians. Every major religious order in the United States mirrors these statistics.
High Schools. Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.
Parochial Grade Schools. There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.
Sacramental Life. In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms; in 2002 there were 1 million. (In the same period the number of Catholics in the United States rose from 45 million to 65 million.) In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms-----converts-----in 2002 there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1965 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.
Mass attendance. A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.
Not according to Pope John Paul II, rather, now is the time to "dialogue."
You say a couple of things that are dead wrong.
1. The Novus Ordo IS to blame for the precipitous decline in church attendance. People hated its imposition and quit the Church in droves. The decline was precipitous and sudden, within five years of the introduction of the new liturgy. Even Cardinal Ratzinger has attributed the turn of fortune in the Church to this:
"I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy." (La Mia Vita, cited by Michael Davies in The Latin Mass, Fall 1997.)
2. Your comment, that "We have to reach people, and be relevant to them. We have to provide them what they miss"--is nothing but the same old hooey. People don't need gimmicks or changes in techniques. They need the ancient faith as it was traditionally taught and practiced.
The real problem is that the clergy can't give to others what they don't have themselves. If they lack true spiritual depth, no mere attempt at relevance will remedy this. First and formost, there can't be any depth of prayer without a truly efficacious liturgy that authentically worships the Father, rather than celebrates ourselves. Secondly, there can't be any spiritual growth without an adequate grounding in solid orthodox seminary training. The problem of the heterodoxy and corruption of the seminaries is, in my opinion, the biggest scandal that plagues the conciliar Church.
It is my further opinion that it was this bogus argument for "relevance" that brought on the Novus Ordo disaster in the first place. That was precisely the argument liberals used even in their joyous celebration of the Council--and their buzzword "RELEVANCE" summed it all up even back then. "Relevance" implied the need for the Church to accommodate itself to the world--instead of the other way around! But the real truth is that it has brought with it only disaster:
"The results of the Council seem cruelly to have contradicted the expectations everybody had, beginning with John XXIII and Paul VI...We have been confronted instead with a coninuing process of decay..." (Cardinal Ratzinger in an interview, L'Osservatore Romano, November 9, 1984.)
Confusion of people for things can be a serious problem.
We are in agreement that the Western Church is undergoing some trials, many of which are serious.
But your use of the specific quotation requires that you agree to the maxim, 'words have meanings.'
"Them" refers to people, and there are plenty of baddies around--one can easily compare seminary enrollments, conversions, persistence in Faith-practices, etc., in places like Lincoln vs. Milwaukee.
Those numbers DO tell the story--but it's the story of Bishops and priests, lay men and lay women--NOT the story of the NO.
Ummmhhh--Bp. B. is NOT an 'indifferentist,' and for those Catholics who actually read his weekly column in the Lincoln Catholic paper, that's clear.
He gave an example of neighborliness. He did NOT "bless" nor "affirm" this ---whatever you call it---of the Methodist.
It's worth recalling that Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, and Methodists (and others) share some common agendas in the civil arena. Thus, there is a certain comity which should be in place when a matter of common interest arises.
Being present at a Prot service (as opposed to actively participating, or (horrors!) coming out with some statement of "validity,") is simply neighborly.
Be careful that you don't wind up with a tinfoil hat--where everything is a conspiracy--as do some others on this thread.
Was it Fr. DePauw or Mgr. Schuler who coined the term "hootenanny Mass?" All this time I thought it was Schuler...
Thus the difference between "valid" and "licit."
Post Toasties are "illicit," but not necessarily invalid.
Of course, when God told Mgr LeFebvre to defy the Pope, He ALSO told the Monsignor exactly how many priests and nuns were "necessary" for the Church in the future.
So now the phrase "in great part" is the same as "completely"!
And you quibble over "all" versus "many."
Thirdly, there is an intermediate situation, particularly in countries with ancient Christian roots, and occasionally in the younger Churches as well, where entire groups of the baptized have lost a living sense of the faith, or even no longer consider themselves members of the Church, and live a life far removed from Christ and his Gospel. In this case what is needed is a "new evangelization" or a "re-evangelization." (John Paul II, "Redemptoris missio", 33)
Assisi I, Assisi II, Fatima...
Where is the Pope's statement on Fatima, saying he was wrong about evangelization and we should all just convert to hinduism?
Or are you attributing abuses to him which he may not even know about, just like Droleskey, who thinks that blessing a rock for a church in Fatima somehow equates to supporting syncretism?
By the way, I love the Novus Ordo Watch page for this accusation - it links the Pope with Apoc 13:3: "And I saw one of his heads as it were slain to death: and his death's wound was healed. And all the earth was in admiration after the beast."
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.