Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
The 1964 Missal is the same as the 1962 Missal, except that the vernacular is allowed (not required or imposed, but allowed). No prayers were changed or excised until later. Same ordinary, same proper. No different really in principal than going to Dalmatia and hearing the Roman Mass in Glagolitic Slavonic.
Of course, if we want to play games about what is the "real" Tridentine Missal, I'll maintain that the last "real" version of it is that of 1910/1925, prior to the first changes of Bugnini and Antonelli under Pius XII. Of course, the SSPX does not use that Missal.
What is "this"? Are you implying I agree with Luther or hate the concept of sacrifice? Where do you get this from?
Your claim that there wasn't an Offertory the first thousand years, moreover, is pointless.
No its not. You get all worked up about the prayers of the Offertory being changed, and yet the very prayers you are getting worked up about were not in the Roman Mass for over 1000 years.
First of all, we don't know this. The only proof for what you claim is the fragment by Justin Martyr--and there is no evidence that liturgy was typical.
Huh? Just go look at the Gregorian Missal. No offertory other than what I outlined - the procession, chant, and secret. All those prayers that you are getting worked up about are much later additions, probably from around the time of Innocent III or IV. gbcdoj has already pointed out how other medieval Missals failed to have any significant offertory as in the Tridentine Missal - like the Dominican. Of course we know it.
On the other hand, there's loads and loads of proof the liturgy was intended from the outset as a sacrifice.
No one is debating this. Why are you bringing it up? Can't you stick to topical replies?
What is most important about a proper Offertory is that it sets the stage for what follows and makes clear what's happening--a propitiatory sacrifice of a Victim, Jesus, offered to the Father in expiation for our sins.
Exactly. The prayers used within it are not important if the concept is present, which it obviously is in any Catholic Mass.
The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, only offers bread and wine to the Father in a before-meal blessing, and says nothing whatsoever about propitiation. In fact, it does just the opposite. It offers the bread which will become "the Bread of life" for us and then the wine which will become "our spiritual drink." In other words--the focus is primarily on ourselves, not on the Victim offered to the Father.
Let me know when you find the propitiary prayers in the Gregorian Missal. Perhaps it was an invalid/illicit sacrilege too, just like you claim the Novus Ordo is?
The few short prayers mentioned by you only make clearer by contrast the difference between the two Masses. In the traditional Mass the tone of contrition pervades the whole; there is mention of sin and punishment, of the souls in purgatory, of the need we have for Christ's intercession and the intercession of the saints whose names are mentioned specifically. The entire Mass underscores our neediness. The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, after a few short penitential prayers--made worse by bad translations--drops the subject entirely and focuses on the celebration of our salvation instead--we are "a people your Son has gained for you". The propitiatory element is minimal--and easily missed except by those like yourself who use these perfunctory phrases to argue that the New Mass does what the old Mass did--which is patently false. The overwhelming sense of unworthiness and contrition is missing in the New Mass. It is, as traditionalists argue, a Mass of the already saved. Since everything pertaining to sin and punishment has been so diminished, the notion of Propitiation itself has become virtually invisible.
So on the bright side, UR is an American Patriot, as opposed the treasonous French jackals we have proclaiming themselves the true remnant of the Catholic Church who run the SSPX?
Dissent from the SSPX on Iraq makes one not in adherance to their schism?
The Pope commanding Archbishop Lefebvre to desist from sinnning by consecrating episcopi vagantes against his will is rather different than the situation you give, isn't it?
In the one case, the superior is commanding you to sin. In the other, he is commanding you to not sin.
St. Ignatius would have been quite dissapointed with the notion that one is obedient by putting ones own will above that of the Pope when he commands you not to do something he says is sinful.
Remember, the Pope asked Archbishop Lefebvre NOT to do something. No positive command was issued, only that he desist from doing something the Pope said is objectively wrong.
Will you admit the difference? Or do you claim that a command not to ordain Bishops is a command to sin?
And, he simply had to ordain a nut job like Richard Williamson, who thinks women are too stupid to go to college, and the Unabomber had some nifty Luddite ideas.
Concerning this: there are two parts of Apostolic Succession. The matter, and the form. Protestant and Anglican "bishops" have neither. Schismatic bishops have what might be termed "material apostolic succession". Cardinal Journet explains:
The hierarchy is indivisible. But it can, in certain regions, be broken by force so that fragments of it subsist in a mutilated state beyond the field of the Church. Thus, in lands overrun by schism or by heresy we may find not only the sacramental powers deriving from Baptism and Confirmation, but the hierarchical power of order.The violent disjunction of the power of order from the power of jurisdiction—which latter disappears of itself whenever there is a rupture with the Sovereign Pontiff—its persistence in the uprooted state to which it is then reduced, its transmission, valid but not licit, beyond its proper and natural sphere, is always the sign of a terrible spiritual catastrophe, a partial victory of the spirit of evil over the Church of Christ, which henceforth will move through history as though divided in herself, and become a scandal to the Gentiles.
and also that:
In the first case the argument from apostolicity will indicate, with an exactitude that might be called material, the presence or absence of the power of order and of the Christian cultus in a Church. Wherever its transmission has been unbroken, there the power of order continues to exist and the cultus is validly celebrated. Apostolicity, to that extent, is safeguarded. But it is a partial and mutilated apostolicity,[1140] since apostolicity of jurisdiction is missing.[1141]1140 It would be gravely erroneous, remarks Billot, to restrict the question of apostolic succession to the validity of ordinations (De Ecclesia Christi, Rome 1921, p. 345) A purely material continuity, such as that observed in the Anglican or Swedish Churches, where invalidly consecrated bishops have supplanted the authentic ones, might be called an apparent apostolicity; one which results in the valid transmission of order alone, as in the Graeco-Russian Churches, might be called a partial or mutilated apostolicity; and where there are both powers of order and jurisdiction we might say plenary apostolicity. Apparent apostolicity is purely exterior; partial apostolicity might be called material apostolicity, and the plenary might be called formal. But if theologians agree here in substance, they do not always use the words "material" and "formal" in the same way.
1141 If it is true that spiritual jurisdiction, the pastoral power, resides, not indeed exclusively but totally and primarily in the Supreme Pastor of the Christian flock, then in principle it ceases to exist in an episcopate that breaks with him: "The bishops would lose the right and the power to govern," says Leo X III, in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum, "if they wilfully separated themselves from Peter and his successors." However, in point of fact, the dissident Churches that have kept the power of order, such as the Graeco-Russian, can, by express or tacit concession of the Sovereign Pontiff, possess a partial but genuine jurisdiction. I have pointed this out already and it should be borne in mind.
So, as Bp. Tissier said: "there can be no legitimate bishop without the pope, without at least the implicit consent of the pope". Without at least an implicit consent, there is a lack of formal apostolicity - it is mutiliated or material. So when Msgr. Lefebvre made his four bishops to carry on his work, they were not in the full sense Successors of the Apostles. This is why, I think, one can speak of the consecrations as a schismatic act - because they were the creation of non-Catholic, schismatic, illegitimate bishops.
Of course he did! "hotels, means of transport, the immense tents which will be set up for the ceremony, have all been rented".
No, YOU look again at the Gregorian Missal. The Secret WAS the Offertory. It was said silently up until about the fourteenth century. The earliest versions did exactly what later Offertory prayers do--ask God to receive the sacrifice we offer, etc. I've also taken note of the Dominican rite--and there is indeed an Offertory, strikingly different from what you find in the Novus Ordo--which is a mere prayer of thanksgiving before a meal and which focuses on the benefits to US of what will become the "bread of life" and "our spiritual drink"--and which nowhere mentions the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Son to the Father in expiation for our sins. The whole concept of sacrifice is radically different in the Novus Ordo, with the vicarious satisfaction of Christ implicitly rejected.
No, it isn't. Sacrifice is explicitly mentioned.
P: Orate, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotem.S: Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis ad laudem et gloriam nominis sui, ad utilitatem quoque nostram totius que Ecclesiae suae sanctae.
"sacrificium de manibus tuis" is a clear reference to the Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ, as opposed to the "vestrum" sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.
P: In spiritu humilitatis et in animo contrito suscipiamur a te, Domine; et sic fiat sacrificium nostrum in conspectu tuo hodie, ut placeat tibi, Domine Deus.
This is not blind obedience--which simply means one must ALWAYS obey, without taking into consideration the moral context of a command. This obviously cannot be true of any rule of the Spiritual Exercises. Implicit in the rule you cite, therefore, is the understanding that no one should ever obey a command to do evil. That went without saying.
Here we go again. You say, "But, ultima, it doesn't. Msgr. Lefebvre couldn't be ignorant of the lack of a state of necessity, since he was informed by the Congregation for Clergy and the Pope that the impending consecrations would incur excommunication."
But the canon didn't say the Archbishop had to get permission for a state of necessity, it said he had to fear such a state existed--and he most certainly did. In fact, it existed PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE YOU TALK ABOUT--THE POPE AND HIS CONGREGATION. The emergency was caused by them, they were the ones swinging the wrecking-ball. Why in your wildest dreams would you suppose he should have taken their advice?
The circular way you argue only proves how right he was. He was worried about the destructive agendas of these men--and they were the ones in power. The Pope was and is no friend to Tradition, and he knew it. He was not willing to hang the entire fate of Traditional Catholicism on a vague promise by a man who was so unwise and careless about the faith. And he was right not to do so. Traditional Catholicism had to be protected at all costs--even at the expense of his own reputation. Since the Pope was so imprudent in this regard, it was left to the Archbishop to fill the breach.
As for Perl's crass comment--"To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated"--since there was no schism and no excommunication--this is as wrong as the Pope's original statement. In this he is simply parroting his master--and doing the usual Vatican back-flip to boot. But zero plus zero equals zero. That is to say, nothing can make a good act evil, nothing can make a defense of Catholic Tradition wrong, nothing can make an desire to protect the faith a denial of the papacy. All such charges are bogus and, in my opinion, quite harmful to the Church. They are part of the reason Rome has so little credibility these days.
As for myself, I certainly believe the Archbishop was innocent. The facts are the facts and the truth is the truth. Nothing can change this--not even a pope. Nor can the truth excommunicate me or anybody else.
Correction: I'm a Catholic as well as an American patriot. Not only is the SSPX IN the Church, it's the only truly Catholic part of it.
Wrong. The Pope commanded the Archbishop not to consecrate in order to destroy the traditional Mass. This was bad. The Archbishop refused to be complicit in such destruction and its consequent harm to souls. This was good. It had nothing to do with denying his papacy, by the way. That was a gratuitous slam by an irate pope.
Sinky, you're out of your depth.
Yada, yada, yada. I won't even bother reading this. I read the last sentence, though, which sounded pretty crackpot. I guess the Pope was bothered by the fact that the Archbishop wasn't running his seminary as a brothel and didn't show much taste for praying with Buddhists and witchdoctors. Obviously not conciliar enough--too Catholic.
There is no mention of PROPITIATORY sacrifice. The Novus Ordo concept of sacrifice is not the traditional Catholic concept. It is the modernist re-defined sacrifice--of thanksgiving and praise for our salvation. Yippee. Protestant through and through.
Again, that's incompatible with the Novus Ordo texts. No matter how many times you say it, it won't make it so.
Vere Sanctus es, Domine, et merito te laudat omnis a te condita creatura, quia per Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, Spiritus Sancti operante virtute, vivificas et sanctificas universa, et populum tibi congregare non desinis, ut a solis ortu usque ad occasum oblatio munda offeratur nomini tuo. (EP III)
Respice, quaesumus, in oblationem Ecclesiae tuae et, agnoscens Hostiam, cuius voluisti immolatione placari ... (EP III)
Even in ICEL:
we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself.
We all know your "Holier than thou" position. No need to keep annoying everybody by repeating it. Please say something new instead.
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.