Posted on 08/31/2002 5:03:15 AM PDT by NYer
A WITNESS TO UNBROKEN TRADITION
6. In setting forth its decrees for the revision of the Order of Mass, Vatican Council II directed, among other things, that some rites be restored "to the vigor they had in the tradition of the Fathers";11 this is a quotation from the Apostolic Constitution of 1570, by which St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Missal. The fact that the same words are used in reference to both Roman Missals indicates how both of them, although separated by four centuries, embrace one and the same tradition. And when the more profound elements of this tradition are considered, it becomes clear how remarkably and harmoniously this new Roman Missal improves on the older one.
7. The older Missal belongs to the difficult period of attacks against Catholic teaching on the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the ministerial priesthood, and the real and permanent presence of Christ under the eucharistic elements. St. Pius V was therefore especially concerned with preserving the relatively recent developments in the Church's tradition, then unjustly being assailed, and introduced only very slight changes into the sacred rites. In fact, the Roman Missal of 1570 differs very little from the first printed edition of 1474, which in turn faithfully follows the Missal used at the time of Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216). Manuscripts in the Vatican Library provided some verbal emendations, but they seldom allowed research into "ancient and approved authors" to extend beyond the examination of a few liturgical commentaries of the Middle Ages.
8. Today, on the other hand, countless studies of scholars have enriched the "tradition of the Fathers" that the revisers of the Missal under St. Pius V followed. After the Gregorian Sacramentary was first published in 1571, many critical editions of other ancient Roman and Ambrosian sacramentaries appeared. Ancient Spanish and Gallican liturgical books also became available, bringing to light many prayers of profound spirituality that had hitherto been unknown. Traditions dating back to the first centuries before the formation of the Eastern and Western rites are also better known today because so many liturgical documents have been discovered. The continuing progress in patristic studies has also illumined eucharistic theology through the teachings of such illustrious saints of Christian antiquity as Irenaeus, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, and John Chrysostom.
ADAPTATION TO MODERN CONDITIONS
9. The "tradition of the Fathers" does not require merely the preservation of what our immediate predecessors have passed on to us. There must also be profound study and understanding of the Church's entire past and of all the ways in which its single faith has been expressed in the quite diverse human and social forms prevailing in Semitic, Greek, and Latin cultures. This broader view shows us how the Holy Spirit endows the people of God with a marvelous fidelity in preserving the deposit of faith unchanged, even though prayers and rites differ so greatly.
<> correct. No Jurisdiction, No Ministry is axiomatic for Catholics. What is odd is this is exactly the same argument that Lefebvre made during Vatican Two. Then, he signed all the Documents, left the Council and said he didn't sign the documents and he started a ministry with jurisdiction WITHIN the legitimate Jurisdiction of legitimate Bishops.
Today, we refer to those acts as "Preserving Tradition."<>
The Second Vatican Council defined the liturgy as "the work of Christ the Priest and of His Body which is the Church.”
If we go back to Vatican II, we find the following description of this relationship: "In the liturgy, through which, especially in the divine Sacrifice of the Eucharist, ‘the work of our Redemption is carried on’, the faithful are most fully led to express and show to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.”
All that has become foreign to modern thinking and, only thirty years after the Council, has been brought into question even among catholic liturgists. Who still talks today about "the divine Sacrifice of the Eucharist"? Discussions about the idea of sacrifice have again become astonishingly lively, as much on the catholic side as on the protestant. People realise that an idea which has always preoccupied, under various forms, not only the history of the Church, but the entire history of humanity, must be the expession of something basic which concerns us as well. But, at the same time, the old Enlightenment positions still live on everywhere: accusations of magic and paganism, contrasts drawn between worship and the service of the Word, between rite and ethos, the idea of a Christianity which disengages itself from worship and enters into the profane world, catholic theologians who have no desire to see themselves accused of anti-modernity. Even if people want, in one way or another, to rediscover the concept of sacrifice, embarrassment and criticism are the end result. Thus, Stefan Orth, in the vast panorama of a bibliography of recent works devoted to the theme of sacrifice, believed he could make the following statement as a summary of his research: "In fact, many Catholics themselves today ratify the verdict and the conclusions of Martin Luther, who says that to speak of sacrifice is "the greatest and most appalling horror" and a "damnable impiety": this is why we want to refrain from all that smacks of sacrifice, including the whole canon, and retain only that which is pure and holy." Then Orth adds: "This maxim was also followed in the Catholic Church after Vatican II, or at least tended to be, and led people to think of divine worship chiefly in terms of the feast of the Passover related in the accounts of the Last Supper." Appealing to a work on sacrifice, edited by two modern catholic liturgists, he then said, in slightly more moderate terms, that it clearly seemed that the notion of the sacrifice of the Mass – even more than that of the sacrifice of the Cross – was at best an idea very open to misunderstanding.
I certainly don’t need to say that I am not one of the "numerous Catholics" who consider it the most appalling horror and a damnable impiety to speak of the sacrifice of the Mass. It goes without saying that the writer did not mention my book on the spirit of the liturgy, which analyses the idea of sacrifice in detail. His diagnosis remains dismaying. Is it true? I do not know these numerous Catholics who consider it a damnable impiety to understand the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The second, more circumspect, diagnosis according to which the sacrifice of the Mass is open to misunderstandings is, on the other hand, easily shown to be correct. Even if one leaves to one side the first affirmation of the writer as a rhetorical exaggeration, there remains a troubling problem, which we should face up to. A sizable party of catholic liturgists seems to have practically arrived at the conclusion that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the sixteenth century debate; one can detect much the same position in the post conciliar discussions on the Priesthood.The great historian of the Council of Trent, Hubert Jedin, pointed this out in 1975, in the preface to the last volume of his history of the Council of Trent: "The attentive reader ... in reading this will not be less dismayed than the author, when he realises that many of the things - in fact almost everything – that disturbed the men of the past is being put forward anew today." It is only against this background of the effective denial of the authority of Trent, that the bitterness of the struggle against allowing the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal, after the liturgical reform, can be understood. The possibility of so celebrating constitutes the strongest, and thus (for them) the most intolerable contradiction of the opinion of those who believe that the faith in the Eucharist formulated by Trent has lost its value.
<snip>
Meanwhile the problem has been aggravated by the fact that the most recent movement of ‘enlightened’ thought goes much further than Luther: where Luther still took literally the accounts of the Institution and made them, as the norma normans, the basis of his efforts at reform, the hypotheses of historical criticism have, for a long time, been causing a broad erosion of the texts. The accounts of the Last Supper appear as the product of the liturgical construction of the community; an historical Jesus is sought behind the texts who could not have been thinking of the gift of His Body and Blood, nor understood His Cross as a sacrifice of expiation; we should, rather, imagine a farewell meal which included an eschatological perspective. Not only is the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium downgraded in the eyes of many, but Scripture too; in its place are put changing pseudo-historical hypotheses, which are immediately replaced by any arbitrary idea, and place the liturgy at the mercy of fashion. Where, on the basis of such ideas, the liturgy is manipulated ever more freely, the faithful feel that, in reality, nothing is celebrated, and it is understandable that they desert the liturgy, and with it the Church.
<snip>
Which brings me to the conclusion. Theology of the liturgy means that God acts through Christ in the liturgy and that we cannot act but through Him and with Him. Of ourselves, we cannot construct the way to God. This way does not open up unless God Himself becomes the way. And again, the ways of man which do not lead to God are non-ways. Theology of the liturgy means furthermore that in the liturgy, the Logos Himself speaks to us; and not only does He speak, He comes with His Body, and His Soul, His Flesh and His Blood, His Divinity and His Humanity, in order to unite us to Himself, to make of us one single "body." In the Christian liturgy, the whole history of salvation, even more, the whole history of human searching for God is present, assumed and brought to its goal. The Christian liturgy is a cosmic liturgy – it embraces the whole of creation which "awaits with impatience the revelation of the sons of God" (Rom. 8; 9).
<snip>
One thing should be clear: the liturgy must not be a terrain for experimenting with theological hypotheses. Too rapidly, in these last decades, the ideas of experts have entered into liturgical practice, often also by-passing ecclesiastical authority, through the channel of commissions which have been able to diffuse at an international level their "consensus of the moment," and practically turn it into laws for liturgical activity. The liturgy derives its greatness from what it is, not from what we make of it. Our participation is, of course, necessary, but as a means of inserting ourselves humbly into the spirit of the liturgy, and of serving Him Who is the true subject of the liturgy: Jesus Christ. The liturgy is not an expression of the consciousness of a community which, in any case, is diffuse and changing. It is revelation received in faith and prayer, and its measure is consequently the faith of the Church, in which revelation is received. The forms which are given to the liturgy can vary according to place and time, just as the rites are diverse. What is essential is the link to the Church which for her part, is united by faith in the Lord. The obedience of faith guarantees the unity of the liturgy, beyond the frontiers of place and time, and so lets us experience the unity of the Church, the Church as the homeland of the heart.
The essence of the liturgy, is finally, summarised in the prayer which St. Paul (1 Cor. 16; 22) and the Didache (10; 6) have handed down to us: Maran atha – our Lord is there – Lord, come!" From now on, the Parousia is accomplished in the Liturgy, but that is so precisely because it teaches us to cry: "Come Lord Jesus", while reaching out towards the Lord who is coming. It always brings us to hear his reply yet again and to experience its truth: "Yes, I am coming soon" (Apoc. 22; 17, 20).
— Translated by Margaret McHugh and Fr John Parsons
No, you asked me to explain about the kiss. I did and then asked you a specific question, which you didn't answer, and instead switched the topic to proselytizing. I asked you to tell me what you think JP meant when he kissed the Koran, and what his intent was.
Precisely, and precisely my point. The thing they critiqued is not the thing that today exists. Many try to use their words to justify their present day critiques of the Mass as it now exists. However, the Cardinals didn’t critique the present day Mass, they critiqued something that was changed.
The GIRM is the only thing that has changed. The Order of Mass as it was first proposed in 1969 was exactly the same in 1971. Only the accompanying explanation of it changed. Therefore the original heretical GIRM was used as an explanation for the Mass exactly as it is today.
Re Bacci: Did he retain his objections though? The thing he critiqued no longer existed, he had no reason to withdraw it. If you criticize the new tax bill, and the tax bill is voted down, do you need to withdraw your criticism? No, of course not. But then a new tax bill is proposed that is similar to the old one, but different with respect to several of the things you criticized. It is voted on, and passed. But you don’t critique this one. One cannot necessarily assume that you approve of this new tax bill, but it is equally true that one cannot necessarily assume you disapproved either, as you haven’t spoken either way. If you want to show that either Cardinal disapproved of the Novus Ordo as it was refined, you need to quote them, not assume. As to the circumstances of Cardinal Ottaviani’s retraction, is he a man or a mouse? Just how impotent do you view the man to be? He is responsible for his words, and you cannot both cite him as authority and cite him as lacking facilities, which is what HDMZ seems to do.
Again, only the GIRM changed. The Mass was exactly the same before and after. Therefore, your claim that the thing he criticized no longer existed is not true. This is why Bacci never retracted his position, and why I personally don’t believe the blind and seriously ill Ottaviani did either.
A time ago ultima ratio and I debated over the Sacrificial language in the GIRM. I produced a compilation of the language in the first part, and he chose not to respond to it in any meaningful way. If you like, I will produce the same for you, and you can guess what meaning was meant by the Church. I don’t care what modernists and heretics read into it. These are the Sacrificial language the Church can use that will get through to these people, any more than there is no Sacrificial language the Church can use to get through to some Trads.
What you can show me is a list of citations where the Tridentine formula has been added to the Protestant formula using the word “Or” or an equivalent phrase. At best you can show me something ambiguous. And yes, I will have to “guess what meaning was meant by the Church,” because the Church was not clear.
Mere words, entirely meaningless. Name one Protestant that has adopted the Novus Ordo. Not a single action in 30 years to follow up on two sentences by two Protestants. That isn’t much of an approval.
In 1972 the Anglican Archbishop of Southwark praised the Novus Ordo and said he used it and would like to see it made available to all Anglicans. There’s one.
You are correct about the Protestants at Trent. I was mistaken on that point.
Bellarmine
The GIRM is the only thing that has changed. The Order of Mass as it was first proposed in 1969 was exactly the same in 1971. Only the accompanying explanation of it changed. Therefore the original heretical GIRM was used as an explanation for the Mass exactly as it is today.Of course, that was all that needed to change.
Again, only the GIRM changed. The Mass was exactly the same before and after. Therefore, your claim that the thing he criticized no longer existed is not true.Much of what was criticized was the ambiguity, and this was removed. Many of the criticisms were dealt with in the GIRM, and so the thing was different, if not as different as you would like.
This is why Bacci never retracted his position,You read minds perhaps? How can you know why Bacci did this or that? I don’t generally presume people believe this or that without proof, and you don’t present any here. If you wish to prove why he didn’t speak on the issue again, you need to give us some quotes from him, not from your own view of what he believed.
Everyone always wants to interpret this or that person’s beliefs in support of their viewpoint. It is simply my view that one cannot do this without solid proof.
and why I personally don’t believe the blind and seriously ill Ottaviani did either.Ottaviani approved the Mass only one year after his intervention. I have never seen any proof that he was any blinder and more seriously ill than he had been at many other points in his life. Again, one year later:
"I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS."You can claim all you like that he was ill, but that too is completely unproven.
What makes this all the more striking, is that the Cardinals didn’t write the intervention in the first place. That honor is reserved to the theologians Archbishop Lefebvre assembled, and the main author is now a sedevacantist, correct? The Cardinals merely wrote the letter transmitting it, so it isn’t clear that Cardinal Ottaviani actually agreed with the things said in the intervention to begin with.
Given those circumstances, that he merely passed it up the line (though he did clearly express some misgivings about the Novus Ordo) rather than writing it, and that he praised the Novus Ordo twice after the clarifications in the GIRM and from the Pope, and was well known to believe that the Roman liturgy needed to be opened up to better include the people, it is a bit of a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory to believe he wasn’t capable of expressing himself only a year later.
Moreover, Cardinal Ottaviani not only wrote letters supporting the Novus Ordo, he confirmed their authenticity to others. See James Likoudis, The Pope, The Council and the Mass.
In light of all this it is rather hard to buy the theory that Cardinal Ottaviani disapproved.
What you can show me is a list of citations where the Tridentine formula has been added to the Protestant formula using the word “Or” or an equivalent phrase. At best you can show me something ambiguous. And yes, I will have to “guess what meaning was meant by the Church,” because the Church was not clear.Just because a Protestant might use the language doesn’t mean it is automatically false. When the Mass is called both a celebration and a Sacrifice, both are true. The Protestant may refuse to use Sacrifice, and the Traditionalist may refuse to use celebration, but their respective refusals don’t make the other word false. This is how we see the Church possessing the fullness of the truth, whereas others possess parts of it. A number of traditionalists seem to think Trent said the Mass is a Sacrifice, and that therefore no other word can ever, anywhere, be used to describe it. This is obviously not true, the Mass is both a celebration and a Sacrifice.
As the Church always has, Trent clearly understood this. To quote from it, “And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass,” and “And although the Church has been accustomed at times to celebrate, certain masses in honour and memory of the saints; not therefore, however, doth she teach that sacrifice is offered unto them, but unto God alone, who crowned them; whence neither is the priest wont to say, "I offer sacrifice to thee, Peter, or Paul;" but, giving thanks to God for their victories, he implores their patronage, that they may vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we celebrate upon earth.” And “since those masses also ought to be considered as truly common; partly because the people communicate spiritually thereat; partly also because they are celebrated by a public minister of the Church, not for himself only, but for all the faithful, who belong to the body of Christ.” And “CANON V.--If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.”
Tell me, do you have to guess what Trent meant, as it wasn’t clear as well? No, Trent meant both, and that is the Catholic view. It is a Protestant view to limit it to one or the other, but a Catholic accepts the fullness of the faith.
OK, that is one. He would, however, have to pray for the dead if he used the full Rite without omitting things, and that is directly contrary to the Anglican faith. I would be rather surprised to hear him say that he used the full Rite without any modifications whatsoever.Mere words, entirely meaningless. Name one Protestant that has adopted the Novus Ordo. Not a single action in 30 years to follow up on two sentences by two Protestants. That isn’t much of an approval.In 1972 the Anglican Archbishop of Southwark praised the Novus Ordo and said he used it and would like to see it made available to all Anglicans. There’s one.
Regardless, this was allegedly written in 1972? Nothing since then? Not one Protestant in 30+ years? I still think that isn’t much of an approval.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
The only thing that was changed was the definition of the "new mass" in the GIRM, i.e. the one that had previously shouted YES THIS IS HERESY was now more circumspect. The novus ordo missae itself remained the same.The only quotes on this thread are from sections that changed. You’re full of it.
patent +AMDG
<>Mass is also called a service. I don't have the book in front of me to provide the exact quote, but, St. Augustine, in "City of God," refers to "servitus" and the service of the Mass.
Your dispassionate and informative posts are very helpful. Poor Ottaviani, who would have thought such a chamipon of Unity as he was would have his name championed by schismatics? In what some call the First Ottaviani Intervention, the Holy Office letter to the ArchBishop of Boston re. the Fr. Feeney matter, he warned against schisms. Now, we have schismatics using Ottaviani to justify a schism. Such is the madness that strikes those in the schismatic swamps. They can't even see the absurdity of their own positions while they think themselves competent to judge Popes and the normative Mass <>
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.