It’s not your mother’s Catholic Church

Catholic Chronicle ^ | July 4, 2003 | PAT TODAK

[Maximilian]

I am new to this and don't know how to include your request in italics as all of you are doing

You need to insert HTML markup commands into your post. They are pretty simple, about the only ones I ever use are for italics, bold, new paragraph, line break (for a return without skipping a line), and blockquote which indents a large block of text that you are pasting from some source.

The one thing I have forgotten is how to place HTML markups into a post as text so that I could show you how to do it.

I am still having problems with the "authority" of the USCCB in completely removing the discipline of our Holy Church as to the requirement of penance on Friday. The explanation as to it being purely ecclestical law and therefore allowing for the dispensation seems to open a Pandora's box for me.

This is an excellent question and one that does not have an easy answer. Consider also this: if it's bad enough to allow the episcopal conference to eliminate penance on Friday, then how much worse is it to allow the episcopal conference to tinker with the Mass?

[Maximilian]

You can read the instructions from FreeRepublic at the botton of the "Posting Comment" page regarding using HTML or not. I think I can give you a list of the most common commands if I insert spaces so FR does not interpret them as HTML. Just remove the extra spaces.

< B > Bold
< I > Italic
< P > New Paragraph
< BR > Line Break
< Blockquote > Skip a line and indent to format large block

< /B > End Bold
< /I > End Italic
< /P > End Paragraph (Not required -- happens by default)
< /Blockquote > Returns to stand indent and format

The most annoying part is that FR will automatically format a web address as a hyperlink if you don't use any HTML. But if you do use some HTML somewhere in you post, like bold or something, then you have to format the hyperlink as well.

< a href="http://www.xyz.com" > XYZ Website

The text "XYZ Website" will be formatted as a link to the URL that you put within quotation marks inside the HTML markup brackets.

[ultima ratio]

"Catholics may not question the power of the Holy Father to implement another Rite."

Where did you get this truly crackpot idea? Why do you keep making such WRONG sweeping statements? OF COURSE we may question the pope's authority to do this--and some of the best liturgists in the world have done so. Here is Klaus Gamber himself on this very subject:

"Since there is no document that specifically assigns to the Apostolic See the authority to change, let alone to abolish the traditional liturgical rite; and since, furthermore, it can be shown that not a single predecessor of Pope Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the Roman Liturgy, the assertion that the Holy See has the authority to change the liturgical rite would appear to be debatable, to say the least." (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 39.)

[As you well know...]

Code of Canon Law
IntraText CT - Text

BOOK IV : THE SANCTIFYING OFFICE OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 834 – 848)
PART III : SACRED PLACES AND TIMES
TITLE II: SACRED TIMES (Cann. 1244 - 1258)
CHAPTER II : DAYS OF PENANCE
Previous - Next

---

CHAPTER II : DAYS OF PENANCE

Can. 1249 All Christ's faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance. However, so that all may be joined together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are prescribed. On these days the faithful are in a special manner to devote themselves to prayer, to engage in works of piety and charity, and to deny themselves, by fulfilling their obligations more faithfully and especially by observing the fast and abstinence which the following canons prescribe.

Can. 1250 The days and times of penance for the universal Church are each Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can. 1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

Can. 1253 The Episcopal Conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.

[As you well know...]

Your authority to dispense from Church Law issues from where?

[As you well know...]

If someone forgets fast or abstain on Friday, do it on Tuesday or Monday

oops....

Didache - Chapter 8. Fasting and Prayer (the Lord's Prayer). But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday).

[Dusty Rose]

I also came from a Polish-Catholic family, in Wisconsin. My mother would fry melt-in-your mouth beer-batter blue gill or lake perch. But often Friday nite would mean fish fry at a local tavern. Legal Seafood is also #1 on my list whenever I get to Boston. I love lobster the best. But in no way would that be "penance" for Friday.

[NYer]

the assertion that the Holy See has the authority to change the liturgical rite would appear to be debatable, to say the least."

UR

In his book "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy", Msgr. Gamber never in any way calls into question the validity of the New Mass due to any changes in the ritual of the Novus Ordo Mass. His basic contention is that the new ritual of the Mass is just that, a new ritual of the Mass. Thus, for all practical purposes the Roman Rite is dead, when not using the Roman Canon in the Novus Ordo Masses. Because of his knowledge of ecclesiology and sacramentology, Gamber never insists that the new ritual of the Mass is somehow invalid.

On the other hand, there must be said something for the defense of the authority of the Catholic Church, which has the power to guard and protect the sacred liturgy. Msgr. Gamber does not question the papal authority and power to determine liturgical reforms. He does question, however, whether or not it is really in the best interest of the Church to radically interrupt what were traditionally the liturgical rites of the Mass, which had roots for over a millennium, not to mention the very center of the liturgy, the Roman Canon (which had been determined already, almost in its entirety by the fifth century, even before the time of Gregory the Great). Gamber questions the prudence of the Roman Pontiff in discarding these venerable traditions without sufficient cause, especially when there had been no outcry on the part of the faithful, before, during, or even after the Council to discard or destroy any of the elements of the Roman Rite. And even if there had been a general outcry for change, there still would have been on justification for destroying a veritable work of art, a treasure for the Church for all time.

There are 17 oriental rites (give or take a few variations), that are officially recognized by the Church, and whose development also hearken back to the ancient Church. Would you have all of these rites replaced with the Tridentine Rite?

[As you well know...]

Sure it would. Penance does not require you eat a diseased sucker netted in a spent fuel rod containment pool.

[ultima ratio]

You write, "In his book "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy", Msgr. Gamber never in any way calls into question the validity of the New Mass due to any changes in the ritual of the Novus Ordo Mass. His basic contention is that the new ritual of the Mass is just that, a new ritual of the Mass."

But not even I question the validity of the New Mass. So you are setting up a straw man. What is your point? I have said over and over on this site that validity itself proves nothing. A Mass may be valid and still be extremely harmful to the faith. This is why Ecclesia Dei itself allows the faithful to attend SSPX Masses--precisely because there are so many bad Novus Ordo Masses around.

As for your second point, reread my quotation. You are once again either distorting the truth or totally misreading what Gamber intends. Here it is again:

"SINCE THERE IS NO DOCUMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNS TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE, LET ALONE TO ABOLISH THE TRADITIONAL LITURGICAL RITE; AND SINCE, FURTHERMORE, IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT NOT A SINGLE PREDECESSOR OF POPE PAUL VI HAS EVER INTRODUCED MAJOR CHANGES TO THE ROMAN LITURGY, THE ASSERTION THAT THE HOLY SEE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE LITURGICAL RITE WOULD APPEAR TO BE DEBATABLE, TO SAY THE LEAST." (Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 39.)

This clearly contradicts what you've been saying about Gamber. He does most certainly question papal AUTHORITY to change the rite, not merely whether it was wise to do so as you contend. He points out no pope had ever done so before and no documents in support of such a move has ever existed.

As to your last question--the rites you mention have evolved over the centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit--and all are supportive of the Catholic dogmas of Propitiatory Sacrifice and Transubstantiation. BUT NONE HAS EVER BEEN FABRICATED BY A COMMITTEE--AND IN SUCH A WAY AS TO UNDERMINE THE FAITH. As Gamber points out, the present situation is unprecedented and frightening: it is a direct assault upon the whole of Catholic Tradition.

[ultima ratio]

You write the following: "On the other hand, there must be said something for the defense of the authority of the Catholic Church, which has the power to guard and protect the sacred liturgy."

The authority of the papacy is to guard and protect SACRED TRADITION and the deposit of faith. How does it do so by destroying the ancient liturgy of that tradition and thereby suppressing and subverting the dogmas it had sustained with a fabricated liturgy that emulates a Protestant worship ceremony instead? The very notion is ridiculous.

[As you well know...]

In the West, especially in recent centuries, the gradual centralizing tendency affecting all of Church life means that the Pope took an increasingly direct and personal role in liturgical legislation. Nevertheless, Ratzinger has no hesitation in declaring (pp. 165-166) that even the Supreme Pontiff's authority is limited in this area:

After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not "manufactured" by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . . The greatness of the liturgy depends - we shall have to repeat this frequently - on its unspontaneity (Unbeliebigkeit).

From "spirit of the Liturgy" by Cardinal Ratzinger

[Dusty Rose]

That's one good reason to pray before eating, lobster or most any meal.

[ultima ratio]

What is this yes or no business? So you don't attend an SSPX Mass--so what? I've already said it represents only 20% of the traditionalist movement. I would have to know a helluva lot more to answer--but I don't make it a practice to jump through other people's hoops. If you want a yes or no, you would have to give me a lot more information about your religious habits--if you attended the Novus Ordo, for instance, fully aware of its deficiencies.

[ultima ratio]

The answer is not Yes or No. It is I Don't Know.

[St.Chuck]

I don't make it a practice to jump through other people's hoops.

LOL. Hoops. You call them loopholes.