Replies

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

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?

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.

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.

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