Rorate Caeli

Ranjith in 30Giorni

In an otherwise surprisingly dull edition of 30Giorni, the interview of the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Archbishop Ranjith, liberally quoted by many secular reports last week, has been made available in the Italian-language website of the magazine (the English translation will surely follow in a few weeks). There is no groundbreaking affirmation, but a few interesting comments, some of which are presented below.

Ranjith: ...the result which was expected from the liturgical reform [which followed the Second Vatican Council] has not appeared. ...

... And therefore there is much to do, so that the churches be filled with new faithful who, during the sacred liturgies, feel truly touched by the grace of the Lord. In a secularized world, instead of trying to elevate the hearts towards the greatness of the Lord, it has been attempted, more often, I believe, to lower the divine mysteries to a banal level. ...

When you were named Secretary at Divine Worship, it was written that you had very good relations with the Lefebvrist world. Does that correspond to the truth?

Ranjith: I did not meet Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ..., for he was of another age. But I have certainly had some contact with some of his followers. But I am not passionate about the Lefebvrists. Unfortunately, they have not yet re-entered into full communion with the Holy See, but that which they frequently say about the liturgy is said deliberately. And for that they are a thorn which should make us reflect on what we are doing. This does not mean that I may be defined as an adherent or as a friend of the Lefebvrists. I share some points of the so-called anti-globalization [movement] regarding social justice, but that does not mean I am one of its followers...[sic] On the other hand, the Tridentine Mass is not a private property of the Lefebvrists. It is a treasure of the Church and of all of us. As the Pope said to the Roman Curia last year, the Second Vatican Council is not a moment of rupture, but of renewal in continuity. The past is not thrown away, but one builds upon it.

Does this mean that the Mass said of Saint Pius V has never truly been abolished?

Ranjith: The fact that the Holy See has recently approved the foundation, in Bordeaux, of a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right characterized by the fact that it exclusively uses the pre-Conciliar liturgical books [Rorate Note: the Institute of the Good Shepherd] is to signify in an unequivocal way that the Mass of Saint Pius V cannot be considered as abolished by the new Missal, said of Paul VI.

29 comments:

With Peter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
With Peter said...

Ranjith expesses my own opinion better than I myself am capable. Thank you for posting this article, New Catholic.

It seems that Ranjith is critical of various aspects of the reform and its implementation, but he stops well short of saying that it constitutes a break with the past or that it represents an abuse of the pope's power.

New Catholic said...

These aspects were not asked of him, with-peter, so please do not distort his opinions to conform to your own.

That the new Mass is a break with the past is beyond discussion, unless one wishes to defy common sense and the use of basic reading skills. And naturally the Archbishop says it, with as much diplomatic language as he can muster.

humboldt said...

I think it would be unthinkable for a simple congregation secretary to engage in such acrimonious declaration as saying that the Novus Ordo Mass breaks with the tradition of the Church, or that its enactment was an abuse of power. That will never happen. After all Pope Benedict XVI has already stated that the liturgical reform of the II Vatican Council was well implemented, even though as cardinal he criticized the reform, as ill-implemented. ¡Talking about the “chains of the papacy!

Jeff said...

With Peter:

I think that the idea that the Missal of Paul VI constitutes in essence a New Liturgy, rather than a mere revision, is what undergirds the canonical opinion that the old Mass has not been abrogated.

Were the Pauline Missal to be considered a mere "revision" then, of course the old rubrics now replaced would have been abrogated. It is only if one sees the new Missal as--in fact, whether or not in intention--so radical a revision as to constitute a New Liturgy meant to replace the old, that the old would need explicit and solemn abrogation if it were to revert to forbidden status.

If one doesn't agree with that analysis, I can't understand how one could justify the opinion that the old Mass has not been abrogated. Since Ranjith believes that there has NOT been an abrogation, I assume he must agree with Joseph Ratzinger that the New Mass is a radical break.

I part company with New Catholic that this is "beyond discussion," but that's my understanding anyway.

New Catholic said...

It is beyond discussion here, Jeff.

I would only like to add on the background of Abp. Ranjith's comments: his words in the past few months have been increasingly strong, almost harsh. There cannot be any doubt that he is speaking the Pontiff's mind on these subjects -- in a way which the Pope himself would not wish to do (at least not as Pope or at least not now).

Or, more appropriately: Ranjith would not be saying what he is saying if he were not completely backed by the Pope. His words are very unpopular in the bureaucracy of his Congregation. He was called by the Pope for this function to act as the Papal delegate on these delicate issues -- and that is as far as I will go.

Jordan Potter said...

"That the new Mass is a break with the past is beyond discussion, unless one wishes to defy common sense and the use of basic reading skills. And naturally the Archbishop says it, with as much diplomatic language as he can muster."

I think the Pauline Missal is a break with the past. Not a clean or complete break, but obviously a break, and a pretty serious one -- unprecedented, as the Pope and Gamber and others have said.

I don't consider myself competent to say whether or not Pope Paul VI's new missal was an abuse of power. All agree that Popes lawfully may introduce reforms in the liturgy or otherwise regulate and alter the liturgy. But as extensively and systematically as was done after Vatican II? I don't know. At the very least, I believe it was rash and ill-advised, pastorally inept and simply unnecessary. But unlawful? Eeeeeh. . . I don't know. Possibly. Yeah, probably. Surely Popes have done things before that exceeded the bounds of their divine province. But I think that's for someone else to say. I'll have to recuse myself.

"Were the Pauline Missal to be considered a mere 'revision' then, of course the old rubrics now replaced would have been abrogated. It is only if one sees the new Missal as--in fact, whether or not in intention--so radical a revision as to constitute a New Liturgy meant to replace the old, that the old would need explicit and solemn abrogation if it were to revert to forbidden status."

I see what you're saying, Jeff. Functionally it seems the Pauline Missal is a new rite, even though it wasn't advertised as such (and it did come from the Church of Rome, so on that score it would be "Roman," even if it lacks the venerable pedigree of all the other rites of the Catholic Church). It looks like the Holy See's official stance will be that it's not a new rite, but an extensive revision of the Roman Rite that did not abrogate the pre-1969 Roman Rite. However the Holy See gets it done, though, at least the traditional Roman Rite will have a chance to recover from the past 40 years of near total suppression.

New Catholic said...

By the way, Jordan Potter and Jeff, it is always wonderful to see you here.

Thanks to Humboldt and With-Peter for their comments, too.

humboldt said...

Nothwithstanding the "harsh" commentaries by Msgr. Ranjith, the fact is that the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church enacted by Pope Benedict XVI, states very clearly the following:
"249. Is everything immutable in the liturgy?

"1205-1206

In the liturgy, particularly in that of the sacraments, there are unchangeable elements because they are of divine institution. The Church is the faithful guardian of them. There are also, however, elements subject to change which the Church has the power and on occasion also the duty to adapt to the cultures of diverse peoples."

So yes Benedict XVI does recognize that there are elements of the liturgy subject to be changed and must be changed, depending on the times.

sacerdos15 said...

There are elements of the liturgy that can be changed and must be changed according to the times and culture.The catechism is correct and so the Council.But as the council stipulated any change has to be for the good of the church and has to be necessary and then it must grow organically from the present. Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote that the Novus Ordo broke every norm of reform stipulated by the council,and that the Novus Ordo was the first liturgy in history to be composed by a comittee. The problem is not change but what changes and how.The Novus Ordo seems to me what then Cardinal Ratzinger called it "a fabrication" and one that is "banal". The question is not whether the Pope can alter or change the liturgy but to what extent.Can he rupture 1500 years of tradition? The change must be gradual and organic not a wholesale replacement with another rite.

tribus candelis said...

A question. Were the actions of Paul VI and the dicasteries that altered the rite prior to the NOM legal (Sacram liturgiam, 1964, Inter Oecumenici and Tres abhinc annos, 1967)?

Whilst I can accept the point of view that the new anaphorae, 1968, etc were a radical break I find the suggestion that the 'old' rite was never abolished confusing. If the 1969/1970 reform did not abrogate the rite that preceded it then surely one is left with the 1967 ritus, which was the form specified in the 1971 'indult' for England and Wales.

The contents and comments on this site are by far the most interesting and reasoned I have seen on the web. Well done New Catholic.

Jeff said...

"It is beyond discussion here, Jeff."

As you see, I agree with your analysis.

No need to discuss the issue here, if you feel it distracts from the purpose of the blog.

But the questions, "What constitutes an essential liturgical change?", "Can there be a radical liturgical change that is not essential?", and "Does the Missal of Paul VI represent a radical change that is yet not essential?" are all poseable questions that are not bereft of logic.

I would think there is an advantage to trying to convince Catholics of our view, rather than simply insisting on it as a stipulation, for a variety of reasons.

sacerdos15 said...

I have always loved the old rite and never felt at ease with the new although I celebrate it.I read Gambers book and Cardinal Ratzinger's writings,and they got me thinking that the NO was a rupture.But it was the book by Alcuin Reid on the organic development of the liturgy that totally convinced me.The idea that the Pope has complete authority to change the liturgy was believed by Pope Paul VI as it was by PiusXII who stated it in Mediator Dei.Benedict has made it clear he does not hold to that by saying his role is to serve and guard the tradition.

humboldt said...

sacerdos15 your assertion about Pius XII has baffled me. Could you provide more detailed reference on this alleged belief of Pius XII? Your assertion would fell the belief of sedevacantism that Pius XII was the last true catholic Pope. Thank you.

tribus candelis said...

Pius XII stated in Mediator Dei that the Holy See alone had the right to change liturgical rites.

He also, in Mediator Dei, reversed the maxim lex orandi, lex credendi which several liturgical theologians such as Aidan Kavanagh have been very (rightly IMHO) critical of

Jordan Potter said...

"He also, in Mediator Dei, reversed the maxim lex orandi, lex credendi . . ."

On that scopre, here is the relevant excerpt from Mediator Dei:

46. On this subject We judge it Our duty to rectify an attitude with which you are doubtless familiar, Venerable Brethren. We refer to the error and fallacious reasoning of those who have claimed that the sacred liturgy is a kind of proving ground for the truths to be held of faith, meaning by this that the Church is obliged to declare such a doctrine sound when it is found to have produced fruits of piety and sanctity through the sacred rites of the liturgy, and to reject it otherwise. Hence the epigram, "Lex orandi, lex credendi" - the law for prayer is the law for faith.

47. But this is not what the Church teaches and enjoins. The worship she offers to God, all good and great, is a continuous profession of Catholic faith and a continuous exercise of hope and charity, as Augustine puts it tersely. "God is to be worshipped," he says, "by faith, hope and charity."[44] In the sacred liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly, not only by the celebration of the mysteries, and by offering the holy sacrifice and administering the sacraments, but also by saying or singing the credo or Symbol of the faith - it is indeed the sign and badge, as it were, of the Christian - along with other texts, and likewise by the reading of holy scripture, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church.

48. For this reason, whenever there was question of defining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils in their recourse to the "theological sources," as they are called, have not seldom drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the liturgy. For an example in point, Our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, so argued when he proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Similarly during the discussion of a doubtful or controversial truth, the Church and the Holy Fathers have not failed to look to the age-old and age-honored sacred rites for enlightenment. Hence the well-known and venerable maxim, "Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" - let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief.[45] The sacred liturgy, consequently, does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. More properly, since the liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths, and subject, as such, to the supreme teaching authority of the Church, it can supply proofs and testimony, quite clearly, of no little value, towards the determination of a particular point of Christian doctrine. But if one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say, "Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi" - let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer. The same holds true for the other theological virtues also, "In . . . fide, spe, caritate continuato desiderio semper oramus" - we pray always, with constant yearning in faith, hope and charity.[46]

44. Enchiridion, c. 3.

45. De gratia Dei "Indiculus."

46. Saint Augustine, Epist. 130, ad Probam, 18.

New Catholic said...

Let me also moderate the discussion away from Pius XII, of most glorious memory, here. Not even the 1965 reforms are exactly under debate here -- the excerpts refer to the events of 1969 as a (faithful?) consequence of the last Council and their unprecedented nature in the long history of Papal liturgical acts.

Jordan Potter said...

"Pius XII stated in Mediator Dei that the Holy See alone had the right to change liturgical rites."

And on that score, here is the relevant passage of Mediator Dei:

49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]

50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."

51. Several causes, really have been instrumental in the progress and development of the sacred liturgy during the long and glorious life of the Church.

52. Thus, for example, as Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God, the eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice, and Mary the Virgin Mother of God came to be determined with greater certitude and clarity, new ritual forms were introduced through which the acts of the liturgy proceeded to reproduce this brighter light issuing from the decrees of the teaching authority of the Church, and to reflect it, in a sense so that it might reach the minds and hearts of Christ's people more readily.

53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters.

54. Just as notable a contribution to this progressive transformation was made by devotional trends and practices not directly related to the sacred liturgy, which began to appear, by God's wonderful design, in later periods, and grew to be so popular. We may instance the spread and ever mounting ardor of devotion to the Blessed Eucharist, devotion to the most bitter passion of our Redeemer, devotion to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus, to the Virgin Mother of God and to her most chaste spouse.

55. Other manifestations of piety have also played their circumstantial part in this same liturgical development. Among them may be cited the public pilgrimages to the tombs of the martyrs prompted by motives of devotion, the special periods of fasting instituted for the same reason, and lastly, in this gracious city of Rome, the penitential recitation of the litanies during the "station" processions, in which even the Sovereign Pontiff frequently joined.

56. It is likewise easy to understand that the progress of the fine arts, those of architecture, painting and music above all, has exerted considerable influence on the choice and disposition of the various external features of the sacred liturgy.

57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about - during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors - that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.[48] This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy.[49]

58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.


47. Cf. Constitution Divini cultus, December 20, 1928.

48. Constitution Immensa, January 22, 1588.

49. Code of Canon Law, can. 253.

50. Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1257.

51. Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1261.

With Peter said...

I've noticed any commentary involving Jordan Potter is increased in both dignity and intelligence.

Let me humbly offer a possible interpretation of the phrase "not abrogated."

Yes, Missale Romanum (1969) implied a complete abrogation of all previous Missals when it said, "We decree these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving of particular mention and amendment." This is language of abrogation.

But, from the first, Paul VI granted permissions the world over to celebrate the former rite both privately and publicly to any request he considered sincere and non-divisive. The so-called "1971 English Indult" is a fine example of this.

Therefore, if we follow this interpretation, "non-abrogation" cannot be seen as the pope's implicit admission that the 1970 Missal is in fact an entirely new liturgical rite. Especially when Paul VI himself said, "Be very sure of one point: nothing of the substance of the traditional Mass has been altered" (Audience, Nov 19, 1969).

Whatever else may be said, Paul VI did not believe that he was implementing a substantively new Mass.

PS. New Catholic- I only say that he stops well short of saying "X" and I appreciate this, I do not claim to know his excellency's reasons for doing so. I don't think I have distorted his opinion.

With Peter said...

Humboldt- The more you examine the pontificate and documents of Pius XII, the more you will find questions that sedevacantists cannot answer.

Jeff- I think this is about the best question I've ever read: "Does the Missal of Paul VI represent a radical change that is yet not essential?"

Let me follow this up with another question: If we concede the point (i.e. radical not essential) for the sake of argument, what would it imply?

Jordan Potter- Speaking of a papal abuse of power, Boniface VIII says, "If the supreme spiritual power deviates, it can be judged by God alone, not by man." Your reservation to affirm that a pope has abused his authority is very wise and pious.

BTW, "if" means assumption not assertion. That is to say, this statement from Unam Sanctam cannot be interpreted as a definition that the supreme spiritual power can in fact deviate. I mean this with no prejudice against the opinion of those like New Catholic who take this possibility for granted. I'm only saying it would be a most tenuous inference to draw from this particular text, especially when the full context of Unam Sanctam is considered (i.e. "Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are ENTIRELY subject to the Roman Pontiff"; emphasis added).

New Catholic said...

I do not take anything for granted, with-peter. When you first introduced these two issues ("..[Ranjith] stops well short of saying that it constitutes a break with the past or that it represents an abuse of the pope's power"), I said, "These aspects were not asked of him, with-peter".

So please let us stay within the boundaries of what Ranjith said.

humboldt said...

Yes thank you for bringing up Mediator Dei. However, this encyclical has many other aspects that would condemn the new theology about the Mass, developed by the Popes since Paul VI (RIP):

In 114 Mediator Dei says:

"They, therefore, err from the path of thruth who do not want to have Masses celebrated unless the faithful communicate; and those are still more in error who, in holding that it is altogether necessary fro the faithful to receive holy communion as well as the priest, put forward the captious argument that here is question not of a sacrifice merely, but of a sacrifice and a super of brotherly union, and consider the general communion of all present as the culminating point of the whole celebration".

Pius XII reminds us that the ex-cathedra definition of the Council of Trent about the Mass, forbade any additional theology from developing about the character of the Mass. An ex-cathedra definition means that the complete thruth has been attained and that therefore there is anything else that can be said about a subject in question.

This would fell the theology about the Mass presented in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, concised in the Compendium in Nr. 271 which says:

"....It is a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet, in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us."

This addition to the understanding of the Mass in Church has manifested in the Novus Ordo when the priest shows the sacred forms to the faithful and says:

"This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper".

The last sentence would be condemned by Mediator Dei and the Council of Trent, isn't?

Why doesn't the Pope remove that last sentence?

Jordan Potter said...

"An ex-cathedra definition means that the complete truth has been attained and that therefore there isn't anything else that can be said about a subject in question."

No, Humboldt, that's not what an ex cathedra definition means. Take, for example, the ex cathedra definition of the Blessed Virgin's Glorious Assumption. Her Assumption was defined as an irreformable dogma, but the Holy Father prescinded from the question of whether or not the Blessed Virgin died, or rather was assumed into heaven without tasting death. In theory, the Church could define that question and resolve the doubt, although it's also true that the Church might never define the question.

Often enough a dogma is defined in a negative fashion. That is, the definition rules out certain false doctrines, but affirms the truth in a broad enough fashion that there is room for further dogmatic definition in the future as the Holy Spirit sees fit.

Anyway, as for Mediator Dei 114, I fear you have misunderstood what the Holy Father said. He did not exclude the doctrine that the Mass is both sacrifice and supper of fraternal union. Rather, he said it is gravely erroneous to use the nature of the Mass as supper of fraternal union to argue that the general communion of all present is the culminating point of the whole celebration, and that therefore it is wrong for priests to offer the Holy Sacrifice when the faithful are not present, or for priests to offer the Sacrifice unless the faithful present communicate. There is nothing erroneous in CCC 271, nor is it forbidden under the Pauline Missal to offer Mass without the assistance of the laity.

humboldt said...

Jordan Potter I think that there is misapprehension about the issue of the dogma of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary into Heaven. This dogmatic definition is not about wether the virgin died or just the "dormition" occurred. This is not the suject of the dogma. The subject of the dogma is that the Virgin Mary was assumpted into heaven in body and soul. That is it. And there is nothing that one can modify or add to this definition, because by itself is comprehensive. The modernist interpretion of dogma is that not the whole thruth about a subject is enclosed in a given dogma. And this is not the catholic view of dogma. Dogma by itself is a comprehensive declaration of the thruth. Digmas are not elaborated definitions, by itself they are short, and concise. For example all the marian dogmas: the inmaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, Mary as Mother of God, the Virginity of Mary and last but not least the Assumption of the Virgin Mary into Heaven. And we could go on and on and on. For example the Council of Trent defined ex-cathedra, that the Mass is a sacrifice, this would mean that the only essential characteristic of the Mass is that it is a sacrifice. All other additions to this thruth, are just ornaments that have nothing to do with the truth itself.

As for Mediator Dei 114, thank you very much for the explication.

Jordan Potter said...

"For example the Council of Trent defined ex-cathedra, that the Mass is a sacrifice, this would mean that the only essential characteristic of the Mass is that it is a sacrifice."

Dogmatic definitions say only as much as they say, and no more. Thus, the Tridentine dogma that the Mass is a sacrifice is true, but that doesn't mean it is exhaustive or total. To say that the Mass is essentially a sacrifice is not to say that it is only a sacrifice. The Church has always taught that it is not only a sacrifice. It is also a shared meal the bond of communion between the soul and Jesus, and thus between all faithful Catholics. But, if I understand correctly, that aspect of the Mass is dependent on the Mass' sacrificial character, and not the other way around.

Please correct me if I have misstated the faith of the Church.

tribus candelis said...

I am still confused by Mons. Ranjith's comment "is to signify in an unequivocal way that the Mass of Saint Pius V cannot be considered as abolished by the new Missal, said of Paul VI."

Even if the promulgation of the 1969 Missal was defective (which I do not believe)I still can not see how one can simply ignore the liturgical changes of 1964, 1964/5 and 1967 ordered by Pope Paul of blessed memory.

I have had a debate with several canon lawyers who have maintained 'old Rite not abrogated' but none have been able to say what this means in practice. Does, for example, the non-abrogated rite have bows to the cross at the mention of the Holy Name, does it have the 'middle voice' at Low Mass, does it have choir reverences, does it have proper last Gospels in Lent or folded chasubles?

All the canon law type arguments I have read tend to assume that an 'old' rite was replaced by a 'new' rite but from a perspective of twentieth century liturgical history that is not tenable.

Al Trovato said...

Tribus, you said:

" I have had a debate with several canon lawyers who have maintained 'old Rite not abrogated' but none have been able to say what this means in practice."

Maybe you should just stop talking about what you do not or cannot understand, and take the word of the Archbishop.

I take Ranjith's word on the matter, because I think he knows what he is talking about.

humboldt said...

Jordan Potter, I strongly disagree with your view that dogmas are not comprehensive. I believe that you are confusing the gist of the dogma with the accesories of the dogma. You hold the modernist view of dogma, which has been condemned by the magisterium of the church.

humboldt said...

With Peter, I certainly do not have enough knowledge to discuss the Augustine dogmas with you. However, I know that in our faith, there is a "hierarchy of thruths" and that this is the way in which to view the faith of the Church.

My knowledge of dogmas is centered around the essential dogmas of the catholic faith expressed in the Credo, which have been put forward by the Ecumenical Councils and the ex-cathedra magisterium of the Popes, not the theology dogmas.

As Pope Benedict XVI said recently, that is all we need.

However, to mantain the integrity of the deepening of the faith, then dogmas must be pondered and viewed in light of what they say, which is invariable, nor ammendable, nor qualified.

AMDG