In the image, the Lady Chapel of the Anglican Use Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement (San Antonio, Texas).
"The new arbiter of what is or is not 'Anglican'"What are you getting at New Catholic?Are you concern about the role of the Episcopal conference in determining who is or who is not Anglican when discerning the seminary life? Or are you questioning those Protestants Anglican?
No, Beng, he is saying that eventually the only Anglican Christians on earth will be the Anglicans in the Catholic Church -- any remaining non-Catholic Anglicans will be scarcely Christian, let alone Anglican.
I'd remind everyone here that, while Fr. Christopher Phillips's Anglican Use church has a lovely Altar, it is also stuck with the N.O. Offertory and that it totally, completely, and absolutely unacceptable.This deal is not complete yet.P.K.T.P.
RE Novus Ordo offertory, etc.I suspect we'll soon learn that the present Marini-influenced BDW and Anglican Use liturgy have a short half-life.
PKTP:Please, show a little humility! There's nothing "unacceptable" about the newer offertory prayers. Maybe there ARE better ones to choose from -- you're entitled to your opinion (with which I probably agree), but you're in no position to call them "unacceptable".Sheesh!
As to the offertory, hopefully the Anglican liturgical books that Rome approves will be either the English Missal or something very close to it, with the old offertory in there.On a quick glance through it today, the one issue in Constitution that comes out as less than totally positive is the statement that the ordinariates will be only for ex-Anglicans. A lot of us AU folk are wondering now where that will leave us, assuming, as is thought the case, and I dearly hope, that the AU parishes will adhere to the proper ordinariate. It is a well-known fact that the AU parishes are composed of a majority of non-former Anglicans; in fact, as I expressed it to someone the other day, the AU parishes would not have been able to grow and thrive (maybe not even survive) without other Catholics coming over and joining us. Frankly, over the years when I have encountered the attitude that only Anglicans need apply, I have become pretty much disedified, as there appears to be no good reason for the rule other than some clerics' desire to maintain the status quo, without consideration for the good of souls.A person of some influence in this area expressed to me that since of course any Catholic can assist at any Catholic rite, and one can even sign up to be a member of any parish, then there would likely be a kind of shared jurisdiction between the ordinariate and the local bishop (and the Ap. Const. seems to reflect this) and one could just "go there". All to the good, I suppose, but one still wonders why one cannot be juridically incorporated into the ordinariate. Is my concern just an American "joiner" kind of thing?So one hopes that this will be clarified in as generous a manner as the rest of Constitution seems to be drafted.Or else when asked I will have to say, truthfully, that as one born and raised a Methodist, I qualify because Methodists are just schismatic Anglicans, anyway.But faced with this kind of humiliation, I would add, just in case anyone in Rome or Newark is listening, I wonder if this is the rule in Western Rite Orhtodoxy, if you get my drift. [Answer: of course not.]
Thanks, New Catholic. That made my day! Great post!
"Please, show a little humility! There's nothing "unacceptable" about the newer offertory prayers. Maybe there ARE better ones to choose from -- you're entitled to your opinion (with which I probably agree), but you're in no position to call them "unacceptable".Wrong. They are a Jewish meal blessing. Please don't accuse me of being anti-semitic. It's simply my take on the issue – I have noting against the Jewish people. God save them!
Anonymous;SO WHAT that the "new" Offertory prayers are modified Jewish table blessings? That hardly makes them "unacceptable." Again, sheesh!
The offertory prayers of the Pauline Missal are obviously not a Jewish meal blessing. They are modeled on Jewish meal blessings and on the Didache's Christian eucharistic blessings (which in turn were derived from Jewish meal blessings).
Quote: "No, Beng, he is saying that eventually the only Anglican Christians on earth will be the Anglicans in the Catholic Church -- any remaining non-Catholic Anglicans will be scarcely Christian, let alone Anglican."And Canterbury and York Cathedrals will be turned into Mosques, because the "liberal" Anglicans still have control over them. And they will never return them to their rightful place and builders. The Roman Catholics.
"SO WHAT that the "new" Offertory prayers are modified Jewish table blessings? That hardly makes them "unacceptable." Are we Christians or Jews? Why do you think the changes were made by Paul VI et al? Ecumenism - that's why! Oh, and archeologism was condemned too – by Pius XII. The NO has to GO!
"Why do you think the changes were made by Paul VI et al? Ecumenism - that's why! Oh, and archeologism was condemned too – by Pius XII."Archeologism is a slap in the face of Catholic Tradition. It's like saying we should tear-down the Cathedrals which sometimes took centuries to build, and resume worshiping in hiding. Well, come to think of it, with the Bugnini assembly-line mass (a protestantized liturgy by commission) they did tear down something which took centuries to build, or nearly so (save for the good souls in the SSPX, etc.)Christ told Peter that he would BUILD His Church.http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/agatha.txt
The Apostolic Constitution has arrived.Great.But what happened to the document that was to clarify Summorum Pontificum?Would the publication of said document generate within the Church the same excitement that the Apostolic Document has generated?Tim
Our Churchmen have stressed that ecumenism as usual will continue with the Anglicans.In light of the Apostolic Constitution, what on earth could endless Vatican-Anglican ecumenism produce?Rome has just presented to Anglicans everything that they (Anglicans) could possibly desire within the realm of Catholic-Anglican unity -- unless Anglicans believe that Rome will someday say that Catholicism is wrong and Anglicanism is the true religion.If Rowan Williams and his fellow Anglican "bishops" and "priests" (along with their dioceses) lack the desire this second to enter into Communion with the Apostolic See, then they are simply not serious about entering into Communion with the Catholic Church.Tim
lexetlibertas:I would walk ten thousand mile to avoid the N.O. Offertory. I hate it with a passion, especially when one compares it to the Traditional Roman Offertory of 1474, which we had until 1970 (and now have again).Yes, it is totally unacceptable. It has no grounding in the liturgy of the Church; it comes supposedly (but only partially) from a Jewish grace; it was composed by egomaniacs and heretics in Bugnini's gang, whereas one does not compose liturgy, one safeguards it and removes errors and accretions; and it includes a Cranmerian reference to the Precious Blood of our Lord which was originally meant to imply that transubstantiation is false ("our spiritual drink"). And that's only for starters. The text apparently informs an ignorant God of what we have done for Him, and so forth, not to mention that "the work of human [as opposed to what?: chimpanzee?] hands" looks like a passage from a science fiction novel. I could say much more and have done so in the past.Then we could go further and point out what the new Offertory does NOT say, what it avoids say, esp. in comparison with the Traditional one. Don't get me started.P.K.T.P.
Woody:As I've explained on the other thread, this new provisions may not allow registration for those who were not formerly Anglican, but that is largely meaningless. Every Catholic will be able to fulfil the Sunday Mass there, go to confession, and receive Extreme Unction from its priests. In the case of the 'rare' Sacraments (e.g. Baptism) permission is needed from both bishops if a Latin wants it done in a parish of the ordinariate. Not a problem.P.K.T.P.
lexetlibertas:You don't quite get it. Catholic Liturgy is not dreamed up and does not come from forms which do not have a long-standing place in liturgical tradition. That is unthinkable. It is not we who make Liturgy but the Holy Ghost. I'm not against it because it is Jewish in origin (or, at least, based on a Jewish thanksgiving form). It wouldn't matter if it came from Afghanistan. The point s that it does NOT come from our liturgical tradition but is entirely foreign to it.Even worse is that the New Offertory fails entirely to anticipate the Consecration as a specifically propitiatory sacrifice. What is *apparently* being offered is bread, wine, thanksgiving, the 'bread of life', 'our spiritual drink'--anything except our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His divine will to submit perpetually to the Sacrifice at Calvary to atone for our sins and negligences. While the N.O. Offertory is definitely not heretical, it not prepare us for the unbloody Sacrifice; it doesn't even hint at the concept.Sheesh! Get with it.P.K.T.P.
I'm with P.K.T.P. -- the N.O. "presentation of the gifts" is a travesty. I refuse to say the response and I'm happy on those occasions when the priest recites the wretched lines inaudibly (ironically enough).What a lovely altar, though. It deserves a fitting offertory.
PKTP:As someone who has worked hard on behalf of the TLM in two dioceses, I hope my traditional credentials are beyond reproach.That said, I find that too many traditionalists have no concept whatsoever with organic development. For instance, let's take a side-by-side comparison between the Tridentine Mass, and a solemn High Novus Ordo, in Latin, ad orientem, with traditional music, and all the most traditional options.(Now granted, such Novus Ordos are celebrated in only 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of Catholic parishes, but bear with me here!)I would argue that such Novus Ordos (i.e., under the aforementioned conditions) ARE an organic development over the Tridentine Mass.I have put forward this comparison to traditionalists several times in recent years, asking them why my argument is flawed. Their answer? They'll point to differences between the two Masses. Well, duh! By the standard, NO CHANGE whatsoever is an organic development!We can complain all we wan about how the liturgy "can't be manufactures," but the fact remains that all the ancient diversity of liturgies had to come from SOMEWHERE, the collects and rubrics of the various, and disparate, sacramentaries had to come from somewhere and, yes, sometime, somewhere, SOMEONE had to "manufacture" them, and then impose them on their communities (parish, diocese, country, patriarchate, universal church, etc).Look, Catholic liturgy today is in a state of rot. It needs RADICAL reform (i.e., restoration). But we really should choose our battles. I really, REALLY could care less whether the silent Offertory prayers are the newer or the older, or whether at the minor elevation the celebrant hold the host over the chalice, or hold the elements apart.It's no wonder so many who don't share ou sensibilities dismiss us as a bunch of prissy effemes!
Catholic liturgy is in a state of rot only for the NO,as there is NO MASS. There is no problem when the tridentine mass is concerned. If NO is the organic development over tridentine mass, where are the developed parts? To tear apart the canonised rubrics of the mass of all times (tridentine)where the priest as the sacrificer offers the bread and wine in atonement of sins,salvation for faithful christians, souls in purgatory and expressly offered to God as a Sacrifice, and then put in something different, what organic development is there? What reasons are there? Gosh, what on earth do you do at mass if you are not even bothered with what prayers are used in offertory-catholic or protestantised?
lexetlibertas:Your main argument on organic devlopment suggests to me that you need to immerse yourself in Fortescue's work on the Mass, for instance. The liturgy comes from an unknown 'General Rite' of the apostolic age and early changes were collected over time from different regions and gradually, by a slow process, formed rites. Changes from quite early on were added by apostolic authority which did not compose but altered and re-arranged--and minimally, what had been accepted and received by the holy doctors and pious pastors of souls. In the first few centuries, the Liturgy was in its formative period, just as languages go through periods before evincing standardisation. Once a language is standardised, you don't butcher the grammer and change its basic rules. Hence there was more development in English in he 15th century than all the centuries combined since then.But all the additions of later times, in particular, were added in practice long before they were mandated. The Liturgy is a work of the Holy Ghost over this time and is a treasure to be preserved, not an experiment to be tinkered with by jackasses. And you don't completely replace an entire Offertory with something you half dream up. Nor do you replace the Canon (= rule) with four alternate rites of dubious usage and half composed in committee. I could say far too much here to take a day or two. The N.O. is a shocking departure from the Work of the Holy Ghost which it claims to develop. Organic development does not mean ripping out the organs and replacing them with some you've grown in the test tube of your tiny liberal mind. It does not mean replacing Catholic rites with Protestantistic ambiguities. The transmission from the early Church fathers is what protects the integrity of the Liturgy, and the Liturgy protects the Church. It is from the Liturgy that doctrine emerges, from received prayer.So the development was gradual, never sudden, and it goes back in an unbroken line to the Eigth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions--and from thence to the Last Supper. You don't fool with that unless you are Protestant in culture.P.K.T.P.
Anon. wrote:"It's no wonder so many who don't share ou sensibilities dismiss us as a bunch of prissy effemes!"Well, I don't know what planet you came from but I don't suffer fools gladly. Every time "radical" change comes, it comes from revolutionaries whose real aim is to deracinate the Faith which is enshrined in every gesture of the Mass. We look upon the Mass and Office as schools of devotion, not as workshops for experimentation. The Mass has several functions and one is didactic. We go there to learn, not to tinker. When we see a radical in our midst, the correct response is to treat him the way our Lord treated the moneychanngers in the Temple.P.K.T.P.
Even worse is that the New Offertory fails entirely to anticipate the Consecration as a specifically propitiatory sacrifice. What is *apparently* being offered is bread, wine, thanksgiving, the 'bread of life', 'our spiritual drink'--anything except our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His divine will to submit perpetually to the Sacrifice at Calvary to atone for our sins and negligences. While the N.O. Offertory is definitely not heretical, it not prepare us for the unbloody Sacrifice; it doesn't even hint at the concept.Interestingly enough, I once debated somebody who argued the the new offertory prayers are superior because they make clear that at that point of the liturgy what is being given to God is merely bread and wine, and that it is not at that moment a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. He claimed that the traditional offertory prayers make it sound like the priest is at that moment offering a mere host for all our sins, and said he knew a priest who had had that misconception of what the traditional offertory prayers meant.
Re: Organic development -The new Offertory prayers are not an organic development.Praying the Canon out loud is not an organic development.The cycle of readings in the N.O. is not an organic development.The rearrangement of the Calendar is not an organic development.Therefore, the Novus ordo celebrated with traditional trappings is not an organic development.
Roman rite NEVER had ANY other Eucharistic Prayer than the Roman Canon. New prayers written by the Commission are NOT organic development.Never in ANY rite having multiple Eucharistic Prayers, like the Byzantine, the celebrant had been allowed to choose freely which prayer to use. Typicon declares that and the celebrant has no choice.Allowing the celebrant to choose freely is NOT an organic development.The new lectionary is a PURE INVENTION.
It is at least rather doubtful that the church which is such a divided and compromised shadow of its pre-conciliar model, will be able to implement a full and rigorous inclusion of the more traditional anglican elements so that they become truly Roman Catholic in every doctrinal and liturgical sense. Married clergy, anglican liturgies and other norms and values may not be that convertible in the short-term. perhaps two hundred years is about right!
Perhaps two hundred years. Or perhaps two hundred days.
I often wonder if the traditional Anglicans at All Saints UK still has its beautiful Lady Chapel and the Latin "Mass" there which I witnessed in the early dark era 1970s of post-conciliar anathematised liturgical forms.
PKTP:I like Fr. Fortescue as much as the next guy, but the theory of a primitive, unknown "General Rite" shared by all the early Christian communities is harder to believe given recent scholarship. Professor Bradshaw at Notre Dame--the same scholar who has more or less debunked the theory that St. Hippolytus composed the canon in the Apostolic Tradition (Canon 2 in the N.O.)--is the man to read on this point.Also, the obsession over the offertory prayers in NO among Traditionalists has always bewildered me. The offertory prayers are certainly late additions. Ordo Romanus I (8th century) gives no indication that ANY prayer is said during the offertory, although we can probably assume the super oblata. Even after prayers started to accrue during the offertory, there is remarkable diversity among the various medieval uses regarding the offertory ceremony. Dom Cassian Folsom's Roman Rite or Roman Rites presented at the 2001 Fontgombault Liturgical Conference is a good place to start on this question. The new offertory prayers are dreadful and certainly lack the theological import of their counterpart in the Traditional Latin Mass. That said, other changes in the N.O. represent a starker break from tradition (e.g., the use of the Kyrie in the penitential rite or the new Eucharistic Prayers) than composing new offertory prayers. There are more better hills to die on.--crouchback
Interesting, a Professor Paul Bradshaw, a non-catholic but an ordained minister of the Church of England, the man to read on his scholarly work on the liturgy of the Catholic Church? Excuse me! By the authority and credibility of a Protestant scholar?! Fyi, Dom Cassian Folsom, OSB, whom you indicated to be a good source, commented on the 1 july 09 interview on Extraordinary Use that 'the newer form did not in fact grow organically from the older form. It was artificially pasted together by experts and them suddenly imposed'. Aren't you a bit obsolete? Offertory prayers must be clear, to indicate precisely the intentions of the catholic church, on what the Mass is about, as what follows is Consecration of bread and wine into Body and Blood of JC. Not important? And wonder why traditionalists are obsessed over the offertory prayers? Aren't you straining at a gnat (use of Kyrie for instance) and swallowing a camel?
P.K.T.P., by what authority do you declare the N.O. Offertory "unacceptable"? Is it acceptable to God but not acceptable to you?If the N.O. Offertory is acceptable to God then it should be acceptable to you. If you say that it is not acceptable to God, then you separate yourself from the Church, because the Pope declares that it is acceptable. If you claim that your personal authority supercedes that of the Pope and the Church then you are a Protestant.Now, if you only mean that the N.O. Offertory is "inferior" to some other Offertory, that is an acceptable position. But that isn't what you said.
Well, there we have it: NO CHANGES in the liturgy can EVER be considered organic developments! The Holy Spirit stopped developing the liturgy in 1962! Got it!These are EXACTLY the same arguments Eastern Orthodox polemicists employed, and still employ, when they condemn "Latin innovations."
As an Anglican that loves the old Mass (Missale Romanum and English Missal), I am always disturbed with the start-and-stop awkwardness of the NO, especially from the "Offertory" through to the dismissal. Its disjunctness reminds me very much of the Prayer Book Communion Service. This section of the Mass has the feel of a social affair.By contrast, the old Mass is so satisfyingly through-composed it necessarily exists "in medias res" of the eternal Sacrifice on Calvary and instructs Christians in this truth. There are no awkward starts and stops which give occasion to greet, as one would on the street, your neighbor. It is time of preparation to greet Him who made heaven and earth - an awful thing.Though for me, the most obnoxious part of this section of the NO is the "Let us proclaim the mystery of Faith..." It shows pompous disregard for the consecrated elements.Dv, the liturgy set for the Ordinatio Anglicanorum will tend toward the old Mass in these elements.
lexetlibertas said: Well, there we have it: NO CHANGES in the liturgy can EVER be considered organic developments! The Holy Spirit stopped developing the liturgy in 1962! Got it!Straw Man fallacy. The claim is that the new Offertory prayers are not an example of organic development in the liturgy, not that no changes in the liturgy can ever be considered organic developments.Though for me, the most obnoxious part of this section of the NO is the "Let us proclaim the mystery of Faith..." It shows pompous disregard for the consecrated elements.And what's worse, it's not even a part of the Roman Missal, which says, "Mysterium fidei" -- "the mystery of faith" -- NOT "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith." Thankfully that has been correctly translated in the new translation currently in preparation.
Jordanes:This is not a sraw man. If you've been following the posts, you'll see that EVERY change from the 1962 Missal to that of 1970 is dismissed as inorganic.Apparently, the only time a development can be organic (according to these posters), is if some priests commit liturgical abuses, and these abuses persist for centuries. It would seem top-down reform can never be organic.
JORDANES SAID: "And what's worse, it's not even a part of the Roman Missal, which says, "Mysterium fidei" -- "the mystery of faith" -- NOT "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith." Thankfully that has been correctly translated in the new translation currently in preparation.Not if Bishop Trautmann has his way with the translation...
Jordanes writes of another:"He claimed that the traditional offertory prayers make it sound like the priest is at that moment offering a mere host for all our sins, and said he knew a priest who had had that misconception of what the traditional offertory prayers meant."Well, hostia means 'Victim' amd 'this spotless host', to give just one example, could hardly be more explicit and could only mean ONE sort of sacrifice, a propitiatory one. The N.O. Offertory and the new canons avoid the term 'hostia' like the plague because if you have a Victim, you have a Sacrifice of Christ, not just a Protestant sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise.Anyone well versed in literary techniques knows that anticipation is one of the most emphatic ways of assertion. What your opponent *might* have argued is that some might be confused and might think that the Consecration had already taken place during or at the beginning of the traditinoal Offertory.I would point out that that very first prayer of the Offertory, as well as the last one, make the nature and propitiatory purpose of the Sacrifice crystal clear.P.K.T.P.
Adeodatus:It does not follow from the indefectiblility of the Church that an New Offertory must be acceptable to the faithful; there is no guarantee from the Church that every prayer inserted by even the Pope will reflect the divien will. Some can oppose it. Teh Chruch can only guarantee that a prayer is not heretical. But if it undermines the teaching of the Church and represens a rupture that harms the faith, the faithful should not accept it. This does not mean that they must not abide it but that they should avoid it if possible and should object to its imposition. When there is a breach of tradition, there can follow a breach of unity in prayer: lex orandi, lex credendi. On rare occasions, I do abide the New Offertory, as I do abide the New Mass. But this is only in the sense that I do not disrupt the liturgy. I will, in those canses, simply read the text of the T.L.M. while the priest intones the New Mass, observing him only at the elevation and sitting as far away from the 'activity' as possible.As we now know, the T.L.M. was illegally suppressed from 1974 (and de facto, from 1971). Those who refused to accept the New Offertory and attended the T.L.M. against orders from bishops and popes did so licitly.P.K.T.P.
Crouchback:No, the Offertory prayears are *relatively* late additions. It is typical of the neo-conservative view that it is always tinged by primitivism. Traditionalilsts value that which is 'transmitted', which is 'handed down'. The current Offertory Prayers in the real Roman Rite of Mass were stabilised in the local Mass at Rome in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century. They became general in the fifteenth century and appeared in the first printed Missal of 1474. They were universal by that time. So they have passed down to us for at least 500 years. That makes them traditional and their slow development and later approbation makes them an example of organic development. They were not composed like jiffy pop in a committee of cobbled up over ten years. They reflect the constant mind of the Church.P.K.T.P.
lexetlibertas:Abuses are changes to liturgy which undermine it AND are proscribed by legitimate authority. Legitimate authority does not simply legislate by act; it also approves by allowance. You are just spewing out nonsnese. P.K.T.P.
"Apparently, the only time a development can be organic (according to these posters), is if some priests commit liturgical abuses, and these abuses persist for centuries. It would seem top-down reform can never be organic."Organic development is when something is introduced on a precisely defined level (above a single priest, above a parish), with consent of a legitimate authority (may be tacit), with the intention of establishing an obligation to follow it for a certain community, and it must not be contrary to reason."Organic" comes from living organism. A committee trying to reshape whole body is not the way organisms (like the living Mystical Body of Christ) work.Liturgy is not a positivist product of imagination created in a void."Abuse" is not something that is contrary to the rubrics. It's the positivist, modern way of thinking.
This is not a sraw man. If you've been following the posts, you'll see that EVERY change from the 1962 Missal to that of 1970 is dismissed as inorganic.The commenters have not dismissed "every" one of those thousands of changes as inorganic.It's hardly possible, though, that every single one of those thousands of changes is inorganic -- nor is it plausible that, all those changes taken together, such a massive, complete overhaul of the Latin liturgy could qualify as organic development.Nevertheless, what is chiefly at issue is the Offertory prayers. Make a case that they are organic, if you can. (Good luck with that.)Not if Bishop Trautmann has his way with the translation...He won't.
PKTP:I don't know what you mean by "general," but the traditional offertory prayers were never adopted in several of the more prevalent medieval uses. The Sarum Use, the Rite of Lyons, and some of the religious orders (e.g., Carthusian) never followed Rome in this development. (The offertory prayers themselves, btw, probably aren't of Roman origin. They are the product of Rhenish & Frankish innovation and arrived in Rome around the late 12th/early 13th century.)Frankly, the fact that the traditional offertory prayers are of *relatively* recent vintage is more problematic than many Traditionalists would like to admit, at least insofar as they buy into the "organic development" thesis (which I do). A 500 year pedigree is nothing to sneeze at, but it loses *some* of its force when one considers that the organic development of the Roman Rite stopped--almost completely--with the promulgation of the Missal of St. Pius V. A venerable tradition is venerable not simply because it's old, but also because it has withstood constantly changing circumstances & exigencies. Once Rome became the sole legislator in matters liturgical, the normal experimentation, give-&-take, and adaptation that exert themselves on a liturgical practice ceased. From hence forth, all significant liturgical reform would be reform by committee. An example: the Roman Canon spread throughout Western Europe and even displaced hitherto traditional Gallican & Celtic anaphora(s). The success of the Roman Canon can in no small part be attributed to the prestige of the Apostolic See, but it is important to note that it was not mandated by legal command. The beauty, antiquity, and theological richness of the Roman Canon was compelling enough convince the various western Christian communities to adopt the Canon voluntarily. Not only that, the Canon remained untouched through the centuries despite being used in radically diverse cultures and polities. That history is an objective argument for respecting the Canon.In contrast, 500 out of the 700 or so years in which the traditional offertory prayers have been in existence can, at least in part, be explained by the force of law. I'm not saying there isn't any tradition backing it up (that's clearly not the case); just that those prayers lack the objective "umph" that the Roman Canon & other liturgical practices have. Also, please drop the ad hominem. I'm bored with the maxim of, when in doubt, accuse you're interlocutors of being "neoconservatives," a term used so frequently it is nearly bereft of meaning. I'm considered a cranky Traditionalists everywhere else, but I'm a neo-conservative--or better yet, "neo-Catholic"--on Rorate Caeli & other traditionally-minded blogs. One of the most troubling features found among so-called traditionalist Catholics is the tendency to frame everything in political terms and label those with whom they disagree.--crouchback
This is where I go to Mass every week. Definitely the wave of the future for Anglican's who wanna be saved.
Jordanes:Our own personal preferences notwithstanding (and you and I are probably of one mind and heart on the matter), how does one make a scientific case on whether a development is organic or not? I'm no liturgical obscurantist, but a lot of it is informed by intuition, which is highly subjective.(It's the same difficulty we come across when we try to differentiate between sacred and non-sacred music. The well-exposed Catholic just has a "sense" of it.)The "new" Offertory prayers make complete sense to me, given the century-long liturgical movement which preceded the Council, the rediscovery and re-appreciation of patristics, and a renewed sensitivity to the Jewish origins of the Catholic faith. The Novus Ordo PER SE is not such a radical liturgical overhaul. What IS radical is the practical implementation, an implementation aided and abetted by the "options" and omissions from the NovusOrdo rubrics.And I say this as one who STILL prefers the older prayers!Again I repeat my thesis: A beefed-up, Tridentined Novus Ordo, such as one finds at St John Cantius, several Oratories, and even (increasingly) the Papal Masses IS an organic development. This is not to say that further reforms and restorations may not be desirable, but words such as "unacceptable" and other exclamations which are more proper for your typical Novus Ordo should not be said of practices which are not, in themselves, contrary to our tradition.
"a renewed sensitivity to the Jewish origins of the Catholic faith."By "Jewish" you probably mean "mosaic", not "rabbinic"."how does one make a scientific case on whether a development is organic or not?"This problem is metaphysical, not physical so science has nothing to do with that. Ultimately you have to use your reason, not only compare to some objective criteria."A beefed-up, Tridentined Novus Ordo, such as one finds at St John Cantius, several Oratories, and even (increasingly) the Papal Masses IS an organic development."It is not, because we never had multiple Roman Canons (hahahah), free to be chosen by the celebrant, never we had such lectionary, etc. etc.But probably we will end up with something like that as a result of "reform of the reform".
"The Novus Ordo PER SE is not such a radical liturgical overhaul."Please take the next shuttle back to Mars.
As regards the traditional Offertory, the point is that it admirably sets forth the nature of the Mass; and it was for that reason that it was suppressed.I don't have any objections to folks speculating over the origins of the Mass; but you should understand that virtually all the relevant documentation has been known for a long time, and certainly since before Fortescue wrote. The rest is just the classic ebb and flow of scholarly conjecture.When I hear the word "organic," in this context, I quickly get both hands on my wallet. It is a house with many mansions, some of them flatly contradictory. The Mason Edmund Burke and the theosophist Hegel, among many others, had no problem with the notion of organic development, as long as you let them define it as they wished.The basic point is that revelation was complete with the death of the last apostle. The Faith has been around for a very long time, and the question regarding changes in the Offertory or anything else new is whether it is making clearer -- or more obscure -- what was given once for all to the saints.As I keep saying, the obscurity of the conciliar magisterium is evidence that something is very, very wrong. Those who do not intend to be liberals but resist this observation fall into one or both of two categories: (1) they don't really know enough about the faith of our fathers to see that it doesn't look much like the faith of V2, and/or (2) they don't want to know.
Well, hostia means 'Victim' amd 'this spotless host', to give just one example, could hardly be more explicit and could only mean ONE sort of sacrifice, a propitiatory one.Yes, and that is what my interlocutor emphasised -- because in the prayer over the Host, the Host was still bread and not yet THE Host, Jesus, but was nevertheless being offered to God as a propitiation for sin.The N.O. Offertory and the new canons avoid the term 'hostia' like the plague because if you have a Victim, you have a Sacrifice of Christ, not just a Protestant sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise.The new Eucharistic prayers do indeed use "host" or "victim" or "sacrifice" much less than the Roman Canon does, and I think they are entirely absent from Eucharistic Prayer II, the one most commonly used (since it is the shortest -- though my pastor insists that's not the reason he uses it 99% of the time -- sure, Father, whatever you say).I can see a case for not referring to the Eucharistic species as "Victim" or sacrifice during the Offertory (albeit not an especially compelling case), but in the Eucharistic Prayers or Anaphoras themselves there should definitely be some clear references to the propitiatory sacrifice.Anyone well versed in literary techniques knows that anticipation is one of the most emphatic ways of assertion. What your opponent *might* have argued is that some might be confused and might think that the Consecration had already taken place during or at the beginning of the traditinoal Offertory.No, he did argue that the traditional Offertory is misleading or apt to confuse, but his assertion is that it sounds like the priest is offering unconsecrated bread and wine for sin. My response was like yours: to underscore that the Offertory prayers are anticipatory, and to observe that it seems few people if any ever got confused about what was happening at the Offertory -- and so his objection seemed a pretty uncompelling reason to slash and burn the Offertory and substitute something entire new and inorganic.I would point out that that very first prayer of the Offertory, as well as the last one, make the nature and propitiatory purpose of the Sacrifice crystal clear.Yep -- this is why, although I do not find the new Offertory unacceptable as you do, I say it is blazingly obvious that the traditional Offertory is superior and preferable to the innovated Pauline Offertory. Harking back to the Church's Jewish roots (good)and eliminating the remote chance that somebody could misunderstand what is being done in the Offertory (okay) are simply not good enough reasons to strip out clear and beautiful references to propitiatory sacrifice, truncating the Lavabo, and eliminating our invocation of the saints with whom we are in mystical communion.
Our own personal preferences notwithstanding (and you and I are probably of one mind and heart on the matter), how does one make a scientific case on whether a development is organic or not?If you want a "scientific" case, you'd need to look at the historical evidence. The evidence is clear that the traditional Offertory prayers have quite a lot of history behind them, and that the new Offertory prayers were freshly composed in the 1960s. Looked at individually, that is not what you'd expect as organic development. If they were the only thing changed in the Missal at that time, one could argue that the Missal was organically developing under the cautious and prudent custody of the Holy See -- but instead we see that they were just one of many, many, many, many, many, many things changed in the liturgy, all within a few short years. Organic growth and development? No, that sure looks and feels a lot like the fresh manufacture of liturgy.The "new" Offertory prayers make complete sense to me, given the century-long liturgical movement which preceded the Council, the rediscovery and re-appreciation of patristics, and a renewed sensitivity to the Jewish origins of the Catholic faith. The Novus Ordo PER SE is not such a radical liturgical overhaul.It's not? Granted it's not entirely an inorganic development, but come on now -- never before in the Church's history had an entire Catholic rite been given a complete overhaul, leaving hardly anything as it was before.What IS radical is the practical implementation, an implementation aided and abetted by the "options" and omissions from the NovusOrdo rubrics.Yeah, that's for sure.Again I repeat my thesis: A beefed-up, Tridentined Novus Ordo, such as one finds at St John Cantius, several Oratories, and even (increasingly) the Papal Masses IS an organic development.It's certainly a LOT more organic than the typical Pauline liturgy.
By the way, Davies notes on p. 334 of "Pope Paul's New Mass" that our Offertory prayers were not just invented by some mediæval Freemason assisted by six heretics in the late thirteenth century: "they are all taken or adapted from non-Roman liturgies and can be traced back as far as the ninth century". By anticipation (exactly the same as in the Byzantine Rite, where the unconsecrated host is given similar honour in an Offertory which comes first in the Mass, behind the iconostasis, and where the host is honoured before the Consecration in the same way at the Great Entrance), we are told what will be offered. It is not 'the bread of life', an expression which has Protestant provenance for a merely spiritual Eucharistic Presence; no, it is the 'spotless Victim'. The only Victim in the universe Who is spotless is our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.Why was this changed? Why does hostia disappear from the N.O. Offertory and from Eucharistic Prayers No. 2, thereby making it possible to say the entire Mass without it? It is because Protestants don't accept the Mass as an unbloody sacrifice and we had to have a communion service which any Freemason could attend in good conscience. Why is that that the offerer in the traditional Offertory is the priest, "Thy unworthy servant" whereas the offerer in NewMass becomes "we", the believing community? Why is He offered? To atone for our "innumerable sins, offences, and negligences". That's not in the new Offertory. Duh! I wonder why not? He is also offered for the living and the dead. Not in the New Offertory. Not mentioned. Only lexetlibertas thinks this is no problemo.Only a dimwit could fail to see what is going on here. You do not replace a traditional form including some prayers which have their origins 1,000 years ago and replace them with a completely different content.Davies also refutes this ludicrous claim by lexetlibertas--mostly liberats--that 'scholars' (meaning 1970s sciolists and junk 'liturgists')have found that the Mass is a Jewish berakh and therefore requires a return to a Jewish form of offering (although the N.O. Offertory is a very far cry, in fact, from the Jewish form it was based on. Mostly, it is a Bugnini composition from his wild imagination.) He puts it succinctly on p. 333, destroying forever the arguments of the liberals: "The fallacy here is that although our Lord may have used the berakh format at the Last Supper, this no more makes the Eucharistic Prayer a berakh than it makes the Mass a Passover meal." This is because the Last Supper was not only a berakh but, far more importantly, a Sacrifice. Note that the Last Supper was an unbloody Sacrifice that *anticipated* the one on Calvary. Hence the Traditional Offertory actually imitates the action of Christ Himself. Did Someone or other say, "Follow Me"?When you tinker with the precious treasure of liturgy, you destroy the faith it enshrines. Where have all the faithful gone? Long time paaaaasing.P.K.T.P.
Jordanes, to make peace with lexetliberatas, wrote:"It's certainly a LOT more organic than the typical Pauline liturgy."No, there's nothing organic at all about composing a new Offertory and other parts of the Mass out of your wild imagination, aided and abetting by six heretics. There's nothing at all organic in development about replacing one form with something entirely different in content. Organic development is a metaphor which implies change like that in an organ as it ages. Ripping the organ out of the body and replacing it with something you concocted in committee and which is based on no form that has a history of liturgical usage--that is called rupture. It's the opposite of organic development.Lexetlilbertas tells us that we can perform a N.O. to make it look like the celebration of a T.L.M. (just as we can dress up a monkey in chasuble and cope and make him look like a priest.) Well, we could also change the rubrics of the T.L.M. so that it looked like a banjo Mass of the N.O., or even prayers at an ashram, complete with Hindu god above the Altar. That's why one must distinguish between the Mass itself and the celebration of any Mass. The Mass itself includes all its options and all its rubrics and all the approved translations and musical settings--all its libertas. Libertas has been the problem, Lex. So don't change your name to Lex Luther. But do change the surname.P.K.T.P.
Here's what a fly on the wall heard from a heretical Consilium:"Okay, okay, so we want to change the thing offered from Christ to a piece of bread which represents Christ. How do we pull it off? Remember, we have to get this past Ottaviani.""Well, in our Methodist Church, we use the term 'bread of life' to imply only a spiritual Real Presence, for the bread of life is like the living water. We're not cannibals here!""What about the blood, though, the blood.""Our founder, Thomas (and not Aquinas), used the term 'spiritual drink'. He almost went too far with that one but we might get away with it.""All right. But we also want to remove Christ as the one [sic] who [sic] sacrifices himself [sic]. Remember, we're trying to change this ceremony into a dinner. We can't have the guest offing himself.""Not a problem. In my Marxist cell, the only god we believe in is ourselves. So we'll make the offerer the believing community. Write down 'we'"."But how can we justify that theologically? Paul VI has not been converted to atheism yet.""Well, you know, Hannibal, in a sense, God really is there in the community because the that ghost guy is present in every soul.""Well, not really, he's [sic] not there in those who are unworthy and who can't approach communion. He flees those souls.""Come on!, Hannibal. Nobody admits to sin these days. How many stay in their pews? Nobody wants a sign around his neck saying, Look at me the sinner! Everybody's a saint now.""Well, we're agreed on one thing. There can be no victim here and no reference to our unworthiness in the Offertory."P.K.T.P.
A beefed-up, Tridentined Novus Ordo, such as one finds at St John Cantius, several Oratories, and even (increasingly) the Papal Masses IS an organic development.What exactly is "organic" about it? Organic development, by its very nature, is largely imperceptible - an expert might notice the changes, but not generally the laymen in the pews. Someone who has attended nothing but the Novus ordo since 1969 might be fooled into thinking that a Novus ordo with traditional trappings was the Mass of his youth, but no one who has assisted at the TLM regularly would be so taken.This is not to say that I actually oppose celebrating the Novus ordo in this way - it's certainly better than celebrating it in the way in which it is usually celebrated.But it ain't organic.
1) I never said the Eucharistic Prayer was a Jewish "berakh". I simply noted the fact that Catholic worship did not arise in a vacuum, that it had several Jewish antecedents, and there is nothing, in principle, wrong with the Church trying to recover SOME of that from time to time. This is NOT the fallacy of antiquarianism, which turns such otherwise legitimate tendencies (resourcement) into a radical ideology and in principle rejects all, or nearly all, development.2) I think we go too far when we say that all organic development is imperceptible. Some is, and some isn't. When seeds sprout, that's VERY perceptible, when trees bear fruit, VERY perceptible, etc. Same with children. And organic organisms are sometimes pruned, decorated, clothed, etc. I'm not saying there aren't obvious differenced, but a TRADITIONAL-oriented Novus Ordo is simply not ALL that different than a Tridentine Mass. "Monkeys dressed in chasubles?" Give me a break!Again,I urge all of you to school yourselves in some of the traditional Orthodox objections to "Latin innovations," as well as check out the "Society of St Pius I" spoof that someone developed a while back. And stop assuming that those of us who don't believe Tradition was frozen in 1962, and who support a reform of the reform (and the Tridentine indult to the extent it furthers that end) are traditionalist sell-outs, especially when we (reform of the reformers) face all manner of persecution in our dioceses precisely for promoting the Tridentine Mass! More often than not, we're the ones doing the REAL work for the Traditional Mass, while you schismatically-inclined rad-trads spend hours bitching and moaning in your monarchist tea parties.;-)(No, I am not anti-monarchy, but I do think it's ridiculous when Catholic rad-trads sit around plotting how to turn America into one. Most unconservative . . .)P.S. I do not mean to suggest that all critique of the Novus Ordo is an inclination to schism. Several of PTKP's remarks, however, are VERY schismatic-friendly. As are those of others on this forum. I do NOT say this of the moderators and administrators.
lexetlibertas:"I simply noted the fact that Catholic worship did not arise in a vacuum, that it had several Jewish antecedents, and there is nothing, in principle, wrong with the Church trying to recover SOME of that from time to time."Yes, it would be wrong to try to recover that and it would be a form of antiquarianism. The Mass already has Jewish influences in its essential form, such as the ordering of lections and psalms. This no doubt came from its ancient genesis. Chant also has such influences. There is no need to re-Judaise anything. What is your agenda here? Mine is to preserve tradition, what has been handed down. That includes all the various influences from the earliest times to later times. Throwing in a Jewish thanksgiving prayer which has absolutely no known antecedents is not even a form of archæologism; it is pure innovation.P.K.T.P.
lexetlibertas:"a TRADITIONAL-oriented Novus Ordo is simply not ALL that different than a Tridentine Mass."If you are judging by outward appearances, we can make the N.O. look like the real thing and we can make the real thing look like the N.O. But differences are more than outward appearances. The monkey and the priest can wear the same chausble but there's quite a difference between them. Similarly, the Offertory which admirably reflects the Church's teaching is quite different from one which is open to a Protestant heretical interpretation. Very different. But we can see experimentally how successful the dressed up N.O. is. Go to the website of the Latin Liturgy Assoc. but keep in mind that it tends to be slow to remove the listings of N.O. Masses in Latin. There are only a fraction as many of these Latin N.O.s with all the smells and bells as there are of T.L.M.s in the U.S.A. People don't need the dumbed down version or the broken toy when the real thing is available--and they won't stand for it.P.K.T.P.P.K.T.P.
lexetlibertas, hardly able to conceal his true colours:"And stop assuming that those of us who don't believe Tradition was frozen in 1962, and who support a reform of the reform."Which is it? Do you favour a reform of the 1962 Mass or a reform of the 1970 Mass--or a reform of both?Doesn't it occur to you that the aftermath of a revolution is the worst possible time for yet more tinkering? We don't need more change; we need at least fifty years of stability in order to recover from an unmitigated disaster. Why the need to tinker? Can't you find something else to change? Perhaps you could repair cars or something.Not one word in the Ordinary of the Mass was changed--not even a comma--between 1637 and 1884. That's quite a long period of time. And there was almost zero change from 1884 to 1962. And almost zero from 1474 to 1637. And guess what? The sky didn't fall. That's because, despite the huge differences in culture between the fifteenth and twentieth centuries, the Mass had reached a high degree of perfection under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. But the sky has fallen now. They made more changes in one year than they had made in the previous 500. And guess what? They had to revise the 1970 rite twice in just thirty years. That's because it is one huge error.P.K.T.P.
lexetliberatas, writing with sophomorphic sophistication, writes:"I think we go too far when we say that all organic development is imperceptible. Some is, and some isn't. When seeds sprout, that's VERY perceptible, when trees bear fruit, VERY perceptible"When trees burn down, that's very perceptible too.Organic change needn't be imperceptible to an single individual in one place. But it does need to be tolerated by legitimate authority which allows it and it needs to be adopted universally from being accepted locally.Some seeds sprout but removing an Offertory with a chainsaw and replacing it with a potted plant of dubious provenance (and having no liturgical precedent): that's not sprouting; it's grafting at best and deracination at worst.I've rarely heard such nonsense. Litugiologists divine that there several ways to change liturgy, such as addition, deletion, substitution, re-ordering, recasting, alteration of rubrical direction, alteration of rubrical terminology, and change in musical settings. One small change which is urgent or clearly needed might be called organic when it is tolerated locally and only adopted universally after careful consideration. The N.O. radically alters the liturgy in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY I've mentioned and does it in just one year. That's not organic development; it's rupture. It's like the Chinese Government's levelling of entire neighbourhoods in Peking so as to build office toweers in glass and steel.Again, the Mass cannot be reduced to one celebration thereof; it includes all the options and everything the rubrics allow. A priest can easily celebrate the N.O. licitly in a way which makes it so different from the Mass of Tradition that you'd never guess that the two are even from the same religion.An N.O. which looks like a T.L.M. is really just a different version of any N.O. And under the smells and bells are very different prayers which suggest radically different meanings. Some of us actually pray the prayers as we go, while others just notice the lovely vestments. For the former, there will be a huge difference between a dressed-up N.O.M. and the real thing. For those of us who actually care what prayers we pray and what they mean, the difference will in every case be monumental.P.K.T.P.
Come on, Mr. Perkins -- please leave out the insinuations and put downs like "hardly able to conceal his true colours" and "lexetliberatas, writing with sophomorphic sophistication," and just respond directly to what he is asserting and arguing. We don't want to reject otherwise unobjectionable comments, but if that's what we have to do that's what we do.
I thought this thread was about Anglicanism, not a place to argue about the relative liturgical merits of the NO versus the TLM. I am an Anglican who was already in RCIA when this was announced and am very excited by the text of Anglicanorum Coetibus and the Complementary Norms.I do have to say, though, that the kind of off-putting, holier-than-thou attitude I see in these comments is exactly the sort of thing that keeps many of my soon-to-be-former Anglican brethren away from the One True Church--many of whom are very traditional in many of their views on moral and social issues and appreciate beautiful liturgy.I think you would all do the Church a service if you conducted your discussion with a bit more charity.God bless you.
For many who supposedly oppose all things Judaic, the hand-wringing over the offertory prayers is positively Talmudic! Clearly, "traditionalists" have their own phylacteries."The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform" by Cipriano Vagaggini (who was no modernist) points out the defects of the Tridentine offertory -- and by no means was this criticism restricted to Vagaggini. Simply put, the unconsecrated elements shouldn't be referred to as if the consecration has already occurred."Blessed are you, Lord", "Blessed be God", and variants thereof can be found frequently in the Old Testament -- as well as in many Tridentine postcommuions.Heimbichner and Hoffman, among other "trads" are wrong on this point.
For many who supposedly oppose all things Judaic, the hand-wringing over the offertory prayers is positively Talmudic! Clearly, "traditionalists" have their own phylacteries.Let's avoid invidious comparisons and baiting. Furthermore, while there are those who oppose "all" things Judaic, they are not participating in this discussion.
Simply put, the unconsecrated elements shouldn't be referred to as if the consecration has already occurred.If that argument has any validity, why did it take 900 years for the Church to realise it?"Blessed are you, Lord", "Blessed be God", and variants thereof can be found frequently in the Old Testament -- as well as in many Tridentine postcommuions.That hardly justifies throwing out what amounts to a 1,000-year-old tradition in favor of an innovation that does not adequately express the significance of the offertory action of the Mass.
"Simply put, the unconsecrated elements shouldn't be referred to as if the consecration has already occurred."Assuming that the unconsecrated elements are referred to as if they are consecrated, the assertion that they should not be is simply false. The fact that they are referred to as such is testimony to how ancient the Offertory prayers are. Do we tell Eastern Catholics and Orthodox to change their Liturgy because it seems to refer to the Sacred Species as unconsecrated AFTER the consecration? If we take this argument to its logical conclusion, then we should also advocate the removal of the Epiklesis from those Liturgies that place it after the Consecration.It is most unfortunate that those who believe the Novus ordo (in all its varieties) to be an inorganic development should be tarred with such epithets as "rad-trad," "schismatic-friendly," "schismatically-inclined," etc.
Anon 12:56:"Simply put, the unconsecrated elements shouldn't be referred to as if the consecration has already occurred." So, you are inferring that the Holy Ghost has erred in His inspiration and guidance of the development of the ancient and venerable Mass? And a committee of heretics and one Bugnini got it right? As Mr. Perkins pointed out, Our Lord celebrated His passion and crucifixtion BEFORE its actuality.A little catechizes to instruct the faithful is what is necessary, not the fabrication of a new rite that completely obfuscates the sacrificial nature of the Mass. As a child of 7, 8 years, when attending the old Mass, I understood at what point transubstantiation occurred.Are people getting dumber now, that they can't understand what even illiterate peasants correctly understood?
Jordanes and Anon 12:56,Working from memory, I believe that Fortescue says of the Offertory that it is part of a single act, the Mass, and so the language of the Offertory is quite appropriate. I believe that he also notes that the Orthodox liturgy has similar and more extensive "anticipatory" language. This strikes me as the right explanation; and the notion that the Offertory prayers were wrong ab initio, and canonized as such by St. Pius V, strikes me as not so much wrong as goofy.
"If that argument has any validity, why did it take 900 years for the Church to realise it?"1) Ritual is the most conservative element in almost every religion, and so most prone to irrational archaism.2) I don't think "Anonymous" is arguing that the old Offertory prayers are INHERENTLY wrong. They certainly can be justified. But there's nothing wrong with questioning their prudence.3) As for why we don't demand like revision of the Eastern liturgies - since the vast majority of Eastern Christians do not belong to the Catholic Church, the ecumenical implications would be disastrous.4) Again let me state that I have no personal commitment to the new Offertory prayers. I myself am neutral on the subject, and couldn't care less one way or another. I've bigger fish to fry. In the meantime, to refer to them as "unacceptable" is itself a most unCatholic sentiment.
Woody, as I understand it, everyone who is registered in an AU parish will be folded into the Ordinariate.My personal hope is that the Ordinariates might be used in an expansive way as the "Doorway" into the Catholic Church for Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians who are reconciling with the Church.Clearly, the form of the personal ordinariate would be ideal for the situation in Norway, Sweden, and Finland where there are large segments of very traditional "Evangelical-Catholic" Lutherans. Through the intercession of St. Birgitta, St. Henry, and the ancient faithful of Nidaros, God grant that it may be so.
Someone from the Anglicans mentioned being a bit more charitable here.Essentially, what we have here is a blog mostly frequented by traditionalists. Along comes a defender of the New Mass. To refute him adequately, we'd have to publish a few books and then post them. That's a bit beyond our scope. And why do here all over again what peole like Davies have done already? So we can only touch on the essentials.I think that the traditionalists here have responded adequately to lexetlibertas. He has made it clear that he is involved with the St. John Cantius group at Chicago. It is one of those mixed communities which offers tradition-leaning N.O. Masses, the T.L.M. and the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. You want some charity? All right: they are trying to do good and have done much good. No question. But the route they have taken was mistaken, I think. One can applaud a reform of the reform only because it moves the faithful closer to the real thing, which is the Traditional Latin Mass. But if there is a real risk of moving people to a compromise liturgy, I'd have to oppose that. The via media is only good if the two extremes are good, but a via media between something good and something bad is bad. I have made explicit here exactly why the N.O. Offertory does SERIOUS HARM both to the mean of liturgical change and to the doctrine of the Faith. It is clearly designed to be open to a Protestant interpretation and it removes absolutely essential doctrine not on some minor point but on the central meaning of the Mass. What is being offered? Nothing could be more essential and the N.O. Offertory is delibrately ambiguous about it. Who is offering this? It is first and foremost an offering of Christ through the hands of the priest and the N.O. Offertory actually removes reference to this fact.When you have an entrenched Offertory of over 500 years, it makes for a STANDARD. So the question is this: To what extent does the N.O. Offetory detract from that standard? Does it convery different meaning? Does it imply different meaning? Is it open to a different interpretation? Are the points of difference major here? They are major, for the Mass also has a catechetical end and we are referring to the CENTRAL MEANING of our salvation. That's major.Who would want to take a perfect Offertory which entrenches the Church's teaching in superb Latin (much better than the early Latin of the Canon, by the way) and replace it with something open to heretical interpretation? Also, some here have tried this false route: that the unconsecrated species should not be treated by anticipation as if they were consecrated. Well, guess what?: even the N.O. Offertory does that. If 'bread of life' and 'spiritual drink' mean what their modernist defenders claim, then they are ALSO participating in anticipation! It's just that their words are open to other meaning, meaning which they will not admit to. 'Bread of life' must either be a reference to transubstantiation OR to a merely spiritual presence. But surely there can be NEITHER form of presence in the unconsecrated host! So they are anticipating as well. So much for their attempts to confuse the question.So, yes, I am angry here. I will defend the Traditional Offertory and the Traditional Mass with my life, come rack or ruin.
"If that argument has any validity, why did it take 900 years for the Church to realise it?"1) Ritual is the most conservative element in almost every religion, and so most prone to irrational archaism.Make a case, if you can, that ANY element of the Church's liturgy over the past 2,000 years is an "irrational archaism."The reason nobody ever noticed any problems with the traditional Offertory until recently is because it is nothing more than a modern, highly dubious liturgical hypothesis that there is anything wrong with the traditional Offertory.2) I don't think "Anonymous" is arguing that the old Offertory prayers are INHERENTLY wrong. They certainly can be justified. But there's nothing wrong with questioning their prudence.He referred to "the defects of the Tridentine offertory" and asserted, "Simply put, the unconsecrated elements shouldn't be referred to as if the consecration has already occurred." He was clearly doing more than just questioning their prudence.3) As for why we don't demand like revision of the Eastern liturgies - since the vast majority of Eastern Christians do not belong to the Catholic Church, the ecumenical implications would be disastrous.It has also been argued that the post-Vatican II liturgical reform has also harm ecumenism with Eastern Christians.
Incredibly, lexetliberats writes this:"As for why we don't demand like revision of the Eastern liturgies - since the vast majority of Eastern Christians do not belong to the Catholic Church, the ecumenical implications would be disastrous."In other words, if there had been no Schism in 1054 and all the Eastern churches had remained wholly Catholic, it would be perfectly fine to 'correct' their ancient Offertories to something like the Bugnini Offertory.So much for the wisdom of the fathers. Who needs it when Annibale Bugnini is there to correct it and show us a better way, assisted by six heretics? The difference is that it was only Bugnini who ended his days as an exile in Iran. I can only close by saying that anyone who has as much disregard as lexetliberats has for the wisdom of the fathers and the operation of the Holy Ghost over the centuries just lacks any sensus catholicus whatsoever. Fortunately, such people have almost no influence on Benedict XVI.P.K.T.P.
lexetlibertas writes:"Again let me state that I have no personal commitment to the new Offertory prayers. I myself am neutral on the subject, and couldn't care less one way or another. I've bigger fish to fry."!!!! Really! Bigger fish to fry? The central meaning of the Mass is beneath you. Well, that's a relief!"In the meantime, to refer to them as "unacceptable" is itself a most unCatholic sentiment."Well the entire traditionalist movement exists because the New Mass is unacceptable. I didn't claim that the New Offertory rendered the New Mass invalid; and I did admit that I attend the New Mass to fulfil the obligation when I have no other choice. But none of us is required to accept the New Mass in principle because the Traditional one, as we now know, was never abrogated! Tell me one bloody place where it is asserted by Rome that I must accept the New Mass. We also have the Eastern Divine Liturgies. P.K.T.P.
Also, some here have tried this false route: that the unconsecrated species should not be treated by anticipation as if they were consecrated. Well, guess what?: even the N.O. Offertory does that. If 'bread of life' and 'spiritual drink' mean what their modernist defenders claim, then they are ALSO participating in anticipation!Okay, but the advocates of the Pauline Offertory will just point out that it says "it will become for us the Bread of Life" and "it will become our spiritual drink." In this way, it more explicitly indicates that the consecration is yet to take place, something implicit and understood with the traditional Offertory. It's a different sort of anticipation.
Jordanes writes:"Okay, but the advocates of the Pauline Offertory will just point out that it says "it will become for us the Bread of Life" and "it will become our spiritual drink." In this way, it more explicitly indicates that the consecration is yet to take place, something implicit and understood with the traditional Offertory. It's a different sort of anticipation."All right, Jordanes, you are correct. Fault me for not knowing the N.O. words by heart. I wish I'd never heard them in my entire life.The essential point stands. Anticipation in the Offertory was there for 500 to 900 years in the West and even longer in the Byantine and Armenian and Alexandrine and Chaldean Rites. That and that alone creates a standard in which anticipation is used to draw attention to what the Blessed Eucharist is. And what is it? It is the 'spotless Victim'. The only spotless Victim is Jesus Christ, both perfect God and perfect Man. Victime implies transubstantiation because it was in His Sacred Humanity that He atoned for us on the Cross. So He must be present physically AND spiritually. 'Bread of life' and 'spiritual drink' are open to a Protestant interpretation. Given the standard, it implies that He might be there only spiritually or only symbolically.P.K.T.P.
On Mr. Uher's points:1. I suppose that it will be up to the American bishop responsible for the pastoral provision to decide this matter, in consultation with the A.U. clergy. I think that Mr. Uher is probably right. I understand further that some in the A.U. are not entirely satisfied with the A.U. liturgy and mainly because of that horrid N.O. Offertory (which also breaks with the Anglican liturgy æsthetically because it is not in liturgical English but the conversational English of the N.O.M.). A contact of mine says that the Liturgy being finished now in Rome, due for publication next month, will be given to all the ordinariates. We can pray that it will not include the N.O. Offertory (at least as mandatory) and will be embraced by the A.U. parishes.2. I think that you make an excelllent point about other Protestants, one which I had not considered. Lutheran bishops in Sweden and Estonia have already approached Archbishop Hepworth and also Forward-in-Faith on this. In fact, one FiF bishop spike at the recent meeting there on the ordinariates. They were told that the apostolic constitution was for Anglicans alone, and this is confirmed by its very first line.However, there is nothing to stop other Protestants from accepting an Anglican patrimony and liturgy and then this could be adapted to local or ritual conditions of others. Much of what is dear to people is ritual or music not strictly part of the Mass, such as the Bach cantatas! This might work for the Lutherans. I'm less sanguine in the case of the others. Why would Methodists and Presbyterians want that sort of Anglican formalism? It seems to me that they might be more comfortable with the very informal N.O.M. and the regular Roman Church. Do you have further comments on this?P.K.T.P.
The New Offertory prayers or "Preparation of The Gifts" was essentially another stage in the successful attempt to neutralise, along with other parts of The Holy Mass, the Roman Catholic sense of oblation in the liturgy which idea is offensive to protestants. It was Luther who railed at "That abomination called the Offertory and from this point almost everything stinks of oblation!" The new "Preparation" does this very well. The partial Jewishness of it is not the real issue although some find this inappropriate, but the protestantisation of Catholic liturgical embodiment. This would help to explain why many protestants feel they can accept the NO service & even attend it as it is hardly offensive anymore. The sense of oblation has been compromised extremely well by Bugnini which was intentional. Its anthropocentricity achieves the rest together with its implicit renvoi, perhaps unintentional, to Cain's unacceptable sacrificial practice.A mere reading of the words and a contrast with the Latin Mass offertory illustrates almost all we need to understand here.
Rosalind Moss said on Catholic Answers a year or so ago the the offertory prayers are Jewish prayers.Also, I think it's in the book "Priest, Where Is Your Mass" that many priests said they had the most problems with the offertory prayers of the novus ordo.
Re whether or not the Pauline Offertory prayers are "Jewish" prayers:They were obviously modeled somewhat on the traditional Jewish meal blessings over bread and wine, with the Didache's Eucharistic blessings not out of view.Traditional Jewish blessing over bread:Blessed art Thou, Lord our God, King of the Universe, who bringest forth bread out of the earth.Didache's prayer over the bread:We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory forever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.Pauline Missal's prayer over the bread to be consecrated:Blessed art Thou, Lord God of all creation, for through Thy goodness we have received the bread we offer Thee: fruit of the earth and work of human hands, it will become for us the Bread of Life.Traditional Jewish blessing over wine:Blessed art Thou, Lord our God, King of the Universe, who createst the fruit of the vine.Didache's prayer over the Chalice:We thank Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory forever.Pauline Missal's prayer over the wine to be consecrated:Blessed art Thou, Lord God of all creation, for through Thy goodness we have received the wine we offer Thee: fruit of the vine and work of human hands, it will become our spiritual drink.(Incidentally, the reference to "spiritual drink" probably has something to do with the Didache's post-communion thanksgiving prayer, which includes the words, "Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant [Jesus].")
Let's get this 'Jewish aspect' off the table here.1. Christianity is essentially Jewish in its foundation. Christians are the 'true Jews', the inheritors of the Promise. It isn't a promise made to Hindoos before the coming of Christ.2. Christian ceremonial and liturgy is forever tied to Jewish worship in its foundation. The 'Office' and Mass would have been contextualised completely in traditions from Temple worship and the form of prayer used in synagogues in the Apostolic Age.3. However, the modern Jewish religion is not Jewish is the proepr sense, since it is not the successor at all of the Old Testament. It was reformulated in the early Middle Ages from those who rejected Christ, and its modern form is largely masoretic; that is, it is a reaction against Christianity, the true Judaism.4. It makes little sense to borrow from those Jewish forms which were not already imbedded immemorially in our liturgical custom. In fact, there is the risk here of appearing to amend our ancient liturgy in order to appease modern Jews, who are the enemy of the Faith. Note that other aspects of the Offertory and the Canons appear to be intruded to appease Protestants who reject the notion of oblation. None of this is symbolically proper. In fact, until the communist enemies of the Church took over our schools of theology in the 1960s, none of it would have been even conceivable.There should be nothing altered in our Mass to make it more palatable to Jews, to Protestants, to Freemasons, to Muslims, or to bicycle worshippers, for that matter. But even if none of these motives were present, it would still be unprecdented and just wrong to replace an ancient rite (e.g. Offertory) of 500 years standing and replace with with something novel, regardless of origin. Our liturgical rites have coalesced over time as means to protect and enshrine our essential beliefs. You don't fool with that.P.K.T.P.
No, Jordanes, the reference to spiritual drink was adapted straight from Cranmer's Communion Service, and commentators observed that at the time. Note that Cranmer, like Bugnini, had it refer directly to the Eucharist. The expression "spiritual food" appears in the Anglican Communion prayer right after the Lord's Prayer: "spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ".Then comes this in their Exhhortations: "for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ". Then comes this: God "hath given his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance".I'm told that 'spiritual food', 'spiritual bread' and 'spiritual drink' are used by them elsewhere in approved prayers. The Consilium was advised by seven heretics and two or three of them were Anglican theologians. The idea that the formula came from the Didache was dreamed up later as a cover.The later two references here are from their Exhortations, which, I'm told, the TAC Anglicans never or very rarely use (some of them ooppose them on principle). I'm not sure off the top of my head what they do about the earlier reference. I am quoting from online sources from the Canadian prayerbook but the others are similar. I know that the TAC deCranmerises but I'll have to check to see what they've done about the first reference.Cranmer may have derived his references from the O.T. because the Blessed Eucharist was often connected to the 'spiritual food' of the 'manna from Heaven' in mediæval typology. Cranmer's purpose, like that of Animal Bugnini, was to imply that the Eucharist is only Christ 'after a spiritual manner'. In other words, His soul and divinity are there but His Body and Blood are not.P.K.T.P.
I applaud Jordanes for showing us correctly that the NewMass Offertory has clear Jewish parallels. On the other side, however, notice the enormous *differences* between the Jewish prototypes and the N.O. Offertory. Essentially, Bugnini, whom Paul VI came to believe was a Freemason and later exiled to Iran, borrowed from Jewish models in order to insert something from the infidel masoretic religion into our precious liturgy. That was the first insult. But it wasn't enough. He also wanted to indulge in composition, like a modern-day Mozart (except that, unlike Mozart, he had no talent). So then he added a good deal that was *not* directly from Jewish prototypes. And this added bit was formulated so as to remove any hint of oblation from the Offertory. In earlier times, even for exprssing such a plan, he would have been racked and then burnt. But the 1960s NewChurch was not meant to be ancient Church but a false-seeming substitute for it.P.K.T.P.
Just some comments, quibbles, and nitpicks, Mr. Perkins, because I'm in that kind of mood right now . . .However, the modern Jewish religion is not Jewish is the proepr sense, since it is not the successor at all of the Old Testament.True. It's "Old Testament pedigree" is genuine, but it is not the "successor" to the Old Testament Jewish religion. Like Ishmael and Isaac were both children of Abraham, but in Isaac is the Seed of Abraham called, not in the son of the bondwoman.It was reformulated in the early Middle AgesNo, it was a bit before the early Middle Ages. The reformulation can be seen already by the end of the first century, and proceeded in earnest throughout the second and third centuries.from those who rejected Christ, and its modern form is largely masoretic; that is, it is a reaction against Christianity, the true Judaism."Rabbinic" or "Talmudic" are better terms than "Masoretic," which refers specifically to the textual tradition of the Scriptures of Orthodox Judaism.But these observations and nigglings do not touch your argument, with which I agree.No, Jordanes, the reference to spiritual drink was adapted straight from Cranmer's Communion Service, and commentators observed that at the time.To be clear, I did not and do not deny the role played by the Cranmerian use of "spiritual drink." However, the text of the Didache was rediscovered in 1875, so it wasn't known in Cranmer's day. Bugnini's Consilium didn't just have a Protestantising tendency, but also wallowed in archaeologism, so the Didache's reference to "spiritual food and drink" in a Eucharistic context would have been just too tempting for them to pass up, so to speak, because it would have appealed both to their Protestantising and to their archaeologising liturgical tendencies. "The idea that the formula came from the Didache was dreamed up later as a cover"? Yes, I think that can be a good way to put it. Anyway, I didn't mean that the Pauline Offertory drew its reference to "spiritual drink" directly from the Didache, but I think the Didache reference did have something to do with it. (Cranmer as well as the Didache, of course, would have gotten the words "spiritual drink" from I Cor. 10:4, which however does not directly reference the Eucharist.)
Jordanes writes:However, the text of the Didache was rediscovered in 1875I thought that it was 1885, not 1875, by Byrennios, Greek Orthodox of Nicomedia. I am recalling this entirely from memory and have not checked on-line. Is this mistaken?P.K.T.P.
Jordanes writes:No, it was a bit before the early Middle Ages. The reformulation can be seen already by the end of the first century, and proceeded in earnest throughout the second and third centuriesTo my recollection, there were indeed first re-formulations from the second and third (not first) centuries, after the fall of the Second Temple in 130 (? date). But I didn't stay that the reformulation began with the masorrah. What I meant is that is was very decisive in creating what is there now.P.K.T.P.
I thought that it was 1885, not 1875, by Byrennios, Greek Orthodox of Nicomedia.It turns out we're both wrong, but your recollection was more accurate than mine. It was 1873, not 1875, that Bryennios discovered the manuscript, and it was in 1885 that the text was published by Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. You at least remembered the 1885 date, whereas I mashed that one together with the 1873 date and came up with 1875.
Jordanes writes:"Bugnini's Consilium didn't just have a Protestantising tendency, but also wallowed in archaeologism, so the Didache's reference to "spiritual food and drink" in a Eucharistic context would have been just too tempting for them to pass up, so to speak, because it would have appealed both to their Protestantising and to their archaeologising liturgical tendencies."Ahem. I suspect that the very well-known expression in Protestantism was the inspiration. They might have then plumbed the references from which that came. They were advised by two or three Anglican theologians. This isn't just a matter of achæologising for its own sake: it mainly has doctinal implications. They were trying to signal a denial of transubstantiation. Sure, we can say that they were unable to express a denial, since the Holy Ghost and Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci stood in their way. But the main consideration is semantic here, not 'associational'. I rather suspect that, had their Mass met with real success 'on the ground', they hoped one day to return and complete their nefarious work. But God had other plans.And that brings us to the question of whether the reform should be reformed or just abanandoned. If something tends to heresy, is it not best simply to jettison it, if only to avoid its negative associations? On the other side, there is the practical consideration. But I really wonder if the average McGillicudy in the pews would even notice if the old Mass were restored in, say, a good vernacular translation (as a prelude for going back to the full Latin Mass). We tend to worry obsessively about the old liberal lions having hissy fits to protect their beloved NewMass. But I wonder: would anyone *but* them care--or even notice?I like this inversions tactic. Neo-con defenders of a traditional-looking N.O. will tell you that few could even distinguish that from the T.L.M. But this can be reversed. If the Pope were to restore the T.L.M. but in a good vernacular translation (as a first step), how many people in the pews would really scream and walk out? You can count them on one hand. They have names like Skylstad.P.K.T.P.
I generally remember the details on the Didache because it fired my imagination when I read about it as an adolescent. I had this image of an aged Orthodox bishop in this cavernous library; it was hacked out of a cave by St. Jerome, using a tiny hammer. He has a white beard reaaching to his knees, and a twisted spine, making him bobble like the hunchback of N.D. He stumbles over to an ancient bookcase (probably fitted together by St. John the Apostle) and pulls off this particularly ancient ms. Eureka! It's the Didache, he excplains, and then blows 1,800 years of dust off it, which fills the air and causes another ancient priest to choke and keel over.Just some fun. You must admit that finding the Didache would be quite an amazing thing. Schliemann found Troy, what, in 1886? Just about the same time.P.K.T.P.
Yes, I've been told that Bishop Skylstad has a real aversion to the "Extraordinary Rite."Pray for us here in Spokane; that the good Lord will show us His Mercy when sending us our next bishop!
All right. Here are some excerpts from the statement of yesterday of Archbishop Peter Akinola, the Anglican leader of the Anglican Church Nigeria and, de facto, their spiritual 'patriarch' in Africa. It's taken from VirtueOnline. P.K.T.P."Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola Chairman of the GAFCON/FCA Primates Council issued this statement: 'We are convinced that this is not the time to abandon the Anglican Communion. Our Anglican identity of reformed catholicity, that gives supreme authority to the Holy Scriptures and acknowledgement that our sole representative and advocate before God is the Lord Jesus Christ, stands as a beacon of hope for millions of people. We remain proud inheritors of the Anglican Reformation. This is a time for all Christians to persevere confident of our Lord's promise that nothing, not even the gates of hell, will prevail against His Church.'"GAFCON [and] the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, ... [show] no interest or inclination to leave the Anglican Communion. On the contrary, they affirm over and over again that they are staying and pushing for change - a return to the faith."The Council of Church Society ... commented, 'The Church of England's true nature is that of a Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and catholic (in other words, universal) church. Orthodox Anglicanism is therefore defined by reference to these characteristics only, which are set out in the Thirty-nine Articles and the Church of England's submission to the over-arching authority of Scripture alone. Church Society seeks to defend and promote these defining characteristics, especially the Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone which is at the heart of the message and mission of the Church of England.'"'"While acknowledging the correct stand taken by Anglo-Catholics against theological liberalism ... it should also be noted that the true doctrine of the Church of England does not embrace any of the teachings or practices which characterise the Church of Rome. For instance, the Church of Rome is fundamentally flawed in its claims about its own nature and authority and in its teaching about the means of salvation.TO BE CONTINUED ...
CONTINUATION ON AKINOLA AND GAFCON AND EVANGELICAL ANGLICANS REJECTION THE POPE'S OFFER:"'A proper rejection of theological liberalism should therefore not be accompanied by a turning to the Church of Rome and its unbiblical teachings and practices. Rather, both theological liberalism and the unscriptural teachings and practices of the Church of Rome are contrary to the Bible and to the historic doctrines of the Church of England as a Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and catholic church.' ..."The situation in the Church of England is far from lost despite the dithering by Rowan Williams.A source in London told VOL that within five years there will be a strengthening alliance between orthodox Evangelicals and Catholics in the Church of England. It will make the C of E a very different animal."The facts are these. Women bishops are at least 10 years away. More and more women are being ordained but confined to the house of clergy. They can only vote as clergy in the synodical structures, but the laity represents the broad mass of the C of E which is strongly conservative. The point is women priests will not swamp the church and will not ultimately make or break it. All the major seminaries and theological colleges are filled with next generation evangelicals, the product of seeds sown by faithful Anglican evangelicals like John Stott, Jim Packer, Michael Green, Alistair McGrath et al some of whom are now octogenarians."The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in England is strengthening the hand of Evangelicals and Catholics in the C of E, forging links and hoping to steer the C of E in an orthodox direction."The Pope's offer is largely irrelevant as far as the Church of England is concerned. Only about a dozen or so priests and one or two retiring or about to retire bishops will accept the Pope's offer. The papal initiative is irrelevant the source told VOL. "Evangelicals do not want to be rescued either in England or the U.S. by Rome. One way or another, they will find their way through the revisionist impasse and they will come out the other side stronger and braver. Time is on their side. It is not on the side of the liberals who have no life-changing gospel to proclaim. Revisionism is ultimately death, so is pansexuality. It is morally bankrupt and is slowly but steadily eroding and emptying churches. The churches will not be filled by women priests or women bishops either. There is simply no evidence for it. Bending to the culture will only make churches orphans in time. Confronting the culture with the Good News of Jesus, as difficult as that might be, is England's only hope."
"If the Pope were to restore the T.L.M. but in a good vernacular translation (as a first step), how many people in the pews would really scream and walk out?"A vernacular translation of the TLM is a bad idea-BAD!http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent22.htmWhen was canon 9 abrogated with respect to the TLM?Plus, why tinker with something so profound and sublime? Can you imagine Mozart writing a Requiem in German?Part of the beauty of the TLM is its universality. We worship with our contemporaries, as well as with those from ages past, in one tongue. I can hear a TLM in Kenya and understand it perfectly. Why provide the people a Cliff Notes to the real thing?
Before moving on to comment on Akinola's statement, I have a new name for our incoming Anglicans. LLet's call them 'Anglicatholics', with a medial i instead of o, for Anglo-Catholics are simply Anglican ritualists in general. Some might object that, perhaps, the term 'Anglicatholic' already appears in the title of some timy fragmentary continuer groups. If so, this doesn't matter because were applying it to persons, not to an institution. Each ordinaraite will presumably take the name of a place or a saintly title, such as 'Personal Ordinariate of the Eastern U.S.A.' or 'Personal Ordinariate of St. Bede the Venerable'. (By the way, we might get a new saint out of these Anglicatholics. I mean King St. Henry VI. But as for 'Charles the Martyr', they can forget it. He died for the faith but unfortunately it was the wrong one.)P.K.T.P.
Anon. wrote:"A vernacular translation of the TLM is a bad idea-BAD!"I agree entirely, Anon. I'm not advocating this. I am merely wondering how many people would scream and walk out. I am also wondering if it might be a step to the T.L.M. from the N.O.M. But I agree with you that this is unworkable because there is the danger that it would be accepted but then never moved to Latin again.My purpose was not to advocate the idea but to give a riposte to those who say that nobody can tell between a Latin N.O.M. and a T.L.M.P.K.T.P.
Bloggers here might remember that when the new apostolic constitution was announced, there was speculation about whether or not Archbishop Peter Akinola would lead 18 million Nigerian Anglicans and as many as 30 million African Anglicans to Rome. Africans are mostly from the evangelical wing of Anglicanism. In other words, they act like jackasses during worship but have conservatives moral beliefs.Shortly thereafter, Akinola said publicly that he had not decided what to do and would have to give the matter serious consideration. At that, I opined that(a) This was a pressure tactic against Rowan the Druid;(b) Akinola would not, in fact, lead these chaps to Rome at this time and;(c) nevertheless, there was a good possibility that they may eventually cross the Tiber into this structure since, after all, they are much like our own home-grown nutcases, the charismatics.I still stand by these three points.I admit that what I did not see coming was this new design to reconvert the Church of England from secular liberalism to evangelical 'conservatism'. Apparently, these groups now hope to do this. Is it a pipe dream? I think that it is. I'm told that evangelical Anglicans in England are the majority of the regular attenders and that they bring in a goodly proportion of the cash. Fair enough.The problem is the liberals. 'Liberal', as Sir Humphrey Appleby once explained in "Yes, Minister" is a code word meaning 'atheist'. Since liberals don't believe that God exists (even if they won't admit this in public), they don't spend much time on their knees in church or anywhere else; nor do they contribute much to the plate. However, they are Baptized and therefore are eligible to vote in the various elections by which Anglicans misgovern themselves. They don't like to pray but they love to vote! And they outnumber the evangelicals, as recent events have proved. In fact, the fanatical determination of liberals everywhere is to destroy Christianity, and their way is to do it from within. They've got their way on priestesses and now they've got their way on bishopettes. One need only glance across the North See to Sweden to realise that sodomarriage is next on the agenda. The groom may soon kiss his groommate, bridesmaids can be little boys, and what have you. So if Akinola and Forward in Faith think that they can still save the Church of England from these things, they are like the conservatives of the early 1960s and their opponents are now donning their headbands and their tie-die shirts. They'll need the Holy Ghost to save them, but He has no home in their Communion but only in the Holy Catholic Church.TO BE CONTINUED....
Archbishop Peter Akinola has a problem. All that lovely lovely money which his hierarchy is living on comes from the Schorri Bitch and the American and British Anglicans. On the other hand, Akinola's people despise homerasty so much that they'd have his head on a stick if he dared even to say that it might be remotely acceptable. What to do? His solution has been to fool his followers. He had all references to the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. removed from the constitution of the Anglican Church of Nigeria. He was trying to fool the locals into thinking that he had broken communion with the Schorri Hag. But this is a lie. There has been no excommunication and, in law, until specific mention is made in an ordinance that the two are no longer in communion, they remain so. So he's got the cash and kept the locals happy. Clever.The Catholic Church in Nigeria is about the same size as his lot of crazy evangelicals. So they are the competition. Therefore, he has no interest in accepting the Pope's offer. Instead, he wishes to entrench a 'third way' (of four which will emerge). This means forging an alliance between GAFCON (in the underdeveloped countries mainly) and the new Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), which has broken away from the Epicopal Church of the U.S.A. over the blessing of buggery and what have you. The evangelicals are a majority in ACNA but there are also many Anglo-Catholics in it (and there are also many Anglo-Catholics in GAFCON). What the Virtue On-line article conveniently elides is the fact that ACNA is already divided over the matter of priestesses. They all agree that buggery is a nasty habit but they do not at all agree over womanpriest.Part III to follow ....P.K.T.P.
Part III Now it is true that there are also some evangelical parishes in the TAC, especially in the U.S.A., where, unfortunately, the presence of stetsons is very culturally damaging, and a tradition of snake oil salesmen in churches tends to that sort of uncivilised excess.It is entirely possible that some evangelical TAC parishes will refuse the Pope's offer and prefer, instead, to join ACNA. On the other side, I think that some High Churchmen and Anglo-Catholics will, over time, bleed out of ACNA and the E.C.U.S.A. and into the new ordinariates.Meanwhile, the new so-called 'covenanting Anglicans' (GAFCON, ACNA, and some other groups) cannot remain 'in communion with Gene Robinson and the Schorri Bitch forever. Granted, Anglicans, being English, are incredibly tolerant people. But the day comes when you just cannot help but notice that the bride is a guy. What of Forward-in-Faith in England? It will likely mostly stay in the C. of E. for as long as it can, but it too will bleed into the ordinariates over the years. Frankly, I don't want the FiF ditherers in the Church right now. They would foul up the stable. Look, the TAC people are very similar in temperment and character to, well, the S.S.P.X. So it would be best if they would cross the Tiber first and TAKE CONTROL of the new ordinariates before the evangelical lunatics can get a chance to bring the trash back into the kitchen. As some of them come gradually over, they will find that their new home has so many statues and side-Altars that there is just no room to spread one's wings and yell Hallelujah. Part IV follows...
Part IVWhat we are seeing is a re-alignment of the Anglicans. From this, we shall see the following four branches (gives a new meaning to the branch theory, eh?):1. The Canterbury Communion, dominated by liberals, communists, secularists, Hegelians, and so forth. It is declining fast and selling off the expensive property as it goes, except where the state owns it.2. A blatantly heretical Protestant communion of Anglicans who find that sodomy is very rude but who are divided over womanpriest. The Anglo-Catholics in it will find that throwing oneself on the floor and barking like a dog is not respectable; therefore, they will be constantly bleeding into categories 3 and 4 hereunder. Many of the more pentecostal members will bleed into pentecostal assembiles: why would they want a prayerbook in peachy English?3. Constantly dividing and merging Anglican 'continuer' groups. These are High Church Anglicans who never scream Hallelujah, think that sodomy is downright immoral, and hate Rome, that Whore of Babylon. Many of these churches worship in broomclosets and callboxes. Some consist of one bishop, one rather funny gent, and a little old maiden aunt.4. The Anglicatholic ordinariates. Anglo-Catholics and even some evangelicals will be constantly bleeding into these structures. Over time, this group will become Catholic in spirit as well as in letter, even if most of the N.O. is not. But some Anglicatholics will bleed into Catholic Traditionalism, both in the approved groups and in the S.S.P.X. Part V coming.
Lastly, what sort of people will 'people' the new ordinariates?1. Many former Anglicans left that heresy over the years and joined the Catholic Church as individuals or families. This is especially true in England in the 1990s, when many crossed the Tiber over womanpriest. When they got to Rome, however, they found that its Masses looked depressingly like the services of the United Church of Canada/Christ: sort of boring liberal Protestant or, even worse, like Western jambourees. They will be inclined to join the new ordinariates to escape the N.O.M. Anyone who has any taste flees from it as from the music of Aaron Copland.2. There are cradle Catholics stuck in the Novus Ordo hell who would love to find something more reverent but either would prefer the vernacular to Latin or else live far from any T.L.M. 3. A core group from the TAC and also from many other 'continuer' splinter groups will seek refuge immediately.4. There will be constant bleeding into the ordinariates from all sorts of Anglican groups, especially the more conservative among them, such as Forward in Faith.I don't rule out the possibility that, one day, evangelicals such as those in Nigeria will join the ordinariates. African evangelicals do not have all the same motivations as those in Western places (like Texas). Their dislike of buggery has more to do with local culture than with religion. But I can't say that I really want a flood of evangelicals in the Catholic Church. We have enough of them already. The best news may be expressed as a negative: the eventual withdrawal of the evangelicals from the Canterburian Communion will be the final nail in its coffin. Liberals in the Church of England may have the votes but without evangelical cash and numbers, they have no future; in fact, they don't even have a near future. The main tragedy in all of this is that we generally don't have the cash to buy all the churches they'll be selling off in the next twenty years. I just knew I should have bought that lottery ticket last week!P.K.T.P.
PKTP, you have so much to say that it would be perfectly justified for you to set up your own blog. I would follow it. Please do that!
Mr. Perkins,Assuming that all of your best case scenarios come true, I still have a problem:As all these folks come into "full communion," they will come in swearing on (so to speak) the Catechism of the Second Vatican Council, as Pope John Paul the Great effectively styled it in all but as many words at the time of its publication.If they are not joining us in a communion based upon the complete and unadulterated Catholic and Apostolic Church, what does it profit them, or us?
If they are not joining us in a communion based upon the complete and unadulterated Catholic and Apostolic Church, what does it profit them, or us?It wouldn't, obviously.But if they're swearing on the Catholic Church's Catechism, their communion will be firmly and soundly based.
The Catholic Catechism is not an infallible instrument. It contains ambiguities,at best, and heresy at worst.
Jordanes,"But if they're swearing on the Catholic Church's Catechism, their communion will be firmly and soundly based."This quite categorical statement must reflect your examination and negative evaluation of, at the least, the critique of the CCC on sspx.org.Could you share with us a few of the more salient features of your evaluation?No rush: whenever you get around to it, I for one would be most interested in what you have to say.
This quite categorical statement must reflect your examination and negative evaluation of, at the least, the critique of the CCC on sspx.org.No, it reflects my examination of Holy Mother Church's Catechism and Cardinal Ratzinger's and Cardinal Schoenborn's Introduction to the Catechism. As I've told you before, I don't make it a habit of reading the essays of dissenting or disobedient Catholics.No rush: whenever you get around to it, I for one would be most interested in what you have to say.Don't hold your breath.
The Catholic Catechism is not an infallible instrument.True, but irrelevant.It contains ambiguities,at best, and heresy at worst.No heresies, but probably a few ambiguities. But it's a catechism, not a compilation and complete and exhaustive presentation of the deposit of faith.
Mr Perkins,In one of these threads, you used the term "homerasty". Suppose it refers to the homo lifestyle, but was curious as to the actual meaning of the word.All the online dictionaries say there is no such word, yet it seems I've seen it used elsewhere, so doubt that you made it up.Can you give a brief definition, but nothing too graphic or gross.Thanks!
Then why swear on it?
"Homerasty"I think it's a neologism that Mr. Perkins has coined, based on the word "pederasty," which refers to an adult male homosexually defiling a boy. It comes from the Greek "paiderastía," the (sexual) love of boys. By analogy, "homerasty" would presumably be an adult male homosexually defiling an adult male -- though I would think that it could refer to any adult (whether or male or female) homosexually defiling an adult, and thus could include lesbianism. In the context of the Catholic priesthood, of course, it could only refer to male sodomitic activity. There are also homosexual religious sisters, though.
Then why swear on it?"What significance the Catechism really holds for the common exercise of teaching in the Church may be learned by reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, with which the Pope promulgated it on October 11, 1992 -- exactly thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council: 'I acknowledge it [the Catechism] as a valid and legitimate tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction in the faith.' The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church."Cardinal Ratzinger, "Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church," pp.26-27.
Trisha:Well, since the liberal descriptivists have taken over the world from the holy prescriptivists, I see no problem in making up words based on CORRECT etymology. In the good days before the first *@&^% descriptivist was born, it was understood that one could not make an unhyphenated word out of words from more than one language. Such abominations were known as 'malformations'. Hence aquaplane is the correct form, no matter how many ignoramuses out there say 'hydroplane'. Often, the incorrect form gets preferred because of euphony.'Homosexual' and its related forms is a particularly bad case of malformation, and it has spawned even more incorrect forms, such as the ludicrous 'homophobia', which logically would mean one who fears or hates people of the same sex (a man who hates males or a woman who hates other women). I laugh in liberals' stupid faces when they use it to mean one who hates or fears 'homosexuals'. It proves, yet again, that most liberals are fraud intellectuals, sciolists, or what I call 'magazine scholars': they are listed in polls by magazines as being more educated, which means that they are overschooled but undereducated.Ironically, however, the error in the case of 'homosexual' is particularly apt because the term is a malformation but it points to a malformation in nature. So there is a certain irony which makes it humorously appropriate. In a way, it is an 'unnatural' word which suggests that its referent is also unnatural.In Greek, homo means 'the same'. Erastos, from which ws get eros and erotic and ther -erasty forms (e.g. pæderasty) refers to sexual love. So homerasty means 'one who erotically loves one of the same sex', and it associates well with pæderasty.But sexus is Latin, not Greek, so it should be attached to another Latin word. What makes this malformation so bad is that homo is also a Latin work but it does NOT mean 'the same', as it is meant to mean. It means 'man' but not in the sense of male (vir) but in the sense of person. So the term 'homosexuality' is a meaningless misnomer which nobody should ever use and which logically simply means sexuality which is confined to human beings. Really, it is properly the antonym of 'bestiality'. The correct etymological term is 'homerasty'. It can be argued that the first term has been made acceptable now by long usage but I say no, especially since it is spawning new malformations, such as 'homophobia' and 'homophobe'. For those who prefer to avoid all this complexity, there is a wonderful Victorian term that has the advantage of continual usage, although it is not often used today. I mean the term 'invert' as a descriptive, as in 'He is a filthy invert'. It forms a wonderful parallel with 'pervert'. 'Invert' is a very nasty term and I would not use it in reference to homerasts who are good people and just can't help their condition (or believe that to be the case). I reserve it for those who are malicious regarding Christianity and are trying to advance a homerastic agenda in society. But I use the term 'inverted marriage' more widely. After all, it is the inverse of real marriage. A nasty portmanteau for inverted marriage is 'sodomarriage'.P.K.T.P.
Mr. McFarland:I don't see your logic here at all. You (and I) might hold that the C.C.C. is flawed. But if it contains error, it still does not contain heresy. So swearing on it will not prevent one from becoming Catholic. Each of their laics must also make a profession of faith when he crosses the Tiber (Art. 5, Sect. 1). Normally, one cannot proceed to Holy Orders unless one is already a lay faithful, so this question only pertains to those among their clergy who already have orders which Rome recognises. I'm guessing, however, that norms from the Code of Canons will still require these to make a Profession of Faith in order to be 'received' into the Catholic Church (don't make me look it up: it's there). So I fail to see your problem.What I do see is a determination to find a problem, come hell or high water.P.K.T.P.P.S. And please don't call John Paul II 'the Great', even as a joke. It makes me feel nauseous. It also makes me wonder if you're referring to John Paul I, who was far greater as a pope than was J.P. II.
In regard to my last comment to Mr. McFarland, my own concern is that the TACers have set an unpleasant precedent. In their zeal to prove their loyalty to the Pope, their bishops and vicars-general have all sworn to a Catechism which has real problems in it in my view. I worry that, in future, other incoming Anglican clerics will be required to swear on this same document. There may be some who object to it not because it is 'too Catholic' but because it is 'too untraditional'. For example, the new Catechism's teaching on the praiseworthy practice of capital punishment (preferably by hanging, which is the only civilised way to do it) is simply erroneous. What is needed in my country, for example, are frequent hangings and a return to the lash for rape and other violent crimes, as it was used in sentences until 1967. I(Americans don't lash people but they did put prisoners in those 'hotboxes', which was far worse, actually.)Mind you, Article 1, Section 1, does not actually require that anyone swear on the Catechism:"The C.C.C. is the authoritative expression of the Catholic Faith [as] professed by members of the Ordinariate."Authoritative, well, yes, it is. Infallible it is not held to be. So I guess this is all right, as long as incoming Anglicans are not forced to swear on it, as the TAC bishops did.P.K.T.P.
Mr. Perkins,Go take a look at the SSPX analysis of the CCC on sspx.org. Just for starters, the CCC's teachings on nature, grace, human dignity and freedom are not the teaching of the Church. The notion that this is the proper basis for admission to the One True Church just doesn't wash.The SSPX analysis doesn't say "heresy" or "heretical" much if at all. But it says "false" with fair regularity; and false is quite bad enough.I would suggest to you that your nausea at my calling PJP II "the Great" is some little evidence that I'm not just being captious. As you will recall, he issued the CCC, and praised it to the skies as the full and ripe fruit of V2.P.S. Jordanes assures us that with PJP II, the Church started turning the corner. Would you be prepared to accept PJP the Pretty Good, if Jordanes can explain to us when, where and how the corner was turned?
Just for starters, the CCC's teachings on nature, grace, human dignity and freedom are not the teaching of the Church.Apparently you don't know what the Church teaches about nature, grace, human dignity, and freedom.The SSPX analysis doesn't say "heresy" or "heretical" much if at all. But it says "false" with fair regularity; and false is quite bad enough.Yes, they are pretty dreadful allegations. They flirt with the heresy of ecclesial fallibility and defectibility.P.S. Jordanes assures us that with PJP II, the Church started turning the corner. Would you be prepared to accept PJP the Pretty Good, if Jordanes can explain to us when, where and how the corner was turned?I already explained that, but perhaps you missed it. (But I expect rather that you just didn't like what I said, because it doesn't fit into the particular worldview you've received from your SSPX teachers.)
I agree with Jordanes that the Church started turning the corner under Pope John Paul the Small. As I've explained before, this is contrary to but in in contradiction with the fact that he also continued the revolution of Paul VI. Indeed, he did some bad things that even Paul the Small would not have done. But he aslo clearly took actions which did indeed reverse the direction of Paul VI.Examples close to traditionalist are "Quattuor Abhinc Annos" of 3 October, 1984; "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta' of 2 July, 1988; the foundation of about third traditionalist societies and orders from 1988 to 2005; and the Campos structure of 2002. These actions prepared the way from what Benedict XVI is now doing. I am sure that Jordanes could cite other examples which illustrate how John Paul II turned the corner. That does not change the fact that Paul VI probably would have not allowed Assisi, 1986.P.K.T.P.
Mr. Perkins,You continue to amaze me.The "revolution" of which you speak is, as you well know, the utter derangement of the doctrine of the Church. You freely admit that it continued under PJP II. If pressed, I've no doubt that you would admit that doctrinally, the revolution also has continued under B XVI.But you think we in some sense we have "turned the corner" because PJP II graciously permitted the limited celebration of the TLM (thereby pretending that there was a prohibition that needed an "indult").But how can you possibly think that the Mass is going to conquer those who do not profess the whole and unadulterated Faith?Without the Faith, the TLM does one no more good than it does a blind man's guide dog "attending" Mass.And if you're a Pope who does not teach the whole and unadulterated Faith, you're a very peculiar -- and none too reliable -- ally in the restoration of the Mass that is rooted and grounded in that Faith.
I think it is important to note the TAC did not "swear on the CCC." In fact, this is what they said regarding it:"We accept that the most complete and authentic expression and application of the catholic faith in this moment of time is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church..."Make out of this statement what you will; it is not equivalent to an unconditional swearing upon the CCC. The Catechism is not a bone that the TAC is interested in picking with the Holy See or with anyone else. I believe the TAC approached the Holy Father deferentially on this and on all other matters. They were willing to accept what the Holy Father informed them they needed to accept in order to achieve corporate reunion. Pope Benedict XVI has responded in AC more liberally and graciously than could have been hoped. I believe certain ones within "Anglicanism" (not the TAC) hoped the Pope's response would be easier to reject. The TAC, as all good Catholics must, receives the CCC as the Pope would have it received.One thing the TAC did say with great clarity was this:"We accept the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, which is a ministry of teaching and discerning the faith and a “perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity” and understand this ministry is essential to the Church founded by Jesus Christ."That is where the TAC's explicit allegiance lays, not the CCC.
Jordanes,Error in a noninfallible statement has nothing to do with defectibility. To say that the Church is indefectible does NOT mean that we are protected from errors in non-infallible teaching. If it did, what purpose would the charism of infallibility serve? And why would it have been defined so carefully and narrowly by Vatican I (1870)?Presumably "ecclesial fallibity" is the opposite of ecclesial infallibility. But the only infallibility I'm aware of is that of the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncements and of the ordinary and universal magisterium.So I think you and other likeminded souls really don't have much excuse for not examining the conciliar magisterium and the SSPX's critique thereof. The Church won't collapse if you find out that the SSPX's view of the concilar magisterium is in fact the right one. It will just show that things are even worse than you thought, and that you're putting your trust in the wrong places. ***My assumption is that for you as for Mr. Perkins, PJP II's turning point was his granting of the indults. If you indeed have other things in mind, I'd appreciate your repeating them.
The "revolution" of which you speak is, as you well know, the utter derangement of the doctrine of the Church.How is it that the Church's doctrine has never before become utterly deranged, and how the utter derangements of the Church's doctrine not amount to defectibility?Error in a noninfallible statement has nothing to do with defectibility.But the CCC contains infallible statements, not just fallible ones.Presumably "ecclesial fallibility" is the opposite of ecclesial infallibility.Yes. "Ecclesial fallibility" refers to the belief that the Church is capable of formally teaching erroneous doctrine.So I think you and other likeminded souls really don't have much excuse for not examining the conciliar magisterium and the SSPX's critique thereof.The SSPX is not my "Mater et Magistra," so I have no obligation to listen to it, nor to privilege its pronouncements over that of the Church.The Church won't collapse if you find out that the SSPX's view of the concilar magisterium is in fact the right one.I've read enough of their publications, and of critiques of their publications, to be assured that their view of the Church's Magisterium is wrong.It will just show that things are even worse than you thought, and that you're putting your trust in the wrong places.I put my trust in Jesus, and thus in His Church and His Vicar.My assumption is that for you as for Mr. Perkins, PJP II's turning point was his granting of the indults.The things Mr. Perkins mentioned are among the most important things our late pontiff did that helped to slow and even start the reversal of the post-Vatican II demolition. Other acts that contributed include the visitation of seminaries and the subsequent Pastores Dabo Vobis, his commissioning and publishing the new Catechism to halt the destruction of Catholic catechesis, his revising the Pauline Missal and issuing Liturgiam Authenticam so as to eliminate the pseudotranslations of the Missal that have done so much to alienate Catholics from Catholic Tradition, his shoring up the liturgy and faith in the Real Presence through Redemptionis Sacramentum and Ecclesia de Eucharistia, his reassertion of Catholic doctrine on Holy Orders in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and his propounding an authoritative interpretation of Vatican II's teachings through his encyclicals to challenge and counter the false interpretations and erroneous theologies that had sprung up to corrode the Faith since the 1960s.There are many other things that he did that were not at all helpful -- quite the contrary -- but it cannot be denied without falsifying the historical record that the long, slow climb up from the muck of Paul VI's lamentable reign has begun, and began under John Paul II.
Mr. McFarland:The maxim is 'lex orandi, lex credendi', not the reverse, and the Greeks Orthodox understand this as a living guide: the doctrine of the Church proceeds out of the life of prayer. I wish that we in the West still appreciated this notion as they do. It is the reason WHY not even a Pope can licitly concoct a liturgy. Can anyone imagine a Novus Byzantine Rite? Therefore, John Paul II's making available the old Mass was also a way of restoring the doctrine of the Church, much of which has been obscured by NewMass and the idiotic and crass antics permitted by NewChurch. Yes, I agree that an indult falsely supports the notion that the ancient Mass was abrogated. But that is a secondarly consideration here. We don't know what John Paul II believed or what his honest perspective was here. We are assessing what he DID to restore the Mass and he DID bring it back de facto in dioceses.John Paul II did encourage some 'conservative' movements in the Church and refused some reforms which would have been inevitable under a second Paul VI, things such as an end to priestly celibacy.I could never be called a 'fan' of John Paul the Small, that showman with bad taste in music, and I agree with you openly that the revolution has continued under Benedict XVI, particularly as regards œcumenism; however, I'd say that he has done much good as well. But I do not forget that he was a peritus at Vatican II and a pal of Karl Rahner.Benedict XVI can only do so much, I think. Frankly, Mr. McFarland, if he were to go too far, he'd be murdered by certain people in the curia. If I were he, I would not want a certain cardinal from South America to have free access to the kitchens. True, a Gregory the Great would put his life at risk. No doubt. But I'm not sure how brave I'd be so I'll leave the judgement of H.H. to God for now.P.K.T.P.
Despite my reservations regarding the C.C.C., I agree with Jordanes's assessment on John Paul II here, and these are good examples of the tables being turned. Again, it does not change the fact that John Paul II also did some very regrettable things, such as Consecrating the Eucharist before topless dancing girls in Benin and kissing the Qu'ran, not to mention the entire ugle Assisi event, the visits to synagogues and mosques, and so forth.P.K.T.P.
Recently, I sent the moderators a confidential note about TAC news and I am still unable to divulge two of three points of it. But I can now mention one of the three because the TAC choirmaster here tells me that it was announced publicly today by the dean of his cathedral. The news is this: the apostolic constitution was not Rome's response to the TAC's petition of October, 2007; rather, it is a general response to all the requests of differing Anglican groups to reunite with the See of St. Peter. There will now be a SECDOND document issued from the C.D.F., this one to address the situation of the TAC specifically. This is coming soon, very soon, well before Christmas.I have no idea what is in this new document to come, but we can have some fun speculating about it. I imagine that it will grant some general dispensations for TAC priests and it might make arrangemets for ordinariates, especially for the less populous TAC national churches. Other ideas?P.K.T.P.
Jordanes,I don't know why God permitted the last forty-odd years to occur in the Church, any more than I know why God permitted the Muslims to triumph in the seventh century or the Orthodox to leave the Church in the eleventh or Pope Alexander VI to reign in the fifteenth or half of Christendom to go heretical in the sixteenth. But I do know that the teaching of error would only refute indefectibility if the error had the notes of infallibility; and I see no evidence of that. Claims of infallibility are not a liberal thing.Those infallible doctrines contained in the CCC I of course accept. But I do not accept the CCC, any more than I would accept a poisoned cake on grounds that 90%of its ingredients are just fine.There are only two kinds of infallibility: ex cathedra pronouncements and the ordinary and universal magisterium. It follows that the only kind of fallibility that would refute the Church's infallibility would be the demonstration of errors in ex cathedra pronouncements and/or the O&U magisterium. But nothing new since 1962 belongs in either of those categories. The Church is not just those in authority in Rome. Our primary obligation is not to those in authority in Rome. Our primary obligation is to the Faith delivered once for all to the saints, and to Him who delivered it; and so where there is reason to think that that Faith is not being given to you straight by the Roman authorities, you must look elsewhere to get it straight.If you had undertaken any serious examination of the SSPX's critiques, there would be evidence of it in your responses to my (at this point) numerous critical remarks. But I see no such evidence: no evidence of the arguments, much less samples of the arguments that you think refute them.And since we are talking about non-infallible pronouncements, it all boils down to that famous slogan of years gone by: I'd rather be wrong with the Pope then right without him.As regards your additional evidence of a turning point in PJP II's pontificate, I'm pretty nonplussed. The bulk of the "faithful" has small to no idea of the Faith. The priesthood is shrinking; what's left is riddled with sodomy and concubinage; and the episcopate is at best no better. And I'm supposed to be impressed by symbolic gestures that would be baby steps even if they were anything but dead letters? What good does "for many" as opposed to "for all" do for "faithful" who don't believe in the Real Presence, and have never even heard of the propitiary sacrifice?As regards the CCC, as its critique by the SSPX notes, the issuance documentation makes clear that it is not to supersede the catechisms of the episcopal conferences, even those without papal approval. Another dead letter. And through all of PJP II's long reign, and through the first years of B XVI's, not a single effort to present clearly and unambiguously the perennnial doctrine of the Church.Instead, what we get are pronouncements that are (to put the matter as kindly as possible) not models of conciseness or clarity, but from which one comes away with the distinct impression that it's all about man, though in a holy sort of way.
Those infallible doctrines contained in the CCC I of course accept. But I do not accept the CCCYou haven't been given that choice.But nothing new since 1962 belongs in either of those categories.Or so you believe.If you had undertaken any serious examination of the SSPX's critiques, there would be evidence of it in your responses to my (at this point) numerous critical remarks. But I see no such evidence: no evidence of the arguments, much less samples of the arguments that you think refute them.Massive non sequitur. Just because I refuse to take the bait your repeatedly dangle here on your hook doesn't mean I haven't got a mouth.I just have no interest in your game, Mr. McFarland. I'm a Catholic, and I know that is quite enough -- I simply have no use for your SSPX.As regards the CCC, as its critique by the SSPX notes, the issuance documentation makes clear that it is not to supersede the catechisms of the episcopal conferences, even those without papal approval. Another dead letter.That's the kind of major distortion and twisting of Church documents that has convinced me that SSPX just can't be relied on as a teacher and interpreter of the Faith. What the Successor of St. Peter wrote was, "This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine."Hardly the dead letter you wish it were.And through all of PJP II's long reign, and through the first years of B XVI's, not a single effort to present clearly and unambiguously the perennnial doctrine of the Church. . . .It's these kinds of statements that make it so hard for me to take you seriously as any kind of expert in the perennial doctrine of the Church, Mr. McFarland.
such as Consecrating the Eucharist before topless dancing girls in Benin and kissing the Qu'ran, not to mention the entire ugle Assisi event, the visits to synagogues and mosques, and so forth.And his approval of female altar boys . . . .
Post a Comment