Rorate Caeli

"The Vatican responds"


The Disappointed Have Spoken. The Vatican responds

Inos Biffi and Agostino Marchetto reply in "L'Osservatore Romano" to the traditionalists Brunero Gherardini and Roberto de Mattei, who criticize the current pope for not having corrected the "errors" of Vatican Council II

by Sandro Magister

94 comments:

I am not Spartacus said...

"This last effort is not easy because of the literary genre of the conciliar texts, very effusive and similar to theological treatises, unlike the summary dictation that marked the proceedings of past councils."

Well, that is a problem, isnt it?

As I understand it, at least 80 Bishops did not sign or approve at least one of the Documents yet were allowed to leave the Council in union with The Pope.

Of course that is sui generis in the history of Ecumenical Councils as I understand it.

So, this novelty is indicative of Tradition- is that it?

No wonder The Creed of Athanasius has fallen into desuetude within the Church. Who can stand to hear such a clear Creed redolent as it is with condemnation?

M. A. said...

"And in fact, this was the only aim of the conciliar reforms, which, if they had limitations that can or must be corrected, above all have brought immense benefits."
--------------------
What immense benefits have VII liturgical reforms brought us? I suppose Biffi thinks that if repeated often enough, we will believe that line. If he hasn't yet noticed, THE N.O. IS IN ITS DEATH THROES.

And I am sick of hearing of "active participation" as promoted by VII liturgical renewal. As St. Pio of Pietrelcina stated, we are to assist at Mass with "compassion and love" as did our Blessed Mother, St. John and the Holy Women.

One can be perfectly silent all during Mass and participate most actively. I would resent being told that I must open my mouth and be heard!

And if people don't audibly "participate", what will do they do - dismiss the congregation as in a recent case when school children were told to leave because the priest didn't think they were singing loudly enough?

They just don't get it. The N.O. is dying out.

benjoyce said...

The faithful are told that the Documents of VII are "the breath of the Holy Spirit" implying a sort of infallability ("kind of")and to disgree is disobedience. When anyone objects they are accused of adhering to a "alternate magesterium"

Remember VII documents order to remove Leonine prayers. Thus the St. Michael prayer, aimed at the great contest visioned by Pope Leo X, is sent into the can right when the battle get cooking? Is this the Holy Spirit?

Joe B said...

Pretty meaty stuff, but the article seems to me to favor the view that the documents of VC II are so poorly worded that they invited mischief which wasn't intended, yet won the day in the implementation. For me, looking at the massive damage done in the years following the council, the magnitude of the disconnect discredits that view.

Anonymous said...

The real story really is why the original schema for Vatican 2 was replaced by a second one. And why can't we see the original.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"The real story really is why the original schema for Vatican 2 was replaced by a second one. And why can't we see the original."

Because the Holy Ghost did not approve of the first schema.

I am not Spartacus said...

"The real story really is why the original schema for Vatican 2 was replaced by a second one"

Schema Flema, who needs one? So what if the Council did have a serious and mature and traditional preparation prior to its opening?

That is so, Oh I dunno, scholastic or something; it is so controlling and it places a theological straight jacket on The Holy Ghost.

Nope, the best thing to do is gather together as many Bishops as possible and wing-it on the fly.

Oh, and let a few of the "reformers" publicly humiliate a great Traditionalist, Cardinal Ottaviani, and let The Pope let those nasty personal attacks go unchallenged.

THAT is the way to go, Baby.

Anonymous said...

Arzillo, after a very useful example of a correct "hermeneutic of continuity" with respect to the famous "in some sense" formulation in GS, proceeds to astound:


"One could reply: but what if I see a contradiction that prevents me from giving assent?

..... 'in order to be certain in everything, we must always hold to this criterion: I will believe that the white I see is black, if the hierarchical Church establishes it to be so. In fact, we believe that the Spirit who governs us and guides our souls to salvation is the same in Christ our Lord, the bridegroom, and in the Church, his bride; because our holy mother Church is guided and governed by our same Spirit and Lord who gave us the ten commandments.'"

Dear Sir:

And what if the Church has said that the same thing is both white, and black?

And let us go further and affirm that She said it was white, with force of magisterial authority which exceeds the latter statement that it were black?

Now if you can answer that one we have the basis for an actual hermeneutic of continuity.

It will not be one that much pleases the neo-Catholics, however.

Anonymous said...

As I understand it, the Church teaches that the books of the Bible are to be held by all to be the inspired word of God . She also teaches that the Church is infallible in so far as She cannot err in teaching on matters of faith and morals; but this is a "negative guarantee", and She has never taught that the documents of ecumenical councils are to be held by all to be inspired. They could conceivably contain ambiguities and serious imperfections that lead the Faithful into error- infallibility would merely prevent them from positively teaching error. Cardinal Ratzinger himself once wrote that many of the Church's ecumenical councils have turned out to be a waste of time.
Many neo-conservative Catholics seem to have fallen into a sort of Vatican II fundamentalism. They assume that the Church binds us to believe that all the documents of that Council are divinely inspired and therefore above criticism. In fact Vatican II documents are usually given a status far higher than that granted to Holy Scripture, which is now subjected to ferocious criticism.
Criticising Vatican II is held by neo-Cons to be impious. Why?

F.G.S.A. said...

Biffi leaves in Pio Nono's sugar candy land where all is well and goes on well. Denial of history.

Mike B. said...

The Post Conciliar Commissions must be the focus of Vatican II misinterpretations of Tradition. As the Cardinal points out:

"The implausibility of such a conclusion should already appear from the approval and promulgation of the conciliar documents on the part of the successor of Peter and of the episcopal college assembled in council and in communion with him. The hypothesis that they proposed a body of doctrine that clashes with Tradition would inevitably result in the affirmation that in the Church the Magisterium has been breached and the certainty of the faith has been lost."

The documents voted on at Vatican II were affirmativly passed with overwhelming numbers. 2,000 plus bishops voted yes prior to the Pope's affirmation. How does the Church walk away from that fact and Paul VI, John Paul II as well as Benedict XVI? Does it mean the Holy Spirit deserted the Church at such a critical assembly? that said the debate is a healthy expression.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg Florida

BFB said...

So ludicrous that with the Church in a state of collapse - blind, deaf, and stubborn idiots can still defend Vatican II and claim that that this has all just been historical bad luck of timing and one big old misunderstanding of the real purpose and teaching of the council.

thomas tucker said...

Anyone who thinks the NO is dying out is nuts. Perhaps they are like the New York liberal who didn't understand how Bush was getting any votes since all of his friends were voting for Kerry.
Seriously people, go to most any Catholic Church in the South or Southwest US and you will see filled churches overflowing with Catholics enthusiastically worshipping at NO Masses.
In summary: it ain't dying out!

Jack said...

V2 was nearly 50 years ago.

It didn't take the Latin Church to get in this condition in just a few years. It will take longer than Benedict XVI's 5 year or so pontificate to straighten things out.

Give him time.

(Oh, I'm so glad I'm in an Eastern Catholic Church!)

Jack said...

\\Remember VII documents order to remove Leonine prayers. Thus the St. Michael prayer, aimed at the great contest visioned by Pope Leo X, is sent into the can right when the battle get cooking? Is this the Holy Spirit?\\

The Leonine prayers were NEVER part of the Roman Mass.

They were specifically labelled "Prayers to be said AFTER Low Mass." They actually were not to be said after all low masses necessarily.

And they've never been part of the Eastern Catholic praxis.

They were NEVER in the Altar Missal.

And if pleading the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ is not sufficient to protect the Church that prayers to a created Archangel, however holy and powerful, is necessary to safeguard her, something is out of joint.

BTW--this story of the reputed vision of Leo XIII is an urban legend. The original intention of these prayers were for the temporal sovereignty of the Pope.

LeonG said...

With all due respects to the cardinals in question, the greatest objective demonstration testifying against The Councils of the 1960s is the devastated vineyard of Our Blessed Lord. This has been ravaged by the liberal modernist onslaught "razing bastions" thus leaving behind an appalling trail of systemic disunity; nauseating unjustifiable compromises; an inherently divided hierarchy (illustrated by this very debate); numberless closures of ecclesiastical buildings including churches, chapels, seminaries, convents and monasteries; the destruction of numerous religious communities; pastoral and liturgical processes that do not resemble at all anything pre-conciliar together with an episcopate and presbyterate whose former universally respected status has been almost irreparably corrupted by criminal financial, sexual and other moral perversities. Add to the above a postmodern laity that is mostly illiterate where the Roman Catholic faith is concerned and it is more than just apparent that the establishment is hard put to it to sustain and justify the alleged irreproachability of those wretched Councils.

Arguments that attempt to support the continuity hpothesis are invalidated by the tragically superabundant objective evidence that cries out against it.

Giles said...

Mr. Tucker,

I've traveled rather extensively in the southern region of the United States. It's my impression that the Masses are full for the basic reason that there are far fewer churches there. In addition, many northeast and mid-west Catholics have migrated there on recent years. In other words, there is a certain illusory quality to the "numbers" in attendance at Mass.

Also came across this today:

http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article394683.ece

Anonymous said...

"Not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, may of them have been a waste of time. Despite all the good to be found in the texts it produced, the last word about the historical value of Vatican Council II has yet to be spoken."

Ratzinger, Joseph. Principles of Catholic Theology: building Stones for a Fundamental Theology. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987, p. 378.

Tom the Milkman said...

Humanly speaking, one is inclined to agree with thomas tucker. What he says of the American heartland liturgical experience is certainly true, and manifold. What must die out is concern over the reaction to unilateral action by Rome. If Rome would act against the poseur liturgy, the action itself would make combustion. There would be explosions, indeed the revolutionary ethos and its partisans may self-destruct, perhaps, at least, over time. If the Church, by the grace of God, recovers Herself, those who leave will leave. Those who remain will make recovery themselves, able again to live the Catholic life in their parishes, talk about a new springtime! What is true is true, and what is false is false. The Roman Church that wants to grow, to bring men to Christ and Christ to all men, to be loved again, that desires to exhibit a moral force again, can derive only from Her ancient liturgy, which is to say, from the ecclesiology that bloomed before VC2. Never in a million years by way of a concocted poseur liturgy that not only has fooled and desensitized even most of the Catholic world for over 40 years, but robbed the Church of the ardent missionary spirit that literally breathed the gospel of Truth across continents by means of the liturgy. The NO is a rite that seeks to converge, not convert. Missionaries not allowed there. So let's not speak humanly, let's pray.

Anonymous said...

TommyTucker, you are right. The novus ordo ain't dying out, nor is its convoluted "theology", any time in the near future.

Only Divine Intervention can wipe that out; that, or about 150 years.

May I invite you to one of the ecumenical services sponsored by our diocese being held this most holy of weeks?

Delphina

Athelstane said...

Well, it's hasty to say the N.O. is "dying out."

On the other hand, the Roman Rite *is* approaching a critical turning point - in both its forms (Let us take it as given that this is juridically so, however much we might think this is an awkward and difficult resolution).

A great many bishops who came of age during and after the Council are retiring now. More to the point, perhaps over half of all seminarians and new priests in the U.S. are, by reliable accounts, interested in celebrating the traditional mass...and many have been exposed to it. Within the next decade, we may see a critical transformation in the episcopate - at least in the U.S. - as these men come into the leadership in large numbers.

At which point there may be a more honest assessment of the shortcomings of the liturgical "reform," not least as measured by the hard numbers. These new men are not invested in the N.O. in the same way as the older generations. Sure, traditional communities are growing, but the real movement and impetus for reform will be in the diocesan leadership. We already have the new instruction on seminary instruction, the the new S.P. instruction, and the new translation coming on board to add to the mix as it is.

What will all this add up to? Perhaps not the death of the N.O., at least not for a while. But we may see further improvements made to it, and significantly wider celebration of the TLM, mainly at the behest of young priests.

It won't be peaches and cream. But I think it will amount to a a considerably improved liturgical climate a decade down the road, if not sooner. We'd all like to see much more; but even what we have seen so far was unthinkable just 5, 10 years ago.

M. A. said...

thomas tucker, months ago, I thought like you, but I am now in a better position to see from the "inside". Believe me, the N.O. is dying - perhaps not fast enough, but I assure, you it is dying.

For example, the American Province of the SSCM order of Sister is down to 43 aging members. For the first time, the the local convent will not be able to celebrate Holy Thursday or the Easter Vigil because they do not have enough able nuns to fill the necessary roles!

I see a clearer line of demarcation being drawn with the younger, homeschooling families being drawn to Tradition, while those of a protestant 'flavor' either leave the Church, or join the trendiest, charismatic-type parishes. These latter are the ones that give the illusion of strength, vibrancy, numbers. But they are like those who build on sand. Perhaps these are the kind Biffi has in mind when he says that VII has brought "immense benefits"! That edifice will crumble.

Giovanni A. Cattaneo said...

I think that there are couple of points that most people here are over looking.

1. Vatican II is being openly challenged and the challenge is not being simply dismissed it is being reported it is being critically looked upon and it is being talked about which alone signifies a victory to those that find some of its documents ambiguous.

2. The NO as we known it is dead. That being that the "gravitational pull" of Pope Benedict has already brought abundant fruit and in such a long time. The more Catholics are familiarized with the TLM and the example set by the Holy Father the less the influence of those that would make the NO a communal meal.

I know that in many ways the ultimate goal is the complete suppression of the NO, I am not personally oppose to that, however one must bear in mind the sensibilities of those Catholics that have known nothing but the NO and not make the mistakes of the generation before us.

Patroclus said...

"Because the Holy Ghost did not approve of the first schema."

This. Is. Laughable.

The preparatory schemata were tossed out because John XXIII did not have the courage to enforce the council's ground rules, which required a two-thirds vote for tossing them out. In actuality, a slight majority of the council fathers voted against the preparatory schemata. Rather than enforce the rules, the pope fatuously permitted the spirit of majoritarianism to rule the day.

Councils are protected from error by the Holy Ghost in their dogmatic definitions and anathemas alone. Any other position is synodalatry.

Anonymous said...

Wider use of the TLM may actually harm the Rite in the end. SP brought the Old Rite under the liberal radar in 2007, and we were left with a new prayer for the Jews and several other concessions in the following months. For those who were already living a traditional liturgical life and were otherwise unaffected by SP, this was all quite shocking. And I shudder to think what kind of modifications priest and bishops would petition for if the TLM became impossible to avoid. Rome can't have a double standard when it comes to liturgy. If versus populum and altar girls are tolerate in one form, then they have to be tolerated in both.

Anonymous said...

The NO is still popular because there is no alternative. People want to go to a Catholic Mass and the local NO is the only one available. If Bishops were certain that the NO is, by its very nature, more attractive to the average Catholic, why would they bother trying to suppress the TLM? They'd make it available, and enjoy the spectacle of no one showing up. No, usually, suppression is motivated by fear. Witness the Evreux fiasco.

Denis

John McFarland said...

"For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth."

As most of you no doubt know, that's a quotation from Vatican I, a few paragraphs before the definition of papal infallibility.

The question is this: are the pronouncements of Vatican II, as ratified by Pope Paul VI, and the post-conciliar magisterium of, or taught under the patronage of, Pope Paul and his successors, a gospel different from the gospel handed down until then, and hence something that, if and to the extent that it is a different gospel, cannot be accepted -- and indeed must be rejected?

It seems to me fairly obvious that ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality, to take only the most important parts of the Vatican II magisterium, are a new gospel.

To those who take refuge from this assertion in the vagueness and equivocation of conciliar and post-conciliar teaching, I say: a vague and equivocal gospel is a new gospel. That is not how the deposit of faith was transmitted and preserved during the first 1,930 years of the Church's existence.

I would add that vague and equivocal teaching cannot very well be infallible teaching.

So the real danger in not of falling into denial of papal infallibility. The real danger is in refusing to recognize that infallibility, and ecclesiastical authority in general, require the intention to "guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and ... faithfully set it forth".

Gratias said...

Vatican II was a disaster for the Catholic Church. While we like to blame it on Bishop Bugnini or the Freemasons, the debacle was caused by Modernists within the Council. Paul VI and John Paul II instituted the Modernist Mass worldwide and established the revolutionary break with Catholic tradition. Now Osservatore Romano defends this protestantization of the liturgy.

No gain by complaining. If you want to fight modernism the best way is to attend traditional Latin Easter Triduum masses this week. Please post the schedules of your local Latin masses in the nearby threads. If you have no Latin Mass in your town, do travel to one that has it. Once you try the Triduum, especially the Holy Saturday vigil, there is no return. We must fight the Modernists Catholic by Catholic soul, so invite friends that attend NO. Most will not come, but few will be offended by the invitation. This is a crucial time for the Church, and Gratitude is due to The Holy Father for this chance to fight for the Kingdom of Christ by executing his Summorum Pontificum Motu Proprio.

In sum, make every effort this Easter week to attend as many Truduum masses as you can. Our attendance is what will defeat our Liberal Bishops.

Anonymous said...

Councils are protected from error by the Holy Ghost in their dogmatic definitions and anathemas alone. Any other position is synodalatry.

It seems sound to say that an ecumenical council is only infallible if it intends to exercise its solemn magisterium, which is usually done in the form of definitions and canons, but isn't it possible that an entire Conciliar Document CAN be infallible if an Ecumenical Council states that all of the doctrine as defined and declared in their decree belongs to the Apostolic Faith?

For instance, Trent's decree on Justification opens with the following statement:

"...the sacred and holy, oecumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost...by the providence of God, Pope,-purposes...to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and sound doctrine touching the said Justification; which (doctrine) the sun of justice, Christ Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, taught, which the apostles transmitted, and which the Catholic Church, the Holy Ghost reminding her thereof, has always retained; most strictly forbidding that any henceforth presume to believe, preach, or teach, otherwise than as by this present decree is defined and declared.

The decree then goes on to explain and teach the Church's doctrine using the words "We declare..." in several chapters of the decree. The decree then ends in the following sentence:

"After this Catholic doctrine on Justification, which whoso receiveth not faithfully and firmly cannot be justified, it hath seemed good to the holy Synod to subjoin these canons, that all may know not only what they ought to hold and follow, but also what to avoid and shun."

Given the two statements above, wouldn't they seem to make the entire conciliar decree infallible since the entire decree is an teaching the faith and the decree forbids any catholic to believe differently that which the above the decree declares? Or would you say that only the canons themselves of this decree are infallible? Would the declaration be infallible without the solemn definitions of the canons or are the canons the only part of the decree that is infallible?

-Vinitor

GE said...

One thing you're all missing - one supremely good thing, even if none of us particularly like what Biffi is saying:

WE HAVE A DISCUSSION!!!

Finally.

DJ said...

off topic question - who is author of picture of Blessed Virgin displayed on the right side of main page? Sorry for this OT question but I love it and do not know where is it from.

Jordanes551 said...

The question is this: are the pronouncements of Vatican II, as ratified by Pope Paul VI, and the post-conciliar magisterium of, or taught under the patronage of, Pope Paul and his successors, a gospel different from the gospel handed down until then

What is "the gospel handed down until then"?

thomas tucker said...

Balderdash, Anonymous. In Austin, TX, for example, the TLM has been available for years and at the cathedral no less. Believe me, you don't find swarms of people giving up the NOM to attend it.
MA- not sure what your point is. If that is a liberal order of nuns, yes liberal orders are dying out. But plenty of orthodox orders are doing great and they celebrate the NOM, not the TLM.

Barbara said...

@Thomas Tucker
You assume that all will continue as it has for the last fifty years. If history is any guide, that is unlikely. There is horrific persecution of the Church around the world and it will eventually reach us. When it does, the NO and TLM and their attendees will be put to the test. Which liturgical rite has survived almost two millennia of persecution and produced great saints thereby and which one only knows how to exist in a 'new springtime'?

Barbara

Mike B. said...

Even under very questionable bishops the Churches in this southern state are well attended. $12,000 weekly intake are widespread (even now).

99% of American Catholics to 100% of African Catholics would be in revolution if the venacular Mass was endangered. Returning Catholics complain about the Kyrie Elaison and the Agnes Dei being sung at Mass.
It is what it is. Denial of these realities eventually leads to a form of grandiosity that isolates.

In addition without Pope Benedict's interpretation of Freedom of Religion the Church enters the neo-Taliban era in the mind of many.

Actually I have yet to read a definitive comprehension of the traditional opposition to the Christmas address of 2005. The ambiguous reigns when opposing Benedict's theological case.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg Florida

Henry said...

Thomas Tucker,

You're right. Those people who think "the N.O. is dying out" need to turn off the computer and get out of the house sometime. Maybe even attend Mass occasionally, either form. But especially if they'd work on actually promoting and supporting the TLM--in the real world and not just in com boxes--they'd certainly learn that droves of Catholics are neither flocking out of the OF nor flocking into the EF.

But what we may hope is true, is that the silly season of the N.O. is dying out. Literally, one funeral at a time. And that's the only way it can happen. Papal decrees, episcopal policies have no effect on the problem generation. The perpetrators have just got to go, and they will, the biological way.

In the meantime, every young priest I know ordained in the last decade, and every current seminarian I know, is serious about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Most are interested in the TLM, but most of these just as interested in celebrating the NO equally well. But neither they nor most of the young folks I see at Latin Mass are all hung up and twisted over differences between the forms. They're simply not carrying the Vatican II baggage of the past, neither committed to it nor committed against it. Indeed, for many of them, Vatican II is prehistory, maybe happened before WW II. Whenever, just not a big item.

What this adds up is the historical inevitability that the pendulum that we see finally beginning the swing back toward liturgical sanity will keep swinging that way throughout their lives (and, Deo gratias, throughout ours). Perhaps the Church will plan some formal mutual enrichment of the OF and EF. Perhaps not, makes little difference. At the hands of new generations of priests, the two current forms of the Roman rite will converge in praxis, to the extent that only the dinosaurs (like me) who remember Vatican II will still retain the old hang ups about the difference.

This is not preference but prediction for the long term. Only the short term makes any difference to me personally, and during this short term I hope the TLM as is remains available as an unchanged option for those of us who are "attached" to it.

Jordanes551 said...

Barbara, I think I accidentally deleted your comment when I meant to approve it. Do you think you could remember what you said and repost your comment? Sorry for the trouble . . . .

Anonymous said...

Thomas Tucker,

Apparently we live in parallel universes. Mine is the one in which the TLM has been persecuted and stigmatized, was illegal for decades, and is still, effectively, illegal in most parts of the Catholic world. It took time and an enormous amount of destructive, malicious effort to get us here. In your universe there is the example of the Austin Cathedral.

The question remains: if the TLM is destined to be marginal in the Catholic world, why such resistance from Bishops?

"Balderdash" isn't much of an answer.

Denis

John McFarland said...

Dear Jordanes,

"The gospel handed down until then" is the extraordinary magisterium, and the ordinary and universal magisterium.

So the question is: is there evidence of anything resembling (for starters) ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality in that gospel?

John McFarland said...

The question of how many people are turning up at the NO Mass is of course an important one.

But there is a more important question:

How many of those who turn up have a clue as to the content of the Faith, or that that content matters very much, if at all?

And surely the answer to that question is:

Precious few.

Jordanes551 said...

"The gospel handed down until then" is the extraordinary magisterium, and the ordinary and universal magisterium.

No. The gospel is handed down by and proclaimed in and through the extraordinary magisterium, and the ordinary and universal magisterium, but that's not what the gospel is.

Before opining that it seems fairly obvious to one that ecumenism, religious liberty and collegiality are a "new gospel," one should first have to be able to specify what the "old" and only gospel is.

Anonymous said...

"How many of those who turn up have a clue as to the content of the Faith, or that that content matters very much, if at all?

And surely the answer to that question is:

Precious few."


I can attest to that. The sad part is that a lot of these people are old enough to know better (i.e. over sixty) but seem to have forgotten everything they once knew. I often looked around and think to myself: "This, then, is what the infamous Vatican II has wrought."

The sad part is that these are the people who turn up at an Indult Mass with their novus ordo mentality and destroy it. They have lost any and all sense of the sacred.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

@ John McFarland

"The gospel handed down until then" is the extraordinary magisterium, and the ordinary and universal magisterium.

So how do we know when a teaching is from the infallible ordinary and Universal?

The concept behind this form of the magisterium seems pretty pointless, because it's hard to know which church teachings fall in that category without resorting to the extraordinary magisterium anyway. Even when a pope states that something is infallible under the ordinary and universal magisterium, then many just deny that a doctrine is infallible, because the doctrine isn't extraordinarily defined. For instance, the ban on altar girls was pretty much embraced under the universal and ordinary magisterium for 1800 years since the practice was universally accepted, thus one would expect that to have fallen under the universal and ordinary magisterium, but now altar girls are allowed in the Latin Church. So how do Catholics tell whether something is infallible under the ordinary and universal magisterium or not?

-Vinitor

Athelstane said...

Hello Mike B,

I think you overstate your case:

99% of American Catholics to 100% of African Catholics would be in revolution if the venacular Mass was endangered. Returning Catholics complain about the Kyrie Elaison and the Agnes Dei being sung at Mass.
It is what it is. Denial of these realities eventually leads to a form of grandiosity that isolates.


Is there a little denial going in Fortress TLM? Sure. Catholics are not exactly flooding into regular (and they must be regular) TLM's even when well publicized. Growth is steady, but it is not explosive. And much of it comes from procreation (not that there is anything wrong with that).

But to say that 99% of American Catholics would be at the barricades if the vernacular were in danger of being reduced strikes me as overstating things. For the most part, Catholics are fairly docile. If they really do not like something, they may just leave. This explains what happened in 1965-1970, when massive changes were forced on Catholics in their worship, and most meekly went along, or just drifted away. Some liked the silly season stuff, to be sure, or thought they did; but most just put up with it all. In short, folks should not assume that because 98% of Catholics attend n.o. masses, many of them banal, they approve of them in every respect. They go because they have little choice.

Having said that,I do think that as traddies here we tend to underestimate how much of an obstacle language has become for most American Catholics. This would not be an issue if most had been brought up in solid Catholic schools learning Latin from Grade 1, but that hasn't been the case in a long time. And it's unfortunate because Latin is really a secondary issue to what's really defective in the Novus Ordo, even reverently celebrated.

This makes me wonder if Anglican ordinariates might not point the way to a solution more palatable to a broad array of Catholics. Celebrating something like the Knott Missal - really just the TLM in hieratic English - might provide the necessary linguistic access to the liturgy while preserving its essential form and content.

At least until we succeed in broadening access to Latin in Catholic (and other) primary and secondary education once again.

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

The magisterium is the means by which the gospel is preserved and handed down.

But by embracing its extraordinary, and ordinary and universal teachings, you have the gospel.

The doctrines for which Vatican II and the post-conciliar Church are best known are at best novelties, and at worst contradictory of the doctrine of the Church from the gitgo until 1962.

If the one true Church established by Christ is the Catholic Church, then the proponents of ecumenism are either incapable of thinking straight, or proponents of something other than the faith as it was taught and understood before 1962.

If the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the faithful, then the proponents of collegiality are either incapable of thinking straight, or proponents of something other than the faith as it was taught and understood before 1962.

If the doctrine of the Church is difficult to figure out, then what's the difference between your opinions and mine and those of the most mad-dog modernist? We are all just wandering around in a religious fog, to which the only rational responses are apostasy (the choice of many one-time Catholics) or live and let live (the choice of the post-conciliar hierarchy, very much including the post-conciliar popes), although then there doesn't seem to be much difference between the alternatives.

Indeed, for many the post-conciliar teaching looks very much like a way station to unbelief. From ecumenism to silent apostasy. From true Church to new Church to no Church.

B. said...

Mike B.
100% of African Catholics would be in revolution if the venacular Mass was endangered.

This sounds like the typical modern cultural colonialism that tells Africans what they like. I would recommend reading Michael Davies experience in Africa.

Jordanes551 said...

The magisterium is the means by which the gospel is preserved and handed down. But by embracing its extraordinary, and ordinary and universal teachings, you have the gospel.

This is true -- but it doesn't answer my question.

You reject Vatican II's teachings and policies on ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality because you believe they contradict the Faith, but you spoke of them as a new gospel.

Anonymous said...

Vinitor,

The deacon at the monthly Missa Cantata I attend is African-American and he chants Latin quite well. Your theory is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

John McFarland,

You wrote: "If the doctrine of the Church is difficult to figure out, then what's the difference between your opinions and mine and those of the most mad-dog modernist? We are all just wandering around in a religious fog, to which the only rational responses are apostasy (the choice of many one-time Catholics) or live and let live (the choice of the post-conciliar hierarchy, very much including the post-conciliar popes), although then there doesn't seem to be much difference between the alternatives.
Indeed, for many the post-conciliar teaching looks very much like a way station to unbelief. From ecumenism to silent apostasy. From true Church to new Church to no Church."

So right you are. It is enough to make me just give up, so tired of it all I am. I am sick of people telling me black is white. I am tired of the defense of the indefensible. I am tired of the square peg forced into a round hole and damn the consequences. The ends justify the means.

It is like being on a country road in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night without any source of light and in a thick fog.

Which way do you go when you've lost all sense of direction?

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Thank you John McFarland.I would hate to be your adversary in a court of law. Christ said we would know things by their fruits and you do a great job of pointing out the rotten fruits of Vatican II and its aftermath. Nothing like the fruits of Trent or Vatican I.

A.M. LaPietra

A Blessed Easter to all posters and readers.

mundabor said...

The wording of the conciliar documents was certainly poor, but:

1) it was poor for a reason, and

2) the mess that ensued abundantly shows that the real problem was in the *mentality*.

Without bad thinking, there wouldn't have been bad wording in the first place.

"Chi pensa male, parla male"
(Nanni Moretti)

Mundabor

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

You say of me:

"You reject Vatican II's teachings and policies on ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality because you believe they contradict the Faith, but you spoke of them as a new gospel."

Is your point that I have called a "gospel" something whose truth I reject?

In doing so I stand in very good company. In Galatians 1:8, St. Paul famously says:

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."

The Apostle's last phrase, anathema sit in Latin, is the classic phrase by which an ecumenical counsel definitively denounces something that is foreign to the faith.

Or did, prior to the ecumenical council convoked in 1962.

Jordanes551 said...

Is your point that I have called a "gospel" something whose truth I reject?

No, not even close. I'm just wondering what you think the gospel is. It's impossible to conclude that this or that teaching is a new, false gospel -- i.e., that said teaching is not the gospel but is proposed as an alternative to it -- unless one first knows what the gospel is. We've already established that it is not, as you'd previously said, the extraordinary and ordinary and universal magisterium. Judging from the way you use the word "gospel," I'm not sure you use that word with the same understanding the Church has when she uses it.

Giles said...

God bless you, Delphina, and Our Lady keep.

Prayers,

Giles

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

The gospel is what was taught by Jesus and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. It is thus coextensive with the deposit of faith which has been guarded and handed down in the extraordinary magisterium, and the ordinary and universal magisterium.

I would have thought that none of this is news to you.

Or are you just being evasive?

Or are you being evasive because what I am saying is in fact news to you, and you don't understand it and/or reject it?

Jordanes551 said...

The gospel is what was taught by Jesus and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles.

Yes, that's true . . .

It is thus coextensive with the deposit of faith which has been guarded and handed down in the extraordinary magisterium, and the ordinary and universal magisterium.

No. Just because Jesus and the Apostles taught the gospel, that doesn't mean it is coextensive with the deposit of faith. Not all the things God has revealed to us through Jesus and the Apostles is "the gospel."

If you aren't even clear on what the gospel is, and what it isn't, can you trust your judgment regarding what in Vatican II might be a new gospel?

thomas tucker said...

Henry- what rational comments! Agree 100%
Anonymoust-perhpaaps we do live in parallel universes. Mine is called the real world and you would recognize it if you spent time amongst the 99% of Catholics who like the NOM and never care to experience the TLM.
Nota bene, I actually prefer the TLM. BUt I recognize that most Catholics don't and won't. Balderdash, btw, is not an argument- it is an emotive expression.
btw, I have no fear that faithful Catholics who worship at the NOM will stand up to persecution as well as those who attend the TLM. The sine qua non is fidelity to Christ and His Church, not which form of Mass one prefers.

John McFarland said...

Dear Jordanes,

The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The word Gospel usually designates a written record of Christ's words and deeds."

But in the Vulgate, the Latin evangelium, which is almost always translated as gospel, has broader meanings than that. See Mt 4:23; Mk 16:15; Acts 15:7, 20:24; Eph 1:13.
(As regards Acts 20:24, notice also 20:27, where St. Paul says: "annuntiarem omne consilium Dei vobis.")

Then in St. Paul's epistles, see Rom 1:1, 2:16, 13:26; 2 Cor 4:3,4; 1 Th 1:5, 2 Th 2:13, where he speaks of "my gospel."

Then there are the verbal forms -- to evangelize: Mt 11:15, 1 Cor 9:16 ("vae mihi enim est, si non evangelizero"), Mt 11:5 ("pauperes evangelizetur")."

Throughout these various uses and shades of meaning, the proper reaction to the gospel/evangelium is faith. So although it is fair enough to say that gospel/ evangelium is not identical in meaning to deposit of faith or revelation or the entire body of the faith, it cannot be simply reduced to a subset of faith or revelation. Even though none of us knows the whole of the deposit of faith, we must believe in all of it, or we are not Christians.

DefensorFidei said...

"I have no fear that faithful Catholics who worship at the NOM will stand up to persecution as well as those who attend the TLM."

The Catholics who have been tortured or killed for the faith in the past two decades in China, Pakistan, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Indonesia, southern Philippines and Saudi Arabia, were all "Novus Ordo Catholics" who all attended the Novus Ordo.

In contrast, how many Traditionalist communities have been targeted by Islamic or Communist persecution in recent years?

Has a single Trad priest been literally martyred for the faith in the post-Vatican II era?

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

Let me also offer a few ad hominem remarks.

It seems pretty clear that you yourself don't understand what the gospel is.

This I think is why you cling to the current Holy Father. You figure that he has to be giving it to us straight; because if he isn't, how can we ever know the truth?

Which brings us back to Vatican I:

"For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth."

I'm more sorry than I can express to have to tell you this, but the current successor of Peter is not doing any such thing.

Dialoguing with the enemies of the cross of Christ so that they may be saved from an excessively narrow secularism, and we "believers" may be saved from vile fundamentalism, is nowhere to be found in the deposit of faith.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Tucker,

Like you, I usually attend a Novus Ordo Mass, and I belong to a Novus Ordo parish. I do it because I have no choice: it's the only game in town. When I can, I make the long drive to the closest available TLM.

You have no idea how ordinary Catholics would respond if the TLM were widely available, and part of the Catholic mainstream.

What you do know is that it took a great deal of cruel, authoritarian, destructive effort to eliminate the TLM from Catholic life.

Let's not pretend that the handful of examples of what happens now with the EF is representative of anything. Over the decades, the TLM has been maligned, and ordinary Catholics have been taught to disdain it. It will take some work to reverse that prejudice.

The question that you stubbornly refuse to address remains: why, if the TLM is destined to be marginal, do Bishops resist implementation of Summorum Pontificum? Why do the Bishops fear the TLM?

Denis

Anonymous said...

Defensor Fidei,

What an absurd thing to say! There weren't any martyrs before Vatican II? Martyrdom began with the Novus Ordo?

Most of the Catholics martyred in the Middle East don't even use the Latin Rite, so the point is irrelevant. The Iraqis, who make up a large percentage of the martyrs, are Chaldean and Syrian Catholics.

And those who were "Novus Ordo martyrs," as you call them, weren't martyred for the Novus Ordo but for the Catholic faith. They were good, obedient Catholics and they used the only form of the Latin Rite that they were permitted to use.

Why is this even being discussed? It's the Novus Ordo Catholics who brutally and cruelly imposed their modernistic form of the Latin Rite on Catholics. It isn't as if the suppression of the Novus Ordo is even on the radar.

Denis

DefensorFidei said...

"What an absurd thing to say! There weren't any martyrs before Vatican II? Martyrdom began with the Novus Ordo?"

I am clearly speaking about the post-Vatican II era, 'Anonymous'. And I am responding to the idea that people who attend the Novus Ordo aren't true Catholics and are cowards who won't stand up for the faith.

"Most of the Catholics martyred in the Middle East don't even use the Latin Rite, so the point is irrelevant. The Iraqis, who make up a large percentage of the martyrs, are Chaldean and Syrian Catholics."

And I didn't mention the contemporary martyrs of the Middle East precisely for the reason you state. Go and take a look at the countries I mentioned.

"And those who were "Novus Ordo martyrs," as you call them, weren't martyred for the Novus Ordo but for the Catholic faith. They were good, obedient Catholics and they used the only form of the Latin Rite that they were permitted to use."

It is interesting that some like to speak about Catholic martyrs of the pre-Vatican II era as having been killed "for the Mass of Ages", while people like you are anxious to deny Catholic martyrs of the post-Vatican II died for the Novus Ordo. The reality is that Catholic martyrs -- whether pre-Vatican II or post-Vatican II -- died primarily for the faith, and not for whatever form of the Mass happened to be in normal use at the time and place of their suffering.

"Why is this even being discussed?"

Because the obvious needs to be restated in our confused times.

B. said...

Thomas Tucker:
Mine is called the real world and you would recognize it if you spent time amongst the 99% of Catholics who like the NOM and never care to experience the TLM.

In my real world 95% of catholics never care to experience mass at all. The NO has demonstrated to them that all this religious stuff is not to be taken serious anyway.

@Defensor Fidei:
Ironically, the Catholics of China at first refused the Novus Ordo because they thought it was a trick to take away their faith by the Chinese Government.

Anonymous said...

Defensor Fidei,

Both you and Mr. Tucker seem to be preoccupied with straw men, so let's burn these distracting figures. One can be a lover of the TLM and a critic of Vatican II without:

--denying that there are good Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo. (How can it be otherwise? What alternative is there to the Novus Ordo for most good Catholics of the Latin Rite?)
--advocating the suppression of the Novus Ordo;
--denying that most people have become habituated to the Novus Ordo, and view the TLM as something unfamiliar and forbidden.

By the way, I have signing my posts with "Denis", which happens to be my name. I don't know why you and Mr. Tucker think it clever to continue to refer to me as "anonymous."

Giles said...

Mr. Tucker said:

"The sine qua non is fidelity to Christ and His Church, not which form of Mass one prefers."

Ah, but there's the rub. The form of Mass isn't a matter of mere liturgical preference (as the enemies of the EF would want to frame the issue). Many, perhaps most, Catholics who assist at the traditional Mass do so because of linguistic alterations in both what we say to God and how we say it AND because the anthropological posture revolts from the hierarchical and deforms into the horizontal.

I would suggest, Mr. Tucker, that (besides Father Cekada's excellent work, "Made By Human Hands") you peruse a couple of the articles by Dr. Lauren Pristas (no traditional Catholic):

(1)"The Theological Principles That Guided the Redaction of the Roman Missal" (1970) which appeared in The Thomist

(2)""The Collects at Sunday Mass: An Examination of the Revisions of Vatican II"(2005)which appeared in "Nova et Vetera."

Giles

Giles said...

Defensor Fidei asked,

"Has a single Trad priest been literally martyred for the faith in the post-Vatican II era?"

May I suggest that martyrdom comes in different forms? While not shedding blood for their beliefs, many a priest of liturgical tradition (probably most, by the way, would consider your designation of them as a "Trad priest" to be both demeaning and snarky)since the 1970s have been subjected to psychological persecution -- and this by their own (bishops and their Chancery minions). Shall I list but a few?

(1) Suspension

(2) Loss of the means of supporting themselves and the cancellation of their medical insurance.

(3) Being sent to psychological institutions (gulags) for "evaluation" -- then undergoing the stigma of having their presence there become a part of their permanent personnel file.

Shall I go on?

I also might mention that there are SSPX missionary efforts in parts of the world (such as India) where "red" martyrdom is just a matter of time.

Giles

Jordanes551 said...

Thank you for correcting and refining your previous statements, Mr. McFarland.

It seems pretty clear that you yourself don't understand what the gospel is.

The gospel is the divinely revealed announcement or message of redemption from sin and deliverance from death through the Incarnation, Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, enfleshed of the Blessed Virgin Mary, hope and desire of all nations, promised Seed of the Woman and of Abraham, Son of David, who fulfilled the Law and the Prophets and every Messianic hope and promise, in whom and through whom alone is salvation and eternal life. As St. John wrote, God so loved the world that He sent His Only-Begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

That is the gospel.

This I think is why you cling to the current Holy Father. You figure that he has to be giving it to us straight; because if he isn't, how can we ever know the truth?

No, I "cling" to him for no other reason than that He is Peter, and I am a Catholic. I can't imagine any other valid reason.

Anonymous said...

Denis,

Speaking for myself—having for years spent much of my “talent, time, and treasure” promoting and supporting the TLM—unfortunately, I do have an idea how many good “Novus Ordo Catholics” will attend the traditional Latin Mass if its readily available. Nowhere near as many as I wish, especially if reasonably reverent and abuse-free OF Masses are also available.

Like so many here, I thought in the euphoria following SP that droves would flock to the Mass for which I had prayed and worked so long. But now, several years later, with five ready and willing young TLM-capable celebrants in my local area, nowhere enough interest can be stimulated to populate regular TLMs for them all. There are three thinly populated TLMs within ready driving distance each Sunday, and a daily TLM each weekday morning attended by nowhere near 1% of the available Catholic population.

So, unlike many traditionalists, I have concrete experience and observation to base my prediction that the restoration of true Catholic faith and liturgy will be a long haul, measured in decades and generations rather than in years with hopes that the papal next instruction will magically do the job.

As for your final question—as to why bishops fear and resist demands for the TLM—I’ve heard no more likely answer than that they take such demands as accusations that they have not met their obligations to defend faith and liturgy.

Henry

John McFarland said...

Dear Jordanes,

Thank you also for your formulation.

But it is A description of the gospel, not THE description of the gospel. The various uses of the term in the scriptures involve many things that your formulation does not mention.

This is not a criticism of your formulation. It is, however, a criticism of any effort to define "gospel."

As for your own knowledge of what the gospel is: that depends on the flesh that is put on the bones of the generalities of your formulation. There are no doubt many progressivists who could subscribe to it.

As for your explanation of your devotion to the magisterium of the Holy Father, let me say this. The issue regarding the Holy Father is the same as the issue for Father McGurk at St. Mary's on Elm Street, the smallest parish in the Diocese of Anytown: is his teaching directed at preserving and passing on the faith delivered once for all to the saints, or does it comprise a different gospel?

Because of the state that the Church is in, and the obvious differences between the magisterium before Vatican II and the magisterium of Vatican II and the post-conciliar era, I think that the refusal to ask that question -- and to learn enough about the pre-1962 magisterium to answer it -- is an exercise not in Catholic obedience, but in putting one's faith at risk.

Anonymous said...

Dear Giles,

God reward you.

Please know that I am counting on your prayers for me. Ask Our Lord to take pity on me and lift the fog. Please.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

"For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth."

It is true that Benedict XVI has not done this. Nor did his soon to be beatified predecessor. Instead, both of them imposed their personal theology on the faithful which is now considered "de fide" by the majority of Catholics in the novus ordo pews even if, in fact, it isn't.

Delphina

Dymphna said...

Mike, do you actually know any African Catholics? I mean have you actually spoken to any?

Jordanes551 said...

But it is A description of the gospel, not THE description of the gospel.

Obviously.

The various uses of the term in the scriptures involve many things that your formulation does not mention.

Yes. There is always more that can be said about God's mysteries. Words can never exhaust the fullness of the gospel.

As for your own knowledge of what the gospel is: that depends on the flesh that is put on the bones of the generalities of your formulation.

The same is true of all the Church's creeds. Do you find fault with them for being too vague or general or ambiguous, as you find fault with the way the Church expressed herself at Vatican II?

There are no doubt many progressivists who could subscribe to it.

I doubt it. It would depend on how many of the truths of the gospel they think we should "progress" away from.

As for your explanation of your devotion to the magisterium of the Holy Father

I spoke of adhering to the Successor of St. Peter, not "devotion" to his magisterium.

Because of the state that the Church is in, and the obvious differences between the magisterium before Vatican II and the magisterium of Vatican II and the post-conciliar era, I think that the refusal to ask that question -- and to learn enough about the pre-1962 magisterium to answer it -- is an exercise not in Catholic obedience, but in putting one's faith at risk.

There's a difference between refusing to ask a question and answering a question differently than you have answered it. Nor am I as ignorant of the pre-1962 Magisterium as you presume.

Jordanes551 said...

Instead, both of them imposed their personal theology on the faithful which is now considered "de fide" by the majority of Catholics in the novus ordo pews even if, in fact, it isn't.

If the majority of Catholics in the pews really considered the theologies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI to be "de fide," the Church would be in a lot better shape -- even though their theologies are certainly not infallible or authoritative or above criticism. Sad to say, but I suspect most in the pews know little and care less what John Paul II and Benedict XVI thought/think about matters religious.

thomas tucker said...

Anonymous/Denis- I don't think it's clever to refer to you as Anonymous. I've just been putting it that way becaue your posts are all headlined that way and you keep logging in under that name. I don't know what straw men you are referring to- could you elaborate? I actually agree with the things that you just wrote could not be denied. I disagree with you, however, that the NOM represents a departure from true Catholic faith and liturgy.

Giles- disagree, and have read the things you suggested. It really is primarily a difference in taste, regardles of what the trads claim.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, the older ones do not, but the young ones (under fifty) do. Not all, but more than you think.

Delphina

Giles said...

Mr. Tucker,

May I ask a serious question? Why do you post here?

You remarked: "It really is primarily a difference in taste, regardles of what the trads claim."

Are you saying that we don't really mean what we say? That we don't know our own minds? Do you enjoy provoking people? I can think of no other explanation for such a gratuitous assertion. That's supposed to be a reply of substance to my response to your original comment?

After my comment to Defensor Fidei regarding the use of the word "trad," I must conclude that you're attempting to be intentionally demeaning.

Giles

P.S. I'm progressively losing interest in Rorate Caeli. The incessant snideness of trolls who are less than serious about engaging in an intelligent discussion is wearying.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous writer of the post dated 19 April, 2011 20:34,

I think you have mixed up someone else's postings with mine. I never said anything about blacks/Africans or even Africa, so I'm not sure to what you are referring. My posts were only about magisterial infallibility. In fact, my godfather is part black and in a seminary. He has also served the TLM for years. Hope that clarifies things. Holy Week blessings to you.

-Vinitor

Anonymous said...

I'm not a troll.

I'm a confused mess.

Maybe Skirts will write a poem about me to cheer me up.

Delphina

John McFarland said...

Dear Jordanes,

Some people don't have the knowledge to recognize the chasm than began to open on the first day of Vatican II.

Other people are unwilling to recognize that chasm.

So far I can't categorize you because when it comes to the issue of the chasm, you denounce (or quibble around the edges) of the other guy's position rather than explain your own.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

The day will come my friends and I believe that day to be soon where Vatican II will be exposed for what it really is (for those who are still confused) - a deception of Satan himself that has led many many souls to perdition.

thomas tucker said...

Giles- first, rather than call someone a troll because they disagree with you, why not try to engage in further discussion or, if you don't care to, simply quit responding?
Second, I did not see your comment about "trads" and did not know it was considered demeaning by you or anyone else.
Third, I have been reading and commenting on posts here for a long time. I enjoy reading the posts and I actually prefer the TLM in some, but not all, aspects in comparison to the NOM. Baiscally, I read Rorate for enjoyment and for enlightenment. But it seems to me that some go far beyond the intent of the editors of Rorate in denigrating Vatican II and our recent Popes. Perhaps you are one of those. I do indeed think that some people cover up their aesthetic preference for the TLM in theological dressing, and although they may actually believe what they say, I don't think that what they say is true.

thomas tucker said...

Let me put it this way, Giles.
I prefer the TLM but I don't think it is better or superior to the TLM. Each has its good points and its bad points, IMHO.
But my opinion really doesn't count for much. But Benedict's does. And I would wager that his theological and liturgical knowledge are greater than your and mine multiplied and squared. He apparently does not think that the TLM is a superior rite. Nor should we.
I like this website but I very much dislike the way many of its readers and commentors blame everything that has happened in the Church on Vatican II. It is simply a post hoc silly argument and can be historically demonstrated to be false. Plus, it is quite tiresome. Enough said. God bless you during the Triduum.

Giles said...

Mr. Tucker:

I'll take you at your word about your desire to engage in serious discussion.

Dr. Pristas' articles propose that, when comparing the vocabulary of the Propers within the two Forms of Mass, there are distinct theological differences. Why would you continue to assert, therefore, that the issue is merely one of aesthetics?

Thank you.

Giles

Anonymous said...

for Mr. Tucker,

" He (The Pope) apparently does not think that the TLM is a superior rite. Nor should we."

Oh really? I don't think I need you to tell me HOW I should think...
Have you read anything at all of how the N.O. was formed? If you had you wouldn't be able to justify and insist that the difference of the two rites is in AESTHETICS and personal taste. I agree with Giles and many others. The differences are theological and most importantly, the worship of God is not the same in the two rites.

"I like this website but I very much dislike the way many of its readers and commentors blame everything that has happened in the Church on Vatican II.
It is simply a post hoc silly argument and can be historically demonstrated to be false. Plus, it is quite tiresome."

It might be tiresome to hear, but it is true. EVERYTHING changed after Vatican II, most especially the great loss world-wide of real Catholic Identity. (among so many other things). "It can be historically demonstrated..." Well here you are on very shakey ground. Come on, Mr. Tucker you can't deny the "fruits" of Vatican II. It is objectively impossible to negate the present mess and confusion in the Church with regard to real worship of God and real Catholic morality.

God bless you and all the readers of Rorate Caeli during these Holy Days.

Barbara

Long-Skirts said...

Thomas Tucker said:

"But Benedict's does. And I would wager that his theological and liturgical knowledge are greater than your and mine multiplied and squared."

So is Lucifers. (and I'm not saying our Pope is Lucifer)

"He apparently does not think that the TLM is a superior rite. Nor should we."

Hmmmmm...both Cain and Able made Sacrifices to God but God only accepted one.

TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC


The smells and bells

Are very nice --

But only a facade

Without Sacrifice!

Long-Skirts said...

Delphina said:

"I'm a confused mess.
Maybe Skirts will write a poem about me to cheer me up."
Delphina

THE
REAL
GOOD
NEWS

The Good News is…
In fear and joy
That apprentices are
Still altar boys.

And Tabernacles on
Sacrificial altar
Rebound the sounds
Of David’s Psalter.

The entire year
Our missals hold
Celebrating cerebrally
The new and the old.

Sarcophagus seasons
Of abstinence and fast
Absolves the flesh
Buries sins past.

But liturgys' vernacular
Constantly feigned
Pales ‘fore Precambrian
Death’s Latin had reigned.

For Truth nails ETERNAL
In Catholicity
Through minutes of centuries’
Mediocrity

Anonymous said...

Bravo, Skirts!

Now, back to those daily duties!!

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Brother Anthony:

"The day will come my friends and I believe that day to be soon where Vatican II will be exposed for what it really is (for those who are still confused) - a deception of Satan himself that has led many many souls to perdition."

How can the true Church of Christ lead souls astray? What about all of those souls who placed their trust in the Church and went along with everything because that is how they were taught? Obey.

What kind of God do we have that He would allow His children who trusted in Holy Mother Church to be duped by "a deception of Satan himself that has led many many souls to perdition"?

Perhaps, Bro. Anthony, I have misread what you wrote. Maybe you can explain it further for me.

Delphina

Knight of Malta said...

Churches in this southern state are well attended.

So are the Baptist churches, I'm sure. Unfortunately, like the Baptists, the Novus Ordo "catholics" have no notion of Holy Mass as Sacrifice, and contracept and abort as often (if not oftener) as their protestant brethren.

In all truth Modernism hid itself under the cloak of Vatican II's hermeneutic...The new rite of Holy Mass practically silenced the nature of sacrifice making of it an occasion for gathering together the people of God...the eucharistic gathering was given the mere sense of sharing a meal together...After having said all of this about Vatican II, if someone were to ask me if, in the final analysis, the modernist corruption had hidden itself within the Council documents themselves, and if the Fathers themselves were more or less infected, I would have to respond both yes and no...But yes as well, because not a few pages of the conciliar documents reek of the writings and ideas of Modernism--this can be seen above all in GS

Msgr. Gherardini, Vatican Council II, A Much Needed Discussion

LeonG said...

"I would have to respond both yes and no."

How on earth can anyone write a before and after as you have here and make such a reply.

You need more fortitude and insight than ths. Te answer is a resounding "yes!" The entire modern church and its leadership above all are infected to a very dangerous degree.

There is no doubt at all about this as the objective evidenceis there in writings and statistics, public statements and private ones already made known.

Pope Paul VI (RIP) and others have admitted to a church gagainst itself in auto-demolition and as, the current pope has admitted too, a barque rapidly taking water because the Baltharzarian bastions of tradition which once protected The Church have been all but destroyed. Indeed, and with the complicity of the post-conciliar papacies.

Anonymous said...

I think one of the comments made was right on that was the fact Vatican II is even being discussed has been a huge victory. When I first converted to the Catholic Church few people would even mention any thing bad about it and the RCIA program regarded it as a success.

Some how (I like to think the grace of the holy spirit) I fell in with some Traditionalists. As someone who converted I wanted to learn all that I could about my new Church home I have read as much as I could but I rarely even saw a hint of questioning of VII. So now that there are a growing number of books and even a review in LO this is a great and hard won victory though it is far from over.

As for the fading of the NO I can only speak to my experience. Many people in the home school movement are discovering the EF. For the first time in my 19 year journey in the Church I see people looking at the EF as an option for Mass which was not even considered just ten or even five years ago. B XVI has done some thing I haven't seen before and that is getting NO Catholics to even think about something that was only a few years ago viewed as a fringe movement.

So like the pro-life movement it is slow, long and painful but there is hope. At least me and my six kids have learned the beauty of the EF and are trying to attend as often as possible.

Jason

Knight of Malta said...

LeonG: you and I are in agreement. Though I find it astounding that such an eminent theologian would offer a "yes" at all to such a hot topic! In some circles even within the Vatican's own walls, the pendulum is swinging in the right direction; who would have openly criticized Vatican II, within the Vatican's walls, under Bl. John Paul II?