Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Santo Subito on December 28, 2012, 08:39:56 AM
-
Regarding the "Ottaviani Intervention," a few points:
1.) The "Intervention" was sent to Paul VI in Sept of '69. In Nov of '69 Paul VI addressed some concerns in his General Audience:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6601119.HTM
9. The second question is: What exactly are the changes?
10. You will see for yourselves that they consist of many new directions for celebrating the rites. Especially at the beginning, these will call for a certain amount of attention and care. Personal devotion and community sense will make it easy and pleasant to observe these new rules. But keep this clearly in mind: Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result.
11. It is not so. Absolutely not. Above all, because the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. Their theological qualification may vary in different degrees according to the liturgical context to which they refer. They are gestures and terms relating to a religious action—experienced and living—of an indescribable mystery of divine presence, not always expressed in a universal way. Only theological criticism can analyze this action and express it in logically satisfying doctrinal formulas. The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects.
2.) Also, the "Intervention" was written BEFORE the first Latin edition of the Roman Missal appeared in March of 1970. That edition included a doctrinal exposition of the Mass meant to address certain concerns in the "Intervention."
3.) Paul VI asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the department of the Roman Curia that Ottaviani had earlier headed, to examine the Short Critical Study. It responded on 12 November 1969 that the docuмent contained many affirmations that were "superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional and false".[http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2000-12/07-999999/Ch1.pdf p.21]
4.) A letter of 17 February 1970 signed by Cardinal Ottaviani and addressed to Gerard Lafond, was published in La Docuмentation catholique 67 (1970), pp. 215–216 and 343. It stated:
"I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26,[5] after which I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your "Doctrinal Note" [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae wide diffusion and success."
The letter also expressed regret on the part of the cardinal that his letter of 25 September 1969, which he did not disown, had been published:
"I regret only that my name has been misused in a way I did not wish, by publishing a letter that I wrote to the Holy Father without authorizing anyone to publish it."
-
Michael Davies, Jean Madiran, and Fr. Cekada both say if that letter of Cardinal Ottaviani's was genuine, it was obtained by deception, since Cardinal Ottaviani was blind at that time, and his secretary was the one giving him all the letters to be signed.
Also, it doesn't matter what the Pope says concerning the orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo. What about the content? Fr. Cekada in his work Work of Human Hands and Michael Davies in his book Pope Paul's New Mass both blast it as liturgical innovation; Fr. Cekada covers more thoroughly the changes in the lex orandi which influences lex credendi. Among other things, no more mention of hell (or optional mentions), no mention of soul in the Masses for the Dead, no more mention of the Devil, miracles, etc., and changing the Words of Consecration (what Pope before Paul VI ever dared changing the Words of Consecration?!). The traditional-sounding Instruction was only there to appease conservatives; nothing else changed.
-
Quo Vadis,
Two things lead me to believe the letter was genuine and not obtained by deception.
1.) Cardinal Ottaviani was also blind in September of 1969 when he signed the intervention, a mere 5 months before the letter to Gerard Lafond. Does this mean the Intervention is of dubious authenticity? In fact he had been blind since VCII. Are any of his other letters suspect due to his blindness?
2.) If Cardinal Ottaviani lent his signature to the Lafond letter mistakenly and through deception, why did he not disavow it at any time from February 1970 until his death in August of 1979?
As for the Mass of Paul VI being liturgical "innovation", Paul VI himself admits it twice in the address I cited! But he sees it as a good innovation. He also assumes, as do most Catholics, that the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the Mass a disciplinary matter and may make such innovations.
Fr. Cekada is entitled to his opinion, though being a sedevacantist, one naturally takes this into consideration when evaluating his opinion. Fr. Cekada seems to assume the See is vacant and then makes his deductions from this premise. Nevertheless, the words of Paul VI, as pope, in interpreting his own Mass, is a little bit more weighty than the opinion of Fr. Cekada or anyone else regarding said Mass.
You are correct that Michael Davies is highly critical of the Mass of Paul VI. However, in his book "The Church that Cannot Fail" he clarifies that despite his criticisms of that Mass, it cannot possibly be evil in and of itself as the Church could never feed itself poison. Here he is talking of the original Mass of Paul VI in Latin said by the book. He is not talking about the optional novelies that came later (CITH, female altar servers, lay EM's, guitars, etc.)
-
Quo Vadis,
Two things lead me to believe the letter was genuine and not obtained by deception.
1.) Cardinal Ottaviani was also blind in September of 1969 when he signed the intervention, a mere 5 months before the letter to Gerard Lafond. Does this mean the Intervention is of dubious authenticity? In fact he had been blind since VCII. Are any of his other letters suspect due to his blindness?
2.) If Cardinal Ottaviani lent his signature to the Lafond letter mistakenly and through deception, why did he not disavow it at any time from February 1970 until his death in August of 1979?
As for the Mass of Paul VI being liturgical "innovation", Paul VI himself admits it twice in the address I cited! But he sees it as a good innovation. He also assumes, as do most Catholics, that the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the Mass a disciplinary matter and may make such innovations.
Fr. Cekada is entitled to his opinion, though being a sedevacantist, one naturally takes this into consideration when evaluating his opinion. Fr. Cekada seems to assume the See is vacant and then makes his deductions from this premise. Nevertheless, the words of Paul VI, as pope, in interpreting his own Mass, is a little bit more weighty than the opinion of Fr. Cekada or anyone else regarding said Mass.
You are correct that Michael Davies is highly critical of the Mass of Paul VI. However, in his book "The Church that Cannot Fail" he clarifies that despite his criticisms of that Mass, it cannot possibly be evil in and of itself as the Church could never feed itself poison. Here he is talking of the original Mass of Paul VI in Latin said by the book. He is not talking about the optional novelies that came later (CITH, female altar servers, lay EM's, guitars, etc.)
1)His secretary, Archbishop Agustoni, was one of the men of Consilium charged with making the Novus Ordo. He resigned after Jean Madiran threatened him with a ecclesiastical lawsuit with obtaining Cardinal Ottaviani's signature by fraud. Also, if it's genuine, then Cardinal Ottaviani became senile, since the Nota Doctrinale has calumnies against him; would anyone in his right mind approve of calumnies against him?
2) See above. Also, Fr. Cekada doesn't go into anything sedevacantist in his critique of the New Mass, so don't go there. Most traditionalist criticisms of the New Mass are doctrinal, not aesthetic. Fr. Cekada shows, through writings and comparisons of the ordinary and propers of the New Mass, that there has been a definite doctrinal changes: prayers for heretics, schismatics, and infidels in the ordinary, no mention of hell, as I said, the devil, merits of the Saints, miracles, and despising earthyl things.
-
At this point in time, it should be obvious to everyone in the entire world that the letter of 1970 was a farce. If not a farce, it was wrong.
After 50 years, defending the NO and it's "mass" as not being scandalous is an impossibility, so a letter from 1970 signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, even if 100% authentic is 100% wrong.
-
His secretary, Archbishop Agustoni, was one of the men of Consilium charged with making the Novus Ordo. He resigned after Jean Madiran threatened him with a ecclesiastical lawsuit with obtaining Cardinal Ottaviani's signature by fraud. Also, if it's genuine, then Cardinal Ottaviani became senile, since the Nota Doctrinale has calumnies against him; would anyone in his right mind approve of calumnies against him?
Here is the full letter:
http://militiasanctaemariae.blogspot.com/2011/12/doctrinal-note-on-new-ordo-missae.html
Cardinal OTTAVIANI:
Rome, February 11, 1970
“Very Reverend Father [Dom Lafond],
I received your letter of 23 January and the Doctrinal Note, dated January 29. I commend you for your work, which is remarkable for its objectivity and the dignity of his expression. This was not always, alas, the case in this controversy in which we saw ordinary Christians, genuinely offended, mixed with those who use disorder souls to increase the confusion of minds. For my part I only regret having been abused in a way that I did not wish, by the publishing a letter that I sent to the Holy Father without allowing anyone to publish it. I was very pleased to read the speech of the Holy Father on the issues of the new Ordo Missae, and especially its doctrinal clarifications contained in the Public Addresses of 19 and 26 November, after which, I believe, no can honestly be shocked. This Note will make a careful and intelligent work of catechesis to remove some genuine bafflement that the text may generate. In this sense I wish your Doctrinal Note and activity of the Militia Mariae wide dissemination and success.
Sincerely, Most Reverend Father, the expression of my distinguished honors, accompanied by a blessing for all your employees and members of the Militia.
A. Card. Ottaviani”
The website provides a summary of the Note. The note was a study on the Mass.
Please explain what calumnies against Cardinal Ottaviani it included?
-
His secretary, Archbishop Agustoni, was one of the men of Consilium charged with making the Novus Ordo. He resigned after Jean Madiran threatened him with a ecclesiastical lawsuit with obtaining Cardinal Ottaviani's signature by fraud. Also, if it's genuine, then Cardinal Ottaviani became senile, since the Nota Doctrinale has calumnies against him; would anyone in his right mind approve of calumnies against him?
Here is the full letter:
http://militiasanctaemariae.blogspot.com/2011/12/doctrinal-note-on-new-ordo-missae.html
Cardinal OTTAVIANI:
Rome, February 11, 1970
“Very Reverend Father [Dom Lafond],
I received your letter of 23 January and the Doctrinal Note, dated January 29. I commend you for your work, which is remarkable for its objectivity and the dignity of his expression. This was not always, alas, the case in this controversy in which we saw ordinary Christians, genuinely offended, mixed with those who use disorder souls to increase the confusion of minds. For my part I only regret having been abused in a way that I did not wish, by the publishing a letter that I sent to the Holy Father without allowing anyone to publish it. I was very pleased to read the speech of the Holy Father on the issues of the new Ordo Missae, and especially its doctrinal clarifications contained in the Public Addresses of 19 and 26 November, after which, I believe, no can honestly be shocked. This Note will make a careful and intelligent work of catechesis to remove some genuine bafflement that the text may generate. In this sense I wish your Doctrinal Note and activity of the Militia Mariae wide dissemination and success.
Sincerely, Most Reverend Father, the expression of my distinguished honors, accompanied by a blessing for all your employees and members of the Militia.
A. Card. Ottaviani”
The website provides a summary of the Note. The note was a study on the Mass.
Please explain what calumnies against Cardinal Ottaviani it included?
That he made the changes of the Novus Ordo himself and adopted it at his request, especially the changes he most resolutely opposed in the Critical Study. So he's contradicting himself, because right after this letter, he told Jean Madiran that he expressly approved the Critical Study. Bfore he already told Fr. Raymond Dulac the same thing.
In any case, the secretary of Cardinal Ottaviani resigned, after the threat of ecclesiastical lawsuit by Jean Madiran.
And why are you obsessed with this letter? Even the Vatican took no notice of it, indicating that they knew the letter was suspicious already. And Cardinal Bacci still approved of the Study, even if Cardinal Ottaviani retracted.
-
Also, Fr. Cekada doesn't go into anything sedevacantist in his critique of the New Mass, so don't go there. Most traditionalist criticisms of the New Mass are doctrinal, not aesthetic. Fr. Cekada shows, through writings and comparisons of the ordinary and propers of the New Mass, that there has been a definite doctrinal changes: prayers for heretics, schismatics, and infidels in the ordinary, no mention of hell, as I said, the devil, merits of the Saints, miracles, and despising earthyl things.
Fr. Cekada docuмents the changes. That part is objective comparison. The conclusions he draws from these changes are his opinion. My point was that the explanation of the meaning and purpose of the changes by the author of the changes himself, Paul VI, should be given a little more weight than the interpretations of a priest who clearly has a vested interest in an interpretation of those changes that supports his a priori belief the See is vacant.
As I said, Michael Davies also makes many of the same critiques as Fr. C of the NO. The difference is that Davies does not conclude that the NO Mass is per se evil or sacrilegeous.
-
Also, Fr. Cekada doesn't go into anything sedevacantist in his critique of the New Mass, so don't go there. Most traditionalist criticisms of the New Mass are doctrinal, not aesthetic. Fr. Cekada shows, through writings and comparisons of the ordinary and propers of the New Mass, that there has been a definite doctrinal changes: prayers for heretics, schismatics, and infidels in the ordinary, no mention of hell, as I said, the devil, merits of the Saints, miracles, and despising earthyl things.
Fr. Cekada docuмents the changes. That part is objective comparison. The conclusions he draws from these changes are his opinion. My point was that the explanation of the meaning and purpose of the changes by the author of the changes himself, Paul VI, should be given a little more weight than the interpretations of a priest who clearly has a vested interest in an interpretation of those changes that supports his a priori belief the See is vacant.
As I said, Michael Davies also makes many of the same critiques as Fr. C of the NO. The difference is that Davies does not conclude that the NO Mass is per se evil or sacrilegeous.
He hasn't really doesn't so; Davies only docuмents many abuses, but he didn't do a thorough study of the propers or a thorough study of the Ordinary like Fr. Cekada.
It seems to me that you haven't really read Davies' work Pope Paul's New Mass; I know you haven't bothered with Fr. Cekada's more thorough work, but just because he's sede, doesn't make his objections invalid. And they show a descralization from the Tridentine to the Novus Ordo; the SSPX study of the New Mass, The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, says the same thing, that a new theology was promoted in the New Mass, with all its disturbing consequences.
-
That he made the changes of the Novus Ordo himself and adopted it at his request, especially the changes he most resolutely opposed in the Critical Study. So he's contradicting himself, because right after this letter, he told Jean Madiran that he expressly approved the Critical Study. Bfore he already told Fr. Raymond Dulac the same thing.
In any case, the secretary of Cardinal Ottaviani resigned, after the threat of ecclesiastical lawsuit by Jean Madiran.
And why are you obsessed with this letter? Even the Vatican took no notice of it, indicating that they knew the letter was suspicious already. And Cardinal Bacci still approved of the Study, even if Cardinal Ottaviani retracted.
You are making a lot of assertions without any citations to back them up.
Please provide some authority for the claims that:
1. The Study of the NO Mass cited in the letter asserted that Cardinal Ottaviani suggested changes in the NO Mass that he himself criticized.
2. The secretary of Cardinal Ottaviani resigned because of a threat of an ecclesiastical lawsuit by Jean Madrian.
3. The Vatican thought this letter was suspicious.
Also, how could Jean Madiran have any standing to bring an ecclesiastical lawsuit?
-
That he made the changes of the Novus Ordo himself and adopted it at his request, especially the changes he most resolutely opposed in the Critical Study. So he's contradicting himself, because right after this letter, he told Jean Madiran that he expressly approved the Critical Study. Bfore he already told Fr. Raymond Dulac the same thing.
In any case, the secretary of Cardinal Ottaviani resigned, after the threat of ecclesiastical lawsuit by Jean Madiran.
And why are you obsessed with this letter? Even the Vatican took no notice of it, indicating that they knew the letter was suspicious already. And Cardinal Bacci still approved of the Study, even if Cardinal Ottaviani retracted.
You are making a lot of assertions without any citations to back them up.
Please provide some authority for the claims that:
1. The Study of the NO Mass cited in the letter asserted that Cardinal Ottaviani suggested changes in the NO Mass that he himself criticized.
2. The secretary of Cardinal Ottaviani resigned because of a threat of an ecclesiastical lawsuit by Jean Madrian.
3. The Vatican thought this letter was suspicious.
Also, how could Jean Madiran have any standing to bring an ecclesiastical lawsuit?
Do I have to do your homework for you? It's all in Davies' work, p. 485-492. And if Jean Madiran was actually saying a calumny against the secretary, do you think the secretary would have resigned? Would he have taken it lying down? I very much doubt it.
Do I also have to say the absurdity that was contained in the Nota Doctrinale, that Cardinal Ottaviani didn't even read the Critical Study, and yet telling two people, Madiran and Fr. Dulac, in October 1969 and then right after the Nota and the letter of Fr. Lafonde, that he read and approved the study?!!
-
He hasn't really doesn't so; Davies only docuмents many abuses, but he didn't do a thorough study of the propers or a thorough study of the Ordinary like Fr. Cekada.
Doing a study is one thing. Anyone can conduct a study and give their opinions. Even critical opinions, like Davies. But to conduct a study and then conclusively state that the NO Mass is evil and sacrilegeous is another. What authority does Fr. Cekada have to declare a Mass evil and sacrilegeous? No more authority than a lib priest has in declaring the TLM evil and sacriligeous. Therefore, this opinion is Fr. C's own and is just an opinion from a priest. A priest who happens to be a sedevacantist and an opinion that happens to correspond with his prior view that the See is vacant, which is to be expected.
My point is that the NO Mass is not beyond criticism. However, there is no heresy contained in it. It may have more ambiguous phraseology and language than the TLM. However, if interpreted in a Catholic manner, which is proper for a Catholic Mass, it is not heretical and does not contain error. Therefore on a basic level it is not evil or sacrilegeous.
This says nothing about later innovations which were allowed (CITH, female altar servers) not to mention abuses. Also factor in the hundred other things that destroy reverence in most NO Masses (architecture, barren sanctuary, shifted tabernacle) and you have amble room for criticism.
My point is that there is no way to look at the NO Mass as promulgated in Latin and somehow definitively conclude, on one's own, that it is per se evil and sacrilegeous, could not come from the Church, and therefore Paul VI must be an antipope.
-
Do I have to do your homework for you? It's all in Davies' work, p. 485-492.
How does Davies know? What does he cite?
And if Jean Madiran was actually saying a calumny against the secretary, do you think the secretary would have resigned? Would he have taken it lying down? I very much doubt it.
Perhaps the secretary could care less what Jean Madrain thought and was scheduled to retire anyway. I don't know the circuмstances and haven't read the official sources.
Do I also have to say the absurdity that was contained in the Nota Doctrinale, that Cardinal Ottaviani didn't even read the Critical Study, and yet telling two people, Madiran and Fr. Dulac, in October 1969 and then right after the Nota and the letter of Fr. Lafonde, that he read and approved the study?!!
I'd like to get my hands on the Nota Doctrinale. I looked for a copy online and all I coulld find is a very short summary I linked to. I'd like to see if these claims are in the Nota Cardinal Ottaviani received and, if so, what the context was.
-
He hasn't really doesn't so; Davies only docuмents many abuses, but he didn't do a thorough study of the propers or a thorough study of the Ordinary like Fr. Cekada.
Doing a study is one thing. Anyone can conduct a study and give their opinions. Even critical opinions, like Davies. But to conduct a study and then conclusively state that the NO Mass is evil and sacrilegeous is another. What authority does Fr. Cekada have to declare a Mass evil and sacrilegeous? No more authority than a lib priest has in declaring the TLM evil and sacriligeous. Therefore, this opinion is Fr. C's own and is just an opinion from a priest. A priest who happens to be a sedevacantist and an opinion that happens to correspond with his prior view that the See is vacant, which is to be expected.
My point is that the NO Mass is not beyond criticism. However, there is no heresy contained in it. It may have more ambiguous phraseology and language than the TLM. However, if interpreted in a Catholic manner, which is proper for a Catholic Mass, it is not heretical and does not contain error. Therefore on a basic level it is not evil or sacrilegeous.
This says nothing about later innovations which were allowed (CITH, female altar servers) not to mention abuses. Also factor in the hundred other things that destroy reverence in most NO Masses (architecture, barren sanctuary, shifted tabernacle) and you have amble room for criticism.
My point is that there is no way to look at the NO Mass as promulgated in Latin and somehow definitively conclude, on one's own, that it is per se evil and sacrilegeous, could not come from the Church, and therefore Paul VI must be an antipope.
The NO promulgated in Latin was studied by Fr. Cekada and the SSPX and they reveal the doctrinal errors contained in the Novus Ordo. If it is as you say, then the SSPX and other traditionalists have no need to avoid the Novus Ordo. But we insist on never going to the Novus Ordo; Archbishop Lefebvre did, saying also there were doctrinal errors threatening the spiritual life of a Catholic.
-
Do I have to do your homework for you? It's all in Davies' work, p. 485-492.
How does Davies know? What does he cite?
And if Jean Madiran was actually saying a calumny against the secretary, do you think the secretary would have resigned? Would he have taken it lying down? I very much doubt it.
Perhaps the secretary could care less what Jean Madrain thought and was scheduled to retire anyway. I don't know the circuмstances and haven't read the official sources.
Do I also have to say the absurdity that was contained in the Nota Doctrinale, that Cardinal Ottaviani didn't even read the Critical Study, and yet telling two people, Madiran and Fr. Dulac, in October 1969 and then right after the Nota and the letter of Fr. Lafonde, that he read and approved the study?!!
I'd like to get my hands on the Nota Doctrinale. I looked for a copy online and all I coulld find is a very short summary I linked to. I'd like to see if these claims are in the Nota Cardinal Ottaviani received and, if so, what the context was.
The fact that Michael Davies was recommended by the current Pope doesn't in the least make him a reliable source? He cites the page numbers of the Nota Doctrinale, also cited by Jean Madiran. No one attacked their integrity here, and in fact, the silence that came from all quarters proves their charge, in my mind.
And in any case, there's still Archbishop Lefebvre and others who approved of the study, and made other critiques of the New Mass.
-
The NO promulgated in Latin was studied by Fr. Cekada and the SSPX and they reveal the doctrinal errors contained in the Novus Ordo. If it is as you say, then the SSPX and other traditionalists have no need to avoid the Novus Ordo. But we insist on never going to the Novus Ordo; Archbishop Lefebvre did, saying also there were doctrinal errors threatening the spiritual life of a Catholic.
I'd like to see the doctrinal errors they state are in the Novus Ordo. It seems they first interpret certain words in the NO how they understand them. Then they declare those interpretations heretical or "errors."
Now, just because one believes the NO contains no direct heresy or errors, doesn't mean one can't avoid the NO. There are many reasons to avoid the NO otherwise. Davies didn't believe the official Latin NO was heretical, but yet he never went to the NO.
-
The NO promulgated in Latin was studied by Fr. Cekada and the SSPX and they reveal the doctrinal errors contained in the Novus Ordo. If it is as you say, then the SSPX and other traditionalists have no need to avoid the Novus Ordo. But we insist on never going to the Novus Ordo; Archbishop Lefebvre did, saying also there were doctrinal errors threatening the spiritual life of a Catholic.
I'd like to see the doctrinal errors they state are in the Novus Ordo. It seems they first interpret certain words in the NO how they understand them. Then they declare those interpretations heretical or "errors."
Now, just because one believes the NO contains no direct heresy or errors, doesn't mean one can't avoid the NO. There are many reasons to avoid the NO otherwise. Davies didn't believe the official Latin NO was heretical, but yet he never went to the NO.
The main objection is assembly theology. The definition of the Mass is now just a memorial of the Lord, not the unbloody continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, with the people celebrating it and the priest as a mere preside. Fr. Cekada and the SSPX go into detail in their books this very huge doctrinal error.
-
The fact that Michael Davies was recommended by the current Pope doesn't in the least make him a reliable source? He cites the page numbers of the Nota Doctrinale, also cited by Jean Madiran. No one attacked their integrity here, and in fact, the silence that came from all quarters proves their charge, in my mind.
And in any case, there's still Archbishop Lefebvre and others who approved of the study, and made other critiques of the New Mass.
I do think Davies is a reliable source based on my experience reading his work. That is why I really would like to get my hands on this Note and check out the page numbers. If they do indeeed make statements that contradict Ottaviani, I would be moved towards the position of doubt towards the letter.
However, then there is the question of Card Ottaviani blindness. If he were blind, how could he possibly "read" the Note? The Note was a study and probably quite lengthy. Did his secretary read it to him? If so, did the secretary "leave out" those parts? If he did, did Card Ottaviani dictate the letter himself, not knowing the parts that contradicted him? Interesting questions!
-
Here is a review on Fr. Cekada's work Work of Human Hands (http://www.doctrinaliturgica.com/2010/11/dr-hull-on-whh-well-docuмented-original-and-worthy-of-attention/ ):
Dr. Hull on WHH: “Well Docuмented,” “Original and Worthy of Attention”
By frcekada | Published: November 6, 2010
I AM PLEASED to report that Work of Human Hands has received its first formal review in a periodical. This came in a lengthy piece by Dr. Geoffrey Hull in the October 2010 issue of Christian Order. One advantage of the Internet age is the opportunity it offers an author to engage with and respond to points raised by reviewers. In the case of Dr. Hull’s lengthy and thoughtful review, this will be a pleasure.
PERIODICAL: Christian Order was founded in England in 1959 by Father Paul Crane SJ. In the years following Vatican II, Christian Order promoted resistance to the liturgical changes and fidelity to the old Mass, and described its mission as battling the efforts “of the Modernist revolutionaries and their manic efforts to protestanize the faith anew” in the “the liturgical, doctrinal, moral, catechetical and ecuмenical fields.”
Apart from editorials, Christian Order does not put its content on-line. For information on ordering the number which contains Dr. Hull’s review, or to subscribe to Christian Order (for U.S., $50 for ten editions per year) click here.
REVIEWER: Dr. Geoffrey Hull is an Australian linguist, ethnologist, historian and professor at Macquarie University, Sydney.
Dr. Geoffrey Hull
Professor Hull is also the author of The Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church, a study of the historical causes and socio-cultural impact of church reforms of the 1960s in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic traditions. A second edition of Banished Heart was published in 2010 by T&T Clark (London) as part of its series Studies in Fundamental Liturgy.
THE REVIEW: Dr. Hull’s review is rather extensive (11 pages). He takes his duty as a reviewer seriously: he strives to represent the content of WHH concisely, accurately and fairly, and to balance positive and the negative parts of his analysis. His tone is academic, rather than polemic, a refreshing contrast to so much traditionalist writing.
The first obstacle that many traditionalists must overcome before reading almost anything I have written is that I am a sedevacantist. I begin Work of Human Hands with this very point, and Dr. Hull addresses it in his opening paragraph.
When I agreed to review Rev. Anthony Cekada’s latest study Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI, I was aware that many readers of Christian Order would hesitate to open a book written by a sedevacantist… And as the reviewer of this book I wish to state for the record that I am no supporter of the sedevacantist thesis or of the mission of its proponents.
Nevertheless, in his preface Fr Cekada states that his topic is not sedevacantism but the Roman liturgical reform, and although latter-day traditionalist cynicism might make it hard to suspend the judgement that the two subjects can hardly be unrelated in the mind of a writer so given to systematic thought, I think it only fair to evaluate the work more for what it purports to be rather than for what it might seem to imply…
I. Positive Observations. From this Dr. Hull proceeds to a number of positive general observations about Work of Human Hands:
Cekada’s latest offering is well docuмented and based on an impressive amount of background reading evidenced by its extensive bibliography.…
Both parts naturally go over ground already covered by other writers and scholars who have attempted to assess the extent to which the new liturgy has departed from organic ritual development and compromised Catholic doctrine in the interests of ecuмenical convergence with Protestantism: the thought of Louis Salleron, Michael Davies, Klaus Gamber, Didier Bonneterre and others has been well pondered and economically synthesized by the author. But what makes Anthony Cekada’s study original and worthy of attention are those pages where he goes into a deeper analysis of particular aspects of the liturgical revolution that have so far been dealt with in only a cursory fashion.
Dr. Hull points out and sums up for the reader the two key chapters in which I analyze the theological underpinnings for the Mass of Paul VI:
Particular cases in point are his excellent Chapters 5 and 6, examining the protestantizing doctrinal innovations that informed the 1969 General Instruction on the New Mass, and the skullduggery resorted to by Vatican officials in their attempt to salvage and repackage the docuмent after its orthodoxy was brought into question by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. The author’s reflections on the expunging of references to the Mass as a sacrifice of propitiation in the Instruction are most interesting, as is his analysis of the new interpretations of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, and of the roles of priest and congregation…
Of the Chapter 4, which deals with the vernacular translations of the New Mass that conservatives have so severely criticized over the years, Dr. Hull says:
Another valuable insight provided by this book (pp. 92–9) is evidence that in several instances, for example, the foisting of poor and erroneous vernacular translation of Latin liturgical texts on local churches, responsibility lay with the Vatican bureaucracies working under the Pope, not with the episcopal conferences who usually get the blame in polemic literature…
In Chapter 1 of Work of Human Hands and again in my conclusions, I point out the dangers of reducing the question of old Mass vs. New Mass to one of aesthetics, nostalgia or a vague “hunger for mystery” in religion. I argue that the main reasons for rejecting the New Mass and embracing the old must be Catholic doctrine and piety.
On this point Dr. Hull is in complete accord.
I could not agree more with [Fr. Cekada’s] criticism of the modern Vatican’s plainly dishonest endorsement of the immemorial rite on primarily aesthetic grounds. Such grounds are diametrically opposed to (and designed to sweep under the carpet) the weighty doctrinal considerations that have motivated intelligent traditionalist dissent from the reform ever since the 1960s.
Another important observation, made on pp. 5–7, concerns the gagging of traditionalist opinion demanded by a conscientious acceptance of the terms of the indults of 1988 and 2007. The Vatican strategy of subjectively portraying fidelity to the immemorial rite “as mere personal preference or sentiment” was, Cekada writes, “ extremely clever. It sidestepped the doctrinal question — it’s all just choice and options. And if you suspect there may be a problem, please don’t be so ungrateful to the Holy Father as to mention it…”
Here Dr. Hull offers a personal anecdote about priests who had had begun to celebrate the traditional Mass under the auspices of the new, Vatican-approved priestly societies established under John Paul II in 1988:
This reminds me of a conversation I had in the late 1980s with the superior of the newly-formed Fraternity of St. Peter. I asked the priest in question whether [it] was true that accepting the terms of the Ecclesia Dei decree [of John Paul II] meant being unable to criticize the liturgical revolution still approved by the Vatican. “Oh, enfin…” [“Oh, well…”] was his evasive reply, and after a short, embarrassed silence he changed the subject.
“The elephant which I had led into the room,” Dr. Hull continues, was that the New Mass was a “dangerous aberration,” and that putting it on the same level as the traditional Mass “in the interests of a spurious unity of faith based on post-conciliar, Anglicanoid pluralism is totally unacceptable,” because “in the orthodox universe there are no such things as ‘extraordinary’ and ‘ordinary’ forms of the Roman rite.”
Summing up on this issue, Dr. Hull concludes:
Fr. Cekada rightly recognizes that just as truth and error cannot be wed, no convergence of authentic worship and an artificial cult is possible, and talk of a “reform of the reform” is a mere delusion, whether it come from the lips of the Supreme Pontiff or from someone lower down the chain of command. That the Pauline liturgy needs to be officially repudiated and abolished in the Roman rite is the logical — and impeccably orthodox — conclusion of the book,
Dr. Hull’s review appeared in Christian Order immediately after an editorial on the New Mass that concluded with the phrase delenda est — it must be destroyed. This, as it happens, was also the title for the final section in my conclusions at the end of Work of Human Hands.
II. Criticisms: Some of the offenses alleged fall into the venial category. Work of Human Hands, Dr. Hull concedes, “certainly never suffers from dullness.” That said,
Anthony Cekada is an engaging and entertaining writer, but his penchant for the witty aside is somewhat over-indulged in what sets out to be a work of objective scholarship. This sometimes leads him to descend into populist rhetoric…
In a purely academic context, Dr. Hull is of course quite correct. Work of Human Hands, however, was also aimed at a broader audience — not only the intellectual or the liturgy buff, but also the average Joe in the pew at a traditionalist chapel, who tends not to read many books and who (my experience as a parish priest tells me) appreciates a few extra rhetorical flourishes here and there when he does. It is for his benefit that Father Chuck and Ms. Gauleiter make an occasional appearance.
Dr. Hull points out three instances of inaccurate terminology in a footnote (p. 88, n. 16) discussing various liturgical languages. Two of the three instances are based on my source (De Marco, Rome and the Vernacular, 45, 81), but since Dr. Hull is eminent linguist in the field of Romance, Celtic, Slavonic, Semitic, Austronesian and Papuan languages, one must naturally defer to his expertise.
Other points in the book to which Dr. Hull takes exception touch upon more complex issues:
(1) Invalidity?. The thesis of Work of Human Hands deals with the disastrous effects of the New Mass on Catholic doctrine and piety. The issue of the validity or invalidity of the new rite I treat in a somewhat ancillary fashion at the end of Chapter 12 (see pp. 346–8)
Put roughly, my argument is this: (a) According to the traditionally accepted principles of Catholic sacramental theology, to recite the Words of Consecration (or “sacramental form”) at Mass in a narrative mode manifests a defect of intention that would render the consecration invalid. (b) In the official liturgical text of the New Mass itself, the Words of Consecration (Verba Consecrationis) have been changed from a true sacramental form into a quote (Verba Domini, as the new rubrics and Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution say) in a historical narrative. (c) The conclusion based on (a) and (b) is invalidity.
Dr. Hull is of the opinion that, to arrive at this conclusion, I would need to prove that modern priests habitually and deliberately read the Words of Consecration this way.
But the problem I see lies not with the individual priest, but with the official liturgical text itself. The priest just takes what the official rite gives him, and as I demonstrate by examining this rite, it gives him a narrative with a quote. (See pp. 337–45) Applying the major principle (a) leaves only one conclusion.
Deliberately abandoning the traditional principles of sacramental theology in the formulation of a new rite, as the reformers did, was bound to have terrible consequences, and this, I contend, is one of them.
(2) Modernist or ‘modernist’? While Dr. Hull acknowledges the subversive activities of the New Theology (an anti-Thomist movement which emerged in the 1930s and which would triumph at Vatican II), he believes that I have not clearly set “terminological parameters” in applying the term “modernist” to its adherents. In some cases (Küng and Schillebeeckx), he believes, it applies; in others, he believes it does not — notably that of Father Louis Bouyer.
His exception for the case of Bouyer, I think, is rooted in the general inclination among traditionalists (e.g. Michael Davies, and many who are now promoting the old Mass under the banner of Summorum Pontificuм) to claim Bouyer as an ally of their cause, due to his caustic comments after the Council about how some of the liturgical reforms actually turned out. (These are found in Liturgy and Architecture and The Decomposition of Catholicism.)
The perception needs to be revised. He who undertakes a reading of Bouyer’s 1954 Liturgical Piety while keeping one eye on Pascendi will see all the usual modernist sleight-of-hand: brutal dismissal of the ages of faith, praise for heretics (Brilioth, Jubé, Anglicans), “surpassing” standard Catholic theological terminology, attacks on the Real Presence, hatred for Thomism, and everywhere, endless rhetorical zigzagging to camouflage his real ideas from too close a scrutiny. All of this, I contend, I have amply docuмented on pp. 32–40 of Work of Human Hands.
As regards Dr. Hull’s more general terminological objection to my characterizing adherents of the New Theology as “modernists,” I respond that the label was employed not only by their own more orthodox contemporaries (to the question “Where is the New Theology leading us?” the great Dominican neo-Thomist Garrigou-Lagrange replied, “back to modernism”) but also by their latter-day sympathizers (Jürgen Mettepenningen’s recently-published study, for instance, is entitled Nouvelle Théologie – New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II.)
In light of the foregoing, it would seem that my “application of the damning label ‘modernist’ to most of the post-scholastic Latin liturgists and theologians” may be far less hasty than Dr. Hull seems to think.
(3) Contempt for the Catholic East. This, Dr. Hull contends, is my attitude towards Uniate Catholics. I will let the charge pass, and ask the reader of Work of Human Hands to form his own conclusions.
(4) Sedevacantist Shortcomings. Dr. Hull devotes only two paragraphs to this point. My “rough handling of non-Roman theological and liturgical traditions” seems to be “intimately bound up the general outlook of sedevacantists, which is excessively prone to abstraction in thought.” This results in
an exaggerated conception of papal power that makes grave errors of naturally fallible pontiffs outside the strict bound of guaranteed infallibility seem inconceivable, an attitude hardly supported by the evidence of Church history.
On the issue of whether my conception of papal power is exaggerated, or whether it indeed constitutes an excess forming part of what Dr. Hull calls “the author’s latinocentric sedevacantist baggage,” I will take a pass as well. This topic would take us far beyond what is, strictly speaking, the subject matter of Work of Human Hands.
III. Conclusion. Dr. Hull observes that no reviewer who, like himself, is also an author assumes that writing the perfect book is an easy task.
And while any thoroughgoing review of a book will inevitably appear more negative that positive because of the very nature of criticism, my concluding opinion is that there is much to commend in Work of Human Hands — a work I have found enlightening in many respects, in spite of the reservations I have expressed.
There is no doubt that a good deal of what Anthony Cekada has painstakingly chronicled and lucidly argued will make a very useful contribution the question that faces all orthodox Catholics today: how to restore integrity and holiness to the sanctuaries of our devastated churches.
I thank Dr. Hull and Christian Order for the opportunity to present and discuss these issues.
NOTE: Christian Order has since posted Dr. Hull’s review on line as its October Feature.
This entry was posted in 02 Liturgical Movement, 12 Eucharistic Prayer, Reviews of Work of Human Hands, WHH Chapter Topics. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
-
The main objection is assembly theology. The definition of the Mass is now just a memorial of the Lord, not the unbloody continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, with the people celebrating it and the priest as a mere preside. Fr. Cekada and the SSPX go into detail in their books this very huge doctrinal error.
From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM)
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-introduction.cfm
2. The sacrificial nature of the Mass, solemnly defended by the Council of Trent, because it accords with the universal tradition of the Church,[1] was once more stated by the Second Vatican Council, which pronounced these clear words about the Mass: "At the Last Supper, Our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, by which the Sacrifice of his Cross is perpetuated until he comes again; and till then he entrusts the memorial of his Death and Resurrection to his beloved spouse, the Church."[2]
What is taught in this way by the Council is consistently expressed in the formulas of the Mass. Moreover, the doctrine which stands out in the following sentence, already notable and concisely expressed in the ancient Sacramentary commonly called the Leonine—"for whenever the memorial of this sacrifice is celebrated the work of our redemption is accomplished"[3]—is aptly and exactly expounded in the Eucharistic Prayers; for as in these the Priest enacts the anamnesis, while turned towards God likewise in the name of all the people, he renders thanks and offers the living and holy sacrifice, that is, the Church's oblation and the sacrificial Victim by whose death God himself willed to reconcile us to himself;[4] and the Priest also prays that the Body and Blood of Christ may be a sacrifice which is acceptable to the Father and which brings salvation to the whole world.[5]
So, in the new Missal the rule of prayer (lex orandi) of the Church corresponds to her perennial rule of faith (lex credendi), by which we are truly taught that the sacrifice of his Cross and its sacramental renewal in the Mass, which Christ the Lord instituted at the Last Supper and commanded his Apostles to do in his memory, are one and the same, differing only in the manner of their offering; and as a result, that the Mass is at one and the same time a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, propitiation, and satisfaction.
3. Moreover, the wondrous mystery of the real presence of the Lord under the Eucharistic species, confirmed by the Second Vatican Council[6] and other teachings of the Church's Magisterium[7] in the same sense and with the same doctrine as the Council of Trent proposed that it must be believed,[8] is proclaimed in the celebration of the Mass, not only by the very words of consecration by which Christ is rendered present through transubstantiation, but also with a sense and a demonstration of the greatest reverence and adoration which strives for realization in the Eucharistic liturgy. For the same reason, the Christian people are led to worship this wondrous Sacrament through adoration in a special way on Thursday of the Lord's Supper in Holy Week and on the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.
4. In truth, the nature of the ministerial Priesthood proper to the Bishop and the Priest, who offer the Sacrifice in the person of Christ and who preside over the gathering of the holy people, shines forth in the form of the rite itself, on account of the more prominent place and function given to the Priest. The essential elements of this function are set out and explained clearly and extensively in the Preface for the Chrism Mass on Thursday of Holy Week, the day, namely, when the institution of the Priesthood is commemorated. For in the Preface is made clear how the conferral of Priestly power is accomplished through the laying on of hands; and, by the listing one by one of its duties, that power is described which is the continuation of the power of Christ, the High Priest of the New Testament.
-
Santo Subito, read The Great Sacrilege (http://www.dailycatholic.org/indextgs.htm) by Fr. Wathen written in 1971. He was not a Sede and he brilliantly explains why the new mass is a sacrilege in a way that everyone can understand but they simply will not accept (head in the sand). Here is a brief snip below as regards the subject of this thread.
[...]This important study under the sponsorship of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci (in the later references to be called simply The Critique had a letter printed with it, wherein they say:
The accompanying critical study is the work of a group of theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Brief though it is, it sufficiently demonstrates that the Novus Ordo Missae - considering the new elements, susceptible of widely differing evaluations, which appear to be implied or taken for granted- represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of The Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent, which by fixing definitively the "canons" of the rite erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery. 27 27. (Ibid. p. 27).
In answer to such views as these, the Pontiff gives the following explanation:
But there is nothing in this idea, absolutely (the idea that some will suspect that the Mass is being changed radically, and its doctrine being disparaged). first of all, because ritual and rubrics are not, in themselves, a matter of dogmatic definition. These can have a diversity of theological meanings depending on the liturgical context in which they occur.
They are the gestures and terms attached to a religious action, an experience, lived and living, in the ineffable mystery of the Divine Presence, which is not always expressed in an identical way. Only theological criticism can analyze an action and find an expression for it in logically satisfying doctrinal formulas.
Thus, with the new rite, the Mass is the same as always. If anything, its identity has been made more recognizable in certain of its aspects… 28 28. Allocution of Paul VI on November 26, 1969. La Docuмentation Catholique. 7 December 1969.
This kind of talk beggars belief-except that it is characteristically "Pauline." In short, the Pope is saying: The Mass has no strictly defined ceremony, ritual, or formula. It is a kind of formless, spiritual essence, like a ghost (or something else invisible). It can only be seen when it is covered, and can be covered with first this set of rites, then that. It does not really matter which set is used, although a set should be chosen which is expressive to the men of a given time-period. (A Modernist notion if there ever was one!) Do I need to tell you that this strange language is totally foreign to all Catholic teaching? One is tempted to ask, what is this "theological criticism" business? Is there some kind of gnosis or special knowledge whereby the experts and the liturgists construe what shape the Liturgy of the Mass ought to have? The whole idea is absurd! Anyone can see that, if it takes experts and liturgists to devise your "ritual" for you, you surely cannot describe their creations as traditional. Nor can you describe them as "ritual." For, obviously, the rites of any religion (true or man-made) must have taken their origin from its very beginning; they can only symbolize what they do through an historic relationship with what they recall and re-celebrate; and their traditional character derives from the fact that its adherents for generations have understood this relationship.
-
I did read the review of Fr. C's book you posted. It touches on some criticisms and says they involve doctrine, but it doesn't get into specifics. I'm not contesting that there is nothing to criticize in the NO Mass. My only point is that it is not evil or heretical in it's Latin text.
-
The main objection is assembly theology. The definition of the Mass is now just a memorial of the Lord, not the unbloody continuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, with the people celebrating it and the priest as a mere preside. Fr. Cekada and the SSPX go into detail in their books this very huge doctrinal error.
From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM)
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-introduction.cfm
2. The sacrificial nature of the Mass, solemnly defended by the Council of Trent, because it accords with the universal tradition of the Church,[1] was once more stated by the Second Vatican Council, which pronounced these clear words about the Mass: "At the Last Supper, Our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, by which the Sacrifice of his Cross is perpetuated until he comes again; and till then he entrusts the memorial of his Death and Resurrection to his beloved spouse, the Church."[2]
What is taught in this way by the Council is consistently expressed in the formulas of the Mass. Moreover, the doctrine which stands out in the following sentence, already notable and concisely expressed in the ancient Sacramentary commonly called the Leonine—"for whenever the memorial of this sacrifice is celebrated the work of our redemption is accomplished"[3]—is aptly and exactly expounded in the Eucharistic Prayers; for as in these the Priest enacts the anamnesis, while turned towards God likewise in the name of all the people, he renders thanks and offers the living and holy sacrifice, that is, the Church's oblation and the sacrificial Victim by whose death God himself willed to reconcile us to himself;[4] and the Priest also prays that the Body and Blood of Christ may be a sacrifice which is acceptable to the Father and which brings salvation to the whole world.[5]
So, in the new Missal the rule of prayer (lex orandi) of the Church corresponds to her perennial rule of faith (lex credendi), by which we are truly taught that the sacrifice of his Cross and its sacramental renewal in the Mass, which Christ the Lord instituted at the Last Supper and commanded his Apostles to do in his memory, are one and the same, differing only in the manner of their offering; and as a result, that the Mass is at one and the same time a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, propitiation, and satisfaction.
3. Moreover, the wondrous mystery of the real presence of the Lord under the Eucharistic species, confirmed by the Second Vatican Council[6] and other teachings of the Church's Magisterium[7] in the same sense and with the same doctrine as the Council of Trent proposed that it must be believed,[8] is proclaimed in the celebration of the Mass, not only by the very words of consecration by which Christ is rendered present through transubstantiation, but also with a sense and a demonstration of the greatest reverence and adoration which strives for realization in the Eucharistic liturgy. For the same reason, the Christian people are led to worship this wondrous Sacrament through adoration in a special way on Thursday of the Lord's Supper in Holy Week and on the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.
4. In truth, the nature of the ministerial Priesthood proper to the Bishop and the Priest, who offer the Sacrifice in the person of Christ and who preside over the gathering of the holy people, shines forth in the form of the rite itself, on account of the more prominent place and function given to the Priest. The essential elements of this function are set out and explained clearly and extensively in the Preface for the Chrism Mass on Thursday of Holy Week, the day, namely, when the institution of the Priesthood is commemorated. For in the Preface is made clear how the conferral of Priestly power is accomplished through the laying on of hands; and, by the listing one by one of its duties, that power is described which is the continuation of the power of Christ, the High Priest of the New Testament.
Fr. Cekada rips this General Instruction apart, saying that very little evidence was offered, if any, concerning the orthodoxy of the rite (the Preface for the Chrism Mass mentioned only [come on, innovators! that's all you can come up with?!]), and even not there. In any case, the New Mass wasn't changed at all, and the 1969 Instruction is more accurate in describing the theology of the New Mass than the 1970 Instruction, made only to please conservatives, rather than do any real changes.
-
I did read the review of Fr. C's book you posted. It touches on some criticisms and says they involve doctrine, but it doesn't get into specifics. I'm not contesting that there is nothing to criticize in the NO Mass. My only point is that it is not evil or heretical in it's Latin text.
Assembly theology is not evil? Changing expressly the words of Consecration for no good reason is not evil? Desacralizing the Mass is not evil? You must have a different definition of evil than I do.
-
That Fr. C ripped the '69 instruction apart was my understanding.
What is there to rip apart in what I quoted from the GIRM? That quote rejects the assembly theology and denial of sacrifice you said were errors/heresies of the NOM.
Making minor alterations the words of consecration is not in and of itself evil, though I wouldn't call it prudent and wouldn't have done it. The consecration is still valid as long as the meaning is not substantially changed. It wasn't. The Eastern and other Rites have different consecration forms. Are they evil?
As for "desacrilization" this is Fr. C's opinion. You'd have to define desacrilization to equate with heresy or sacrilege and then prove the NOM is desacrillized.
-
That Fr. C ripped the '69 instruction apart was my understanding.
What is there to rip apart in what I quoted from the GIRM? That quote rejects the assembly theology and denial of sacrifice you said were errors/heresies of the NOM.
Making minor alterations the words of consecration is not in and of itself evil, though I wouldn't call it prudent and wouldn't have done it. The consecration is still valid as long as the meaning is not substantially changed. It wasn't. The Eastern and other Rites have different consecration forms. Are they evil?
As for "desacrilization" this is Fr. C's opinion. You'd have to define desacrilization to equate with heresy or sacrilege and then prove the NOM is desacrillized.
The 1970 Instruction begs the question of the orthodoxy of the rite. Other than a few pieces of evidence here and there, it offers nothing. And many commentators, both "conservative" and modernist, admit the 1970 Instruction didn't really disavow the 1969 Instruction.In any case Fr. Cekada's analysis of the Novus Ordo is very damning, and Dr. Hull of Christian Order concurs with im:the New Mass must be ended!
And BTW, you haven't even read Fr. Cekada, so how can you make conclusions without seeing his evidence or the SSPX for that matter? have, and I can say, IMHO, he has definitely shown the heterodoxy of the New Mass.
-
As for comparing the form of consecration in the Eastern Rites, apples and oranges. Not one church, Uniate or schismatic, ever dared to do what Pope Paul VI did: change the words of Consecration, Our Lord's own words.
-
My point is that the NOM is not explicitly heretical or erroneous and therefore not evil. Therefore it can come from the Church and did. I've never seen anyone prove the contrary.
I think one can admit this and still have serious criticisms of the Rite, ala Davies.
-
My point is that the NOM is not explicitly heretical or erroneous and therefore not evil. Therefore it can come from the Church and did. I've never seen anyone prove the contrary.
I think one can admit this and still have serious criticisms of the Rite, ala Davies.
You haven't read Fr. Cekada or the SSPX study, which shows the theology of the Novus Ordo to be assembly theology, which is contrary to the Council of Trent's teaching on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. A serious error on this point is heresy. How heretical remains for the Church to state.
-
He hasn't really doesn't so; Davies only docuмents many abuses, but he didn't do a thorough study of the propers or a thorough study of the Ordinary like Fr. Cekada.
My point is that the NO Mass is not beyond criticism. However, there is no heresy contained in it. It may have more ambiguous phraseology and language than the TLM. However, if interpreted in a Catholic manner, which is proper for a Catholic Mass, it is not heretical and does not contain error. Therefore on a basic level it is not evil or sacrilegeous.
Wrong.
And here's some dogmatic proof for you. Please reconsider your erroneous position and please read what these popes had to say, don't just skim the text... its not too long. You read all your modernist Vaticanista trash, why not give some actual Catholic proclamations a chance ?
Pope Pius XI condemned ambiguous statements in Mortalium Animos :
“The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever intact and might be brought with EASE and SECURITY to the knowledge of men.”
So did Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei Aug 28, 1794 (condemning the Synod of Pistoia regarding , Jensenism and Gallicanism):
“The Ancient Doctors knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulation and lying is vicious , regardless of the circuмstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.”
-
How does one explain these quotes/ acts of Archbishop Lefebvre?
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/vacilate.htm
March 1973
"I shall never say that the new Ordo Missae is heretical, I shall never say that it cannot be a Sacrifice. I believe that many priests, above all those priests who have known the old Ordo, -certainly have very good intentions in saying their Mass. Far be it from me to say that everything is wrong with the new Ordo." (p. 159). (Paris Lecture, March 1973 at the invitation of the Union des Intellectuels Indenendants and the Club de la Culture française per "A Bishop Speaks Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, Writings and Addresses 1963- 1975", published by Scottish Una Voce.
Feb. 21, 1974
"... Mgr. Lefebvre told me his point of view: it is better to have the new mass than not to have mass at all; it is safer, to avoid losing the faith, to go to the new mass than not to go at all." Letter from Fr. Coache to Fr. Barbara, 21 Feb 1974.
Nov. 16, 1976
Another day Mgr. Lefebvre does not blush to consider the cohabitation of the two rites. He distinguishes between "good" new masses and bad ones. Nor does he rule out assistance at the new mass to satisfy the Sunday obligation: "I think they should not abandon every public religious act and in consequence if the mass is celebrated in a respectful manner and not sacrilegious, I think that it is right to assist at this Sunday Mass in order to fulfil the obligation." Letter to Mlle. T., 15 March 1974. (ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara)
Nov. 8, 1979
Lefebvre stated that his own views had not changed over the years; that no one should be mistaken regarding his and the official position of the SSPX on the Novus Ordo Missae - which was: that no one in the SSPX could "tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid..." "Catholic", July & Nov 83, p.3.
Mar. 8, 1980
Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre to Pope John Paul II
"Most Holy Father,
To Put an end to some rumours which are now spreading both in Rome and certain traditionalist circles in Europe, and even in America, concerning my attitude and my way of thinking with respect to the Pope, the Council, and the NOVUS ORDO Mass, and fearing lest these rumours should reach Your Holiness, I make so bold as to reaffirm my consistent position.
"I have no reservations whatsoever regarding the legitimacy and validity of your election, and consequently I cannot tolerate there not being addressed to God the prayers prescribed by Holy Church for Your Holiness. I have already had to act with severity, and continue to do so, with regard to some seminarians and priests who have allowed themselves to be influenced by certain clerics who do not belong to the Society.
I am fully in agreement with the judgement that Your Holiness gave on the Second Vatican Council, on November 6, 1978, at a meeting of the Sacred College: 'that the Council must be under- stood in light of the whole of Holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.
As for the NOVUS ORDO Mass, despite the reservations which must be shown in its respect, I have never affirmed that it is in itself invalid or heretical.
I would be grateful...hasten free use of the traditional liturgy, and the recognition of the Society...etc. ("Catholic", Jan 84, p.2).
May 9, 1980
The New Mass can fulfil the Sunday obligation. Lefebvre to Michael Davies. "Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre" Vol 2, p. 367
June 30, 1980
"...in regard to the new mass, Mgr. Lefebvre knows how to join deeds with words and give an example. On 30 June 1980, on the occasion of the obsequies of a member of his family, accompanied by Fr. Simoulin, he assisted "actively" at "Luther's mass" completely in the modern fashion. (ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara. Please refer to 28/7/96 Item in opposite column.
May 5, 1988
The Protocol, however, was accepted by both parties! "The Cardinal informed us that we would now have to allow one New Mass to be celebrated at St Nicholas du Chardonnet. He insisted on the one and only Church, that of Vatican II. In spite of these disappointments, I signed the Protocol on May 5th..." (A Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre, signed June 19, 1988 - as recorded in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p.207, by Fr. François Laisney, who was then Editor of The Angelus Press. It is to be noted here that Archbishop Lefebvre signed the protocol "to allow one New Mass to be celebrated..."- a Mass that Fathers Violette and Peek would later describe as "intrinsically evil". Was Vatican Council II Voided by Pope Pius II's "Execrabilis"? - A Commentary on Mr D.J. McDonnell's Article in Oct. 1998 "Catholic"), by F John Loughnan
-
I am not claiming the Novus Ordo to be invalid. I am leaving that to the Church (although pre-Vatican II sacramental theology shows a definite doubt on that point); I am simply asserting what Archbishop Lefebvre was asserting: the Novus Ordo is a danger to one's Faith and must be avoided at all costs, especially since it contains dangerous errors. I wonder about that June 30, 1980 entry by that SSPX opponent. Archbishop Lefebvre assisting actively at the Novus Ordo? I really deny that! A sede priest's assertion isn't enough; there must be other witnesses to collaborate!
As for the Protocol, the next day Archbishop Lefebvre withdrew his approval!
-
Santo, all you prove from the above quotes is that Archbishop Lefebvre didn't necessarily believe the Bogus Ordo is invalid. However, he also believed that it was only valid if the priest offering it had the proper intentions. And he once said this:
The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism... it bears within it a poison harmful to the Faith.
-
Yeah, what SpiritusSanctus said plus this.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (SSPX): "[T]here is great danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which is unacceptable" ("Letter to Friends & Benefactors" on the dismissal of Sedevacantist Priests, April 28, 1983)
-
There are also other quotes from him, which diminish the strength of the quotes given by Sancto. For example:
This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.
That is more like it !!!
I got that quote from your signature, Spiritus!
I like that one better than Subito's quotes.
-
Pio, +1 for your post.
It won't let me thumb you up at the moment !
-
There are also other quotes from him, which diminish the strength of the quotes given by Sancto. For example:
This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.
That is more like it !!!
I got that quote from your signature, Spiritus!
I like that one better than Subito's quotes.
Yes, Sede, that is on of my favorite quotes from the Archbishop.
Show that quote to the accordistas, and watch them squirm.