So what have done? You did a web search for the Ambrosian rite, read an Catholic encyclopedia article, and now post as an authoritative commentator on the Ambrosian rite. The problem is you know little about the nature of divine worship and this is revealed in the nature of your question.
I know enough to understand that the Sacred Liturgy includes both Divine and Human elements. The Divine cannot ever be changed because it was established by God Himself; but the human certainly can and indeed, do. That explains the existence of over 20 Liturgical Rites used in the Catholic Church, as well as the modifications, revisions, and editions of Missals, all of them legally authorized by the legitimate successor of St. Peter.
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circuмstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."
I do not have to be an expert in the Ambrosian Rite or even my own Roman Rite to understand that the Holy See simply cannot promulgate defective or harmful Missal editions to the faithful, without the Universal Church having failed in Her Sacred Mission to safeguard Liturgical Worship. Our Lord handed the entire management of the Church Militant to St. Peter and his legitimate successors. That is it. If you rebel against the idea, as Jesus conceived it, then that it is your problem and not mine. Catholicism is so simple, a peasant or mere child can understand it.
We have about 4 feet of book shelf space for liturgical books alone in our home that have been read over many years by my husband and still he would never pretend to be an authority on liturgical history.
Well, if you have read so many liturgical books over the years, and have certainly arrived to the conclusion that there was a defect in the 1962's Tridentine Missal, you should probably start seriously entertaining the possibility that the Ecclesiastical Authority who promulgated it, was illegitimate. Otherwise, a defective Missal is truly impossible.
If there is indeed a major defect in this Missal as you claim, to the point of Catholics having to reject it, then that right there to me would be yet another indication (as if we need more?) of an impostor issuing intrinsically harmful laws, not a Pope. Evidently, it is impossible that a true successor of St. Peter does such a thing. Only a true conspirator could do that.
I did not say that I had read all these books. They are books in our library that my husband has read. I have read Dom Gueranger's The Liturgical Year many times which is an excellent place to start. But the point being that even after having read many books on this subject over the last 45 years my husband would never consider himself a liturgical "expert." The reference to Henry Bradshaw Society was to encourage you to examine a site that deals with the complexity of the subject. My husband does not believe that you have read a single book by any competent authority on the question of liturgy.
I completely agree with the quotation provided by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei but deny your conclusions which are derived from your misunderstanding of the pope, his office, and the Attributes of the Church. You are now making the same tired arguments offered by sedevacantists who also reject the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal but they also do so for the wrong reasons. The sedevacantists like the SSPX both make identical arguments that only vary in what they personally judge as "harmful to the faith." This is not surprising because this conception of the liturgy can be traced back to Archbishop Lefebvre. Both groups presuppose that the Bugnini principles of liturgical reform are legitimate but flawed in their application. Both regard the pope as the "master of the liturgy." Both hold the pope as their rule of faith and therefore he can do whatever he pleases regarding the liturgy. Both consider the liturgy as mere matter of discipline subject to the free and independent will of the legislator. Both believe that they have the right to judge the rectitude of any liturgical changes and determine what is and what is not harmful to the faith. Both regard Dogma as human axioms that approximate truth subject to constant refinement. Both have a hopelessly flawed, legalistic, mechanical concept of liturgy.
Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. It is divine revelation formally and infallibly defined by the Magisterium that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. This is proven as necessarily so, as explained before, by the very definition of heresy. But you deny this truth and I will leave it at that because your intellect is driven by your will. If anyone reading this thread is interested in the spiritual desert of sedevacantism, dogma as the proximate rule of faith, the distinction between the pope and his office, the Attributes of the Church and how they relate to the pope, I invite them to read the thread:
Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? « on: March 09, 2018, 09:12:26 AM »
You need not worry about you posts being deleted on the thread because my husband always included your entire posts in all his replies. This thread has been read more than twenty thousand times since it was locked and many have contacted us to say the discussion was helpful for them.
We have made no settled determination that the 1962 Missal is certainly not the "received and approved" rite. It is Rome who has done that by relegating the Missal to the status of an Indult, and then as a grant of legal privilege conditioned upon accepting that Vatican II is without error and that the 1969 Bugnini Missal is a perfectly legitimate form of worship and the "Extraordinary Form" of the "Ordinary Form" (Novus Ordo). As my husband has said, this is prime facie evidence that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is not the "received and approved" Roman rite but rather a transitional step towards the creation of the N.O. and therefore a matter of mere discipline.
Topic: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei (Read 27504 times)