Quote from: Adolphus

«Please give the exact source, name of book, date of publication, publisher and page number of what you are quoting on this Forum»

The name of the book is: "Agenda 2010 Benoît XVI"

Direction éditoriale : Grégoire Boucher
Editeur : TerraMare
Date de parution : Décembre 2009
Nombre de pages : 288 pages
Format : 17 cm par 25 cm
ISBN : 978-2-918677-02-4

http://www.editions-terramare.com/lagenda-benoit-2010-p-10.html

Go to pages 102-103

Thank you!

Please scan the 2 pages -- 102-103 --  from the book "Agenda 2010 Benoît XVI" written by the man called Grégoire Boucher

Also, I must say that the book was not written by Grégoire Boucher.  He is just the editor.  The book contains comments written by different persons.  One of those comments has Fr. Celier as author.

"the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite [the NO and the Tridentine Mass] can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The 'Ecclesia Dei' Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard."

This above quote is not in the two pages you scanned. It is not in the book you quote: L'Agenda Benoît XVI 2010

This practice is so dishonest!

It has nothing to do with being dishonest!

It is just a misinterpretation of what is written.

I never said that text was part of the text in the agenda.  This is what I pasted:

Fr. Celier is referring to the MP Summorum pontificuм, which states that

"the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite [the NO and the Tridentine Mass] can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The 'Ecclesia Dei' Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard."

It is pretty clear that such text is part of the motu proprio Summorum pontificuм

Your methods are dishonest indeed as you are misquoting!

Can you be specific?  What did I misquote?

Quote from: Nemmersdorf

"the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite [the NO and the Tridentine Mass] can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The 'Ecclesia Dei' Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard."
This above quote is not in the two pages you scanned. It is not in the book you quote: L'Agenda Benoît XVI 2010
This practice is so dishonest!

It has nothing to do with being dishonest!

It is just a misinterpretation of what is written.

I never said that text was part of the text in the agenda.  This is what I pasted:

Fr. Celier is referring to the MP Summorum pontificuм, which states that

"the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite [the NO and the Tridentine Mass] can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The 'Ecclesia Dei' Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard."

It is pretty clear that such text is part of the motu proprio Summorum pontificuм

For the benefit of anyone who, like me, easily gets lost in these discussions, let me see if I have it straight:

Fr. Celier wrote in the "Agenda 2010 Benoît XVI":

...from the scanned image:  

"En revanche, la pleine liberte, enfinreconnue en 2007, de la liturgie traditionnelle constitue un pas capital vers des rites pleinment satisfaisants et un véritable ars celebrandi."

which Adolphus cited the translation as:

Quote from: Fr. Celier

"However, the full freedom of the traditional liturgy, finally recognized in 2007, is a capital step towards fully satisfactory rites and towards a true ars celebrandi."

According to Nemmersdorf, all Fr. Celier is saying is that the MP is a capital step towards the Tridentine Mass (a fully satisfactory rite) being celebrated more often & hopefully eventually totally replacing the New Mass - or something along those lines?   In other words:

"However, the full freedom of the traditional liturgy, finally recognized in 2007, is a capital step towards [the] fully satisfactory rites [which is the Tridentine Mass of St. Pius V] and towards a true ars celebrandi."

 
But Adolphus interprets it thus:

Fr. Celier is referring to the MP Summorum pontificuм, which states that

Quote from: Motu Proprio

"the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite [the NO and the Tridentine Mass] can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The 'Ecclesia Dei' Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard."

Does anybody know about Fr. Celier giving an explanation of this?  Could it be that his words can be interpreted in a different matter than hailing the Summorum pontificuм for providing the opportunity to reach fully satisfactory rites, as if St. Pius V's Mass were not a fully satisfactory rite?

I am only asking, and trying to clarify, for my own sake and for that of others who, like me, might be confused.  So, I am not trying to accuse Fr. Celier of anything.  If he didn't write:

"En revanche, la pleine liberte, enfin reconnue en 2007, de la liturgie traditionnelle constitue un pas capital vers des rites pleinment satisfaisants et un véritable ars celebrandi."

which in English is

"However, the full freedom of the traditional liturgy, finally recognized in 2007, is a capital step towards fully satisfactory rites and towards a true ars celebrandi."

then please say so.  

If we have the quote verified, then we can move on to discussing what he meant.  [/color]

"However, the full freedom of the traditional liturgy, finally recognized in 2007, is a capital step towards [the] fully satisfactory rites [which is the Tridentine Mass of St. Pius V] and towards a true ars celebrandi."

 

YES

This is not an interpretation, it is what the text says and what Father Celier has always said. See above my translation the passage from the book: Benoît XVI et les Traditionalistes:

"GC (G. Celier): It is impossible to say with any certainty what will be the state of the liturgy in fifty or a hundred years. I think and hope that the traditional liturgy will continue to grow and reclaim the largest area possible. It is for this reason that we fight, because the traditional Mass is the treasure of the Church. On the other hand, if, as we have imagined, the new liturgy harvests the riches of the traditional liturgy – resulting in the "Mass pipaule" ( a mixture of the rite of St Pius V and of Paul VI) – it will probably also have a number of followers. Nevertheless, the ultra-liberal celebration of the new liturgy will continue its decline. We will, therefore, find ourselves, when it happens, in a unique and complex situation. What will happen then? I do not know. But I cannot imagine that this spiritual treasure which is the traditional liturgy will cease to be celebrated: firstly, there will always be some people attached to this ceremony (I even hope that there will be a great number of them, and why not the majority?) and secondly, its suppression would be an irretrievable loss for the Church."

And Bishop Williamson also stated to me on the phone that the 2007 recognition of the Tridentine Mass was a step forward!

According to Nemmersdorf, all Fr. Celier is saying is that the MP is a capital step towards the Tridentine Mass (a fully satisfactory rite) being celebrated more often & hopefully eventually totally replacing the New Mass - or something along those lines?

Thank you for your comment: you synthesized it very well.

Yes, that´s what Nemmersdorf says.  However, it is hard to accept such interpretation because of the reasons I wrote above and because of what Fr. Celier wrote in his book Benoît XVI et les Traditionalistes.  In it, the author clearly states:

That we are at risk to know in the coming decades a new situation, complex and versatile.

That currently, many priests are interested in the "old" rite;

That many of them will become "bi-ritualists" celebrating the traditional Mass in private, while praying publicly the new mass

That such phenomenon tends to increase.

That the practice of both rites is not neutral and that one inevitably fades over the other.

That he thinks we will see the contamination of a rite on the other.

That it seems that our contemporaries will witness the birth of a new rite: the "pipaule" mass, being it a mixture of Saint Pius V's rite and Paul VI's rite.

There are enough priests keeping the Canonized Traditional Latin Mass alive
that it could be brought back to common practice. But the Novus Ordo whatever
is an enemy of the CTLM. It may be possible for both to exist together, but they
will not exist together in peace. There will always be a conflict.

So is that what you want, a conflict?

At some point, it's going to take an act of God for this to be settled. And it could
very well be that God is going to allow this to culminate in the Great Apostasy.
If He does, there isn't much we can do to stop it. But in the event that this isn't
"the end," we persevere, and even if it is soon to be the end, we persevere,
because he who perseveres to the end, he shall be saved.

The point of this thread is whether the actions of +Fellay to make an accord with
a corrupted Rome are defensible. If you think they are, then you are a Fellayite,
and you should be able to explain your reasons...........

If you are attempting to defend the legitimacy of "bi-ritual" practices, then you
should be forthright and say so.

I agree with what you stated.  However, I wonder who you are addressing your comment and your question to.

I brought up Fr. Celier's comments about bi-ritual "masses" because his name had been mentioned and because he seems to be very close to +Fellay, despite many dubious things amongst which stands his comment in the memory book 2010.