Author Topic: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza (Read 8667 times)

confederate catholic · « **Reply #15 on:** July 01, 2019, 12:46:22 PM »

FYI the site is FOS, I have a letter from a priest friend who was by the Oriental congregation stating that no permission has ever been given to any eastern churches to face the people. The priest in question is a Maronite. The six year experiment went on until 2012 the liturgical book has no such rubrics.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #16 on:** July 03, 2019, 07:21:46 AM »

Quote from: confederate catholic on July 01, 2019, 12:46:22 PM

FYI the site is FOS, I have a letter from a priest friend who was by the Oriental congregation stating that no permission has ever been given to any eastern churches to face the people. The priest in question is a Maronite. The six year experiment went on until 2012 the liturgical book has no such rubrics.

On the one hand, it is interesting that the website which published the OP is today reaffirming the “Novus Ordo of the Maronite Rite” theory, despite your contention that the other post regarding the introduction of modernized rubrics (eg., versus populum , etc all) pertained only to a 5-year ad experimentum, which expired and was not renewed.

[On the other hand -and as a completely irrelevant aside- the Novus Ordo of Pius XII also paved the way for the new Holy Week rites with a 5-year experimental period to acclimate the clergy and faithful, except that according to your post, the Latin modernists succeeded where the Maronite modernists failed.]

For the record, I was in the seminary with Fr. Gardner, and despite not having seen him for many years, consider him a friend (a fact which may make him cringe). So when I receive an email from him explaining that not only has he not attended a NOM since before he entered the seminary, but additionally, that even the “worst” Maronite Rite Mass he has attended -not participated in- was much more traditional than the most conservative NOM, I am inclined to believe it.

I do not yet have permission to post that email, and am unsure if such permission will be forthcoming or not.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #17 on:** July 03, 2019, 01:28:59 PM »

Incidentally, anyone who attends the Novus Ordo of Pius XII implicitly accepts in principle the versus populum posture (which includes almost every SSPXer, and many Resistance, sedes and indultarians), since this is present in several instances in the fabricated 1956 Palm Sunday rite (both for the blessing of palms, and also for the recitation of the prayer at the conclusion of the procession), or on Holy Saturday when placing the baptismal water in a basin in the middle of the sanctuary or at the communion rail.

Add to this more "active participation" = vocal participation, and you get the Novus Ordo dialogue of bantering back and forth with the priest, at the recitation of the Our Father, and the renewal of baptismal promises. Wow, am I EVER participating!!!

And then of course, there is the dialogue mass itself, which paved the way for Pius XII's Novus Ordo of Holy Week, which is accepted by the majority of SSPXers (and even some Resistance, mostly in a Europe where the novelties of the liturgical reform preceded Vatican II, and therefore pass for "traditional").

Point being, even if the lapsed modernist experimental revisions in the Maronite Rite had persisted, most SSPX and many Resistance (and sede) commentators would not be in a position to oppose these novelties, without themselves being guilty of hypocrisy or inconsistency:

How can they criticize in the Maronite Rite that which they have accepted in the Latin TLM?

Just one more reason (among so many others!) to reject the liturgical novelties of the dialogue mass and Pius XII's holy week revisions.

If the indulterers can have the fully Catholic rites without incurring suspicion of sedevacantism (think about that!), why can't I (and why shouldn't you)?

Mr G · « **Reply #18 on:** July 03, 2019, 02:06:37 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on July 03, 2019, 01:28:59 PM

Just one more reason (among so many others!) to reject the liturgical novelties of the dialogue mass and Pius XII's holy week revisions.

If the indulterers can have the fully Catholic rites without incurring suspicion of sedevacantism (think about that!), why can't I (and why shouldn't you)?

This is very true!

Cristera · « **Reply #19 on:** July 03, 2019, 07:40:11 PM »

The current Maronite Missal Qurbono: The Book of Offering (1994) states in its foreword:

"In the aftermath of the Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council, which concluded its sessions on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 1965, the Church in both the West and the East, set about to implement the decrees of the Council. The Council paid special attention to the liturgy, the liturgy has great influence over the faithful and plays an important role in the regulation of the discipline for worship. In times past, it was said, "The law of worship is the law for belief” The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, dated December 4, 1963, was first among the conciliar docuмents. It issued specific rules for liturgical reform, such as; "The rite of the Quddas/Qurbono is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as well as the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved" (art. 50). In addition, the Constitution decreed that the liturgical books must be revised according to the prescribed rules, which enjoined the protection, on one hand, of the nature of the liturgy, and on the other, the elimination of that which has unnecessarily infiltrated into the liturgy over the course of time and the restitution, as needed, of that which had been abandoned. Such was the task assumed by our Committee on liturgy..."

confederate catholic · « **Reply #20 on:** July 03, 2019, 07:41:11 PM »

Don't get me wrong, the rubric is not there but facing the people is what most do. The reforms had good and bad points. The good is the structure of Antiochian liturgy is there. So much so that the Syrian orthodox and Malankara feel it to be now ' like theirs. The overt Latinizations from pre VII were removed. The problem though is twofold
First they opted for the simplest way of doing things. For example one prayer said by the faithful is a paragraph in legnth. The actual hymn in all the orthodox equivalent churches is two PAGES long. Also if it can be made pedantic it was.
Second the Lebanese are lazy in spiritual matters and quite western, they will do (anything) if it means being in the favor of Rome, which meant that any portion of the new translation which would use language that might be construed as frightening was removed.
The liturgy mentions hell, the sacrifice and other elements. Mainly the Maronite liturgy is structured properly, shortened considerably, and butchered in translation.
Akso what Rome was doing, trying to 'find an earlier authentic version' i.e. the NO probably was highly influenced by the Maronite liturgy because it was the only oriental liturgy they were familiar with which makes the Maronite look NO when the NO really is influenced by the Maronite.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #21 on:** July 03, 2019, 07:42:56 PM »

The 1994 is ad experimentum 2015 is the official version

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #22 on:** July 03, 2019, 10:08:01 PM »

Quote from: Cristera on July 03, 2019, 07:40:11 PM

The current Maronite Missal Qurbono: The Book of Offering (1994) states in its foreword:

"In the aftermath of the Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council, which concluded its sessions on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 1965, the Church in both the West and the East, set about to implement the decrees of the Council. The Council paid special attention to the liturgy, the liturgy has great influence over the faithful and plays an important role in the regulation of the discipline for worship. In times past, it was said, "The law of worship is the law for belief” The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, dated December 4, 1963, was first among the conciliar docuмents. It issued specific rules for liturgical reform, such as; "The rite of the Quddas/Qurbono is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as well as the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved" (art. 50). In addition, the Constitution decreed that the liturgical books must be revised according to the prescribed rules, which enjoined the protection, on one hand, of the nature of the liturgy, and on the other, the elimination of that which has unnecessarily infiltrated into the liturgy over the course of time and the restitution, as needed, of that which had been abandoned. Such was the task assumed by our Committee on liturgy..."

Per Confederate Catholic, that is NOT the current Maronite Missal.

The 1994 missal you are citing was a 5-year ad experimentum missal, which has lapsed.

The current missal was promulgated in 2015 (if Confederate Catholic is correct).

confederate catholic · « **Reply #23 on:** July 03, 2019, 10:32:33 PM »

I will try to photograph the copy I have when I finish work. I think that the books are already out of print

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #24 on:** July 03, 2019, 10:37:34 PM »

Quote from: confederate catholic on July 03, 2019, 10:32:33 PM

I will try to photograph the copy I have when I finish work. I think that the books are already out of print

It would also be excellent to see a copy of the current rubrics for the Maronite Rite (i.e., If the deplorable 1994 ad experimentum rubrics lapsed, but were replaced by equally deplorable rubrics in 2015, then noting their lapse is merely academic).

confederate catholic · « **Reply #25 on:** July 03, 2019, 11:46:15 PM »

Here's a pic of the decree for the US

confederate catholic · « **Reply #26 on:** July 04, 2019, 12:08:30 AM »

Apparently the last liturgical revision was 2005. It was promulgated in the English eparchies in the US in 2012.

The missal has no direction of orientation of the priest for the liturgy in it. The Patriarch has no authority over the diaspora and the crap about the bishops making decisions about orientation is blatant falsehood because the oriental congregation would have to approve it. No such docuмent exists. They choose to ignore whole bits of inconvenient law. They move Peter and Paul and Holy Cross obligations to the Sunday. This is forbidden by eastern canon law. The problem is that the bishops ignore what they want to

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #27 on:** July 04, 2019, 05:58:39 AM »

Quote from: confederate catholic on July 04, 2019, 12:08:30 AM

Apparently the last liturgical revision was 2005. It was promulgated in the English eparchies in the US in 2012.

The missal has no direction of orientation of the priest for the liturgy in it. The Patriarch has no authority over the diaspora and the crap about the bishops making decisions about orientation is blatant falsehood because the oriental congregation would have to approve it. No such docuмent exists. They choose to ignore whole bits of inconvenient law. They move Peter and Paul and Holy Cross obligations to the Sunday. This is forbidden by eastern canon law. The problem is that the bishops ignore what they want to

Thank you, CC.
So here’s the big question:
Would this version of the Maronite Rite be considered to be a “Novus Ordo of the Maronite Rite” in comparison to a Maronite Rite Mass of, say, 100 or 600 years ago?
Are there “striking departures from the theology of the Mass as defined at Trent” or any substantial changes?

confederate catholic · « **Reply #28 on:** July 04, 2019, 10:31:46 AM »

That's a difficult question to answer for two reasons
First the theology of Trent in an eastern liturgy is problematic since in some aspects the liturgical theology is different but I'm guessing what's referred to is sacrificial language. That is explicitly mentioned at least three times in the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles also in the hymns. I attached one to the post.
There were substantial changes, the liturgy had a period post VII where everyone experimented and multiple versions of actual stuff worse than the NO was done wherever they wanted, the oriental congregation stepped in and demanded that the commission enforce the books in existence and do the actual reforms that were required.
The reforms removed from the liturgy Latinizations that were placed in at the synod of Mt Lebanon in the 1760s. This was a good thing. The problem is this was done by a group of bishops who were now NO in mindset, they made two glaring errors
1-the transition was made from Arabic. The liturgical language is Syciac/Aramaic this is like making a new Latin mass from the 'original' English.
2-the biggest problem is that when they removed the Latin accretions they didn't replace them with Syriac liturgical practice.
3-This makes up a very uncomfortable liturgy especially for tradition minded Byzantine and Latins. To see a good translation for liturgy in the Syriac Tradition the new Chaldean translation, examples are available at the eparchy on the west coast. Just be prepared east Syriac and Armenians still have deaconesses

confederate catholic · « **Reply #29 on:** July 04, 2019, 10:35:49 AM »

Also they had a crap book for music the first edition had all kinds of NO crap in it. One hymn we refer to as I been working on the railroad because they adapted all kinds of folk tunes to hymns. Fun times

Author Topic: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza (Read 8667 times)

confederate catholic

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza

SeanJohnson

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza

SeanJohnson

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza

Mr G

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza

Cristera

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza

confederate catholic

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza

confederate catholic

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza

SeanJohnson

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza

confederate catholic

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza

SeanJohnson

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza

confederate catholic

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza

confederate catholic

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza

SeanJohnson

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza

confederate catholic

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza

confederate catholic

Re: Disturbing Article: SSPX & Chorbishop Spinoza