An update to this thread. At last! from CFN for those who have not read it.
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page59/hybridtridentinemass.htmltrid-mass-facing
Pope Benedict’s “long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist,
but to move toward a ‘common rite’ that is shaped by the mutual enrichment
of the two Mass forms...” – Cardinal Koch
Revised Traditional Missal Planned
for Next Summer in Rome?
The Principle of Gradualism • Toward A Hybrid MassBy John Vennari
The Eponymous Flower posted a translation from the “usually well-informed” German Summorum Pontificuм website (summorumpontificuм.de) about possible changes in the Tridentine Mass that are proposed by the Vatican for next summer.
According to the August 16 report, “a new edition of the Old Missal has so far progressed enough that it will be published next summer so that it can be used in 2013.” The key points of alteration:
• Allowance of the usage of new prefaces for all feasts, which correspond to the Novus Ordo prefaces;
• General allowance of the Traditional Mass to be celebrated "versus populum" [Mass facing the people];
• Permission to say the 'Liturgy of the Word' [the Mass up to and including the Creed] in the language of the people [which facilitates the use of the Cramner table];[1]
We already saw one of these proposals last year. The Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei stated in a formal instruction of April 30, 2011: “New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently.”[2]
We appear to be entering a 1965-styled “transitional Mass” all over again; the principle of gradualism is at work once more. Yet no well-informed Catholic should find this surprising.
The proposed changes in liturgy go hand-in-glove with Pope Benedict’s “reform of the reform” as explained by Cardinal Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Catholic News Service reported on May 14, 2011:
“Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a ‘reform of the reform’ in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecuмenist said.
“The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a ‘common rite’ that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms...”[3]
Pope Benedict’s “reform of the reform” that seeks to save Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy is consistent with his approach to the Council in general, as we will demonstrate.
Yet the whole purpose of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy – as is clear from its true draftsmen – was to usher in a ecuмenical Liturgical Revolution that had been in the works for decades.[4]
In 1966, Father Annibale Bugnini, a central architect of the New Mass, boasted that the purpose of Vatican II’s Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy was to usher in “the boldest and most fundamental liturgical reform of all times.”[5]
Benedict’s Claim: No Rupture, but Continuity
Throughout the years since Vatican II, Pope Benedict XVI has been constant in his claim that the “correct” position for the Catholic is neither clinging to the Church prior to the Council that would dismiss all or part of Vatican II, nor the extreme liberal approach that sees Vatican II as a new “starting from zero”, but the Church of today. This is the Church in light of the Council that avoids these two “extremes”. For him, Sacred Tradition is not the center of gravity that must interpret all things, but Vatican II. For him, Vatican II represents no rupture with the past, but continuity.
By contrast the Traditional Catholic position holds the Catholic Faith taught “in the same meaning and in the same explanation”[6] throughout the centuries as the absolute criteria for Catholic Truth. Anything from Vatican II that fits this criterion may be regarded as true.[7] Anything that does not fit may be questioned. This was what we learned from Council Secretary Archbishop Felici.
At the end of Vatican II, the Council Fathers asked Archbishop (later-Cardinal) Felici for what theologians call the theological note of the Council. In other words, what is the status of the Vatican II docuмents?
Cardinal Felici replied, “We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which already have been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.”[8]
Thus, Cardinal Felici recognized that Vatican II contained novelties no Catholic is bound to accept. These novelties, such as ecuмenism, religious liberty, and its new approach to Judaism (that implies Jєωs need not convert to Catholicism for salvation), are contrary to what the Church always taught, and have proved disastrous for the Church and for souls.
Pope Benedict, however, has always claimed, and continues to claim, that the Vatican II docuмents must be the center of gravity. Pope Benedict’s position about the centrality of Vatican II is consistent over the decades. He repeats this same point again and again. Yet too many well-meaning Catholics read into his words what they want to read, and falsely view him as a Pope of Tradition, or that he has now suddenly changed to a more traditionalist position. Sadly, this is not the case.
We will take a quick look at Joseph Ratzinger’s statements over a thirty year span, from 1975 to 2005. His approach to the Council is consistent, it does not change.
1975-2005
In 1975, then Father Ratzinger wrote, “It is impossible (for the Catholic) to take a position for Vatican II and against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it is clearly expressed and understood itself, accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous Councils. And that also applies to the so-called ‘progressivism’, at least in its extreme form.”
Second, said Father Ratzinger, “It is impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.”[9]
Ten years later, in the 1985 Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori explains that Cardinal Ratzinger repeatedly insists “it is not Vatican II and it’s docuмents that are problematic,” but these problems “lie in the manifold [bad] interpretation” of the docuмents.”[10] The Ratzinger Report’s chapter on the Council carries the subheading “Not Rupture, but Continuity”.[11]
We see here in 1985 the exact same theme Pope Benedict returns to in his famous December 22, 2005 speech against the “hermeneutic of rupture” in favor of a “hermeneutic of reform” and continuity. For now we repeat his words of 1985.
Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1985, “To defend the true tradition of the Church means to defend the Council.” Against any notion of rupture, “there is instead a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward… We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the docuмents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without aberrations that distort them.”[12]
He places Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX among those who would “amputate” parts of the Council by reservation, and rejects this as unacceptable. [In fact, this is the crux of the present SSPX/Rome discussions.] Cardinal Ratzinger goes on to explain in 1985 that he must defend the “true” Council in an effort to undermine the SSPX position: “This places the further obligation upon us to show the true face of the Council; thus one will be able to cut the ground from under these false protests.”[13]
Cardinal Ratzinger also said in 1985 there can be “no restoration” in the sense of turning back prior to Vatican II. Rather, “by restoration” we must mean “the search for a new balance…”[14]
We can at least give credit to Cardinal Ratzinger for never changing his position. It is consistent throughout the years up to the present.
In October 1985, Archbishop Lefebvre submitted to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a docuмent that contained thirty-nine doubts (dubia) concerning incongruities between Vatican II’s new doctrine on Religious Liberty and the consistent teaching of the Church from the past.
Rome replied to Archbishop Lefebvre’s Dubia with a fifty-page docuмent that considered none of the doubts in particular. Cardinal Ratzinger’s office admitted that Vatican II’s doctrine of religious liberty was “incontestably a novelty”, but claimed it was the outcome of “doctrinal development of continuity.”[15]
Archbishop Lefebvre considered this response even more scandalous than the pan-religious prayer meeting at Assisi. “For it is one thing to perform a serious and scandalous act,” said the Archbishop, “but quite another thing to affirm false principles that in practice have disastrous consequences,” which is the practical overturning of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the “pantheon of all religions”.[16]
Fast forward to 2005, we see the same theme of “no rupture, but continuity” in Pope Benedict’ now-famous Christmas speech of December 22, 2005. Here he lays out the program of his pontificate. Here he once again insists there has been a “hermeneutic [interpretation] of discontinuity and rupture” that has distorted the true Council. What we must have instead is the “hermeneutic of reform”, or “renewal in continuity” so that the Council is not “misunderstood.” Yet Pope Benedict spends a good part of this December speech praising the Council’s new approach to the world, its new approach to Religious Liberty, and its new approach to Judaism, which are rightly regarded as some of the most revolutionary aspects of Vatican II.[17 ]
Thus we see Pope Benedict’s consistent claim that there is no turning back regarding Vatican II, and that we must “search for a new balance” to establish a “renewal in continuity”. It is fair to deduce this as the thinking behind Benedict’s plan to create a “‘common rite’ that is shaped by the “mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms,” a new balance of the old and the new.
A Ten-Year Program of Gradualism?
As noted, Cardinal Koch revealed Pope Benedict’s “long-term plan” to “move toward a common rite.”
Another piece of evidence shows that Pope Benedict would favor a long period of gradualism to this Hybrid Mass. It comes from a letter written by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1999, in which the Cardinal agrees it would have been smarter for the period of liturgical change from the Tridentine to the Novus Ordo to have been a gradual process over ten years.
Fr. Matias Auge CMF, a veteran professor of liturgy in Rome, former consultant to the Congregation for Divine Worship and disciple of the reformers of the 1960's, published an exchange of letters that he had with then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the topic of the reform of the sacred liturgy.” In his February 18, 1999 letter to Fr. Auge, Cardinal Ratzinger said the following:
“…a considerable number of the Catholic faithful, especially those of French, English, and German nationality and language remain strongly attached to the old liturgy, and the Pope does not intend to repeat what happened in 1970 when the new liturgy was imposed in an extremely abrupt way, with a transition time of only six months, whereas the prestigious Liturgical Institute in Trier had rightly proposed a transition time of ten years (if I am not mistaken) for such an undertaking, one that touches in a vital way the heart of the Faith.”[18]
It is fair to surmise that Pope Benedict’s “move toward a ‘common rite’ that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms” may be rolled out within the framework of gradualism that could last ten years; getting traditional Catholics used to it little by little, so that the full alleged intention of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy can be realized.
Yet if we are to “return to the authentic texts of Vatican II,”[19] it is useful to ask: what is the true nature of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy? We already have Archbishop Bugnini’s statement that it’s purpose was to usher in “the boldest and most fundamental liturgical reform of all times.”
Likewise, the following Protestant testimony is instructive, as it demonstrates the Schema itself as tinged with Protestant-friendly propositions. This should be no surprise, since Father Ratzinger in 1966 lauded the fact that the Council texts were drawn up to be open to the ecuмenical orientation.[20]
Protestant Testimony
John Moorman, an Anglican “Bishop” from Yorkshire, England, was a Protestant Observer at the Second Vatican Council.
In 1963, he wrote a revealing article for The Thomist entitled “An Observer Looks at the Schema on the Liturgy.” This article, and others like it, help to explain the true nature of Vatican II’s liturgical reform from the beginning.
Moorman opens by expressing satisfaction that the Catholic Church is finally getting involved with the Ecuмenical Movement. This is significant, notes Moorman, as Rome had remained aloof from the Ecuмenical Movement since its inception.
He also expresses a certain satisfaction that he is well aware that his presence – that is, the presence of Protestant Observers at the Council — is having a silent influence on the speeches of the Council Fathers. This is one of the reasons why Protestant Observers should not have been there. The bishops should have been able to speak freely without any external intimidation.
Anglican John Moorman says in praise of Vatican II’s Schema on the Liturgy:
“The Schema on the Liturgy is a remarkable docuмent. As a student of history, and to some extent, a traveler in Europe, I know something about Roman Catholic worship, and I was delighted to see how far the Schema was prepared to go in reforms which, to an Anglican like myself, seem so much to be desired.”[21]
“When I read the Schema on the Liturgy, I realized that many of the proposals which were put before the Council were in fact points which we ourselves accepted four hundred years ago. These would include greater simplicity, the use of the vernacular, more readings of Scriptures, more preaching and catechizing, the part assigned to the faithful in the Mass, [and] the possibility of administering the Sacrament under both kinds.”
Moorman goes on to say:
“In reading the Schema on the Liturgy, I could not help but thinking that if the Church of Rome were to carry out all the reforms proposed they would one day find they had triumphantly invented the Book of Common Prayer.”[22]
We see from the very beginning that Vatican II’s Schema on the Liturgy had a Protestant influence. In the rest of his 1963 article John Moorman focuses on five of those Protestant-friendly principles prominent in the Schema, that he hopes will become major factors in Vatican II’s Liturgical Reform:
1) The plan for more and varied use of Scripture in the Liturgy;
2) The place of the laity in the worship of the Church;
3) The use of the vernacular;
4) The need for more preaching;
5) Communion under both kinds.
These propositions are more or less evident (embedded) in the original Schema. We need to keep this in mind when we hear today those in high place who say there is nothing wrong with the docuмents of Vatican II, they have merely been misinterpreted; we have to return to the true Council. Yet, this is the true Council: Protestant-friendly propositions that are present in the docuмent itself.
We will look at Moorman’s five points one-by-one:
1) The plan for more and varied use of Scripture in the Liturgy
A Protestant would favor such a development because in the Protestant liturgy, there is no sacrifice. There is no re-presentation of the same Sacrifice of Calvary offered through the hands of the priest, who takes the place of Christ. In the Protestant system, there is the rejection of Sacred Tradition as a source of Revelation. Their system rests on “the Bible Alone”. This is why the Protestant wants more Scripture in Liturgy. For the Catholic, however, it is by no means necessary. It is crucial to understand that the Protestant emphasis on Scripture is a weakness of the Protestant position, not a strength. The Protestant is weakened because he rejects the truth that Sacred Tradition is an older and ampler source of Divine Revelation than is Scripture (particularly the New Testament). Thus, the Catholic Church, which recognizes the truth that there are two sources of Revelation, Scripture and Tradition, does not really need more Scripture reading in Liturgy for the sake of giving God the worship that is His due. As much as we revere the Bible, we do not need more use of Scripture in the Mass that Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself established as primarily a Sacrifice.
2) The Place of the Laity in the Worship of the Church
Anglican Moorman correctly explains that the centrality of the Priest is based on the Sacrifice of the Mass. This centrality makes no sense in Protestant worship, as the Protestant Minister does not offer sacrifice for the living and the dead, does not change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord as does the Catholic priest. The Protestant Minister does not have an indelible mark on his soul given through the Sacrament of Holy Orders that makes him different in essence from a layman.
Thus the Protestant wants to make liturgy a “more corporate act” (Moorman’s words). This is why Moorman was in favor of the Dialogue Mass, of Offertory processions by laypeople, and anything that would give the laity a greater a role in the liturgy itself.
But again, the need for introducing more active corporal involvement with the laity is a weakness in the Protestant system, not a strength. The active corporal participation of laity in Protestantism underscores the basic error of Protestant theology that there is no such thing as a sacramental priesthood. The Protestant minister is nothing more than a layman who is given certain liturgical duties. He is no different in essence from other laypeople in the congregation. Thus laypeople can have a greater part in the actions of liturgy: which translates into the various lay-ministries. This is a weakness in the Protestant system, based on its rejection of the sacramental priesthood established by Our Lord, that Catholics need not imitate.
3) The Use of the Vernacular
This follows from the desire of Common Worship between Catholics and Protestants. Yet even the Anglican Moorman thought that the vernacular would only be applied to the didactic parts of the Catholic Mass. He said he doubted it would be applied to the Offertory and the Canon. The all-vernacular new rite (Novus Ordo) has gone way beyond even what this Protestant envisioned.
4) The Need for More Preaching
Anglican Moorman wants more preaching so that, as he says, he wants you to “bear witness to your faith in a world that has largely forgotten God.”
Again we note that the Protestant’s call for more preaching reflects the weakness in the Protestant system, not a strength. This is not to devalue Catholic preaching, which is an essential element of the priest’s duty, and part of the specific mandate he receives at ordination. Rather, we merely point out that preaching is central in the Protestant system because Protestants are deprived of the true sacrifice of Calvary re-presented on the altar, and are deprived of the Sacraments. They do not go to church to receive an increase in sanctifying grace, or to have their sins forgiven (for even the absolution after Confitier remits venial sin). Rather, Protestants go to church for “fellowship” in worship, to sing together, and to hear a long, inspiring sermon that will help them live their beliefs with conviction.
5) Communion Under Both Kinds
Again, without belaboring the point: the insistence of the Protestant administering both bread and wine to their congregation is a weakness in their system, not a strength. The Protestant rejects the Catholic Church’s teaching, solemnly defined by the Council of Trent, that Christ is present entirely, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the consecrated Host and in the consecrated Wine. Thus receiving under one species is all that is necessary for the Catholic. (Moorman says flat-out in his article that “we Anglicans reject the Council of Trent’s theory of concomitance”).
Hence, Catholics should understand that there is no real need to adopt any of the five elements enunciated by the Anglican Moorman. These practices are, in fact, manifestations of weaknesses in the Protestant system, and are based upon a rejection of bedrock, infallible truths taught by the Catholic Church. None of these practices need be imitated by the Catholic. Yet the Protestant-friendly principles spotlighted by Moorman are constitutive elements in Vatican II’s Schema on the liturgy.
It remains to be seen how many of these Conciliar principles will be incorporated in Pope Benedict’s final “common liturgy” revealed by Cardinal Koch
.
Pope Benedict “freed” the Tridentine Mass in 2007, yet in 2008 he had already changed a piece of it by promoting a new Good Friday prayer that is more in line with the spirit of Vatican II.
The New Good Friday Prayer
In Light of the World, released in late 2010, Pope Benedict explains that he purposely changed the Old Liturgy's Good Friday Prayer because Jєωs found it offensive. He also invokes the fact, as he does in his other writings,[23] that the Jєωs are destined to convert after the "Time of the Gentiles". When the interviewer asks Benedict why in February 2008 he changed the Old Good Friday prayer, he answers:
“...in the old liturgy this point seemed to me to require a modification. The old formulation really was offensive to Jєωs and failed to express the positively overall intrinsic unity between the Old and New Testament. I believed that a modification of this passage of the old liturgy was necessary, especially, as I have already said, out of consideration for our relation with our Jєωιѕн friends. I altered the text in such a way as to express our faith that Christ is the Savior for all, that there are not two channels of salvation, so that Christ is also the redeemer of the Jєωs, and not just of the Gentiles. But the new formulation also shifts the focus from a direct petition for the conversion of the Jєωs in a missionary sense to a plea that the Lord might bring about the hour in history when we may all be united.”[24]
Here we see the major points in Benedict's thinking:
1) The ancient prayer of the Church for the conversion of Jєωs was not theologically correct and needed modification, as it failed to consider the "positive intrinsic unity" of the Old and New Testaments;
2) The prayer should be changed because it is "offensive to Jєωs";
3) The focus of the Good Friday prayer is shifted from praying for the conversion "in a missionary sense" here and now, to "hasten the day" when the time of the Gentiles will be complete, "the hour in history" for the conversion of the Jєωs "when all may be united..” But the Conciliar Church does not formally pray for their conversion today.
4) There are not two channels of salvation, but one: Christ, who is ultimately the redeemer of Jєω and Gentile alike
.
This last point on the centrality of Christ should not be viewed as some sort of reestablishment of traditional teaching, since it is more in line with the new approach to interreligious dialogue that even the Modernist Father Jacques Dupuis propounded. In 2003, at the interreligious conference in Fatima that I attended, I heard Jacques Dupuis state that the purpose of interreligious dialogue is to "make a Buddhist a better Buddhist, a Hindu a better Hindu". Dupuis denounced the Council of Florence's infallible statement on "outside the Church there is no salvation" as a "horrible text".[25]
But even Dupuis insisted that the salvation of the "others" (non-Catholics) ultimately comes through Christ and not by means of their own religion. Thus, when we look at the complete package of Benedict's teaching on the centrality of Christ regarding Jєωs (whom he never says need to convert for salvation),[26] we see it is more in line with the modernist Jacques Dupuis than with the Catholic magisterium of the centuries. Christ is their Savior, but there is no immediate need for these non-Catholics to convert to Christ's one true Church to be saved.
Conclusion
We thus see the following:
1) A “Hybrid” Mass appears to be in the works that “is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms,” the Tridentine and the Novus Ordo.
2) There are now reports that a new Missal will be published in 2013 that makes it optional (for now) to have Mass Facing the People, an all-vernacular liturgy up to and including the Creed; and saints and readings incorporated from the new calendar;
3) Cardinal Koch speaks of this “common-rite” project as Benedict’s long-term plan; and Benedict himself, as Cardinal Ratzinger in 1999, said he favored a gradualism in liturgical change to last as long as ten years;
4) The new common rite reflects Pope Benedict’s unswerving insistence over the years that there can be no turning back to a pre-Vatican II model, and that we must “search for a new balance” between the old and the new;
5) Pope Benedict insists that we must return to the true texts of the Council. Yet the true text of The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy is written to be open to the ecuмenical orientation, a fact that is recognized and celebrated by the Protestant John Moorman;
6) We have already seen a change in the Tridentine Mass with the 2008 introduction of the new Good Friday Prayer that is more in line with the Vatican II approach;
7) Benedict’s “Reform of the Reform” in liturgy goes hand-in-glove with his “Reform in Continuity” that seeks a balance between tradition and some of the most revolutionary aspects of Vatican II.
Will the Vatican expect a “regularized” SSPX to eventually publish a new missal that includes these changes; as well as Mass readings for the June 3 Feast Day of “Blessed John XXIII,” and the October 22 Feast Day of “Blessed John Paul II”? I don’t think the SSPX will comply, but will they be under continual pressure to do so?
Pope Saint Pius X warned in Pascendi that for the Modernist, everything in the Church is subject to change and must change. This includes both dogma and liturgy. We see this Modernist lust for change once again rearing its head in the latest proposal for a “revised” Tridentine Mass.
- end -
Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1985 that he must present what he called the “true Council” in order to “cut the ground” from under objections against the Council from Archbishop Lefebvre and traditional Catholics. Yet the “true Council” texts, as Archbishop Lefebvre rightly warned in 1964, “have a spirit of rupture and ѕυιcιdє.”
Notes:
1. Eponymous Flower Blogspot, August 16, 2012
2.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/docuмents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20110430_istr-universae-ecclesiae_en.html#_ftnref9
3. “Pope's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue, cardinal says,” Catholic News Service, May 16, 2011. (quoted by Stephen Dupuy, “The Ides of April,” The Remnant, April 10, 2012).
4. This was also covered in “The Deviated Liturgical Movement,” John Vennari, Catholic Family News, July 2012.
5. A. Bugnini, “President of the Consilium, Miscellna liturgica in onore di Sua Eminenza Cardinal Giacomo Larcaro, I (Tourmai: Desclée, 1966), p. 11. Quoted from Archbishop Piero Marini, A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal, [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007], pp. 15-16.
6.As defined in Vatican I and set out in the Oath Against Modernism.
7. Even here, the problems with Vatican II are more profound than whether a given statement conforms to traditional doctrine or not. The drafters of Vatican II employed an entirely new approach that makes the docuмents problematic in themselves. The drafters deliberately refused to employ the precision of scholastic language; they utilized ambiguity so the texts could contain two opposing interpretations; the texts were often deficient by remaining silent on key points that should have been reiterated. Part I of the Si Si No No series on “The Errors of the Council” spotlights Vatican II’s ambiguous juridical nature, the contamination of Catholic doctrine with intrinsically anti-Catholic “modern thinking,” and relevant omissions. A detailed exposition of these and other points would take us too far afield from the central discussion of this article, which is the proposal for the “revised” Tridentine Mass and how it fits Pope Benedict’s overall “reform of the reform” wherein Vatican II is the center of gravity for all things Catholic. For the Si Si No No series on the Council, go to
www.cfnews.org/sisi-nono.htm8.Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1992), p. 107. [emphasis added]
9. Thesen zum Thema Zehn Jahre Vaticanum II, Typewritten manuscript. Quoted by Vittorio Messori in The Ratzinger Report [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1985], pp. 28-29.
10. The Ratzinger Report, Ibid., p. 29.
11. Ibid., p. 35.
12. Ibid., p. 30-31.
13. Ibid., p. 33.
14. Ibid., p. 37.
15. The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Tissier de Mallarais [Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2004], p. 548.
16. Ibid., p. 546.
17. “Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia Offering Them His Christmas Greetings,” December 22, 2005. From Vatican webpage.
18. “A 1999 letter by Cardinal Ratzinger on the reform of the liturgy," Rorate Caeli, September 29, 2010. (quoted by Stephen Dupuy, “The Ides of April,” The Remnant, April 10, 2012) [Emphasis added].
19. The Ratzinger Report, p. 31.
20. Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Father Joseph Ratzinger [New York: Paulist Press, 1966], p. 23.
21. It should be noted that Moorman’s article was written prior to the Council officially adopted the Schema as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. At the time of writing this, he is not sure how much of these “desired reforms” will be accepted by the Council. In a short amount of time, the “reform” went well beyond these measures lauded by Moorman.
22. “An Observer Looks at the Schema on the Liturgy”, John Moorman, DD., Bishop or Ripon, (Ripon, Yorkshire, England), from the Special Issue of The Thomist (Volume XXVII complete, April, July, October, 1963) published in book form as Vatican II: The Theological Dimension, Edited by Anthony D. Lee, O.P. [Thomist Press, 1963], p. 442-443.
23. This is demonstrated in detail in “Common Witness and Significant Silence”, J. Vennari, Catholic Family News, April 2011. On line at:
www.cfnews.org/b16-significantsilence.htm24. Light of the World, Benedict XVI, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010] pp. 106-107.
25. See “Fatima to Become an Interfaith Shrine: An Account from One who was There”, John Vennari, Catholic Family News, December 2003. [Reprint #890 available from CFN for $3.00 postpaid This report and a number of reports about the interfaith activity at Fatima are on line at:
www.cfnews.org/Fatima.htm26. This is demonstrated in detail in “Common Witness and Significant Silence”. See note 23 above.
From the September 2012 edition of Catholic Family News
Click here to subscribe
Topic: New 1962 Missal? (Read 13425 times)