|
|
Post by pianistclare on Sept 5, 2021 18:11:23 GMT
Your sister must have been very brave to do this. I don't answer the door for JW pianistclare . Now I get personal letters mailed to me, like a friend would do. Oh she was a fighter for the faith. Strong, yet compassionate, but no messing about with doctrine or the Scriptures. She was one of a kind. |
|
|
|
Post by StellaMaris on Sept 5, 2021 19:41:28 GMT
I do not know if you can 'silence', 'ignore', et al. threads on this forum as is possible on other fora. However, I'm withdrawing from further involvement with this thread. A lot of its content is evidence for what I have been saying. Both sides of the argument are deeply entrenched in the notion they are correct and anybody else is wrong. That deeply saddens me. I believe there is room in the Church for those who want to worship God (after all that's what we're about) in the forms of the liturgy in force on the eve of Vatican II and for those who want to worship in the forms of the liturgy in force since Vatican II. Is there really two sides though? People attending the Ordinary form of Mass, do so because it's the Ordinary Form. It's what the Church has given us. It's the TLM that has set its focus on attacking the Ordinary Form and that inevitably results in people defending the Ordinary Form because... it is what the Magisterium has given us and we follow the Magisterium because we are Catholics. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 6, 2021 2:20:17 GMT
Why can't people just remember the mass as Jesus' sacrifice? I cannot process this mass division. It's making me very sad. There should be no division in the church. You like guitar mass and priest approves..go for it. You like a more formal mass go for it. People get tied up too much in mass politics. I told myself this was one thread I was going to stay out of, but as far as "what got all of this started", it might be good to dial back a bit, and look at what is commonly called "The Ottaviani Intervention" in 1969.
Presented here without commentary:
They're the ones who said all of that, not me.
Rivers of ink, and now, endless bytes of data, have poured forth since then, and I'm not going to presume to add to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by pianistclare on Sept 6, 2021 2:25:16 GMT
I don't need to read that, nor do I want to.
Honestly. Go to the type of Mass you think is best and let's stop peering into each other's souls.
I agree with tth1
|
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Sept 6, 2021 2:51:40 GMT
^ If the Ottaviani Intervention is to be referenced it may be helpful to tell the whole story. Why does the source leave out the bit where the CDF says the study was: www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2000-12/07-999999/Ch1.pdf‘superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional and false.’ Why does it leave out the statements of Ottaviani following the so called intervention? www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2000-12/07-999999/Ch1.pdf‘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 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.’ ‘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.’ en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_InterventionShouldn’t the persons/groups promoting this at least try to be forthright and rename the whole affair the Bacci intervention? |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 6, 2021 3:17:58 GMT
^ If the Ottaviani Intervention is to be referenced it may be helpful to tell the whole story. Why does the source leave out the bit where the CDF says the study was: www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2000-12/07-999999/Ch1.pdf‘superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional and false.’ Why does it leave out the statements of Ottaviani following the so called intervention? www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2000-12/07-999999/Ch1.pdf‘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 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.’ ‘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.’ en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_InterventionShouldn’t the persons/groups promoting this at least try to be forthright and rename the whole affair the Bacci intervention? Okay, fair enough, I had heard that Ottaviani later regretted having written the letter (or so he said, not calling him a liar, just wondering if his hand was forced), but did not realize that his reservations were that vigorous. So far as I am aware, Bacci made no such recantation. In any event, I would be far more interested in following the reasoning therein, not saying (and I am not suggesting you are saying this either) "oh, he took it back, no need to follow his reasoning, and see what might have made him say such things" (which, as I noted, would not speak to the mind of Cardinal Bacci). And note that he did not entirely repudiate it, in that he refers to "some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing". So this may be more of a recantation-but-not-a-recantation. Public life, even secular, is littered with apologies where it is evident the speaker only elicited a kind of sorrow after they were told it would be in their best interests to do so. Whether that is what happened here, no one can say.
You'd have to ask the LMS why they didn't provide these additional sources. Incidentally, the pamphlet you cite is in French. Je lis français un peu, mais I would really have to work at it (suppose I could run it through Google Translate, but those translations are sometimes clumsy to the point of being impenetrable).
|
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Sept 6, 2021 3:47:07 GMT
^
It still requires the whole story. Ottaviani ‘changes his tone’ after clarifications and explanations are made by Paul VI. (Let’s not forget he claims his comments were intended to be considered in the context of a private communication) He seems to go on to say he can see how some, notably the Lefebvrists, may misunderstand things concerning the newly developed rite. He seems to think they only need to be educated (catechized) on the subject, but that requires openness to receiving teaching from the Church.
As to why Bacci didn’t ‘recant’ or offer some type of ‘watered-down’ response to the publication of the document…who knows…it may be worth considering he was 84 when he signed the document and 85 when he died. (Maybe his hand was forced to NOT issue a recantation?)
I’m not asking anyone here why the group didn’t do this or that. These are general and rhetorical questions concerning documents and commentary on documents which are used to this day when the information I have provided is well known and easily accessible.
|
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 6, 2021 13:00:01 GMT
I do not know if you can 'silence', 'ignore', et al. threads on this forum as is possible on other fora. However, I'm withdrawing from further involvement with this thread. A lot of its content is evidence for what I have been saying. Both sides of the argument are deeply entrenched in the notion they are correct and anybody else is wrong. That deeply saddens me. I believe there is room in the Church for those who want to worship God (after all that's what we're about) in the forms of the liturgy in force on the eve of Vatican II and for those who want to worship in the forms of the liturgy in force since Vatican II. Is there really two sides though? People attending the Ordinary form of Mass, do so because it's the Ordinary Form. It's what the Church has given us. It's the TLM that has set its focus on attacking the Ordinary Form and that inevitably results in people defending the Ordinary Form because... it is what the Magisterium has given us and we follow the Magisterium because we are Catholics. Well who gave the Church the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Surely that was also the Magisterium. Approved by countless popes over centuries and never abrogated. Its continued use confirmed by St John paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
I agree there is a very vocal group who criticise the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, Vatican II and Pope Francis. There are groups such as the SSPX which are a thorn in the side of the Church. They're not representative of the majority. Most catholics who prefer to go to the Extraordinary Form are not at all policitised about this issue.
The motu proprio hasn't really resolved anything because that small, politicised minority aren't going away. They're going to fight this anyway they can. Consequently it resolves nothing but upsets a significant number of faithful Catholics.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 6, 2021 13:20:38 GMT
If I read the original post correctly, it was a question about why people are divided about the Mass. When I cited Ottaviani, I was merely reproducing his arguments, that the reader could take or leave as they see fit. Again, I am reluctant to say "oh, he went back and said he shouldn't have written that, just scratch all that, forget you ever read it", kind of like the line from Men in Black, "what you think you saw, you did not see".
There is another set of arguments in favor of the TLM, these from a pamphlet published by the SSPX. I shall link to it verbatim. So far as I am aware, nobody has ever repudiated or recanted this:
Let me be clear, that I am just supplying other people's sources, and I am not necessarily making each and every one of these arguments myself. While my strong preference is for the TLM, I assist freely and regularly at the Novus Ordo, and I'm just going to be as blunt as a butter knife, the TLM takes a certain presence of mind, and precise attention to small details, that is just not part of the way my own brain is wired. If I were a priest, I could celebrate the Latin Novus Ordo with barely a hitch. But as for the TLM? I have served it (as well as the Novus Ordo, both Latin and vernacular) more times than I can remember, and let me tell you, it is tough. And you always have these liturgical watchdogs in the congregation, those who are obsessed with the "bella figura" aspect of it all, who will not hesitate to say afterwards "he didn't do this right" or "he didn't do that right". If expectations are that strict for the altar server, I can hardly imagine what they are for the priest. Again, it would have to take a certain kind of mind, and I don't have it. I am thankful that others do, but it's "just not me".
I would be entirely open to hearing a similar "laundry list" of reasons "why the Novus Ordo --- why NOT the old?". Has anyone ever seen such a list? I'll give anybody a fair hearing.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Sept 6, 2021 14:37:10 GMT
Nonsense. Information was offered because it was viewed as largely germane to the discussion. We have seen the claims of ‘I’m only reproducing information…’ and other dissociative rhetorical tactics used in this forum. Another tactic is to make bloviated statements about what one will not discuss all while making sure these viewpoints/positions/assertions ‘not to be discussed’ are made known the audience. These are tactics used to advance ideas while attempting to insulate oneself from criticism.
Ottaviani didn’t just go back and ‘think he shouldn’t have written that.’ He EXPLICITLY says Paul VI convinced him otherwise. Why the misdirection? Why the suggestions Ottaviani’s hand was forced to make a recantation? Why not suggest Bacci’s hand was forced to make the originating objection or NOT to make a recantation? (The amount of evidence is equal for each). Are we just going to get on with it and make the definitive claim Annibale Bugnini was without a doubt a Mason because some secretary produced a really poor quality mimeograph of a letter, not even mentioning Bugnini, which the secretary claims to have stolen out of Bugnini’s briefcase?
In general and for those with moral reservations about engaging an SSPX link it can be helpful to at least provide relevant quotations from the linked material.
It is all becoming very clear. The referrals to all the Lefebvrist literature and the direct linking of SSPX resources tell an interesting story. ‘Irregular’ is a kind designation and a display of the mercy of the church.
Nobody cares if folks worship according to the Missal of John XXIII. It’s all this rhetoric people care about.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Sept 6, 2021 15:05:05 GMT
Is there really two sides though? People attending the Ordinary form of Mass, do so because it's the Ordinary Form. It's what the Church has given us. It's the TLM that has set its focus on attacking the Ordinary Form and that inevitably results in people defending the Ordinary Form because... it is what the Magisterium has given us and we follow the Magisterium because we are Catholics. Well who gave the Church the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Surely that was also the Magisterium. Approved by countless popes over centuries and never abrogated. Its continued use confirmed by St John paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
I agree there is a very vocal group who criticise the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, Vatican II and Pope Francis. There are groups such as the SSPX which are a thorn in the side of the Church. They're not representative of the majority. Most catholics who prefer to go to the Extraordinary Form are not at all policitised about this issue.
The motu proprio hasn't really resolved anything because that small, politicised minority aren't going away. They're going to fight this anyway they can. Consequently it resolves nothing but upsets a significant number of faithful Catholics.
Quite the contrary. TC resolves much. It explicitly gives local ordinaries the power to deal with any theological/spiritual problems arising from groups ‘attached’ to the Missal of John XXIII as they see fit. |
|
|
|
Post by StellaMaris on Sept 6, 2021 21:41:15 GMT
Nonsense. Information was offered because it was viewed as largely germane to the discussion. We have seen the claims of ‘I’m only reproducing information…’ and other dissociative rhetorical tactics used in this forum. Another tactic is to make bloviated statements about what one will not discuss all while making sure these viewpoints/positions/assertions ‘not to be discussed’ are made known the audience. These are tactics used to advance ideas while attempting to insulate oneself from criticism. Ottaviani didn’t just go back and ‘think he shouldn’t have written that.’ He EXPLICITLY says Paul VI convinced him otherwise. Why the misdirection? Why the suggestions Ottaviani’s hand was forced to make a recantation? Why not suggest Bacci’s hand was forced to make the originating objection or NOT to make a recantation? (The amount of evidence is equal for each). Are we just going to get on with it and make the definitive claim Annibale Bugnini was without a doubt a Mason because some secretary produced a really poor quality mimeograph of a letter, not even mentioning Bugnini, which the secretary claims to have stolen out of Bugnini’s briefcase? In general and for those with moral reservations about engaging an SSPX link it can be helpful to at least provide relevant quotations from the linked material. It is all becoming very clear. The referrals to all the Lefebvrist literature and the direct linking of SSPX resources tell an interesting story. ‘Irregular’ is a kind designation and a display of the mercy of the church. Nobody cares if folks worship according to the Missal of John XXIII. It’s all this rhetoric people care about. Adding to that, the Church hasn't referred to the Mass as Novus Ordo for 50 years, but certain so called Catholic continue to bang on with Novus Ordo when it is the Ordinary Form. It is the Mass of our times said in every corner of the earth. Every time I read or hear 'novus ordo', I instantly think this is a protestant in sheeps clothing. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 6, 2021 23:30:22 GMT
Nonsense. Information was offered because it was viewed as largely germane to the discussion. We have seen the claims of ‘I’m only reproducing information…’ and other dissociative rhetorical tactics used in this forum. Another tactic is to make bloviated statements about what one will not discuss all while making sure these viewpoints/positions/assertions ‘not to be discussed’ are made known the audience. These are tactics used to advance ideas while attempting to insulate oneself from criticism. Ottaviani didn’t just go back and ‘think he shouldn’t have written that.’ He EXPLICITLY says Paul VI convinced him otherwise. Why the misdirection? Why the suggestions Ottaviani’s hand was forced to make a recantation? Why not suggest Bacci’s hand was forced to make the originating objection or NOT to make a recantation? (The amount of evidence is equal for each). Are we just going to get on with it and make the definitive claim Annibale Bugnini was without a doubt a Mason because some secretary produced a really poor quality mimeograph of a letter, not even mentioning Bugnini, which the secretary claims to have stolen out of Bugnini’s briefcase? In general and for those with moral reservations about engaging an SSPX link it can be helpful to at least provide relevant quotations from the linked material. It is all becoming very clear. The referrals to all the Lefebvrist literature and the direct linking of SSPX resources tell an interesting story. ‘Irregular’ is a kind designation and a display of the mercy of the church. Nobody cares if folks worship according to the Missal of John XXIII. It’s all this rhetoric people care about. Yes, this information IS "largely germane to the discussion". I am not 100% in sync with the SSPX, and have never claimed to be. More to the point, I do not think the Novus Ordo, for lack of a more elegant way to put it, is nearly as bad as they (and many other traditionalists) make it out to be. I just put the ideas out there, and invite the reader to make of them what they will. There is probably no organization out there that is "straight down the line" with my ideas regarding the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo. The FSSP probably comes the closest, not the SSPX, the FSSP. But one question I would have for the FSSP is "now precisely why can't you celebrate the Novus Ordo, if you are needed to do so?". I have an issue with this business of "it's not our charism".
I cannot speak for what was going through the minds of Ottaviani and Bacci. I just know that Ottaviani wrote a series of propositions at one time, and I am assuming, at that time, those propositions reflected the state of his mind. As as for Bugnini, I didn't bring him into it, nor am I going to. I have heard all the stories. I am not going to bear witness about him, that he did not bear about himself.
The SSPX has a legal personality in the Church, and has never been disestablished, has never ceased to exist. Their status is somewhat irregular. That status needs to be regularized. I don't dispute that. It is less than it should be. The Holy Father has granted them faculties for all seven sacraments, the exception being that there is a somewhat convoluted process for those seeking an SSPX priest for matrimony.
And I think it's a fair bet that those bishops, mostly outside of the United States --- are we destined always to be the Church's "problem child"? --- who have banned the TLM, most certainly do care if, as you put it, "folks worship according to the Missal of John XXIII".
|
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Sept 7, 2021 0:44:28 GMT
If I read the original post correctly, it was a question about why people are divided about the Mass. When I cited Ottaviani, I was merely reproducing his arguments, that the reader could take or leave as they see fit. Again, I am reluctant to say "oh, he went back and said he shouldn't have written that, just scratch all that, forget you ever read it", kind of like the line from Men in Black, "what you think you saw, you did not see".
There is another set of arguments in favor of the TLM, these from a pamphlet published by the SSPX. I shall link to it verbatim. So far as I am aware, nobody has ever repudiated or recanted this:
Let me be clear, that I am just supplying other people's sources, and I am not necessarily making each and every one of these arguments myself. While my strong preference is for the TLM, I assist freely and regularly at the Novus Ordo, and I'm just going to be as blunt as a butter knife, the TLM takes a certain presence of mind, and precise attention to small details, that is just not part of the way my own brain is wired. If I were a priest, I could celebrate the Latin Novus Ordo with barely a hitch. But as for the TLM? I have served it (as well as the Novus Ordo, both Latin and vernacular) more times than I can remember, and let me tell you, it is tough. And you always have these liturgical watchdogs in the congregation, those who are obsessed with the "bella figura" aspect of it all, who will not hesitate to say afterwards "he didn't do this right" or "he didn't do that right". If expectations are that strict for the altar server, I can hardly imagine what they are for the priest. Again, it would have to take a certain kind of mind, and I don't have it. I am thankful that others do, but it's "just not me".
I would be entirely open to hearing a similar "laundry list" of reasons "why the Novus Ordo --- why NOT the old?". Has anyone ever seen such a list? I'll give anybody a fair hearing.
That "laundry list" has been given in many threads, together with links, not to mention in my previous message in this thread. Here's one link:
Here's a recap:
1. Both the EF and the OF were "fabricated". That is, they both borrow from elements that are up to 2,000 years old, including older liturgies and practices. The difference is that the early Church likely used Aramaic and common Greek, and then added Latin followed by various vernacular languages.
2. According to Pope Benedict XVI, both the EF and OF are memorials of a sacrifice. That is the argument of the Magisterium.
3. The early Church had a Mass that was communal, just like the OF. It also included CITH and even confessing publicly known sins before the congregation.
4. The OF was not contrived because it comes from ancient liturgies.
5. Church attendance and membership started to decrease in the U.S. before Vatican II. It started decreasing in Europe after around 2000. It is increasing in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Asia and Africa will likely dominate the Church in the near future.
That means it was not the OF or even Vatican II that led to a decrease in the U.S. and in Europe but the rise of secular materialism driven by prosperity, together with other factors like population aging.
6. The OF follows practices similar to that in Protestant rites because of no. 3.
7. The OF is not an experiment that failed because world Catholic population continued to rise worldwide.
That's for the points in the chart. I think you and others can address the other 62 points given the ff.: the OF is a combination of the old, the on-going, and the new. That is, it uses ancient liturgies, uses the vernacular just like the Church did across centuries (e.g., the first Bible in the vernacular was approved by the Church almost contemporaneous to the Council of Trent), was modified just like the EF was several times, but is new because it is now based on a Vatican II which involved many from Asia and Africa, and uses a lot more of the Bible.
Given that, the importance of Vatican II cannot be over-emphasized, and just like what was said about the Council of Trent, has also been praised by several Saints. The gist is that the world has become much larger for the Church since 1965, and that more of that world will be part of Her soon. We are now seeing that in the current Pope, the first one from South America. I think future leaders will be coming from Asia and Africa.
At the same time, the faithful has to learn more, and the hierarchy of the Church has to catch up with them. The catechism, the Bible, updated research on that in order to come up with more accurate translations, laws and decisions on things that never showed up centuries ago have to be addressed, just like what the Church experienced across 2,000 years when it had to deal with Gentiles, Latin, and more.
At some point, one should expect even more than just guitar playing at Mass as the Church confronts what might be its greatest strength:
and must be ready to harness it:
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Sept 7, 2021 0:57:47 GMT
There is another set of arguments in favor of the TLM, these from a pamphlet published by the SSPX. I shall link to it verbatim. So far as I am aware, nobody has ever repudiated or recanted this: It says that the TLM has been in use for 2000 years. I didn't know that the TLM, as codified by Pope Pius V, was in use for 2000 years ? I mean did Jesus use the TLM at the Last Supper 2000 years ago? In the first place, I thought that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Why would He be speaking Latin at the Last Supper? And how would Jesus have been able to quote from the Gospels and Epistles in Latin at that time since they had not been written down at the time of the Last Supper? |
|
