"new Rite"

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2004, 01:59 PM'] they're all wonderful, thanks a ton for the link!

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
No problem! I enjoy researching other rites within the Catholic Church. In Houston, they recently constructed a new Maronite Catholic Church. Looking at pictures, it is a pretty awesome House of God!

[Guest JeffCR07]

yea, I think its really important that us Latin Rite catholics be taught about the other Rites. So many people don't even know that they exist...its sad

[catholicguy]

One of the problems with EWTN is that it is facing the people, which Vatican II did not allow. Also, they permit hand Communion, which Vatican II did not allow. Further, they stand for Communion, which Vatican II did not allow. These are all the post-conciliar changes that have been legalized as a result of disobedience (at least in most cases). It has gotten so bad that the new GIRM says facing the people is "preferable" (but definitely not obligatory). In America hand Communion is permitted and standing is the normative posture (the faithful who do not stand are to be instructed why they should stand, but no good reason has been given, so the Priests that I have asked about this issue have said "I would love to tell the faithful why, but I do not know any reason!"). We have to recognize that the Novus Ordo as a Mass is a departure from Vatican II and that Vatican II is a departure from the tradition of the Latin Rite. This is explained in a book that Pope Saint Pius V recommended before he was suspended (N.B., the book is approved by Cardinal Ratzinger).

[Good Friday]

[quote name='conservativecatholic']I am watching the Daily Mass on EWTN right now and it is a Novus Ordo Mass. It is beautiful! Gregorian Chant, Latin, and bells are all integrated into the Novus Ordo Mass on EWTN. This is what Vatican II intedned the Novus Ordo Mass to be like. Never in Vatican II did it say to eliminate Latin and chanting. I hope future Bishops correctly interpret Vatican II and stop their ridiculous liberal ways. May God Bless! I LUV EWTN!!![/quote]
Actually, if you want to get technical about it, Vatican II didn't intend the Novus Ordo Mass to be like anything, because the Novus Ordo Mass did not yet exist and Vatican II did not create it. I'm not saying that the Novus Ordo Mass is bad (I'm not a traditionalist), I'm simply saying that it was not created by the Second Vatican Council. It was created afterward. The liturgical renewal spoken of in Vatican II was meant for the Tridentine Mass. Personally, while I like the Novus Ordo and recognize its validity, I think the Church would be far better served by returning to the Tridentine Mass and applying the renewal spoken of in Vatican II to the Tridentine Mass.

[quote name='catholicguy']One of the problems with EWTN is that it is facing the people, which Vatican II did not allow.[/quote]
The Second Vatican Council did not allow it, but it was permitted by Pope Paul VI, who was the Church's liturgical authority. Denying his liturgical authority because Vatican II did not explicitly allow it is conciliarism, and conciliarism is heresy.

[quote name='catholicguy']Also, they permit hand Communion, which Vatican II did not allow.[/quote]
Again, this was permitted by Pope Paul VI.

[quote name='catholicguy']Further, they stand for Communion, which Vatican II did not allow.[/quote]
This was permitted by Pope Paul VI, too.

[quote name='catholicguy']These are all the post-conciliar changes that have been legalized as a result of disobedience (at least in most cases).[/quote]
Be that as it may, one cannot deny that these are all changes approved by the Pope, who is the Church's supreme liturgical authority. One can perhaps question the prudence of some of these decisions -- for instance, I would rather the priest turned to God [i]with[/i] the people rather than facing the people -- but one cannot deny that these are legal decisions and that they are not liturgical abuses.

[quote name='catholicguy']We have to recognize that the Novus Ordo as a Mass is a departure from Vatican II and that Vatican II is a departure from the tradition of the Latin Rite. This is explained in a book that Pope Saint Pius V recommended before he was suspended (N.B., the book is approved by Cardinal Ratzinger).[/quote]
No, unless we're going to commit the sin of heresy, we don't need to recognize that the Novus Ordo is a departure from the Second Vatican Council and certainly not that the Second Vatican Council is a departure from the tradition of the Latin Rite. The Novus Ordo is a result of Pope Paul VI's interpretation of the Second Vatican Council's documents on liturgical renewal, and thus valid. The Second Vatican Council is simply valid, and it is heresy to state otherwise.

If you're going to persist in this, you'll no doubt be suspended like PSPV. Catholic defiance of the Magisterium is not permitted on Phatmass, you should take a look at the phorum guidelines.

[catholicguy]

I do not claim necessarily that any of these are invalid (not to say that hand Communion is not objectively a sacrilege), but I was just making the point that the Novus Ordo is a departure from Vatican II, and Vatican II is a departure from tradition. I agree completely about applying Vatican II to the Traditional Mass as opposed to creating a Novus Ordo Missae (but I assert that the unadulterated, unchanged Mass, fully developed Liturgy of the pre-1955 Traditional Mass is the greatest Liturgy of the Latin Rite). Concerning this two things are evident: 1) the changes in 1955 mark the first changes made which inhibited the Liturgy (which worked down instead of working up as far as ceremony and ritual are concerned) and 2) the changes in 1955 mark the first artificial changes to the Liturgy (i.e., not developed over time, but specific changes from an exterior force).

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='catholicguy' date='Jul 13 2004, 07:12 PM'] One of the problems with EWTN is that it is facing the people, which Vatican II did not allow. Also, they permit hand Communion, which Vatican II did not allow. Further, they stand for Communion, which Vatican II did not allow. These are all the post-conciliar changes that have been legalized as a result of disobedience (at least in most cases). It has gotten so bad that the new GIRM says facing the people is "preferable" (but definitely not obligatory). In America hand Communion is permitted and standing is the normative posture (the faithful who do not stand are to be instructed why they should stand, but no good reason has been given, so the Priests that I have asked about this issue have said "I would love to tell the faithful why, but I do not know any reason!"). We have to recognize that the Novus Ordo as a Mass is a departure from Vatican II and that Vatican II is a departure from the tradition of the Latin Rite. This is explained in a book that Pope Saint Pius V recommended before he was suspended (N.B., the book is approved by Cardinal Ratzinger). [/quote]
You really need to study some timelines to get your facts straight, and stop your erronous conclusions. Pope Paul VI changed the Mass, not Vatican II.

The Mass of Pope Paul VI took us back to the roots of the Church, a [i]return[/i] to tradition.

The Tridentine Mass was a definite departure from the Mass of the Apostles.

EWTN is absolutely faithful to the GIRM as it is , not as you wish it would be.
If the Church sanctions Communion in the hand, it is obviuosly not a liturgical abuse, so stop saying it is. If you call it a sacriledge then you are claiming to be a higher authority than the Pope, and we don't try that here.

The Church can bind and loose.

Thank God the Holy Spirit guides the Church!

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]I do not claim necessarily that any of these are invalid (not to say that hand Communion is not objectively a sacrilege)[/quote]

Sacrilege is necessarily and implicitly invalid. To claim that receiving in the hand, which was initially sanctioned by Pope Paul VI and has been upheld by Pope John Paul II, is a sacrilege is to implicitly state that both Popes are heretics, which is both impossible and wrong.

[quote]I was just making the point that the Novus Ordo is a departure from Vatican II, and Vatican II is a departure from tradition.[/quote]

Only if you define "tradition" as being the liturgy from the time immediately preceeding the Great Schism to Vatican II.

As cmom said, Pope Paul VI brought a return to the roots of the Church.

[quote]I agree completely about applying Vatican II to the Traditional Mass as opposed to creating a Novus Ordo Missae (but I assert that the unadulterated, unchanged Mass, fully developed Liturgy of the pre-1955 Traditional Mass is the greatest Liturgy of the Latin Rite)[/quote]

That is perfectly fine. Your opinion in these matters is your perogative, and is entirely valid. I respect you for it

[quote]Concerning this two things are evident: 1) the changes in 1955 mark the first changes made which inhibited the Liturgy (which worked down instead of working up as far as ceremony and ritual are concerned)[/quote]

I do not consider anything that Pope Paul VI did to "inhibit" the liturgy. The best that can be said with regards to this is that it is merely your opinion, and, as such, cannot be stated as an "evident" fact.

[quote] and 2) the changes in 1955 mark the first artificial changes to the Liturgy (i.e., not developed over time, but specific changes from an exterior force)[/quote]

I would never consider the Pope, our Holy Father and the Vicar of Christ, to be "an exterior force." To a faithful catholic, the teachings of the Roman Pontiff should be absolutely interior, and should speak to the very core of our beings.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

Edited July 14, 2004 by JeffCR07

[ladybug]

[quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Jul 13 2004, 11:48 AM'] I am watching the Daily Mass on EWTN right now and it is a Novus Ordo Mass. It is beautiful! Gregorian Chant, Latin, and bells are all integrated into the Novus Ordo Mass on EWTN. This is what Vatican II intedned the Novus Ordo Mass to be like. Never in Vatican II did it say to eliminate Latin and chanting. I hope future Bishops correctly interpret Vatican II and stop their ridiculous liberal ways. May God Bless! I LUV EWTN!!! [/quote]
I agree that it should not be eliminated. It should be protected while at the same time playing other sacred music to people depending on the culture of those attending. (not in the same mass). Like my church has a mass for each.... traditional, folk, contemporary, and then Life Teen in the evening.


I like the fact that there are masses held with all of the old music. That is our roots and it needs a special place of honor. It is not subject to the fads and fashions...that's why it's classic.

[catholicguy]

[quote]You really need to study some timelines to get your facts straight, and stop your erronous conclusions. Pope Paul VI changed the Mass, not Vatican II. [/quote]

That is exactly [i]my[/i] point. People say: I wish we could go back to the changes Vat II made. Vat II didn't make any changes. The Traditional Mass was said everyday at Vatican Council II.

[quote]The Mass of Pope Paul VI took us back to the roots of the Church, a [i]return[/i] to tradition.[/quote]

No, that was known as antiquaranism, which was a return completely to the "early Church" for no other reason other than it is what the "first Christians did." That was condemned by Pius XII in [i]Mediator Dei[/i].

[quote]The Tridentine Mass was a definite departure from the Mass of the Apostles. [/quote]

Wrong again... if it was different at all, it was a development which occured for many reasons. One of the major reasons it would have developed is that before a.D. 313 Christianity was outlawed. The Church had to go underground in order to survive. On the other hand, once it was legalized and later in the same century became the official religion of the State, it was clear that the Liturgy could develop into what it would have been had it been legal all along. From this time beautiful churches were built, processions, incense, and other outward forms of reverence and ritual came into the Liturgy, for before this time it would have been absolutely impossible to do so. You should read the book [u]How Christ Said the First Mass[/u]. That will fill you in on how it was substantially the same as the Mass of All Times, hence the name Mass of [i]All[/i] Times (a.ka. Traditional Latin Mass or the misnomer Tridentine Mass). After Pope St. Gregory the Great (who wrote volumes of Gregorian chant, the Mass was sealed practically, and from that time [St. Gregory the Great d. 604] until it was condified by Pope St. Pius V, it remained the same).

[quote]Thank God the Holy Spirit guides the Church![/quote]

This is another faulty conclusion. The Holy Ghost makes sure no Pope declares anything "infallibly" on Faith and morals that is incorrect. Every Catholic knows that disciplines are not infallible, and they are, therefore, not protected by the Holy Ghost, as we have seen with the Novus Ordo and with the fabrications thereof (facing people, vernacular, hand Communion, lay "ministers", even women "ministers", etc.). None of that is infallible. That is discipline. We are not required to agree with it. It is not defined [i]ex Cathedra[/i]. It is not an article of Faith. Just beacuse the pope likes it means nothing. The Pope likes dalai lama, too. Should we all send him ramadan cards (I know that's muslim, but you get my point) because of that? Just because the pope likes charismatic music doesn't mean we have to agree with him. Just because he's the pope doesn't means he is right all the time (or AT ALL) outside of declarations [i]ex Cathedra[/i], which the only thing the current pope has said as such is that women cannot be priests.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]No, that was known as antiquaranism, which was a return completely to the "early Church" for no other reason other than it is what the "first Christians did." That was condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei.[/quote]

As I have addressed in other posts, Pope Paul VI was not a proponent of antiquarianism, though many traditionalists would like to say that he was. Pope Pius XII's encyclical, [i]Mediator Dei[/i], rightly condemns "antiquarianism," but makes certain wise distinctions.

[quote]      63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
      64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation.
      65. In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained. Let no one arrogate to himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will. Only the Sovereign Pontiff, as the successor of Saint Peter, charged by the divine Redeemer with the feeding of His entire flock,[54] and with him, in obedience to the Apostolic See, the bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church of God,"[55] have the right and the duty to govern the Christian people. Consequently, Venerable Brethren, whenever you assert your authority--even on occasion with wholesome severity--you are not merely acquitting yourselves of your duty; you are defending the very will of the Founder of the Church.[/quote]

As regards 63: The Tridentine Mass has not been abolished, nor any of that existing legislation "repudiated."

As regards 64: please note that the Holy Father does not speak out against reverent incorporation of ancient tradition, but against [i]exaggerated and senseless antiquariansim[/i]. This is a far cry from the actions and teachings of Pope Paul VI.

As regards 65: The Holy Father here makes the most striking point. He reserves the power to make any changes exclusively to the Roman Pontiff, for the purpose of combating that exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism, and he emphatically calls the Bishops to support the decision of the Pope in the defense of the Church. This power, specifically noted and defined by Pope Pius XII, was precisely used, in wisdom, by Pope Paul VI.

I will address your other points at a later time, but now I gotsta get myself to Mass!

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[catholicguy]

[color=red][Edited by dUSt: Lack of Respect to the Religious- a post or comment by a Catholic that criticizes or shows lack of obedience to priests, bishops, cardinals, the pope, etc.][/color]

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Pius XII noted specifically "making the altar a table" as antiquarianism. That was done first thing. How was that not antiquarianism? The Holy Pontiff notes that removing black from Liturgical colors was antiquarianism. This, too, was done. He notes that removing statues is antiquarianism. This was done even during the Council. How are none of these antiquarianism, then?[/quote]

The section of [i]Mediator Dei[/i] which you reference is section 62.

However, if one reads sections 60 and 61 which preceed it, as well as 63-65 (which I already have quoted above, it is clear that the Holy Father is referencing acts that are illicit becuase they are being done by individuals without the permission of the Holy See.

In section 60, which deals with the issue of Latin and the vernacular, the Holy Father ends with the comment that "It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See."

Section 61 immediately follows with "The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately."

Section 62 is a list of actions being done by individuals without permission of the Holy See, which include returning the altar to tableform, removing black from liturgical colors, forbidding the use of statues and icons in churches, removal of wound-marks from the crucifix, and the banning of polyphonic music.

Thus, when one reads sections 60-65 in their entirety, it becomes painfully clear that the Holy Father is addressing as wrong all antiquarianism that is not specifically granted by the Pope, and that he reserves the right of the Successor of Peter to use his wisdom with regards to decisions dealing with antiquarianism.

[quote]So you think that Paul VI brought in the New Mass to fix the problems with antiquarianism that had "infected" the TLM?? If there was a problem then, Pius XII would have fixed it... Paul VI didn't use a power to stop antiquarianism. He partook in antiquarianism. God bless.[/quote]

You are placing words in my mouth, which I do not appreciate. I merely stated that Pope Pius XII established, in [i]Mediator Dei[/i], that any liturgical change that brings back ancient tradition must be authorized by the Roman Pontiff, which is exactly what happened with Pope Paul VI

God Bless,

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[cmotherofpirl]

I am tired of getting reports on this thread ,so it is closed.