MichaelFilo and Cam42

[dUSt]

This thread has been set-up as a [b]one time[/b] exception to the rule of debating obedience to the pope, and the liturgy--specifically Tridentine vs Novus Ordo, etc.

NOBODY is allowed to post in this thread except for MichaelFilo and Cam42. All other post will be immediately deleted. No exceptions.

Normally, these types of discussion are not allowed on phatmass, not because they shouldn't be discussed, but because most times the proper respect to the religious is not displayed, resulting in scandal to everyone who reads it. I am making this exception because I am confident in Cam42's ability to keep the topic under control while remaining completely faithful to the Church.

[Cam42]

OK Mikey....start asking your questions......I will do as much as I can to engage you. I will also challenge you, so be prepared.

I will do my best to help you and get you thinking about the Church.....So, have at it....

Cam

[Cam42]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 19 2005, 06:14 PM'] OK Mikey....start asking your questions......I will do as much as I can to engage you. I will also challenge you, so be prepared.

I will do my best to help you and get you thinking about the Church.....So, have at it....

Cam [/quote]
bump for Mikey.....

[Cam42]

one more bump for Mikey....I have sent an email to him....

[MichaelFilo]

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I just found this e-mail. I've been reading quite a bit, but right now I'm struck with a major problem. That is this:

Councils are infalliable, we all know this. However, what in a council is infalliable? Surely, we cannot say everything that is produced from a council if infalliable, many things are pastoral, which are neither right or wrong, but only good and bad. So, what can be taken from VII to be seen as infalliablly taught?

That'll be the first question, and the next will be my first point, I will not drown you out with questions, and since I do some research on my own, answers pop-up, so I'll only put forth one at a time.

What of the effects of Vatican II on the Church? It has commonly been stated that the lack-luster success of Vatican II is due to misinterpreting it (which is true, partially, since Pope John Paul II (the Great) needed to call an extraordinary synod on the interpretation of Vatican II). However, that fails to explain why every single diocese in the West, upon implementing Vatican II saw a fall in attendance and vocations. However, out in Brazil, in Campos, when Bishop Mayer(sp?) was head of that bishopforic (prior to his (forced?) resignation) his rejection of Vatican II as anything more than pastoral and and his insistance to only hold the Tridentine Latin Mass saw a flourishing of faithful there and vocations rose steadily to the priesthood and religious life, and that is not mentioning the immense zeal in the area.

Also, what of the current rules that limit the use of the TLM and require special dispensation. Is that not in contradiction to Quo Primum? Have not the current heads at least contradicted Pope St. Pius V's permission granted to forever say the Mass?

[quote][b]Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women - even of military orders - and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever. [/b]

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and [b]they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal. [/b]

[b]Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used[/b]. [b]Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force[/b] notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing.
[/quote]

What of that? While true, this is more of a discipline and can be revoked by latter popes, Pope St. Pius V also made it clear that this document is binding "now and forever". Why then is now neccessary to hold the Mass with having to give the Novus Ordo the same pride of place as the TLM, when clearly, the TLM is the Mass forever, while the Novus Ordo is simply a Mass written out by theologians, having no actual traditional backing (in practice) and more a theoritical Mass, then one that came into being out of practice. Simply that should throw up a flag. However, a priest cannot even say the Mass without incurring penalty should the Bishop (which for the purpose of this point, will be a "progressive" and "liberal", I'm sure you can find one to fulfill that mold; Mahony for instance) does not allow it. The point being thus; if the pastoral rules (not doctrinal points) are in contradiction with something that is forever binding, then Vatican II's changes on the pastoral level are questionable as well (questionable being the water-downed word, since I do respect the fact that I could be possibly very wrong).

I will wait for a response, you may disregard the part about the TLM, since clearly there is nothing to be responded with, unless there is something you can find that I may have missed, it is less a point, and more just an example of the poor directioning of V-II.

God bless,
Mikey

[Cam42]

[quote]However, what in a council is infalliable? Surely, we cannot say everything that is produced from a council if infalliable, many things are pastoral, which are neither right or wrong, but only good and bad. So, what can be taken from VII to be seen as infalliablly taught?[/quote]

In simple terms Mikey, anything that defines [b]or supports[/b] infallible dogma or doctrine. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions.

Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope. This can be said precisely because the pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals. An infallible statement of Divine truth is the voice of Christ speaking through the mouth of the visible head of His mystical body or in unison, in chorus, with all its members. The united voice of the whole Church has a solemnity, impressiveness, and effectiveness, an external, circumstantial weight, which is wanting in simple ex-cathedra pronouncements. (This is what brother LittleLes doesn't understand)

One of the things that we must remember when dealing with infalliblity of an Ecumenical council is that in the West no careful distinction of terms was observed: canones and decreta signify both dogmatic and disciplinary decisions. The Council of Trent styled its disciplinary edicts decreta de reformatione; its dogmatic definitions decreta, without qualification, where they positively assert the points of faith then in dispute, and canones when, in imitation of the ancient anathematisms, they imposed an anathema sit on those that refused assent to the defined propositions.

I know that this will spur further questions, but I hope that it gets you a start.

[quote]What of the effects of Vatican II on the Church?[/quote]

The fall in vocations cannot be directly tied to Vatican Council II. It can be linked to several other factors though.....

1. The widespread use of contraception. With fewer babies fewer to be called.
2. The lack of parental support. It is commonly known that most parents today want grandchildren. And with the nuclear family getting smaller, due to these factors, overall advances in medicine (more babies survive), contraception, and rising economic costs (it is expensive to raise 10 kids), parents want children to continue the line. When there are only two or three kids in a family and one is a girl, the want to release a son to the priesthood is hard to do.
3. The lack of proper catechesis. This is not due to Vatican II, but rather it is a general apathy in the Church that started [b]before[/b] Vatican II and spurred the calling of the council.

The reform of the Liturgy....Mikey, let me be very clear from the start. This is the single most important part of our discussion. Why? Because the Liturgy is the Church to 95% of the faithful. All most people see of the Catholic Church is Sunday Mass. The laity don't have time or better stated, won't make time to understand theology.

Ok, with that being said, let me say a couple of things.

[quote]Also, what of the current rules that limit the use of the TLM and require special dispensation. Is that not in contradiction to Quo Primum? Have not the current heads at least contradicted Pope St. Pius V's permission granted to forever say the Mass?[/quote]

Let me ask you a question now? What was [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/396"]Quo Primum Tempore[/url]? Quo Primum was a reform to the Liturgy. Shocking isn't it? And here is the most shocking thing that is never, ever, ever discussed by "Trad" Catholics who follow this logic:
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/314"]Cum Sanctissimum[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/403"]Si Quid Est[/url]

Both of those documents were written to revise the new Tridentine Liturgy. They are binding and they are in the same era as Quo Primum. Revision (reform) of the Liturgy is nothing new. The Liturgy is a dynamic part of the life of the Church. The more important question to ask about this is not, "Is that not a contradiction?" But rather, "Why hasn't the Liturgy been implemented properly?"

Honestly, you answered your own question when you said:
[quote]While true, this is more of a discipline and can be revoked by latter popes, Pope St. Pius V also made it clear that this document is binding "now and forever".[/quote]

The Tridentine Mass is universal and any priest may say that form of the Mass privately at any time. One only needs permission to pray it publicly. Now if we look to [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/11/DocumentIndex/395"]Quattuor Abhinc Annos[/url] to get the basic answer.

[quote]The celebration of Mass in question must take place exclusively for the benefit of those who petition it; the celebration must be in a church or oratory designated by the diocesan bishop (but not in parish churches, unless, in extraordinary instances, the bishop allows this); the celebration may take place only on those days and in those circumstances approved by the bishop, whether for an individual instance or as a regular occurrence. (QAA 2)[/quote]

Also we can look to [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/11/DocumentIndex/412"]Guidelines for the Celebration of the "Tridentine" Mass [/url] as well as [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/11/DocumentIndex/413"]1995 Clarification on the Celebration of the "Tridentine" Mass [/url] and [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/11/DocumentIndex/414"]1997 Clarification on the Celebration of the "Tridentine" Mass [/url].

[quote]Why then is now neccessary to hold the Mass with having to give the Novus Ordo the same pride of place as the TLM, when clearly, the TLM is the Mass forever, while the Novus Ordo is simply a Mass written out by theologians, having no actual traditional backing (in practice) and more a theoritical Mass, then one that came into being out of practice.[/quote]

Where are you getting that? The basic form of the Mass has not changed. The extras have been eliminated, yes, like double collects, Introit, double prayers, etc....but the form has remained the same. This is for another post though. I think that you have enough to think about to start with.

Post your thoughts and questions. Remember everyone.....this is for Mikey and myself only. Any other posts will be deleted. Thanks for respecting this exception to the norm (indult, if you will).

Cam

[MichaelFilo]

Lots to stomache and to read, and I've got a fever. Will get back to this by Wednesday, excuse the delay, but this requires more than a short skimming.

God bless,
Mikey

[Cam42]

bump for Mikey

[MichaelFilo]

Ok, to rehash what I said before I stupidly turned off the PC before posting ( it was typed out, with quotes and everything ). Excuse my absence, I was busy and sick. I was especially detained by a current discussion with Dave, in which I was highly uncharitable, and I wish to beg for his forgiveness since he was patient with me even if I was rude. However, it had relevance to this issue (more or less), and I got detained. And, since I totally messed up this little thing I was working on (since 4:00 EST), I'll have to only tackle two issues, mostly because I want to be thorough even if I should have answered all the points. Excuse me for that. I also want to get in another post (hopefully) before I leave on Monday that is thought out, since I learn alot especially now, I've been through more than a few papal encylicals and bulls and constitutions and even sifted through some Vatican II documents.

I'd like to address the most important matter to myself, your claim that Quo Primum Tempore (QP) is simply a liturgical reform and is on the same level as Si Quid Est (SQE) and Cum Sanctissimum (CS). However, a simple look at this document, QP, and then a look at the latter documents, SQE and CS will reveal that QP was meant to unify the Church in worship as one (with a few exceptions) in one manner, and in that sense return to a purer version of the Liturgy from it's highly adulterated and clumsy lengthening at that time. What the product of that work was Quo Primum. It returned the Sacred Liturgy to an older form that was free of the unneccessary additions that made the Mass lengthy and cumbersome. However, it also granted that the fruits of this effort is to be forever kept, and includes in it authority to say the Mass for all times. Cum Sanctissimum (CS) was simply a continuation of that effort, with no real changes, instead an attempt to reinforce Quo Primum. Si Quid Est (SQE) followed 3 decades later, also keeping in the same track. It also introduced no new changes. Both documents clearly state that they are simply following in the footsteps of QP to clear up any and all "corruptions" in light of the reform brought about by Quo Primum, neither of the two add anything new that isn'ta natural extension of Quo Primum.

However, when we enter into Novus Ordo Mass that was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, you are no longer looking at a continuation of the reform started by St Pius V. It lacks any organic change, and instead is completely man-made. For one, unlike the other changes, it came forth in one change, as opposed small changes to better agree with ancient texts (As CS and SQE did). It also is the invention of a small group, not like the "Tridentine" Mass, which is just a continuation of how the MAss was said from Apostolic times. Lastly, it deviates from ancient tradition in structure, material, and arrangement. [url="http://www.ordoantiquus.org/ordo.html"]Source[/url]

Therefore, to say that the Novus Ordo is simply a liturgical reform in comparison to Quo Primum Tempore, Cum Sanctissimum, and Si Quid Est would be a fallacy, since all those attempted to unite and return the Church to an ancient and purer version of the Mass, while the Novus Ordo is a creation of Church hierarchy that loosly draws from tradition, and poorly puts forth certain aspects of the Mass that the superior "Tridentine" liturgy puts forth (most notably the Eternal Sacrafice). My point is this, the form HAS changed. If it were not so, then nobody would be crying over a small liturgical change, however, this one is large and clearly visible.


Now, to the other issue of interest, the effects (or fruits) of Vatican II. Vocations is a key one. You claim that Vatican II is not responsible at all for the drop in vocations, nor is the new Mass to blame, which is more confusing the faithful and definatly less awe-inspiring and therefore leads to less interest. I'll have to disagree. For instance, pre-Vatican II we notice a steady decline in vocations (this cannot be denied) and Church attendance (the two intertwine). However, you cannot say that after the council, the decline did not only remain (the council was meant to abolish the decline, and even the New Mass was meant as a way to attract more attendees to Mass, and of course that was a failure as today's pews will show) but also increased. Why? Because the council and the Mass did several things that were disasterous (pastorally) to the Faithful. One, the priest was no longer to be viewed as head of the Mass, pastoring the people through the Mass, but instead the view shifted towards a leader who is part of the congretation in the Mass (both are true, but one has never been stressed until now). This of course is damaging in many ways, but mostly the priests (which hurts the parish) since they are no longer seen as part of the hierarchy and pastors, but simply lay-people, and when standards for a person drops, so does the persons achievements. Another disaster comes forth from is from the very ambiguity of the documents, most especially Sacrosanctum Concilium. Within it are many things about the liturgy, many of which are highly ambigious and are not defined.([url="http://www.latin-mass-society.org/ferrara.htm"]A critique of Sacrosanctum Concilium[/url]). The biggest problem that this causes is, of course, the inability to tell when "liturgical adaptions" are approrpriate. Of course, the liturgy isn't really a human plaything, and there should always be grave reason to change it. However, when such powers are bestowed locally, you can expect less than tasteful or outright blasphemous changes to occur in the liturgy. This will kill vocations on the spot, as you and I both know how important the Mass and the Liturgy is to the life of a Christian.

In summation for the last paragraph (I've been a bit ill, so please forgive it's rambling tone, I can revise it tommorow, hopefully if I am better), Vatican II can be blamed for at least a large hand in the decline of vocations and the current crisis of Faith. While you may claim it is other things, I simply say those things are so prominent because of Vatican II. What proof is there to this claim? Campos, Brazil's continuance in growth even when the rest of the Roman Rite was failing. This of course didn't last once Bishop Mayer (sp?) died, and his zeal for the pre-conciliar Church and his unwillingness to accept Vatican II's changes dismissing it as completely pastoral died with him. However, you cannot ignore the strong Faith still in that area that is almost impossible to find anywhere else in the Western World. I'd say Vatican II had alot to do with the fall of vocations, the crisis of Faith, and the lukewarm Catholics of today.


I'll try and post on the rest of what you had to say tommorow. Again, I had a really nice post going and I shut off the computer when I got side-tracked and forgot about the post. I'm very sorry for the continued wait. As you know, I must spend some time reading what you have to say and giving it at least a well-formed response from research and after some time in prayer.

God bless,
Mikey

[Cam42]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Jun 2 2005, 08:07 PM'] Ok, to rehash what I said before I stupidly turned off the PC before posting ( it was typed out, with quotes and everything ). Excuse my absence, I was busy and sick. I was especially detained by a current discussion with Dave, in which I was highly uncharitable, and I wish to beg for his forgiveness since he was patient with me even if I was rude. However, it had relevance to this issue (more or less), and I got detained. And, since I totally messed up this little thing I was working on (since 4:00 EST), I'll have to only tackle two issues, mostly because I want to be thorough even if I should have answered all the points. Excuse me for that. I also want to get in another post (hopefully) before I leave on Monday that is thought out, since I learn alot especially now, I've been through more than a few papal encylicals and bulls and constitutions and even sifted through some Vatican II documents.

I'd like to address the most important matter to myself, your claim that Quo Primum Tempore (QP) is simply a liturgical reform and is on the same level as Si Quid Est (SQE) and Cum Sanctissimum (CS). However, a simple look at this document, QP, and then a look at the latter documents, SQE and CS will reveal that QP was meant to unify the Church in worship as one (with a few exceptions) in one manner, and in that sense return to a purer version of the Liturgy from it's highly adulterated and clumsy lengthening at that time. What the product of that work was Quo Primum. It returned the Sacred Liturgy to an older form that was free of the unneccessary additions that made the Mass lengthy and cumbersome. However, it also granted that the fruits of this effort is to be forever kept, and includes in it authority to say the Mass for all times. Cum Sanctissimum (CS) was simply a continuation of that effort, with no real changes, instead an attempt to reinforce Quo Primum. Si Quid Est (SQE) followed 3 decades later, also keeping in the same track. It also introduced no new changes. Both documents clearly state that they are simply following in the footsteps of QP to clear up any and all "corruptions" in light of the reform brought about by Quo Primum, neither of the two add anything new that isn'ta natural extension of Quo Primum.

However, when we enter into Novus Ordo Mass that was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, you are no longer looking at a continuation of the reform started by St Pius V. It lacks any organic change, and instead is completely man-made. For one, unlike the other changes, it came forth in one change, as opposed small changes to better agree with ancient texts (As CS and SQE did). It also is the invention of a small group, not like the "Tridentine" Mass, which is just a continuation of how the MAss was said from Apostolic times. Lastly, it deviates from ancient tradition in structure, material, and arrangement. [url="http://www.ordoantiquus.org/ordo.html"]Source[/url]

Therefore, to say that the Novus Ordo is simply a liturgical reform in comparison to Quo Primum Tempore, Cum Sanctissimum, and Si Quid Est would be a fallacy, since all those attempted to unite and return the Church to an ancient and purer version of the Mass, while the Novus Ordo is a creation of Church hierarchy that loosly draws from tradition, and poorly puts forth certain aspects of the Mass that the superior "Tridentine" liturgy puts forth (most notably the Eternal Sacrafice). My point is this, the form HAS changed. If it were not so, then nobody would be crying over a small liturgical change, however, this one is large and clearly visible.


Now, to the other issue of interest, the effects (or fruits) of Vatican II. Vocations is a key one. You claim that Vatican II is not responsible at all for the drop in vocations, nor is the new Mass to blame, which is more confusing the faithful and definatly less awe-inspiring and therefore leads to less interest. I'll have to disagree. For instance, pre-Vatican II we notice a steady decline in vocations (this cannot be denied) and Church attendance (the two intertwine). However, you cannot say that after the council, the decline did not only remain (the council was meant to abolish the decline, and even the New Mass was meant as a way to attract more attendees to Mass, and of course that was a failure as today's pews will show) but also increased. Why? Because the council and the Mass did several things that were disasterous (pastorally) to the Faithful. One, the priest was no longer to be viewed as head of the Mass, pastoring the people through the Mass, but instead the view shifted towards a leader who is part of the congretation in the Mass (both are true, but one has never been stressed until now). This of course is damaging in many ways, but mostly the priests (which hurts the parish) since they are no longer seen as part of the hierarchy and pastors, but simply lay-people, and when standards for a person drops, so does the persons achievements. Another disaster comes forth from is from the very ambiguity of the documents, most especially Sacrosanctum Concilium. Within it are many things about the liturgy, many of which are highly ambigious and are not defined.([url="http://www.latin-mass-society.org/ferrara.htm"]A critique of Sacrosanctum Concilium[/url]). The biggest problem that this causes is, of course, the inability to tell when "liturgical adaptions" are approrpriate. Of course, the liturgy isn't really a human plaything, and there should always be grave reason to change it. However, when such powers are bestowed locally, you can expect less than tasteful or outright blasphemous changes to occur in the liturgy. This will kill vocations on the spot, as you and I both know how important the Mass and the Liturgy is to the life of a Christian.

In summation for the last paragraph (I've been a bit ill, so please forgive it's rambling tone, I can revise it tommorow, hopefully if I am better), Vatican II can be blamed for at least a large hand in the decline of vocations and the current crisis of Faith. While you may claim it is other things, I simply say those things are so prominent because of Vatican II. What proof is there to this claim? Campos, Brazil's continuance in growth even when the rest of the Roman Rite was failing. This of course didn't last once Bishop Mayer (sp?) died, and his zeal for the pre-conciliar Church and his unwillingness to accept Vatican II's changes dismissing it as completely pastoral died with him. However, you cannot ignore the strong Faith still in that area that is almost impossible to find anywhere else in the Western World. I'd say Vatican II had alot to do with the fall of vocations, the crisis of Faith, and the lukewarm Catholics of today.


I'll try and post on the rest of what you had to say tommorow. Again, I had a really nice post going and I shut off the computer when I got side-tracked and forgot about the post. I'm very sorry for the continued wait. As you know, I must spend some time reading what you have to say and giving it at least a well-formed response from research and after some time in prayer.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
Mikey....

I never said that the revisions of Quo Primum are on the same level. What I said was that "Trad Catholics" don't ever discuss them. There were revisions to Quo Primum Tempore....that is the point. Are they they the same level? Some would argue yes, but that isn't really the issue.

What is at issue here, Quo Primum was not the end all be all. One of the things that Pope St. Pius V realized is that the Liturgy is a dynamic and growing issue.

You said:
[quote].....in that sense return to a purer version of the Liturgy from it's highly adulterated and clumsy lengthening at that time. What the product of that work was Quo Primum. It returned the Sacred Liturgy to an older form that was free of the unneccessary additions that made the Mass lengthy and cumbersome.[/quote]

That is precisely what Sacrsanctum Concilium did. While I understand what your concerns are, the issue doesn't lie in the "loopholes," as you put it, but rather in the document itself.

Another error that you are making is assuming that Sacrosanctum Concilium needs to be a continuation of Quo Primum. It does not. It is a reform, purely in and of itself. Just as Quo Primum was. There doesn't need to be a connection. To be honest, because Sacrosanctum Concilium was put forth from an ecumenical council, it is more binding than a papal bull.

Your source, Mikey is simply the opinion of one parish in Milwaukee, WI. It has nothing binding. While I appreciate the words of the article, there is nothing there that would shake my faith in the Novus Ordo.

Notice also, that the director is Robert Skeris. He was a professor at Christendom College. In my time, I have had the chance to meet him and I have served Mass for him. The Novus Ordo Mass. He is great friends with my mentor.

Incidentally, St. Mary Help of Christians is a Novus Ordo parish.....they simply have the indult. So while your source is certainly laudable, the parish from which it comes fully recognizes the vaildity of the Novus Ordo. It simply supports the Tridentine.

[url="http://www.archmil.org/parishes/ShowParish.asp?ID=235&which=Mass"]St. Mary Help of Christians,[/url] website, through the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.

Mikey, what is the fallacy? There is no fallacy. Sacrosanctum Concilium was a reform. There is no loose interpretation, but rather a return to the more ancient Liturgy.

[Cam42]

[quote]You claim that Vatican II is not responsible at all for the drop in vocations, nor is the new Mass to blame, which is more confusing the faithful and definatly less awe-inspiring and therefore leads to less interest. I'll have to disagree. For instance, pre-Vatican II we notice a steady decline in vocations (this cannot be denied) and Church attendance (the two intertwine).[/quote]

Mikey, you just contradicted yourself....

[quote]Because the council and the Mass did several things that were disasterous (pastorally) to the Faithful. One, the priest was no longer to be viewed as head of the Mass, pastoring the people through the Mass, but instead the view shifted towards a leader who is part of the congretation in the Mass (both are true, but one has never been stressed until now).....Another disaster comes forth from is from the very ambiguity of the documents, most especially Sacrosanctum Concilium.[/quote]

This shift in theology has nothing to do with Vatican II. It is a general lack of catechesis and training in the seminaries. That is what the problem is. Had you said that I would agree.

If we look to what Cardinal Arinze says in a keynote address,
[quote]The crucial role of Sacrosanctum Concilium becomes clearer when we consider that a very close and organic bond does exist between sound liturgical renewal and the renewal of the whole life of the Church. After all, "the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the fountain from which all her power flows " (SC, no. 10). "The Church not only acts but also expresses herself in the liturgy and draws from the liturgy the strength for her life " (John Paul II: Dominicae Cenae [DC], no. 13). In particular, "the Church draws her life from the Eucharist" (John Paul II: Ecclesia de Eucharistia [EE], no. 1), "the fount and apex of the whole Christian life " (Lumen Gentium [LG], no. 11). [/quote]

[quote]Pope John Paul II, in his Apostolic Letter, Vicesimus Quintus Annus, of December 4, 1988, in commemoration of twenty-five years of SC, lists five of these positive results (cf no. 12). The first is the place given to the Bible in the liturgy. Sacrosanctum Concilium insisted that the table of God's word is to be made more abundantly available to the people of God in the liturgy. If we reflect back to the past forty years, we see how the renewed liturgical rites have been made much richer with biblical texts. In the Mass, the lectionary is so arranged as to cover most of the Bible in a three-year Sunday reading and a two-year weekday lessons program. The responsorial psalms help to elucidate the readings. The sacramental rites and the celebrations of the sacramentals are suitably fitted with rich biblical texts. So is the Liturgy of the Hours. In this way not only are the faithful exposed, as it were, to a greater part of Holy Scripture so as to become more familiar with it, but each community has the opportunity, in the specific setting of the liturgical celebration, to enter ever more deeply at all the levels of the human person into the great mystery of God's transforming love which the Scripture proclaims. In country after country, immense effort is undertaken to provide the Christian people with translations of the Bible.[/quote]

While I will let you parouse [url="http://www.adoremus.org/JPII25SC.html"]Vicesimus Quintus Annus [/url] on your own, I will quote this from John Paul II:
[quote]Since liturgical celebrations are not private acts but "celebrations of the Church, the 'sacrament of unity"', their regulation is dependent solely upon the hierarchical authority of the Church. The liturgy belongs to the whole body of the Church. It is for this reason that it is not permitted to anyone, even the priest, or any group, to add, subtract or change anything whatsoever on their own initiative. Fidelity to the rites and to the authentic texts of the Liturgy is a requirement of the lex orandi [law of prayer], which must always be in conformity with the lex credendi [law of belief]. A lack of fidelity on this point may even affect the very validity of the sacraments. (VCA no. 10)[/quote]

and

[quote]Since it is a celebration of the Church, the Liturgy requires the active, conscious and full participation of all, according to the diversity of Orders and of office. All, the ministers and the other faithful, in the accomplishment of their particular function, do that and only that which is proper to them. It is for this reason that the Church gives preference to celebrations in common, when the nature of the rites implies this; she encourages the formation of ministers, readers, cantors and commentators, who carry out a true liturgical ministry; she has restored concelebration, and she recommends the common celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours. (VCA no. 10)[/quote]

While I can certainly respect the view of Mr. Ferrara, there is nothing of substance that actually would condemn the use of the Novus Ordo. What is actually being said is that SC should be revisited and re-implemented. There is nothing that would deny the validity of the reform.
[quote] No one who reads SC carefully in the light of our experience since the Council can deny that it constitutes a "blank check" for liturgical reform, with the amount to be filled in depending entirely upon who is wielding the pen. The few "conservative" norms which seem to limit the possibility of liturgical change are clearly overwhelmed by the far more numerous and pervasive "liberal" norms which create an almost unlimited potential for destruction of the liturgy.[/quote]

[quote]Of course, the liturgy isn't really a human plaything, and there should always be grave reason to change it.[/quote]

While I agree with the sentiment, the wording is wrong...Mikey, the Liturgy is for the people. The point of the Liturgy is to manifest Christ in the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary, so that we might enter into an outward sign to bring about grace. This is as true in the Novus Ordo as it is in the Tridentine.

[quote]Vatican II can be blamed for at least a large hand in the decline of vocations and the current crisis of Faith. While you may claim it is other things, I simply say those things are so prominent because of Vatican II.[/quote]

Mikey....you need more proof than Campos, Brazil. Because for every instance that you give that says that it is failing, I can come up with a counter. Such as Lincoln and Omaha, Neb. both of those dioceses have flourished in the Novus Ordo culture. So has Denver, Co.

[quote]I'd say Vatican II had alot to do with the fall of vocations, the crisis of Faith, and the lukewarm Catholics of today.[/quote]

I need quantifiable proof. The Church has grown since 1962. That is provable. All you need to do is a google. I need proof to back your numbers...

The Church's vocations always goes through ebb and flow. In the last 5 years, there has been an increase in vocations.

Cam