Fr. Edward McNamara’s answers to liturgy questions on Zenit can be uneven, but when he recently addressed the rad trad argument that the 16th century bull Quo Primum irrevocably defined the "Mass of Pius V" as the only one that can be validly or licitly used, he delivered a real smackdown.
Here’s a taste:
[L]egal expressions such as "which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein" cannot be literally interpreted as binding on possible later actions of Pope St. Pius V or upon his successors. The strictures fall only upon those who act without due authority.
If it were otherwise, then Pope St. Pius V would have excommunicated himself a couple of years after publishing "Quo Primum" when he added the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary to the missal following the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, not to mention Pope Clement XI who canonized Pius V in 1712, thus altering the missal.
Among the many other Popes who would have thus incurred "the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul" would have been St. Pius X for reforming the calendar, Pius XI who added the first new preface in centuries for the feast of Christ the King, Pius XII for completely revamping the rites of Holy Week as well as simplifying the rubrics, and Blessed John XXIII for adding St. Joseph’s name to the Roman Canon.
I pray charity will prevail in this combox.
St. Leonard of Noblac pray for us!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Ouch…you were right about giving a smackdown. I pray, as well, that charity doth prevail in this thy combox.
What gives Mr.Akin?Why would you not support the mass of the saints and martyrs for the majority of our history?Pope St.Pius V codified a rite that had been in place for one thousand years.He did not horrendously alter it,like The Consilium and Bishop Bugnini did in the sixth decade of the twentieth century.The Tridentine Mass worked,it was not broke,don’t fix it.What is good enough for Saints Tarsisius,St.Athanasius,St.Patrick St.Francis,St.Thomas,St. John Marie Vianney,St.Therese of The Little Flower and Blessed Fr.Damien of Molakai,is sure as heck good enough for this sinful idiot yours truly,Thank you and God Bless you
“the sixth decade of the twentieth century”
Do you mean 1960?
From the referenced story:
“Thus a bull such as “Ineffabilis Deus” through which Blessed Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 is a definitive and irreformable act.”
Is this bull one of the reasons B16 is not ruling on Limbo?? i.e. no Limbo, no original sin?
Fr. McNamara’s answer in this case is so obviously and thoroughly correct that I can’t understand how, after more than 20 years of hearing this argument, there are still people out there who don’t know the answer, or who won’t bother to look for it. More evidence of what I’ve saying for some time: Many people are willing to write, precious few are willing to read.
Now watch, we’ll get a string of posts thinking they disagree with Fr. McN that don’t in fact discuss McN’s point. You know’s it’s going to happen. It always does.
Wouldn’t the sixth decade of the twentieth century be the 1950’s?
I don’t think Dan is right in asking why Jimmy is “not supporting” the Mass of Pius V. It seems to me Jimmy is simply addressing the claim that the Mass of Pius V is the ONLY valid Mass, and any other Mass is illegitimate, illicit, satanic, blah, blah, blah. The Church teaches that matters of faith and morals are unchangeable (though there is development of doctrine as we learn more). But there is no reason practices can’t change, and while elements of the Mass are unchangeable, I can’t see why Mass should only be celebrated in one language (and a dead one at that). And as Jimmy pointed out, Pius V himself changed the missal.
I remember Jesus weeping over the prospect of His people falling into disunity; I don’t remember Him weeping at the thought they may use a language other than Latin at Mass (especially considering Latin wasn’t even commonly used in His own time).
You’re right, Ed. In fact, we’ve already had a couple of hobby horses ride through.
Ed Peters,
“More evidence of what I’ve saying for some time: Many people are willing to write, precious few are willing to read.”
Another sad but true fact is that there is a shortage of priestly vocations in America but no shortage of vocations to the papacy.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Dan, do you have any comment on what Fr. McNamara wrote?
This argument sounds just like the argument the Eastern Orthodox use to argue that future popes and councils had no authority to add the filioque to the creed.
I love the terms “smackdown” and “rad trad”
Yeah-real support
I think Father McNamara did a great job addressing the ultra-radical traditionalists who think the missal of 1962 fluttered down from heaven 2000 years ago and therefor can never be changed.
He did not however do justice to what Pope St Pius V intended by that statement, he simply ignored it (in essence making the “perpetuity” statement devoid of meaning). So, for him to bring up examples of slight modifications to the Roman Rite is a bit disingenuous. I don’t think Pius V ever intended the statement to mean you can’t even alter the propers.
Did Pope Paul VI invoke the “wrath of Peter and Paul” by dismantling the Roman Rite and reassembling it with parts invented out of whole cloth (in effect creating a whole new rite)? Probably not.
Did Pope Paul VI invoke their anger by forcing this liturgy of fabrication (to quote Cardinal Ratzinger) on the whole Latin Rite while banishing the TLM? Possibly…
Snowman,
You’re right, I’m wrong.
I too thought the answer a little bit disinguenuous.
In my mind, he also seems to imply an inappropriately broad authority in the Pope to change the liturgy at will. I know Gamber addresses this most puzzling of questions.
Of course, the question was not whether the unprecendented creation of a new liturgy was justified, so I shouldn’t complain.
PS. The Pius XII Holy Week reforms were of course a really serious change, and I’d suggest some of them were mistakes.
To the extent Fr. McNamara answers the question whether any subsequent pope can alter the form of the Mass as promulgated by Pius V, the answer is manifest. Yes; because Pius V himself made alterations. So much for the actual argument that is sometimes offered: that Quo Primum means no changes, ever.
Does that mean anything goes? No, of course not. Who claims it does?
Remember, “the Mass” is a reality distinct from the form of the Mass promulgated by ____.” Can a pope modify the work of Pius V at all? Yes; can he do whatever he likes? No — and no once claims he can.
Adding or removing from the calendar, does not equate to adding or removing from the Mass. Fr. Edward McNamara’s answer is illogical. Pope Pius V knew what he was doing. He said THIS IS THE MASS. He never mentioned a work about the liturgical calendar. Putting the liturgical calendar and the Mass on equal ground is ludicrous and perhaps explains why in our current day and age, that so little thought is given to how Mass is celebrated.
I dont know if Paul VI and the church have felt the wrath of St Peter and Paul as I dont think they would want to harm the church-but some of Pope Pauls comments at the end of his life where he said that “he let the smoke of satan into the sanctuary” as well as some of his other mixed messages leads one to believe he was torn
And one only needs to look at each and every vital statistic from clergy, teaching nuns, belief in transubstantiation, attendance and the sin of pedophilia as well as the church’s weak and transparent standing in the world one can only wonder if Gods wrath is upon the church and the clergy as a cleansing
Remember our Lord made it clear the Gates of Hell would never prevail, but he made it clear the number of saved would be few as would those who would be devout when he returned, and can one truly determine if this cleansing is a means of getting rid of these horrible clergy and letting the Traditionals back in to resume the throne of Peter and instead of only wanting to be Bishop of Rome but wear the mitre and be the leader of the entire Catholic world
Perhaps we should conform to the ORIGINAL MASS and belong to the Society of St. Pius I – see the following excerpts:
“”The REAL Traditional Roman Mass is the Greek Mass of the first three centuries as described by the Apostolic Constitutions and the Apology of St. Justin Martyr. The “Catholic Encyclopedia” written and published in 1913 by diehard “pre-Vatican II” neotrads, was forced to admit that its oh-so-precious “Latin Mass” was a radical and unprecedented break from tradition unlike any that had ever gone before. Just read these shocking quotes from the article “Liturgy of the Mass”:
“The origin of the Roman Mass, on the other hand, is a most difficult question. We have here two fixed and certain data: the Liturgy in Greek described by St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165), which is that of the Church of Rome in the second century, and, at the other end of the development, the Liturgy of the first Roman Sacramentaries in Latin, in about the sixth century. The two are very different.” “He [Justin Martyr] describes how the Holy Eucharist was celebrated in Rome in the middle of the second century…we have hardly any knowledge at all of what developments the Roman Rite went through during the third and fourth centuries…By the fifth century, we come back to comparatively firm ground, after a radical change.”
“But between this original Roman Rite (which we can study only in the Apost. Const.) and the Mass as it emerges in the first sacramentaries (sixth to seventh century) there is a great change”
“This brings us back to a most difficult question: Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass, the Canon.”
“at Rome the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries. During the same time the prayers of the faithful before Offertory disappeared, the kiss of peace was trasferred to after the Consecration, and the Epiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our “Supplices” prayer. “”
Google “Society of St. Pius I”
Greg, your post sounds as if you read only the top part of this thread and not the whole of Fr. McNamara’s explanation. That is, it sounds as if you did not read this paragraph:
It is for this reason that, except in matters of faith and morals, a pope’s disciplinary decrees in matters such as the non-essential elements of liturgical rites are never “set in stone” and can be changed by a subsequent Supreme Pontiff whenever he believes that the duty of feeding Christ’s flock requires it.
The only changes were to “non-essential elements of liturgical rites.” The sacrifice of the Mass has not changed since it was instituted.
Fr. McNamara’s explanation is eminently logical.
Cross-posted with John and Pseudomodo. Now to backtrack and see what they said.
Note the wording: “nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.”
It doesn’t just say the Mass. It says the missal. Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t changes in the liturgical calendar entail changing the missal?
Thus, as Fr. McNamera says, Pius V himself changed the very missal he supposedly forbade anyone from changing — and after that it was changed again on behalf of Pius V himself, for his feast day. The logic of Fr. McNamara’s argument holds; the rebuttals do not.
Aside to Realist: In answer to your question: No. but you probably already knew that, didn’t you?
John,
“Pope Pauls comments at the end of his life where he said that “he let the smoke of satan into the sanctuary”
Could you please cite these comments?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
+J.M.J+
Here’s the archived SSPI site:
http://tinyurl.com/ynz85p
The Roman Missal was revised and corrected a number of times: by Pope Clement VIII in 1604, Urban VIII in 1634, Leo XIII in 1884 and Benedict XV in 1920. Pope St. Pius X’s revision made only minor corrections, additions and omissions to the text but it made major changes in the rubrics.
In Jesu et Maria,
RoseMarie,
Thank you for the laugh and adding a little humor to the discussion. These parts were to funny!
In accord with holy tradition therefore, we must reject any and all above-ground church structures, in accordance with the true traditional practice of the Roman church. Unfortunately, funding issues and zoning laws in our locality have so far prevented us from excavating new catacombs in our area, so we are temporarily headquartered behind the water heater in our basement.
And.
No priest has of yet had the courage to join our brave and heroic movement. So we are currently looking for Greek-speaking priests who may have said the liturgy of St. Justin Martyr in their youth. Candidates must be able to prove Apostolic Succession directly from Popes Peter, Linus, Cletus or Clement. NOTE: Greek Catholic/ Greek Orthodox Rite priests NEED NOT APPLY!!! We have arbitrarily decided not to like you guys either.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
+J.M.J+
You’re welcome, Inocencio.
You asked John:
>>>”Pope Pauls comments at the end of his life where he said that “he let the smoke of satan into the sanctuary”
>>>Could you please cite these comments?
IIRC, he made these comments circa 1972, which was only three years after the Pauline Rite began and six years before his death. What Paul VI actually meant by this cryptic statement is anybody’s guess. Apparently, he never explained, thus effectively allowing speculations to run wild. I’ve heard people apply it to everything from the pedophilia scandal to some alleged “Freemasonic infiltration” of the Vatican to the song “Gather Us In” (I’m not kidding about the last one). It’s all speculation, though; we really don’t know what he was thinking when he said that.
In Jesu et Maria,
Actually, I should have read John’s post more carefully. Paul VI didn’t actually say that HE let the “smoke of Satan” into the sanctuary. Rather, during a homily he reportedly said: “From some fissure the smoke of Satan entered into the temple of God.” He never blamed himself for that.
I couldn’t find any context for the statement, but Googling came up with the date June 29, 1972.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie,
Thank you. This is the quote I found:
“From some fissure the smoke of satan entered into the temple of God.”
I wanted to see if Pope Paul VI stated “I let the smoke of satan enter” which is not the case.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V – for those who don’t know, that is the document where Pope St. Pius V promulgated what we call today the “Tridentine Mass” and in that promulgation, the Pope said to the effect of “This is the Mass for all times. No one can change it” and so forth. I should mention, Quo Primum is not a matter of Faith and Morals. This was a disciplinary document and so it is not infallible. But, when a Pope issues a disciplinary decree such as “This is the way we’re going to celebrate Mass”, Popes use that kind of language. This is no longer up for grabs. No one has the authority to change this and so forth. That does not mean though that a future Pope cannot change certain aspects of the Liturgy.
In fact, the Tridentine Mass itself was changed numerous times over the centuries in small ways here and there, all the way up to the time of Pope Pius XII. This is a disciplinary document – this is not a matter of Faith and Morals. So, when Pope Paul VI came along and promulgated what we call the Novus Ordo; nothing was changed in the Tridentine Mass that was essential as regards the essence of the Mass itself. The only things that were changed were things that were accidental to the Mass. Therefore, what we call the Novus Ordo is still licit, valid; it is just as much the Mass and essentially, they are absolutely the same. There’s no essential difference between the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo. There are accidental changes that involved matters of discipline, not Faith and Morals.
But, for those who would continue with Quo Primum arguments, please kindly consider:
Quo Primum, issued by Pope Pius V, was issued in 1570. Here it suppressed most Western rites, except those that were more than 200 years old. However, the fact that it attempted to suppress these Western rites shows indeed that there were many different liturgies and canons going on at the same time.
Pope St. Pius V recognized at the time there were many rites, and he suppressed them in 1570.
However, Canon 6, in the 22nd session of the Council of Trent deals with not only the Roman canon (which is used in the Tridentine Rite) but other canons before Pope St. Pius V suppressed them. There were other Eastern as well as Western canons also.
The 22nd Session of Trent made this decree on September 17, 1562. The fact is that the Tridentine Rite was not even formally established at the time, let alone that being the only canon that this decree is referencing. Quo Primum had not even been promulgated yet before Canon 6 was decreed.
In fact, Chapter V of the Trent decree speaks of the many different ceremonies and rites, not singling out just one.
CHAPTER V.
On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass. And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolic discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.
The fact is that if the ultra-traditionalists are trying to say that Trent is referencing only the canon of Quo Primum — this is indeed false, because at the same time there were many other Liturgies and canons. We see in Chapter V so referenced, that it speaks of many different ceremonies and rites, not singling out one.
Also, mind you, the Tridentine Rite was not even formally established at the time of this decree by Trent. If one says that this does apply to future canons and that is how it applies to the Tridentine canon, then it must also apply to the Pauline Rite (i.e, Novus Ordo). It matters not, that one is 8 years down the road and the other is about 400 years down the road.
Mind you, the four prayers of the Novus Ordo draw heavily from varying traditions that have always been accepted by the Catholic Church:
We all know about Eucharistic Prayer#1 since it’s the Roman canon. Early versions of this Canon were developed during the fourth to the sixth centuries, but it did not reach a definitive state until after the papacy of St. Gregory the Great, who led the Church from 590 to 604. The format became further standardized when Missals containing the entire text of the Mass began appearing in the eleventh century, and they were in general use by about the year 1200. After the Council of Trent (1545-1563) Pope Pius V issued the Missale Romanum in 1570 and made the new standard form binding throughout the Western Rite of the Church. This Tridentine Mass format remained virtually unchanged until the reforms that followed Vatican II. The text was fixed, and the only alteration permitted was the addition of saints’ names to the Communicantes and the Nobis quoque peccatoribus prayers.
However, as regards to the other Eucharistic Prayers:
Eucharistic Prayer II was composed from manuscripts of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, written about the year 225, which describe the oldest known liturgical form of the Mass. These manuscripts have come down to us as translations in several languages. Thus Prayer II is the oldest of the four.
Eucharistic Prayer III is a revised version of what had been originally proposed as an alternative to the Roman Canon, and Eucharistic Prayer IV is based on a format of the type found in Eastern liturgies such as that of St. Basil (330-379).
Look at the fruits of the new mass.How have vocations,mass attendence,forty hour devotions increased in The Catholic Church bringing it closer to Our Savior?Where are the grace filled high mass’s,where is The Legion of Decency,modesty in church,respect for The Blessed Sacrament before,during and after mass. Why is personal sanctification not preached in homilies.Fear of offending The Triune Godhead,love of neighbor,only because our Heavenly Father deigns to love us individually.All this has changed since the middle of the sixth decade of the twentieth century.
This directly addresses Fr.Mcnamara’s commentary He shows disrespect to the only Mass that has saved countless souls in Christendom.At Lepanto, Where would Europe have been without The Tridentine Rite?The Crusades became electrified by The Mass,and look at the spiritual conquest of The America’s.Our Lady of Guadalupe showered Her graces on a culture that offered exclusivly the mass of Pope St.Pius V.What has occured since 1965.Smackdown is a most disrespectful term to use as vitriol towards the Holy Mass that fed millions of God’s most beloved creatures.God Bless You.
So all those problems directly stem from… the new mass? And here all this time I thought it was all caused by global warming and the advent of television (especially color TV). Thanks for setting me straight.
Dan,
I’m sick and tired of people blaming the Novus Ordo for every bad thing that has happened in the last forty years. The flock is at least partly responsible, as well as the clergy.
+J.M.J+
I found the homily where Paul VI said this, but it is only available in Italian on the Vatican website:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/homilies/1972/documents/hf_p-vi_hom_19720629_it.html
The Babelfish translation is really cruddy, but the Pontiff evidently said something like this:
“Referring to the Church’s situation today, the Holy Father asserts of having the feeling that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan entered into the temple of God”. There is the doubt, uncertainty, problems, restlessness, dissatisfaction, comparison.”
He then goes on to say that people listen to profane prophets “who speak from some newspaper or some social motion” rather than listening to the Church. He then talks about doubt and uncertainty.
Well, there you have it. The “smoke of Satan” is doubt, uncertainty, problems, restlessness, dissatisfaction and comparison. Not the Pauline Mass, not some secret Communist/Masonic/Rosicrucian/Whatever infiltration of the heirarchy, not the musical stylings of Hass, Haugen and the St. Louis Jesuits. Just the type of confusion and difficulty adjusting that often occurs after an ecumenical Council.
In Jesu et Maria,
Mary Kay,
I read it. I read it twice, and he is still wrong. I firmly believe in lex orandi, lex credendi (The Law of Prayer is the Law of belief). Which means if you change the prayer, you change the faith. Since the Mass is the pinnacle of Catholic prayer that results in the Eucharist which is the pinnacle of the Catholic faith, it is something that should be set in stone, which is what the Council of Trent ordered to be done and that which Pope Pius V carried out. Pope Paul VI changed the prayer and we have seen what it has done to the faith.
Look at the fruits of the new mass.How have vocations,mass attendence,forty hour devotions increased in The Catholic Church bringing it closer to Our Savior?Where are the grace filled high mass’s,where is The Legion of Decency,modesty in church,respect for The Blessed Sacrament before,during and after mass. Why is personal sanctification not preached in homilies.Fear of offending The Triune Godhead,love of neighbor,only because our Heavenly Father deigns to love us individually.All this has changed since the middle of the sixth decade of the twentieth century.
There are a number of reasons for these occurrences, especially in light of the particular age in which it occurred, and really cannot be solely attributed to the Novus Ordo, if at all.
That is like finding a correlation between people wearing pink bikinis on the beach on a hot summer’s day and the high number of deaths that occured on that particular day.
Does that mean that because there were several folks wearing pink bikinis on that hot summer’s day and the high number of deaths that occurred that very day; that the former was a cause of the latter?
Mind you, correlation does not prove causation!
There are a number of reasons why the stuff you mentioned occurred particularly in the 20th/21st century; prominent among these is the modern age we live in as well as the advancements in Science, in Technology; some of which have caused some folks to seriously reconsider or even doubt any sense of the Christian Faith. Also, there are the failures of some of the individuals themselves in the Church itself.
Thus, these things you’ve mentioned are not necessarily due to the Novus Ordo (although, to some, it might appear to be just because it was observed after the time of its introduction). Yet, if you consider all of the facts, the Novus Ordo itself is innocent of any particular blame but, rather, they’re due to the elements just mentioned as well as the questionable implementation of the New Mass by some ill-advised members of the clergy.
If you insist on your view above and assign all blame to the Novus Ordo missae, then you would do well to issue a ban on all pink bikinis as in the example provided for all those ladies out there (at least, I’m limiting it to just the ladies since I’m hoping none of the fellas here would actually consider even wearing a pink bikini) who would wear such an outfit and, thus, cause the wrongful deaths of several innocent folks out there!
Greg: Assertions don’t make it so, and disagreeing with Fr. McNamera’s arguments doesn’t disprove them. You can disagree with Fr. McNamera’s conclusion, but his argument about the meaning and scope of “nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein” stands until you have refuted the actual argument, not just disagreed with the conclusion. Anyone who can read can see you have not refuted the argument.
If it was so all-important that the particulars of the Mass be “set in stone,” why did it take 16 centuries for this to happen? Why wasn’t it set in stone in the apostolic era? Why did it remain in non-stone-set form for 16 centuries before coming to this magical nexus of stone-setting uniquely entrusted to the Council of Trent?
What makes you think the Church has any authority whatsoever to “set in stone” what Jesus and the apostles have not set in stone? Whatever Jesus and the apostles have not set in stone pertains to discipline, not irreformable dogma. What makes you think the Church has the power to make irreformable disciplinary decrees?
Your argument sounds almost like ongoing revelation — like the deposit of faith was not complete until the Council of Trent, and then after that we’re done. Why make the Council of Trent the magical turning point? Why not the first seven ecumenical councils, and be Orthodox? Why not the first three, and be Oriental Apostolic?
Thanks for taking the time to spell all that out, Esau. I knew there was something wrong with my global warming/color TV analysis, but I couldn’t put my finger on it… 😉
My mother was taught Most of the chants in the Liber Usualis by a devout and holy priest named Fr.Andrew Klarrman,a fiend and mentor of His Eminence Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua.
Father Klarrman at the age of 80 was forbidden to offer the Tridentine Mass at his own parish on Long Island.He was made,against his will to offer the Ordo Missae of 1969.
Father Klarrman sadly claimed that “I lose grace saying this mass”I feel the same way.
The souls of women who wear pink bikinis will suffer eternal death from impurity if they do not cease from thier concupiscent nature and confess to a priest.
Thanks SDG! ;^)
I kinda like making use of an exaggeration in order to prove a point sometimes; just like Jesus did in his days (although he did it much more effectively — more than I could ever be capable of doing — and, of course, with a divine intellect, too)!
The souls of women who wear pink bikinis will suffer eternal death from impurity if they do not cease from thier concupiscent nature and confess to a priest.
Okay, I hope you were just joking when you said this because I don’t know how a woman wearing a pink bikini automatically renders them in an impure state, demonstrates evidence of an unceasing concupiscent nature, and would, thus, cause them to suffer eternal death!
It has nothing to do with technology,science,false theologys.These are in place at thier times throughout the course of history,but a monstrous rupture in the organic continuity of our sacred liturgy did and continues to send shockwaves through the world.Humanity at this point in time has not been given great liturigical or theological sense by Our CReator,that was reserved for other epoch’s.We should have recognized this and not meddled with our souls.Ours is a time where art is mediocre,poetry architecture and the plastic arts are at a low and outgoing ebb.Let us recognize this and embrace a liturgy that is full,more full than any we now experience.Let us open our receptivity to the genuine actuosa,the true interior participation of ourselves in the holy Tridentine Mass.
Rosemarie and SDG – thanks!
Now to catch up on the rest of the posts.
SDG
Just a couple of quick responses, then I have to go back to studying, since how Rome makes you all say Mass has little impact on me.
f it was so all-important that the particulars of the Mass be “set in stone,” why did it take 16 centuries for this to happen? Why wasn’t it set in stone in the apostolic era? Why did it remain in non-stone-set form for 16 centuries before coming to this magical nexus of stone-setting uniquely entrusted to the Council of Trent?
Because up until the general uprising of the so called “Reformation”, no one would have ever dared to change the Mass.
What makes you think the Church has any authority whatsoever to “set in stone” what Jesus and the apostles have not set in stone? Whatever Jesus and the apostles have not set in stone pertains to discipline, not irreformable dogma. What makes you think the Church has the power to make irreformable disciplinary decrees?
“What ever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.” It’s been a power of the church since Christ established it. Seems to me that you create a paradox to this, if one pope can bind on earth that “This is the mass for perpetuity” and another pope can come along and say “Nah, it’s not really, we’re gonna do it this way now”.
Your argument sounds almost like ongoing revelation — like the deposit of faith was not complete until the Council of Trent, and then after that we’re done. Why make the Council of Trent the magical turning point? Why not the first seven ecumenical councils, and be Orthodox? Why not the first three, and be Oriental Apostolic?
It wasn’t a turning point, it was a declaration of a truth that the church already knew, just like any other article of faith. However, the deposit of faith was set well before the council of Trent, just that some people started nailing things to church doors, and that to stave off any changes or innovations, the Council of Trent set down the rules from that point forward.
Now I have to get back to practicing the Tridentine Rite if I am going to have it down pat before I am ordained to the presbyterate.
God Bless,
Deacon Greg Elsbernd
I am a catholic, not a Catholic®™
It has nothing to do with technology,science,false theologys.These are in place at thier times throughout the course of history,but a monstrous rupture in the organic continuity of our sacred liturgy did and continues to send shockwaves through the world.Humanity at this point in time has not been given great liturigical or theological sense by Our CReator,that was reserved for other epoch’s.We should have recognized this and not meddled with our souls.Ours is a time where art is mediocre,poetry architecture and the plastic arts are at a low and outgoing ebb.Let us recognize this and embrace a liturgy that is full,more full than any we now experience.Let us open our receptivity to the genuine actuosa,the true interior participation of ourselves in the holy Tridentine Mass.
Okay, wait a minute. So, you’re conjecturing that all of the things you mentioned were no doubt a direct result of the Novus Ordo missae, and that had we stuck with the Tridentine Rite, we wouldn’t have observed all those things you cited in your original subject post?
I beg to differ.
These are in place at thier times throughout the course of history…
Never at a time in history did we advance in Science and technology at such a magnitude as we have done so in the last century! Please demonstrate to me how in the past where we found ourselves even capable of genetic manipulation as well as the very cloning of an actual human being; or that we would actually visit other planets in our solar system to the extent that we have through our space satellite technology.
There are even greater examples than these, but, needless to say, these definitely would bring to doubt in any person living in this age, especially the youth, any beliefs of the old world, especially Christianity, since Science has advanced so tremendously, even to the point where it has actually become a religion to some!
If the Tridentine Mass had continued and John Paul II wasn’t the person he was, then all would undoubtedly have been lost as far as the Catholic Faith is concerned since most of the young folks would not be able to relate to the old ways of the Church, let alone, try and understand what’s going on in another language, in spite of the help that any missal brings! As some of the majority of young folks had said to me, they would have found it irrelvant to their world and would not be able to see how attending such a service that lasts for more than an hour where the minister is speaking a dead language that they can’t even understand would be a good use of time for them or that they would find even meaningful. Mind you, I say this in the context of any average young person out there and not those who actually know of the Tridentine rite and its special significance!
Yet, because of what John Paul II has done (largely, due to his outstanding efforts), and because of the format of the Novus Ordo in terms of presenting the Mass in the vernacular language (a language people can actually understand), it helped many (who would otherwise have abandoned Catholicism all together because of the isolated nature of its past practices) to relate to Catholicism and find something meaningful from it. Those who have converted to Catholicism and have helped to bring about a significant renewal in the Church (folks such as Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, etc.) I believe would never have converted. I believe JP II played a large role in their conversions.
I also would submit that, based on the attitudes of many of my friends (some who have continued to graduate school in specific scientific disciplines and obtained an Masters or PhD) and the vast majority of the young crowds I know in colleges, they would not have been able to relate to the Catholic Faith and, therefore, would not have even given it a second thought had JP II not been the person he was as well as the inaccessible nature of the Tridentine rite to the majority of folks living in this modern age.
Thus, you would have observed an even greater exodus of folks (especially in the youth) leaving the Church today (in comparison to current statistics) and little, if any, folks converting to Catholicism from the Protestant or even non-Christian faiths!
Greg, I also believe lex orandi, lex credendi. However how does that invalidate the 1970 missal?
Greg,
Because up until the general uprising of the so called “Reformation”, no one would have ever dared to change the Mass
Two problems with that statement: first is that the 1970 is not some brand new, totally disconnected Mass that you claim it to be. Second is that there have been changes to the form of Mass prior to Trent.
since how Rome makes you all say Mass has little impact on me.
The indult of course is open to you, but to what extent are you saying that Rome, the Pope, has little impact on you? What are you saying about the Pope’s authority?
Mary Kay,
I cannot say with certainty if it invalidates it or not. Even if the result is valid, are the means worth the cost of what has been lost?
Let me try this for an example.
You and I live next door, we both leave our houses to drive to the store. You drive very carefully, obeying all the signs, signaling all your turns, looking both ways at intersections and are courteous to other drivers. I on the other hand, drive through people’s backyards, speed, squeal my tires, run stoplights, hit a few parked cars, and run over a couple of pedestrians, while honking the horn and blaring my stereo the entire way. In the end, we both end up with the same results, we arrive at the store.
Both ways might be valid, but only one is the proper way to travel to the store.
“Because up until the general uprising of the so called “Reformation”, no one would have ever dared to change the Mass.”
But it is obvious that there were a multiplicity of rites in the Church before Trent (Gallic, Sarum, Eastern, etc..), therefore the mass had been changed multiple times since the original Aramaic and Greek liturgies. Not only that, but it is clear that certain prayers and rubrics were added throughout the centuries. So SDG’s point still stands.
To compare the mass (or missal) to driving to the store like a crazy person is the utmost in bathos, and is frankly insulting.
Greg, your comparison of the 1970 Missal with unlawful behavior does a disservice. There are those who have implemented it poorly.
However, if the 1970 Missal was in itself bad, then the fruits would be consistently bad. That has not happened. Yes, I’m well aware of what happens in many parishes. However, I also know many people, formed with the 1970 missal, who lead holy, fruitful, sacrificial lives.
Ryan, yes it’s insulting. This is where I find the discussions difficult, when those faulting the 1970 missal, in a very supercilious manner, insult those who have been fed through the Novus Ordo.
I on the other hand, drive through people’s backyards, speed, squeal my tires, run stoplights, hit a few parked cars, and run over a couple of pedestrians, while honking the horn and blaring my stereo the entire way.
This is an awful analogy; to compare the Novus Ordo to the above is plainly absurd.
The more fitting analogy would be this:
(Tridentine) You take a Model T to get to Mary Kay’s house.
(Novus Ordo) I take a 2006 Nissam Maxima to get to Mary Kay’s house.
Both are valid vehicles to get to the end point: Mary Kay’s house (which, more specifically, to make use of a more ideal target location, “Heaven”).
Now, if either of us speed, run over folks, etc. to get to Mary Kay’s house (or “Heaven”, to utilize a more appropriate endpoint), then that would certainly be similar to the abuses that may be found in either liturgies that we come to observe (be it Tridentine or Norvus Ordo, since liturgical abuses in both is possible and have occurred), and in either instances when such actions take place, it can only result (e.g., when you speed, run over folks, etc. in the analogy) in an accident!
Again, if you should observe abuses in the Novus Ordo Missae(just as some might equally observe in a Tridentine Mass if it’s not celebrated correctly), most likely, it’s due to the individual themselves (e.g., the clergy celebrating the Mass) and not the Novus Ordo Missae itself.
Now, I chose the Model T as the vehicle for the analogy to express that although it may be ‘ancient’, there is still, nevertheless, something significant and special about it regardless.
+J.M.J+
>>>Father Klarrman sadly claimed that “I lose grace saying this mass”I feel the same way.
Sorry he thought that way, but I can’t say I agree. I have been to both Tridentine and Pauline Masses and receive the same grace at both. Also at the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Copic Liturgy of St. Basil, the Maronite Divine Liturgy… etc.
In Jesu et Maria,
Esau, your Model T and Nissan Maxima is a good analogy but I doubt that Heaven has clutter. LOL. Thanks for the smile.
Rosemarie, well said. The grace is the same in all three liturgies.
Esau, your Model T and Nissan Maxima is a good analogy but I doubt that Heaven has clutter. LOL. Thanks for the smile.
Sure ;^)
I rather hoped you’d enjoy that!
Esau you have misinterpreted everything I have said.Give me a call at 917 582 4254 Bring it on bro.lets straighten it out.
Brutha,
You know what’s so funny about this whole situation?
It wasn’t that long ago when I was actually defending the continued existence of the Tridentine Rite to a girl I was going out with! Of course, needless to say, because of this and various other differences in opinion, it didn’t work out.
It goes to show you how God can have such a good sense of humour sometimes! ;^)
Then why were there already a number of distinct, equally valid liturgical traditions in use during the first millennium?
Are you really saying that Trent merely institutionalized the order of Mass exactly as it was used by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper? Because otherwise, darn it, the Mass changed an awful lot, and in differerent directions, within different traditions as well as from one to another, a long time before the Reformation. And quite legitimately and validly too.
Put up or shut Esau.Call me,lets settle this
I’d just like to say that I’m glad to see the expression “put up or shut up” put back into church debate. St. Jerome ain’t got nothing on this.
Esau, I’ve done the same thing! One minute defending the continued existence of the Tridentine, defending the vernacular mass the next. It actually helps to remember that most Catholics are actually moderate on this whole issue, even on St. Blogs.
Then why were there already a number of distinct, equally valid liturgical traditions in use during the first millennium?
Are you really saying that Trent merely institutionalized the order of Mass exactly as it was used by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper? Because otherwise, darn it, the Mass changed an awful lot, and in differerent directions, within different traditions as well as from one to another, a long time before the Reformation. And quite legitimately and validly too.
Hi SDG,
I had actually went ahead and posted in the above (in my very first post, I believe: | Nov 6, 2006 11:46:08 AM) the various eucharistic canons that had existed and, in fact, cited Canon 6, in the 22nd session of the Council of Trent which deals with not only the Roman canon (which is used in the Tridentine Rite) but other canons before Pope St. Pius V had suppressed them.
Hope that helps.
Esau, I’ve done the same thing! One minute defending the continued existence of the Tridentine, defending the vernacular mass the next. It actually helps to remember that most Catholics are actually moderate on this whole issue, even on St. Blogs.
I hear you! I just hope there arises a mutual understanding and acknowledgment of how both rites are equally precious in their own ways.
Above in my very first post, I went ahead and pasted some details concerning the historical significance of even the Eucharistic Prayers used in the Novus Ordo.
Who would have known that Eucharistic Prayer#2 is actually the oldest (as compared with the Roman canon, Eucharistic Prayer#1, used in the Tridentine), dating back to 225 AD, from the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, and that Eucharistic Prayer#4 was based on the Eastern Liturgies such as that found in St. Basil (330-379)!?!?
As far as the Roman Canon used in the Tridentine (i.e., Eucharistic Prayer#1), as mentioned:
Early versions of this Canon were developed during the fourth to the sixth centuries, but it did not reach a definitive state until after the papacy of St. Gregory the Great, who led the Church from 590 to 604. The format became further standardized when Missals containing the entire text of the Mass began appearing in the eleventh century, and they were in general use by about the year 1200. After the Council of Trent (1545-1563) Pope Pius V issued the Missale Romanum in 1570 and made the new standard form binding throughout the Western Rite of the Church. This Tridentine Mass format remained virtually unchanged until the reforms that followed Vatican II. The text was fixed, and the only alteration permitted was the addition of saints’ names to the Communicantes and the Nobis quoque peccatoribus prayers.
Yes, thanks for the information on the Eucharistic prayers as well. I didn’t know about their origin. I will keep that in mind for the future.
All you people are Modernists! Since the Mass can never be changed, NO ONE had the right to change the language of the Mass from the language our Lord said the first Mass (The Last Supper) in. That was Aramaic, the common language of the Jews in Palestine in the First Century!
(Or did He say it in Hebrew, the liturgical language? Either way, you’re all lousy Modernists!)
Bill912, you’re deeply confused. Forget this debating in front of a jury of readers who can weigh our arguments. Meet me on top of the Empire State Building in six months and let’s end this.
“Meet me on top of the Empire State Building in six months and let’s end this.”
I wanna be there for that!
In the event that one of you is killed, whose second shall I be?
Dan,
Put up or shut up! Give me a call at 555-5555 and let’s decide on the place of duel. How ’bout high noon at my place?
The circle is now complete. When I left you I was but a Learner, now I am the Modernist.
Should I bring popcorn and lawn chairs for the duels?
I am in ernest if any of you have half a ball sack get in touch wusseys 917 582 4254
Lets see all the brave men who want to mock the Tridentine mass come out from behind their keyboard anonymity and post an address or a phone number so as we can discuss this matter with an enhanced sense of personality.
“Should I bring popcorn and lawn chairs for the duels?”
No, Mary Kaye, but if you have a case of cold beer…”
Dan Hunter,
I would think someone who has such a devotion to the Tridentine Rite would not use such vulgar language.
Now I know better.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Greg Elsbernd,
I am a catholic, not a Catholic®™
What does this mean to you? And may I ask the name of your bishop?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
WOW!
I can’t believe all the “fun” I missed while I was away!
How is it everything all of a sudden turned into some sort of scene from a Spaghetti Western movie in these here blog pages!?!?!?
Yet, in another post, someone actually mentioned wanting to become someone else’s “second”, so I don’t know if whether this has been playing out as a Clint Eastwood Western movie or a Three Musketeers flick!
If the latter, who’s playing Gene Kelly’s role as D’Artagnan? If the former, who’s playing Clint Eastwood’s role as “The Man with No Name” (actually, his name was Joe, but that’s another topic all together!)?
Oh well! Happy Trails!
Inocencio, (I hope I spelled that right at 3 in the morning)
That means, that Rome has claimed the title of the Catholic faith (large C, probably trademarked under the rules of Caesar), but they can never claim to be the catholic faith which is held by many, such as the orthodox, the old catholics, the polish national catholic church, and the SSPX. So while I may not be Catholic® under the Roman Corporate structure, I am still catholic in that I hold to the creeds, the sacraments, the tradition and teaching of the eccumenical councils, The Bible, and our Lord Christ Jesus.
My bishop is Bishop Craig Davis. The group I belong to is the Synod of St. Timothy. If you would like more information, I have included my email address with each post I have put into this subject. Feel free to email me.
Mr. Dan,Please do not burst into crude language and threaten us when we disagree with you, that’s lack of Charity and a sign of bad discipleship to Jesus Christ. Those posts violate Rule 1 of this blog. Have more Charity or if you can’t do that, at least refrain from debates such as this one.
The sixth decade of the twentieth century is neither the 1960s nor the 1950s, but the interval 1951-1960.
grumblegrumble mathevacantists grumblegrumble
Dan:
You are confusing defense of the Novus Ordo with contempt for the Tridentine Mass. That is like confusing Trinitarianism with denial of monotheism. Well, okay, it’s not very much like that, but a similar logical error is involved. Just because you think there is some kind of tension or opposition doesn’t mean that you can project that onto other people.
Besides, we are not mocking the Tridentine Mass, we are mocking you. (Or at least, your style.) I’m sure you see the difference. 🙂
As for your challenges to our bravery, I haven’t been called out since seventh grade, my friend. I am willing to put my valor to the test, but only when circumstances call for it.
I would fight you, Dan, but I’ve no gloves to toss into the fight. A pity, too. The last pair I had, I lost to an annoying fellow. I left them… in his face.
🙂
SDG, I am calling you out,but I am actually in eighth grade.If you are mocking me the circumstances do call for it.
David B.I’ve got a nice pair of 12 oz gloves for you.Anytime. call me at 917 582 4254
Dan, I would have never pegged you for an eighth grader. With your maturity, you could seriously pass for a ninth grader. Really.
“David B.I’ve got a nice pair of 12 oz gloves for you.Anytime. ”
I wear XXL gloves.
BTW, I don’t pick on people who aren’t my size.
Now if ya’ll escuse me, I gotta go vote.
Call Dan Hunter at 917 582 4254 if you have any sand.
There must be a catch for anyone to be so free with a telephone number.
I’ll bet it’s to the NYPD juvenile division.
If these latest posts are really by the original Dan, he has a better sense of humor than I would have thought. I hope.
If they aren’t by the original Dan, well, that’s funny too.
There is no catch Mary Kay,I just want the individuals who have a deep seated anymosity for the Tridentine mass to contact me in person so we can settle the matter.
I am not Dan Hunter, and I don’t approve this message.
Does any one know where one can acquire a copy of Von Hildebrand’s book,”Satan at Work”.I believe it is out of print,but used would be fine.Thank You and God Bless you
Jimmy,
If Dan is a minor, you should remove the posts with his phone number, since he may be posing it without his parent’s permission.
Dan,
I love the Old Mass.
Jimmy, If David doesn’t have boxing gloves maybe he shold be restricted from posting until he figures out where that guys face is so he can retrieve his Everlast’s.
Welllllllllllllllll, it looks like Dan’s dad gave him permission to post their phone number.
BTW, Dan’s dad uses the same email as Dan.
in fact, Dan’s dad has the same humor as Dan.
and whoever is signing as Dan is using an email address with a girl’s name.
There is no catch Mary Kay,I just want the individuals who have a deep seated anymosity for the Tridentine mass to contact me in person so we can settle the matter.
Look, Dan, here I’ll speak for myself, but as I have tried in more than one occasion to express, I have but a deep respect for the Tridentine rite as well as the Novus Ordo.
I don’t know how you actually got the impression that we have a “deep seated anymosity for the Tridentine mass” in any of the posts above, but I can assure you that, as far as I’m concerned, it could be no farther from the truth!
In fact, for the time it was offered at a distant parish (mind you, this was quite a drive from where I lived!), I did attend the Tridentine rite when it was possible for me to do so until, unfortunately, the priest who celebrated it retired.
That is why I can certainly understand where you and some of your fellow comrades (I’m merely speaking of those who have similar views as yourself) might be coming from.
But, again, as I’ve tried to point out, there are merits to both rites (mind you, assuming they are celebrated properly), and if the posts that I’ve shared with you concerning particular details of their historical context aren’t satisfactory, then, kindly disclose what your problems with these are and I hope we can find a way to sort things out right in the open.
There was a time when I thought that the only label that existed in the Catholic Church, at least, the only one that really mattered was the label “Catholic”. Then, I came to learn there were actually other labels used by some folks in the church such as “Conservative” and “Liberal”, almost as if there was a political dimension involved. Since the time I was here, I’ve come to learn of “Ultras” and “Neos”. What next?
Is this what our Catholic Church is coming to? What gives? I thought that when Christ prayed in John 17, he prayed that we might all become one as he and our heavenly Father is one.
John 17:11 ¶ And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are.
That means, that Rome has claimed the title of the Catholic faith (large C, probably trademarked under the rules of Caesar)
GREG:
The CATHOLIC CHURCH does not follow the rule of Caesar but rather the rule of Christ.
In a more precise sense, I submit to you a quote from Cyprian of Carthage:
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Further, for your edification:
In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome “holds the presidency” among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree” with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is “the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”
Mary Kay leave my great,great, grand mother in-laws,e-mail address alone.She bakes yummy lindzer cookies. My comrades,as you put it are my wife and family.They have similar views for the sole reason that we are of the Universal Church,with the exception of my two sisters who don’t attend holy mass anymore.Please pray for them and all others who have fallen away from the Catholic faith.
I was trying to inject an element of humour into these postings,which I am crestfallen to see,that you have overlooked.
You and everyone else from Jimmy Akin are in my prayers.St.Charles Borromeo pray for us
P.S. That phone number just belongs to some Troglodyte named Dan Hunter who digs holes in the lawn.
Send him to my house. I’ve got a tree stump he can have a ball with.
Greg Elsbernd,
“What ever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.” It’s been a power of the church since Christ established it. Seems to me that you create a paradox to this, if one pope can bind on earth that “This is the mass for perpetuity” and another pope can come along and say “Nah, it’s not really, we’re gonna do it this way now”.
That would be the definition of the power to bind AND loose.
Very interesting to appeal to this passage and then ignore the authority Christ Himself established.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
ooh, linzer cookies. I’ll leave your great-great-grandmother-in-law’s email address alone in exchange for some linzer cookies. (just teasing) You did indeed bring some humor.
There have indeed been weeds among the wheat. It is difficult to see loved ones ignore the wheat, but things do change. Be assured of prayers.
I think you misunderstood my reference to Caesar, I was referring to trademark laws and regulations, which come under civil government laws. Rome has attempted to copyright/trademark the word catholic, the best they have been able to accomplish is to restrict the use of Catholic with a capital C. Hence when I say I am a catholic, and not a Catholic.
In regards to the rest of your post, there isn’t time or space to put it in these comboxes, but I have a question for you. Did Peter go to Rome right away or was there a span of 20 or 30 years before he made it there? If Rome is so authoritative, what did the Church do before the seat was established in Rome? If Rome were to be wiped off the face of the planet tomorrow, would the Catholic church still exist?
Sometimes it almost feels as if Rome is the Christian equivalent of Mecca.
Also quoting from an early church father myself, Saint Ignatius of Antioch said “Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Even Rome admits to the validity of the sacraments of several groups not in communion with her. Especially the Eucharist. So considering that Jesus Christ is everywhere there is a valid Eucharist, the Catholic Church can and does exist outside of Rome.
I should emphasize, that I have no problem viewing the Patriarchate in Rome as authoritative, I just don’t view it as THE authority, and I don’t view a single bishop as THE authority either.
But I digress and am sure I am bordering on breaking on of the Jimmy’s rules. Please if you wish to further discuss this, feel free to email me.
Dan,
Just who are you, bud?
I did a search and you’ve been posting your telephone number information at other blogs as well!
Gravatar: I would humbly request that whomsoever has this Motu Proprio document,please send it to me.I will sign it.Please contact me at 917 582 4254 | Dan Hunter
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/stribe/116266107327307124
I’d give the number a call, but I’m afraid that it might be one of those telephone number scams where they charge $2,425 per-minute.
http://www.snopes.com/fraud/telephone/809.asp
Rome has attempted to copyright/trademark the word catholic, the best they have been able to accomplish is to restrict the use of Catholic with a capital C.
Please provide your hard evidence for this. I have never heard of such a thing.
Did Peter go to Rome right away or was there a span of 20 or 30 years before he made it there? If Rome is so authoritative, what did the Church do before the seat was established in Rome?
Sometimes it almost feels as if Rome is the Christian equivalent of Mecca.
I have a better one for you that you forgot to mention. The Pope, for a time, was not at Rome; in fact, the papal residence for a time was moved from Rome to Avignon for a certain period in the history of the Catholic Church.
However, that’s the point: we don’t advocate the “authority” of a certain city or place; but, most importantly, it is in the man himself, the one who occupies the Chair of Peter, the one who succeeded the office of Peter, upon whom Christ had given such authority.
And the fact is, in the Catholic Church, we have as an historical record – both the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches – we have Apostolic Succession; it’s a matter of history that goes all the way back to Jesus Christ. And we see it begin right in Acts 1:20, when Judas died, what did the Apostles do? At the behest of St. Peter, they chose Matthias and he succeeded to that ministry of Judas. Interesting to note, in Acts 1:20, Peter describes this as – you know, he’s describing what they’re about to do; he says, ‘Let another man take his office’; the Greek word for office there is episkope (ep-is-kop-ay’), which means ‘bishopric’. So, the successors of the bishops are connected to the Apostles by this office of episcope, or a bishopric; and they have that bishopric directly from the Apostles.
Now, Jesus promised in Matt 16 that he would give the keys to Peter; he promised the keys of the kingdom to Peter and the context of Matt 16 makes plain that there would be successors of Peter, but nowhere does the Scripture say that Peter himself has to communicate the keys. What is key here is understanding that first of all, we’re talking about the successor of Peter as the Bishop of Rome. He is the one to whom the keys of the kingdom is communicated and the way that that happens, we see in the Book of Acts Chapter 1 when Judas died, it was Peter who made the rules for how – I mean, he basically, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, quotes if you look at Acts Chapter 1 right around verses 19, 20 and 21; he quotes Psalm 69 and Psalm 109 and he puts those two verses together and he says we’ve got to choose a replacement for Judas and then they did so. In other words, Peter makes the rules as far as how we’re going to go about electing bishops in the future, the successors of the Apostles. But, that was put into place before Peter dies, obviously, so he could have successors and we have a 1st Century testament to this in St. Clement of Rome who in Par 44 of his work called the Epistle to the Corinthians – this is Pope Clement, the 3rd Successor of St. Peter, who is also mentioned in the New Testament, by the way – he tells us, if I could remember, I don’t have it in front of me but I think I can get it almost – he says, “The Apostles knew through perfect foreknowledge that strife would arise amongst the Office of Bishop. Therefore, they made arrangements that other approved men should succeed to their ministry so that after they have died, other approved men could succeed to their ministry.”
GREG:
Further to the above, I submit to you the actual text I cited from Clement’s Epistle:
1 Clem. 44:1 And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office.
1 Clem. 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.
Mind you, the office Peter held was one of unique authority amongst the Apostles (he, to whom, was the only one to be given the keys).
It is one that (if you pay attention to typology) finds its ‘type’ in Isaiah 22:20-23.
Pay attention particularly to the specific language used in these passages, which parallels the Matt 16:18-19 verse where Jesus placed such authority on Peter.
It speaks of the Key (mind you, it was only Peter who was given this), the fact that the one who has the Key shall have authoritative power, and that he shall be like a “Father” to Israel (which, in the case of Peter, it would be over the “New Israel”, which would be the Church).
Isaiah 22:20-23
20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda.
22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.
23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.
Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
The 917 area code is located in New York City.
Greg Elsbernd,
“I just don’t view it as THE authority, and I don’t view a single bishop as THE authority either.”
If you don’t consider your own bishop as THE authority are you pretending obedience until you decide otherwise? And who is your final authority on earth?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Ahh, the old word twist. My bishops has authority over me, but he is not THE authority for the entire church. However if my bishop were to order me to do something that would jeopardize my salvation or the salvation of others, like oh say, he ordered me to preach that one must dance with rattlesnakes to obtain salvation, then it is my duty to disobey that order I would have to follow the biblical method of “If they brother offend thee take it up privately…” and work my way up. If in the end, I find from the Church as a whole through a council of bishops that indeed one must dance with rattlesnakes and that I was wrong then I will gladly do my penance. Fortunately I know what the church teaches to know when is the right time to disobey and when it’s not the right time.
The final authority on earth, ahh that is a trick question in a way. My final authority on earth is the church as set down by the apostles, the early church fathers, and the eccumenical councils. My final authority overall is the same as every other person, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ who guides the church through the Holy Ghost, through the councils of bishops.
+J.M.J+
>>>The 917 area code is located in New York City.
Yep; it’s commonly used for cell phones. I’ve called many 917 numbers and never got an inflated phone bill.
In Jesu et Maria,
“…I don’t view a single bishop as THE authority…”
Jesus did. And He gave that single bishop His Authority as His Prime Minister.
Greg Elsbernd:
You didn’t answer my posts.
It is made evident both by even the earliest Christian Tradition as well as in Scripture the authority of Peter in the Church and its continued authority by those who would become his successors and take up his office thereafter.
I’d give the number a call, but I’m afraid that it might be one of those telephone number scams where they charge $2,425 per-minute.
http://www.snopes.com/fraud/telephone/809.asp
>>>The 917 area code is located in New York City.
Yep; it’s commonly used for cell phones. I’ve called many 917 numbers and never got an inflated phone bill.
It was only a joke — a bad one at that, it seems!
From this conversation I have learnt the following:
1) All the current problems in the church are the direct result of the introduction of the Novus Ordo liturgy.
2) That liturgy was introduced in the middle of the sixth decade of the 20th century, which is the mid-1950s.
3) All those who wear pink bikinis are condemned to hell unless they repent of their evil deeds (I’m not sure what happens if you wear a bikini which is not pink).
4) Dan Hunter’s sense of humor seems to have evaded everyone in this combox (perhaps he was too convincing?).
5) Time to start talking about something else.
4) Dan Hunter’s sense of humor seems to have evaded everyone in this combox (perhaps he was too convincing?).
Thanks for bringing this up! I was wondering when somebody would catch this.
3) All those who wear pink bikinis are condemned to hell unless they repent of their evil deeds (I’m not sure what happens if you wear a bikini which is not pink).
Actually, there was a careful study that was conducted where on a day when the majority of people wore non-pink bikinis, a high percentage of adultivity in folks was observed as well as a high increase in occurences of Assal Horizontology!
Yet, as I mentioned, correlation does not prove causation!
Greg Elsbernd,
“Hence when I say I am a catholic, and not a Catholic.”
And you think I am the one who is using Ahh, the old word twist.
My final authority overall is the same as every other person, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ who guides the church through the Holy Ghost, through the councils of bishops.
Please name the council of bishops you are specifically talking about and what council defined that THE authority is a council and not the pope.
“Fortunately I know what the church teaches to know when is the right time to disobey and when it’s not the right time.”
Sounds to me like you have made yourself THE authority.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
You, the Orthodox, the sede-vacantists, Martin Luther, and every other schismatic and dissenter. More power to you. One of you may even be right.
Alas, for such a dunderhead as myself, such knowledge is too subtle for my poor private judgment against the Magisterium. I have no choice but to trust that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church that is built upon this rock, and the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church led by Peter’s successor to invalidate its eucharistic worship and go off the rails in any of the various proposed possible directions.
I love “Quo Primum” of Pope Saint Pius V, thank you o Good Pope Pius, Champion of the Holy Rosary and Defender of Christendom.
The True Rites of Mass FOREVER! Gloria a te, Cristo Gesù. Te Deum laudamus…Per Omnia Saecula Saeculorum.
Deo gratias.