tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post7811678801879641913..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY 88% OF CATHOLICS TODAY DO NOT ATTEND MASS, COMPARED TO 90% OF CATHOLICS WHO DID ATTEND MASS IN THE EARLY 1960'SFr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-25600965994247537102015-12-27T10:52:19.821-05:002015-12-27T10:52:19.821-05:00Fighting over worship. Nice. And you wonder why ...Fighting over worship. Nice. And you wonder why people don't come to church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-2072587221871612892014-12-18T21:25:10.472-05:002014-12-18T21:25:10.472-05:00PI, now you're being silly as well as tiresome...PI, now you're being silly as well as tiresome. SC 36/1 hasn't been implemented, and in any case it is contradicted by 36/3 - this supposedly auhoritative document cannot even agree with itself in adjacent paragraphs. I call it ambiguity and dishonesty. What's your take on it? <br /><br />Your last question would indicate that you have completely failed to understand my argument. I can't make it any plainer. Try reading it again - perhaps the penny will drop. Or are you being deliberately obtuse? Most commentators here seem to think so. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-15775120846227901392014-12-18T16:28:11.692-05:002014-12-18T16:28:11.692-05:00John - So, you're telling me you DON'T thi...John - So, you're telling me you DON'T think 36/1 should be implemented? Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-24363855295832241082014-12-18T13:15:58.968-05:002014-12-18T13:15:58.968-05:00PI, where did I say that SC is 'a document tha...PI, where did I say that SC is 'a document that must be implemented'? I merely pointed out certain passages which were not implemented in the subsequent reform, and since those who authored the reform included those who drafted the document in the first place, it doesn't take a genius to infer that the passages which were ignored were always intended to be ignored. So why were they included in the first place? <br /><br />This is important, since the reformers (and to an extent Paul VI himself) claimed the authority of the Council, and SC in particular, for the outcome of the reform. So what the Council Fathers thought they were voting for, and therefore the precise content of SC, is crucial.<br /><br />If you want to score cheap points, you should be advised not to accuse me of self-contradiction. I don't claim infallibility but I weigh my words carefully and don't stumble into obvious traps. <br /><br /><br /><br /> John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-22666278537698699312014-12-18T10:03:44.251-05:002014-12-18T10:03:44.251-05:00Dominic - I would be interested to hear how what I...Dominic - I would be interested to hear how what I have posted regarding the inner nature of the liturgy points to keeping things the way they were.<br /><br />What essential connection do you see between some aspect of the inner nature of the liturgy an lifting the hem of the chasuble at the elevation or the wearing of a maniple, to offer only two examples?<br />Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-49712866915314110282014-12-18T07:38:24.604-05:002014-12-18T07:38:24.604-05:00Flav - Actually, my favorite word is "vermill...Flav - Actually, my favorite word is "vermillion."<br /><br />Personal opinions don't have any impact on the legal weight of documents. We opine here all the time - that's the nature of most contentious blogs.<br /><br />But when a person, say, John Nolan, dismisses, say, SC, then turns around and says that SC is a document that must be implemented, even a "philistine" like me can see that there is a profound discontinuity in the opinions that underpin such an argument. <br /><br />Laws are enacted and un-enacted all the time. There's nothing duplicitous in this. It's the nature of legislating.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-50848629953132911132014-12-18T04:04:25.230-05:002014-12-18T04:04:25.230-05:00Gene, it is my general experience that cats are ri...Gene, it is my general experience that cats are right even when all facts point to the contrary (a similar observation may be made about Siberian Huskies).<br /><br />I wasn't going to respond, which would likely have been taken as me not actually knowing anything about the GA Code; on the other hand, had I responded, it would have opened up an unnecessary (Ignotus's favourite word, no?) rabbit-hole where Pater Ignotus would have argued my opinion was wrong.<br /><br />This would then take the focus off of the fact he is, for whatever reason, unable to understand the relatively easy concept of personal opinions not having any effect on the legal weight of a document, whether the OCGA, or Sacrosanctum Concilium—although, as far as I'm concerned, SC is about as relevant as the Constitution of India.<br /><br />I'm not stupid enough to pretend my opinions about the law are more valuable than they are. Those more knowledgeable about the law might explain why (well... damn... I'll indulge Ignotus) OCGA 3-3-23 doesn't contradict itself. <br /><br />I freely admit to being beyond my area of expertise concerning the GA Code; however, in my <b>opinion</b> it seems like a rather duplicitous law that prohibits something just to turn around and 'un-prohibit' it.<br /><br />(And Ignotus, I don't know what you mean by 'footnotes', so I'll assume you mean citations from the OCGA)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00554830859411216515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-71102170734113172132014-12-17T20:23:56.646-05:002014-12-17T20:23:56.646-05:00PI, I certainly take SC seriously, as I do the oth...PI, I certainly take SC seriously, as I do the other Council documents. SP has juridical force and does trump (in the sense of superseding) QAA and EDA; it doesn't of course 'trump' SC. It does, however, undermine it to a certain extent in that it gives parity and status to pre-conciliar rites unaffected by any changes mandated by Vatican II. Whether the Council Fathers envisaged the extent of the changes is another matter. <br /> John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-65059570225387433422014-12-17T20:02:18.957-05:002014-12-17T20:02:18.957-05:00Flavius, notice how Ignotus deliberately misses th...Flavius, notice how Ignotus deliberately misses the point and begins an oblique maneuver by asking you for specifics about the Ga Code. This is such typical lib maneuvering it does not deserve a response. You may as well spend your time talking with the cat.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-61709121223571206592014-12-17T16:08:27.782-05:002014-12-17T16:08:27.782-05:00John - Try as you might, you can't dismiss SC ...John - Try as you might, you can't dismiss SC as "deliberately ambiguous and dishonest" on the one hand, and then turn around a cite it as a document to be taken seriously (or authoritative) on the other. <br /><br />I would love to hear your theology and history of how a Motu Proprio or two trumps ("Its authority is therefore circumscribed and conditional") Conciliar documents...<br /><br />Flav - Can you cite a section of the GA code that is dishonest? Pls include footnotes!<br /><br />Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-3905828596138053752014-12-17T09:47:10.206-05:002014-12-17T09:47:10.206-05:00PI, you are being disingenuous again. You are well...PI, you are being disingenuous again. You are well aware that SC does not contain any new dogma which would indeed require our assent, and I was having a go at you for 'cherry-picking' the document, citing those portions of it with which you agree, and ignoring those with which you do not. (Traddies do the same, which says a lot for the ambiguous nature of it.) Considering its provenance (the Bugnini schema) and the fact that those who drafted it had their own liturgical agenda which they were unwilling to unfold in full in front of the Council Fathers but pushed forward with all haste as soon as they got the green light from Paul VI leads me to the conclusion that it is fundamentally dishonest. This is only an opinion, however. Michael Davies (mentioned above) gives the best-informed analysis of the whole process, and Cardinal Ratzinger seems to have concurred with him.<br /><br />Sacrosanctum Concilium can be seen as the starting-point for the process which led to the Pauline Missal of 1970. However, it has no bearing on the Eastern (Catholic) rites, save in its insistence that they be preserved, and it has no bearing on the pre-Conciliar Roman Rite, which in its 1962 version has been given parity of esteem by the Motu Proprio of 2007. Its authority is therefore circumscribed and conditional, and those who claim it to be 'authoritative' in the accepted sense of the word need to get round this. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-51542994470346344392014-12-16T23:07:32.958-05:002014-12-16T23:07:32.958-05:00Ignotus, it is my opinion that certain parts of th...Ignotus, it is my opinion that certain parts of the GA Code are deliberately ambiguous and dishonest, but that doesn't mean the GA Code somehow loses the full force of law (which would make it 'authoritative').<br /><br />I don't why that's so hard to understand, but maybe my example will help you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00554830859411216515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-43288241155356590342014-12-16T21:22:21.567-05:002014-12-16T21:22:21.567-05:00What you say about the inner nature of the liturgy...What you say about the inner nature of the liturgy I would agree with. However, going back to what we were talking about, none of this makes any sort of argument about ditching things. If anything, it points towards it making more sense to keep things largely the way they were. <br /><br />As to councils, no one serious would try to argue that SC is "infallible". The only parts of Councils recognized as infallible are the Canons and Anathemas, i.e. like those of Trent and Vatican I. <br /><br />One (of many) problems with SC is that in one part it would argue Latin needs to be maintained but then it says silly things like Prime needs to be suppressed, etc. etc. It is contradictory, it is vague, and takes liberties with assumptions that are in no way self evident.<br /><br />If you look into the writings of the architects of SC and the big wigs of the pre-Conciliar Liturgical Movement and you read some of the opinions of bishops before the Council, one can see that it would be stretching it to say what came after Vatican II was more a creation of the Zeitgeist than the Heiliger Geist. dominic1955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-49011042461198722982014-12-16T18:21:17.564-05:002014-12-16T18:21:17.564-05:00John - As Catholics know, "All the arguments ...John - As Catholics know, "All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope." (Catholic Encyclopedia)<br /><br />You don't have to say Councils are authoritative. They simply are.<br /><br />Even if you don't think SC was authoritative, you are still left calling it "...deliberately ambiguous and in my opinion dishonest document" yet, in the next breath, citing it as authoritative regarding the use of Latin in the liturgy.Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-6892284633318896202014-12-16T15:47:58.322-05:002014-12-16T15:47:58.322-05:00PI, where did I say that SC was 'authoritative...PI, where did I say that SC was 'authoritative'? Its general observations concerning the liturgy are unexceptional but as a blueprint for reform there are those who argue that what happened exceeded its remit and those who argue that the subsequent reforms didn't go far enough in terms of realizing its intentions. <br /><br />There is also the uncomfortable (for some) fact that it is only authoritative with regard to the Novus Ordo or Ordinary Form which we now know did not supplant the classic Roman Rite or Extraordinary Form. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-52553124000197735032014-12-16T15:02:35.011-05:002014-12-16T15:02:35.011-05:00...more
In its inner nature, the liturgy is sacra......more<br /><br />In its inner nature, the liturgy is sacramental – it involves the use of signs and symbols that point to and contain a spiritual reality. What we cannot understand with our mortal <br />faculties, we believe to be true through the gift of God’s sanctifying grace. (“What our senses fail to fathom, let us grasp through faith’s consent.)<br /><br />“In fact, it must be firmly believed that, in the mystery of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), the full revelation of divine truth is given: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him” (Mt 11:27); “No one has ever seen God; God the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him” (Jn 1:18); “For in Christ the whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9-10).”<br /><br />“Nevertheless the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows. For the aim and object of apostolic works is that all who are made sons of God by faith and baptism should come together to praise God in the midst of His Church, to take part in the sacrifice, and to eat the Lord's supper.”<br /><br />In its inner nature, the liturgy is universal – it is the consummation of true belief, it is the full proclamation of salvation to all people, and it is the source and summit of Christian life and, I would suggest, human life.<br /><br />That’s what I think SC may be referring to when it speaks of the inner nature of the liturgy.<br />Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-38746613847603630802014-12-16T15:00:56.410-05:002014-12-16T15:00:56.410-05:00Dominick - In response to your question, “What, oh...Dominick - In response to your question, “What, oh do praytell, is the "inner nature of the liturgy"?” I offer the following:<br /><br />The celebration of Mass, as the action of Christ and the People of God arrayed hierarchically, is the center of the whole Christian life for the Church both universal and local, as well as for each of the faithful individually. In it is found the high point both of the action by which God sanctifies the world in Christ and of the worship that the human race offers to the Father, adoring him through Christ, the Son of God, in the Holy Spirit. In it, moreover, during the course of the year, the mysteries of redemption are recalled so as in some way to be made present. Furthermore, the other sacred actions and all the activities of the Christian life are bound up with it, flow from it, and are ordered to it. (GIRM 16)<br /><br />“The Liturgy is an action of the whole Christ (Christus totus).” (CCC 1136) “It is the whole community, the Body of Christ united with its Head, that celebrates.” (CCC 1140)<br /><br />In its inner nature, the liturgy is communal. That which emphasizes, points to, or encourages the full, conscious, and active participation of those present for mass is in tune with the inner nature of the liturgy.<br /><br />“A sacramental celebration is woven from signs and symbols.” (CCC 1145) “As a being at once body and spirit, man expresses and perceives spiritual realities through physical signs and symbols. As a social being, man needs signs and symbols to communicate with others, through language, gestures, and actions. The same holds true for his relationship with God.” (CCC 1146)<br /><br />more...<br />Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-76231216731954976472014-12-16T13:11:53.389-05:002014-12-16T13:11:53.389-05:00John - I'm not sure how, in one breath, you ca...John - I'm not sure how, in one breath, you can tell me that SC is "...deliberately ambiguous and in my opinion dishonest document" and in the next breath, refer to is as authoritative.<br /><br />Even a "philistine" like me can recognize the contradiction there, one that must have escaped your notice...?Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-32679155203592447712014-12-16T11:51:20.216-05:002014-12-16T11:51:20.216-05:00Good morning father. I can't comment about the...Good morning father. I can't comment about the mass in the 60's because i was not born yet. Being a Mexican immigrant in 1976 at age 7 to California, i can only speak for my experience. (1). I do believe the sex scandals in the Church have made it very convenient to for some Christians to point fingers and use that as an excuse to distance themselves from mass and even religion as a whole. (2). I strongly believe that the majority of the mass has been done out of text and tradition and therefore has left the Holy Spirit out of it and without the Holy Spirit the mass has been boring and predictable.<br />At the same time Father, i would like to say that i strongly believe that it is not the Churches fault for our lack of responsibility to follow our ten commandments and attend mass. I believe the Church and our creator have been there for us all this time and we have just been finding many excuses to live out will and not the Lord's. I will continue to say that it is the competition that has been touching more hearts, minds and souls. By this i'm referring to the evil one using more means to cloud our minds to be unholy and therefore win our souls. For example. Pornography, violence, drug's, alcohol, entertainment and different religious denominations. I can't help to believe that perhaps maybe nothing is wrong. That maybe everything is happening according to revelations in the bible and maybe we are living those times now. That maybe the Church should be preparing us for judgment days and should guide us to maintain a clean heart daily because everyday can be our last.<br />I cannot express how grateful i am for the Catholic Church for not only feeding me bread when i was hungry and poor, but for also feeding me bread for my soul. Not only with mass but with activities with the nuns and the missionaries. I strongly believe that the Churches are not more responsible than us parents to live the word and teach the word to our children and our brothers and sisters.<br />Thank you father for your concerns in recovering your lost sheep and may the Lord have mercy for us all. May the Lord fulfill you with the Holy Spirit to guide you in your mission and in his service. I deeply apologize if my opinion offends anyone. God bless you and i love you father.I. Romeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-65249947038863279612014-12-16T11:13:52.186-05:002014-12-16T11:13:52.186-05:00I have attended the TLM for over 12 years, which I...I have attended the TLM for over 12 years, which I grew up with. I am very happy to be back to my roots after attending the Vatican II Mass. I saw all the negative reasons already stated by all the comments, before I left and found the TLM, in Littleton, Co.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-76336148964688747542014-12-16T10:27:43.300-05:002014-12-16T10:27:43.300-05:00As an aside, these days (more so a few decades ago...As an aside, these days (more so a few decades ago) they started introducing those ugly squatty chalices and soup bowl patens that pretty much made it impossible to use the traditional burse and chalice veil as intended. I would say this is at the core of the rejection of the previous way, that its a casualty of trying to overemphasize the meal aspect of Mass over the sacrifice aspect.dominic1955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-88226353485126379492014-12-16T10:27:11.899-05:002014-12-16T10:27:11.899-05:00Absolutely strictly speaking, She couldn't cha...Absolutely strictly speaking, She couldn't change the basic words of institution. Maybe the basic structure, other than that, there isn't much that is absolutely untouchable. <br /><br />In the time in which the liturgy was properly reverenced, they though it was highly imprudent to touch the Canon. For instance, I believe it was in the time of Pius VI or Benedict XIV that they said that they would not add St. Joseph's name to the Canon because the Canon hadn't been altered since the time of St. Gregory the Great. It wasn't that they thought they "couldn't" do it, its that they thought they shouldn't. St. Joseph is a great saint, powerful intercessor and Patron of the Universal Church, but the Canon didn't really need to have him in there either. Now we do, nothing wrong with it, but I think it was an unfortunate line that was crossed with innocent and pious motives but gave a green light that something so untouchable now was to people with less stellar motives. As I said before, the liturgy can be altered and other things were altered, for better or for worse in both the Roman Missal and the Roman Breviary (not to mention other major local liturgies) throughout the centuries. <br /><br />Let's take the pressure of Bugnini and Co. for a bit and look at the Lyonese Rite. During the Neo-Gallican craze of the 18th Century, I would say that the Lyonese Rite was ravaged by the bishop of the time. Under the conventions of the day, it was under his authority, but I think he abused that authority to follow a will o' the wisp and in doing so did irreparable damage to the Rite he was charged in handing on in purity. They tried to fix it back when the liturgical movement was sane, but the winds surrounding Vatican II dealt the final death blow to it. Sad. <br /><br />So, getting back to Rome, the fact that things "can" be changed does not mean they should be. Pope Francis has the legal authority to tear St. Peter's Basilica to the ground and erect some East German office building looking monstrosity in its place but I would say he doesn't have the traditional or moral authority to do so. <br /><br />"I am in no chalice veil corner. Its use is "praiseworthy" but not mandated." <br /><br />That is minimalism, not in the most extreme, but it still is of that same mindset. I obviously have no idea what your parish is like, maybe its poorer and was built later and thus has no older sets of vestments. It would be pretty far down the totem pole of concerns to get matching chalice veils and burses. As in the missions, you make do with what you have. But, and I'm just guessing here, it seems like you are saying that have them or not you wouldn't use them. Whole different ball game. <br /><br />The problem with the loosey-goosey GIRM is, you aren't in the wrong. You are completely correct in that they are not required and that if you do not use them everything is still totally licit. <br /><br />"It is praiseworthy to sell all that one has and give to the poor, but I'm not chasing in my IRA just yet... Are you?"<br /><br />Apples and oranges. You aren't put out in the slightest if you use chalice veil and burse, especially if they are just in the vestment drawers anyway. Selling all you have and giving it to the poor is a vocational thing that is a real sacrifice, one that simply cannot be done by everyone because of their state in life. The "praiseworthy" is different in the two things. We've used chalice veil and burse for hundreds of years, it adds an extra level of reverence for sacred things. What sacrifice does it entail to use traditional things other than maybe having to subject your own opinions to a tradition you don't get or don't like and maybe getting BS from other priests of "that generation" in your deanery?dominic1955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-19881909411458157172014-12-16T10:04:46.917-05:002014-12-16T10:04:46.917-05:00PI, it's interesting that you are as incapable...PI, it's interesting that you are as incapable of answering dominic1955 as you are of answering me. Both he and I ask you to consider certain points and perhaps engage in debate over them. Unfortunately all you do is reiterate your own position which admits of no nuance or contradiction. Latin? Useless. Palls and chalice veils? Useless.<br /><br />It seems to have escaped your notice that something is not useless simply because you decide not to use it, or that those who disagree with you are simply giving their own subjective opinions.<br /><br />That is why it's pointless trying to argue with you. I persist a) because I am bloody-minded and b) because the truth can penetrate even the thickest carapace of ignorance. Magna est veritas et prevalebit, n'est-ce pas? John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-15677764006619519672014-12-16T07:47:28.609-05:002014-12-16T07:47:28.609-05:00Dominic - So, then, how do you interpret SC 21 reg...Dominic - So, then, how do you interpret SC 21 regarding the elements of the mass that cannot be changed because they are of Divine origin, and those that can be changed because they are not? <br /><br />I am in no chalice veil corner. Its use is "praiseworthy" but not mandated. It is praiseworthy to sell all that one has and give to the poor, but I'm not chasing in my IRA just yet... Are you?<br /><br />Pater Ignotusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-6780145025675557492014-12-15T18:29:44.216-05:002014-12-15T18:29:44.216-05:00"If you do, then we can discuss the elements ...<br />"If you do, then we can discuss the elements that can be changed and why they should be changed or omitted." <br /><br />It all comes down to interpretation. OK, so I agree with the passage-as I would interpret it which obviously must be different than how you do. <br /><br />"If you agree, then you acknowledge that it is the Church that decides what needs changing and, with the Divine Authority given to it, makes those changes."<br /><br />Which would also mean that you have painted yourself into a corner. As other posters have pointed out, even the new GIRM considers it "praiseworthy" to make use of the chalice veil.<br /><br />In other words, don't get all uppity about "Divine Authority" when you pooh-pooh things that same authority considers praiseworthy. <br /><br />"If you do not, then your beef is not with me, but with the Church who gave us SC #21."<br /><br />Sacrosanctum concilium is a snapshot of liturgical history. I would say it was authored by radicals who wanted to reinvent the liturgy in their own image but written so it could be interpreted any which way and peppered with plenty of traditional things to keep everybody happy. Plenty of it has been conveniently ignored (i.e. Latin to remain in the Latin Rites) and it is sufficiently vague to justify anything. I would furthermore say that at this point, relying on SC for guidance on liturgy is like looking to the Lateran Council on how to deal with the Jews. <br /><br />When I get into arguments like this, I just have to remember to thank God I am no longer in the seminary and am now in an area where I have an FSSP parish, an Ordinariate parish, a Byzantine Rite parish, and a NO parish which does use "unnecessary" things like chalice veils and palls. Blessed peace and beauty in tradition. dominic1955noreply@blogger.com