Ah. I think the removal of 'oblations' is the issue. Anything to do with sacrifice was systematically stripped from the liturgical prayers. If you read back further this point is made and continues throughout.

Liam:

Here is the reference from further up.

Since the Consilium defined the Mass in strictly Protestant terms which constitute a denial of the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice, it is no wonder that it systematically expunged from the liturgy nearly every reference to the propitiatory oblation, of which the Mass essentially consists.45 The making of the new rite has followed the same pattern as the making of the Protestant liturgies.

This was the pretense of the paragraphs that followed. Specifically removing the sacrficial elements.

To put the matter briefly, if the first Prayer Book of Edward VI is compared with the Missal, sixteen omissions can be detected, the evident purpose of which was to eliminate the idea of sacrifice ... even after that drastic treatment there still remained a few phrases and rubrics on which Gardiner could fasten, endeavouring to understand them as still asserting the real objective Presence and the True Sacrifice ...

Then he brought about the points.

Francis,

Every hero of the Protestant Reformation would also claim to be recovering a lost orthodoxy. I don't think you realize the danger of these reading materials.

[revised to clarify context:]

The EP II which Andrew pointed out, and which clearly includes a prayer that the elements become the Body and Blood of Christ, is not a matter of MR3 or MR2. The Latin text of EP II has not changed.

When discussing the so-called "Ottaviani intervention", it is important to keep in mind that it was a critique of draft texts. Cdl. Ottaviani pronounced himself satisfied with Paul VI's actions to clarify weaknesses in the drafts. Alas, some of the authors of the study were not so amenable and eventually went into schism, including Fr. Michel Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., who got himself consecrated illicitly by Abp. Thuc.

James Likoudis' book The Pope, the Council, and the Mass is a necessary guide to these murky waters. Francis, if you haven't read it, I urge you to get a copy instanter. If you get it through that link, I'll even get a commission. :-)

chonak

Thank you for bringing to light the Ottaviani Intervention. I believe I had heard about it, but I never read it before. It is interesting to note that Paul Kramer lifted some of the Ottaviani elements verbatum and put them in his book.

You can find the Cardinal's letter to Paul VI here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm

In particular the part that Liam brings up is in both documents.

chonak

You haven't read the entire text that I have posted from Fr. Kramer's book?! Go read it! Apparently he has lifted some of the text from Ottaviani. Yes, NOW I am aware of the content of the Ottaviani report and who wrote it, thanks to your post above.

Books such as the one you mention above (The Pope, The Council and The Mass) are exactly the kinds of materials that attempt to water down the truth about what has occurred, how the Mass has been altered, and THOSE are the dangerous materials that one should not read. I glimpsed its pages in google books. More important, I also researched the authors and publishing company.

Fr. Kramer is a well respected and well educated (degrees) priest in good standing, and clearly communicates the theological issues of our present circumstance in black and white. Furthermore, he understand the seriousness of Our Lady's warnings concerning what was about to befall us in 1960, hence why she requested that her message be released in that very year.

Kathy

Since you have insinuated that I am leaning toward being a schismatic (this goes against forum rules and I am shocked), I feel it is important to raise a defense and make absolutely clear my devotion to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I also ask you to retract that statement publicly as it is a direct attack on my good reputation.

BACKGROUND

As I mentioned above, many people are unaware of what 'went down' during the introduction of the NO, me being one of them. I have only become aware of the correct theology of the Mass since the early nineties. This was due to my own independent investigations into reading saints works on the Mass, sacraments, sacramentals, encyclicals and devotions by authors such as Liguouri, Aquinas, De Montfort, Bellamarine, Emerich, Bonaventure, John of the Cross, and many others, the Baltimore Catechism, the teachings of Fulton Sheen and the English version of the Latin Vulgate. Other versions of the Bible (including the new catechism) can be ambiguous concerning the clear meaning of the scriptures, dogma and doctrine. At that time I also inherited an entire spiritual library from the priest who started the Blue Army in Baltimore when he died. All of these resources were pivotal in forming my clear understanding of the Faith.

It also must be understood that my family was involved in Masonry. So, I have no conspiracy theories about that subject, just experience and facts. Fr. Kramer (who wrote the book I have begun quoting in this thread) is also extremely knowledgeable on the subject, and is good friends with many cardinals in the vatican. He speaks about this subject which can be found on YouTube. I will not post it here, but you can find it under the title of: "Fr Paul Kramer on the Freemasonic Infiltration of the Church." From my experience, everything he states is quite accurate.

My investigations, studies, research and conclusions all have come to me on my own guided by the writings of the Saints and the Church (and always having a personal spiritual director (priest of the Catholic Church)) submersing myself in prayer. I never knew or became a member of any traditional organization, never attended the TLM or had any friends or associates who were traditional, but have through hundreds of hours and prayer and study come to realize and believe what the Church and the Saints of old have taught concerning Our Faith, and specifically the doctrine and dogma of the Mass. (Liguori is central to this understanding.)

So when I am shown things like the 'Ottaviani Report', it only confirms my thinking and stance, because others have (had) the same questions and reservations that I came upon by my own private study, praying and meditation.

It was only in 2005 that I seriously learned and experienced the intricacies of Gregorian Chant at the CMAA symposium (of which about 50 people attended in total), and JT was the one who insisted that I could easily learn the chant when I nonchalantly offered that the chant was 'not for me'. The chant of course, leads back to the pure theology of the Mass, and I finally made the connection between my long studies in theology and its resulting practice in the Mass through sacred music.

Sacred music cannot be our only focus; it only exists and is subservient to the doctrine and dogma of the Mass and the two cannot be separated. Sacred music is a result of theology and that is why we all continue to experience the wrenching dichotomy that pervades our profession. Lex orandi, lex credendi. We toss this Latin phrase around all the time, but how many of us truly understand its full meaning? This is why the novel approach to sacred music is a non sequitur in our efforts to create new sacred music and resources that do not flow from tradition. It is why hymnody is a serious theological problem within the mass; even 'traditional' hymnody as we understand it today. I was the greatest proponent of the 1940 for many years (and I can play many of the hymns in any key from memory). However, in recent years it has become obvious to me that hymnody is, in a sense, a most subtle and subversive form that has a stranglehold and displaces the authentic sacred music of the Roman rite. (read my book, 'What Should We Be Singing Now', available for free on my website, www.romancatholicsacredmusic.com)

Of course, when Benedict took the chair at just about the same time, the whole issue of the Mass was brought to the fore, and the 'liturgy wars' truly came into the spotlight, and of course culminated in (probably by far his most significant act) the publication of the Motu, Summorum Pontificam.

I studied and learned (in Latin) the old Mass when I was an altar boy back in the early 60's just before the NO was implemented. That probably was the the most significant and life altering experience that formed me to this day, even though it was very short and I was very young. This goes to show the impact and supernatural power of the authentic liturgy (Lex orandi, lex credendi)

I have watched all the changes from my particular perspective as a Catholic church musician (I began my career as a Catholic Church musician at the age of 8 as part of the Immaculate Conception Boys Choir in Ohio). I was involved in the folk era, (still have a killer Martin 12 string guitar) and then I went on to study organ and composition, although the attitude of my professors toward my sacred music compositions was heinous. I was naively amazed at the viscousness with which they hoped to discount and retire my efforts. They rejected me, and as a consequence, I rejected the notion of a college degree. Nevertheless, my devotion to my Faith brought me through the many struggles to maintain my goal in sacred music. In 1990 I retreated into a 'catacomb' of prayer and study and taught myself to compose imitating the masters of sacred music and immersed myself in the prayerful study of the faith for about seven years or more, and then continued that same attitude a little less intensely as I moved into taking on a corporate career.

Numerous times over my many years as a DoM, organist, choirmaster, composer of sacred music, in various positions an anti-Catholic contingent would rise up within the ranks of the parish that was determined to drive me out. This treatment, especially by clergy, was very troubling to me, and acted as a catalyst for me to try to understand what had gone wrong in the Church and how sacred music was under such oppression and mass confusion.

So this lands me here in the year 2014. The next few years will be monumental in the life of the Church and I pray that we all hold to the faith through it all.

Having looked through his comments, I'm not convinced at all that Francis is a schismatic. To be a schismatic, one has to refuse submission to the Pope and the bishops of the Church. I would distinguish the term 'schism' from 'disobedience.' There might be times where one might have to disobey an unlawful command while still acknowledging the authority and jurisdiction of a superior, so disobedience and schism are two entirely different things.

If someone claims that Francis refuses to submit himself to the ruling authority of the Church, then by all means, let he/she make that case, but perhaps before they do so, they should also remember that Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Josef Ratzinger, both Prefects of the CDF, uttered public criticisms of the New Mass which were quite harsh, and noone has ever publicly accused them of failing in their loyalty to the Church.

Another person who has been very critical of the New Mass---but never questioned its validity--- is Michael Davies, and, again, when he died, Card. Ratzinger called him "a loyal son of the Church (though perhaps misunderstood)."

Unless Francis is questioning the validity of the New Mass (which would be, of course, to go too far) I don't see how he is doing anything wrong.

That being said, let's look at another eminent member of the clergy whose loyalty to the Church no reasonable Catholic would question, and that is the distinguished liturgical scholar Dom Alcuin Reid.

Dom Alcuin Reid reviewed a book on the New Mass written by Fr. Anthony Cekada and published on New Liturgical Movement here

Fr. Cekada, it must be said, is a sedevacantist who is not shy at all about calling the New Mass invalid. Dom Alcuin Reid in his treatment of Fr. Cekada's book quickly makes it clear that he couldn't disagree more with Fr. Cekada's un-Catholic opinion regarding the Pope and the validity of the New Mass.

That being said, Dom Alcuin Reid, good Catholic scholar that he is, is also willing to recognize the valid criticisms of the New Mass that are in Fr. Cekada's book, and of those he has this to say:

Regardless, Father Cekada’s great service is to flag the big question that we have not widely, as yet, been prepared to face. Whilst it is certainly better to celebrate the modern liturgy in a traditional style using more accurate translations, that is not enough. For if the Missal of Paul VI is indeed in substantial discontinuity with the preceding liturgical and theological tradition, this is a serious flaw requiring correction. It is high time, then, that we not only recognise, but do something about the elephant in the liturgical living-room.

So, to pivot back to Francis and Fr. Paul Kramer, I think we can say this: Regardless of what may or not be Fr. Kramer's status in the Church, good Catholic scholarship certainly requires us to be willing to recognize what is true in his arguments; as Dom Alcuin Reid dealt with Fr. Cekada, so too should we be willing to deal with Fr. Kramer.

That's only reasonable and Catholic. All the Church requires us to affirm is that the New Mass is valid. Other than that, we should give others the same latitude the Church gives us and be mighty careful with the personal charges we make against the orthodoxy of others.

Yes, and some of those "reading materials" have led many into schism. Those writings generally present one narrow side of the story.

Kathy:

Concerning the thread about Two Popes, it is not my argument. It is simply being brought forward by highly regarded reporters in the Catholic media. I am simply asking what other people think. Again, you are assuming that I am believing something that is not true.

And even if we did have two popes, like others on that thread admitted could possibly be true, how does that put one in schism to discuss the possibility? Again you are jumping to conclusions and then forming a judgement about my personal beliefs. Totally wrong and inappropriate.

1. Be Polite
This is the most important guideline. We will not tolerate any abusive, insulting, hostile, or threatening posts about anything or anyone. We will quite swiftly delete any such post and ban the offending user. Using only all capital letters in your posts is considered extremely rude by every "netiquette" standard we've ever seen. It is akin to shouting at people.
Write with future readers in mind.

6. Do Not Defame
Members may not level insinuations of heresy, bad faith, or criminality against members; members should also avoid such inflammatory language against non-members.

Kathy:

You have directed remarks towards my personal beliefs. This is defaming. You made assumptions about me based on material presented. This redirected the focus from the content and QUESTIONED my beliefs. It does not matter whether you presented it in a question or a statement... they both level an insinuation and constitute personal affronts.

in·sin·u·a·tion
noun \(ˌ)in-ˌsin-yə-ˈwā-shən, -yü-ˈā-\

: a usually bad or insulting remark that is said in an indirect way

: the act of saying something bad or insulting in an indirect way

Exactly. Francis, your headline insinuates that the Church committed suicide.

When I read the title of this thread I decided never to open it... someone sent me a link to one of the comments over social media and I clicked it... Now I know my initial instinct was a good one.

Here is the quote from the Pope Pius XII biography.

I can direct you to the actual French text if you would like.

"Suppose, dear friend, that Communism is the most visible among the organs of subversion against the Church and the tradition of Divine Revelation. Thus, we will witness the invasion of everything that is spiritual: philosophy, science, law, teaching, the arts, the media, literature, theater, and religion.

I am concerned about the confidences of the Virgin to the little Lucia of Fatima. The persistence of the Good Lady in face of the danger that threatens the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that the modification of the Faith, liturgy, theology, and soul of the Church would represent.

I hear around me partisans of novelties who want to demolish the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her adornments, and make her remorseful for her historical past. Well, my dear friend, I am convinced that the Church of Peter must affirm her past, or else she will dig her own tomb.

I will fight this battle with the greatest energy both inside and outside the Church, even if the forces of evil may one day take advantage of my person, actions, or writings, as they try today to deform the History of the Church."

(Georges Roche & Philippe Saint Germain, Pie XII devant l'Histoire, Paris: Robert Lafont, 1972, p. 52-53).

Francis,

You are applying Pope Pius' expressions to the post-Vatican II reforms--which he never lived to see.

I understand your frustration and I sympathize. I have personally not only recommended Dr. Lauren Pristas' work on the subject of the liturgical revisions but am mentioned in the acknowledgements of her book The Collects of the Roman Missal for giving (a very small amount of) help in its composition. I'm pro-ROTR, as are you.

But I am also very well aware of the kind of excesses that lead to schism, and would very much like to avoid that heartbreak.

I think it is a good idea to clarify the title, Francis.
It matters who said that line, and in what context.

There can be no doubt about the identity crisis in the Church during our times.

We are now at a point where intelligent, studied Catholics of good will have holes in their knowledge of their faith, of differences in Catholic life and teaching emphases before and after the council. Some holes we know, and fill in as best we can, others we discover daily...

Sometimes it feels like, "will the real Church please stand up?!?" It's exasperating.

Considering the confusion we have all painfully squeezed through as church musicians, in the area of sacred music alone, I advise extra patience and charity toward forum members. Remember the days when you didn't know what a Graduale Romanum was, thought that the Offertory chant was a thing of the past, etc.? Pretty sure we've all been there to some extent.

Explaining things and asking questions with charity and patience is most necessary. Especially when it comes to topics of loyalty to Christ's Church, on an Internet forum no less. We need to tread carefully, friends.

As a singing mum, who is in teaching/preaching mode all too often, I'm saying all this to myself as much or more so, too! Said with a :)

MCW:

I entirely agree with everything you have said. I just feel we should never question anyone's faith on the forum... this is explicitly stated in our guidelines, and we should be extra careful on this point. This has happened to me before a few times on this forum and chonak has corrected it in the past. Thank you, Richard. We must all be on our guard and keep the focus to the content and not be questioning one another in their devotion to the Faith.

I am concerned to see that the book includes a section on the "doubtful validity" of the modern Roman rite. I haven't read the section, but if it denies or pertinaciously doubts the validity of the Mass celebrated according to the Missale Romanum approved by the Holy See, that could be a grave doctrinal error contrary to the Church's indefectibility.

chonak

Which section concerns doubtful validity?

UPDATE

ahhh... I found it. Appendix II. Reading now.

Which section concerns doubtful validity?

Good. This looks like a fruitful, textual method of proceeding. Carry on.

Francis, read the table of contents. One of the appendixes is about the "doubtful validity".

Yes. I got it. I just read it... and ... WOW... Fr. Kramer wrote this book in 2006(?), and the vatican changed it back to "for the many" as we now have it in the MR3. Now the question arises in my mind, were all the Masses said using the previous words of consecration invalid???? Holy C***! If so, how many years would that have encompassed? And, did other nations (languages) have the same erroneous formula in their translations, or was the error only in the English?

STATEMENT

Yall, this is a very difficult subject, in fact, THE most difficult and the most CENTRAL to our Faith. The theology is troubling to me, as it was to many theologians and popes. And you can see by this discussion that it is difficult to keep focused without going askew into accusations left and right. MCW is right. We must keep each other in our prayers and be charitable in our discourse. Forgive me if I have offended you in any way.

Kathy, I totally understand your concern. I will dismiss anything that insinuates that I am a schismatic and put our squabble to rest.

I am after the truth while at the same time keeping my feet firmly inside the Church. I assume the same toward you.

fk

were all the Masses said using the previous words of consecration invalid????

Charles, I appreciate your attentiveness to the tone of the discussion. Sometimes I feel that our differences of opinion mostly arise when you are discussing the tone, and I am discussing the content. Here, what I'm (still, actually) worried about is the content of the book that Francis has been reading.

Kathy, as an aside, thanks so much for mentioning Dr. Pristas' book. I had not heard of it before, but it looks very impressive. I've read excerpts of Fr. Cekada's fascinating book on the same subject, and of course, for years used to follow Fr. Z's column (What Does the Prayer Really Say?) in The Wanderer where he would compare the ICEL translations of the OF prayers with the original texts.

Re: potential schism, it's been my experience with people who leave the Church (on both the right and left) that intellectual reasons are rarely the cause. From what I've seen, the real cause is either a growing friction between one's moral praxis and Church teaching, or hurt from a personal bad experience with someone in the Church, or emotional attachment or sympathy to a group outside the Church, or simply for reasons of convenience alone.

The intellectual justification, from what I've seen, comes after the decision to leave the Church's juridical boundaries has been made for another reason and, in most cases, is hastily thrown together and full of holes.

I think the moral of the story is always to be kind, sympathetic and understanding with anyone who's looking outside the box of pat answers and conventional definitions because alienating them emotionally could drive them to seek sympathy elsewhere, and cheap intellectual rationale can be found in abundance to justify their leaving.

Remember the old line: "I didn't leave the Church; the Church left me"? That primitive saying satisfied a lot of people who stopped going to Church because of liturgical abuses, the pedophile scandal, etc., but it goes to show how leaving the Church is far more of an emotional process than an intellectual one and the lack of understanding and welcome we show others might have much more impact than we realize.