Book Review: The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy (now including other comments)
-
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.
You're quite correct about the psychological reasons that people leave and all the baggage surrounding such a decision.
But the fact remains that if we want to be Catholic, there are certain boundaries that we don't cross and certain discussions that are off the table.
The ordination of women is a topic that is not up for discussion. The morality of abortion is not up for discussion. And whether the post-Vatican II mass is valid is not up for discussion.
I should add that someone is probably going to come along and say "Actually, no Pope has ever said that the last one is not up for discussion." My answer will be and is that questioning the authority of the Church to change her worship is not up for discussion - and that you shouldn't need someone to tell you that. -
Our elderly pastor, who will be retiring at the end of the month, has battled health problems for some time, and has days when he is in enough pain to be a little forgetful. A few weeks ago, he became distracted and forgot to drink from the chalice before giving hosts to the EMs for distribution. He caught it, and drank from the chalice before cleansing the vessels. Some one called me later that day and said, "I may not have gone to a valid mass this morning," supposedly because of the priest's minor misstep. I wanted to suppress the urge to say, "You idiot! Of course the mass was valid." I didn't, because it is painfully clear that many Catholics have a sketchy understanding of what is going on, to begin with.
What does this have to do with anything, you ask. Every so often, posts here go on and on about how the current mass doesn't live up to tradition, perhaps it isn't valid, and it departs from the old mass making it somehow inferior. Then we get page after page of quotes from Pope St. Rufus the Doofus that supposedly validate that position. Good old St. Rufus lived in another time and set of circumstances and may not have even been thinking about our time when he spoke or wrote. Then Our Lady of Fatima gets thrown in because she supposedly is ready to torch the world because we didn't put commas in the right place in the missal. I happen to have a higher opinion of Our Lady than that, and realize the Church is not founded on apparitions or misinterpretations of them.
Perhaps there is too much of a tendency to focus on a specific tree and lose sight of the forest. Lighten up, folks! This is the only Church we've got, and either it will endure until the end of time, or it wont. Take your choice.
-
A logical sidebar: an argumentum ad hominem fallacy works in both directions. Most people appear to assume it only works in the negative direction: that an argument made by a bad person is false or likely to be false. But grounding the truth(iness) of an argument by a virtuous person on account of their virtue is also fallacious.Thanked by 1CHGiffen
-
Thank you Charles. Sometimes I wish this forum had "rep points," as some do so that I could "rep" you.Thanked by 1CharlesW
-
It's not an admission of Fr Kramer's point. Indeed, the very instrument by which the Vatican directed the vernacular translation of "pro multis" in 2006 expressly denies that. It says there is NO doubt. So the very legislative basis for making the translation shift is founded on an express rejection of such doubt. If you want the one, you must take the other, as it were. No cherry picking is credible in that regard.
http://www.adoremus.org/Arinze_ProMultis.html
Thanked by 1JulieColl -
Apropos Kathy's larger concern: I see nothing profitable spiritually coming of stirring controversy or passing on the stirring of controversy on this point.Thanked by 1melofluent
-
I agree, PGA, that a free-ranging discussion of the invalidity of the Novus Ordo Mass would be unseemly and out of place here. On the other hand, it is a question that a lot of folks in traditionalist camps tussle with, and we're all bound to come across someone with that conviction, so I think it's quite splendid and instructive to see someone with the intellectual stature, knowledge, articulateness and discretion of Liam or Chonak coolly and calmly whisk that right off the table.Thanked by 1melofluent
-
Pope St. Rufus the Doofus
Does he have a society, 'cause I need to join it!
Brilliant, CDub, made my day!so I think it's quite splendid and instructive to see someone with the intellectual stature, knowledge, articulateness and discretion of Liam or Chonak coolly and calmly whisk that right off the table.
Add yourself into that mix, Julie. As I intimated to Kathy without her needing to validate it, I'm not worthy in discussions such as this one to untie anyone's sandals here. But I do love to learn. -
I agree, PGA, that a free-ranging discussion of the invalidity of the Novus Ordo Mass would be unseemly and out of place here. On the other hand, it is a question that a lot of folks in traditionalist camps tussle with, and we're all bound to come across someone with that conviction, so I think it's quite splendid and instructive to see someone with the intellectual stature, knowledge, articulateness and discretion of Liam or Chonak coolly and calmly whisk that right off the table.
Oh, I don't want ANY discussion suppressed, so long as it's carried on with respect and is somewhat relevant. I'm all for letting conversations continue. I think you misunderstood me.
That discussion can happen - but let's just be very clear about what it is and about the issues. If you question the validity of the Novus Ordo mass, you are dangerously close to being outside of the Church. Actually, that sentence probably doesn't state it strongly enough - but discretion is the better part of valor. But one who feels that way should be allowed to express it.
The fact that as you state, "a lot of folks in traditionalist camps tussle with" [that question] should be concerning to you. It is to me. -
Soooooooooooo....!
I am sorry if ANY of you felt scandalized by my interest to debate this content. WAS NOT MY INTENT!!!
I am interested to see the book to which Kathy contributed and mentioned above. :-)
Fatima... another issue, my good Charles. I am already thinking of one phrase from her secrets that play right into the next part of this conversation, but I will refrain from saying it for the moment. -
If Kramer's argument about "doubtful validity" is all about vernacular translations, then it is not taking into account a basic point. The Church does not treat vernacular translations as prayers distinct from the authentic, approved texts in Latin.
If I remember right, the document that authorized vernacular translations after V2 said that an approved vernacular translation should be understood and intended according to the meaning of the Latin text. There are good reasons for translating the "pro multis" as "for many:" or "for the many", but scruples about validity are a waste of time. -
Anybody see Fr. Hesses video on the validity/invalidity of the NO sacraments. It can be found on YouTube.Thanked by 1francis
-
I kind of had first hand experience with the effects of the disagreement over NO vs. EF validity. Some years ago, an older friend with brain cancer was in the process of passing away. She had been upset over the mass changes since VII. Her husband, although not Catholic, was a kind man who invited a priest to their home so she could attend one last mass. No one in town had any approval to say the EF at the time, so the husband contacted a sedevacantist priest who agreed to come to our city and say the mass. The priest was notorious for his views and his name, which I wont state, rhymed with waffen but without the SS part attached. At the mass with family and friends present, the priest announced that anyone who attended NO masses could not receive communion. He went on to state that confession for attending heretical masses was necessary before he could give them communion. He was fine with me, once he learned I am Byzantine. I didn't mention that I attend NO masses, too. I didn't want communion from him since I thought him a bit nuts. It happens and some out there actually believe the NO Church is heretical.
-
Yeah, Fr H declares the NO heretical and schismatic at the end of the video, but also states that the sacraments are valid, per the notion that if one believes he or she is receiving a valid sacrament from a valid priest, the Church inserts validity where there would otherwise be none. He talks about form and matter of the sacraments among other things and overall the video is quite educational.
In my one experience with the EF, it felt like I was much more a part of something greater than myself than the OF does, as usual YMMV.Thanked by 1francis -
I am halfway through Fr H's discourse on this one:
Canon Lawyer on the Validity/Invalidity of the Novus Ordo Sacraments
It is quite good, and very similar to Fr. Kramers discourse in the book above and makes many of the same points (in fact he references Fr. Kramer in his talk.) -
If Kramer's argument about "doubtful validity" is all about vernacular translations, then it is not taking into account a basic point. The Church does not treat vernacular translations as prayers distinct from the authentic, approved texts in Latin.
Both Father Kramer and Fr. Hesse discuss this thinking. /\If I remember right, the document that authorized vernacular translations after V2 said that an approved vernacular translation should be understood and intended according to the meaning of the Latin text. There are good reasons for translating the "pro multis" as "for many:" or "for the many", but scruples about validity are a waste of time.
...and this. And when discussing canon law, according to Hesse, all the time needed is taken to get it right; especially one pope respecting and upholding the binding documents of the next for hundreds of years, especially concerning decrees.
And to be clear, the translation was changed from "the many" to "all" in the vernacular translations, all of which (various vernacular languages) had clear words and meanings for both, intimating that the change was deliberate. (see video)
The part about a pope (Paul VI) not having the authority to change the rites on his own is extremely interesting. No pope in the past would dare (single handedly) even entertain the notion. -
There is a word, by the way, for people who believe that a theoretical "true Church" lost its way at some historical moment and no longer subsists in the concrete Catholic Church. They are known as "Protestants."
Thanked by 7Gavin Spriggo Andrew Motyka CHGiffen CharlesW melofluent tomjaw
The word 'subsists' is a new and questionable theology ONLY resident in the new CCC, and altered from all other historical catechisms. (red flag).
Rome holds THE pope, and may Jesus and Mary keep me forever there in the OHCAAC. -
My chant cafe article on Pristas' book, from around this time last year. http://www.chantcafe.com/2013/05/an-item-for-book-budget.html?m=0
-
Yea, I was right... and you too.816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268
OK... it's in TWO places. It is still a new and very controversial word (and subject of confusion). -
REPORT
Here's how we used to say (believe) it.152. Which is the one true Church established by Christ?
The one true Church established by Christ is the Catholic Church.
And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. (John 10:16)
153. How do we know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ?
We know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ because it alone has the marks of the true Church.
Holy Father, keep in thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we also are. (John 17:11)
154. What do we mean by the marks of the Church?
By the marks of the Church we mean certain clear signs by which all men can recognize it as the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.
155. What are the chief marks of the Church?
The chief marks of the Church are four: It is one, holy, catholic or universal, and apostolic. -
another version, the Catechism of St. Pius X, 9th article is explicit.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/pius/pcreed09.htm
and here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/catechsm/piusxcat.htm -
The word is not new. The use in this particular instance is. Here is a piece in wiki which explains the confusion that ensued in changing the language in VII.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistit_in
In the beginning of the article it clearly says:Questions have been raised,[2] if Lumen Gentium reworded the longstanding phrase, which stated that the Church of Christ is (Latin est) the Catholic Church. Lumen Gentium does recognize that other Christian ecclesial communities have elements of sanctification and of truth.
The word used in the past was always est. -
Indeed, the word has been around for a while.
My friend philosophy professor Alexander Pruss found it used eight times in St. Thomas Aquinas' works:
http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2007/11/church-of-christ-subsists-in-catholic.html
The interpretation he proposes is that "subsists in" can mean straightforward *identity*:
(The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church)
and also it allows for the acknowledgement that some of the actions of the Church also happen outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church. (As traditional Catholics know, the Eastern Orthodox churches celebrate all the sacraments validly; and baptism and marriage are valid in many Protestant services.)
-
Moreover, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 2000 about the strong statement made by "subsists in":"Subsisting is a special case of being. It is being in the form of a subject standing on its own. This is the issue here. The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in the present world can be encountered in the Catholic Church. This can occur only once and the notion that subsistit could be multiplied misses precisely what was intended. With the word subsistit, the Council wanted to express the singularity and non-multiplicability of the Catholic Church".
[Joseph Ratzinger, "L'ecclesiologia della Costituzione Lumen Gentium" in R. Fisichella (ed.), II Concilio Vaticano II: Recezione e attualità alla luce del Giubileo (Cinisello B. 2000), 79.] (source) [Emphasis added.] -
And the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote specifically about the statement in Lumen gentium in this 2007 document:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.htmlQUESTION
Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?
RESPONSE
The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.
“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”.
[Emphasis added.]
So indeed there is confusion on this subject as Francis has stated. The confusion exists, not in the magisterium, but in the mouths of the would-be critics. Here, seven years after the CDF statement above; fourteen years after the document Dominus Iesus which restated authoritatively that the Catholic Church is one and unique; fourteen years after the above statement by Cdl. Ratzinger; fifty years after Lumen gentium, people are still spreading falsehoods about it.
-
Yes, I am also aware of all of your posts above, thank you. Father Hesse explains well (in video mentioned above) the difference between valid and illicit and how the church accepts baptism universally. He also explains how a rite can be schismatic and how the church has dealt with schismatic rites in the past. Schism meaning, cut off. Very enlightening and very aprapo to our entire discussion here.
Thanks to you and to everyone for their comments, views, opinions, assessments and participation. I had no idea this would be such an eye opener. For me, the Ottaviani Report was mind bending. -
I observed Fr. Hesse once. He was preparing to offer Mass on a feast day in an unauthorized chapel and spoke scornfully to his congregation of the people at the diocesan cathedral preparing to celebrate Mass at the same time. "We don't want anything to do with them", he said. I took that as an expression of schism and I left.
It was Holy Thursday.
-
Some priests have fallen into grave errors, even after having worked for an exemplary bishop. Fr. Michel Guerard des Lauriers, OP, whom I mentioned above as a schismatic, had once served as personal confessor to Pope Pius XII.
The incident I described happened in Rhode Island, probably in the late '90s or around 2000. It appears that Fr. Hesse died in 2006. I hope he was reconciled to Christ and His Church before then. -
Does anyone have a descent hymn setting of the Fatima secrets?
-
Please, no secrets. I have never understood why the Mother of God descends to earth with urgent messages for her children, but she can't tell them those messages. They are secrets. Counterproductive and nutty, wouldn't you say? What's the point of her coming at all? I would think she has better things to do than play games.
Closer to the topic, the Orthodox held that the canon in the EF did not adequately explain or emphasize the role of the Holy Spirit in the consecration. Some of the new Eucharistic prayers attempted to address that.Thanked by 1MarkThompson -
When the documents of an ecumenical council and I disagree, it's my job to let the Council change my mind.
I do not say that about every postconciliar implementation of what is supposedly the direction of the Council, but only the expressions of the Council itself.Thanked by 1BruceL -
"This is the only Church we've got, and either it will endure until the end of time, or it wont. Take your choice."
It will endure; that's not in question. Whether we shall endure in it, and how we shall endure through eternity, is another matter.
-
The Church exists outside of time and space, and always will. Whether a given structure, discipline, or set of administrative policies remain unchanged through eternity may be different than our expectations, but no one can know that. While it is the externals that can change, those are the very things that seem to upset people the most when they do change.
-
I think it is unfair and unjust to judge Father Hesse or anyone else as a schismatic unless he was formally proclaimed to be so by the church. Did this indeed happen? If so, please direct us to the proof.
This seems to be a large problem with Catholic thinking today–that we each individually have the power and/or authority to personally proclaim and judge if someone is in heresy, schism or apostasy. I believe this is very dangerous territory, and Christ warns us about judging others. Judging doctrine or documents or writings proclaimed to be truth is an entirely different matter. Judging the person as such is not within our jurisdiction, and we should be careful not to go around stamping anyone a heretic, schismatic or apostate, especially if they are dead and cannot defend themself.
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,561
- General Music Discussion7,802
- Job Openings1,366
- Management of Music Programs839
- Choral Matters523
- Church Documents and Rubrics515
- CMAA Notes293
- Events668
- For Newcomers: Read First24
- Sacred Polyphony532
- Hymnody841
- Gregorian Chant: General2,619
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis357
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology59
- Vernacular Plainsong682
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant67
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire420
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,235
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry155
- Music Education: Children208
- Music Education: General217
- News Items243
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism729
- Amusements173
- General Discussion1,014
- Opinions115