Book Review: The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy (now including other comments)
-
In addition to this we must all realize that we have had schismatic popes in the past, and it is up to the church to judge their merits in due time and that people who question present modern teachings of their day in the past, were numerous times, found to be correct and even became saints. This is why we cannot judge anyone. Leave that to God.
-
I think it is important to differentiate between a person and their actions. While someone's actions may be schismatic or heretical, they can be reconciled: this is a primary teaching of the Church, the reconciliation of man and God.
-
Not particularly. Fr. Hesse cites several canons in his lecture, and I really didn't know much about the issues of legitimacy nor validity until I came across the video of his lecture. Sorry I don't have anything specific for you.
-
Liam:
I found more concerning the point you were making above. It seems that the issue is much deeper than just the oblation, (which is very important), but also the fact that the orginal rite was obviously directed and offered to the Trinity (The God of the Bible) which has been removed from the new rite almost altogether. The more I delve into this, the clearer the truth is revealed to me."This Sacrifice is offered to the God of the Bible, the God of Revelation, to the One, True, Living God, that is, to the Blessed Trinity. This truth is expressed through words and gestures in the rite as a whole. The celebrant begins the Sacred Action with the words: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” In the Kyrie, the three invocations are made three times. These have been reduced to six in the new rite of Mass. In the Gloria, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity is exalted in the most wonderful way:
Glory to God in the highest... O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty. O Lord, only begotten Son, Jesus Christ... with the Holy Ghost, in the glory of the Father.
This basic mystery of our Faith is expressed in a distinctive manner at the end of the Offertory. The Church prays:
Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we make to Thee in remembrance of the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ — Suscipe, sancta Trinitas, hanc oblationem....
The first prayer of the Offertory addresses God as “Holy Father.” Furthermore in the Sanctus the holiness of God is praised three times. The Canon is begun with the words, “Te igitur, clementissime Pater — Most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord.” It closes with the words: “Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso... — By Him and with Him and in Him are ever given to Thee, Almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost all honor and glory.”
At the Agnus Dei we call three times on the mercy of God and at the same time we confess our unworthiness in the Domine non sum dingus – “Lord, I am not worthy” — said three times one after the other. The Holy Mass ends with Placeat tibi sancta Trinitas — “May the homage of my bounden duty be pleasing to Thee, O Holy Trinity.” The priest then gives the blessing in the words “May Almighty God bless thee, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”
Not only words proclaim this most sublime mystery, but actions also. The rite often prescribes three signs of the cross, one after the other, as in the following examples:
...haec + dona, haec + munera, haec + sancta sacrificia illibata — these + gifts, these + offerings, these + unblemished sacrifices.
Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, bene + dictam, ad + scriptam, + ratam... — Be pleased, O God, to + bless this offering, to + accept it fully, to + make it perfect and worthy to please Thee....
...Hostiam + puram, Hostiam + sanctam, Hostiam + immaculatam... — a Victim + pure, a Victim + perfect, a Victim + holy and spotless.
Per quem, haec omnia, Domine, semper bona creas, sanct + fificas, vivi + fficas, bene + dicis et præstas nobis. — Through Him, O Lord, Thou dost ever create these good things, and Thou + halloweth, + quickeneth, and + blesseth them as gifts for us.
In the same way, three signs of the cross are traced at the Per ipsum at the end of the Canon.
For the incensations at the Offertory, the priest makes three signs of the cross with the thurible over the oblations, then two circles in a counter-clockwise direction and one in a clockwise direction. These gestures reveal the whole mystery of our Faith in a wonderful way. The number three signifies the Most Holy Trinity; the two circles signify the two natures in Our Lord Jesus Christ existing in the one Second Person of the Godhead.
These signs and even the words have nearly all been removed in the new rite. The same is true for the Suscipe sancta Trinitas at the end of the Offertory; likewise for the prayer at the end of the Holy Mass, Placeat tibi sancta Trinitas. In the first of the 1967 reforms, in each case, the three signs of the cross were abbreviated to a single one in order that the rite “...should be distinguished by a noble simplicity. They should be short, clear, and free from useless repetitions.” -
Forgive my jumping into this discussion at so late a stage, but this most recent extract warrants a comment or two.
First, the translations into English are execrable. 'Sancta' is omitted before 'unblemished sacrifices'. Moreover, the second person singular in traditional English ends in -(e)st, not -(e)eth.
Second, is the author suggesting that, for instance, the entire Carthusian family has a defective understanding of the Mass, since they have never had the Suscipe, sancta Trinitas at the Offertory (and the Blessing at the end of Mass)? Or do they get a free pass because they don't go out much?
I absolutely do not trust the overblown reliance on one strand of typological rubric-reading.
There are plenty of things to say about the Missal of Paul VI, but they can be said much better than this.Thanked by 1chonak -
DL:
I am sure things can always be better explained, (as I am not a canon lawyer or a theologian), but simply a Catholic musician who is intent on understanding the liturgy as best as possible, and that is why I bring the subject to the table. Nothing more.
(sorry... I could have grouped these all in one post, but it took me a while to decrypt your post)
NOTE: ANY translation of Latin into English is usually execrable. -
The text you quote saysThis Sacrifice is offered to the God of the Bible, the God of Revelation, to the One, True, Living God, that is, to the Blessed Trinity. This truth is expressed through words and gestures in the rite as a whole.
and thenThese signs and even the words have nearly all been removed in the new rite.
And yet there are many Uses of long standing within the Latin Rite, the Carthusian one among them, where these signs and words have never been used in the first place. Does it then matter that, to use the language of the text quoted, these truths are no longer seen to be emphasised in the Missal of Paul VI?
My point is therefore that, whilst some of the changes may be judged inopportune, inappropriate, or might even be said to have had negative results, deciding that the Church is committing 'liturgical suicide' on such a poor argument as is presented in the text quoted, is unhelpful. It fails to take into account the fact that some of these things were never universal to begin with.Thanked by 1CharlesW -
It may also not follow that existing text in the Tridentine Rite had any history before the Council of Trent. Those looking for unbroken text and practice back to the early Latin Church are going to be disappointed. The eastern churches have done a better job of keeping the early liturgies, but even they have had some minor changes.
I am no fan of the changes instituted by Paul VI. He had a bad case of "tamper-itis." He was a holy fool so addicted to the idea of unity, he was willing to give away the store in pursuit of it. Just because something is missing or present does not mean it was ever universal practice.
Agreed on the "liturgical suicide" statement. It is too nutty to take seriously. If messing with the Roman Missal was the basis for suicide, the Latin Church would have died out a long time ago.Thanked by 1Gavin -
DL
Is this at all true?Before the Council of Trent in the 16th century, the Catholic Church in Western Europe had a wide variety of rituals for the celebration of Mass. Although the essentials were the same, there were variations in prayers and practices from region to region or among the various religious orders.
When Pope Pius V made the Roman Missal mandatory for all Catholics of the Latin Rite, he permitted the continuance of other forms of celebrating Mass that had an antiquity of at least two centuries. The rite used by the Carthusians was one of these, and still continues in use in a version revised in 1981.[3] Apart from the new elements in this revision, it is substantially the rite of Grenoble in the 12th century, with some admixture from other sources.[4] According to current Catholic legislation, however, priests can celebrate the traditional rites of their order without further authorization.
If so, I would venture to surmise that the Carthusian rite was a papal exception to the norm. -
CharlesW 7:56AM Thanks
Posts: 4,847
It may also not follow that existing text in the Tridentine Rite had any history before the Council of Trent. Those looking for unbroken text and practice back to the early Latin Church are going to be disappointed.
Can you show us proof of this?
-
Can you show proof to the contrary?
I said, "may not follow." You can't assume that just because Trent did something, it was universal practice from the early days of Christianity. If you go back to the last days of Western Rome, the liturgy was closer to the eastern liturgies than the missal of Pius V. Trent kept many practices of the past, filtered through the political, social and cultural systems of its time. That council also seriously over-reacted to Protestantism and any reading of its catechism (I have a copy) amply shows this, along with an extreme clericalization of the liturgy. However, I am well aware that too many traditionalists believe the Church started at Trent. Interesting that they accuse post- VII Catholics of believing the Church started at Vatican II. The more things change...
This thread has exceeded its lifetime and has produced little of any worth, that I can tell. Maybe it needs to go to the Tridentine Rite in the sky. -
Fr. Josef Jungmann devotes 30 pages of his Missarum Sollemnia to "Laying the Offerings on the Altar: The Accompanying Prayers."
You can find these pages (vol. 2, 41-70) in PARS III of:
http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2014/jan/25/josef-jungmann-study-roman-rite-mass-pdf/
Happy reading. (And be sure to read all the footnotes.)Thanked by 1CHGiffen -
My take:
Jungmann... a major proponent and theologian of the new rite, and a partner with Bugnini in bringing about a reform attempts to rewrite history through the lens of need for major change, and the people (congregation) as a significant part of the church that has been 'left out', while Fortescue tells the true history right here:
https://archive.org/details/massstudyofroman00fort
The part about the consistency of the Roman Rite and Quo Primum begins about page 205 or so.
Throughout history, the Mass is always attacked (made to seem inadequate or in need of evolving) by the 'reformers', and it is always out to strip it of its sacrificial nature. That is the focus of Jungmann and our later reformers.
I don't choose to believe what comforts me, I believe what is true, what has been passed down to us, which is the responsibility of the Church. Those who choose to believe what comforts them are usually those who want to remake the Church into their own creation.
-
I am adding pngs of the quotes from Fortescue's 'The Mass' so you can easily read this on the thread itself:
553 x 391 - 142K
535 x 832 - 317K
563 x 875 - 330K
533 x 633 - 219K -
...and from chapter 8.
541 x 252 - 83K
590 x 886 - 315K
544 x 870 - 318K
547 x 880 - 324K
538 x 870 - 304K
570 x 869 - 301K -
kenstb:
I came to a conclusion back in the early 90's when I was reading all the works by the Saints about the 'Sacrifice of the Mass', especially, Liguori and Aquinas. Over the years, it became very clear to me that the NO is what Benedict called it, “a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” (which JulieColl mentioned further back in the thread).
Personally, I was shocked to discover the document by Ottaviani while discussing this subject (as chonak thought that this thread was about his document and mentioned it in passing) only to realize that Kramer had taken some of his content from Ottaviani. That Critical Study is simply bone chilling to say the least.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/intervention.htm
The interesting thing is that there are many different evaluations of the NO, all independent of each other that reach the same conclusion. In the words of Fr. Joseph Gelineau, one of the most influential members of Paul VI's Liturgical Commission, “To tell you the truth, it [the Novus Ordo] is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists.”
What Fr. JG didn't realize is that the Catholic world would never 'let go' of the ancient Mass and that it would be reinstated by a future Pope. It is also amazing to realize the TLM was never abrogated or suppressed, but the entire Catholic world was made to think so.
Just some of my thoughts.Thanked by 1dad29 -
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. (Dom Alcuin Reid)
Dom Alcuin Reid is acknowledged by all as a serious liturgical scholar. His Eminence Josef Cardinal Ratzinger in fact wrote the Preface to Dom Alcuin Reid's book, The Organic Development of the Liturgy.
Dom Alcuin Reid is the editor of the volume, Sacred Liturgy: The Source and Summit of the Life and Mission of the Church, published by Ignatius Press, and in fact, has been involved in one way or the other in the New Liturgical Movement desired by Cardinal Ratzinger.
So the bottom line, I think is this: according to Dom Alcuin Reid, we really haven't dealt with the points made by serious scholars such as Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani (head of the CDF at the time) who, in his cover letter to Pope Paul VI which accompanied his critical study of the New Mass said:Despite its brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae--considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted--represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.
We really have to deal with this someday, painful as it is, and I think that's the essence of what Francis has been saying on the last four pages of this thread.
Isn't Francis in his own way just trying to repeat what Cardinal Ratzinger said in his autobiography, namely that the crisis of faith we're all experiencing is "due to the collapse of the liturgy?" -
More from the hierarchy of the Church:
“Who dreamed on that day (when the council approved the document on the liturgy) that within a few years, far less than a decade, the Latin past of the Church would be all but expunged, that it would be reduced to a memory fading in the middle distance. The thought would have horrified us, but it seemed so far beyond the realm of the possible as to be ridiculous. So we laughed it off.”
Archbishop Dwyer of Portland, Oregon
(This is no figure of speech.) When Cardinal Browne expressed at the Council his fear that, if the Council allowed the vernacular into the liturgy the Latin Mass would disappear within ten years, he was laughed at.
-
and Pope Paul VI:
"It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power, and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth."Thanked by 1JulieColl -
On the other hand, the understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more -- particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.
-
Participation by the people is worth more
There are at least three different arguments/debates that could be made about this statement. I don't want to have them right now, but I at least want to point out that it's not that simple, and that a lot of really brilliant and devout people disagree on whether this is true and what participation means in the first place. -
Maybe we should take the tragically conflicted Pope Paul VI at his word when he said, "we are becoming like profane intruders in the preserve of sacred utterance."
Is it to attack dear Pope Paul VI to agree with his own words?
As regards Adam's usual astute observation, if the provisions for participation in the document De Musica Sacra had been implemented, we could have avoided the tragic false dichotomy of participation vs. profane intrusion into sacred things.
As the healthy and strong French traditional Catholic movement shows us, you can have vibrant participation in the Low Mass and/or High Mass without throwing out beautiful vestments, smashing statues and Communion rails, re-writing the liturgy in a way that Thomas Cranmer would not have objected to, and, in the words of Jean Guitton, a close friend of Pope Paul VI, "making the Mass as close to the Calvinist Lord's Supper as possible." (His words, not mine.)
I think it is was with Arbp. Bugnini that the admirable preconciliar liturgical movement, in the words of Josef Ratzinger, was "highjacked."
Bottom line is this: if done correctly, you can have every bit as much participation, if not more, by the people in the traditional Latin Mass as you do in the Mass as formulated by Arbp. Bugnini.
However, in the former, you can also have all of the beauty, solemnity, reverence, and vibrant aspects of our tradition that were unceremoniously consigned to the ash heap of history by Arbp. B.
Reforming the Mass to strip it of everything displeasing to Protestants (cf. L'Osservatore Romano, March, 1965) is in and of itself fundamentally opposed to the principles of the centuries-long process of the organic development of the liturgy (cf. Dom Alcuin Reid).
Finally, although it's perhaps a little cheeky, and I certainly apologize in advance, perhaps one could ask this one question:
If Archbishop Bugnini were to be posthumously put on trial for formulating a Catholic liturgy (with validity assured) that respected the centuries-long process of organic development of the liturgy, would there be enough evidence to convict him?
I think people like Jean Guitton, Msgr. Klaus Gamber, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Card. Antonio Bacci, Card. Alphonse Stickler, Card. Josef Ratzinger, and many, many others would be tempted after sober deliberation to vote for an immediate acquittal and the reason for that is that the last fifty years have taught us that a valid liturgy is not necessarily one that respects the centuries-long process of organic development which is the ultimate test of the inner truth of any reform. -
Before we accept without question the use of vernacular in the Mass, and consign Latin to the bins of forgotten history, let us reflect upon what previous pontiffs proclaimed about the use of Latin in the Mass.
• Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 1794: In condemning the errors of the Synod of Pistoia, he rejected demands for the use of the vernacular on the following grounds: “As referring to the use of the vernacular in liturgical prayers – false, rash, disturbing the prescribed order of the celebration of the mysteries, and easily productive of many evils.”
• Pope Pius XI: “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure till the end of time…of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”
• Pope Pius XII: “The use of the Latin language prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruption of true doctrine.”
“The day the Church abandons her universal tongue is the day before she returns to the catacombs.”
• Pope John XXIII: “The Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic and non-vernacular.”
• Cardinal Montini (Paul VI) at the council: “When it is a matter of the language used in public worship, think seriously before you decide that those parts of the liturgy which belong to the priest should be in any other language than that handed down to us by our forebears; for only thus will the unity of the Mystical Body at prayer and the sacred formularies be maintained.”
(Only thus!! Yet, the same Cardinal who issued these warnings would become the Pope who made it so.)
• Incredibly, even as Pope, Paul would write in his apostolic letter Sacrificium Laudis, that abandoning Latin, “attacks not only this bountiful spring of civilization, this rich treasure of piety, but attacks too the decorum, the beauty and the original vigor of the prayer and song of the liturgy.” By his own words, Paul went on to "attack" the vigor of the Church’s prayer. -
If Archbishop Bugnini were to be posthumously put on trial for formulating a Catholic liturgy (with validity assured) that respected the centuries-long process of organic development of the liturgy, would there be enough evidence to convict him?
Cadaver Synods are so pre-Vatican II. -
The Church is not dead yet and I think it will endure. In my own area the faith is growing, converts are coming in, and we have a high number of seminarians who, for the most part, seem pretty orthodox in belief. It may not be the Church that uses the rituals you prefer or the language you like, but it is the Church and it is far from defunct.Thanked by 1kenstb
-
@JulieColl, Do you think it has to do with people moving out of the area and moving to warmer climates or do you think its liturgical reasons in you area?
-
Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the plenary session of the CDF:As we know, in vast areas of the world the Faith is in danger of being snuffed out like a flame that no longer has any sustenance. We are at a profound crisis of faith, at a loss of a religious sense that constitutes the greatest challenge for the Church of today. The renewal of the faith must therefore be the priority in the undertaking of the whole Church in our times.
From Fr. Zuhlsdorf, commenting on the above:I will add my view that nothing of which His Holiness spoke is going to be accomplished without a renewal of our liturgical worship.
Our identity as Catholics cannot be separated from our worship.
We need more and more and more opportunities for people to experience the older, traditional form of the Roman Rite in our Latin Church parishes. -
Charles said:
The Church is not dead yet
Oh, it's not dead, and it will not die. Here is Cardinal Ratzinger's take:Back in 1969 theologian Joseph Ratzinger made some comments about our Catholic future. They were included in his Faith and the Future published by Ignatius Press in 2009.
"The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.
She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members….
It will be hard-going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek . . . The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution — when a bishop might be thought smart if he made fun of dogmas and even insinuated that the existence of God was by no means certain . . . But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.
And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death.
Charles said:It may not be the Church that uses the rituals you prefer or the language you like,
The church does not promote the ritual it prefers or the language it likes, it continues on in what was handed down to it.
but it is the Church and it is far from defunct.
Yes, the church IS the church, but are most being fooled by the sign out front?
A wise and telling observation by JulieColl (Fr. Z) above:Our identity as Catholics cannot be separated from our worship.
I would even say our identity as Catholics is not separated from our worship as the church has defined it over the course of the centuries.Thanked by 1JulieColl -
Here is a definitive quote by Cardinal Ratzinger linking the crisis of faith we are experiencing with the "disintegration of the liturgy":
.I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy
(From Milestones, the memoirs of Cardinal Ratzinger) -
The disintegration of faith practice preceded Vatican II in Europe (arguably, going back to the Napoleonic Wars when religious skepticism became a permanent and open part of European culture and politics, but at the very least by the close of World War I). And it's also affected churches that have not materially altered their liturgies (the Eastern and Oriental churches). Post hoc ergo propter hoc and all that.
-
In my town in rural Pennsylvania, there are three Catholic churches. This was a feasible situation several generations ago, when we had a population of 19,000 people. Now we're a town of just over 13,000. The diocese would love to close one of the churches, and will probably end up doing so over the next few years.
You'll hear the same story all over the Northeast. Churches are closing because people are packing up and moving away, mainly due to lack of job opportunities. It has very little to do with what form of the Mass is being used, or what music is being sung. -
The church does not promote the ritual it prefers or the language it likes, it continues on in what was handed down to it.
The Church, or at least the western Church, disregarded and significantly tinkered with what was handed down to it at Trent. It has continued to do the same into the present. Sweeping away all that happened at Vatican II would not change the world in which we live in any significant way. The liturgical changes were not the cause of the general loss of faith, but reflected causes that were and are widespread and world-wide. The Church became, as Venerable Bede indicated about the English, like the world that follows everything novel and holds fast to nothing. -
Liam
The disintegration of faith practice preceded Vatican II in Europe (arguably, going back to the Napoleonic Wars when religious skepticism became a permanent and open part of European culture and politics, but at the very least by the close of World War I). And it's also affected churches that have not materially altered their liturgies (the Eastern and Oriental churches).
I think we may all agree that the disintegration of the faith preceded VII as pope upon pope was warning us about the evils of modernism that were already attacking her ranks. For those of you who believe that heaven can actually have dealings with and speak to her children throughout all of time, Our Lady of La Sallette also warned us in very strong language about what was befalling us even back to 1847. Then Our Lady appeared in Fatima and again, gave us the same warning. Then in Akita Our Lady warned us of 'fire falling from the sky' and at this moment a global catastrophe is unfolding at that very place and no one seems to think twice about it. But the official departure from Catholic dogma and doctrine as upheld in the Mass occurred in the 20th century as a new rite was foisted upon the Church. -
The Church, or at least the western Church, disregarded and significantly tinkered with what was handed down to it at Trent.
AgreedIt has continued to do the same into the present.
AgreedSweeping away all that happened at Vatican II would not change the world in which we live in any significant way.
It will not be swept away. It seems that it is going to dissolve into a one world religion of syncretism, indifferentism and relativism, and we are fast on the way.The liturgical changes were not the cause of the general loss of faith
And there, my friend, is where I disagree."Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:15
and
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." Galatians 1:8
It is this that the Church will do and continue to do as it has always done, and the gates of hell will not prevail. -
But the Church doesn't do and will not continue to do what it has never always done. There were similar issues in the East. We know from the earliest icons that the sign of the cross was made with two fingers to emphasize the two natures of Christ. The battle over those natures went on for centuries. By the time of the Old Believers in Russia small ritual changes threw them for a loop. Although they were practicing what came from 10th-century Constantinople by making the two-finger sign of the cross, the battle over the natures of Christ had been resolved. The next battle was over the Trinity and the sign of the cross changed to three fingers. A rather small change that Old Believers were willing to fight and die over.
Here is the point. The Faith is not determined by ritual practices (or apparitions) but by teachings handed down by the Apostles. These teachings are reflected in dogma and scripture along with Tradition. In the east we say scripture, tradition and apostolic canons instead of dogma. Ritual is another matter altogether. Some traditionalists after Vatican II have become as ritually obsessed as the Russian Old Believers.Thanked by 1kenstb -
Francis
I am not a skeptic of visions as such. I am a premodern person in the sense that I do experience more than the merely material world, as it were. That said, I don't set too much store by long messages in visions. (The utter simplicity of the message of Our Lady of Lourdes affords a sublime contrast for the modern era.) Because, as noted by the Church and theologians, the transmission of such messages is subject to errors in reception and transmission. The messages are, first and foremost, particularly for the visionaries. They are not revelation as such to the Church at large. While the messages might not contain things that violate the faith, their nature as being directed at the visionary means they can be limited by the particular needs and powers of reception and transmission of the visionary. (I am not even dealing with the much deeper problems such as the involvement of Brentano in trasmitting the visions of St Catherine Emmerich.)
I also have a general spiritual warning system about stirring spiritual neuralgia. Long ago, I realized that my tragic sense of the world and pessimism could rather easily fall prey to spiritual neuraglia, rather than feeding hope and joy as God more likely intended. (The spiritual gift of pessimism is that one can always imagine how much worse things COULD be but AREN'T. I remember one spiritual guide who said that she could recognize a certain kind of Christian who suffered long-term depression precisely because they were transparent with joy.)
-
CharlesW said:
Here is the point. The Faith is not determined by ritual practices (or apparitions) but by teachings handed down by the Apostles.
You are absolutely correct. However, allow me to spin your thinking. Think of it this way instead: The rituals ARE determined by the faith (and not vice versa as you have stated). So very logically, once they (rituals) become dogma (made clear over time and presented to us as absolute truth such as at Trent), faith and dogma are then one and the same and CANNOT be changed.These teachings are reflected in dogma and scripture along with Tradition. In the east we say scripture, tradition and apostolic canons instead of dogma.
Perhaps this is where the rub is. In the RC tradition, dogma is 'divinely revealed truth' and pronounced as such.
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 Discussions21,321
- General Music Discussion7,683
- Job Openings1,347
- Management of Music Programs834
- Choral Matters522
- Church Documents and Rubrics511
- CMAA Notes291
- Events658
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony531
- Hymnody833
- Gregorian Chant: General2,598
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis356
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology58
- Vernacular Plainsong678
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant66
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire417
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,218
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry153
- Music Education: Children205
- Music Education: General216
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism726
- Amusements171
- General Discussion1,003
- Opinions114