Paris Notre Dame fire
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    As I understand it, permission to celebrate the Latin Mass has been repeatedly denied by two successive bishops in our diocese. Nuff said.

    As far as Cranmerianism, well...

    http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    You don't need the permission of the bishop. You need a place and a willing priest.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    The willing priest was “moved”.
  • As for intent - as I was taught long ago (by my Anglican priest when I was yet an Anglican), an individual priest can intend any number of things; but he speaks the intended words of the Church and speaks them on behalf of the Church. It is the Church's intent which is operative. A priest who alters the Church's intended words is a rogue and a wolf in sheep's clothing acting outside the authority to which he was ordained. I stand to be corrected by one more competent in these matters than I.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    That's my understanding as well, Jackson.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    The priest(s) I spoke of intended to change the words. Crackers. (Both he and the hosts) NO, of course. We love innovation!
  • Francis -
    If a priest intends to change the text, he thereby expresses his own belief rather than the Church's and the mass is therefore not valid. Only the Church's text and intent make a valid mass.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    Yes, Jackson. He was Intentionally moved :).

    If a priest intends to change the text, he thereby expresses his own belief rather than the Church's and the mass is therefore not valid.
    Jackson... does that apply to Pope Paul VI (and Bugninni’s) New Mass? According to Quo Primum, that could be the case.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    Quo Primum was a decree by one pope not binding on his successors. There is nothing infallible there.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    So then, under that thinking, the NO may also suffer the same fate.

    However, I am not convinced that Quo Primum has been abrogated and we have all been living under a false illusion.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    There is no difference in Pius V promulgating a liturgy which he codified and Paul VI doing the same. Neither seems to me to be infallible articles of faith.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    Quo Primum was a decree by one pope not binding on his successors.
    This is contrary to what the Pope put in the infallible document of Quo Primum...

    However,

    First of all, for the sake of argument, let us assume that it was something merely disciplinary. It would not follow logically, therefore, that the creation of the Novus Ordo was permissible. Because the Church's doctrine regarding liturgy is formulated in many pronouncements-----infallible pronouncements-----before Quo Primum was ever issued.

    It was the Council of Trent that solemnly declared anathema-----that is, it is a heresy-----to say that any pastor in the Church, whosoever he may be, has the power to change the traditional rite into a new rite. This is found in Session 7 Canon 13 on the "Sacraments in General:"

    "If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."

    For six hundred years, the Popes made a solemn profession at their Coronation, a public and solemn profession, that they did not have the power to change the liturgy. Then they invoked the wrath of God upon themselves if they should dare to change it or allow anyone to change it.

    I think we may be seeing the wrath of God today.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    I think the argument is that on matters of rubrics and liturgy, one pope doesn't have the authority to bind his successors. That would be contrary to the authority of both previous and later popes.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    I think the argument is that on matters of rubrics and liturgy, one pope doesn't have the authority to bind his successors. That would be contrary to the authority of both previous and later popes.
    And where does this argument originate? Your authority must be more than "I think".
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    Pius himself rearranged and re-structured the liturgy. Why would he have an authority that none of his successors would have? This is rubrics and liturgy, not articles of faith.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,908
    Charles, the NO has a number of Cranmerian elements, principal among them the vernacular.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,863
    There is no difference in Pius V promulgating a liturgy which he codified and Paul VI doing the same. Neither seems to me to be infallible articles of faith.


    The key difference here is the Liturgy promulgated by Pius V was the liturgy already in use by the Canons of Rome, unfortunately they had a simplified liturgy to fit in to their travel arrangements. As for Paul the VI, his liturgy was not in use anywhere although elements had been practiced by the disobedient for a few years before hand. I will point out that some of the prayers were made up in a pub in Rome....
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    Perhaps in retrospect, but it is hard to believe those German bishops cared about Cranmer. My guess is they were drawing on Luther more than Cranmer.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    The key difference here is the Liturgy promulgated by Pius V was the liturgy already in use by the Canons of Rome,


    For a while. The liturgy used by the Canons of Rome was not the liturgy that existed in the 5th and 6th centuries. Someone changed it. Pius was endorsing an already changed liturgy.

    I don't see accepting changes from those you like and approve of, yet not allowing anyone else to make changes. Again, liturgical rubrics are not on the same level as doctrine.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,863
    @CharlesW I am told that some of Cranmer's attempts do a better job than the framers of the N.O. Some of his prayers have even found their way into the Ordinariate... As for Luther he is in the running for being one of the most repellant figures from history. Looking at how German protestants voted 80 years ago no wonder they liked Luther so much.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    Charles

    Then how does one refute this kind of argument (which includes footnotes and references?) All you have said is, "I think"...
    It has been perpetually the teaching of the Church that Catholics are bound to their customary rite. That is why, in the controversy regarding Greek versus Roman rite, which was settled by the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV, the Council solemnly defined that the Greeks are to confect the Sacraments of the Eucharist according to their customary rite and therefore, they must use the leavened bread. In the Roman Church they must follow their customary rite of their ritual church, which is the proper rite of the Roman Church.

    This is what the faith dictates and decrees. That is why it has always been regarded as an act of schism if even a Pope were to attempt to change the rites, to alter the ceremonies of the liturgy. The Popes have solemnly professed for so many centuries that this is not within their power. This is also taught by the official designated theologian of the Council of Basel [which eventually moved to Florence and became the Council of Florence]. This theologian, Cardinal Juan de Torquemada, was the theologian responsible in the formulation of the doctrines that were defined at Florence. Torquemada explains that if the Pope were to change the rites, or attempt to change the rites, he would be committing an act of schism.

    Thus, regardless of Quo Primum, it had been a well established teaching of the Catholic Faith that the Roman rite cannot be trashed and replaced with a new rite. To do so is contrary to the law of God as defined by the infallible Magisterium of the Church.

    Beyond that, however, when we look at Quo Primum, we see that Pope St. Pius V refers to the Roman rite as that rite "which has been handed down in the Roman Church." He was clearly designating that the rite in the Missal that he codified is precisely that rite which is the customary rite, "the received and approved rite customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments." [Trent, Sess. 7, Cn. 13]

    Therefore, the so-called Tridentine Rite of Mass is the only lawful rite that can ever exist in the Roman Church. The Tridentine Rite is the Roman Rite. And just as it would be considered absolutely outrageous for anyone to try to impose a new rite [or even the Roman rite] on the Greek Church, likewise, it is an outrage for anyone to impose a new rite on the Roman Church.
    Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., S.T.L. [Can.]
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,863
    For a while. The liturgy used by the Canons of Rome was not the liturgy that existed in the 5th and 6th centuries.


    But it is remarkably similar, I do not count the Propers / Calendar as that is specific to each region of Europe. The Sarum is different from the Gallican etc.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    Charles

    The liturgy always developed organically, only revising or codifying to become more crystal clear. The essence was never altered. Not so with the new mass. Paul the VI himself said it was an entirely new rite. It's in his first paragraph, first sentence. Clear and unadulterated statement of departure.


    CHANGES IN MASS FOR GREATER APOSTOLATE
    Pope Paul VI
    Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969
    Our Dear Sons and Daughters:

    1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].

    2. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.

    3. It is at such a moment as this that we get a better understanding of the value of historical tradition and the communion of the saints. This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed—perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them. This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.

    4. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect...


    Key give-away phrases:

    "...turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite."

    " This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice..."

    "... A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries."

    "... the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed..."

    "... It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits."


  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    By the way, Luther and Cranmer are two sides of the same heretical coin. Why pit one against the other?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    The problem is the misapplication of the rite. A recent convert and I were comparing the Tridentine and the Novus Ordo - NO as it should be celebrated - and the differences were barely noticeable. Granted, there were no Tridentine externals and not all of the music, but the rites were essentially the same. Use Eucharistic Prayer I - I have no idea why the other three were added - follow the rubrics and other than not using Latin, the differences are minor.

    I would hold that a future pope could cancel either or both the liturgical decrees of Pius V and Paul VI. Will it happen? Who knows?

    Interesting discussion, but I am off to practice for the Easter Vigil.
  • About Cranmer vs. Luther there is all the difference in the world.
    Luther rejected totally and out of hand any notion of sacrifice, and his orders of worship contain no eucharistic prayer at all - only the words of institution.

    Cranmer and the BCP, on the other hand, like the Anglican Church in general, could never make up its mind whether it was Catholic or Protestant (and has historically somehow tried to be both). Cranmer's eucharistic prayer as found in the BCP, in opposition to Luther's orders, quite boldly endorses the concept of sacrifice and pronounces the sacred species to be the very Body and Blood of Christ. This is reinforded in the Prayer of Humble Access, a Sarum prayer which Cranmer borrowed to be said by the priest before receiving (it is now said by all in most places).

    The concepts of transubstantiation and sacrifice (which countless Anglicans believe) is so strong and plain as the nose on one's face in the BCP's eucharistic prayer that I have heard low church priests take pains to stress (as if to comfort or reassure their people) before the communion that we are not actually drinking Jesus' blood - which denial is anathema, repugnant, and faithless to Anglo-Catholics.

    One will find no such expressions of transubstantiation or sacrifice in any Lutheran orders of worship. Luther and Cranmer are as different as night and day.
    Thanked by 2Marc Cerisier SarahJ
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,908
    German bishops [did not care] about Cranmer


    You have zero evidence for that claim, Charles. Next you'll be claiming that the Muzzies torched Notre Dame, or St. Sulpice, or the Twin Towers, or something.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    Cranmer rejected the Mass as propitiatory sacrifice re-presented daily along with transubstantiation and more.

    Here is one of many treatises on the subject.

    https://history.hanover.edu/hhr/00/hhr00_1.html

    Beyond rejecting the doctrine of the real presence, Cranmer also rejects the doctrine of Transubstantiation.10 Besides simply affirming the physical presence of Christ in the Sacrament, the doctrine of Transubstantiation offers an explanation of how the real presence occurs. Transubstantiation explains Christ�s physical presence in the Sacrament in terms of Aristotelian philosophy: in the Eucharist, the �accidents,� the outward appearance, of the bread and wine remain the same after consecration by the priest, but their substance, their essential nature, change from bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ when they are consecrated by the priest.11 Cranmer attacks this doctrine, suggesting that it is �not the Doctrine of Christ, but the subtle invention of Antichrist, first decreed by Innocent the Third.�12 He suggests that Jesus� words from the Last Supper cannot be taken literally and that the notion that the substance of bread and wine can change, while the accidents remain the same is against reason. Additionally, he argues that Transubstantiation detracts people�s attention from worshipping God and encourages them instead to focus on the physical elements of the Sacrament: �The final end of all this Antichrist�s doctrine is none other, but by subtlety and craft to bring Christian people from the true honoring of Christ, unto the greatest idolatry that ever was in this world devised.�


    A treatise by Michael Davies asserts the same.

    http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ambiguity.htm
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • True enough Francis -
    The curious thing about Cranmer is that what he professed to or not to believe is the direct opposite of what he wrote in the BCP.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    Keep in mind there was a little thing called the revolution in England. The whole Anglican church took a sharp turn into Presbyterianism.

    Next you'll be claiming that the Muzzies torched Notre Dame, or St. Sulpice, or the Twin Towers, or something.


    Now we all know it was a feminist TLM advocate burning her mantilla in protest.

    I still hold that German bishops were more affected by Luther, humanism, and secularism than Cranmer. I find no evidence Cranmer gained much traction in German and Dutch areas.

    I could add to this the effect of 19th century Protestant German theologians.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    Charles

    It doesn’t really matter. It’s all heresy.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    Doesn't 'heresey" make the candy bars?

    Just kidding. ;-)

    You are correct, of course. It is all heresy.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,908
    In passing, we note that the Usual Suspects killed 200+ Catholics and tourists in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) on Easter morn. Apparently these fellows were on holiday from France.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    Repeating part of an earlier post:

    Finally, I saw all who were separated from the Church plunged into the depths of infidelity, superstition, heresy, and false worldly philosophy; and they gave vent to their fierce rage by joining together in large bodies to attack the Church, being urged on by the serpent which was disporting itself in the midst of them. Alas! it was as though Jesus himself had been torn in a thousand pieces!
    Bl. Emmerich, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ

    I apologize if this now seems quite graphic concerning today’s events.

    Sancte Michael Archangele,
    defende nos in proelio;
    contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
    Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur:
    tuque, Princeps militiae caelestis,
    Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos,
    qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo,
    divina virtute, in infernum detrude.
    Amen.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    Charles... Hershey... used to be in my back yard when I lived in Maryland (and was an organist for the first Cathedral of the USA. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_the_National_Shrine_of_the_Assumption_of_the_Blessed_Virgin_Mary_(Baltimore) Bought one today for a good friend. Happy chocolate day!
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    Nice. Beautiful building. Yeah, I am a big chocoholic. Love the stuff.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • A few quotes :
    - From eastern Europe, excluding GB, the active part of church during concile Vatican II and preparation of NO was the "ligue du Rhin" (in french). Cranmer was definitely not the central figure. Being myself french, I had not much knowledge of him.
    - Pius V considered that all rites older than 3 centuries (e.g. ambrosian in Milano, lyonnais in Lyon, Dominican in O.P. etc... could be kept in use. Then for all others, he had the old rites codified and not invented or written. Nothing new in his ordo missae. This is different in NO, that has been written under questionable influences.
    - Then, NO as well as tridentine masses are valid. as said higher, within the conditions of material, form, minister, intent. Intent means that the minister has to have the intent of doing what the Church wants. For instance, a priest validly ordained, but having lost his faith, can validly celebrate a Mass, if he intends to do what the church wants, i.e. the sacrifice of Christ and the consecration of the Bread and Wine.
    - But crakers, no. Chocolate bread (chocolatine) no. Even for chocoholics:-)
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    Nothing new in his ordo missae. This is different in NO, that has been written under questionable influences.


    My point that although not totally new, Pius V codified what had already been changed since the fall of Rome. The clergy and people of 5th Century Rome would not have recognized the codified liturgy of Pius V. Some elements existed, but not necessarily in their Tridentine form. Those early liturgies were more alike than different from east to west across the empire.

    Agreed on Cranmer.

    Chocolate: Do they sell Hershey's chocolate in France? Hershey's is a large American chocolate company.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Carol
    Posts: 575
    Why would anyone by Hershey bars in Europe when European chocolate is definitely superior?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    Who knows what brands Hershey may own in Europe? They sell in the UK and do have a tie-in with Cadbury to market their products in the U.S.

    Belgian chocolate is good, but I still buy Hershey's since I bought them as a child.
    Thanked by 1Carol
  • "It has been perpetually the teaching of the Church that Catholics are bound to their customary rite. That is why, in the controversy regarding Greek versus Roman rite, which was settled by the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV, the Council solemnly defined that the Greeks are to confect the Sacraments of the Eucharist according to their customary rite and therefore, they must use the leavened bread. In the Roman Church they must follow their customary rite of their ritual church, which is the proper rite of the Roman Church."


    For a long time, maybe, but "perpetually?" Impossible.

    The eucharistic liturgy began with a single event, the precise externals of which were not preserved in all subsequent iterations. At some point, there was a divergence, and some localities began using leavened / unleavened bread.

    This was not only OK, but so OK that later generations found themselves bound to observe this divergence under church law.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,870
    This was not only OK, but so OK that later generations found themselves bound to observe this divergence under church law.
    precisely. And each one is bound to their customary rite.

    “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

    (And I might wager that that includes anathema) Which means we really need to pray hard for popes and bishops (which is why I make these by the dozens) [see attached]

    https://ebay.us/cIoFyb
  • Most of us were likely aware that Christmas Mass was not celebrated at Notre Dame for the first time in nearly 200 years, due to the ongoing work and safety issues.

    Now seeing that there is concern that there is apparently a 50/50 chance that the existing structure may not be saved. Interesting read...

    https://www.breitbart.com/news/notre-dame-rector-fragile-cathedral-might-not-be-saved/

    PARIS (AP) — The rector of Notre Dame Cathedral says the Paris landmark is still so fragile that there’s a “50% chance” the structure might not be entirely saved, because scaffolding installed before this year’s fire is threatening the vaults of the Gothic monument.
    Monsignor Patrick Chauvet said restoration work isn’t likely to begin until 2021 — and described his “heartache” at not being able to celebrate Christmas services inside Notre Dame this year, for the first time since the French Revolution.
    “Today it is not out of danger,” he told The Associated Press on the sidelines of Christmas Eve midnight Mass in a nearby church. “It will be out of danger when we take out the remaining scaffolding.”
    “Today we can say that there is maybe a 50% chance that it will be saved. There is also 50% chance of scaffolding falling onto the three vaults, so as you can see the building is still very fragile,” he said.
    The 12th-century cathedral was under renovation at the time of the accidental April fire, which destroyed its roof and collapsed its spire. One of the toughest parts of the cleanup effort is cutting down the 50,000 tubes of old scaffolding that crisscrossed the back of the edifice.
    “We need to remove completely the scaffolding in order to make the building safe so in 2021 we will probably start the restoration of the cathedral,” Chauvet said. “Once the scaffolding is removed we need to assess the state of the cathedral, the quantity of stones to be removed and replaced.”
    He estimated it would take another three years after that to make it safe enough for people to re-enter the cathedral, but that the full restoration will take longer. President Emmanuel Macron has said he wants it rebuilt by 2024, when Paris hosts the Olympics, but experts have questioned whether that time frame is realistic.
    Unable to celebrate Christmas in Notre Dame this year, its congregation, clergy and choir decamped to the Saint-Germain l’Auxerrois Church across from the Louvre Museum instead.
    Parishioners at Christmas Eve Mass shared sorrow about the fire, but also a feeling of solidarity.
    “I remember my mother told me that she was watching TV, and that there was a fire at Notre Dame. I told her ‘it’s not possible,’ and I took my bike, and when I arrived I was crying,” said Jean-Luc Bodam, a Parisian engineer who used to cross town to attend services at the cathedral.
    “We are French, we are going to try to rebuild Notre Dame as it was before, because it is a symbol,” he said.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    I read the fire was started by a workman smoking. I have worked on and off again for a large government corporation that builds things. No construction site I have been around would even allow such mismanagement. Someone wasn't doing their job where safety was concerned.

    The thing I worry about least is the ND congregation. They will be fine, are resilient people, and there are a number of churches and buildings in Paris that can accommodate them during reconstruction.
  • Francis,

    eBay says the page you linked to doesn't exist.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 238
    eBay says the page you linked to doesn't exist
    Not so strange after eight months - in terms of the pace of changes in secular vs. catholic (even post-VII) affairs...
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,515
    When the fire happened, I was at the gym with earbuds watching TV while exercising. I immediately paused lifted weights and watched. I was shocked when news of the fire was televised on the screen. Being a news channel, they covered it well. It was one of those events you never think will happen.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 7,286
    This is good news, indeed! I have seen drawings of some of the moderne ideas put forward for the cathedral's 'restoration' and they were, each one of them, horrifying. One can breathe a sigh of relief. These, after all, are the same people who stuck a sleek glass pyramid in the courtyard of the Louvre. Such people will do anything - as long as it's chic. Thank goodness for President Macron's wisdom.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Jackson,

    It is good news, indeed, but I would be hard pressed to credit Macron's wisdom.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw