Guitar Music at Mass

[bardegaulois]

19 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well why reform the EF@KnightofChrist at all if you there is not something else that is preferable to it?

Or anything that was reformed in the wake of (not by) Vatican II -- higher education, seminary formation, many venerable religious congregations? I'll let the situation of the Church today to her situation on the eve of the Council stand in judgment to that.

Peace, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that many of the revolutionary reforms of the 1960s-70s were advocated for militantly by those who had no real love for the Church and might have been working from within to bring her down. To put a well-known example out there, most of Pope Paul's theologians were advocating that he accept birth control, which he dramatically refused to do with Humanae Vitae. Hitherto acquiescent with the reforms, Paul showed a backbone said enough was enough and after that became an increasingly beleaguered and powerless figure as the tumult and iconoclasm swept the Church internationally. Indeed, he gave a famous address in this period in which he talked about "the smoke of Satan" (yes, not just a bunch of bad ideas, but an operation of supernatural evil) entering the Church. Even the Pope who presided over these reforms was very dubious about them, but ineffective to stop them in the end.

The Church is indefectable, but I ask you if you think this means every bloke with a purple hat and fascia is indefectable. Simple history shows that many influential bishops and cardinals have been grave villains.

[Peace]

25 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

Or anything that was reformed in the wake of (not by) Vatican II -- higher education, seminary formation, many venerable religious congregations? I'll let the situation of the Church today to her situation on the eve of the Council stand in judgment to that.

Peace, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that many of the revolutionary reforms of the 1960s-70s were advocated for militantly by those who had no real love for the Church and might have been working from within to bring her down. To put a well-known example out there, most of Pope Paul's theologians were advocating that he accept birth control, which he dramatically refused to do with Humanae Vitae. Hitherto acquiescent with the reforms, Paul showed a backbone said enough was enough and after that became an increasingly beleaguered and powerless figure as the tumult and iconoclasm swept the Church internationally. Indeed, he gave a famous address in this period in which he talked about "the smoke of Satan" (yes, not just a bunch of bad ideas, but an operation of supernatural evil) entering the Church. Even the Pope who presided over these reforms was very dubious about them, but ineffective to stop them in the end.

Hmm. This rather smells of Ad hominem. What say you @Jack4 judge of logical fallacy?

25 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

The Church is indefectable, but I ask you if you think this means every bloke with a purple hat and fascia is indefectable. Simple history shows that many influential bishops and cardinals have been grave villains.

Nah. But when I am faced with 999 bishops on one hand and the opinion of 1 random person on the internet on the other hand, I am going to have to place my money on the 999 bishops. I hope you won't take that personally.

[KnightofChrist]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Well why reform the EF at all if you there is not something else that is preferable to it?  I think that is rather obvious.

How many EF Masses are offered for every NO Mass?  1 to 50? 1 to 100? I suppose you think that our Bishops prefer the EF somehow given the disparity? The suggestion seems rather silly.

But if you must have something - take a look at the facts. Celebration of the EF came by way of an indult (Quattuor abhinc annos).  Then later it was allowed to be celebrated without the indult by way of Summorium Pontificum, which  states that the NO continues to be the ordinary form of the rite, and then explains various reasons for permitting the EF to be celebrated. . .

But I am sure that @KnightofChrist will correct me if any of that is wrong.

If the EF had not been unlawfully suppressed would it be so unique today? 

Paul VI never suppressed the EF nor Quo Primum which declared it as the universal normative of the Roman rite.

Edited February 20, 2017 by KnightofChrist

[Credo in Deum]

14 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

If the EF had not been unlawfully suppressed would it be so unique today? 

Paul VI never suppressed the EF nor Quo Primum which declared it as the universal normative of the Roman rite.

Exactly. Plus had it not been unlawfully surppressed there would have been no need for Benedict XVI to issue Summorum Pontificum! Aaaand yet he did! 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

If the EF had not been unlawfully suppressed would it be so unique today? 

Paul VI never suppressed the EF nor Quo Primum which declared it as the universal normative of the Roman rite.

Now that's a novel theory.

Regardless, it's been 10 years since Summorum, so that excuse won't fly.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Peace

[Amppax]

You know @Peace, the argument you're making regarding the EF and OF really undermines your other argument regarding the main topic of the thread. Namely, regarding norms vs. exceptions.  

And, in response to your comment about the interpretation of 'pride of place'; I think for the most part I agree with the statement at face value, where I imagine we disagree is on what constitutes 'good reason.' As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that preference is a good reason. 

Though not authoritative document (unless any of you live in the Diocese of Marquette) this document, I think, provides excellent guidelines on sacred music: http://www.dioceseofmarquette.org/images/files/PastoralLetter-RejoiceInTheLordAlways.pdf.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Amppax said:

You know @Peace, the argument you're making regarding the EF and OF really undermines your other argument regarding the main topic of the thread. Namely, regarding norms vs. exceptions.  

Maybe it does.

2 hours ago, Amppax said:

And, in response to your comment about the interpretation of 'pride of place'; I think for the most part I agree with the statement at face value, where I imagine we disagree is on what constitutes 'good reason.' As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that preference is a good reason. 

I probably wouldn't think that preference would be a good reason either, but that is up to my bishop to decide.

2 hours ago, Amppax said:

Though not authoritative document (unless any of you live in the Diocese of Marquette) this document, I think, provides excellent guidelines on sacred music: http://www.dioceseofmarquette.org/images/files/PastoralLetter-RejoiceInTheLordAlways.pdf.

Thanks. Will try to read it when I have a moment.

[bardegaulois]

5 hours ago, Peace said:

Hmm. This rather smells of Ad hominem. What say you @Jack4 judge of logical fallacy?

Nah. But when I am faced with 999 bishops on one hand and the opinion of 1 random person on the internet on the other hand, I am going to have to place my money on the 999 bishops. I hope you won't take that personally.

So, wait... Trying to call your attention to the way the reforms that followed Vatican II, because your writing led me to believe that you weren't familiar with this, is somehow a slight against your character rather than picking out a weakness of your argument?

But I'd dare ask if any argument is even possible here. I'm putting into words what many bishops, priests, and theologians think about the issue of the forms of the Roman Rite and the norms for each. It is not the only view, but it is a valid view, and quite possibly that to which most young men in seminary today hold. I'm not merely putting out the point of view of a solitary crank here, as others emerging here to corroborate my argument will attest.

Then again -- and this is ad hominem -- through your various posts here and elsewhere, you put forward a smug, blithe attitude, you misread and mischaracterize the statements of others to your own advantage, and you display the same sort of bigotry toward more traditional Catholics that you aver that they hold, showing you to be quite a hypocrite. Isn't it always the case that our own sins are those that we critique in others the most?

[Jack4]

7 hours ago, Peace said:

How many EF Masses are offered for every NO Mass?

How many Latin language Masses are offered for every vernacular Mass? 

4 hours ago, Peace said:

5 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

If the EF had not been unlawfully suppressed would it be so unique today? 

Paul VI never suppressed the EF nor Quo Primum which declared it as the universal normative of the Roman rite.

Now that's a novel theory.

"As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted."

 

Pope Benedict, Letter to the Bishops that accompanies the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" Summorum Pontificum on the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970 (July 7, 2007)

 

 

7 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

How many Latin language Masses are offered for every vernacular Mass? 

 

.....(yet Latin, the Church says, is better)

6 hours ago, Peace said:

Hmm. This rather smells of Ad hominem. What say you @Jack4 judge of logical fallacy?

I don't think so, but calling me a "judge of logical fallacy" might be a veiled one indeed.

6 hours ago, Peace said:

But when I am faced with 999 bishops on one hand and the opinion of 1 random person on the internet on the other hand, I am going to have to place my money on the 999 bishops. I hope you won't take that personally.

...I do believe you will take the wonderful +Benedict at his word. 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, bardegaulois said:

So, wait... Trying to call your attention to the way the reforms that followed Vatican II, because your writing led me to believe that you weren't familiar with this, is somehow a slight against your character rather than picking out a weakness of your argument?

I do not recall having written anything about you attempting to slight my character.

1 hour ago, bardegaulois said:

But I'd dare ask if any argument is even possible here.

I think that is what we have been doing in this thread.

1 hour ago, bardegaulois said:

I'm putting into words what many bishops, priests, and theologians think about the issue of the forms of the Roman Rite and the norms for each. It is not the only view, but it is a valid view, and quite possibly that to which most young men in seminary today hold. I'm not merely putting out the point of view of a solitary crank here, as others emerging here to corroborate my argument will attest.

OK. Thank you. Your opinion is duly noted.

1 hour ago, bardegaulois said:

Then again -- and this is ad hominem -- through your various posts here and elsewhere, you put forward a smug, blithe attitude, you misread and mischaracterize the statements of others to your own advantage, and you display the same sort of bigotry toward more traditional Catholics that you aver that they hold, showing you to be quite a hypocrite.

OK. Thank you. Your opinion is duly noted.

1 hour ago, bardegaulois said:

Isn't it always the case that our own sins are those that we critique in others the most?

I do not know if it is always the case, but I would guess that it is most often true.

20 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

How many Latin language Masses are offered for every vernacular Mass? 

I would venture to say that the ratio is about the same.

20 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

"As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted."

 

Pope Benedict, Letter to the Bishops that accompanies the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" Summorum Pontificum on the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970 (July 7, 2007)

Thank you for the quote. Is there are point that you desire to make by it.

20 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

 

.....(yet Latin, the Church says, is better)

Certainly.

20 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I don't think so, but calling me a "judge of logical fallacy" might be a veiled one indeed.

Well that will certainly be the last time that I pay you a compliment.

20 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

...I do believe you will take the wonderful +Benedict at his word. 

I have no reason not to.

[KnightofChrist]

7 hours ago, Peace said:

Now that's a novel theory.

Regardless, it's been 10 years since Summorum, so that excuse won't fly.

But it's not a novelty. Under Paul VI, Archbishop Bugnini, one of the leading Fathers of the OF twice requested for the abrogation of the EF; both requests were denied. Under John Paul II a commission was formed that found the EF was never abrogated and bishops had no right to forbid it. And of course under Benedict XVI the same was found in Summorum Pontificum.

 

[Peace]

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

But it's not a novelty.

@KnightofChrist Your "novel theory" was that the EF was "unlawfully suppressed" and that this "unlawful suppression" has resulted in the extremely low numbers of EF celebration that you see today.

My four word response to all of that is "Show me the money".

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

Under Paul VI, Archbishop Bugnini, one of the leading Fathers of the OF twice requested for the abrogation of the EF; both requests were denied.

I haven't been able to find any reliable information concerning this. Do you have any?

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

Under John Paul II a commission was formed that found the EF was never abrogated and bishops had no right to forbid it.

I haven't been able to find any reliable information concerning Bishops having had no right to forbid the EF prior to the indult.

Do you have any?

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

And of course under Benedict XVI the same was found in Summorum Pontificum.

Well according to people who prefer the EF, Summorum means that a bishop has no right to forbid the EF. What a surprise that is.

The documents themselves do not appear to say that (except perhaps under the conditions set forth in Art. 2 & 3).

It seems rather to me that the bishop still has general authority over the liturgy in his diocese:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html

Quote

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful.  Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity.  Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

I also do not see anything in the articles that says that a bishop cannot forbid the EF in his diocese:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html

Quote

 

Art 1.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage.  These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.

It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy.  The conditions for the use of this Missal laid down by the previous documents Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei are now replaced as follows:

Art. 2.  In Masses celebrated without a congregation, any Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use either the Roman Missal published in 1962 by Blessed Pope John XXIII or the Roman Missal promulgated in 1970 by Pope Paul VI, and may do so on any day, with the exception of the Easter Triduum.  For such a celebration with either Missal, the priest needs no permission from the Apostolic See or from his own Ordinary.

Art. 3.  If communities of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, whether of pontifical or diocesan right, wish to celebrate the conventual or community Mass in their own oratories according to the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal, they are permitted to do so.  If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to have such celebrations frequently, habitually or permanently, the matter is to be decided by the Major Superiors according to the norm of law and their particular laws and statutes.

Art. 4.  The celebrations of Holy Mass mentioned above in Art. 2 may be attended also by members of the lay faithful who spontaneously request to do so, with respect for the requirements of law.

Art. 5, §1  In parishes where a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists, the parish priest should willingly accede to their requests to celebrate Holy Mass according to the rite of the 1962 Roman Missal.  He should ensure that the good of these members of the faithful is harmonized with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the governance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

§2  Celebration according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII can take place on weekdays; on Sundays and feast days, however, such a celebration may also take place.

§3  For those faithful or priests who request it, the pastor should allow celebrations in this extraordinary form also in special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.

§4  Priests using the Missal of Blessed John XXIII must be qualified (idonei) and not prevented by law.

§5  In churches other than parish or conventual churches, it is for the rector of the church to grant the above permission.

Art. 6.  In Masses with a congregation celebrated according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, the readings may be proclaimed also in the vernacular, using editions approved by the Apostolic See.

Art. 7.  If a group of the lay faithful, as mentioned in Art. 5, §1, has not been granted its requests by the parish priest, it should inform the diocesan bishop.  The bishop is earnestly requested to satisfy their desire.  If he does not wish to provide for such celebration, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Art. 8.  A bishop who wishes to provide for such requests of the lay faithful, but is prevented by various reasons from doing so, can refer the matter to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which will offer him counsel and assistance.

Art. 9, §1  The parish priest, after careful consideration, can also grant permission to use the older ritual in the administration of the sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance and Anointing of the Sick, if advantageous for the good of souls.

§2  Ordinaries are granted the faculty of celebrating the sacrament of Confirmation using the old Roman Pontifical, if advantageous for the good of souls.

§3  Ordained clerics may also use the Roman Breviary promulgated in 1962 by Blessed John XXIII.

Art. 10.  The local Ordinary, should he judge it opportune, may erect a personal parish in accordance with the norm of Canon 518 for celebrations according to the older form of the Roman rite, or appoint a rector or chaplain, with respect for the requirements of law.

Art. 11.  The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, established in 1988 by Pope John Paul II [5], continues to exercise its function.  The Commission is to have the form, duties and regulations that the Roman Pontiff will choose to assign to it.

Art. 12.  The same Commission, in addition to the faculties which it presently enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See in ensuring the observance and application of these norms.

 

 

[Amppax]

@Peace regarding the restriction of the EF by the ordinary: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/02/answers-to-dubia-from-the-vatican-about-the-traditional-mass-and-overly-restrictive-bishops/

Now, Fr. Z is obviously one of those people who prefer the EF. However, the link is regarding a response from the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei to just this question. 

[KnightofChrist]

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

But it's not a novelty. Under Paul VI, Archbishop Bugnini, one of the leading Fathers of the OF twice requested for the abrogation of the EF; both requests were denied. (1) Under John Paul II a commission was formed that found the EF was never abrogated and bishops had no right to forbid it. (2) And of course under Benedict XVI the same was found in Summorum Pontificum. (3)

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

1. Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy, Liturgical Press, 1990, pg. 300

2. Cardinal Alphonse Stickler, Latin Mass Magazine, May 1995, pg. 14

3. Benedict XVI, Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, 2007, Art. 1-5

@Amppax beat me too it but the answers to the two 'dubia' by Ecclesia Dei is good source as well.

[KnightofChrist]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Your "novel theory" was that the EF was "unlawfully suppressed" and that this "unlawful suppression" has resulted in the extremely low numbers of EF celebration that you see today.

It's still not a novelty. The EF was unlawfully suppressed when bishops after VII strictly forbid priests and faithful to offer and attend it, even though it was never juridically abrogated. Without which there was no justification for such bans. 

It's also duh duh logic that this suppression greatly reduced the numbers of the EF.