A thought on the Liturgy

[CatholicCrusader]

Just google "Bugnini" and "Freemason"... there are thousands of articles you can read. Here is just one I picked out. It is short, so it only touches briefly, but it does the trick: [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1076137/posts"]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1076137/posts[/url]

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 30 2004, 02:33 PM'] I believe the Eucharistic Prayer is the whole prayer, while the Prayer of Concecration (which has not changed) is the words of Christ said by the Priest. "On the night He was betrayed...Hoc est enim Corpus Meum..." etc. [/quote]
The consecration prayer was changed.

But you are correct that there is a difference between the Eucharistic Prayer (the Canon of the Mass), and the actual consecration. The consecration takes place within the canon.

[popestpiusx]

Amarkich,

The issue of who was on the various committes is irrelevant, and in some cases, built on speculation. What you attemmpting to do is show "guilt by association", which is not a very convincing argument in this case because you still must deal with the intention of the Church that promulgated the N.O. It is certainly useful to examine the motivations of some of the "reformers", but not conclusive. (As a side note, the most damning thing ever written about Bugnini was his own memoirs entitled "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy". It is quite the quite the long work, around 900 pages. I guess he liked to talk about himself. He was a rather pompous fellow.)

Bugnini's intentions would only go so far. Regardless of what he wanted to do (which was much more than he got away with, by his own admission), when the N.O. was promulgated, it was done with the intention of the Church (notwithstanding any human intentions to the contrary, either explicit or implicit, of any of the reformers themselves); that is, to offer the Sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner for the remission of sins. If this was not the intention, then it is not valid. But any other intention would have been impossible.

I think it is best to weigh the Mass on its own merit; that is, to look at the issue of true organic development and at the specific changes. It stands or falls on its own apart from who organized it.

[cmotherofpirl]

Thank you Pius

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Dec 1 2004, 12:23 PM'] First, the "Tridentine" rite Mass was based on a formula "made up" by Alcuin (during the reign of Charlemange (sp)) from combining a bad copy of papal liturgical rites, gallican elements, and things he quite simply made up. If you can't accept the "innovations" of the current missal, ho can you Alcuin's innovations?

[/quote]
According to whom? It would have been quite difficult considering that the development of the Roman Rite both predated Alcuin and postdated him by several hundred years. He either exceptionally old or your information is incorrect. Or perhaps the terms being used are not clear to me (such as Tridentine and "made-up").

[quote]Second, I think the current missal looks a lot more like the liturgies we find in Hippolytus and Justin Martyr than the missal of Pius V...if one is going to argue that the current missal isn't an organic development from the Pius V missal because it looks different, than you will have to admit that the Pius V missal is not an organic development of the liturgical rites in the early Church.[/quote]

Two points here. First, Hippolytus was an anti-pope who is only a saint as a result of his conversion back to the Faith, and eventual martyrdom, while in a salt mine with the real pope (Pontius).

Second,
Even if your assessment of the early liturgies is correct (which I do not believe is the case) to develop implies a certain amount of growth. The early liturgies would have been in infant form, much like the Church. Like a body, they grew and developed in grandeur (as a result of their eventual freedom to celebrate the liturgy in more fitting surroundings and with more fitting "festivity") and theological
precision (as a result of various heresies that arose as well as more complete theological understanding of the mysteries being celebrated). To suggest that a return of the liturgy to some sort of early simplicity is an organic development would be like suggesting that returning a full-grown man to the size he was as an infant could somehow be an organic development. The only way it could happen is by doing great violence to the man, by removing his arms and legs and whatever else. He would still be a man, but what have we done to him? The Mass is still a Mass, to be sure, and as such is infinitely meritorious. But what essentially happened to the ritual was removing almost everything that had developed organically over the course of 1965 years, while leaving enough that it could still be valid and vaguely recognizable as a Mass.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Dec 1 2004, 10:01 AM'] No, my logic is: the Liturgy developed organically. [/quote]
Are you sure? . Eucharistic prayer II came out the same way that the "traditional prayer" did. It was written by someone.

[quote]The use of "Eucharistic prayer II" (an under-developed Canon, so to speak), was dropped, and the Canon was accepted throughout the Latin Rite.[/quote]

How is it under-developed? So it's different. By your argument, whatever Mass used it before was under-developed by that same logic.

[quote] That was an organic development. The entire Liturgy organically developed.[/quote]

How? It was codified by a council. I bet it too was writtin, just as are all Masses. The Novus Ordo is a combination of the better parts of many Masses. It is set up almost the exact same as the Tridentine, putting more things into it (such as the language) and more prayers, probably written by various people in history.

[quote]My logic is to stick to what is organic, and throw out what is inorganic (Novus Ordo).[/quote]

How do you say that the Novus Ordo is inorganic? It came directly from the Tridentine with some minor changes (new prayers here and there, old prayers from different places, the vernacular as stated by Trent, etc.) The facing of the Priest is not intrinsically a part of the Novus Ordo. The various abuses are not either.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 1 2004, 12:31 PM'] The consecration prayer was changed. [/quote]
The Latin looks the same to me...

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 1 2004, 04:07 PM']
How do you say that the Novus Ordo is inorganic? It came directly from the Tridentine with some minor changes (new prayers here and there, old prayers from different places, the vernacular as stated by Trent, etc.) The facing of the Priest is not intrinsically a part of the Novus Ordo. The various abuses are not either. [/quote]
I posted on that above.

[qfnol31]

[quote]To suggest that a return of the liturgy to some sort of early simplicity is an organic development would be like suggesting that returning a full-grown man to the size he was as an infant could somehow be an organic development. The only way it could happen is by doing great violence to the man, by removing his arms and legs and whatever else. He would still be a man, but what have we done to him? The Mass is still a Mass, to be sure, and as such is infinitely meritorious. But what essentially happened to the ritual was removing almost everything that had developed organically over the course of 1965 years, while leaving enough that it could still be valid and vaguely recognizable as a Mass.[/quote]

I think that the Novus Ordo done correctly could be more ornate than the Tridentine. I think they put away part of the false mystery, but most Priests and people miss the true mystery now. I just wish we could have a new Mass sometime.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 1 2004, 05:21 PM']
I think that the Novus Ordo done correctly could be more ornate than the Tridentine. I think they put away part of the false mystery, but most Priests and people miss the true mystery now. I just wish we could have a new Mass sometime. [/quote]
"False mystery"???

When was that thought up? By neo-cons trying to defend the de-ritualization of the Mass??

And as far as the Consecration--the Latin is not the same: MYSTERIUM FIDEI is taken out competely, but since everyone knows there are hardly any Latin NOs, the mistranslation of pro multis is another problem... 99.9% (or more) of NO Catholics go to a vernacular Mass w/a vernacular Consecration that says "for you and for all".

[qfnol31]

By Ratzinger.

Can you show me a side-by-side comparison of the two please?

[CatholicCrusader]

For the Consecration of the Chalice:

Traditional Latin Mass: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.

Novus Ordo: hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

-----
Edit:

Novus Ordo from catholicliturgy.org

TLM from unavoce.org

Edited December 1, 2004 by CatholicCrusader

[Fool4Christ]

"Rome has spoken; the matter is settled."



These words of St. Augustine resound throughout the centuries to this day. Why is this such an issue? What is there to argue? Do you presume to disagree with an Ecumenical Council of Bishops of the Catholic Church?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Fool4Christ' date='Dec 2 2004, 01:46 AM'] Do you presume to disagree with an Ecumenical Council of Bishops of the Catholic Church? [/quote]
No. But how is this relevant? The council didn't create the N.O.

[p0lar_bear]

popesaintpiusx,

Basic liturgical history shows that Charlamagne sent Dennis the Deacon (or was it Peter...) Anyway, he send a deacon to Pope Hadrian to ask for a copy of liturgical books because the liturgies outside of the areas directly affected by Rome had some seriously messed up things in their liturgies because each priest just did things as best as he could remember. (wow, run.on).

So Hadrian sent a copy of liturgical rites. Unfortunately, it was a bad copy of papal liturgical rites (not exactly what one would use for a normal Sunday Mass). Charlemagne then had Alcuin use the rites provided by the Pope to develop an acceptable liturgical form which would then become mandatory.

The Tridentine rite is [i]not[/i] synonymous with the Roman rite. The Tridentine rite was the form the Roman rite took after the Council of Trent (Tridentine=Trent). The Roman rite did exist before Acluin, but it was not universally used. After Acluin finished his book of liturgical rites, most the elements worked their way back to Rome. The rite that was written after the Council of Trent was based primarily on the rite written by Alcuin.

Hippolytus was not an anti-pope when he wrote this. There is no evidence that his descriptions are not historically accurate.

To be continued...I'm ill and am too tired to finish right now...