Thu 31st Jul 2014 | Last updated: Wed 30th Jul 2014 at 15:38pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Traditionalists urge Pope: Don’t roll back Summorum Pontificum

By on Friday, 18 February 2011

Bishop Edward Slattery celebrates a solemn high Mass in the Extraordinary Form in Washington (Photo: CNS)

Bishop Edward Slattery celebrates a solemn high Mass in the Extraordinary Form in Washington (Photo: CNS)

Traditionalists around the world are appealing to Pope Benedict XVI not to approve a document rumoured to restrict celebrations of the traditional Latin Mass.

Dozens of people have already signed a petition at motuproprioappeal.com calling on the Pope to oppose a forthcoming clarification on the 2007 document Summorum Pontificum.

The site says it has noted signs that the long-awaited instruction will “take away what you have legally established in th[e] Motu Proprio”.

It adds: “Any restrictive measures would cause scandal, disunity and suffering in the Church and would frustrate the reconciliation you so earnestly desire.”

The petition follows reports on the Rorate Caeli blog that “strange, violent, and dark forces wish to derail the application of Summorum Pontificum”.

According to the blog, reports from different sources suggest “that ill-intentioned people within the highest ranks of the Holy See wish to use the clarification document on Summorum Pontificum as a Trojan Horse, emptying the Motu Proprio of all its content, especially regarding parish priests and other members of the diocesan clergy… This is a dangerous, clear, and credible threat. We must pray, indeed, but all priests and lay faithful must act.”

Pope Benedict’s 2007 Motu Proprio allowed priests to celebrate the traditional Mass without the permission of the bishop. It made clear that parishes could celebrate according to the pre-conciliar form if they wanted to – and bishops would be expected to make provision for it.

  • Profodebookstore

    .What is wrong in ” ecumenical ‘unity in diversity,’ or interfaith ‘we are all the children of Abraham’” ?

  • Anonymous

    Any apostate priest can have the intention of doing what the Church does and bring about Transubstantiation at a black Mass. Ask your priest about it. And, Communion in the hand has greatly facilitated such sacreligious events,or don’t you do research?

    Given your poor understanding of things thus far I would ask that you please do not turn next to lex orandi lex credendi. I simply don’t have the time to constantly exchange with uninformed people. My advice is to take a little time out to look up some of the points I’ve raised thus far. It will spare us both much wasted time and effort.

    Finally, if you want examples of invalid Masses then spend a wee bit of time looking at them on Youtube.

  • Anonymous

    And yet the Pope and the Bishops acted with swift and maximum severity in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, who only acted to maintain the sacred traditions of the Faith. No, there has been insufficient Papal authority exercised in the cases of these Communion in the hand dissenters. Sorry, but that’s a fact.

  • Profidebookstore

    I would suggest that the proper assessment of difference between the Ambrosian and Sarum rites from one side and the OF from another, all in comparison of the former two between themselves and with the latter, plus the comparison of all of them with the EF can be only done by those who are familiar with all of them. Agreed?
    So, do it, but do not come with what somebody else claims without telling us that you used the comparison done by somebody else. Could we learn what have you done thus far?

  • Anonymous

    Well now, if it’s not at all obvious by the mass closure of seminaries and religious houses since the New Mass came in, the loss of vocations, the apostasy of many thousands of priests, and the infidelity to the vow of chastity of many others, then I suppose you should read this comparison of the two rites at the link here: http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/DanGrahamMassdifferences.pdf

    As I keep saying, you should do some research and use your eyes to judge fruits.

  • Anonymous

    Do your research. Read the pre-council Papal Encyclicals and you’ll find out. Also, read that story in the Gospels where the Pharisees claim to be the children of Abraham. Our Lord responds that God can raise up children of Abraham from the stones of the earth. In other words, it means nothing if Christ Our Lord is rejected.

  • Anonymous

    What kind of response is that? Unlike you I do research before writing. Now that’s it! No more from you for a while, please. My email inbox is overflowing with your constant questions and senseless comments. I’m sorry to be blunt, but it’s becomming very wearing.

  • Gordon S

    That is sad Jeannine! Do you believe that praying it in Latin makes it any better? Most people don’t even understand Latin. The celebrant was turned around so he could participate with the people of God. When he had his back turned to the people, participation was not really there.
    Time to move forward Jeannine… blessings… Gord

  • Profidebookstsore

    As far as I can recall, the the question was ” Could we specifically see in the text of the Mass where he actually managed to ruin the essential matters”. I’ll not let you off the hook.
    As for yet another diversion from the subject, it is easy do demolish it, but I want you to admit that you are caught again.

  • Profidebookstore

    “Consider this in conjunction with what St. Paul predicted for the future: “There will come a time when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires they will heep to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and will indeed turn their hearing from the truth but will be turned unto fables.” – That abstract statement can be applied to any situation one does not agree with. For instance, to the false views of the SSPX regarding doctrine on Divine Revelation, its transmition by Tradition, and Interpretation; to their false doctrine on Ecumenism, Infallibility, Religious Liberty, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, Liturgy etc you name it…- all that by using your magisterial interpretation. The latter is one of the best jokes I have heard recently.

  • Profidebookstore

    RE: It isn’t clear etc… I think I now know what you refer to i.e. to the quote in the first paragraph. But no, I meant the three that follow it. I am “glad” to be able to agree with you. The inv. commas, because I am, of course, not glad with the tragic situation you correctly observe.

  • Profidebookstore

    Not reply to the question – cornered again. Try to get out first, and I will corner you again by answering to the yet another diversion.

  • Profidebookstore

    Cornered again. Are you suggesting that you have studied all these rites? Display the the fruits of you “research” (thus far I have seen none, which is pity because what is the point of hiding knowledge)instead of claiming that you have done it.

  • Profidebookstore

    “Your last sentence perfectly sums up the post-conciliar revolution.” Are we to infer that the virtue of the pre-conciliar tradition was – disobedience?

    The Latin Church cannot have two competing liturgical rites based on two different theologies.” I am not sure that it couldn’t if it were true that they were “competing” or “different” because I haven’t consulted the early Latin liturgies. But really, the two terms used are too loose to be of any use. Could we learnd what is in the two liturgies “competing” and what is “different”?

    As for the “theologically correct liturgy” there is nothing in the OF in its Latin text, that is theologically incorrect. If you think that there is, by all means tell us – I have been asking it for quite a while, what it is, and not what “Ottaviani said and Bugnini announced”.

    That the NO has its origins in the Protestant Reformation is not true. The EP II in its substance goes back to the second cent. and the EP III and IV are new. The “new” dooes necessarily mean that it is wrong. The EP III, for instance, matches at least, the Roman Canon, but I can prove, if you wish, why I think it is even better.

    Please, do not live in illusion that I don’t know where you have found the phrase “stroke of genius” and many others that are typical. I am familiar with that book, but have a good personal reason why I cannot explain this further, which I hope you will respect.

    Mgr. Bugnini could announce: “a great conquest of the Catholic Church.” “ – The striking example of obedience to – Bugnini.

    By the way, the libels like “nonsense” – from now on I will end each comment in similar way should labels of similar kind appears again, because it seems that you are encouraged to continue if I keep silent. But I will try, at the same time, to avoid doing anything like that myself. Should it somehow get out of me I will always apologize if you bring it to my attention, as you already know. -….”nonsense” doesn’t enhance the value of your claims, you can rest assured of it.

  • Profidebookstore

    O come on, all your argumentation thus far, has been based on what somebody else says, instead on being based on your direct analysis of the text of the OF itself. The authorities may make an interesting reading, even pleasing to those who find in them a confirmation of what they maintain to be true, but they do not bind me in any way (I don’t mean, of course, the Magisterial authority). Even it the present comment you can’t live without submitting yourself to one of them: Bugnini is your saviour.

    By the way, I can’t recall having ever mentioned the “Papal impeccability”.

    Also by the way, in any debate it is up to the party who proposes a thesis to offer a defence if challenged. You have to prove that what you propose is theologically correct is somebody denies it, and you have to respond to the challenge in that direction, and not divert the subject to something else.
    If I myself put forward a thesis I am willing to listen and answer to any challenge, always trying to avoid changing the subject if cornered, although I haven’t been cornered yet.

    To be more specific, if you claim to know of somthing “theologically erroneous” in the OF, it is up to you to prove it if challenged, and not up to me to prove the contrary. But thus far you have always tried either to change the subject, stop a debate by ending with words like “nonsense”, or to use in deffence of your original thesis a range of additional theses which themselves are challengeable. I still don’t know what is theologically erronous in the OF, for example. And I am not sure that I will ever get it.

  • Profidebookstore

    “If you want more information on this, then do what I do and research.” – You have made the claim and I only need to deny it, to prove that you haven’t proved if you haven’t. But is you want to prove it answer the challenge.
    Sorry, if you read your list again, Bea is the fourth on your list. I took it that the “suspected of heresy” was meant to be the answer to my earlier challenge of your still earlier statement about those who “had succumb to Modernism”, because that was my original challenge, to which you were supposed to respond, and I did not want to appear unnecessarily pedantic at the time.

    But, if you wish me to be more precise, the questions are: (1)what Bea has done or said that justifies the accusation that he “had succumb to Modernism”, and (2)what Ratzinger has said that made him “suspect of heresy” (3)Could we have the document (if it is not again merely what somebody else has said) of the Holy Office in which the phrase “suspected of heresy” appears, because it is quite unusual.

  • Profidebookstore

    The starting point was your mentioning of Ottaviani as an authority, somewhere above recent chain of our exchange when I said that he was not infallible. Although you do not explicitly said that he was infallible, you implicitly insist that he is because you rule out the possibility that his evaluation of the OF is or might be erroneous. The implication of infallibility is what you apply in your challenge of the OF. You would not admit that he is in error, because you would be in error. OK

    All that was necessary to answer my question: “Was he or not” was: “Not”, but in that case your argument from Ottaviani would be defeated. So, you did not answer, but changed the subject to Paul VI.

    Then I said that I wanted to have the answer first, and you now ask ; “What claim was that?”
    The claim was implicit in your unconditional dependence on what Ottaviani said, in your attack on the OF. If you deny this, your reliance on Ottaviani would be worthless as a proof against the OF. So, you have not yet proved anyting wrong in the text of the OF.

    Re: “trap” I will try to avoid the word, and I apologize, as promised. But obviously, my articulation of what I mean will have to be more complicated whenever I have to refer to the same state of affairs, so you will have to read between the lines. As for what follows about Pharisees, it wasn’t necessary, I assure you.

    By the way, any word like “nonsense” etc, that refer to the Holy Father, hurts me personally, not to mention that he has no chance to defend himself. But I will not complain against these: just keep it in mind.

  • Anonymous

    Your question was answered. Follow the link I provided.

  • Profidebookstore

    I will turn to the Lex orandi etc, as soon as we have finished wih the “black” mass. I know that an apostate priest can offer a valid Mass, provided he has intention of doing what the Church does etc., not only from the parish priest but from Fr. Leeming’s (Professor of Dogmatic Theology) study: Principle of Sacramental Theology, revised 1962, in which the matter of validity and intention is dealt with on ca. 100 pages.

    I have to add another word to the list: “uninformed”.

    I am asking for your description of the “black” version of an apostate “mass”, because you did not provide details. If the sole detail is the “transubstantiation” of the already transubstantiated host, as you claimed previously, it wouldn’t be the mass, because the transubstantiation can’t be repeated: Christ is permanently present in the transubstantiated Host. In your case, not only the intention wouldn’t be present but the matter (i..e. bread) would not be used at all. And the intention would be contrary to what the Church does.

  • Jeannine

    Never implied that I liked the Latin & the priest “facing east.” Only saying that the Novus Ordo is flexible enough to accommodate those who like praying in Latin & having their priest lead them to God by facing the tabernacle.

    The Catholic Church is flexible enough to accommodate both the traditionalists & those who prefer to worship in the vernacular language. Isn’t that great!!

  • Profideookstore

    The example of the Abp Lefebvre is not the good one because he has excommunicated himself by violating the Canon which stipulated latae sententiae (i.e. authomatic) excommunication. The Pope would have to overrule the Canon he himself has put in force. Can you imagine the consequences had the Pope done so? There are many dissenting bishops who would follow the Abp.’s example, and the Church would end up in a complete havoc. But, really this is another topic.

    Regarding the Pope’s dealing with disenters, what would you do in his place? Supposing he acted “with swift and maximum severity” and yet the bishops chose to disobey? What you would do next? Remove them? He would have to go through the whole procedure of finding another. And what if the deposed would declare that the deposition was “unjust, null and void”? What if the clergy would refuse to obey the new bishop? Come on, my friend, you live in another world, if you think that everything would work well if the Pope use you recipe.

    Thousands of innocent ordinary Catholics would suffer from such an irresponsible exercice of Papal power, as now suffers the substantial part of Europe because of the “swift and maximum” excommunication of Luther.

  • Anonymous

    It’s not just about language, it’s about Catholic theology. Only Protestant ministers faced the people before the New Mass, and the reason they did that was to enhance their rejection of Transubstantiation and a priest offering sacrifice to God at the head of the people. For them, it was all about a spiritual meal, not a sacrifice. At no time in the history of Jewish worship or Christian worship had the priest faced the people.

    Besides this, the wording of the New Mass (words of consecration apart) is also based on the Protestant service. Latin won’t change that Protestant orientation.

  • Profidebookstore

    Paragraph 1 is ok.
    Paragraph 2: EP II might perhaphs have some Protestant aspects, but it is “we offer …” after consecration that kills your thesis. Protestants wouldn’t have it. – EP III is, I would say, better than Roman Canon; in any case it matches it; EP IV is also ok.

  • Profidebookstore

    The question is not answered by providing links. It is up to you to provide the relevant extracts, if you have read it at all.

  • RJ

    Profidebookstore: thank you for your posts here.

  • Profidebookstore

    “traditional Catholic militancy in the upholding and teaching of divinely revealed truth, “whether in season or out of season”. It leaves no room for concession to heretics and schismatics in what pertains to their eternal welfare. That’s not propaganda, it’s fidelity and it’s true charity! ”
    COMMENT:
    …and perptuation of the state of affairs which is contrary to the will of Christ who prayed that all be one, scandal to the non-Christian world, obstacle to spreding the Gospel, and the very Mark of the Church, i.e. her Catholicity, Universality, is ridiculed by the tact that so many believe to be the followers of Christ while at the same are divided, hostile in fact at times. All that as if the the work for unity requires justification, and not the maintaince of division; i.e. as if the latter were leasurely optional.

  • Auricularis

    Nobody said Cardinal Ottaviani was infallible – that is a straw argument you composed. As a Cardinal of the church, however, his words do carry a degree of weight, which you might like to dismiss but which others don’t

  • Auricularis

    Profide – if you actually read the Ottaviani Intervention, it deals with the actually ordinary of the mass and the text itself.

    There have also been numerous books on the the texts themselves. If you google the website Dr. Lauren Pristas of Caldwell College, New Jersey, USA – you will see that she has done a paper comparing the collects of the old rite to the new and you can see the striking differences (even between the Latin of both rites).

    Dr. Pristas website: http://faculty.caldwell.edu/lpristas/

  • Profidebookstore

    It isn’t strew argument in the contex of Martyo unconditional reliance on Ottaviani, and his reluctance to be more specific. Being a Cardinal, his words must of course damand attention, but ultimately, what he actually asserts about the OF has to be judged on its merits, not on the mere fact that he says so. The trouble is that the “traditionalists” refuse to judge him on his merits, many even don’t read what he has actually said but rely on reports by others, and put him in opposition to the Pope whose words do carry a greater weight. And I am sure, that the Cardinal would have never said what he has said, had he known that his words would ba abused to attack the Pope. At best he would have assured 100% confidentiality. Incidenally, his alleged document has been known to me since 1972 at the latest, and I have read it. What I have is “his” letter in English with “signature”, to which then the document of the unknown personalites is attached.

  • Dio

    Oh, the two rites may be equal in terms of canonical law, and – grudgingly – even I accept the NO as “valid” (potentially). But there is NO question as to which is the more beautiful, more reverent, more transcendend and more SACRED rite… hint: it is the one ALL my ancestors for over a thousand years knew…

  • Dio

    LOL – you´re over fifty, right? Hint: so are the bishops. YOUNG people LOVE the Tridentine Mass, once they get a chance to know it… it´s only the Vat2 Generation that can´t get to grips with the fact that their favourite fad is slowly and deservedly DYING.

  • Guest

    The official language of the Latin rite is Latin. All official documents of the Church continue to be written in Latin. Priests throughout the world continue to learn Latin. You talk as though Latin was abolished after Vatican II. It wasn’t. Furthermore, we are granted Masses in the vernacular by indult; the official versions of the Roman Mass are in Latin. The Latin Mass is not a ‘backward step’ because we have always had the Latin Mass and we always will.

  • Profidebookstore

    I replied to your first paragraph about the reading. I know that “the Ottaviani Intervention… deals with the ordinary and the text” and rubrics if I may add, but
    (1)He nowhere says that he has actually examined each particular item listed therein.
    (2)Surely, not all the items listed are relevant for his thesis in No. 2 of his letter, and some of it might be a an irrelevant nonsense.
    (3)He restricts himself to the “theology of the Mass as it was formulated” by Trent, and takes no consideration of theology that developed subsequently.
    (4)He treats the theology of the Mass by the Eastern Catholic Churches who have restored the unity with the Latin Church since Trent, as non-existing, and if we believe that he has checked all points personally, I have no confidence in his knowledge of Eastern Liturgies.

    But that apart, the text 1069, which was analyzed by theologians, and which he refers to, was not the final text 1970. To establish what was the difference in details of the text itself of the Mass would be huge task, and I wonder if anybody has done it. So, Ottaviani is of no use.

    If you wish to argue that something is wrong in the text/rubrics as they stand now, forget about Ottaviani. All I need is to know what is wrong with the text as we have it now. If you wish to make some Ottaviani’s points your own you don’t have to mention him, I will consider them, but I do not want Ottaviani as Ottaviani in this debate.

    Likewise, I am not going to read the recommended literature. If you want to use it yourself as yours or as adopted by you as yours, by all means do it., and we can discuss it as yours. Otherwise, scrap it.

    In sum, if you insist that something in the OF is wrong – prove it; don’t look for ecape in Ottaviani or Pristas. That applies to Martyo too.

  • Louise

    i didnt mean to say i liked you comment!!!! I dont know how you can call yourself a catholic. you need to read about what the church has always taught. GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED!!!!!!!!

  • Saxotelephone

    Tricky, this one. As a traditionalist I rather enjoy the Latin Mass – although I’ve only been priviledged to attend one, in Spain, which was an exception and I rather suspect purely for the tourists. In terms of the incense and marble Catholicism which I’m quite a fan of the Latin Mass is wonderful and quite beautiful. But the Latin Mass isn’t really a part of living Catholicism, which is perhaps the thing that we should all be sticking to. I don’t mind the idea of some parishes having one Mass in Latin once a week, one a weekday, simply for fun. But I also don’t want a return to a Catholicism too different from the people, which Latin Mass is somewhat sympotomatic of.
    Latin Mass is a nice thing, but it isn’t a necessary one, and hardly something that we should all be losing sleep over.

  • Anonymous

    Excuse me if I’m missing something, but how exactly is having Mass in a language that celebrants can understand mocking God? I thought He quite liked speaking, as it were, to His people – if they can’t understand Him there is really very little point.
    P.S. A single exclamation mark is more than suffiecent.

  • Auricularis

    So you’re basically saying you can’t be bothered to read the evidence presented to you. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Your post above just sums up that you are just being plain contrary – trying to control the debate and plugging your ears with your fingers saying, “I can’t hear you…”

    May I just say that the onus is on you to prove that the texts of the ordinary form of the mass are better than the extraordinary form. Many of the liturgists of the church, who have been praised by the current Holy Father, have said that objectively the extraordinary form better expresses the entire church’s theology of the mass and transubstantiation.

    And what is this new theology that has “developed subsequently” about the mass? The church cannot change her teachings to suit an age or a particular group of people.

  • Auricularis

    So are you trying to say that the Ottaviani Intervention wasn’t written by Cardinal Ottavaini himself? Please give me a break.

    You take the liturgical reform as if every change made is guaranteed free from error from the Holy Spirit – not true. The only thing we can say is that God won’t not allow his church to approve of a rite that is invalid. It does not follow from therein, that any changes made to a rite of mass are necessarily good because they happen to be approved by a pope. History has alone taught us that many prudential decisions of the pope have been for the worse – but what’s new? St. Peter made a lot of mistakes in his own time too.

    Papalotry is not a virtue.

  • Dantenuovo

    The Church is not a democracy so stop with the petitions. We bellow when liberals issue petitions to the Pope why are we different? The Pope is pope and what he is led to legislate we are obliged to accept and follow. Jesus STILL does guide us through Peter.

  • Nat_ons

    Latin, Greek and Hebrew are not better for prayer than Aramaic, Gaelic or any Tongues. However, the traditional languages of the Western Liturgy are the languages that Vatican II required should be used, shared and taught .. and that included Paul VI’s New Order of the ancient rites. The local vernacular did not replace these traditional language, they were incourged where need required – it was the implimentation that obliterated the ancient tongues (and replace the Council’s requirement that the Parish Priest should ensure his people could join in their use).

  • Dr Russell J Berry

    Good old Papa Ratzinger, allowing the True Mass to be celebrated in public. Sure doesn’t it bring tears of filial devotion to the aged eyes? No. It does not. Why my seeming ingratitude? Firstly, nobody was ever able – ever had the power or authority – to abrogate or suspend the ancient Roman Rite of the Most Holy Sacrifice of The Mass and substitute for it a neo-Cranmerian style of Communion Service. Bugnini was a heretic, the Novus Ordo was put together by Protestants and heretics and Paul VI was a Jaques Maritain type liberal who believed in all sincerity that making the mass into a more ‘ecumenical’ service would serve as you-come-inism. He was wrong and I am sure he regretted his material heresy and is, as we must all hope and pray, forgiven by the infinite mercy of God. The ‘Church’ in the Vatican, its neo-Bishops and neo-Presbyters have stolen the bithright of members of the western Church. Souls have been defrauded and those who must answer wear mitres and chasubles as they perform their neo-Protestant worship service. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi? This liberal protestant rite does not signify what the sacrament contains and therefore does not contain anything more than it plainly signifies – the commemorative Lord’s Supper. Idem for all the other bowlderised neo–sacraments. A fig for Papa Ratzinger and his motu proprio. A fig for his new sacraments and his heretical heirarchy. What the Church has always believed and done, that will I believe and do and so, by the ineffable Grace of Christ’s Body and Blood and the intercession of the Saints will I finish my days. Enim vobis do quod ego enim recepi. I pray when God looks me in the eye and asks ‘What did you do with your baptismal grace?’ I will be able to say “Here, look at this stained batismal robe. Forgive my having stained it but I have tried to keep it. Here is the light you gave me – it is a mere stub of the candle I received but, see, it shines still’. How many presbyters and new Bishops will say the same?

  • Dr Russell J Berry

    The point is that the point is NOT either Latin or ‘backs to the people’. If you believe that then you have missed the point and you have swallowed the false idea that the Novus Ordo Missae is a translation of the Catholic Rite of Mass. It is no ‘translation’, as anyone with an atom of Latin can see. It is not Catholic, as anyone who understands that a sacrament must signify what it contains can see. It is the fruit of the work of Archbishop Cranmer of England – a heretic and a protestant, pure and simple. Archbishop Bugnini and his coetus of six Protestant Ministers tarted up Cranmer’s “Last Supper Service”. That is all it is. Until you grasp those simple facts the argument will be forever unfruitful.

  • Dunstan Harding

    Most so-called “traditionalists” are prepared to go over the wall anyway. They’ll never accept the Pope’s moderate views toward liturgical reform. Pope Benedict is going to end up disappointing many with reforms of the 1962 rite AND Paul VI’s Novus Ordo. That will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

  • Dunstan Harding

    Wrong again Maryjo. Facing the people did not start with Protestants. Despite the erroneous historical arguments of Monsignor Gamber and his disciple, Pope Ratzinger, the liturgy facing the people can be dated as far back as the Roman liturgy of North Africa. We have architectural and archaelogical evidence of it.

  • Anonymous

    I would like a little more than just your word on that, Dunstan. I mean, “archaelogical evidence” (?) tells us that the world is millions of years old, and that the Shroud of Turin is a middle ages fake. Now we know these claims are untrue, so the old “archaelogical evidence” thing doesn’t do it for me, I’m afraid.

    What about some written Church sources? That would be proper evidence, but even if that were available it still wouldn’t alter the fact that the Protestants returned to early forms (and perverted them) precisely as a means to undermine the sacrifice of Calvary and Transubstantiation, which agenda the liberals copied. Pius XII called it the error of Antiquarianism, the cutting down of the great tree of the Gospels in favour of a return to the mustard seed. Back to you!

  • Dr Russell J Berry

    Dear Martyjo

    I understand your feeling the need for proof, In these days of mendacious Cardinals and thieving Bishops, who can be surprised? The problem is, Dunstan has right on his side…..there is nothing I can do to change that but it does not justify breaking up sacrificial altars and replacing them by Last Supper tables, which is what has happened…

  • Anonymous

    Dear Dr. Berry

    Much as we are in agreement on the main point, which is all important, I stand by my belief that Dunstan is wrong in his assertion regarding Mass facing the people. Archaelogy, much as I love the science, is often more speculative than conclusive, and sometimes completely wrong, as in the examples I have given above. Therefore, I would require proof from Church rather than scientific sources on this one.

    Other than that we are in complete accord, the sacrificial high altars in our Catholic churches have given place to Cranmer’s meal table. It is the Reformation revisited, no doubt about it!

  • Dr Russell J Berry

    Dear Martyjo

    We are agreed on the main points, I am sure, in this and, God willing, in all else. My support for the ‘archaeological’ argument was intended only to be for what was written about (some) ‘finds’ in North Africa. No further and nothing more.

    Kyrie eleison

    Russell Berry

  • Dr Russell J Berry

    Problem is that new vatican ordering removes the Tabernacle from the space above and behind the altar and orders it set apart in a dignified place…..like a piece of pretty porcelaine or the bust of a pagan god. The Tabernacle (tent) has no place in he woeship of the New Order…. just as it had no place in Cranmer’s beautiful and dignified Communion Service. Choose, then: The Holy and Ineffable Sacrifice of the Mass or Bugnini’s adaption of Cranmer’s godly order. A no brainer for any catholic, surely….?

  • Anonymous

    Dear Dr. Berry

    Yes, we are generally agreed in what is most important. God bless you.