Wed 30th Jul 2014 | Last updated: Tue 29th Jul 2014 at 16:36pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Traditionalist group granted formal status within the Church after a four-year wait

By on Wednesday, 15 August 2012

The community pictured yesterday, the day of their canonical erection (Photo courtesy of Brother Martin Mary)

The community pictured yesterday, the day of their canonical erection (Photo courtesy of Brother Martin Mary)

A traditionalist group based on an island in Scotland has been formally established as an institute within the Catholic Church.

The Congregation of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, also known as the Transalpine Redemptorists, was erected today, on the feast of the Assumption, as a Clerical Institute of Diocesan Right.

The community, which has about 15 members, has been in limbo since 2008 when it announced that it wished to enter into full communion with Rome.

The group’s decision was a response to Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, which allowed priests to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass freely.

Previously, the community had been a part of the worldwide Society of St Pius X (SSPX), the estranged traditionalist group currently in dialogue with Rome.

Next Wednesday evening, August 22, the community are to make a public profession of vows at their home on Papa Stronsay, a tiny, windswept island in Orkney, off the north-east of Scotland. The profession will be celebrated by Bishop Hugh Gilbert OSB of Aberdeen, who, as their diocesan bishop, granted them canonical recognition.

Bishop Gilbert was ordained as Bishop of Aberdeen exactly a year ago, taking over from Bishop Peter Moran, who had retired.

  • JabbaPapa

    The documents of Vatican II have various titles – Dogmatic Constitution,
    Decree, Declaration, Pastoral Constitution – and no explanation has
    been given as to the degree of authority these represent.

    Generally speaking — Authoritative.

    http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0406657.htm

    New expressions of old doctrines enjoying infallibility remain infallible.

    Any individual teaching described in any of the texts as being infallible or various synonymic phrases must be held as infallible.

    Any teachings clarified as such at a later date by the Pope, the CDF, or any other Authoritative statement of the Magisterium is also infallible.

    (but these are the exceptions, not the rule)

  • awkwardcustomer

    Charles, you’re quite right.  Here’s what Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, architect of the New Mass said:

    ‘We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.’

    L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

     

  • awkwardcustomer

    You said, ‘New expressions of old doctrines enjoying infallibility remain infallible.’

    Why does an infallible doctrine need to be expressed in a new way?  If it’s infallible, then it’s infallible.

    And if a new expression of an old doctrine, if this was ever necessary, changes the meaning of that doctrine to such an extent that that it is no longer recognisable, does infallibility still apply? 

    I thought that no Pope had the authority to change an infallible doctrine.

  • JabbaPapa

    You seem to be saying that lay Catholics aren’t capable of understanding Papal Encyclicals.

    No — but you do raise an interesting point.

    First — Mortalium Animos is quite clearly a pastoral and disciplinary declaration in essence, not a dogmatic one — though it *does* contain dogmatic reminders of why non-Catholic doctrines are rejected by the Faithful, and these teachings are just as perfectly true now as they were in 1928, and nothing in Vatican II has changed that fact.

    Second, though — Mortalium Animos is NOT a document that is binding upon the Magisterium. It does not forbid the Church itself from taking part in such associations and gatherings, it only forbids Catholics from doing so, in general — as well as providing that Pope’s considered and serious views on the nature of those associations and gatherings.

    Hence, it does not forbid future Popes or future Councils from making further declarations, or even contradicting the Encyclical, because there is nothing unique to that text alone which could be described as infallibly binding on the Faith.

    Third — Ecumenical Councils are of Higher Authority than the great majority of Papal Encyclicals. Exceptions would include a Papal Encyclical describing an infallible doctrine ; a Papal Encyclical clarifying the doctrinal understanding of the Church of teachings provided by such a Council ; and so on.

    In this particular case, the Authority of Vatican II is certainly greater than that of Mortalium Animos.

    Fourth — Mortalium Animos nevertheless remains in force, at least to the extent that without a specific pastoral permission, Catholics do in fact remain forbidden to attend such gatherings, and exactly for the reasons provided in the Encyclical.

    Some particular ecumenical groups, such as the one at Taizé, enjoy the benefits of a permanent pastoral permission to attend them — this is not the case for every happy-clappy inclusive modernist group sprung up like a mushroom in your back yard, and asking you to come dance with them to the strains of Shine Jesus Shine.

  • MaryJSalassie

    Wagwan!

  • awkwardcustomer

    But Vatican II was pastoral and non-infallible, as you agreed earlier.  And you say that Mortalium Animos  ‘does not forbid the Church itself from taking part in such [Ecumenical] associations and gatherings, it only forbids Catholics from doing so’.  But how can the Church take part in such gatherings without Catholics also being present?

    The point I’m making is that before the Council, Ecumenism was discouraged and even condemned, whereas after the Council, Ecumenism is practically written in stone.  We could argue for a long time about which of these positions has the greater Authority, since neither is infallible.  But it’s obvious that something radical has happened and that this is the result of a pastoral, non-infallible Council which many people think is also practically written in stone.  The fact is – it isn’t!  The more important questions are – How did this happen?  And why?

  • JabbaPapa

    But Vatican II was pastoral and non-infallible, as you agreed earlier.

    Actually I said : Vatican II was not a dogmatic council per se, but it *did* promulgate doctrines.

    And I’d never describe an entire Council of the Church as non-infallible, because Councils taken as a whole must be considered by Catholics as being infallible as a whole.

    This does not require that all teachings provided by Councils are also infallible.

    And you say that Mortalium Animos  ‘does not forbid the Church itself
    from taking part in such [Ecumenical] associations and gatherings, it
    only forbids Catholics from doing so’.  But how can the Church take part
    in such gatherings without Catholics also being present?

    It can’t — but the Church has since defined those cases where Ordinaries are authorised to allow Catholics to attend any such gathering or group.

    What I meant was that Mortalium Animos did not define its own teachings as being a part of the Deposit of Faith — but only as pastoral and disciplinary teachings to Catholics.

    The point I’m making is that before the Council, Ecumenism was
    discouraged and even condemned, whereas after the Council, Ecumenism is
    practically written in stone.

    I think that’s an inaccurate assessment.

    The Holy See was certainly very wary of Ecumenism, just as the Church as a whole continues to be wary of it — but in the 50-70 years leading up to the Council, the disagreements in the Church concerning Ecumenism slowly evolved towards a grudging (albeit limited) acceptance of it.

    Which continues to be the state of affairs.

    OK, many very liberal Catholics might view the doctrine as “set in stone” — but such views are inaccurate.

    Ecumenical celebrations continue to be merely tolerated, and in a very conditional manner — with no special permission, Ecumenical celebrations continue to be forbidden according to the terms of Mortalium Animos.

    A proper Ecumenism can only be conceived IMO (and here I’m NOT describing Catholic doctrine as I understand it, but my own personal views) as a broader method of Catholic Catechism and Evangelisation, directed preferably to those non-Catholic Christians closest in their Faith and Liturgies to the Catholicity.

    We could argue for a long time about which of these positions has the greater Authority, since neither is infallible.

    The Authority of an Ecumenical Council is extremely elevated, and is superseded only by a very few sources of higher Authority.

    A pastoral Encyclical such as Mortalium Animos simply does not qualify. Ab contrario, Mortalium Animos should in fact be understood in the light of the *doctrinal* teachings of Vatican II (and I mean BTW the *real* teachings, not any of that dismal “spirit of V2″ waffle).

  • JabbaPapa

    Why does an infallible doctrine need to be expressed in a new way?  If it’s infallible, then it’s infallible.

    The main reason is linguistic shift — doctrines expressed in 18th or 19th century language could be falsely understood as teaching something else entirely when understood via the distorting prism of 21st century vocabulary and grammar.

    And if a new expression of an old doctrine, if this was ever necessary,
    changes the meaning of that doctrine to such an extent that that it is
    no longer recognisable, does infallibility still apply?

    The doctrine remains infallible regardless of which words have been used to describe it — in the case of a doctrine that were badly translated into contemporary language, the words describing it would be flawed, and one would therefore normally expect a clarification of the doctrine to be forthcoming at a later date from the Pope or the CDF.

    I thought that no Pope had the authority to change an infallible doctrine.

    We’re not talking about “changing”, we’re technically talking about paraphrasing.

  • JabbaPapa

    Well, good points — but I wasn’t talking about any drastic redefinition of the Mass, just a different structural focus.

    In a good rendering of the Novus Ordo, the use of the vernacular gives a greater life to the first part of the Mass, as people engage with the Evangelisation — whereas there’s less sense of a clear structural break when all is given in the Latin (but often more sense of the numinous).

    That’s not to say the break isn’t there at all !!!

    Another point is that when the Mass is given in the vernacular the duration of the first part of the Mass is typically lengthened in relation to the second.

    Another point is that in Novus Ordo Masses given in the vernacular, but including the proper degree of Latin suggested by Vatican II and by the general provisions of the Missal, then there is frequently an overall linguistic switch between the two halves of the Mass ; Vernacular for the readings, Latin for the Sacrifice (as a bit of a simplification, but never mind)

  • awkwardcustomer

    How can a non-dogmatic Council promulgate doctrines?
     
    Why must Catholics take as infallible a Council declared by Pope Paul VI to be non-infallible? 
     
    Of course, we could have exactly the same discussion on Religious Liberty, Collegiality and the Novus Ordo Mass. 

  • awkwardcustomer

    Surely all you have to do is refer back to the Latin, since Church documents are still published firstly in that language in order to avoid the kind of linguistic shift you refer to.

  • awkwardcustomer

    Actually Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty finds its foundation in the Liberal concept of human dignity.

  • awkwardcustomer

    Interstingly, in your reply to Charles above, you pointed out that ‘theoretically all may attend’  the first part of the Mass - the readings, chants etc -whereas ‘theoretically only the baptised may attend’ the second part of the Mass which is the Sacrifice.  Then you added that ‘this is informed by the structures of the Mass as celebrated in Antiquity.’

    Quite right, except during a Mass celebrated in Antiquity, the non-baptised ie the Catechumens were invited to leave before the Sacrifce, to actually exit the Church.  And according to a lapsed Orthodox friend of mine, this is still the practice in the Russian Orthodox Church.  After the chants and readings, the announcement is made ‘Let the Catechumens depart.’  Do you know any more about this?

    Sorry, but I can’t resist making the point that if the Novus Ordo was as faithful to the Mass of the early Church as has been suggested, then this ancient practice of asking the non-baptised to leave after the chants and readings would also have been revived. 

    One thing is certain though.  Mass facing the people was never the practice of the early Church.  Which also suggests that those who compiled the Novus Ordo were a bit selective when it came to following the ritual practices of Antiquity. 

  • Adrian

    As a recent convert, I can tell you that I attended a Novus Ordo mass and thought to myself, this reminds me of a Lutheran mass. Where is the reverence and sense of being with God that I hear about. Then I attended a Traditional mass at a FSSP church and wow. I couldn’t believe the sense of the presence of God. I have since done what I can to become a Roman Catholic. I drive two hours every Sunday to go to mass and it makes my week for me. Hopefully in the next few months I will get the opportunity to take part in Holy Communion. 

    It is a relatively new parish but it is doubling in size every three years. Of the people I talked to last Sunday, three quarters of them were converts and none through marriage. It is truly exciting. 

    Personally, the Novus Ordo may be more like the original mass but as we know, the church has evolved over the centuries and under the Latin mass it became the largest religion in the world. Now the church as a whole is in chaos as we see the rebelious priests in Austria and Ireland. The split being developed through the LCWR. Less than 25% of Catholics attend mass, most Catholics don’t believe in all the church teaches, and much more. In 1962 prior to the change to the Novus Ordo, 85% of Catholic attended church every Sunday, and most would consider themselves ‘devout’. I think the mass in the vernacular has seperated Catholics into various languages (not one language in mass), various beliefs, and various levels of spirituality. 

    Just my take as a convert from what I see coming in from the outside.

  • JabbaPapa

    How can a non-dogmatic Council promulgate doctrines?

    1) Because not all doctrines are dogmatic ones.

    For example, the doctrine that priests may not marry, is a purely disciplinary doctrine — but it’s *still* a doctrine of the Faith ; and one BTW that can be disagreed with, due to its non-dogmatic nature.

    2) Because “doctrine” simply means “teaching(s)” — all teachings of the Church,n whatsoever their origin, are “doctrines”.

    3) Because just as a dogmatic Council can provide some individual pastoral teachings, so can a pastoral Council provide some individual dogmatic ones.

    4) Because the actions of an Ecumenical Council are defined by that Council’s own sovereignty, not by any kind of a priori or a posteriori definitions.

    Why must Catholics take as infallible a Council declared by Pope Paul VI to be non-infallible?

    Paul VI did NOT declare the Council to be non-infallible, you’re not looking at his statement carefully enough.

    He said : “given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an
    extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility”

    The Council avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary manner doctrines endowed with infallibility does NOT mean that some of those doctrines were not endowed of ordinary infallibility, nor that the Council as a whole should therefore be viewed as “fallible”.

    It is a VERY frequent mistake in contemporary Catholicism to view infallible versus fallible as two neat halves fitting snugly and cosily together.

    No — it is required of Catholics to give their assent to ALL of the teachings of the Church, instead of imagining themselves as completely free to ignore or deny any fallible ones that they may happen to dislike personally.

  • JabbaPapa

    Surely all you have to do is refer back to the Latin, since Church
    documents are still published firstly in that language in order to avoid
    the kind of linguistic shift you refer to.

    1) In fact, some Church documents are originally published in French or Italian, or even Greek or Hebrew for some of those dating from Antiquity (the Hebrew ones being mostly Scripture admittedly)

    2) To answer your question, well sure, I myself can do so — but then I’ve been educated in Latin. (and French and Italian, plus a smattering of Greek)

    This is unlikely to be of any assistance however to Jim and Jane Catholic and their children, as they strive to live their Faith in the hustle bustle of a modern life with its modern concerns and difficulties.

    No, they need clear and easily accessible teachings written in their own contemporary vernacular ; not some dusty old doctrinal debate requiring some sort of Masters Degree in whatever subject of relevance, nor mastery of several centuries’ worth of ongoing subtleties in linguistic shift.

  • JabbaPapa

    Quite right, except during a Mass celebrated in Antiquity, the
    non-baptised ie the Catechumens were invited to leave before
    the Sacrifce, to actually exit the Church.  And according to a lapsed
    Orthodox friend of mine, this is still the practice in the Russian
    Orthodox Church.  After the chants and readings, the announcement is
    made ‘Let the Catechumens depart.’  Do you know any more about this?

    The ritual space “inside the Church” is currently defined as the area comprising the Tabernacle, Altar, and Congregation area.

    Individual shrines in the building not used during the Mass are “outside”, and any free walking areas to the sides and back are also “outside”. The baptistery should normally be located in this “outside” area.

    Actually, I’ve been a catechumen, so yes I know a bit about this !!! :-)

    At certain points in the Liturical calendar during the pre-catechumenate and catechumenate itself, the catechumens ARE in fact required to go “outside” during the Mass.

    This is usually purely symbolic in the Western Church — but I myself, after I became aware of all this, would actually ensure that I attended the Mass sitting in a chapel, not the main congregation area ; and I would step out of that Chapel into the walking area to the side during the entirety of the Eucharist, so as to be “outside” not “inside” — to this day, after receiving Holy Communion, I meditate or pray in that same “outside” area, in remembrance that I was a catechumen and have been blessed in having been baptised.

    But then again — after you have formally entered into the Catechumenate, and been consecrated with the Oil of the Catechumens, you are actually, alone among non-baptised, permitted to attend Mass — in fact, only catechumens among non-baptised can ever participate in Mass as celebrants, though this is very exceptional, as they do for example during the Chrism Mass, where they carry the unblessed oils in formal procession during the Mass to their Bishop and their clergy. Been there, done that :-)

    (this does however all take place very late in the Catechumenate, during the final Advent period prior to baptism)

    A consecrated catechumen may “participate” in the Eucharist, receiving a blessing for conversion rather than taking Communion.

  • JabbaPapa

    Not theologically it doesn’t !!! :-)

  • Teigitur

    On the money!

  • awkwardcustomer

     ‘…the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person….’.  Decree on Religious Liberty, para 2.

     

  • awkwardcustomer

    Sorry, but there’s no room to reply

  • awkwardcustomer

    Religious assent and being bound to believe are not the same.

  • awkwardcustomer

    Ad populum has no ancient origin.

  • Sweetjae

    Though I share your concern and also pains me deeply of those Modernist clergy who are not being faithful to their holy vows of purity and obedience to the Teachings of the Church nevertheless we should be careful to properly distinguish between the Teachings of a duly ratified and valid Council (VII) and the sinful acts including the twisted interpretations of VII that was borned by the freewilll of men (modernist clergy) with liberal agendas. There is no relation whatsoever! This is where the SSPX and Sedevacantists have made a terrible error.

    It’s like blaming the Doctrine of Indulgences promulgated by the Council of Constance to the revolt of Martin Luther….the baddest fruit in my opinion!

  • Sweetjae

    With all respect, why do you give to much credence to what Bishop Bugnini had said in the past? Firstly whatever he said about the Mass is not the position of the Church and secondly, he was not the Pope nor the Magisterium of the Church.

    It’s like when St. Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the assertion of due worship of the images and relics (nails, fragments of the Cross) of Christ. They all didn’t get into the official teachings of the Church not even under the Ordinary Magisterial documents. If the angelic Doctor could make a mistake what more are the so called traditionalist clergy?

    So trust the Church not what this liberal or traditionalist bishop said this or that!

  • awkwardcustomer

    Sorry for my rather cursory first reply to your very informative response on your experiences as a Catechumen.  I was also a Catechumen, in a tiny parish with a tiny church with no side aisles or side chapels, so what you describe would not have been possible.  I had no idea that ‘at certain points in the Liturical calendar during the pre-catechumenate and catechumenate itself, the catechumens ARE in fact required to go “outside” during the Mass’, as you describe.  I know people who have been through the RCIA course and don’t remember them mentioning this.

    However, I seem to remember from my reading of Mgr Klaus Gamber that in the early Church, the non-baptised were required to remove themselves to the external courtyard in front of the  church building, which one had to pass through before entering the church itself.  But my copy of the book in question has done a disappearing act, as some books tend to do.

    You describe as a ‘sensible, elegant, simple’ solution the arrangement whereby ‘a priest celebrating Novus Ordo but with his seat placed in the area between the altar and the congregation.  So naturally, when addressing the people, he is ad populum ; when addressing the altar, the tabernacle, and God, ad orientem.’

    The problem here is that the priest has his back to Our Lord in the tabernacle during the first part of the Mass.  So in order to address the people he has to turn his back to Christ.  To my mind, a far more ‘sensible, elegant, simple’ solution is the one in which both priest and people face the same direction.

       

  • JabbaPapa

    Awkward :

    Religious assent and being bound to believe are not the same.

    Oooh !!! Correct !!!

    We are bound by necessity to _believe_ only the dogmata, and those of the doctrines specifically and clearly described as being necessary to the Catholicity de fide.

    Nice !!! You’re upping the game !!!

    :-)

    hrrrrmmmmmmmmm, this is NOT actually frivolous work — a clear framework does in fact need to be established by someone of what constitutes the difference between the various forms of licit or illicit private or public dissent with any doctrine(s).

    The Vatican II Council is IN NO WAY foreign to such a pastoral framework.

  • awkwardcustomer

    Because what Archbishop Bugnini said and did in the past affects what happens in the present.  The New Mass and the reformed Catholic Liturgy were directly influenced by Archbishop Bugnini, who was:

    - the Secretary of the Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy which drafted the document which later became ‘Sacrosanctum Concilium’, Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy;

    - the Secretary of the Concilium responsible for implementing the above, after the Council

    We live with the results of this so why not be concerned as to how these reforms came about? 

    Archbishop Bugnini is also quoted as describing the liturgical reform as ‘a major conquest of the Catholic Church.’ (1974)

    (cited by Michael Davies)
    http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/revolution14.htm

  • JabbaPapa

    The only conquest of Novus Ordo is its vernacular, but yes — that *IS* major !!!!

  • JabbaPapa

    Untrue, sorry.

    It is more ancient than ad orientem.

    The very first Mass in History was given by Christ to the Apostles quite obviously ad populum.

  • JabbaPapa

    And the doctrine of the dignity of the human person is founded on the dogma of Free Will !!!!

    I mean, you can try the infinite recursion game if you want — but there is no way that you will ever be able to come up with a formulation denying that Free Will is the basis of every human freedom, including religious freedom.

  • awkwardcustomer

    You refer to the last Supper at which Christ and the Apostles would have followed the seating arrangements at meals of the time, according to my missing Klaus Gamber book that is.

    Christ and the Apostles would have sat around three sides of the table and the food would have been served from the fourth side.  Christ and the Apostles would have faced the same direction ie that from which the food is served. 

    This seating arrangement was the basis for the first Masses in which priest and people faced the same direction.  Have you ever visited the Catacombs?  The altars are all against the wall so that priest and people faced the altar together.  The altar was orientated to the east in the belief that Christ will come again from the east, and that when He ascended to Heaven, He ascended towards the east.

     In Leonardo da Vinci’s depiction of the Last Supper, Christ and the Apostles are all facing the same direction. 

  • awkwardcustomer

    There’s no room for an ‘infinite recursion game’.  But this has been very interesting, anyway. 

  • Sweetjae

    Even if Bishop Bugnini was the pope of that time, he would not succeed in his plans to subvert the Holy Mass, NEVER! It would be like Pope Honorius’ legacy. (Honorius “error” is not the Official Teaching whereas the VII is an Official Teaching of the Church). Moreso, I also don’t give too much credence to Michael Davies though he’s a good catholic and loved Sacred Tradition but he’s not the Magisterium, he got some misplaced and unwarranted accusations against a duly convened Council of the Church and 5 Pontiffs.

  • Daclamat

    What’s the difference between a crocodile and an alligator, leaving aside the issue of the caiman for the moment?

  • Sweetjae

    Did you notice the words of Bishop Lefebvre? “it is an error that every word uttered…”, yes it is right however, we are not talking about mere musing or opinions of the Pope here, rather a duly convened Council of the Church with the Pope as the presiding head carries with it the full authority of the Church that is BINDING to all Catholics. There is nowhere to be found in Tradition that just because the nature of a Council is pastoral, one could refuse obedience to it, this is a common error found in some traditionalists circle.

    The contradiction is not really a contradiction but rather due to 2 things, 1.) the way some interpreted some documents of VII not in conformity with the light of Tradition rather their own malicious intent to advance their liberal agendas. 2.) the contradiction is sometimes due to the flawed interpretation of past Tradition by some ultra traditionalist based on their own presuppositions.

  • Sweetjae

    Well said! Moreso, every human being created at the moment of conception has been endowed by God of his/her human dignity. Read Jeremiah 5. If one strips a man of this dignity inherent in his nature as human beings in the image of Him whether or not the man is a catholic, made him no different than any animal or brute that crawled on earth.

    The dignity (conscience, rational thinking, emotions, and freewill) makes us unique from the rest of the animals.

  • JabbaPapa

    Well, the ad orientem position is ALSO of very ancient origin, so that it is unsurprising that even the earliest purpose-built places of Christian worship included such arrangements.

    But a more typical seating arrangement at the Passover Feast can be seen here :

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RxHRT71SqUU/S7FNdoQFPfI/AAAAAAAAA9w/p6SWuwEb4Yo/s1600/passover.jpg

    The only description of relative seating arrangements that I can find in the Gospels is :

    Luke {22:26} But it must not be so with you. Instead, whoever
    is greater among you, let him become the lesser. And whoever is the
    leader, let him become the server.

    {22:27} For who is greater: he who sits at table, or he who serves? Is
    not he who sits at table? Yet I am in your midst as one who serves.

    Thing is — the whole point about ad orientem is to symbolically face towards God, and in the Mass towards the tabernacle and the consecrated Host contained thgerein — but in this first Mass God Himself is there in their midst as living flesh and blood, Himself facing naturally ad populum.

    I mean OK, this is something that could literally be debated to and fro for centuries ; and in fact, it has been already ; All that I was saying though is that both attitudes are of very ancient origin — little arguments about which came first put me in mind of that one about the chicken and the egg.

  • JabbaPapa

    However, I seem to remember from my reading of Mgr Klaus Gamber that in
    the early Church, the non-baptised were required to remove themselves to
    the external courtyard in front of the  church building, which one had
    to pass through before entering the church itself.

    This is correct — and the older purpose-built churches have a baptistery located outside the church, in a separate building, for this very reason, that even attending the Eucharistic celebration required baptism, so that it couldn’t be bestowed during the Mass in the early Church.

    I can’t remember, if I ever knew, when exactly this changed to being a question of ritual spaces “inside” and “outside” the church building, but it is generally the case in mediaeval and later churches that the baptistery is in a separate quasi-chapel just inside the church besides the main entrance, therefore “outside” the ritual space of Congregation and Celebration.

    Some contemporary church buildings have a baptistery slap bang in the middle of the ritual area, and whilst there’s of course nothing wrong with baptisms being given right in front of the altar during Mass, the lack of a possibility of baptising the offspring of the “less regular church-goers” in a space ritually “outside” the Congregation in these contemporary church buildings isn’t really a positive.

  • JabbaPapa

    Q : What’s the difference between a crocodile and an alligator, leaving aside the issue of the caiman for the moment?

    A : You can’t see an alligator’s teeth when it’s mouth is closed; its
    lower teeth fit snugly into pits in the upper jaw. In contrast, a
    crocodile’s lower teeth are always visible

    Contrast with Anti Moly, whose teeth are visible either in the mouth, or in the glass by her bedside.

  • Daclamat

    They don’t half look daft!

  • GODKNOWS

    Amen.   This was done supposedly to try and re-unite the Protestants into the Catholic Church .  Not only was it a failure:  it alienated millions of faithful Catholics (like me) whose foundation of faith  was the Latin Mass.   For the past fifty years many faithful have simply wandered away like lost sheep while homosexuals and liberal modernists invaded the Church.  Pope Paul VI stated it best when on June 30, 1972 he said “The smoke of satan has invaded the Temple of God”.

    http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/3rdsecret2.asp?  

    For those who say that the “essence” is the same:  it is not.  The Novus Ordo is a MAN CENTERED MASS.   The Latin Mass is a GOD CENTERED MASS.  The Confiteor in the Novus Ordo is a butchered replica of one of the most beautiful prayers to God that exists. If they had simply taken the Latin Mass and taken the English translation that would have been fine.  Some of us NEED all of the prayers.
    The rhythm of the Latin Mass is perfect. There is no rhythm in the Novus Ordo Mass.  It is more like a sing a long hootenanny or whatever.  The HIGH ALTAR is no more.  The Sacred Tabernacle is no longer front and center is is sometimes not even in view.   The Novus Ordo gives the lay people a larger role than the Priest.  The Priest turns his back on the Crucifix.  Bad, bad bad.  The priest prays AT the people instead of him facing the Cross and praying WITH the people.   

    I could go on and on and on.  Charles is correct.  God Bless you, Charles.   The Latin Mass is alive and well and will eventually establish a large stronghold again within the Catholic Church.  Thank Pope Benedict XVI.  Until then we can only pray that God will intervene and clean up the sacrileges that continue within the confines of the Novus Ordo (clown Masses, puppet Masses, HUGE hosts, etc) .

  • GODKNOWS

    It should be noted that Bugnini was eventually found out to be a Freemason and was banished.  Not before he did profound harm…. I wonder if he is in Purgatory…..

  • GODKNOWS

    No it doesn’t.  This is supposed to be adoration to  GOD, not man.   The English Translation is on the other side of the page in a Latin Mass so it works exactly the same way.  The Novus Ordo is a gutted Latin Mass.   

  • JabbaPapa

    ????

    I’m not sure what it is you’re trying to respond to …

  • JabbaPapa

    Bullseye !!!

  • Sweetjae

    The duly convened Council of the Church with the Pope presiding is a full authoritative act of the whole Church and it’s teachings are all binding to all Catholics. Period. The idea that when doctrines are non-infallibles therefore can be ignored is one of the errors of modern times espoused by some sects of traditionalism.

  • awkwardcustomer

    I’ve been through all this with Jabbapapa so I’ll get to the point quickly. The documents of Vatican II contain error and ambiguity.  They cannot have been inspired by the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost does not teach error and ambiguity.  Have you actually read a single argument of the SSPX regarding the Council? Why not try this for starters:

    http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2152

  • awkwardcustomer

    Quite right.

  • awkwardcustomer

    Jabba

    Have you ever read a single argument of the SSPX regarding Vatican II?  I asked Sweetjae the same thing and suspect both answers will be no.  Arguing about infallibility v non-infallibility, religious assent or not, pastoral Council or dogmatic, misses the central question.  If the documents of Vatican II contain error and ambiguity, which they do, then they cannot have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, because the Holy Ghost does not teach error and anbiguity.

    Before the contentious issue of the authority of Vatican II can be approached, the SSPX’s case has to be addressed.  So read their arguments and then approach the question of Authority. Start with Archbishop Lefebvre’s ‘They Have Uncrowned Him’, ‘Religious Liberty Questioned’ and ‘A Bishop Speaks’.  Enjoy!

    http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2152