tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post6394083821765438229..comments2024-03-22T18:43:00.710-04:00Comments on Unam Sanctam Catholicam: The Mass is not the Faith and Other ItemsBonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-41501309119270595692014-11-19T18:15:12.730-05:002014-11-19T18:15:12.730-05:00Boniface, in the Tridentine Mass, the sermon is no...Boniface, in the Tridentine Mass, the sermon is not a part of the Mass. That is why the priest leaves his maniple (or even chasuble) at the altar. It is also why he makes the sign of the cross before and after the sermon.Father Scott Archerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00347921493437671970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-42762593527149451712014-11-19T08:46:55.307-05:002014-11-19T08:46:55.307-05:00Dear cda. M.J always keeps the reversed order of M...Dear cda. M.J always keeps the reversed order of Mediator Dei in mind when it comes to all of the changes following the V2 rocket, which was launched without infallible fuel, but, nonetheless delivered significant damage.<br /><br />The new theologians/modernists had a new faith and, thus ,they were constrained to create a new rite of mass, new sacraments, new breviary, new rules for religious orders, new exorcism ect ect world without end, amen.<br /><br />It really is that simple.<br /><br />O, and all of these massive changes are called continuity.<br /><br />Is it too early to have a drink?Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-2958503531250919342014-11-18T03:15:12.827-05:002014-11-18T03:15:12.827-05:00Re: Pius XII's reversal
Pius XII might -- mig...Re: Pius XII's reversal<br /><br />Pius XII might -- might -- have introduced a confusion in reversing the traditional order of priority of the law of prayer over the law of faith. <br /><br />First, the law of faith ought not be confused with the deposit of the faith. The rule of faith is something enumerated into articles (e.g. creeds, dogmatic definitions, etc.) proposed for belief, just as the rule of prayer is something enumerated (e.g. as it is in missals, breviaries, etc.). The deposit of faith is the whole of faith, not all of which is enumerated into articles proposed for belief. <br /><br />Second, the deposit of faith is prior to both the law of prayer and the law of faith. For example, one simply could not order the observance of a feast of the Immaculate Conception or of the Assumption if they did not belong to the deposit of faith. Or again, one could not have a law obliging one to believe in an article of faith (e.g. the dual nature of Christ, or, more recently, the Immaculate Conception) unless those articles were already part, however implicitly, of the deposit of faith. <br /><br />Third, generally, the rule of prayer has preceded the corresponding rule of belief. For example, (if I remember correctly) the feasts of the Immaculate Conception and of the Assumption predate their respective definitions by over a millennium. However, of course, there are contrary instances (e.g. some elements are sometimes introduced into the mass following rules of faith and even for spurious reasons, e.g., the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed might have been originally introduced as a monophysite protest against Chalcedon). Nor is this to say that every article of the faith has some precedent in the rule of prayer (e.g. there is no feast of papal infallibility). Again, it is only a general rule of precedence. <br /><br />If -- if -- what Pius XII meant by the reversal was that the deposit of faith determines the rule of prayer, then that is undoubtedly true, albeit unfortunately worded. However, if what Pius XII meant was that the rule of faith per se (i.e. enumerated articles of belief) determines the rule of prayer, then that might -- might -- be a case of making the exception the rule. <br /><br />It is at least a matter of curiosity, whether such thinking is in part what allowed the questionable (both because of its novelty and because it was Bugnini driven) reform of Holy Week, which was explicitly cited by Paul VI as what "formed the first stage of updating the Roman Missal for the present-day mentality." (Missale Romanum)cdanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-79711173219203460872014-11-17T15:28:57.675-05:002014-11-17T15:28:57.675-05:00Thanks MJ. I don't think I meant the phrase in...Thanks MJ. I don't think I meant the phrase in any order of priority, but thank you for sending the citation from MD.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-22860981563137598542014-11-17T15:25:35.007-05:002014-11-17T15:25:35.007-05:00Mediator Dei:
46. On this subject We judge it Our...<br /><br />Mediator Dei:<br /><br />46. On this subject We judge it Our duty to rectify an attitude with which you are doubtless familiar, Venerable Brethren. We refer to the error and fallacious reasoning of those who have claimed that the sacred liturgy is a kind of proving ground for the truths to be held of faith, meaning by this that the Church is obliged to declare such a doctrine sound when it is found to have produced fruits of piety and sanctity through the sacred rites of the liturgy, and to reject it otherwise. Hence the epigram, "Lex orandi, lex credendi" - the law for prayer is the law for faith.<br /><br />47. But this is not what the Church teaches and enjoins. The worship she offers to God, all good and great, is a continuous profession of Catholic faith and a continuous exercise of hope and charity, as Augustine puts it tersely. "God is to be worshipped," he says, "by faith, hope and charity."[44] In the sacred liturgy we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly, not only by the celebration of the mysteries, and by offering the holy sacrifice and administering the sacraments, but also by saying or singing the credo or Symbol of the faith - it is indeed the sign and badge, as it were, of the Christian - along with other texts, and likewise by the reading of holy scripture, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The entire liturgy, therefore, has the Catholic faith for its content, inasmuch as it bears public witness to the faith of the Church.<br /><br />48. For this reason, whenever there was question of defining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils in their recourse to the "theological sources," as they are called, have not seldom drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the liturgy. For an example in point, Our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, so argued when he proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Similarly during the discussion of a doubtful or controversial truth, the Church and the Holy Fathers have not failed to look to the age-old and age-honored sacred rites for enlightenment. Hence the well-known and venerable maxim, "Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" - let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief.[45] The sacred liturgy, consequently, does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. More properly, since the liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths, and subject, as such, to the supreme teaching authority of the Church, it can supply proofs and testimony, quite clearly, of no little value, towards the determination of a particular point of Christian doctrine. But if one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say, "Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi" - let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer....[46]<br />Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-55023189913180968762014-11-17T15:21:27.682-05:002014-11-17T15:21:27.682-05:00Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi.
Dear Broth...<i>Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi.</i><br /><br />Dear Brother Boniface, In <i>Mediator Dei</i> Pope Pius XII taught that was wrong and he reversed the order teaching that the rule of faith is the rule of prayer.<br /><br />M.J. wil go chase down the citationMick Jagger Gathers No Mosquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12879499915093940176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-91051286248877933532014-11-17T08:01:59.571-05:002014-11-17T08:01:59.571-05:00And I don't think it is right to say the Homil...And I don't think it is right to say the Homily is "not part" of the Mass, unless you are restricting the Mass to the Canon alone. At most it is a non-essential part of the Mass since, as you point out, it can be licitly omitted. Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-24041538356450013282014-11-17T07:40:35.009-05:002014-11-17T07:40:35.009-05:00I still think it is more correct than not to say t...I still think it is more correct than not to say the Faith and the Mass are not the same thing, but given the confusion and indignation it has aroused, I probably will not insist on this phrase in the future. Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-39513139658049742932014-11-17T07:36:47.735-05:002014-11-17T07:36:47.735-05:00Sounds like I am full of conflation a then!
These...Sounds like I am full of conflation a then!<br /><br />These are all good points. I'm not necessarily sure the distinctions imply everything you say. I am not ready to totally abandon my thesis but I think you have exposed some significant weaknesses in it. Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-79186513137596033582014-11-17T05:20:11.052-05:002014-11-17T05:20:11.052-05:00There is also a conflation of suspension of facult...There is also a conflation of suspension of faculties with a specific command. Suspending a priest from saying mass and ordering a priest not to say the traditional mass are not the same thing. Analogously, prohibiting a priest from delivering homilies and ordering a priest to be silent in his homilies on the Church’s teaching concerning contraception, abortion, and sodomy are not the same thing. The underlying problem with the traditional mass is that the Novus Ordo derogates from the faith (e.g. diminishing the character of propitiatory sacrifice, diminishing the role of minister from priest toward presider, etc.), just as silence on the ‘hard sayings’ derogates from the faith. The traditional mass says things the Novus Ordo doesn’t. <br /><br />Consequently, “the fundamental question: Should a priest who has been saying the Extraordinary Form Mass exclusively, upon being ordered to cease by his legitimate superior, obey this order?” must be answered in the negative because the bishop’s power extends to suspending faculties, not to suspending (i.e. suppressing) the mass itself. Either suspend the priest from saying mass or do not. cdanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-29665552891510858142014-11-17T05:17:31.881-05:002014-11-17T05:17:31.881-05:00Also, there seems to be some confusion about what,...Also, there seems to be some confusion about what, strictly speaking, is part of the mass and what not. The homily, strictly speaking, is not part of mass. This is supposed to be manifested by the priest divesting before delivering the homily. This is relaxed so that it is sufficient for the priest to remove the maniple. But, admittedly, this is often not observed. Nevertheless, the homily is not part of mass. <br /><br />Because the homily is not part of mass, the power of a bishop to prohibit his priest from giving homilies simply cannot support any assertion of a bishop’s “power in particular to prohibit him from doing certain parts of a Mass (the homily)”. <br /><br />Related to this point is that the communion of the faithful as well, strictly speaking, is not part of the mass. This is why a priest may say mass alone. And it is also why a second Confiteor is traditionally said immediately prior to the communion of the faithful (despite it being suppressed in the 1962 missal). That is, the rite of communion, which has its own Confiteor, is, as it were, interpolated into the mass. cdanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-49347220575968752012014-11-17T05:15:13.473-05:002014-11-17T05:15:13.473-05:00The examples offered (Fr. Ripperger, Cardinal Kung...The examples offered (Fr. Ripperger, Cardinal Kung and the Desert Fathers) seem to conflate the observance of mass with the subject of mass. That is, they seem to conflate the proper administration of the mass by the priest and, if applicable, the proper attendance of the mass by the faithful with the person of the Christ acting as both High Priest and Victim in a propitiatory sacrifice. To say that proper administration and observance of mass is not the whole of the faith is one thing, to say that the person of Christ, High Priest and Victim, is not the faith is quite another. <br /><br />First, the statement “The mass is not the faith” seems to poorly communicate what is intended. Given the examples mentioned, a more accurate wording would be “The proper administration and attendance of mass is only a partial fulfillment of the obligations enjoined by the Christian life.” Obviously, a Christian is still bound to observe other things, e.g., the moral law. For example, it would be grossly insufficient for a priest to administer mass perfectly, or for the faithful to attend with perfect reverence, (if such were possible) and then blaspheme, lie, murder, fornicate, etc. outside of mass. I think there is little disagreement on this. Fr. Ripperger seems to be addressing a particular manifestation of laxity. But, again, laxity would concern reducing the observance of the Christian life to the observance of mass and not the faith to the subject of the mass. <br /><br />Second, it ought to be said that fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation to keep the Sabbath holy is, strictly speaking, ecclesiastical and not divine law. One is under such obligation to go to mass only when it is not gravely inconvenient (e.g. traveling very long distances, risking mortally dangerous weather conditions, etc.). The church imposes the obligation and has an obligation to provide masses so that the faithful can reasonably fulfill those obligations. In short, ‘ought’ implies ‘can’. The cases of Cardinal Kung and the Desert Fathers are offered as such examples. But, again, these examples concern the observance of mass and not the subject. <br /><br />Also, there seems to be also a conflation between the faith and its enumeration into articles, as in the following statement: “It would be absurd to try to claim, for example, that the entire historic papal Magisterium is some how [sic] included in the Mass.” Likewise, with scripture, prayers, etc. Certainly, the mass does not contain every article proposed for belief as such articles, every scripture as enumerated words, every prayer, etc. However, the mass does have the person of Christ as its agent and victim, who fulfills scripture, who prays unceasingly before the Father, etc. If one is speaking of the mass in terms of its subject and not merely its observance, and if the mass is said to be lacking not just the enumeration of the faith into articles proposed for belief, scripture, prayers, etc. but something of the faith itself, then to hold that the “The mass is not the faith” one must be willing to hold that “the person of Christ, High Priest and Victim, is not the faith”. Seen from this perspective, I think that the violent reaction to the words “The mass is not the faith” is understandable. cdanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-29898092156610483432014-11-17T05:07:25.301-05:002014-11-17T05:07:25.301-05:00Just a note regarding Summorum Pontificum, Art. 2....Just a note regarding <i>Summorum Pontificum</i>, Art. 2. It is a special law vis-a-vis a general Law (CIC), so the former in its specific subject matter (the choice of the liturgical book in Masses <i>sine populo</i>) prevails over the latter. It is not at all obvious that a very general statement about preserving bishops' rights in the accompanying letter would serve to restrict the above, especially, if <i>Universae Ecclesiae</i> being a legal comment on the <i>motu proprio</i> and treating the competence of bishops (e.g. nn. 13,14) says nothing of this sort. The general rights of bishops in the text of <i>Summorum Pontificum</i> itself are mentioned in connection with a different subject matter (Art. 5.1) and refer to one specific canon (392).<br /><br />And yes, a traditionalist bishop or superior <b>cannot</b> under <i>Summorum Pontificum</i>, Art. 2, prohibit his subject from celebrating Novus Ordo <i>sine populo</i>.<br /><br />Andris AmolinsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com