Indult or Insult
I have been rereading the documents on the indult Mass beginning with Quattor Abhinc Annos and realised they contain some extraordinary lines. For example Quattor Abhinc Annos says:
"Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it ..."
Did Archbishop Mayer think the mass of all ages would not be of benefit to other Catholics, would not appeal to their desire for the transcendent and true? Did Archbishop Mayer think those who requested the mass of all ages were the enemies of the Church like Marxists or Protestants and had to be placated in a spirit of false irenicism?
"There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals."
Did Archbishop Mayer think those who requested the mass of all ages would be subject to the "spirit of Vatican II" and do as they please during the Mass, defying Quo Primum? Did Archbishop Mayer think those who requested the mass of all ages would even consider the new texts and rites fit to be included in the Mass?
"This concession, indicative of the Holy Father's solicitude for his children, must be used in such a way as not to prejudice the faithful observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the respective ecclesial communities."
Did Archbishop Mayer not realise that if the faithful requested the mass of all ages there must have been something deficient in the liturgical reform? On another matter, what happened to the words Church or parish and why use the ambiguous ecclesial communities, which could include non-Catholics?
The Statement of the Commission to Examine the Legal Status of the Traditional Rite of Mass, which included both Cardinals Mayer and Ratzinger, contained the following:
"Priests cannot be obliged to celebrate the new rite of Mass; the bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass, whether in public or in private ... it is not the priests who are disobedient when they celebrate the Tridentine Mass, but it is the bishops who are entirely outside the law when they unlawfully attempt to forbid the Traditional Mass. This fact is also clearly demonstrates that penalties inflicted on priests for celebrating the Tridentine Mass are null and void, as is clearly stated in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum "
If priests cannot be obliged to celebrate the new rite of Mass, why didn't the Vatican issue a statement to that effect and give priests a choice? If bishops act outside the law by forbidding the Traditional Mass, why were they not reprimanded? If Quo Primum was recognised as still being in effect, how could the Mass have been subject to such wholesale changes when Pope Pius V forbid them?
Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter Eccelsia Dei writes:
"To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their aspirations."
Why did the Pope regard those who requested the Traditional Mass as either sentimentalists, with a mere attachment to it like you would have for an old dress, or schismatics, since the rite had never been abrogated and was perfectly valid. [The issue of Archbishop Lefebvre's objections to the decrees of Vatican II should have been kept seperate from his objections to the New Mass, which came after the council.]
"Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it ..."
Did Archbishop Mayer think the mass of all ages would not be of benefit to other Catholics, would not appeal to their desire for the transcendent and true? Did Archbishop Mayer think those who requested the mass of all ages were the enemies of the Church like Marxists or Protestants and had to be placated in a spirit of false irenicism?
"There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals."
Did Archbishop Mayer think those who requested the mass of all ages would be subject to the "spirit of Vatican II" and do as they please during the Mass, defying Quo Primum? Did Archbishop Mayer think those who requested the mass of all ages would even consider the new texts and rites fit to be included in the Mass?
"This concession, indicative of the Holy Father's solicitude for his children, must be used in such a way as not to prejudice the faithful observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the respective ecclesial communities."
Did Archbishop Mayer not realise that if the faithful requested the mass of all ages there must have been something deficient in the liturgical reform? On another matter, what happened to the words Church or parish and why use the ambiguous ecclesial communities, which could include non-Catholics?
The Statement of the Commission to Examine the Legal Status of the Traditional Rite of Mass, which included both Cardinals Mayer and Ratzinger, contained the following:
"Priests cannot be obliged to celebrate the new rite of Mass; the bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass, whether in public or in private ... it is not the priests who are disobedient when they celebrate the Tridentine Mass, but it is the bishops who are entirely outside the law when they unlawfully attempt to forbid the Traditional Mass. This fact is also clearly demonstrates that penalties inflicted on priests for celebrating the Tridentine Mass are null and void, as is clearly stated in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum "
If priests cannot be obliged to celebrate the new rite of Mass, why didn't the Vatican issue a statement to that effect and give priests a choice? If bishops act outside the law by forbidding the Traditional Mass, why were they not reprimanded? If Quo Primum was recognised as still being in effect, how could the Mass have been subject to such wholesale changes when Pope Pius V forbid them?
Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter Eccelsia Dei writes:
"To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their aspirations."
Why did the Pope regard those who requested the Traditional Mass as either sentimentalists, with a mere attachment to it like you would have for an old dress, or schismatics, since the rite had never been abrogated and was perfectly valid. [The issue of Archbishop Lefebvre's objections to the decrees of Vatican II should have been kept seperate from his objections to the New Mass, which came after the council.]
posted by Lactantius at
10:41 am
