Question: “The Mass of Paul VI is really valid”?

"APPLICATION OF PAUL VI is REALLY VALID»?

"Dear Fathers of’Patmos Island, sometimes it seems that in our churches the liturgical chaos reigns: Fair dialogate, prayers of the faithful "spontaneous" embarrassing, words of the missal changed at will of the celebrant, chants inappropriate, clapping and dancing, Women who go up to the altar during the celebrations as if he were master. I recently read an article that provides answers through a Dominican theologian, Father Thomas Calmel. I'm impressed and I would like to know what this writing is true, then ask: “The Mass of Paul VI, is really valid?”» [Chiara caön, reader of Trento]

IMG_0931
Ariel S. Levi Gualdo during solemn vespers

Dear Father John.

A reader of Trento sent us an article that appeared on the site Second Vatican Council in which a journalist returns to extract some parts of the thought of Father Roger Thomas Calmel OP [1914-1975] which supports the thesis misleading on the celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI [see WHO full article]. Since the subject of the application revolves around a Dominican brother your, please to offer you answer to the question of our reader.

The task with The island of Patmos we set is to make ecclesial and pastoral theology at a time of great delicacy that sees many of our faithful increasingly disoriented, as evidence the question raised by this reader that such disorientation is paradigm, because many are the letters that arrive more or less similar to the mail the editorial department.

In some of my previous articles I used irony and a certain vehemence toward some commentators that are not just a "minority” of “noisy dissatisfied "which does not give much weight, but sowers of errors veiled behind the reassuring defense Deposit of Faith, until funger often a point of reference for many lost, unable to grasp in some bad teachers the drama of the "blind guides" that "filter out the gnat and swallow the camel" [cf. Mt 23, 24].

In countering certain errors it imposes on our consciences priestly duty of balance and prudence summarized through the famous phrase: "You can not throw the baby out with the bathwater", because even in the wrong locations, or those who sometimes carry out in good faith, there may still be good. The essay fable of the baby and the dirty water leads me however to fear the danger of falling into another trap: even Arius and Pelagius was of good. The first was a man of faith, the second a pious ascetic, both theologians refined to the point that against the first One bothered Sant'Atanasio, against the second St. Augustine, which never would have lost their precious time with the little heretic village. And to the present day: Was not, Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, a man of deep piety; an extraordinary missionary in Senegal formed good priests creating excellent results in early local bishops?

To judge this thing quite delicate look for the good nell'errante and the positive elements of union nell'eterodossia, because if this act is not utmost prudence and respect of the deposit of faith and the teaching of the Church is not ironclad, you may run the risk of dragging in our house the worst heresies behind pretexts ecumenical or interfaith dialogue, as evidenced by some decades certain academic institution within which a large number of theologians larded with modernism teach doctrines of Protestant. All this happened because often we tried the good and the common points of union with wandering up to drag us into their home even serious errors, as you yourself have stated long ago in a criticism at the thought of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, certainly not to his worthy person [see WHO], which echoed shortly after another my analysis [see WHO].

As priests and theologians we are called to exercise a ministry that involves a sacred duty that we can not escape for imperative of conscience: necessary to say to our faithful what is right and wrong. For this we use for purely pastoral valuable instrument of this online magazine, I for one do not intend to use or azzuffarmi with “factions” nor for sterile polemics with those who are closed to the grace of listening, but only to serve the truth and the truth for the people that God has entrusted to us, saving, if appropriate, Christi fideles from falling into the errors of some bad teachers.

_______________________________________________________

Replies the Dominican John Cavalcoli

John Cavalcoli in chorus 2
John Cavalcoli OP in the choir of her Dominican convent during the Divine Office

I answer with pleasure to the Reader in Trento saying, first, that in the field of liturgy, the Roman Pontiff, exercises his authority as high priest and supreme moderator of divine worship. He is not infallible in regulating when it organized a ceremonial or liturgical reform, which belongs to his pastoral power. It is, however, in interpreting, guard preserve intact the essence or substance of the Sacraments, because data of faith, because it touches the infallibility of his teaching office.

The immutable essence of the Mass is the following:

"Rite of worship of the New Covenant, with whom and for which, in the person of the priest celebrant in communion with the Church and in the name of the Church, Christ in the Holy Spirit offers incruentemente sacrifice Himself to the Father for the salvation of the world ".

A reform of the Mass will therefore be more or less happy, will then need another reform or recovery than we had decommissioned, but it will never alter the essence of the Mass. To suppose that the Pope to launch a Mass or heretical modernist or filoprotestante, is in turn heresy, not in reference to his pastoral power, but as a teacher of the faith, given that the Mass is a Mystery. In the Mass must therefore distinguish the ceremonial ritual. The first may change and is of ecclesiastical law: the second is immutable and is of divine right.

The rules of the celebration of Mass - The so-called ceremonial - can then change over the centuries, as the history of the liturgy. But the essence of the Mass is immutable, as well as is demonstrated by history, until the Mass new world order, beyond changes that appear at times deep, but that does not really change the substance, as I defined above.

The Pope has no power to change the substance of the Sacraments and then the essential structure of the rite of Holy Mass, substance or essence that is not difficult to single out beyond the variations of the ceremony took place in the course of history.

Ora but, Mass new world order, was motivated by the Second Vatican Council with serious reasons known to all [The Council, NN. 47-58]. It certainly has an ecumenical aspect, but it is folly to say that it is pro-Protestant or infected by modernism or that it changes the traditional Mass.

The Church can give to those who want permission to celebrate only the old order - As he did with St. Pio of Pietrelcina -, which obviously remains valid; but as long as they do not do it as if it were only valid Mass this. The Church recommends and orders, ordinarily, the new world order, because pastorally is more suitable to the present situation.

___________________________________________________________________

chandelierDear readers.
As you know our work is free but the costs of running the site are not few and should be supported. If you want to win approval with the PayPal system even a few Euros will help us to support the operating costs for lighting a candle The island of Patmos.





About isoladipatmos

17 thoughts on "Question: “The Mass of Paul VI is really valid”?

  1. I follow the publications of the traditional world, also that dellla SSPX, and despite having a 'negative opinion of how it performs the Novus Ordo, they have never questioned the validity.

    1. Dear Guido.

      At times, the scorn, then the implicit invitation to disregard, can be more damaging and harmful to declare invalid the one thing. Estimate her tones ecclesiastically and pastorally unacceptable in which he expressed himself in 1987 Bishop Marcel Lefebre.
      You can find it all in the official website of the Society of St. Pius X in paragraph “Without the Mass everything collapses“.

      http://www.sanpiox.it/public/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205:la-fraternita-sacerdotale-san-pio-x-e-roma&catid=64&Itemid=81

      The entire text contains criticisms and attacks unacceptable, especially if made by a bishop against communion and unity of the Church through an ecumenical council has determined not only and not so much a liturgical reform, but has established new doctrines based on tradition and on the immutable deposit of faith.

  2. I find it interesting the last part: “the Church recommends and orders, ordinarily, il new order, because pastorally is more suitable to the present situation”.

    It is still so, after 40 year old? Around confusion reigns. The laity are everywhere, Mass is humiliated by priests / showman or oddities liturgical (Neocatechumenal).

    A return to the old rite would not be a remedy against these ailments?

    Good Sunday!

    1. Dear Paul,

      Even the romance and even the lack of historical memory there is a limit, believe me. Or maybe you really think that before the liturgical reform of Vatican II, the sacred celebrations were all carried out by how many holy priests, in an atmosphere of sacredness, mysticism, of absolute devotion to the sacred?
      Any idea of ​​the tough calls that were made by Blessed Pius IX, by Leo XIII, by St. Pius X, Pius XI about the sloppiness of the priests, the lack of decorum and reverence by the faithful? And mind you, I have not touched on purpose Pius XII for not whet the discontent of those who turn up their noses at him well in qualto guilty of having reformed in the fifties the sacred rites of Holy Week.
      You know that in the historical archives are hundreds of letters of diocesan bishops to their clergy, of episcopal decrees and finally canonical sanctions imposed on priests, precisely linked to the sacred celebrations and the administration of the Sacraments?
      Knows how many and how many are the documents that are on record in which the diocesan ordinaries reproached their priests in tones often menacing, because many of them celebrated in 7/8 minutes a weekday Mass jumping with three or four parts whispers that the celebrant would have to recite softly but many do not recited at all?
      In ages idyllic, all spirituality, mysticism and respect for the sacred to which she seems to allude, there were liturgical abuses to embarrass some fringes of today's most rowdy Neocatechumenal; and forms of sloppiness is not comparable to those that we can find in some churches today.
      You can not change the past to the illusion that in the past everything was good and holy.

      1. That before were all rosy from the liturgical point of view (and music) I do not believe, do not worry about it.

        From his response, But it seems to me that it is almost a fortune the babel of languages ​​and ways of celebrating arising from the new rite.

        Good week!

        1. Dear Paul.

          Please, I do not attribute to have hinted that “is almost a fortune the babel of languages ​​and ways of celebrating arising from the new rite”, because they do not think and I did not tell, being one of those priests who would never even a sigh, even a bow that is not written on the Roman Missal.
          I have 51 years and a clear recollection of when I 8/9 and I went to catechism to prepare for First Communion, So we're talking about 42 years ago. I was one of the little children who went to church with his father and mother, attending the Sunday Mass. The absolute majority of the other children were accompanied only by mothers, very few fathers; and those few they set foot in the bottom of the Church. As soon as the priest began to preach after the reading of the Gospel, they came out of the church to go to smoke in the churchyard, and as soon as the priest had finished fell, remaining strutting down the church without answer any invocation.
          She lists the churches today – icluse those sent out by certain groups of certain Neocatechumenal rowdy; and repeat “some” – where now these things happen. If anything, go talk to priests ultra octogenarians, taken at random from here and there, who knew the situation precededente and the current one, and ask them if they feel nostalgic for those wonderful times. If anything, ask them – these octogenarians – another thing: if you feel the nostalgia of the confessors who have known and experienced when they had 15/16 year old.
          I reiterate what I wrote in a recent article: “When you do not have the desire nor the strength to face this reality with all its riches and its major problems, there are those who shuns the past that must not pass”, What in my opinion wrong and dangerous.
          Indeed, before the Council of Trent to intervene on certain matters of church discipline, some of which related directly or indirectly to the sacred liturgy, there were situations unspeakable, as it regarded the Discipline of the Sacraments.
          The late nineteenth century many of our churches were equipped with organs equipped with drums, batteries and various rattles, because during the sacred celebrations organists performed opera music profane, so happened that people were going to receive Communion while “Blessed” organ that has certainly nothing to do with today's guitars “sacrilegious”, sounded arias from La Traviata or the Merry Widow.
          I repeat, today, than other past times more or less recent, we spend as they say luxury, I say so, it documents the history of the Church.

  3. They never put in question the validity, however, have always claimed that the NO is gravely illicit, and for years, and I still believe now, They invited the faithful to safely skip the Sunday obligation if they had not been able to go to the VO and ease with a Rosary…forgive me but, if not an incitement to mortal sin this, I do not know what else to say…

  4. I believe that the Roman Rite “usus antiquior” is the correct one and the “Novus Ordo Mass” It is not entirely. This means that the NOM is seriously wrong and even unwise, in the absence of the old Rite, it passed ! Personally I Sunday 30 + 30 Km to go to a church where they practice the old Rite, but I do it with gladness because I believe that our Liturgy is in the Vetus Ordo (VO), because the foundational data is a reaffirmation that the Mass is, in substance, same sacrifice of Calvary, Although in a bloodless, passed to us intact, in time and space. The NOM tends to amplify the sense of “table of the word”, with respect to the “The table of the Eucharist” the VO. In VO every word, every gesture, even the silences and whispers, are accurate, random and not lived to the hilt. To keep in mind that the NOM is not the result of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council: At this point those who believe is not valid (or poorly suited) the new liturgy. The “Sacrosanctum Concilium” He had never contemplated changes as “experimentation” and now I'm, unfortunately, the…

  5. Just to mention a few remember who were allowed entry “versus Populum” (isn't that first the priest turned his back to the House; both prima, priest and Assembly, were turned toward God), Holy Communion in the hand, the total elimination of the Latin and Gregorian chants in favor of vulgar language and songs that leave little room for GOD. The liturgy should not be the “table of the word”, for this there are other moments of catechesis. The liturgy is the offering of the son to the father, who is gearing up already in the Offertory to culminate in the sacrifice of the cross and the Resurrection. And’ the son who offers, through the priest, other than “the fruit of the Earth and of our work”. There is bread and wine, but the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. The “misterium fidei” is so great that some words is the same priest to sussurrarle, rather than declare it unto. The priest is the intermediary between the son who offers himself to the father in the remission of sins and the House that, by the same priest, participates in the selection of “Hostia” (victim). The space forces me to close, but the beauty of VO is seeing…

  6. Lei says Father Cavalcoli: “The Church recommends and orders, ordinarily, il new order, because pastorally is more suitable to the present situation.”

    So why evidently more effective?

    “The fact is that all he wants only the effectiveness, efficacy without limits, is as there is actually less effective, […] while what seems the least effective (if it is located in an order higher than that of the activities related to the matter) is what has greater effectiveness. […] There is in our day, in many Christians and even, perhaps without his make clear account, in priests and religious whose number is alarming (I have it especially with these clerics), a tendency to give primacy to the effectiveness on the Truth. […] Come to talk about effectiveness! The result would be the defection of a great multitude. The day on which the effectiveness prevail on the Truth will never be for the Church, since that day the gates of hell have prevailed against her.” ((J). Maritain, The peasant of the Garonne, and. The Circle, pp. 98,99)

    Cordially greet. Praised be Jesus Christ.

    1. Dear Richard,

      I don't want to totally “only the effectiveness, effectiveness without limits“. And even the Council wanted this in its reform of the liturgy. She does tell me and what I do not say at all, and we look at bene, given that, as reports the Maritain, who is my teacher, such a thing would be dishonest and opportunistic, the style of morality of Nietzsche or Machiavelli.
      Will the effectiveness, When you want the good or pursues a fine honest with honest media, It is not forbidden or unseemly, but it is a duty and a source of merit.
      In fact, efficiency, in general, is the force with which a cause produces the effect. Well, If the cause is good, even more commendable is the effectiveness of the effect!
      The bad is, as reports the Maritain, When you search the effectiveness for herself, regardless that we follow or not follow the moral law. But this is the law of criminals or at best of mondani.
      The apparently ever that reform of the Council was dictated by this concern?
      Then explain what exactly I wanted to say, that is exactly what the Council wanted to do with the reform of the mass.
      It simply wanted to make certain accidental changes in quotas or ceremonial, keep obviously the essential part of the Rite, in order to better know the beauty of that Mystery, that is the Holy Mass, with the introduction of some measures or procedures or forms of expression, languages, symbolic, gestural or rubricistiche, that make men of our time understanding, the Mystic flavour, contemplation and adoration of the mystery which is celebrated on the altar. That's it.
      Then at the end, some, What is at stake is more effective. But how effective is more blessed than most we approach Christ Blessed Sacrament in the Divine Liturgy?

      1. Dearest Father, in what I call prophetic Brief critical examination of the Novus Ordo Missae, dated 1969 and with which authors the Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, rinvengo causes, including but not limited to, the profanation of the liturgy that she is among the many evils that afflict the catholicity, in "Karl Rahner, The Council betrayed " (and. Faith and culture, the. 17), work where the slopes of father Fabro, She has cleverly dented the German Jesuit theological Limo. The two Princes of the Church showed early liturgical abuses and aberrations, as a serious weak point to the link between fides quae and fides qua, caused by estremizzante and symbolism from the contested doctrine of Transubstantiation with modernist arrogance. This example lampantissimo, of abandonment of "higher order of activities related to the matter" and that, citing still Maritain, It is effective only when it "exposes the soul of the people a beautiful inner disruption and threatens to make spiritual hardly curable degli infermi".
        The greeting fraternally in Christ, laudetur semper.

        1. Dear Richard,

          the Cardd. Bacci and Ottaviani exhibited their point of view unduly worried by the dangers which could be involved in new world order. It was not at all pleasing to Paul VI.
          Undoubtedly the Church, as officially changed the ceremonial of the the old order, a tomorrow could change the current. And there is even today who, as mentioned, Benedict XVI, talk about “reform of the reform”, which may result in the recovery of elements the old order abandoned in Novus.
          No good Catholic sense, that is not poisoned by modernism, puts into question the beauty, The sublimity and the lawfulness of the celebration, in special circumstances, of the old order.
          However the good Catholic agrees with serene and confident spirit of obedience, the Novus declared by the Church as ordinary Rite and then official currently.
          The reasons for which the Church in Vatican II decided a reform of ceremonial, are well known and are exposed in the The Council from No. 47 to no. 54. In essence the Council was motivated by the following instances:

          1. Make more understandable the men of our time;
          2. Allow the faithful more active participation (men and women) the celebration;
          2. Give to the way we celebrate an ecumenical cut;
          3. Highlight that the offering of Sacrifice is not the only celebrant, but the entire priestly people of God;
          4. Highlight the fact that the mass is a precorrimento of the resurrection, and then the Messianic feast and joy.
          The important thing at this juncture is to remember that when the Church makes a ceremonial reform, thing that has occurred several times in the past centuries, ceremonial which is incidental and contingent thing, the Church refrains from touching or disturbing the ritual in its essence or supernatural substance, Why has the power, being the rite established once and for all by Christ.

          The Church in the mass, Vetus the new world order that is, does nothing but do always, today and until the end of the centuries, What did Christ: Hoc facite in mei memoriam.
          Therefore, the accusation made by the lefebvrists who the Council would change the essence of the mass is false and heretical; how pure is a heretical Act of IMPIETY that accomplished by certain modernist celebrants, who dare to change to their liking the Canon of the mass.
          As for Rahner, He is the founder of the modern secular and bizarre Messe, that have nothing to do with authentic, worthy, diligent, PIA, faithful and devout celebration in new world order wanted since Vatican II.

  7. This terrible combination is dreadful: Cavalcoli&Levi of Gualdo are public hazards. The father, however, taught me Cavalcoli,even though it criticised all cornerstones of real tradition,including Romano Amerio … because you have to admit that the rev. Levi of Gualdo is worse Dominican father Cavalcoli. It is suspected that the rev. Levi of Gualdo is an infiltrator of the Diocesan clergy within the worse Dominican aggressive spirit,everything said by one (I admit) that theologically has always been inspired by the great theologians Franciscans of the great Franciscan school,they are milder and less warmongers.

    1. Dear Disenchanted Catholic,

      I admit that in my order history there have been overly strict and polemisti's also wrong-doers. As for me, If they are severe against some theologian, like for example Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Kasper, Strong, Mancuso, Martini, de Mattei, the Siccardi or Lefebvre, I do so advisedly, always referring to the Magisterium of the Church.
      For Amerio, read the introduction I made at Faith&Culture: I note only defects not, but also quality.
      With regard to Franciscan theologians, I know well and I really appreciate, It is true that they shirked controversy. In this they can be also sample to us Dominicans.
      However, in certain severe situations, for the good of souls and to defend them by mistake he does lose faith and that leads to damnation, We must stand with prophetic power and critical acumen, without fear of the powerful and at the cost of suffering until the gift of life, against impostors and falsifiers of God's Word.
      The method I follow from forty years of practice of theology leads me, St. Thomas school, and of the great masters of my order, not to crush any official, but to find in all the positives. If someone does not dialogue, It is not because I have it with him, But why is he who has it with me.

    2. Dearest.

      Please, every now and then send us some comments because she is a hilarious hoot.
      The fact that I am worse of father John Cavalcoli is a compliment that I can't accept because I have neither the knowledge nor the science to be "worse" than him, I pray and hope, among many years, to succeed – I don't say to be "worse" – but at least close to its level.
      Incidentally the announce that the works of Romano Amerio – undoubtedly great but equally certainly questionable when his craft of the philosopher gets to do that as a theologian and ecclesiologo – are not part of the books of revelation. Unless Amerio does not appear in any manuscript received magnificent lost in the caves of Qumran. Or maybe you have finally discovered what's really the so-called source "Q"? For case, This source, is the work Iota by Amerio?
      I don't need to be an "infiltrator", I am close to the Dominican order, not only for my veneration for St. Thomas Aquinas but also for that which I have to that great holy man of God by Domingo de Guzmán; also I have always inspired to the style of the great preachers the Dominicans who in my opinion have given life to the art of homiletics.
      What I would be interested to know is who are the great theologians of the great Franciscan school to which she claims to be guided by meekness, because I only know Saint Bonaventure of Bagnoregio.
      If anything she wanted to do the Ambassador of our "islandDomini canes"and be accredited by us at the great Franciscan theological school, know that we will soon mandate by providing immediately to the establishment of the diplomatic legation.

Leave a Reply