On so-called “traditional Catholics” and “traditional Mass” [with known posthumously inserted the 27.03.2015]

ON THE SO-CALLED TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC AND ON THE MASS TRADITIONAL

To want to stop at 1962 and want to block everything before the Council, as if it had not happened or had led the Church astray, not be a true traditional, is not consistent faithfulness and steadfastness in the truth, a freeze but a living organism, is to prevent the progress of the Church, backwardness is stubborn and arrogant disobedience to the Church advances in history, is a trick of the devil that leads to destruction.


John Cavalcoli OP
John Cavalcoli OP

 

 

With a note posthumous inserted down the author 27.03.2015

 

 

traditional Catholics
a group of “traditional Catholics”

Is coming into use expression which on closer creates difficulties and appears equivocal, not to say that it is wrong and dangerous: Catholic “traditional”, expression seemingly harmless, perhaps even beautiful. It may seem too right, timely and appropriate, obviously equipped, for those who use it for themselves and spread, a positive sense, as if to say: Catholics faithful to Sacred Tradition.

An expression apparently clarifying but which in reality, I argue,, creates confusion and can, beyond good intentions, open a window to lefevrismo. For this, after all, I think it's better not to use it or not use it at least in the sense that I will explain.

In this regard, I propose the following observations.

Pius X
the Holy Pontiff Pius X

Before. Being traditional, as already taught St. Pius X, is a feature of the Catholic as such, because the doctrine of faith arises from the confluence of the Holy Scripture with tradition. Enters the definition of being a Catholic. For this, the talk of the traditional Catholic is not that a tautology, say the same of the same, is like saying that the horse is the horse. Or at best is an enunciation of the principle of identity, also known children. Beautiful discovery!

Being traditional enters into the very essence of being a Catholic, as well as belonging to the race horse belongs to the essence of the horse. In this sense, a Catholic who is not traditional, not a Catholic. As well as a horse that is not equine is not a horse. Therefore, who qualifies as a traditional Catholic, seems to say: “We yes, that we are the true Catholics! We just we are!”. The Catholic nontraditional, therefore, can not be a good Catholic.

It makes no sense, then - I comment - add at the end “Catholic” the adjective “traditional”, because this attribute is already implicit in the concept of a Catholic, as well as would not make sense or would be an addition useless to talk of an equine.

Paul VI 2
Blessed Pope Paul VI

Similarly: why call Mass “traditional” only the Mass the old order? [WHO, WHO, WHO, etc. ..] Even that new world order is the traditional Mass, is the “Mass of All Time”. The Council has not changed the substance of the Mass; but has only made changes accidental and contingent, and as a substitute modes before, so one day these will be substitutes by other, without this Mass is changed in its essence.

Can not tell these people myopic the substance from damn it [cf. our previous articles WHO, WHO]? The liturgical reform has just introduced a new rite, a new contingent of celebrating the same and identical Mass instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. Maybe that Jesus Christ celebrated the Eucharist according to the … the old order?

Second. The talk of traditional Catholics seems to allude to the fact that there are no traditional Catholics, which then would be new or modern Catholicism. But, according to their reasoning, in which case this would be a false Catholic Catholic, because it is not “traditional”.

In reality, it is noted that there is prohibited the adjective “traditional” applied to the life of the spirit, going by analogy to how we express ourselves in material, as for example in the art or power. Thus, for instance, are appreciated some traditional songs or certain traditional foods, without implying contempt for the songs and modern foods. Everyone is free to choose.

Romagna foods
traditional foods from Romagna

No restaurateur who propaganda traditional foods calls not to buy modern foods. Yet these Catholics “traditional”, for a kind of indiscriminate contempt towards modernity, seem to have this contempt for Catholics who want to be modern [see WHO, WHO, WHO, etc. ..]; and be modern - mind you - not at all mean to be “Modernist”, indeed quite the opposite.

In the Church there is nothing bad that some have more sympathy for tradition and others for the renewal and progress, provided that everyone is part of Orthodoxy. But then it is not convenient to use for those who love especially the tradition, the term “traditional”, which brings up the progressives, ie those who love progress, as false Catholics, contrary to tradition and modernist. Progress is a duty; be modernists is heresy.

Tomas Tyn 2
The Servant of God Tomas Tyn,

Better would be to retain the term “traditionalist” long been widely used, giving it in a positive and legitimate as above. I myself have written a book about the Servant of God Tomas Tyn with subtitle “Traditionalist post-conciliar” [1], alluding to the fact that there is a healthy conservatism which contrary to traditionalism lefevriano, welcomes the development of Tradition operated by the Council and by the Popes of the post-conciliar, refusing to see clearly a contradiction of the teaching of the Council than that of the pre-council.

ariel vetus ordo
One of the Fathers of the Island of Patmos, author of articles critical of the lefebvrismo and currents anti-conciliarists, once a week celebrates with The old order is posted, contributing to the preservation of the Missal of St. Pius V in accordance with the directives of the Motu Proprio Benedict XVI

Third. But what is worrying is that those who have brought about this expression with pride and consider themselves traditional Catholics, express ideas in approaching dangerously lefevrismo, as they reject as anti-traditional doctrines of Vatican II and those of Popes following, believing that the true Catholicism, faithful to Tradition, it's just that kind of Catholicism, in those special forms – for example, the Tridentine rite of Mass -, that existed before the Council.

Wednesday. The real traditional Catholic is that the post-conciliar. Every true Catholic, as I said, is certainly to traditional essence, but it is - and this does not seem contradictory - even the progressive, as it was for example the Maritain (not the modernist who is a heretic), but in the sense of the development work by the Council and the post-conciliar. In fact a healthy progress, such as that promoted by the Council, is nothing but a development and a better knowledge of the immutable Tradition.

 

John Cavalcoli breviary
another of the Fathers of the Island of Patmos for the liturgy of the hours use the Latin breviary

This is the true respect of Tradition. To want to stop at 1962 and want to block everything before the Council, as if it had not happened or had led the Church astray, not be a true traditional, is not consistent faithfulness and steadfastness in the truth, a freeze but a living organism, is to prevent the progress of the Church, backwardness is stubborn and arrogant disobedience to the Church advances in history, is a trick of the devil that leads to destruction.

Varazze, 24 March 2015

[1] Tomas Tyn, a traditionalist post-conciliar, Editions Faith&Culture, Verona 2007.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTE posthumous 27.03.2015 ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MASS

 

 

According to her, Rabbi Ariel, for a Catholic who wants to remain faithful to the line Doctrine you should stay to listen to the "mental ruminations" two [censored] Ariel&Cavalcoli that they start debating on nothing distinguishing, for instance substance and damn it Tradition and Sacred Liturgy nalla, or would not be much more uplifting understood with certainty faithful to Catholic Doctrine Sana read, for instance, a piece of a Monk and High Priest whom Don Divo Barsotti Church on the site&Postcouncil, which disavows the "mental ruminations" duo [censored] Ariel&Cavalcoli on what they call the "damn external"? I think that any Catholic who remained the light of reason would not doubt what to answer.

[Comment posted by Gianluigi Bazzorini the 25.03.2015]

 

 

Luigi Bazzorini is a reader-toned highly critical. His last intervention in the blog has passed, however, the limits of decency, so we decided not to publish it, not because it insults us, since we are now estimated by good Catholics, but for the protection of his honor that would be somewhat compromised, if some of his speeches were published insulting.
Reteniamo instead of usefulness to readers deal, with the following note, the question raised by him: the distinction between substance and damn it is critical not only in philosophy and common sense, but also in the field of theology and dogma in the same, such as we have in the dogma of transubstantiation.
The substance of a person, for instance, is the person himself in his identity, Paul is always Paul from birth to death.
Accidents, instead, at least those contengenti, change. Paul is always Paul, even if it has that particular accident. They cover things that now there are now no, ie that for which Paul wetsuit: weight, the height, moods, its places of residence, the degree of his education, clothes that door, its social relations, the money available to, Now healthy now sick, now awake now dormant, etc. ..

So similarly Mass has a fundamental constitution, without which it is not valid; has an immutable essence instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, and a ritual form, conventional, gestural, ceremonial or rubricistica exterior and accidental, such terms or expressions of ritual, that Christ has given the power of the Church to settling accidental forms or ceremonies of the sacraments.

For instance: the altar face or no face to the people, the presence or absence of the balustrade, the Eucharistic Canon high or low voice, readings made or not made by a woman, to name a few or many times the sacrifice and the angels, few or many genuflections, Communion in the mouth or hand, the Latin or Italian, etc.. are external accidents that do not affect the substance.

Thus, as regards the Mass as such, its essence or substance was established once and for all by Christ, for which the Church has no power to change it, but retains unchanged over the centuries with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

It would be a heretic think that the Church can change the substance of a sacrament. It can change rather certain accidents. Indeed, as regards the ceremonial or ritual, it can be changed at the will of the Church, according to the needs or opportunities. Here the Church can enact laws or provisions provided also debatable and revisable. You can invent new or return to the old. An account is then the doctrine of the sacraments in itself and in itself unchangeable; and an account is the ministry of the sacraments, itself by itself changeable.

Thus the the old order and New Order of the Mass, as mode quotas celebrate Mass, the leave intact the substance of faith and touch only the appearance accidental and mutable.

The Second Vatican Council established the New Order of the Mass. Tomorrow another council could still change these accidental and substantive aspects. The existence of new world order does not prohibit the use of in appropriate circumstances The old order is posted. It is always the Mass. Who can, is free to choose. The important thing is that the Mass is valid, lawful and celebrated with dignity, ripetto in the rules and the respective rite. It would therefore be a mistake to believe that the substance of the Mass is preserved only in the old order or vice versa that the The old order is posted either to prohibit.

The important thing is that we all feel a single thing around the mystery of the faith, whether you prefer Novus wordsthe, whether you prefer The old order is posted.

John Cavalcoli, OP

Varazze, 27 March 2015

About isoladipatmos

25 thoughts on "On so-called “traditional Catholics” and “traditional Mass” [with known posthumously inserted the 27.03.2015]

  1. Rev. Father, my innate shyness also prevents me from writing and at a distance behind a computer to externalize certain feelings, not, however, I can not offer to you and the Father Ariel my deep gratitude, and one day I hope to be able to say voice how well you did for me and my husband with your written.
    I know that at this time is in the beautiful Dominican convent of Varazze. I also find myself in Ligura and not far from her, I think that I shall take courage and a Sunday we will be together with my husband to say goodbye, and if you will have time to tell because you have made us so well.
    The early Easter greetings.

    1. I will dress in Puglia and arrive in that place I is more difficult, but, I'm sure you will thank, quuesto good father, me too, for all the explanations he gave me, and that no, He had given me, well if I attend priests …

  2. Father Cavalcoli, I want to thank you so much for having clarified, with words so clear and incisive, l'Idea, the concept of tradition. I think I have faith, and to be a good practicing Catholic, but no one had explained to me, the one who told me she, yet they attend churches, listen to sermons,I go also to catechesis … Thanks!!

    1. Thanks to thè? one that says that the S Novus Ordo Mass is still the S Traditional Mass as the Vetus Ordo means he has not understood the concept of Tradition and she, sig Luca,, continues to remain in ignorance of the concept of Tradition thinking the Cavalcoli've explained it to him. When the various Cavalcoli. Ariel etc. begin to make distinctions between substance and accidents, Doctrine and Pastoral and deceive themselves and they deceive people that the changes Tradition according to historical periods making it look like a “creation” human and not the unchanging Word of God that is above every time because the unfortunate supernatural, as she, who believe that this exposed from the above is Truth and thanking them as well are the victims of a terrible mistake and blunder.

      1. Sorry, but if what you write is not the fathers is fine, because it continues to rend their garments? The net is full of blogs where its arguments would be applauded, I do not understand this obstinacy on his part.

  3. Father Gent.mo. You are able to explain difficult things in words understandable, to touch and make their mark. I've never heard a summit, Yes,degree in humanities,while he is working in a bank since 20years, But I like to read … to listen … But at a certain point I began to wonder if I was not to understand sermons abstruse or if it was the priest who could not preach, if I was me who did not understand the catechesis for adults or whether the young man was ye-ye theologian called the pastor to talk about everything and then the opposite of everything, he did not know catechize. I said once a parish priest: “He invites the father Cavalcoli and father Levi Gualdo to make us a lecture” (because the circle of adults A.C.. in my parish will read in different). He answered ” … but you know, are two slightly’ too conservative”. “good heavens!” answered: “They have dropped sberloni to traditionalists like rice output of the couple from the church, the face of … too conservative!!”. And days later I read an article where he explained that every Catholic is, as a Catholic, a traditionalist, if traditionalism means protecting the heritage of faith of the Catholic tradition.
    Thanks! Good luck and happy Easter.

    1. Mr. Alberto T.

      commenting on my article on the traditional Catholic, It gives me the following thesis: “every Catholic is, as a Catholic, a traditionalist, if traditionalism means protecting the heritage of faith of the Catholic tradition“.
      Now, I did not say this, but I said that Catholic as such is traditional. Which is another thing. Indeed, being traditional enters into the very essence of being Catholic, to which the Catholic who is not traditional is not it Catholic.
      Instead, a Catholic may well be Catholic, although it is not a traditionalist. Indeed, being the traditionalist is an optional choice, which alternative it is to be progressive.
      Note then that nothing progressivism healthy has to do with modernism, with which it is sometimes confused, because while this is a heresy, Progressivism is nothing in the Church that the tendency of those who focus especially the interest around what advances the Church towards the Kingdom of God in a healthy and critical recovery of modernity.
      In what sense and why be traditional enters the essence of being Catholic? As the Catholic be originated and foundation in Sacred Tradition together with Scripture interpretation of the Magisterium of the Church.
      The defense of the patrimony of faith of the Catholic tradition is not traditionalism, but the traditional be, because this is the duty of the Catholic dfesa as such, without which the Catholic is not Catholic.
      traditionalism, instead, It consists of a special interest for tradition, not necessary to being Catholic as such, but left to the free choice of each.
      For instance, Dominican theologian Servant of God Tomas Tyn was made a boast of his stated traditionalism. Instead another great master, Maritain, praised and recommended by Blessed Paul VI and St. John Paul II, It was progressive trend, without this minimally intaccasse his being Catholic, ie traditional.
      In fact there are those who intend the term “traditionalist” in a negative sense, as a false advocate of Tradition and in that sense he used Pope Francis in his address at the end of the Synod of Bishops on the Family.
      For this, the term should be used with caution, explaining the way in which we use it, not to be misunderstood. You must look at the context. The Pope, for instance, He did not explain in what sense was using, but it is understood very well looking at the context of the speech.
      Traditionalism and progressivism are two ways of being Catholic normal and necessary to the life of the Church, which, like all living organisms, especially spiritual, It needs a retention factor, Expect traditional, and an advancement and progress.
      The important thing is that the ones and the others are all nell'alveo orthodoxy and obedience to the Magisterium of the Church.
      While the ideas of these two currents are often questionable, uncertain, partial and changeable and can be wrong, being traditional, in regard to the Tradition, touches the essential foundations, dogmatists, universal and immutable being and living Catholic; for which they should be for all, under the guidance of Peter, indisputable common heritage of faith.
      The distinction between the traditional and the traditionalism is based respectively on the distinction in Catholicism between universal values ​​of reason and of faith on one side and, other, the special and optional choices, or the various currents and trends, as can be traditionalism and progressivism.
      Be careful not to relativize the traditional, which it is essential to Catholicism and not to absolutize particular, where we find the traditionalism.
      It must avoid the two contrary excesses: the traditional false,which it is the lefevrismo, and the false progressivism, which it is modernism.
      It must realize that impartiality that adheres to the universal, without renouncing to make their own free choices, avoiding the bias of reducing the traditional traditionalism to modernism and progress.

  4. Here is the “mythical sentence” that the “good Modernists” the Cavalcoli or Ariel they never miss in their “empty discettazioni” Tradition. ” Maybe that Jesus Christ celebrated the Eucharist according to the Vetus Ordo ...?”. Ariel had also responded well to justify the changes in the S Mass and in general in the changes in the Tradition. totally absurd sentence and even offensive in regard to our Lord because these “columnists” they should know that Jesus has substantially “established” the Vetus Ordo in the interval between his resurrection and ascension into heaven by explaining to the Apostles all aspects (in every detail) the Eucharistic celebration and all these aspects there was nothing “accidental” as even they say the two renewing another insult to our Lord.

    1. these "columnists" should know that Jesus basically "set up" the Vetus Ordo in the interval between his resurrection and ascension into heaven by explaining to the Apostles all aspects (in every detail) the Eucharistic Celebration

      Dear Suresh Babu.

      The drafting of the Island of Patmos, if you agree, would like to create a special section, entitled, for instance “La bazzorrinata settimanale“.
      You should only grant us, once a week, a hilarious comment like this that sent us. Obviously, we will suspend the penitential seasons of the liturgical year strong, but we manteremo open the rest of the year to offer including the many serious subjects of humorous moments to our readers.
      Why her, Bazzorini, It is really a mythical figure and as such should be valued, is convinced even Hypatia, the Roman philosopher cat.
      We understand if we say that it's not every day one that offers such images, because the image that in practice she offered is as follows; and believe if we say that made us laugh all of them with tears in their eyes:

      1. Our Lord Jesus Christ, che per item Parlava in Aramaic, between the resurrection and ascension he has taught the apostles to celebrate the so-called “always mass” with the Missal of St. Pius V prepared in a Latin whose plant is of the XIII / XIV century.

      2. Between the Resurrection and the Ascension, the Blessed Virgin Mary along with the other two marie have set up a tailor and have manufactured garments sixteenth / seventeenth century.

      3. After the Lord ascended to heaven, Peter, he had learned while in the Divine Master the correct art celebration the so-called “always mass“, entered in procession in a baroque cathedral of Judea and on the altar wall with his back to the people celebrated a solemn pontifical service with the deacons and sub-deacons in dalmatica, acolytes, audience, porter, in addition to assistants priests wearing copes designed by Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene, which have become while two famous designers of liturgical garments; while the Blessed Virgin Mary, who he was sitting under the presbytery out of the balustrade, with modest bragging said to all the friends: “Yes but, the highlight, the episcopal gloves with embroidery in silver and gold, Did I made those to Peter I!”.

      Bazzorini, she manages to really imagine Our Lord Jesus Christ to such a hard head was that of Peter Galilean fisherman, She teaches him to bow and to act in a sixteenth century Latin: “Introibo altar Gods …”?. Or if you can imagine this man rude and uneducated Peter, singing a Gregorian preface meters?

      The editorial staff, including Gatta philosopher, truly grateful and heartfelt, because she is giving us some really unforgettable moments.

      And that all this may the Lord make about.

      1. Gentlemen, I swear that, while I am laughing at bad, I got the same idea by reading this Giangi. I thank him for this.
        Good idea this phonebook, Drafting, although I fear would have short life.
        The cartridges with blanks of those guys are very few, always the same, always wrong.
        And Giangi has them all in just given away two comments… sigh, sin.

    1. Dear Suresh Babu.

      We did not want to be silly, but only congratulate her, really!
      But now that is passed to really serious talk, we can only bow our heads and give her reason, because she cites incontrovertible sources, for instance:

      "Eusebius reports that St. Helena built on the Mount of Olives a small church in a sort of cave, where is that, according to an ancient tradition, "The apostles and disciples, [..] hidden mysteries were initiated ".

      Now, since St. Helena is the one who in 326, Three centuries later by the events, personally witnessed the discovery of the Holy Cross of the Lord and that of the two thieves, in a place where were crucified hundreds of convicts, she understands well that you have to take what she says, bow their heads and, this time, thank you with deep seriousness and auntetica.

      We renew the proposal: He wants a weekly column?

      1. dear fathers, dear editors, you have had an outstanding idea, as always, proposing to Mr. Bazzorini a weekly column, I sincerely hope you accept, because, as you say, this gentleman is truly extraordinary. You too, but, with your answers, you made me laugh “with tears in his eyes”. When I came to read the Madonna that she had embroidered, you personally, the episcopal gloves to Peter, from the next room he is racing in the parish catechists, as He has heard him laugh out loud, to wonder what had happened, and when I did read on a computer screen everything to them, they too have died with laughter. Even in this, I think, It is the size of the Island of Patmos, where treated very serious matters, but where there pull back, when to do (or to offer to readers) laughter.

        1. Unfortunately, I wish I had an address book in which address topics lightly but seriously the Isle of Patmos, However, with deep sadness and regret, I realize that compared to Bazzorini are a gnome because as you know the father Ariel would have all the knowledge to be able to make people laugh readers. The extraordinary thing Bazzorini however be able to be an outstanding comedian without knowing it, Therefore, I invite him to shut down all its touchiness Lefebvrian and seriously think about the offer of the Island of Patmos fathers.
          I could make known to Bazzorini its twin who argued that St. Peter was celebrating with the deacons and sub-deacons, and that the Romans were out of the synagogues of Judea, It is still impure, while the maturgheman He translated them into Latin texts in Aramaic that were used for liturgies synagogue.
          Here, I think if these two subjects incotrassero, as the song says “Bomb or no bomb” di De Gregori: “to Roncobilaccio was the apotheosis will …”
          Bazzorini, thanks for existing!

  5. I agree with the article by Father Cavalcoli.
    In its support I intervene by invoking the words of the Council of Trent:

    “The council says, in addition to, that the church has always had the power to establish and mutate them the sacraments, Subject to their substance, those elements that it considers most useful for those who receive them or for the veneration of the same sacraments, depending on the circumstances, times and places”
    (SESSION XXI 16 June 1562, chapter II).

    Father Cavalcoli repeats arm also paroIe of Pope Pius XII, repeating verbatim the words of the Council of Trent:

    "The ecclesiastical hierarchy has always used this right in matters liturgical setting up and ordering Divine Worship and enriching it with ever new splendor and prestige to the glory of God and for the good of the faithful. Non dubitò, Also - save the substance of the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments - change what did not consider suitable, add what seemed best to contribute to the honor of Jesus Christ and the august Trinity to education and healthy stimulus to the Christian people. The sacred liturgy, as a matter of fact, It consists of human elements and divine elements: these, having been established by the Divine Redeemer, they can not, evidently, be changed by men; those, instead, They are subject to various changes, approved by the sacred hierarchy assisted by the Holy Spirit, according to the needs of the times, of things and souls”.

    The same words are repeated by the Second Vatican Council (The Council 27).

    In the father's speech Cavalcoli all back.

  6. Dear Suresh Babu,

    She made us reach a declaration on the Holy Mass, during which states that “Jesus basically "set up" the The old order in the interval between his resurrection and ascension into heaven by explaining to the Apostles all aspects (in every detail) the Eucharistic celebration and all these aspects there was nothing "accidental" .

    I reply specifically saying that it is possible that the risen Lord, during the forty days which followed the Resurrection before the Ascension, days during which He gave further instructions to the apostles about the Kingdom of God, He has treated the Holy Mass. But neither the Scriptures, nor Tradition, nor the Magisterium of the Church point out what exactly Christ would have said. For this, its assertion that the divine Master “has substantially established the The old order … explaining to the Apostles all aspects, and in the smallest details, the Eucharistic Celebration, so that all of these aspects, there was nothing accidental“, It is a wrong statement.

    What the Church knows us about the setting of the Mass by Our Lord, as well as about the essence or substance of the Mass, He knows from the dogmatic teachings of the Council of Trent (Denz. 1739-1742), where it appears that the Lord instituted the Holy Sacrifice Holy Thursday and not after the Resurrection.

    The the old order, therefore, it is not linked to the substance of the Mass, I almost had a substantial and necessary, and therefore inseparable from it, so that the absence of the vetus ordo would change the substance of the Mass and renderbbe invalid,as erroneamte believed Mons. Lefebvre.

    When St. Pius V instituted what we call today the old order, it then was new compared to the previous ones, which were abolished, so it is not that the Mass is born then, already existed. Which means that the Mass is not necessarily, only and substantially linked to St. Pius V rite, but it can also be celebrated in other ways or other rites approved by the Church.

    Liturgical or ceremonial accidental mode and passing the foma and the celebration of Mass (Vetus the new world order that is) They have not been established by Christ.

    Unless we maintain that the Mass should be celebrated in the same manner in which it was celebrated the Last Supper: around a table, each with his glass, probably sitting on the ground, breaking and dividing one another a large loaf, etc., What the Church has never thought of doing, and that in any case has little to do with the manner of St. Pius V rite, knowing seize it from the start what the Mass is substantial and unchanging and what is related to the various changing circumstances, ie accidental elements.

    For this, From the beginning the Church established special ways of celebrating Mass – l’ordo Missae -, which, at the discretion of the Church, He began to vary over time, without this intaccasse the substance of the Mass, something that the Church will never do, as well as it can not change what our Lord wanted a time forever.
    But did you establish or determine the’ordo Missae Jesus left him in the pastoral care and liturgical Church, to be retained, move, renew or abolish according to his.

    So in that very fact that Jesus did at the Last Supper there were accidental elements, today disappeared, not at all necessary to the validity or to the substance of the Mass.

    Sticking to the quota as it was essential was the Lefebvre error, who believed that new world order It was a false Mass.

  7. To say that Jesus explained to the Apostles in the smallest details vetus ordo Mass is equivalent to what they say Jehovah's Witnesses, that Abel would be the first witness (no comment): we are facing anti-historical statements. The oldest record on the details of the Mass goes back to what the father tells apologist St. Justin, He died martyred in 150, The work Apology, the chapter 67, that you can read at the link http://www.monasterovirtuale.it/la-patristica/s.-giustino-apologia-prima/dal-par.-lx.html. Everything is here: the church that is the day of the Lord and participating in the Mass, the priest and the deacon, the liturgy of the word (AT e NT), the homily, the prayer of the faithful, the offertory, the consecration and the Eucharistic prayer, communion, the collection of offerings. this setting, in addition to different things in medieval tradition, is that of the novus ordo.

Leave a Reply