- The German Synod, between Romanophobic Lutheranism and lesbian theologians who claim to overturn Catholic doctrine - 29 July 2022
- Rocco Siffredi's penis, the unreliability of the Free Encyclopedia Wikipedia, the suffering from penile dysmorphophobia of the phallocentric man of the Third Millennium - 30 June 2022
- After they carried the sadomasochistic Madonna and Christ in stiletto heels in procession to Gay Pride, I am on trial for calling an LGBT promoter inconsistent - 21 June 2022
"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, quindi chiedervi: “The Mass of Paul VI, is really valid?”» [Chiara caön, reader of Trento]
Dear Father Giovanni.
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 credit, 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 “fazioni avverse” 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, believers of Christ from falling into the errors of some bad teachers.
Replies the Dominican John Cavalcoli
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 The mystery of faith. 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 della Santa Messa - 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, the Mass new world order, was motivated by the Second Vatican Council with serious reasons known to all [Holy 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.