Did Pope Paul VI Abrogate the Traditional Latin Mass? | National Catholic Register https://t.co/091kQ2Bdjx @NCRegister
— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) November 13, 2021
The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to John chanted in Latin.
— Br. Martin (@BVMConsolatrix) November 13, 2021
Now ILLEGAL according to Traditionis Custodes.https://t.co/N3chTVpdHN
Grateful as ever, to @M_P_Hazell for doing the spade-work on the surprising assertion of Abp Roche that the 1970 Missal retains 90% of the texts of the Missal of St Pius V. (See thread) https://t.co/4VCt3Evp1K
— Fr Timothy Finigan (@FatherTF) February 23, 2021
Guest Article: Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the Significance of Minor Ministries in the Sacred Liturgy https://t.co/oBFzgXOQom pic.twitter.com/H7tieyG4D1
— NLM (@NLMblog) January 20, 2021
#7dicembre #storia Cinquantacinque anni fa, la fine delle scomuniche fra cattolici e ortodossi #chiesa #ecumenismo
— Vatican News (@vaticannews_it) December 7, 2020
Approfondisci 👉🏻 https://t.co/TEqnyRTIou pic.twitter.com/CfjhqyFc9B
Today is the fifty-fifth anniversary of the lifting of the excommunications between Paul VI and Athenagoras - "committed to oblivion" https://t.co/LTW1q4XfeC
— Fr Alexander Laschuk (@byzkanonist) December 7, 2020
Some may be asking, what does our Chairman-elect to the Committee on Doctrine @bpdflores believe about the Holy Eucharist?
— Alberto 🕯 (@FlatCath) November 16, 2020
Priests used to keep their fingers together after the consecration. Now, a high-ranking bishop washes away our Lord with hand sanitizer: https://t.co/ZCoMA6NI23 pic.twitter.com/LcDAxHObs9
On this day in 1964, in the presence of the 2,000 Council Fathers of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, breaking with tradition, donated his Papal tiara to the poor at a ceremony in St. Peter’s Basilica, making him the last pope to wear the ceremonial crown. pic.twitter.com/0uC4Ephilk
— Catholic Sat (@CatholicSat) November 13, 2020
I'm somewhat agnostic on the "best form" of government, when governments seem to always devolve. But on today's feast, Peter K looks at Christianity & Kingship:
— Steve Skojec (@SteveSkojec) October 25, 2020
Between Christ the King and “We Have No King But Caesar” - OnePeterFive - https://t.co/fCjYptnA69 via @onepeterfive pic.twitter.com/u4zeQCYJv8
The month of November begins with the great Solemnity of All Saints. But in the traditional Roman calendar, All Saints is preceded shortly before by an even greater feast—that of Christ the King, the One who creates and sanctifies the citizens, ambassadors, and soldiers of His Kingdom.This is close to the justification that Pius XI used in Quas Primas. Note that in the Byzantine rite, the feast of All Saints is celebrated after Pentecost (as it used to be celebrated in the West), and for an appropriate liturgical and theological reason. Otherwise the case could be made that every Sunday is a memorial of Christ who is the Head of His Mystical Body.
When Pope Pius XI instituted the feast of Christ the King in 1925, he was, one might say, supplying in the Church’s calendar the missing invisible cause of All Saints, as well as making clear just what the mission of the saints in history is: to be the living members of the Mystical Body under Christ its Head, and to extend this body across the whole earth. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the King of all men, all peoples, all nations, and His saints are those who, taking up their cross and following Him, have conquered their own souls and won over the souls of many others for this Kingdom.
As Michael Foley shows in a brilliant article in the latest issue of The Latin Mass magazine, the feast was not merely moved, but transmogrified. It was given a new name, a new date, and new propers, all of which deemphasized the social reign of Christ and put in its place a “cosmic and eschatological Christ.”But is the Pauline/Consilium's Feast of Christ the King closer in its conception of Christ to the Byzantine representation of Christ Pantocrator? Perhaps.
This leads me back to Pope Paul VI’s suppression of one feast of Christ the King and his creation of another. What is really going on here? It seems to me that the original feast of Christ the King represents the Catholic vision of society as a hierarchy in which lower is subordinated to higher, with the private sphere and the public sphere united in their acknowledgment of the rights of God and of His Church. This vision was put aside in 1969 to make way for a vision in which Christ is a king of my heart and a king of the cosmos—of the most micro level and the most macro level—but not king of anything in between: not king of culture, of society, of industry and trade, of education, of civil government.Perhaps anything more than this would be pastorally unwise - presumptuous and maybe even blasphemous? Our Lord is not a sports team, and He does not want empty praise coming from the lips of men.
For centuries, going back into the mists of time, the priest has said the words “Mysterium fidei” in the midst of the words of consecration whispered over the chalice. These words powerfully evoke the irruption or inbreaking of God into our midst in this unfathomable Sacrament. The consecration of the wine completes the signification of the sacrifice of the Cross, the moment when our High Priest obtained for us eternal redemption (cf. Heb 9:12), the re-presentation of which, together with the application of its fruits, is the very purpose of the Mass.and
Even if the words mysterium fidei are not necessary for signifying transubstantiation (and thus, the consecration can be “effective,” and the Mass “valid,” without them), the removal of the phrase from its age-old position exudes the attitude: nothing is sacred.Does this use of "mysterium fidei" match what St. Paul means by the Mystery, Christ becoming Incarnate so that we may be incorporated in Him? If that is what St. Paul meant, then why would "mysterium fidei" be used before anyone had actually received Holy Communion?
This is the same pope that failed to give any sort of modicum of leadership at a time when papal authority still carried some weight with bishops. This is also the same pope who created the turbulence with a disastrous liturgical reform. A pope who was wrongly canonized for the sake of institutional reasons. How can there be a "evangelization" by Christian peoples who cannot give credible witness with respect to their private lives, non-existent parish lives, and liturgical worship? The bishops failed to focus on the basics; if they had done so, they wouldn't need a document from Paul VI about evangelization.
The 1974 Synod on evangelization was a donnybrook, reflecting the turbulence in the Church a decade after the Second Vatican Council. The synod fathers couldn’t agree on a final report, so they handed the synod’s materials to Pope Paul VI with the request that he do something. Pope Paul responded with the great apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (Announcing the Gospel). It was Paul VI’s last pastoral testament to the Church and the first summons to what John Paul II would call the “New Evangelization”: the grand strategy that animates the living parts of the world Church today.
The 1990 Synod debated priestly formation and seminary reform. The propositions adopted by the synod fathers helped shape John Paul II’s 1992 apostolic exhortation, Pastores Dabo Vobis (I Shall Give You Shepherds). Where it was taken seriously (as in the United States), that exhortation helped apply the brakes to the silly season in seminaries and laid the foundation for the reformed seminaries of today.Assuming that seminaries, during a time of contracting local churches and budgets, would remain a viable option for educating future deacons and bishops was a mistake. Weigel's assessment of the current state of American seminaries, like his judgment of many other aspects of the patriarchate of Rome, is excessively positive. How many of these seminaries have implemented a program of scripture study even close to something like Pius X wanted? (What is the typical Latin seminarian's knowledge of Greek and Hebrew like?) How could Latins come to a new appreciation of the fundamental Kerygma without returning to the language of scripture, away from the jargon of neo-scholasticism?
And then there was the special Synod of 1985, which met on the 20th anniversary of Vatican II’s fourth and final session to explore what had gone right, and what had gone not-so-right, in implementing the Council. Its final report’s description of the Church as a communion of disciples in mission provided the thread that wove the 16 documents of Vatican II into a coherent, compelling tapestry of Catholic faith. Like Evangelii Nuntiandi, the special Synod of 1985 was a crucial moment in the journey from Vatican II—the council Pope John XXIII called to give the Church new missionary energy—to the New Evangelization.
Catholics who do not give themselves trustingly to the 2,000-year tradition of the Church will not be in contact with the whole doctrine and morality of Catholicism. This is hard to hear, but so is much of the teaching of Our Lord: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matt. 16, 24). The same is true, in a way, of tradition: we have to deny our modern prejudices, take up the blessed burden of our tradition, and follow it, in order to be integrally Catholic.
