Wednesday, February 6, 2008

SP February 6, 2008

By Patrick Archbold

New Prayer for the Jews:
Let us pray, and also for the Jews.

May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, saviour of all men.
Let us pray.
Let us kneel.
Arise.

Almighty and everlasting God, who desirest that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, mercifully grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into Thy Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

1. We are free to assist at S.S.P.X Masses and other liturgies. The problem has always been that they might not fulfil any obligation to assist at Mass, not that we are forbidden to attend them.

(In a private note, the P.C.E.D. claimed that one may even attend them to fulfil the obligation, provided that there be no schismatic intent. However, some canonists have disputed this and said that the P.C.E.D. had no proper authority to determine it.)

2. However, Good Friday is not and never has been a holyday of obligation.

3. From 1 and 2 foregoing, it follows that we can escape the new Zionist edition of the 1962 Missal simply by attending the Good Friday Service at a Society of St. Pius X chapel.

4. We can also escape the new Zionist 1962 Good Friday prayers by skipping attendance in our Rite and attending Good Friday prayers at an Eastern Catholic Church.

5. We can also escape the Zionist version by continuing to read the vernacular translation of our 1962 (or even pre-1962) wording while the priest intones whatever.

6. If we choose, we can simply not attend church on Good Friday, an option I'd rather not adopt.

7. Whatever may be the case, let's just ignore this. No priest can take my 1962 handmissal away from me, complete with the 1962 wording in Douay Rheims English. When my Missal wears out in another fifty years or so, I'll just use a Good Friday Service made by my lonesome on the computer--for use in church, of course. It will have the 1962, no, the pre-1962 wording.

P.K.T.P.

Altar Ego said...

Wow... that's a truly sad list of possibilities.

AGON said...

anonymous (naturally!) said:

" We can also escape the new Zionist 1962 Good Friday prayers..."

I think we all understand now why Benedict felt it necessary to change this prayer.

David L Alexander said...

I see this "anonymous" guy everywhere I go. Such a brave fellow for speaking his mind, and having the guts to stand behind his convictions by using his real... hey, wait, I just remembered what "anonymous" meant.

Do the math, kids.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:

The name is Peter Karl T. Perkins, and I only use the anonymous tag because it is easier than registering in one blog after another.

The implication, no doubt, is that I am an anti-semite. Not so. However, I do regard the facts of the case. Try reading the Babylonian Talmud in reference to our Lord and His Blessed Mother, and then you'll understand why I refer to these Zionist whiners as such.

P.K.T.P.

David L Alexander said...

Mr Perkins:

I have made reference to the Talmud in other fora of this type. I do not like the idea of a change any more than you. Nevertheless, it is within the authority of the Holy Father. I was also quite impressed by Mr Ferrara's defense of it in The Remnant (after getting past the notion that he WOULD defend it). A piece by Dr Alcuin Reid is more accessible than the Talmud, and can be accessed here.

And next time, please sign your name as you do in "one blog after another."

Anonymous said...

I was underwhelmed by Mr. Ferrara's article. He makes some good secondary points but the primary one outweighs them all. The reason that this change is bad and should be rejected is that it sets a precedent by which the Supreme Pontiff amends the Holy Mass in reaction to the complaints of outsiders. The fact that these outsiders are masoretic Jews, the very worst enemies of our Lord, reinforces the point. However, that is not central. Really, it would not matter who the outsiders were. The Sacred Liturgy should be changed not by composition (Bugnini-style) but by organic growth. But even more dangerous than composition on the initiative of Churchmen is the prospect of altering the Sacred Mass in reaction to the demands of infidels, heretics, or schismatics. Those in error have no standing even to be heard in such matters. That is my main point.

Whether the new prayer is acceptable or not is completely secondary. Frankly, it's beside the point. Even if the prayer had been an improvement or even if it were harsher to the masoretes, it would still be unacceptable if done in reaction to a *demand* from the two rabbis of Palestine and Abraham Cardinal Foxman.

Sure, I don't like the Talmud and so on but that is mere icing on the cake. The Vicar of Christ should not even acknowledge outsiders' demands to amend our Holy Mass, which is a work of the Holy Ghost as He loves us in the Church. Do infidels have standing to demand the amendment of what God the Holy Ghost has given us?

To put this nonsense in its proper perspective, can you *honestly* believe that Pope St. Pius X or Pope Pius XII would have done this? Be honest: it would not have even occurred to them in their wildest dreams. Only honest answers to this question will be considered by me; guff will not.

Peter Karl T. Perkins
Victoria, Canada

Anonymous said...

I should like to make one clarification regarding my last post. I had considered adding it there but I didn't want to make the post too long.

At one point, I write that this revision "should be rejected". For those on this list for whom distinctions are difficult, I wish to clarify that I do NOT counsel rejecting the Holy Father's law. He is the Supreme Legislator of the Church and, within certain bounds (and they do not pertain to this change), we are required to obey him. However, this only means that we are required to do or say what the law stipulates. Accepting the validity of a law does not require doing things which this law does not require but only enjoins. Such is the case in hand, at least for laics. As my first post explained in crystal clear terms, laics are NOT bound in law to receive this revised prayer. They are only bound in law to accept that it is a legitimate part of the Good Friday Liturgy.

The case for priests is somewhat different. Strictly speaking, however, no priest need receive or use this prayer, even if he is a diocesan priest assigned to pastor a traditionalist community. The reason is that Good Friday is NOT one of the days on which priests--even parish priests--are required to offer a public liturgy (and yes, I checked the Code). In other words, a priest who absolutely refuses to receive or use this revision can, as a last resort, simply refuse to offer *any* Good Friday Services.

Peter Karl T. Perkins

P.S. I have never tried to disguise my identity, and Mr. Alexander damn well knows it. It was only an inconvenience to obtain a google account. I don't want one!

David L Alexander said...

"The Sacred Liturgy should be changed not by composition (Bugnini-style) but by organic growth."

Bear in mind we are not discussing a potted plant, but a thing which would in any scenario involve some form of human intervention. Aside from any clairvoyance in knowing why the Pope made his decision -- let me guess: "Post hoc ergo propter hoc." -- please explain your understanding of the difference between "composition Bugnini-style" and "organic growth.

David L Alexander said...

"I have never tried to disguise my identity...."

No, but you were at one point known only as "anonymous." At the time, I did not know damn well what "P.K.T.P" meant, but I damn well know now. Now, you could say that your identity in our little corner of the internet should be enough to know what those initials mean. Very well, it would follow that establishing a Google account shouldn't be that hard for you. It's not up to us to guess who you are. Assumptions can lead to much rancor in this medium.

As if there is not enough already.

Anonymous said...

Organic growth for the ignorant:

Organic growth means that a certain practice is adopted in certain places when it is apart from the law, but not contrary to the law. It is up to the local authority to restrict such things or not.

An abuse of a legitimate practice, however, does not count as an instance of organic growth: abusus non tollit usum, as the saying goes.

After a time, legitimate authority promulgates a long-standing use that is deemed to be good for the Church. The ancient principle, repeated (belive it or not) even in Vatican II (S.C., I believe) is that no change should be made unless is it necessary for the good of souls. In other words, merely a good change is not sufficent; it must be necessary in some way and the result of long-standing use.

This practice was violated in the 1960s, when Annibale Bugnini and his Consilium were appointed to concoct a liturgy straight out of their heads, assisted by six heretical advisors.

For example, the N.O. Offertory did not grow organically among rites or uses but was composed on the spot by Bugnini; it was based on a Jewish prayer. Similarly, Eucharisic Prayer Number Two is only very loosely based on the Canon of Hippolytus, for which there is NO EVIDENCE of actual use in liturgy in the West. In other words, it was proposed in the early Church as an anaphora, but there is no evidence that it was actually used in the West--ever.

The new Good Friday prayer was not based on some previous use (although it is grounded on Scripture) and did not develop organically. It was concocted on the spot; and it replaced an ancient prayer. Even worse, it was not concocted as the result of the initiative of legitimate authority but, rather, at the behest of infidels. That is completely unprecedented. I challenge you to cite even one previous instance of it.

Enough said.

Peter Karl T. Perkins
Victoria, Canada

Anonymous said...

On my identity:

The tone of the earlier comments about my identity suggested that I was trying to conceal it. I was not and have never shirked from stating my positions to anyone.

I left it out merely because I don't want to register for a google account.

P.K.T.P.

David L Alexander said...

"...a certain practice is adopted in certain places when it is apart from the law, but not contrary to the law. It is up to the local authority to restrict such things or not."

Forgive me for being so damned ignorant, Mr Perkins, but in admitting the presence of an authority, just who did you have in mind?

David L Alexander said...

"I was not and have never shirked from stating my positions to anyone."

Most people who post as "anonymous" have no difficulty stating their positions with great vigor, Mr Perkins. Nevertheless, you took the trouble to tell us the name behind the acronym. I can live with that.

Patrick T. said...

David I. Alexander,

I don't agree with the comments made by "anonymous." However, you seem to have a real hang-up about people posting their real names. It is as if you are trying to discredit people because they don't post their full names on the web.

What difference does it make? We don't know who they are in any case. It's just a name of a person in an unknown location.

If you believe someone is wrong, then stick to the issue and explain why he is wrong. It is more educational to witness an actual debate on the issue than to read your ad hominem attacks.

Furthermore, it is understandable why MOST people choose not to post their full names on the web. There happen to be legitimate concerns about privacy.

David L Alexander said...

Patrick T:

My "hangup" is when people attribute evil motives to others, and don't have the guts to show themselves. Yes, by all means, keep your privacy, but it seems to me a lot of people want it both ways, to be able to take cheap shots out in the open, and then to hide behind their "right to privacy."

I realize it is a separate issue, but it goes to the motive and character of the critic, thus when they accuse unjustly, they make it an issue. Further, the need for being anonymous is greatly overrated. It's not as if I could travel halfway around the world and find these people. Like I have nothing better to do.

Anonymous said...

On authorities regarding the local ordinary.

It is a norm embodied in the Canon Law under the sections regarding the force of customs, I believe. I cannot quote all the authorities here without doing extensive searching, for which I have limited time. I do not wish to boast in the least, Mr. Alexander, but I have done rather reading in the field of ecclesiastical law, although I am not an accredited expert. In an academic forum, one would obviously have to quote all the citatatons very precisely. The advantage of a less formal forum such as this is that the burden of finding the references (to the extent needed) can be shared among the readers. I just don't have the time to look them all up. However, if you wish to dispute a claim regarding a legal principle, or if one seems to you to be likely false, you are, of course, entitled to say so.

In fora such as this, I tend to rely more upon the reasonableness of the propositions mentioned. The principle, as I recall it, is that the law of custom only applies to a community that is juridically capable of receiving a law. There are differences in the force of customs depending on whether they have extended for thirty continuous years, for a century at least, or for an immemorial period. The local ordinary, owing to the plenitude of his authority within his cirucmscription, can annul practices within these time limits under varying conditions. But if they perdure beyond them, it becomes harder to do so, and they enter the law as customary law.

Before 1965, the perennial practice was to incorporate changes after a time when they had become customary legal norms in certain places. The act of a pope could then universalise them. Hence organic growth means the integration (generally or, sometimes, universally) of forms that have become customary.

What is totally foreign to Catholic liturgical change (before 1965 or 1970) is the composition of new forms that have no such precedence. Hence even Bugnini tried to claim that his changes were developments of existing forms (e.g. Eucharistic Prayer #2 as the Anaphora of Hippolytus).

I hope that this helps to clarify matters a bit.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

In response to Patrick T.

Thank you for the defence on the matter of identity. However, I am willing to go even further. I have given my full name. For those who think or wish to imply that I am hiding behind the 'anonymous' label, I am also willing to mention where I live. It is in Victoria, British Columbia, Dominion of Canada. No, I won't add my address!

Once again, I am sure that many people use the anonymous option simply because it is easier or they don't want to register. It doesn't mean that they are hiding from B'nai Brith.

P.K.T.P.

David L Alexander said...

Mr Perkins:

Your understanding of customary law sounds reasonable enough. I don't know that I wrote anything that would challenge it, except maybe when I asked you to explain your understanding of "organic growth" as it pertains to the liturgy. Other than that, it is my understanding that custom can be abrogated by ecclesiastical law, for what it's worth.

Further, I'm not sure how any local custom could develop after Trent, with the universal codification of the liturgy, without "bumping" into existing higher law. That might explain some minor alterations to the liturgy by Pope Urban, Pope Clement, and so on.

For the record, I'm no apologist for Bugnini.

David L Alexander said...

Mr Perkins:

You have already gone to some lengths to identify yourself, beyond your initials. By this point, I'll never forget them as long as I live. As to the other party, I can only say that in nearly six years of blogging and making comments, all with my full name and access to my location, and exchanges with people far less civilized than yourself, I have never been subject to any harassment, in any way, shape, or form whatsoever.

Though I did get a phone call once from a fan of my writing. That was kinda fun.

Anonymous said...

Further comments on organic growth.

I feel that I should add a few more words on the practice of change by integrating existing forms, versus change by composing new prayers from fancy. Of course, there is no such thing as pure fancy here, since our very notion of the character of prayer is connected to the Scriptures and other traditional sources that is part of who we are. Hence the changes made by the Holy Father are based very surely, as it turns out, on a Scriptural passage.

Some will also point out that organic change could not have always been the principle of change. Can it account for our earliest prayers?

Well, we lack sufficent knowledge to make an assessment of this. We know that the essential form of Christian worship is derived from the ordering of prayers and readings in the synagogue. We also know that certain of our prayers come directly from the New Testament (e.g. the Consecration Formula). There is evidence that parts of our liturgy were 'composed' during a formative initial period, when there was no conception of general rite but, rather, a very loose 'universal rite' that differed greatly from one town to the next. But we also know that the formulations into rites was done by very great fathers, such as St. Gregory the Great in the West and SS. John Chrysostum and Basil the Great in the East.

There is a parallel here in the development of language (here , English). Forms were various in the 'formative period', the main phase of which, I would argue, ended in about 1440, well *before* the coming of the printing press; and the second minor phase ended in about 1650. Since then, correctitude is mainly determined by precedence, not whim.

Same with the liturgy. Wisdom proceeds out of that which good and is the product of countless generations; it is not the product of any one mind.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On customay law.

Oh, yes, Mr. Alexander, customary law certainly can change things after Trent. See Canons 23 and following. If a custom is approved by a competent legislator with the intention of making law, and is then observed for thirty continuous years, it becames a part of the law. Customary laws that perdure for more than a century cannot be revoked by the laws of the ordinary unless he makes specific mention of them.

There are all sorts of customs that have acquired the force of law. For example, until the 1920s, the rule was that the sanctuary lamp had to be white. I'm sure that you've noticed that it is red today (partly owing to the influence of the Sacred Heart devotions). Back in the 1920s, some stalwarts fought to keep it white everywhere. They won in a few isolated cases at that time but, today, I think that it's probably red nearly everywhere. All owing to customary law.

Speaking of the colours of things, we can divide up all the Latin parishes into two customary categories. First, there are those in which the tabernacle veil is always white, regardless of the liturgical season. Then there are those which use a colour to match the season (except that purple is substituted for black because it is absolutely forbidden to have a black one, for symbolic reasons). I'm not sure if one custom is gradually overcoming the other. What colour is it in your church?

P.K.T.P.

David L Alexander said...

Mr Perkins:

"If a custom is approved by a competent legislator with the intention of making law..."

...then it trumps existing law, as I suggested. As to the sanctuary lamp example, I'm not sure I'd play that hand too often. Could it not apply to certain liturgical practices of which neither you nor I approve (like communion in the hand)? Interesting piece on organic growth, by the way. My parish does not have a veil on its tabernacle. It is of great quality, and in a traditional style, but is not equipped for one that I can tell. The ciboria are all veiled, however.

Anonymous said...

David Alexander wrote:

...then it trumps existing law, as I suggested. As to the sanctuary lamp example, I'm not sure I'd play that hand too often. Could it not apply to certain liturgical practices of which neither you nor I approve (like communion in the hand)?


The point that *I* was making is that customary laws are real laws and can therefore contribute to organic growth. When I custom becomes law in a particular place, it can then be approved for more general application in other places, and, finally, universally. That is how liturgy and other ecclesiastical practices change. They have precedence in custom. They do not come straight out of a legislator's head, except after 1965. The 2008 revision of the Good Friday Prayer came ... straight out of the Supreme Legislator's head. Because the change was not integral, there is no question that it is legitimate. However, this does not mean that it is a good thing. Au contraire. It is a disaster.

As regards the sanctuary lamp example, unfortunately for us, our enemies now *can* play that hand quite often. A liberal canonist from Ottawa has now been arguing gleefully that, thanks to the 'thirty year rule' in the new Code of Canons, all sorts of 1960s and 1970s abuses are now becoming law. So watch out! I am not sure on this point, but I am presuming that the 1917 Code held only to centennial and immemorial custom, not to thirty year customs.

It can't apply specifically to Communion in the hand because the competent legislator has replaced any customary laws with a written one. When a written law specifically mentions a matter of customary law, it replaced ('obrogates'--not abrogates) it. But this could have applied. For a while, before Rome enacted legislation on this matter, the abuse of Communion in the hand was in the process of being entrenched in customary law.

P.K.T.P.