:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 ::

On Liturgical Reforms and Argumentation Fallacies:
(Dialogue With Kevin Tierney)

I would be remiss in not noting before this posting that I am responding to a thread with which there is general agreement between Kevin and myself. This response will be primarily on the points where he cites my own work for argumentation and will consist of the email I sent to him after reading the aforementioned musings thread from August 23, 2005. (With some very minor adjustments.) His words will be in black font in this thread except for his quoting of passages from my writings -the texts of which will be in blue font. Any additional citations by me will be in darkblue font.


Kevin:

As a form of clarification, I wanted to comment briefly on the passage which you quoted. But first, some interaction if I may along with a request to please circulate this to those who read your text below. I say this because I am after all the writer of the passage you cite so I think I understand my intentions better than anyone else does. And as I am essentially (albeit irenically) being accused of an argumentation fallacy, some explanation is in order I believe. But without further ado...

In order to properly assess any liturgical reform, there is a distinction that must be made. In today's emotionally charged environment surrounding the liturgy, there are very few who do this on all sides, but nonetheless something that must be done.

Agreed.

The dialogue surrounding liturgical reform must reach a point where the accidentals surrounding both liturgies are not the focus, but that which is substantial to the liturgy in and of itself.

Agreed.

In other words, an abuse of a principle is not an argument against the principle itself.

Agreed.

An example of this argumentation is the following:

In comparing the two texts side by side, the reader will immediately think something is askew when they see the large empty space in the second column that is filled with text in the first column. After all, the Pauline rite introductory admittedly looks pretty meager compared to the Tridentine on paper. In reality they are about the same length if you take into account that (i) in the Pauline liturgy, the priest after the greeting usually takes about thirty seconds to explain the significance of the mass that day - usually a theme from one of the readings or if it is a feast day something pertaining to the feast - and (ii) in the Tridentine liturgy the priest and server usually alternate Psalm verses at low volume and quickly in a manner whereby if they said them aloud it would sound rambling. (This writer served at many a Tridentine mass and in every case the priest recited Psalm 42 as if he was in a hurry.) So what appears on paper to be a gross imbalance in length is mitigated by those two factors. (I. Shawn McElhinney, A Prescription Against Traditionalism: A Macro Look at the Two Rites of Mass)

Shawn is a very good friend of mine, a very good colleague, and one with whom I have sparred on numerous occasions.

Meanwhile, for mentioning publicly any kind of affiliation with me...including a (gasp) friendship, Kevin finds himself cout martialled by the League of Evil Traditionalists where the punishment is the RTC site being demoted from "featured site" (a kind of "first class" position) to a "site bulk rate" classification ;-)

He cites an abuse of the Traditional Rite as evidence that we must abrogate a principle, or that such abrogation was understandable.

The purpose of the larger piece (from which the quote was extracted) was to do a comparison of the two missals from a macro standpoint. There was also the intention to posit differing rationales for the different formularies used. Ergo, there was not an argumentation fallacy being utilized since I did not argue for replacement of the previous form solely on the basis of an common abuse in how it was used.

He assumes that just because the vernacular is used, that somehow the priest will be forced to say it slower.

As a rule this is the case. After all, when virtually no one understands what you are saying, then there is not the same concern for being clear in your enunciation. However, this is a general norm or rule and obviously rules can admit of exceptions.

One can very easily find exceptions to this rule, just as people can find exceptions to Shawn's argumentation. In the case of many Latin Masses celebrated today, this is far less the case.

Depends on where they are celebrated. I have not seen any difference in this area whether the Latin masses are celebrated by priests of the SSPX or priests of the FSSP. So I am not convinced (based on experience here as attendee and also as a server) that there is less a case of this than there was previously.

My good colleague would argue this is because of better priestly training, and I agree wholeheartedly, but this does not help the argument he made.

I did not argue against the use of the old introductory based on this rationale at all.

One can also state that it is only optional for the priest in the "Pauline Rite" to do such things, not obligatory, so the comparison on paper can still hold in reality.

Fair enough. I will touch on this briefly at the end of Kevin's musings.

In places such as the liberal archdiocese of Detroit, this comparison holds true in spades. While I could cite other examples by people making the same fallacy, that example I believe is clear enough to suffice.

I fail to see how I could be engaging in an argumentation fallacy or "for" abrogating the older model when I actually said the following immediately after what Kevin cites from my work. To show continuity, I will add the last sentence of what Kevin cites in italics:

So what appears on paper to be a gross imbalance in length is mitigated by those two factors. As far as the usage of Psalm 42 at the start of Mass, it was added at around the eleventh century. Therefore, it cannot be considered an "essential" part of the rite as if going without it somehow made the Pauline rite in any way deficient. That is the primary point to be made here, not whether it is better to have retained it or not. (Such views are purely subjective though subjectively the author if a choice was to be made would prefer the older sequence.)

I argued that the older sequence was not an essential part of the rite because it was added to the mass in the eleventh century. (If it was essential, then that does not bode well for the masses of the preceding ten centuries.) I also noted that the latter was the primary point not whether or not the Psalm 42 should have or should have not been retained. Those are subjective judgments not objective ones. Nonetheless, I did let the reader know at the time that I preferred the older sequence. How therefore could I have been making an argumentation fallacy for its replacement???

For the Traditionalists, we are no less guilty, and it's something that has to be said. Oh how we love to use examples of the Clown Mass to prove "You see everyone, look at how horrid the New Mass is!" Surely we must know that the clown Masses are incredibly rare, and 99.9% of Catholics attending the Modern Rite have never even heard of such a thing, unless we of course point it out. I remember an article written by one of my partners in crime no longer online who had at one time attempted to justify attending an SSPX chapel. His argument was look at the clown Masses, and the gay masses, then look at the Society Chapel. As my mentor in apologetics Mike Pallas had said to me "Is this buffoon seriously going to argue that in his respective diocese, the only option he has is the clown mass, the gay mass or the society chapel? Such hyperbole does nothing but inflame people's passions, and makes a reasoned discussion and dialogue on this issue impossible.

Well said Kevin.

Does this mean that abuses cannot be attacked and condemned? Of course not, I would be the last person to argue that we should just ignore liturgical abuse. Yet our goal should be to eliminate these abuses. For the person who favors the Traditional Mass, if the abuses in the Modern rite are for the most part eliminated, then we can examine things on their merits. Even if they do not, ones commentary and critiques are guaranteed to be heard by more, because they do not resort to sensationalism. The same is true for the devotee of the Modern Rite.

Precisely.

There is however an area where the criticisms of this like can be made. It can be argued that for example in the Modern Rite that due to so many options being allowed at Mass, it breeds an innovative spirit amongst clerics.

Yes it can. One could also argue that the use of a couple of options within a general framework provides a greater adapability for various times, locales, or particular circumstances than not having some options. However, one could also argue that four options for the penitential rite is too excessive. In my treatise, I was not intending to argue for or against particular usages. I did at times note my preferences but I did this for the sake of disclosure so that the readers can see that in places I made good points against the positions that I held. It is not uncommon to reserve the good arguments for what someone personally likes and relegating the crappy ones for what they do not like. I deliberately sought to avoid this for the sake of making the correct distinctions.

For the Traditional Rite, the use of a language foreign to most people can enhance the idea of a spectator Mass, where people are not able to participate as fully, hence the priest is just doing his own thing. However, these must be called for the things they are, that is abuses, and when claiming to make an objective analysis should be avoided at all costs.

Good points. I should note that the reason I only discussed the confiteor in the treatise is that it is the most common option utilized. Obviously it is not the only option; however if I discussed every option in that section of the work, the 40 pages would have been about 60 and readers would have a hard time staying focused. That is why I focused on the main option since (in my experience) it is the most commonly utilized.

However, in the interest of completeness, it should be noted that there are other options at this point of the mass too. For example, there is also the sprinkling of the water rite which takes the place of the Confiteor. It is a bit longer than the Confiteor since the priest has to walk down the aisles with a canister of holy water and sprinkle the congregation. And (of course) there is one feature where you can basically recite a biblical passage inbetween the Kyrie intonations and forego what precedes it.

There is also a fourth option in my 1974 Daughters of St. Paul Missal which is basically a kind of Psalm 42 responsorial mishmash in that it reprises in the vernacular many of the prayers previously said in the older rite in Latin. However, this one is never used to my knowledge (I have never seen it used that I can recall -either in recent years or many years ago) so basically we could say that there are three options. If I had my druthers, they would pare this to two: the confiteor and the sprinkling of holy water. That way, the penitential rite is not reduced too much in length.

To touch briefly on what I noted earlier, as far as Psalm 42, as I noted in referencing the work, I expressed a preference five years ago for this option; however, my opinion on that changed some time ago.{1} Obviously I have no problem with it in the Tridentine rite but as for the Pauline rite, I now think this option should be used where it was originally used and intended: in the private preparations of the priest in the sacristy when preparing for mass.

Prior to the eleventh century insertion into the Roman Missal, these prayers were said in the sacristy for preparation. After that, there was some variation in when they were said throughout the west until Pope Pius V made the Roman Missal the uniform practice and normative rule of liturgical celebration in the universal church.

So I am now of the view that those prayers of preparation should be recited by the priest in the sacristy before mass. They could even do it as a dialogual form where the priest alternates with one of the servers who assists him in vesting for mass. Either way though, that is my position on the matter now.

Note:

{1} When revising and expanding the work two and a half years ago, I did not make changes to all of the areas where I had a differing opinion than I did two and a half years previously. (Only in the ones where my change in opinion was a significant one did I do this and they were few and far between.)

:: Shawn 1:29 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Pope Benedict XVI Weighs in On the "Pro-Multis: For Many/For All" Tempest in a Tea Cup

While he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI soberly assesses this issue that has been the subject of much unreasonably heated debate:

" At this point, I should like to include a question about which some people argue in extremely heated fashion: The German [as well as the English] translation no longer says, 'for many', but 'for all', and this takes into account that in the Latin Missal and in the Greek New Testament, that is to say, in thr original text that is being translated, we find 'for many'. This disparity has given rise to some disquiet; the question is raised as to whether the text of the Bible is not being misrepresented, whether perhaps an element of untruth has been brought into the most sacred place in our worship. In this connection, I would like to make three points.

1. In the New Testament as a whole, and in the whole of the tradition of the Church, it has always been clear that God desires that everyone be should be saved and that Jesus died, not just for part of mankind, but for everyone; that God himself--as we were just saying--does not draw the line anywhere. He does not make any distinction between people he dislikes, people he does not want to be saved, and others whom he prefers; he loves everyone because he has created everyone. That is why the Lord died for all. That is what we find in Saint Paul's Letter to the Romans: God 'did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all' (8:32); and in the fifth chapter of the Second Letter Corinthians: 'One has died for all' (2 Cor 5:14). The first Letter to Timothy speaks of "Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all' (1Tim 2:6). This sentence is particularly important in that we can see, by the context and by the way it is formulated, that a eucharistic text is being quoted here. Thus we know that at that time, in a certain part of the Church, the formula that speaks of a sacrifice 'for all' was being used in the Eucharist. The insight that was thus preserved has never been lost from the tradition of the Church. On Maundy Thursday, in the old missal, the account of the Last Supper was introduced with the words: 'On the evening before he died, for the salvation of all he....' It was on the basis of this knowledge that in the seventeenth century there was an explicit condemnation of a Jansenist proposition that asserted that Christ did not die for everyone. This limitation of salvation was thus explicitly rejected as an erroneous teaching that contradicted the faith of the whole Church. The teaching of the Church says exactly the opposite: Christ died for all.

We cannot start to set limits on God's behalf; the very heart of the faith has been lost to anyone who supposes that it is only worthwhile, if it is, so to say, made worthwhile by the damnation of others. Such a way of thinking, which finds the punishment of their people necessary, springs from not having inwardly accepted the faith; from loving only oneself and not God the Creator, to whom his creatures belong. That way of thinking would be like the attitude of people who feel who could not bear the workers who came last being paid a denarius like the rest; like the attitude who feel properly rewarded only if others have received less. This would be the attitude of the son who stayed at home, who could not bear the reconciling kindness of his father. It would be a hardening of our hearts, in which it would become clear that we were only looking out for ourselves and not looking for God; in which it would be clear that we did not love our faith, but merely bore it like a burden. We must finally come to the point where we no longer believe it to be better to live without faith, standing around the marketplace, so to speak, unemployed, along with the workers who were taken on at the eleventh hour; we must be freed from the delusion that spiritual unemployment is better than living with the Word of God. We have to learn once more so to live our faith, so to assent to it, that we can discover in it that joy which we do not simply carry round with us because others at a disadvantage, but with which we are filled, for which we are thankful, and which we would like to share with others. This, then, is the first point: It is a basic element of the biblical message that the Lord died for all--being jealous of salvation is not Christian.

2. A second point to add to this is that God never, in any case, forces anyone to be saved. God accepts man's freedom. He is no magician, who will in the end wipe out everything that has happened and wheel out his happy ending. He is a true father; a creator who assents to freedom, even when it is used to reject him. That is why God's all-embracing desire to save people does not involve the actual salvation of all men. He allows us the proper power to refuse. God loves us; we need only to summon the humility to allow ourselves, again and again, whether we are not possessed of the pride of wanting to do it for ourselves; whether we do not rob man, as a creature, along with the Creator-God, of all his dignity and stature by removing all element of seriousness from the life of man and degrading God to a kind of magician or grandfather, who is unmoved by anything. Even on account of the unconditional greatness of God's love--indeed, because of that very quality--the freedom to refuse, and thus the possibility of perdition, is not removed.

3. What, then, should we make of the new translation? Both formulations, 'for all' and 'for many', are found in Scripture and in tradition. Each expresses one aspect of the matter: on one hand, the all-embracing salvation inherent in the death of Christ, which he suffered for all men; on the other hand, the freedom to refuse, as setting a limit to salvation. Neither of the two formulae can express the whole of this; each needs correct interpretation, which sets in the context of the Christian gospel as a whole. I leave open the question of whether it is sensible to choose the translation "for all" here and, thus, to confuse translation with interpretation, at a point at which the process of interpretation remains in any case indispensable. There can be no question of misrepresentation here, since whichever of the formulations is allowed to stand, we must in any case listen to the whole of the gospel message: that the Lord truly loves everyone and that he died for all. And the other aspect: that he does not, by some magic trick, set aside our freedom but allows us to choose to enter into his great mercy" (God is Near Us, The Eucharist, The Heart of Life pp. 34-38 Ignatius Press 2003)

:: Greg Mockeridge 4:26 PM [+] | ::

************************************

We should not forget that the upcoming (and from what I am hearing, drastically improved) missal translations are not solely the achievement of Pope Benedict XVI but instead are a completion of the wishes of his predecessor as well.

:: Shawn 1:38 PM [+] | ::

************************************

On the Subject of Possible Upcoming Liturgical Adjustments:

This text (with some slight tweaking) was sent in an email circular earlier in the week -ISM.

I am not sure how accurate this report is but (if it is), I like much of what I am hearing thus far (my comments will be interspersed):

Speaking of liturgical reform, I just spoke to one of our parish's seminarians (he was the one who sponsored my reception into full communion with the Church), who has a copy of the first printing of the new English translation of the Roman Missal. He tells me that as far as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is concerned, the new translation is approved and accepted. There are plenty of good things in the new translation -- the innumerable mistranslations we've been enduring for more than 30 years have finally been fixed. We'll say "I believe" instead of "We believe," "And with your spirit" instead of "And also with you," etc., etc. -- changes we've been expecting since Liturgiam Authenticam.

I cannot fathom how someone could not like the above news. So many of the prayers in the two missals are the same but (based on the poor translations) this is usually not realized. I have long argued that we cannot get the grasp of the issue of the revised liturgy the way we should without accurate translations.{1} At long last, we will have them Deo Gratias.

But it gets even better: Pope Benedict personally pencilled in some changes -- changes not just to the English translation, but apparently to the Latin text of the Roman Missal. One of those changes is a return to TWO Confiteors instead of one. Also, it seems the Confiteor will return to something very close to the pre-1970 form -- i.e., it seems that the names eliminated from the Confiteor's "litany" will be restored. (The seminarian wasn't sure on that point, because he didn't have the Missal translation in front of him at the time. I'll get to verify these things he's told me next week, and then I'll post a follow-up comment -- if any of this information is wrong, I'll correct it then.)

Basically those of us who prefer the one confiteor to two (and I am one of them) will have to rethink their position if the above is true. Thus far, I am postulating that (if it is true) Pope Benedict XVI wants to make sure that rather than a return to a kind of clericalist view of the matter (i.e. as in what probably most so-called "traditionalists" have whether they believe they do or not) that the Pope simply wants every priest to stand before the congregation and publicly admit by himself that he is a sinner and plead for forgiveness. In light of the recent clerical scandals in America, I am becoming inclined towards viewing that change as a good idea. (Of course even if I do not eventually see it that way, I will submit to the pope's judgment on the matter lest anyone wonder.)

A followup to the above email was this one that I sent to someone who asked "what a confiteor was"{2}:

Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper Virgini, beato Michaeli Archangelo, beato Joanni Baptistae, sanctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, et omnibus Sanctis, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, et opere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor beatum Mariam semper Virginem, beatum Michaelem Archangelum, beatum Joannem Baptistam, sanctos Apostolos Petrum et Paulum, et omnes Sanctos, orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum.

I used to recite that as an altar server. Basically we know it in English as "I confess to Almighty God." Basically Pope Benedict XVI wants to return to where the priest says the confiteor before the people do. He may also be inserting some of the old saints into the prayer ala pre-1970. On that, I think it should be kept as a kind of "Blessed Mary Ever Virgin, all the angels and saints" formulary since it clearly distinguishes between hyperdulia and dulia with that formulary. (In the old Latin missal, it was "beatae Mariae semper Virgini, beato Michaeli Archangelo, beato Joanni Baptistae, sanctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, et omnibus Sanctis" which is a bit long and blurs the distinctions I believe.)

The underlying Latin of the revised missal is not well translated as you may know. But basically to use a form of the confiteor that reads (in Latin as well as in English) "I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary Ever Virgin, to all the angels and saints, and to you brethren" for the priest and "I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary Ever Virgin, to all the angels and saints, and to you Father" for the people would be better than reinstituting the old approach in my view.

For the reasons I noted in the other email, the double confiteor is not my preference[...](I would prefer if the 4 options of the penitential rite be reduced to two: confiteor and sprinkling of holy water) but as His Holiness makes these decisions, I will seek to find good rationale for them and (of course) give the proper submission due....

[...]I noted this in my treatise as well as in an essay on confusing culture and tradition. To quote from the latter in part:

The intention of the liturgical reform was to restore a more fully orbed understanding of the mystery of the Mass. This duel element emphasis had begun to gradually vanish in the ninth and tenth centuries when an over-clericalizing begin to take place. This was when the Church started using non-plural prayer forms, multiplying prayers such as a double confiteor, and emphasizing a near caste system when it came to the priest and the laity...[Confusing Culture With 'Tradition' (circa 2001)]

Obviously if Pope Benedict XVI restores two confiteors, I will have to reassess the above statement since he is quite obviously not clericalistic. Right now I am approaching that possibility as the pope believing that the priest should have to confess he is a sinner before the congregation as an act of humility. (That sounds like as good an explanation as I can think of for it anyway.)

I was a little bit sharper in my treatise when discussing the matter -something I note here because I have a rather strong view on this matter. Nonetheless, I will give the proper (and Traditional) submission to the pope should be decide against my views on this matter of course.

Notes:

{1} I commented briefly on my general dislike for ICEL about three years ago at Rerum Novarum. And there has been no alteration in my view since then I might add (lest anyone wonder).

{2} They then did a kind of email smack of themselves and went "duh, how did I forget that???"...I am guessing they had a brainfart on the matter...

:: Shawn 10:30 AM [+] | ::

************************************

An Open Forum:

I want to try something ad experimentum based on what my good friend Dave Armstrong sometimes does at his weblog. At times he will post a forum where people can talk about whatever they want and have a bit of a free-for-all without as much concern for being congruent to the post they comment on. So that is the purpose of this thread. The only real rules are the usual ones for conduct so let's see how this idea works here at LEI...oh and do not even think of posting spam here. Other than that, have at it!!!

:: Shawn 7:25 PM [+] | ::

************************************

On the So-Called "Ottaviani Intervention" and the Orthodoxy of its Author:
(With Kevin Tierney)

As it seems appropriate at the present time to follow through with an idea I had about elevating a rather lengthy comments box blurb from July 22nd into a post in its own right; ergo that is what has been done. Kevin's words will be in black font. The posting on my part which originated Kevin's response will be in blue font. Any minor glitches in either text will be corrected in this posting along with some possible development of (or rephrasing of) certain parts.

With regards to the sedeprivationist subject, all I will add is that the theory of sedeprivationism was pioneered by the sedevacantist heretic Fr. M. Gerard des Lauriers OP. For those who do not recognize the name, he was the principal author of the so-called Ottaviani Intervention not long before he became a sedevacantist heretic and started inventing his own theories on that issue as well...

Of course Shawn you should note that in the interest of full disclosure, there was no problem with the orthodoxy of Fr. M. Gerard des Lauriers OP when he was one of the people involved in the Intervention.

That is actually quite debatable Kevin. While it could be said that it was not perceived at the time that there were problems, we have the benefit of hindsight now. We also have the benefit of the CDF passing judgment on the so-called "Intervention" itself and that judgment should be taken into consideration when arguing for the orthodoxy or lack thereof of Fr. M. Gerard des Lauriers OP.{1}

I remind you that after the Intervention was delivered to Pope Paul VI, he decided to forward it to the CDF to examine the study and see if the statements in it were accurate or not. This was done in October of 1969 -on the 22nd if I recall correctly. On November 12, 1969, the CDF pronounced on this matter and noted (among other things) that the so-called "Ottaviani Intervention" contained "many statements which are superficial, exaggerated, inexact, impassioned, and false." Pope Paul VI nonetheless, decided in the following weeks to deliver some allocutions to clarify the dogmatic stability of the missal and this removed the doubt from those who were still in doubt on the matter.

As for those who continued to agitate on the matter, I have a very low opinion of them but you probably knew that already. But as the "Intervention" was attributed to Ottaviani (who had not written it), let us consider His Eminence's role in this matter when he had a position of authority within the Curia: something he did not have in 1969.

In his capacity as Prefect of the CDF in 1966-7, Cardinal Ottaviani had given an approval of the same four Eucharistic Prayers which the so-called "Intervention" was so scathingly critical of.{2} This is a fact of history and is beyond legitimate debate. For that reason, I am left to conclude that either Ottaviani contradicted himself blatantly by approving the letter of 1969 or that he was simply of too poor a vision at the time of the "Intervention" to be able to read and comprehend the content adequately.{3}

I of course go with the latter since it is the most charitable of interpretations in light of the circumstances. (Particularly since those who argue against Ottaviani's retraction five months later claim he was "completly blind" at that time.)

Nonetheless, the so-called "Intervention" has many problems to it and I toyed with the idea of writing an essay on this matter many years ago. However, time constraints and other probjects of far greater importance were dealt with instead. Besides, as you know from our private correspondence, I do not think the "Intervention" was completely without merit; however, those who frequently refer to it need to be set straight on all of the factors involved with it.

Notes:

{1} Not to mention his subsequent slide into sedevacantism. These are not immediate events but they tend to take time after all: I need only point to the fact that it took your friend Mario a bit over four years to tread that path and officially declare himself sedevacantist. But those who followed his writings and website links know that he was there a long time before that in heart if not yet fully in mind. It does not take much of a stretch to postulate that the same was the case for the principle writer of the "Intervention."

{2} I do not mean "approval" in that he necessarily liked them. Instead, it was more of an Imprimatur whereby they were declared to be free from any doctrinal or moral errors.

For those who do not know, I reiterate what I noted above: Cardinal Ottaviani (when he was Prefect of the CDF) was sent five different anaphora prayers -the four which were eventually included in the missal and another one which mirrored with greater closeness the Byzantine anaphoras. Of the five, only the Byzantine-based fifth anaphora was rejected on doctrinal grounds.

Not long afterwards, Pope Paul VI confirmed an Instruction by the Sacred Congregation of Rites dealing with many of the issues which would later be raised by the so-called "Intervention" including a threefold understanding of the Mass as sacrifice, memorial, and sacred banquet. That same Instruction made it clear that the Mass and the Lord's Supper (the latter being the term used in the GIRM) were one and the same and were to be understood by the same threefold critiera.

Furthermore, Pope Paul VI also issued this Instruction not only with his own authority but also with the signatures of the Prefect of the SCR and that of the president of the Concilium. Ergo, any statements by the latter entity would be properly interpreted in light of said Instruction.

It is too bad though that M. Gerard des Lauriers OP and his associates (including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre) appear to have missed this two years later with the so-called "Critical Study" (aka the "Ottaviani Intervention"). But that kind of omission of significant data is not uncommon with ideologues unfortunately.

{3} For those who do not know, Cardinal Bacci was a later signer and he had no part in the drafting of the text itself or even of the cover letter -presumably written with at least some input from Cardinal Ottaviani. As His Eminence was of very poor eyesight at this point of his life -if not legally blind- it is controvertible if he actually wrote the cover letter, dictated the contents of the cover letter to someone else, or simply signed a cover letter written by someone else. (Possibly someone he trusted.) We do not know exactly what happened here; ergo there should not be speculation on it which puts His Eminence in a bad light. (As that is to go against the understanding of charity as manifested in the Catholic spiritual tradition.)

:: Shawn 3:56 PM [+] | ::

************************************