It is currently Sun Aug 18, 2019 9:54 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
 A sample of Bill Morgan's newsletter 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post A sample of Bill Morgan's newsletter
I thought that readers might like to see an example of the superb newsletter that Bill Morgan produced for so many years.

Quote:
Counter-Reformation Association

NEWS AND VIEWS

La Guerche, Main Street, Monks Kirby, Near Rugby CV23 OQZ England

Autumn AD 1997 Michaelmas
Beata Mater, et intacta Virgo, gloriosa
Regina mundi, intercede pro nobis ad Dominum

THE ANTI-TRIDENTINE NEW MASS

PART I – AN APOLOGIST FOR THE NEW MASS

At the heart of the Catholic resistance against the anti-Catholic Conciliar Reform is the witness against the anti-Tridentine New Mass. The deservedly well-known writer, Michael Davies, has, over the past year, found himself ever more widely recognised as the leading High Church Conciliarist apologist for the New Mass. Mr Davies finds himself cast in this somewhat paradoxical role - given his own extensive critique of the New Mass, and his personal wish to see it abrogated - because of his concern to remain part of the Conciliar Church.

He is absolutely right to maintain that one cannot reject a papally approved rite of Mass. Given that the New Mass was promulgated by Paul VI and has been repeatedly endorsed by John Paul II, a Catholic cannot consistently reject the New Mass and go on recognising those two putative Popes as valid Roman pontiffs. He is also correct in maintaining that there is no hope of a reconciliation between the Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X and Conciliar Rome, so long as the Fraternity refuses to recognise the New Mass as a Catholic rite of Mass.

The doctrinal basis of those facts, of course, is the indefectibility in the Faith, through the acts of its pontiffs, of the Holy Roman Church. If the New Mass has come to us from the Holy Roman Church, then it is necessarily a Catholic rite of Mass, not only intrinsically valid but also possessing doctrinal rectitude.

Those who call into question the doctrinal rectitude of the New Mass are expressly excluded from benefiting from the 1984 Conciliar Indult for the use of the 1962 Missal. The same applies to those priests who would obtain an "Ecclesia Dei" Commission Celebret.

The condition of having nothing to do with (nullam partem habere) those who deny the doctrinal rectitude of the New Mass, is essential to the functioning of the International Una Voce Federation, of which Mr Davies is currently president; and of its affiliated societies. Those bodies want Conciliar approval for their John XXIII Masses, so have to pay the price. Mr Davies takes his "having nothing to do with" those who deny doctrinal rectitude to the New Mass to the point of treating them as Orwellian unpersons, whose very existence is not to be acknowledged, if their theological expertise is sufficient to expose his own errors.

Mr Davies is the author of a remarkable sophistry to justify this “1984” practice (cf. his article "The New Mass and Indefectibility", first published in the October 1996 "Catholic", and then republished in the 15 April 1997 issue of The Remnant). The argument runs:- The only people who could logically call into question the doctrinal rectitude of the New Mass are the sedevacantists, who deny that Paul VI and John Paul II are true popes. But sedevacantists are schismatics, so their opinions on theological issues, such as the New Mass's lack of doctrinal rectitude, are of no relevance to members of the indefectible Church founded by Our Lord.  the corollary of which is that their theological analyses of the New Mass do not have to be taken into account by Mr Davies (or his editors)! The speciousness of the reasoning is worthy of Orwell's Ministry of Truth.

Mr Davies is repeatedly guilty of the fallacy which textbooks of logic refer to as "petitio principii"  begging the question. That is, he repeatedly assumes the truth of what he has to prove. He is content to assert dogmatically (in the pejorative sense of providing no evidence or supporting argument) that it is a "fact that Paul VI was a true pope". What concerns us here, however, is the convenient corollary of Mr Davies's fallacies: that he can ignore our theological refutations, while having a merry time showing up the theological incompetence of his habemuspapamist critics.

The issue of substance remains the status of the New Mass. That it is devotionally and doctrinally inferior to the traditional Roman rite is accepted by High Church Conciliarists. What they must deny is that the New Mass lacks doctrinal rectitude, or indeed has any characteristics or inevitable effects which would oblige one to conclude that it is not a legitimate Catholic rite of Mass.

Here, in fact, is the essential dilemma for any High Church Conciliarist whose position is based on anything other than personal preference. He has to adopt a dual stance. As a High Churchman, he has to find doctrinal fault with the New Mass; as a Conciliarist, he has to defend it against the charge that it is not a legitimate Catholic rite of Mass.

Could anyone make a more damning judgment on the reality of the New Mass than that made, for example, by the late Mgr Klaus Gamber: "The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith which was the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and his Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries" (cf. The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 102)?

The reconciliation of that kind of judgment with the Catholic status of the New Mass is the problem which Mr Davies struggles to resolve. It is made no easier for him when, as he has so frequently observed himself over many years, the New Mass is presented by Paul VI and John Paul II as an essential part of the allegedly divinely-inspired renewal of the Church which has resulted from Vatican II.

The only apparent way of reconciling the destruction of the faith and life of the Church, which has resulted in large part from the New Mass, with its purported Catholic status, is to make a sharp distinction between the various species of New Masses which constitute the generic New Mass. Only the Latin New Mass as it appears in the 1970 typical edition of the New Missal is, according to Mr Davies, covered by the indefectibility of the Church.

The curious reader might be excused for wondering why it has to be the 1970 typical edition? Was not the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae (with its Institutio Generalis) the one actually promulgated by Paul V1 in his putative Apoltolic Constitution "Missale Romanum" (3 April 1969)? Surely Mr Davies is not suggesting that indefectibility failed to operate in 1969, but then put in a thankful reappearance the following year, when the Institutio Generalis was revised, though leaving the Novus Ordo substantially unchanged? But then, of course, it was against the Latin text of that edition that Cardinals Bacci and Ottaviani made their historic witness: "...the Novus Ordo Missae... represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent..."

Even the less curious reader might well wonder how it is that indefectibility covers a version of the New Mass very rarely used anywhere in the world, but fails to cover even the most official vernacular forms used daily over entire continents; more especially when Paul VI (in "Missale Romanum") expressly envisaged such vernacular celebrations, and they have been accepted for a quarter of a century by - and even used by - Paul VI and his "successors".

Mr Davies is fond of quoting, as an authority on the question of indefectibility, the "Dictionaire de Theologie Catholique". This says: "The indefectibiity of the Church extends only to what is mandated or authorised by the Roman Pontiff as a universal law or practice." Mr Davies rightly says that such laws and practices as apply to the whole Roman Rite are regarded as "universal" in this context. What he has repeatedly failed to notice, or to acknowledge, is that this favourite quotation precisely does not say that the indefectibility of the Church is limited to such universal laws and practices as are mandated by the Roman Pontiff, but rather is limited to such universal laws and practices as are "mandated or authorised by the Roman Pontiff". (Emphasis added)

Certainly, there are practices de facto associated with the New Mass which have not been mandated by the alleged Roman Pontiff. These include reception of Communion in the hand, or given by extraordinary ministers. However, it is not apparent how such practices can be said not to be universally authorised by those Mr Davies recognises as Popes. Which poses the awkward dilemma for him as to whether he is heretically denying them the authority to do what they have done, or whether he is simply schismatically refusing to accept their rulings?

While all this is relevant to Mr Davies's attempts to reconcile his own criticisms of the New Mass with its supposed Catholic status, it does not, of course, deal directly with his own liturgical fig leaf: the claim that the Latin New Mass enjoys doctrinal rectitude.

What is quite clear is that Mr Davies, over many years, has simply failed to understand what a new Mass-rite's possession or failure to possess doctrinal rectitude involves.

To possess doctrinal rectitude, it is necessary that the chief elements in a new rite of Mass should have the same meanings which they have in other developed rites of Mass, even though, of course; their precise formulas may be different. If, on the contrary, any of the chief elements in a purported new rite of Mass has a new meaning, excluding that found in other developed rites, then such a Novus Ordo lacks doctrinal rectitude. In particular, a new rite of Mass which is presented as the replacement of an existing rite - as is the case with the New Mass and the Tridentine Mass - cannot be held to possess doctrinal rectitude if it repudiates the doctrinal significance of one or more principal element in the rite it replaces.
Once that point is understood, the New Mass's lack of doctrinal rectitude is so obvious that it hardly needs detailed demonstration. No one would deny that the offertory is a principal element in any eucharistic rite. Yet anyone who has ever read the offertory prayers of the Tridentine Mass will know - contrary to the erroneous statements so carelessly made in "traditional" catechetical texts - that they concern the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ, separated in sacrificial death, and are not prayers offering bread and wine. That, however, is precisely what they become in the New Mass.

Likewise, in the Roman Canon of the Tridentine Mass, the words of consecration -in accordance with developed sacramental teaching - are carefully distinguished from Our Saviour's other words of institution of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. In the New Mass, not only are the traditional Roman words of consecration discarded, but the specific sacramental form is confounded with Our Lord's words of institution in general.

These are two precise doctrinal charges directed against the Latin New Mass. Their truth is manifest, and the entailment is indubitable: the Latin New Mass lacks doctrinal rectitude and consequently is not a legitimate Catholic rite of Mass.
W. J. Morgan. 29 IX 97

LORD JESUS CHRIST, GRANT US A TRUE POPE.
OUR LADY OF VICTORIES, PRAY FOR US.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 10, 2014 4:38 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: A sample of Bill Morgan's newsletter
And Part II

Quote:
Counter-Reformation Association

NEWS AND VIEWS

La Guerche, Main Street, Monks Kirby, Near Rugby CV23 OQZ England

Winter AD 1997 Christmas
Post partum Virgo inviolate permansisti.
Dei Genetrix, intercede pro nobis.

THE ANTI-TRIDENTINE NEW MASS

PART 2: THE UNCATHOLIC OFFERTORY

To possess doctrinal rectitude, it is necessary that the chief elements in a novus ordo Missae should have the same meanings which they have in other developed rites of Mass, even though, of course, their precise formulas may be different. If, on the contrary, any of the main elements in a purported new rite of Mass has a new doctrinal significance, excluding that found in other developed rites, then such a novus ordo lacks doctrinal rectitude.

That the offertory is a principal element in any rite of Mass will hardly be disputed. What is manifest from an examination of the relevant prayers in the developed rites of Mass is the meaning of the offertory. It is the anticipatory offering of the Body and Blood of Christ as symbolised by the bread and wine.

In spite of defective catechesis in so many texts for children, there is no offering of bread and wine as such at the offertory in the developed rites of Mass. What is being offered - though in symbolic form only - is the Body and Blood of Christ separated in sacrificial death on the Cross.

In the Sarum Mass - the most widely used variant of the Roman rite in England before the Reformation - the oblations were offered together. The Latin text of the principal offertory prayer reads: "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas, hanc oblationem, quam ego indignus peccator offero in honoro tuo: beatae Mariae et omnium sanctorum pro peccatis et offensionibus mein, pro salute vivorum et requiae omnium fidelium defunctorum.11

This Sarum offertory prayer may be rendered: "Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which I, an unworthy sinner, offer in thine honour, Blessed Mary's, and all thy saints, for my sins and offences; for the salvation of the living and the repose of all the faithful departed."

That first praver defined the meaning of the Offertory as a whole, as it did the meaning of the other prayers which followed (prayers very similar to those in the familiar Tridentine Mass). All those offertory prayers were omitted by Cranmer from his "The Supper of the Lord and the Holy Communion commonly called the Mass", in his 1549 Book of Common Prayer (as in its subsequent editions).

By contrast, the Tridentine (1570) edition of the Roman Missal was to include separate offertory prayers for the host and the chalice respectively: the familiar "Suscipe, sancte Pater", and "Offerimus tibi, Domine".

They may be rendered: "Receive, O holy Father, almighty everlasting God, this spotless host, which I, thine unworthy servant, offer unto thee, my living and true God, for my numberless sins, offences and negligences, and for all who stand around, as also for all faithful Christians both living and departed: that to me and to them it may avail for salvation until life eternal. Amen."

And: "We offer unto thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, humbly beseeching thy mercy: that in the sight of thy divine majesty it may ascend as a sweet-smelling savour for our salvation, and for that of the whole world. Amen."

There is no offering of bread and wine there. The spotless host is the Body of Christ - symbolised as yet - and the chalice of salvation is symbolically the Blood of Christ, sufficient for the salvation of the living and departed and the whole world.

In the New Mass of Paul VI, the Catholic offertory is replaced with a ritual of preparation of the gifts. For the two crucial prayers offering the spotless host and the chalice of salvation, there are two prayers offering bread and wine.

"Benedictus es, Domine, Deus universi, quia de tua largitate accepimus panem, quern tibi offerimus, fructum terrae et operis manuum hominum, ex quo nobis fiet panis vitae."

"Benedictus es, Domine, Deus universi, quia de tua largitate accepimus vinum, quod tibi offerimus, fructum vitis et operis manuum hominum, ex quo nobis fiet potus spiritalis."

These have been rendered as: "Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life."

"Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink."

In the context of these prayers, which change the whole meaning of the offertory, the retained "Orate, fratres" and its response lose all reference to the offering of the spotless host of Our Saviour's Body and the chalice of salvation of his Blood, and are restricted in their meaning to the sacrificial self-offering of the worshippers represented by their gifts of bread and wine.

The same is true of the also retained "In spiritu humilitatis", whose change of significance is underlined by the omission of the "Veni sanctificator", which immediately follows it in the Tridentine Mass. The latter prayer may be rendered: "Come O sanctifier, almighty, eternal God, and bless + this sacrifice prepared for thy holy name."

To complete the elimination of the Catholic offertory, the "Suscipe, sancta Trinitas" before the "Orate, fratres" is also omitted. This may be rendered: "Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we offer thee in memory of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, our Lord, and in honour of Blessed Mary ever Virgin, of Blessed John the Baptist, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, of these, and of all the Saints, that it may avail for their honour, and for our salvation: and may they deign to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we celebrate on earth. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen."

By the change of the Catholic offertory into a preparation of the gifts of bread and wine, the New Mass repudiates the doctrinal significance of the offertory as found in the developed Catholic rites of Mass, and forfeits doctrinal rectitude.

No one would deny that the (Tridentine) Roman Mass offertory prayers express the same meaning of the offertory as that found in the pre-Reformation Sarum Mass. It is also of interest to note the same meaning, but in a slightly different formula, preserved in the traditional Dominican Mass. Here, as in the Sarum rite, the oblations are offered together, though in the Dominican rite the wine is poured into the chalice as the first action of the Mass.

- The priest says: “Calicem salutis accipiam et nomen Domini invocabo.” “I will take the chalice of salvation and will call upon the name of the Lord.”

He then says: “Suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem, quam tibi offero in memoriam passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi: et praesta, ut in conspectu tuo tibi placens ascendat, et meam et otuaium fidelium salutem operetur aeternam.” This may be rendered: “Receive O holy Trinity this oblation which I offer thee in memory of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ: and grant that it may ascend to thee worthily in thy sight, and may bring about my eternal salvation and that of all the faithful.”

In the very different development of the Byzantine Liturgy, the oblations - prepared before the public rite proper at a special side altar - are solemnly processed at the Great Entrance to the main altar, where they are placed as symbolically the dead Body and Blood of Christ. So doing, the priest says: “Noble Joseph, having taken thy pure Body from the cross, wrapped it in fine linen and spices and laid it in a new sepulchre.”

In the East as in the West, they are no mere gifts of bread and wine that are offered, but rather the Body and Blood of Christ separated in sacrificial death: that Sacrifice which is sacramentally renewed in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

It should be emphasised that the Novus Ordo of Paul VI is presented as a reform of the Roman rite of Mass. The significance of its innovations, therefore, is to be determined by what is being changed or replaced. In that context, the fact of the change of meaning of the offertory is incontrovertible. So much is that the case that some priests, who sincerely sought to defend Catholic orthodoxy but also felt bound to accept a Mass-rite which seemed to come with Papal authority, were actually reduced to claiming that the new preparation of the gifts was an improvement on the traditional Roman offertory, because the traditional offertory had “obscured” the alleged fact that it was bread and wine which were being offered!

Our indictment of the “Offertory” of the New Mass as un-Catholic, has been based exclusively upon a comparison of the Latin prayers of the preparation of the gifts with the prayers of the Tridentine offertory and other developed rites of Mass; simply noting the historical fact of the Protestant elimination of the Catholic offertory in their rites. Our conclusion - on the basis of that examination - that the New Mass lacks doctrinal rectitude, is independent of the ecumenical significance of the New Mass, though that is an additional factor which must be taken into account.

Nothing that we have written here is in any way a denial of the possibility or the fact of liturgical development. On the contrary, we recognise, indeed insist upon, the fact that the rites of Mass have developed, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, reflecting and promoting doctrinal development. In the words of Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical on the liturgy, Mediator Dei (1947): “It is a proof that the Immaculate Bride of Jesus Christ is vigorously alive; that in the course of ages there has been immaculate Bride of Jesus Christ is vigorously alive; that in the course of ages there has been development in the language which she uses to express to her divine Bridegroom her own faith and inexhaustible love and that of her people.”

What we deny is the legitimacy of rejecting the very meaning of a major element in any rite of Mass, as manifested by the prayers which the Church has introduced to express her faith and understanding of the nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. That has manifestly been done in the case of the New Mass, with its rejection of the Catholic understanding of the offertory as the anticipatory symbolic offering of the Body and Blood of Christ separated in sacrificial death: the spotless host and the chalice of salvation.

W. J. Morgan. 25 XII 97
LORD JESUS CHRIST, GRANT US A TRUE POPE
OUR LADY OF VICTORIES, PRAY FOR US.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat May 10, 2014 4:45 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: A sample of Bill Morgan's newsletter
I just read this article again and really enjoyed it. Is it possible to read more of Mr. Morgan's newsletters online anywhere? Are they still being produced, is it possible to subscribe?

Thanks,

Luke


Mon Jul 07, 2014 5:49 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: A sample of Bill Morgan's newsletter
Since it's quiet on the forum this week, I'll give my question a bump. Is there anywhere to read some more of these newsletters? Or possibly subscribe ? Would make for some good summer reading I think.

Luke


Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:37 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: A sample of Bill Morgan's newsletter
I have the right, given by Mr. Morgan when he was alive, to publish his newsletters online. I have some somewhere in a box and have intended to scan them for around fifteen years and never gotten to them. :) Try posting your question on a few other fora and se eif you can provoke somebody else to put some up somewhere. There must be some old-timers around who have a collection.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jul 11, 2014 11:14 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: A sample of Bill Morgan's newsletter
John Lane wrote:
I have the right, given by Mr. Morgan when he was alive, to publish his newsletters online.


It sounds like it won't be possible to subscribe to the newsletter then, may Mr Morgan's soul rest in peace.

Do you John, or anyone else, know of any other good traditional (sede) journals/newsletters/magazines (in English) that are worth supporting ?

I have found and already subscribed to "The Four Marks", I am wondering if there is anything else around ?

Thanks,

Luke


Fri Jul 11, 2014 11:28 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: A sample of Bill Morgan's newsletter
Luke L wrote:
Do you John, or anyone else, know of any other good traditional (sede) journals/newsletters/magazines (in English) that are worth supporting ?


In addition to The Four Marks, I subscribe to The Reign of Mary. Subscription and/or purchase information can be found at: http://www.cmri.org/reign_of_mary.shtml

These are the only two traditional Catholic publication to which I subscribe that I have found to be "worth supporting". There may be others. I just don't know of them.


Fri Jul 11, 2014 11:40 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.