A new "catholic" religion?

[tee_eff_em]

The Mass a meal rather than a sacrifice.
Guitars and drums instead of chant. “Halloween Masses”
No more confession.
Laymen distributing communion.
Smashing of the images and statues.
Barren churches.
Meat on Fridays and all through Lent.

*Praeter ‘distributionibus Communionis a laicalilbus’, quod licet, non novi quorum loqueris.
Nunquam vidi ullas par quibus!?

Suntne injuriae pervulgatae vere?*

tee

 

[BobP123]

But Also:

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

The form of the Mass is a disciplinary matter, and there WERE a number of changes made to it between the time of Pius V and Paul VI, so clearly Pius couldn’t bind future Popes to leave it completely untouched. And Pius himself permitted other rites to continue to exist alongside his own, so it’s not a matter of there being only one ‘correct’ rite either.

Whether prudentially it was good or wise to make the drastic innovations that happened under Paul VI is one matter, but there’s no doubting that he had the authority to do so.

A new Catholic religion? Let us see what Dietrich von Hildebrand, a supporter of the Vatican II religion, said about the New Mass:
“Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better.”*(Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, p. 80.)
*
Also:

The philosopher and intimate **friend of Paul VI, Jean Guitton wrote **: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical
intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.” (Rama Coomeraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, Tan Books, p. 34.)

I do not think Saint Pius V would have allowed these types of changes to coexist.

Respectfully and God+ Bless.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

ThereCanBeOnly1;2011858:

Actually it was the Council of Trent that forbade any new rites to be introduced into the Church or even vernacularizing the Masses. Vatican II also heavily emphasized preserving Latin in the liturgy, so who says that any Pope can take as much liberty as he wants with redesigning the Mass just to suit the bishops’ desires?

Excellent point.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

ThereCanBeOnly1;2011858:

Actually it was the Council of Trent that forbade any new rites to be introduced into the Church or even vernacularizing the Masses. Vatican II also heavily emphasized preserving Latin in the liturgy, so who says that any Pope can take as much liberty as he wants with redesigning the Mass just to suit the bishops’ desires?

Oh my goodness, you REALLY have NO idea what you’re talking about, do you?

Once again, popes cannot bind popes on matters of discipline, nor can councils. That’s a catholic BASIC, look it up.

Also, Trent did not absolutely forbid the use of the vernacular for the Mass. Trent simply said it did not seem timely to do so then. The Mass has been translated and offered by permission of the Holy See into the vernacular in several
countries prior to the Council or the papacy of Pope Paul VI.

As for who says the Pope can take such liberties: there are obviously some essentials he cannot change as they are a matter of faith, but the CATHOLIC CHURCH teaches and has always taught the Pope could make such rulings. If you persist in your belief that he can’t, that he must submit, in this disciplinary matter, to ANY council, then I suggest you look into Eastern Orthodoxy, where they believe that popes can’t do ANYTHING apart from any council, except rule their own rite.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

BobP123;2011985:

Oh my goodness, you REALLY have NO idea what you’re talking about, do you?

Once again, popes cannot bind popes on matters of discipline, nor can councils. That’s a catholic BASIC, look it up.

Also, Trent did not absolutely forbid the use of the vernacular for the Mass. Trent simply said it did not seem timely to do so then. The Mass has been translated and offered by permission of the Holy See into the vernacular in several
countries prior to the Council or the papacy of Pope Paul VI.

As for who says the Pope can take such liberties: there are obviously some essentials he cannot change as they are a matter of faith, but the CATHOLIC CHURCH teaches and has always taught the Pope could make such rulings. If you persist in your belief that he can’t, that he must submit, in this disciplinary matter, to ANY council, then I suggest you look into Eastern Orthodoxy, where they believe that popes can’t do ANYTHING apart from any council, except rule their own rite.

It is not as simplistic as just a change into the vernacular. Please review post #18 and #23. The Novus Ordo and TLM are not the same.

The study popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention states:
“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in
Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”(The Ottaviani Intervention, Rockford, IL: Tan Books).

This study is suggestive of a new Catholic religion (?).

Respectfully and God+ Bless.

 

[BobP123]

Ok, let’s try this one more time.

From Session 7 of Trent:

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

Are we to accept that Kirk knows better than Trent?

 

[Teelynn]

Maybe your country is different, but here in the US, the Mass is still a sacrifice, confession is still a sacrament (and is offered at every Catholic parish I’ve ever seen), the disciplinary rules for the US require abstinence from meat on Lenten Fridays and some sort of penance if not abstinance from meat on other Fridays (which makes sure you have to do something that is actually penitential, rather than just having a big cheese pizza or salmon dinner).

There are some parishes in my area that are very liberal indeed. (no individual confessions, masses that are full of abuses) BUT, it is up to each individual to seek out and find a parish that is more agreeable to their beliefs. Hopefully, there are more around for OP to check out.

A common theme and one that one must remember, however, is quoted by the words of our Lord: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Tee

 

[cyberwolf001]

I’d like to thing that these times are just a small trial…

I’ll keep saying my Rosary, my Chaplets (Divine Mercy and Saint Michael’s going to add on Saints Patrick and Benedict)

Plus my prayers to St. Michael on behalf of the church and keep going to the most Orthodox Parishes I can find.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

BobP123;2011985:

Oh my goodness, you REALLY have NO idea what you’re talking about, do you? …look it up… Also, Trent did not absolutely forbid the use of the vernacular for the Mass.

I have to agree with BobP123 with regards to Session 7 Canon XIII
of Trent. Look it up.

Respectfully and GOD+ Bless.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ok, let’s try this one more time.

From Session 7 of Trent:

Are we to accept that Kirk knows better than Trent?

I don’t know better than Trent. Trent simply DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU SEEM TO THINK IT SAYS. This does NOT preclude the Pope with his legitimate authority, from altering any text or missal, it precludes priests from didling about with the Mass And YOU better hope that I’m right and YOU’RE wrong or several popes, prior to John XXIII, fall under that anathema, including, I believe, Pope Saint Pius X.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirkLVNV;2012023:

BobP123;2011985:

I have to agree with BobP123 with regards to Session 7 Canon XIII
of Trent. Look it up.

Respectfully and GOD+ Bless.

You’re mistaken, as well. Ask the Holy See. I’m serious, submit a dubiam to the Congregation for the Docrine of the Faith. I bet even the Pope will get to see it, he takes a keen interest in that particular congregation.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

ThereCanBeOnly1;2012196:

JKirkLVNV;2012023:

You’re mistaken, as well. Ask the Holy See. I’m serious, submit a dubiam to the Congregation for the Docrine of the Faith. I bet even the Pope will get to see it, he takes a keen interest in that particular congregation.

I beg to differ. Please see my posts #18, 23, and 26 and review the cited references. One is from a Vatican II supporter.

 

[BobP123]

Kirk,

Methinks you have come to the wrong forum. The burden is on you to prove you (or anyone else) know better than Trent. Though they may be licit in your mind, I really have no interest in any new rites explicitly forbidden by Trent.

 

[Uxor]

A new Catholic religion? Let us see what Dietrich von Hildebrand, a supporter of the Vatican II religion, said about the New Mass:
“Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better.”*(Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass, Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, p. 80.)
*
Also:

The philosopher and intimate **friend of Paul VI, Jean Guitton wrote **: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical
intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.” (Rama Coomeraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, Tan Books, p. 34.)

I do not think Saint Pius V would have allowed these types of changes to coexist.

Respectfully and God+ Bless.

Where did you get Dietrich von Hildebrand, a supporter of the Vatican II religion?

 

[Uxor]

ThereCanBeOnly1;2012196:

JKirkLVNV;2012023:

You’re mistaken, as well. Ask the Holy See. I’m serious, submit a dubiam to the Congregation for the Docrine of the Faith. I bet even the Pope will get to see it, he takes a keen interest in that particular congregation.

Where are you getting your information from?

Obvisouly you haven’t read Monsignor Gamber, Cardinal Razinger “Spirit of the lIturgy”, Dom Gueranger.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I don’t know better than Trent. Trent simply DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU SEEM TO THINK IT SAYS. This does NOT preclude the Pope with his legitimate authority, from altering any text or missal, it precludes priests from didling about with the Mass And YOU better hope that I’m right and YOU’RE wrong or several popes, prior to John XXIII, fall under that anathema, including, I believe, Pope Saint Pius X.

Let us try and see if it is A New Catholic Religion by reviewing the differences between the Consecrations:

FORM OF CONSECRATION IN THE NEW MASS
“For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the
new and eternal testament. It shall be shed for you and FOR
ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.”

As we can examine and verify that the words “for you and for many unto the remission of sins” have been altered to for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. “Many” has been removed and replaced with the word “all.” This is a Great change and possibly invalidates all the New Masses. The reason is that the word many was used by Jesus Christ+ himself to institute the sacrament of the Eucharist, as we see in Matthew 26:28: “For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” The words used by Our Lord+ who is God+, “for many unto remission of sins,” represent the efficacy of the blood that Jesus+ shed. Jesus’ blood is effective for the salvation of many, not all men. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is clear and specifically states that Our Lord+ did not mean “all” and therefore didn’t say it.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist, p. 227:
"The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of
God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind has received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. WITH REASON, THEREFORE, WERE THE WORDS FOR ALL NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."( The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, 1982, p. 227. ) As we can see, according to The Catechism of the Council of Trent the words “for all” were specifically not used by Our Lord because they would give a false meaning.

St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on the Holy Eucharist:
"The words for you and for many are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault…”(St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on The Holy Eucharist, Redemptorist Fathers, 1934, p. 44. )
The use of “all” changes the meaning of the form of consecration. No one, not even a pope, can change the words that Jesus Christ specifically instituted for a sacrament of the Church.

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis (# 1), Nov. 30, 1947: "…the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments,’ that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign…"( Denzinger 2301. ) Since “all” doesn’t mean the same thing as “many,” the sacrament is not confected in the New Mass.

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
“The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND
ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.” (De Defectibus, Chap. 5, Part 1).

A new Catholic religion (?).

 

[Uxor]

Let us try and see if it is A New Catholic Religion by reviewing the differences between the Consecrations:

FORM OF CONSECRATION IN THE NEW MASS
“For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the
new and eternal testament. It shall be shed for you and FOR
ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.”

As we can examine and verify that the words “for you and for many unto the remission of sins” have been altered to for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. “Many” has been removed and replaced with the word “all.” This is a Great change and possibly invalidates all the New Masses. The reason is that the word many was used by Jesus Christ+ himself to institute the sacrament of the Eucharist, as we see in Matthew 26:28: “For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” The words used by Our Lord+ who is God+, “for many unto remission of sins,” represent the efficacy of the blood that Jesus+ shed. Jesus’ blood is effective for the salvation of many, not all men. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is clear and specifically states that Our Lord+ did not mean “all” and therefore didn’t say it.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist, p. 227:
"The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of
God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind has received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. WITH REASON, THEREFORE, WERE THE WORDS FOR ALL NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."( The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, 1982, p. 227. ) As we can see, according to The Catechism of the Council of Trent the words “for all” were specifically not used by Our Lord because they would give a false meaning.

St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on the Holy Eucharist:
"The words for you and for many are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault…”(St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on The Holy Eucharist, Redemptorist Fathers, 1934, p. 44. )
The use of “all” changes the meaning of the form of consecration. No one, not even a pope, can change the words that Jesus Christ specifically instituted for a sacrament of the Church.

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis (# 1), Nov. 30, 1947: "…the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments,’ that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign…"( Denzinger 2301. ) Since “all” doesn’t mean the same thing as “many,” the sacrament is not confected in the New Mass.

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
“The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND
ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.” (De Defectibus, Chap. 5, Part 1).

A new Catholic religion (?).

Do you think that is what happens in the NO Mass?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Kirk,

Methinks you have come to the wrong forum. The burden is on you to prove you (or anyone else) know better than Trent. Though they may be licit in your mind, I really have no interest in any new rites explicitly forbidden by Trent.

What “youthinks” is hardly germane. It’s what the Church teaches. The burden is on YOU to demonstrate that Trent actually means what you SAY it means, because YOUR understanding of what Trent is saying in the passage your quote is in no way, no shape, no form the CHURCH’S understanding of that same passage. Again, submit your question to the Holy See. Let’s see what they say.

And I’m in the right forum, because I’m going to defend the Church. If you want to be left alone to give false information, sorry.

 

[tee_eff_em]

carl36;2008661:

The Mass a meal rather than a sacrifice.
Guitars and drums instead of chant. “Halloween Masses”
No more confession.
Laymen distributing communion.
Smashing of the images and statues.
Barren churches.
Meat on Fridays and all through Lent.

*Praeter ‘distributionibus Communionis a laicalilbus’, quod licet, non novi quorum loqueris.
Nunquam vidi ullas par quibus!?

Suntne injuriae pervulgatae vere?*

*Nemo?

Nemo est qui loquatur?*

tee