A new "catholic" religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter carl36
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
gorman64 said:
Dear JKirkLVNV:

The doctrinal portion of a disciplinary decree is infallible. Truth does not change. A disciplinary decree has two parts; the doctrinal portion and the practical judgment. The latter is subject to error in judgment.

From Dogmatic Theology, Chapter II, Christ’s Church, Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.:
Click to expand...
But the Church cannot propose to the faithful any rite that will lead them into impiety, per Trent.
 
First, I will say that I am drawm to that which is traditional in our beautiful Faith. I joyfully anticipate some of the traditional Latin prayers and responses becoming the norm. I was born in '67 and therefore do not desire these things because I “miss” them. I desire them because I believe they will be beneficial in many ways to the Church - us - all of us.

Second, it is obvious that there have been many problems over the past forty years. Dare I suggest that there were many problems before Vatican II? The Church is One. That does not mean One before and a different One after Vatican II. I humbly ask my fellow bretherin in this forum to read 813 - 822 of the CCC, link here: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

Third, for the sake of the One, Holy (which the Church is not Holy because of any of us my friends, it is Holy because of our Lord and Savior, the true head of our beloved Church, Jesus Christ), Catholic, and Apostolic (whose authority is passed on in continuity, not skipping over generations), I implore those of you that throw around loose accusations (formed by our own judgments, dare I say even pride sometimes)against other members of our beloved Church as though they were the universal truth to refrain from doing so.

Fourth, If our bretherin are not singing, let us sing louder. If our bretherin are not responding, let us respond more fervently. If our bretherin are not being reverant, let us be ever-the-more reverant. If our bretherin are ill-advised of the proper rubrics, let us be more pronounced in our movements. Let us do these things for the good of all, not for the condemnation of any. Let us do these things that we may help them, yes help them through our actions, not our lip service. If we do not love our bretherin back to the Lord, then how shall we accomplish this? Is it not the one Lord that we receive in the Eucharist at every Mass? Is it not the one and the same every time throughout the ages? Is this not the focus, the source, and summit of our worship? Let us remember the disciples who did not recognize the risen Lord Jesus save for the breaking of the bread. A new “catholic” religion? No my friends.
 
BobP123 said:
Who’s to say the ICEL didn’t do that for the priests already?

Granted the Pope promulgated the Latin Novus Ordo as valid (whether it violated Trent or not). However didn’t the Vatican (aka Magisterium) already admit that the vernacular words of consecration have not been approved? So what are we debating? Why are you still defending a Mass which has not been given the **full ** blessings of Rome as valid? If I be you and really wanted the Novus Ordo, I would demand a stop to the “for all” stuff immediately. It is your own Magisterium trying to rectify the situation but you’ll continue to justify your blind faith in something non-existent and blame us trads for it.
Click to expand...
But OF COURSE the issue has already been brought up as to whether the English translation is valid! of course! and Popes HAVE pronounced authoritatively on the English translation - even by the mere fact of condescending to say Mass in English! - and the ‘for all’ translation (and the rest) has been pronounced by them as perfectly valid!

Why are you still bothering to contest an issue that has been settled for 40 years!
 
Cor_Jesu said:
You must be wrong then, because the Novus Ordo rite HAS led to impiety.
Click to expand...
If you believe that it is the Novus Ordo rite itself that has led to this, rather than social factors that have led to changes in many other areas of society (including religion in general - which applies equally to non-Catholic religions) then you are doing more than saying Kirk is wrong.

You are saying Christ’s promise has failed, hell has prevailed against his church and his word is worthless. And you have no business calling yourself Catholic.
 
jaeh68 said:
Pope Pius V decreed that Mass be said universally in Latin in 1570 - granted, that’s a long time ago, but for some 1500 years prior to that, it was said in the local languages. So Latin Mass is a reletively ‘new’ thing in the whole history of the church.

Jae
Click to expand...
And for those very same 1500 years (at least), the Roman Canon was the established, Traditional Eucharistic Prayer. So why was it necessary to write three other ones for general use, plus others to spice up the Mass, regardless of the language used?

AND even when Paul wouldn’t let them toss out the original canon, they mangaged to make a few changes. After a millennium and a half, “Why?”:confused:

Anna
 
But the Church cannot propose to the faithful any rite that will lead them into impiety, per Trent.
Click to expand...
Dear JKirkLVNV:

I don’t understand your post. This was true always…even before Trent. Did you think I was suggesting that the Church could promulgate an evil discipline? Or merely pointing out that your original statement was lacking a bit?

Gorman
 
JKirkLVNV said:
…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…
Click to expand...
When it gets right down to it, here is what Trent said reguarding the vernacular:
SESSION 22, CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
 
DustinsDad said:
When it gets right down to it, here is what Trent said reguarding the vernacular:SESSION 22, CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema. Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
Click to expand...
Who has said that the Mass should be said in the vernacular only? In ALL the time I’ve been on these forums, I’ve never seen this once, not by anyone. I would be the first to correct anyone who said this.
 
gorman64 said:
Dear JKirkLVNV:

I don’t understand your post. This was true always…even before Trent. Did you think I was suggesting that the Church could promulgate an evil discipline? Or merely pointing out that your original statement was lacking a bit?

Gorman
Click to expand...
If I’ve misread you, I ask your pardon. What point were you trying to make?
 
BobP123 said:
Who’s to say the ICEL didn’t do that for the priests already?

Granted the Pope promulgated the Latin Novus Ordo as valid (whether it violated Trent or not). However didn’t the Vatican (aka Magisterium) already admit that the vernacular words of consecration have not been approved? So what are we debating? Why are you still defending a Mass which has not been given the **full **blessings of Rome as valid? If I be you and really wanted the Novus Ordo, I would demand a stop to the “for all” stuff immediately. It is your own Magisterium trying to rectify the situation but you’ll continue to justify your blind faith in something non-existent and blame us trads for it.
Click to expand...
This should help you out a little, it’s from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Note #2:

adoremus.org/Arinze_ProMultis.html
 
JKirkLVNV said:
If I’ve misread you, I ask your pardon. What point were you trying to make?
Click to expand...
That your original post was lacking a bit.
40.png
gorman64:
The doctrinal portion of a disciplinary decree is infallible. Truth does not change. A disciplinary decree has two parts; the doctrinal portion and the practical judgment. The latter is subject to error in judgment.
Click to expand...
The point is that while a practical judgment can be inopportune…the doctrinal portion of discipline cannot.

The law of prayer is the law of belief. As we pray, we believe. The prayers changed to reflect the new beliefs…and that new belief is manifest in the beliefs of a huge number of NO attending Catholics.

Gorman
 
Cor_Jesu said:
You must be wrong then, because the Novus Ordo rite HAS led to impiety.
Click to expand...
Be forewarned my friend. Stating such things against a valid, legitimate liturgy of the Church violates one of the canons of Trent.
CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
 
RobedWithLight said:
If there is no Catholic Church anymore, what are you then?

The pessimism of some so-called “traditionalists” here is remarkable…
Click to expand...
I was about to start a new thread by asking the question:
I may have missed previous threads, but what is a “traditionalist”?
The reason I asked this is that, if all Catholics follow only 1 cathecism, where is that dividing line then?
 
DustinsDad said:
When it gets right down to it, here is what Trent said reguarding the vernacular:
SESSION 22, CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
Click to expand...
Your citation applies only to those who say that the Mass can and should ONLY be celebrated in the vernacular tongue. No one here has ever said such thing. There is a huge difference between saying that masses should ONLY be in English, or that Masses CAN be said in English.
 
RobedWithLight said:
Your citation applies only to those who say that the Mass can and should ONLY be celebrated in the vernacular tongue. No one here has ever said such thing. There is a huge difference between saying that masses should ONLY be in English, or that Masses CAN be said in English.
Click to expand...
But this canon speaks loudly about the progressivist mindset.
And their schismatic mentality. Schism leads to heresy and vice versa.
 
BobP123 said:
Who’s to say the ICEL didn’t do that for the priests already?

Granted the Pope promulgated the Latin Novus Ordo as valid (whether it violated Trent or not). However didn’t the Vatican (aka Magisterium) already admit that the vernacular words of consecration have not been approved?
Click to expand...
Quando hanc dixit!?!? :eek: :confused:

tee
 
carl36 said:
But this canon speaks loudly about the progressivist mindset.
And their schismatic mentality. Schism leads to heresy and vice versa.
Click to expand...
One can be a progressivist and schismatic or a “traditionalist” and schismatic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top