Anyone Else Find Vatican II's Efforts for Ecumenism Ironic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duke_of_Mantua
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As Cardinal Kasper said, " It is beyond the scope of our **present **context to discuss a re-evaluation of Apostolicae curiae"
Just a matter of time my friend.

You need to re-read Cardinal Kasper

" the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869/70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church. **
These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches. …, I envision communion as participation in the same faith, and participation in the same sacraments, especially sharing at the same table of the Lord; and I envision it also through the mutual recognition of the ministry of episcope in apostolic succession and in communion with the Petrine ministry, the dogmatic understanding and practice of which is re-interpreted and re-received in the light of the whole tradition of the Church and with regard to the current needs of the Church. In this way the churches remain churches in legitimate diversity and retain the best of their traditions while yet becoming one Church, which praises God with one voice and gives unanimous witness to the world for justice, reconciliation and peace.
Ecumenism is not countersigned by loss but by mutual enrichment, the authentic understanding of which is
not that we convert to the other Church **but that all convert to Christ; and in him, who is our unity and our peace, we shall truly be one. Thus we do not advocate an ecumenism of return. Ecumenism is not a way back; it is a way ahead in the future."
You are putting words into his mouth, and motivations into his thoughts. He never said it was necessary to change (read: weaken Papal Infallibility), and he never implied that there was a change necessary in Leo XIII’s statement on Anglican Orders.

“Present” doesn’t mean he will in the future. As a matter of fact, has it done it since then???

BTW any Anglicans who ever cared had themselves ordained by Polish Catholic bishops, or joined the Catholic Church to be re-ordained.

You failed to make your case against Cardinal Kasper. He never said what you have accused him of.

That is all you got? - is that your best shot?

Traditionalists live in fear that the Church is going to change. But like the diaper of a newborn baby change is always necessary, although the baby remains the same. Feeney and Lefebreve live on in your fears. Time to put them to rest, ‘requiescant in pace’.

I now see Traditionalists in a truer light - a fearful group who is afraid of losing a Church they think exists.

It is necessary to fulfill the prayer of Jesus, that they all may be one. It is an obligation we must work to fulfill. We wont get there without accepting the working of the Spirit.
 
Cardinal Kasper’s words can be interpreted in a less threatening manner. Let’s look at some parts of it, because the citation is to long for this format.
also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.
Peter must respond to the Church as it exists in his time, not in the past. This was the same message that Paul gave to Peter when Peter wanted to preserve the Judaism of the Church and Paul made him look at the fact that the Church now included Gentiles. Peter had to change how he dealt with the Church, but it took nothing away from his primacy or his role.
These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy.
We have to ask ourselves if the way that we’re interpreting the primacy of Peter says what it really is in a way that all people can understand it or do we have to restate it so that it is clearer. Peter’s primacy should not be an obstacle to unity, but a means to unity. It is Peter’s role to bring all men to Christ. If the way that we teach Peter’s primacy presents an obstacle, we have to change how we say it. We don’t have to give up the Petrine Primacy, just explain it in a manner that is draw people to Peter, rather than push them away. You don’t have to sacrifice truth when you restate something is a language that is less threatening.
This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches
He’s simply stating a fact. There is a problem that has to be addressed. It’s not a simple one. The Catholic Church has to decide how the unity should look like. He raises important questions. How does the Church exercise its ministry and allow room for differences? This same question was raised by St. Francis and Bonaventure in the 13th century. The spoke about seamless coat of many colours. They were concerned as to how to bring non believers into the Church as one body and allow each to retain some of the uniqueness that was not in conflict with the faith. This question goes back almost 800 years. Raised by two of the greatest and holiest minds in the history of the Church.
I envision communion as participation in the same faith, and participation in the same sacraments, especially sharing at the same table of the Lord; and I envision it also through the mutual recognition of the ministry of episcope in apostolic succession and in communion with the Petrine ministry
He sees everyone being part of the same Chuch, preserving the whole of tradition expressed in a language that is clear and understandable to everyone involved. He’s just concerned about the language, not advocating giving up anything that is part of our faith.
not that we convert to the other Church but that all convert to Christ; and in him, who is our unity and our peace, we shall truly be one. Thus we do not advocate an ecumenism of return. Ecumenism is not a way back; it is a way ahead in the future.
He’s calling both Catholics and other Christians to change and focus on Christ rather than on their own petty preferences. We have to admit, the a union will never happen unless both sides give up some of their petty arguments and finger pointing. Both sides have to be more Christ-like.

This can be looked at from a less threatening perspective, if we take John Paul’s words to heart, “Do not be afraid.”

JR 🙂
 
Reading Cardinal Kasper’s words in light of the perrenial words of Pope St. Pius X can be quite shocking. First the words of the Cardinal: “In our globalised world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. **Old polemical formulas **stand at odds with this urgency; fraternal relations have become the norm. Extensive research has been undertaken that has highlighted the different traditions between East and West already in the first Millennium, and has traced the development in understanding and in practice of the Petrine ministry throughout the centuries. As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869/70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.
These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches.”
(Cardinal Walter Kasper, A Vision of Christian Unity for the Next Generation)

And now Pope St. Pius X:
Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed.** This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists**, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense – with some modification when needful – should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the .secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin.
(Vicar of Christ, Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis)

:coffeeread: Hmmmmm.

I’m wondering how what Pope Saint Pius X wrote does not describe - and pretty darned accurately - things Cardinal Kasper is doing.

Things to think about. Things to pray about.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
Could we say that the Holy Spirit is pushing us toward unity without giving up the essential, the Eucharist?
The only true unity is for those outside the Church to renounce their errors and return to the Church, as Pope Pius XI discussed in Mortalium Animos in 1928, which every Catholic living today should read.

If the Church attempts to transform itself into the image and likeness of heretics for the purpose of winning the heretics (in this case Protestants), the effect will be the exact opposite: The pinciple of lex Orandi lex Credendi will result, not in the Protestants coverting, but rather in the Catholics “converting” and becoming Protestants.
Also, elminnation of Gregorian chant from the liturgy and replacing with with Laudas in the vernacular and plain chant was done by St. Francis for all parishes and houses where his Brothers served.
Firstly, St. Francis was not a Priest, so I would be surprised if he eliminated Gregorian Chant from the Mass.

Secondly, what is laudas? If you mean lauds, that has nothing to do with the Mass. Lauds is the morning prayer payed by Priests and religious communities (and some lay faithful).
This happened between 1221 and 1226. No one is sure as to the exact date. But it is traced back to the founding of the order and his death.
To you have any evidence to support what you are talking about?

The last point is that Vatican Ii expressly stated that Gregoria Chant is to be retained in the Mass. Therefore, anyone living today who seeks to eliminate Gregorian Chant is rejecting Vatican II.
 
Reading Cardinal Kasper’s words in light of the perrenial words of Pope St. Pius X can be quite shocking. First the words of the Cardinal: "In our globalised world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. Old polemical formulas **stand at odds with this urgency; fraternal relations have become the norm. Extensive research has been undertaken that has highlighted the different traditions between East and West already in the first Millennium, and has traced the development in understanding and in practice of the Petrine ministry throughout the centuries. As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869/70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.
These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches."
(Cardinal Walter Kasper, *A Vision of Christian Unity for the Next Generation
)*

And now Pope St. Pius X:
Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed.** This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists**, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense – with some modification when needful – should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the .secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin.
(Vicar of Christ, Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis)

:coffeeread: Hmmmmm.

I’m wondering how what Pope Saint Pius X wrote does not describe - and pretty darned accurately - things Cardinal Kasper is doing.

Things to think about. Things to pray about.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
I think they are trying to “sing in a new Church”.
 
…Do you have any evidence to support what you are talking about?
Unfortunately, the poster you are responding to tends not to cite anything specific. Aside from the link to the encyclical Et unum sint (which everyone who disagrees with him gets sooner or later - which I guess he assumes we have never read or heard of) - I don’t recall any specific citations.

🤷

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
…This was the same message that Paul gave to Peter when Peter wanted to preserve the Judaism of the Church and Paul made him look at the fact that the Church now included Gentiles. Peter had to change how he dealt with the Church, but it took nothing away from his primacy or his role.
This is an grossly erroneous interpretation of Scripture. Peter knew that the OT dietary disciplines were no longer madatory (Acts 10:11-15), as well as the necessity of circumcision (Acts 15:7-11). Where Peter erred, and where Paul corrected him, was in that he feared the Circumcision Party - the Judaizers:
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.
(Galations 2:11-12)
Peter erred personally, in his behavior and actions, fearing offending certain men rather than God. It happened for Peter. In happens in our day as well.

This passage, though not for the reasons you think, is very pertinant to this discussion.
…We have to ask ourselves if the way that we’re interpreting the primacy of Peter says what it really is in a way that all people can understand it or do we have to restate it so that it is clearer. Peter’s primacy should not be an obstacle to unity, but a means to unity.
What you don’t seem to be able to grasp is that the truth of Peter and his successors IS going to be an obstacle for some folks.

And when Kasper says we need to discuss "whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements" - he ether believes infallibility is up for negotiation which would be heretical, or he is being both condescending and disingenuous, trying to bait Protestants to the negotiation table with something that he knows can’t change.

One can negotiate little technicalities all you want, but until non-catholics by the grace of God actually recognize and accept the reality of the Petrine Office, one is putting the cart before the horse, giving the wrong impression to Protestants, and scandalizing many of the faithful in the process.

DustinsDad
 
One can negotiate little technicalities all you want, but until non-catholics by the grace of God actually recognize and accept the reality of the Petrine Office, one is putting the cart before the horse, giving the wrong impression to Protestants, and scandalizing many of the faithful in the process.

DustinsDad
This is what you are suggesting?

Pius X wrote his encyclical against Modernism. We don’t think Moderism is a threat any longer except in those remnants of the Catholic Church belonging to Father Feeney and Bishop Lefebreve. As we know, the Church dealt with those errors, although they still exist.

You are of course suggesting that we line up the forces of Catholicism against the forces of Protestantism and have all out beat down. Other than another 100 years war will we be shedding our blood for no purpose. We lwill never force anyone to ‘be one’ as Jesus prayed.

There is nothing objectionable to what Cardinal Kasper said. You are just afraid. Afraid that it may mean an opening, and to get that opening Rome is going to give away the store. Pure, unaldulterated nonsense. The Feeneys, and the Lefebres and the Ottavianis have had their say, and they have been told they are wrong.

They are afraid of communion under both species, they insult us by saying that the changes in the Mass are too Protestant - and they are not Protestant at all - they are truly pre-Protestant. They believe they are holier than the rest of us cause they demand communion on the tongue, and latin in the Mass. They try to drive Catholicism over the edge as would Feeney and Lefebr.

Pius X was not talking about the reunification with other Christians; I am sure if he were, he would align himself with the like of Cardinal Kasper. He was talking about Modernism. We don’t even take the oath against it anymore - it is passed.

Would that Traditionalism were just as passe.

The Traditionalists, like Feeney, and Lefebre and their followers on this thread have become an embarassment to the Faith, a stumbling block to unity. They shout shibboleths, and curse the day that dawned on the opening of the Second Vatican Council. I am sure St. Pius X bows his head in shame to the Holy Spirit.

They speak of infallibility of the Pope, but do not accept the infallibility of the Second Vatican Council and what it is trying to accomplish.
 
This is an grossly erroneous interpretation of Scripture. Peter knew that the OT dietary disciplines were no longer madatory (Acts 10:11-15), as well as the necessity of circumcision (Acts 15:7-11). Where Peter erred, and where Paul corrected him, was in that he feared the Circumcision Party - the Judaizers:
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.
(Galations 2:11-12)
Peter erred personally, in his behavior and actions, fearing offending certain men rather than God. It happened for Peter. In happens in our day as well.

This passage, though not for the reasons you think, is very pertinant to this discussion.

What you don’t seem to be able to grasp is that the truth of Peter and his successors IS going to be an obstacle for some folks.

And when Kasper says we need to discuss **"**whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements" - he ether believes infallibility is up for negotiation which would be heretical, or he is being both condescending and disingenuous, trying to bait Protestants to the negotiation table with something that he knows can’t change.

One can negotiate little technicalities all you want, but until non-catholics by the grace of God actually recognize and accept the reality of the Petrine Office, one is putting the cart before the horse, giving the wrong impression to Protestants, and scandalizing many of the faithful in the process.

DustinsDad
What might be scandalizing or puzzling or even rather laughable is the notion that ANYONE believes that Cardinal Kaspar has the intent, power or will to change dogma. That he has expressed some of his own ideas, thoughts and impressions is of no doubt. It happens on this site every day of the week, 24-7. Pretending that C. Kaspar is making an attempt to attack the Teachings of the Church is only that: a pretense.
 
What might be scandalizing or puzzling or even rather laughable is the notion that ANYONE believes that Cardinal Kaspar has the intent, power or will to change dogma. That he has expressed some of his own ideas, thoughts and impressions is of no doubt. It happens on this site every day of the week, 24-7. Pretending that C. Kaspar is making an attempt to attack the Teachings of the Church is only that: a pretense.
I agree with you. Cardinal Kasper is one man, and a man who is about to retire.

The Traditionalists need an object for their hatred, for their fear, and he is the handiest man around. They don’t even attack the Congregation of the Faith. If Kasper were so wrong, you don’t think Benedict would have dealt with it? Or that Cardinal Levada would have handled it?

It drives the Traditionalists over their proverbial edge, that as brilliant a theologian as Benedict is, he supports Cardinal Kasper.

BTW in our negotiations with the Lutherans, did we give away anything? Were the ancient 33 canons and anathemas of Trent on Justification in any way changed? Your fears are groundless. Nothing ever changed, not one iota in our faith. Maybe the Lutherans thought that we would come around, and we did, but not in any way they expected. Catholics are not going to give up their beliefs, not one tittle, not one iota.

How come the arguments these carry forward against Cardinal Kasper never reflect on anything we changed about Trent and Justification in our 30 years of negotiations with the Lutherans.
 
I agree with you. Cardinal Kasper is one man, and a man who is about to retire.

The Traditionalists need an object for their hatred, for their fear, and he is the handiest man around. They don’t even attack the Congregation of the Faith. If Kasper were so wrong, you don’t think Benedict would have dealt with it? Or that Cardinal Levada would have handled it?

It drives the Traditionalists over their proverbial edge, that as brilliant a theologian as Benedict is, he supports Cardinal Kasper.
I do think that some of the self-identified “Traditionalists” who post here seem to have a very strong need to “NEGATE” ideas and people - to the extent that they don’t even recognize how ludicrous they appear by their choice to make EVERYTHING a battle. If they happen to hold any worthwhile concerns, those are swamped and drowned in the waves of their own negativity.
 
This is what you are suggesting?

Pius X wrote his encyclical against Modernism. We don’t think Moderism is a threat any longer except in those remnants of the Catholic Church belonging to Father Feeney and Bishop Lefebreve. As we know, the Church dealt with those errors, although they still exist.

You are of course suggesting that we line up the forces of Catholicism against the forces of Protestantism and have all out beat down. Other than another 100 years war will we be shedding our blood for no purpose. We lwill never force anyone to ‘be one’ as Jesus prayed.

There is nothing objectionable to what Cardinal Kasper said. You are just afraid. Afraid that it may mean an opening, and to get that opening Rome is going to give away the store. Pure, unaldulterated nonsense. The Feeneys, and the Lefebres and the Ottavianis have had their say, and they have been told they are wrong.

They are afraid of communion under both species, they insult us by saying that the changes in the Mass are too Protestant - and they are not Protestant at all - they are truly pre-Protestant. They believe they are holier than the rest of us cause they demand communion on the tongue, and latin in the Mass. They try to drive Catholicism over the edge as would Feeney and Lefebr.

Pius X was not talking about the reunification with other Christians; I am sure if he were, he would align himself with the like of Cardinal Kasper. He was talking about Modernism. We don’t even take the oath against it anymore - it is passed.

Would that Traditionalism were just as passe.

The Traditionalists, like Feeney, and Lefebre and their followers on this thread have become an embarassment to the Faith, a stumbling block to unity. They shout shibboleths, and curse the day that dawned on the opening of the Second Vatican Council. I am sure St. Pius X bows his head in shame to the Holy Spirit.

They speak of infallibility of the Pope, but do not accept the infallibility of the Second Vatican Council and what it is trying to accomplish.
United in error ? United in the acceptence of modernism, or the denial of it ?

Never happen.
 
Pius X wrote his encyclical against Modernism…As we know, the Church dealt with those errors, although they still exist.
Indeed they do. I think you demonstrate quite clearly the problem of modernism is not over - it’s influence is alive and well. The fact is that Pope Saint Pius X’s words accuarately depict so much of what is going on within the Church today. You can a.) look at the evidence and admit this, b.) ignore the evidence and deny this, or c.) put up some sort of a logical argument to the contrary. I await C, all I’m hearing is B.
We don’t think Moderism is a threat any longer except in those remnants of the Catholic Church belonging to Father Feeney and Bishop Lefebreve.
If you think Father Feeney and Bishop Lefebreve are modernists, then you demonstrate your ignorance of modernism.
You are of course suggesting that we line up the forces of Catholicism against the forces of Protestantism and have all out beat down. Other than another 100 years war will we be shedding our blood for no purpose. We lwill never force anyone to ‘be one’ as Jesus prayed.
I’m suggesting no such thing. Preaching the truth in charity and clarity does not necessitate going into physical combat - trying to make them one and the same is ridiculous and seems like a rather desparate grasping for straws on your part.
There is nothing objectionable to what Cardinal Kasper said.
I think there are some very questionable things in there, and laid them out for you. Feel free to comment on them specifically if you are up to it. Choose approach C rather than B (see above) - it’ll be more effective if you are correct, and demonstrate your errors more clearly to yourself if you are wrong.
You are just afraid.
:rolleyes:
Afraid that it may mean an opening, and to get that opening Rome is going to give away the store.
The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is indefectable - it can never “give away the store.”

However, certain folks outside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church can be led to believe they have given away the store" by the type of talk that comes from some individuals within Her - and thus be unfairly prevented from entering Her.

Certain poorly catechized folks within the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church can be led to believe that the Church has “given away the store” by the type of talk that comes from some individuals within Her - and thus be scandalized and unfairly moved to leave Her or lead to believe that they can pick and choose which doctrines and dogmas they can hold.

And certain poorly catechized follks within the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church (no names mentioned here of course) can be led to believe that giving away the store is not only possible but good - so long as we don’t call it “giving away the store”.
Pure, unaldulterated nonsense. The Feeneys, and the Lefebres and the Ottavianis have had their say, and they have been told they are wrong.
Funny, I have not quoted Feeney, Lefebvre, or Ottaviani in this discussion. I have no doubt you are confused as to what they actually say or said as well as the Church’s official response to these particular things were…but in any case, such is irrelevant in your discussion with me since I haven’t quoted them or “belong” to any groups initiated by them.

I understand that examining in detail the actual words of Cardinal Kasper alongside the teachings of the Catholic Church down through the ages, alongside the actual words of popes and saints and Councils, can be quite distressing for you. But I urge you to proceed forward without fear - throwing up a bucketful of other rabbit holes (i.e. distracting side arguments) ain’t gonna work here. I expect that from Protestants whose arguments against the Church start to fail (the ol’ shotgun approach), but not from fellow Catholics. It’s rather unbecoming.

DustinsDad
 
…How come the arguments these carry forward against Cardinal Kasper never reflect on anything we changed about Trent and Justification in our 30 years of negotiations with the Lutherans.
One could open up a whole new thread - perhaps a whole new sub-forum - on the problematic (and non-binding) Joint Declaration. They are very much related.

DD
 
The Traditionalists, like Feeney, and Lefebre and their followers on this thread have become an embarassment to the Faith, a stumbling block to unity. They shout shibboleths, and curse the day that dawned on the opening of the Second Vatican Council. I am sure St. Pius X bows his head in shame to the Holy Spirit.
The stumbling block to the “unity” sought by Kasper and company are those darn Catholic dogmas, and those who promote them (Traditionalists).

These backwards pre-Vatican II Catholics and their pesky dogmas are getting in the way of the unity of Christ with Belial. Therefore, the dogmas must be abandoned and the Traditionalist - who are an embarrasement to the enlightened Catholics - must be ridiculed and discredited. They, along with their ‘dogmas’ must be cast into exterior darkness to make room for the new Church… a Church that is open-minded enough for all - Catholics, heretics, schismatics - a true union of the unholy.

Anne Catherin Emmerich: “They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise. He died with confession and satisfaction-and he lived again!”
 
The stumbling block to the “unity” sought by Kasper and company are those darn Catholic dogmas, and those who promote them (Traditionalists).

These backwards pre-Vatican II Catholics and their pesky dogmas are getting in the way of the unity of Christ with Belial. Therefore, the dogmas must be abandoned and the Traditionalist - who are an embarrasement to the enlightened Catholics - must be ridiculed and discredited. They, along with their ‘dogmas’ must be cast into exterior darkness to make room for the new Church… a Church that is open-minded enough for all - Catholics, heretics, schismatics - a true union of the unholy.

Anne Catherin Emmerich: “They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise. He died with confession and satisfaction-and he lived again!”
I don’t even know what that quote means. What dogmas have been abandoned over the past 40 years? Papal Infallibility? I doubt that. All Traditionalist nonsense. Plus we have some of these nuts telling us that Popes since Paul VI have been heretics - olf all the nerve!

If truth be told not one belief or dogma of the Roman Catholic Church has been compromised in discussions with non-Catholics.

What we have are the discredited Feeneyites and Lefebreites pushing their separate but similar agendas. They are the only ones threatening the truth of the Roman Catholic Church. They are the ones leading people over the edge, whether SSPX or Sedevacantists, or Fundamentalists, or Latin liturgists.

It is sad that we have to even recognize them as Roman Catholics. The Traditionalists have discredited themselves.
 
One could open up a whole new thread - perhaps a whole new sub-forum - on the problematic (and non-binding) Joint Declaration. They are very much related.

DD
As usual Dad, you don’t know what you are talking about. The 33 canons of Trent on Justification were never in doubt.

If you ask the Lutherans involved in these discussions, you will find out the Roman Catholics held fast to Trent.
 
If you think Father Feeney and Bishop Lefebreve are modernists, then you demonstrate your ignorance of modernism.

DustinsDad
You are not reading. I never said that F & L were modernists. They fear that modernism surrounds them, which it does not.

Modernism is dead!

Get over it!
 
The only true unity is for those outside the Church to renounce their errors and return to the Church, as Pope Pius XI discussed in Mortalium Animos in 1928, which every Catholic living today should read.
This very important document has to be read along with Ut Unum Sint and with the Ecumenical Directory.
Firstly, St. Francis was not a Priest, so I would be surprised if he eliminated Gregorian Chant from the Mass.
You are correct. He was not a priest. He was the Superior General of his Order and the Superior General of a Religious Order has authority over ordinary matters within his order. He does not have to be a priest to have this authority. He cannot change the rubrics of the liturgy, only the Church can do that. But the music is not part of the rubrics.

Another thing that Francis introduced into the liturgy was the sermon in the vernacular. He was the first known preacher to preach in the language of the poeple. Sermons were in Latin in the Middle Ages.

Before you ask, yes Francis was a preacher as are many of his Brothers to this day. His order, along with several others, still have what is called Pontifical Right. The Major Superior has the legal authority of a bishop, not the sacramental authority. That’s different.

That’s why bishops cannot interfere in their affairs. Only the Pope can. Pope Honorius deliberately put a Papal Bull on Francis’ Rule so that it could not be tampered with by anyone except another Pope. Not even the friars can change it. Once it became a Regula Bulata, even Francis had no power to change it.

He did not want his Brothers to use the Gregorian chant because at the time, religious orders were all monastic. Gregorian Chant was the traditional way that they celebrated mass and the Divine Office. But those who could not perform complicated Gregorian chant could not enter these orders. The Carhusians still mainain this rule today.

Francis wanted to open his order up to as many as possible. This is why he takes the Greogorian chant our othe liturgy in his friaries and where his Brothers celebrated mass. They used either plain chant or Laudas.

Laudas were songs that Francis wrote in Italian with Italian music for worship and praise of God. It came from the Italian “Praises”. The most famous Laudas is The Canticle of Brother Sun. To this day, the friars do not use Gregorian chant. The use plain chant, local music or they recite the psalms and ommit the hymns.

If you go to the writings of St. Francis you will find a list of the Laudas that he wrote. In English they are also known as Praises.

If you read his biography you will see where he uses them at liturgy. No one knows the exact year when he began this, as I said before. But an estimated guess is that it must have been between 1221 when he founded the order and 1226 when he died.

He also introduced the Live Nativity into the Midnight Mass and the Stations of the Cross on Good Friday.
Secondly, what is laudas? If you mean lauds, that has nothing to do with the Mass. Lauds is the morning prayer payed by Priests and religious communities (and some lay faithful).
No. Lauds is one of the hours of the Liturgy of the Hours. But that is not a Lauda.
The last point is that Vatican Ii expressly stated that Gregoria Chant is to be retained in the Mass. Therefore, anyone living today who seeks to eliminate Gregorian Chant is rejecting Vatican II.
These disciplines are for the universal Church. However, they have exceptions. As I said above, if you belong to a religious order of Pontifical Right, you go by the exceptions and indults granted to your order.

For example, the Dominicans did not follow the Tridentine form in the strict sense. St. Dominic got permission for a Dominican Rite. It was very close to the Tridentine, but had some differences. Mass in this rite can only be celebrated by Dominican Friars of the First Order. It is rarely used today, because the Dominican General Chapter authorized the friars to us the NO sometime after Vatican II. Dominicans are also an Order with Pontifical Right

Since the Council of Trent, a priest could not say mass alone. There had to be at leas one other person. There weren’t always enough acolytes to assist at mass. If a parish did not have an acolyte, they used an altar server.

St. Bruno dispensed with this practice for the Carthusians. He could do this, because he was a Superior General with ordinary powers and the Carthusians have Pontifical Right. St. Bruno also forbade his monks from celebrating mass for the public. They do not do it to this day. Each monk celebrates mass in his hermitage. After Vatican II, they allowed concelebration, so the monks get together on Sundays to concelebrate a community mass. If you’re a lay person visiting their house you can attend. But they never go out to celebrate for the laity, nor do the Cistercians of either order. They’re not allowed to have public masses, even though the Church teaches that mass is public worshiip and that the faithful have the right to attend mass.

Some monasteries now make it a practice to open their chapel to their neighbors. But it’s really up to the Abbot.

As you see, there are rules, encyclicals and rubrics, but there also are exceptions which are very old and still in effect.

Not everything disappeared with Vatican II. Religiouis of Pontifical Right follow those rules that the Pope explicitly says they have to follow, the moral laws of the Church, the rubrics and dogmas. If you recall, Major Religious Superiors had to attend Vatican II by order of Pope John XXIII.

Every order of Pontifical Right has a Cardinal Protector in the Vatican to protect them from tampering by other bishops and laity.

JR 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top