Could the Pope suppress the current GIRM of the Ordinary Form?

[603304529]

I’d say it was a combination of things. Others will have more to add, but some factors:

• most bishops then and now, were modernists at heart. It was, and is, a revolution. Out with the old, and in with the new. Break down barriers. The old Mass had been “replaced”, illicitly, by a terrible Pope and his buddies, and everyone had to comply. Bishop Navarro of Campos is a perfect example of obedience above all else; your faith is secondary.
• the people did not know their faith.
• the people had an unhealthy understanding of the priesthood. They had a ridiculous attitude, and when combined with their faulty understanding of the Catholic Faith, you got this: “yes Father, no Father, whatever you say Father. Three bags full Father!” attitude to the changes: new Mass implemented, communion in the hand, etc etc etc.

Basically, the sheep were dumb, and the shepherds, to a large extent, were wolves in shepherds’ clothing.

 

[mardukm]

I’d say it was a combination of things. Others will have more to add, but some factors:

• most bishops then and now, were modernists at heart. It was, and is, a revolution. Out with the old, and in with the new. Break down barriers. The old Mass had been “replaced”, illicitly, by a terrible Pope and his buddies, and everyone had to comply. Bishop Navarro of Campos is a perfect example of obedience above all else; your faith is secondary.
• the people did not know their faith.
• the people had an unhealthy understanding of the priesthood. They had a ridiculous attitude, and when combined with their faulty understanding of the Catholic Faith, you got this: “yes Father, no Father, whatever you say Father. Three bags full Father!” attitude to the changes: new Mass implemented, communion in the hand, etc etc etc.

Basically, the sheep were dumb, and the shepherds, to a large extent, were wolves in shepherds’ clothing.

V2 said it was in the competence of the local bishop to implement the changes or not. Were any bishops censured merely for not implementing the NO?

You say that Pope Paul VI of blessed memory was a “terrible Pope?” So are you one of those sedevacantists?

 

[603304529]

ROFL. Now, you’re just stirring me.

If I was a sede, I would have said a man posing as a Pope.

If you’re just interested in a fight, sorry, I can’t oblige.

 

[maurin]

ROFL. Now, you’re just stirring me.

If I was a sede, I would have said a man posing as a Pope.

If you’re just interested in a fight, sorry, I can’t oblige.

6,

repeat after me: the sky is green, it has always been green.

now repeat: now the sky is blue, it has always been blue.

now repeat: the grass is blue, it has always been blue.

now repeat: the grass is green, it has always been green.

keep on repeating until the contradictions are second nature and do not bother you.

and only then can you be welcomed into the world of the modernists. y’know, like the pod people from that movie in the 70’s.

 

[603304529]

LOL. Thanks Maurin. You’re a breath of fresh air.

 

[mardukm]

ROFL. Now, you’re just stirring me.

If I was a sede, I would have said a man posing as a Pope.

If you’re just interested in a fight, sorry, I can’t oblige.

Why didn’t you answer my first question? Here it is again:

V2 said it was in the competence of the local bishop to implement the changes or not. Were any bishops censured merely for not implementing the NO?

 

[maurin]

St. Josemaria Escriva’ sought permission from the Pope in order to not celebrate the NO Mass, and to continue to celebrate the Holy Mass. Why would a future Saint need permission if what you are claiming is true?

For clarity’s sake, I am not dismissing the possibility that you are correct, nor am I dismissing the possibility that you are incorrect.

 

[mardukm]

St. Josemaria Escriva’ sought permission from the Pope in order to not celebrate the NO Mass, and to continue to celebrate the Holy Mass. Why would a future Saint need permission if what you are claiming is true?

For clarity’s sake, I am not dismissing the possibility that you are correct, nor am I dismissing the possibility that you are incorrect.

Good question. From my understanding, V2 asserted that it is the local ordinary’s prerogative to implement the NO as he saw fit. If the local bishop implemented it, then the Saint was bound to obey. His only recourse would have been to petition the Pope. V1, V2 and the canons assert quite clearly that the Pope has no authority to violate the rights of bishops. At best, the Pope can make a decree with a derogatory clause. That is what an indult is. It is a decree with a derogatory clause - in this case, that the indult applies to a specific person, and does not (for it cannot) cancel the general decree of a bishop for his own diocese.

Blessings

 

[maurin]

Good question. From my understanding, V2 asserted that it is the local ordinary’s prerogative to implement the NO as he saw fit. If the local bishop implemented it, then the Saint was bound to obey. His only recourse would have been to petition the Pope. V1, V2 and the canons assert quite clearly that the Pope has no authority to violate the rights of bishops. At best, the Pope can make a decree with a derogatory clause. That is what an indult is. It is a decree with a derogatory clause - in this case, that the indult applies to a specific person, and does not (for it cannot) cancel the general decree of a bishop for his own diocese.

Blessings

it’s good to see you begin a sentence with “from my understanding.” at least you recognize that you could be wrong.

 

[mardukm]

it’s good to see you begin a sentence with “from my understanding.” at least you recognize that you could be wrong.

There are some things I am confidently sure about - such as the fact that the Pope cannot violate the rights and prerogatives of his fellow bishops. How that exactly applies to the internal debates of the Latin Church, I am not so sure.

 

[maurin]

There are some things I am confidently sure about - such as the fact that the Pope cannot violate the rights and prerogatives of his fellow bishops. How that exactly applies to the internal debates of the Latin Church, I am not so sure.

and then you get into what rights and prerogatives those bishops have who are in Communion with the Pope. According to the French bishops in the beginning of this year after His Holiness’ visit to France they said something about H.H. being in communion with them, and not them in communion with H.H.

and these are the debates, mardukm–collegiality is helping along nicely the erosion of the Faith.

 

[mardukm]

According to the French bishops in the beginning of this year after His Holiness’ visit to France they said something about H.H. being in communion with them, and not them in communion with H.H.

and these are the debates, mardukm–collegiality is helping along nicely the erosion of the Faith.

What’s wrong with the French bishops’ statement? Is communion a one-way street? Our communion with God Himself is a two-way street no less. But you find something wrong with the French bishops saying that HH is in communion with them?

 

[maurin]

What’s wrong with the French bishops’ statement? Is communion a one-way street? Our communion with God Himself is a two-way street no less. But you find something wrong with the French bishops saying that HH is in communion with them?

thank you for your honesty. if you are a modernist, it is good that you do not pretend to be anything different, as so many of the modernists who post on this particular forum do.

 

[jimmy]

So basically, it wasn’t the Pope or the Council that “supressed” it, but local bishops, since it was really in their power to do, according to V2.

Blessings,
Marduk

Read my post above which quotes a document of one of the Roman congregations, which has the authority of the pope.

 

[mardukm]

Read my post above which quotes a document of one of the Roman congregations, which has the authority of the pope.

So what if it has the authority of the Pope? You want the Church to violate Apostolic Canon 34 on a matter that involves the entire Latin Church?

In any case, the instruction only mandated the change for those countries that decided to use the vernacular. So it left open the possibility and choice for countries (i.e. episcopal conferences) to not use the NO.

Worth noting is the concluding sentence which states: What has been said does not apply to officially recognized non-Roman rites

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

thank you for your honesty. if you are a modernist, it is good that you do not pretend to be anything different, as so many of the modernists who post on this particular forum do.

If that makes me a modernist. Sure. Whatever makes you sleep better.

Blessings

 

[maurin]

If that makes me a modernist. Sure. Whatever makes you sleep better.

Blessings

my sleep shouldn’t concern you, mardukm, although your concern is appreciated. but yes you espouse the modernists’ teachings, whether you realize it or not. and it is like a breath of fresh air to have a modernist actually admit it, as you have.

 

[jimmy]

my sleep shouldn’t concern you, mardukm, although your concern is appreciated. but yes you espouse the modernists’ teachings, whether you realize it or not. and it is like a breath of fresh air to have a modernist actually admit it, as you have.

I think you need to define what you mean by modernists. mardukm doesn’t believe that dogma can change, which is one of the major aspects of modernism. Modernism in its classical definition is ultimately rationalism and relativism.

Who are some theologians that you would put into the modernist group? Do you mean the Nouvelle theologians like de Lubac, Congar, Rahner, and von Balthazar?

and these are the debates, mardukm–collegiality is helping along nicely the erosion of the Faith.

The problem with this is that the Pope himself has affirmed collegiality. It was affirmed by P. Paul VI when he promulgated Lumen Gentium. Are the faithful to oppose the Pope in favor of a more extreme view of the role of the Pope? Is that not inherently self-contradictory? Collegiality is based on the 34th Apostolic Canon which basically says that the bishops must agree with the head bishop and the head bishop must not do anything without the consent of the bishops so that they may be one. It is a two way street as mardukm said.

 

[maurin]

I think you need to define what you mean by modernists. mardukm doesn’t believe that dogma can change, which is one of the major aspects of modernism. Modernism in its classical definition is ultimately rationalism and relativism.

Who are some theologians that you would put into the modernist group? Do you mean the Nouvelle theologians like de Lubac, Congar, Rahner, and von Balthazar?

double speak, jimmy. the hallmark of the modernist. to sum it up in one word, yours: relativism.

The problem with this is that the Pope himself has affirmed collegiality.

you said it, it really is a problem.

 

[jimmy]

double speak, jimmy. the hallmark of the modernist. to sum it up in one word, yours: relativism.

you said it, it really is a problem.

What is double speak? Do you mean that in that modernists claim that they accept the dogmas but then oppose them through their writings? That is very true. I think that Karl Adam mentions something about this in his book The Spirit of Catholicism. He said something like most theologians are officially faithful to the Church in that they accept the dogmas but in spirit they are modernists.