R
- Status
R
roncriss
Guest
Please cite a source for this. Secondly the council did not specify the form the refom, not “improvements”, should take. But to decree a reform of the Liturgy does indeed touch on the matter of faith and morals. Still I think it is not Catholic doctrine to suppose that ecumanical councils, like popes, are able to err unless decreeing dogma. Were the Apostlesdecreeing dogma when they decided that gentiles need not be circumcized? Could they have been wrong in your way of excluding authoritative pronouncements?
In my opinion one might as well not be Catholic if the Magisterium as represented by an ecumenical council can be disrespected and disobeyed. If I believed as the traditionalists believe I wouldn’t bother being Catholic. Any man’s opinion would be equal to that of the Magisterium. Liberals and traditionalists are two sides of the same coin. Both subvert and contradict Rome.
Ron
R
roncriss
Guest
“…Vatican Council II expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful…”
“BUT [my emphasis] in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms.”
"Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following:
"The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage…
“It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church…”
So what do we have here? V2 mandated reform of the Liturgy. BUT some clung to the TR despite this. The NO is the ordinary form of the Mass, but, in deference to traditionalists the TR is permitted. I doubt that you could assent to even this much. The “but” signifies the disobedience of the traditionalists.
To be more specific, “These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, MOST priests and MOST faithful…” There was a minority called traditionalists who resisted the reform, some to the point of schism.
Matthew 19
7 They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?”
8 He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
Ron
R
roncriss
Guest
Let’s not pretend. The indults were preceded by petulant traditionalists’ refusal to accept the reform, illegal TRs, schisms and grumbling about the NO. Most traditionalists I know attended illegal masses often in schismatic traditionalist churches. The first indult allowed traditionalists to attend TRs united to the Church. Usually there was one parish in a particular city which was the “traditionalist parish”. Of course SP doesn’t state explicitly that it was in response to the SSPXers. So what? Anyone who has been following things knows it was as Benedicts statement makes clear.
Ron
S
stmaria
Guest
I understood and I participated and I was only a teenager.
The decrees of the Constitution were ignored. Since you are an expert show me where in the *Constitution on the Liturgy *it says the following: The New Mass wil be all vernacular, the words of consecration will be changed, the priest will face the people, the tabernacle will be removed, communion will be given in the hand, the laity will distribute communion, pop music will be allowed, the Canon will be replace with several optional Eucharistic prayers.
A
AlexV
Guest
Ron Criss, you are a provocateur. An internet troll. Or obstinately, willfully ignorant.
Does the Holy See set up societies of priests and apostolic administrations for the disobedient?
Apparently so.
NOTHING in the Motu Proprio SP supports your outrageously offensive claims. Nothing.
Cardinal Heenan was granted a Tridentine Indult in 1971. Was he PETULANT? Was he DISOBEDIENT?
How arrogant of you to make such broad claims. How arrogant of you to make assertions about the mind of the Holy Father. How arrogant of you to tell us that if we celebrate with the 1962 books we are the equivalent of the hardhearted Jews of Mosaic times. How arrogant of you to assert that we are, in effect, second class citizens who are barely to be tolerated.
You are a troll. I suggest people stop feeding you. I will start taking my own advice.
Does the Holy See set up societies of priests and apostolic administrations for the disobedient?
Apparently so.
NOTHING in the Motu Proprio SP supports your outrageously offensive claims. Nothing.
Cardinal Heenan was granted a Tridentine Indult in 1971. Was he PETULANT? Was he DISOBEDIENT?
How arrogant of you to make such broad claims. How arrogant of you to make assertions about the mind of the Holy Father. How arrogant of you to tell us that if we celebrate with the 1962 books we are the equivalent of the hardhearted Jews of Mosaic times. How arrogant of you to assert that we are, in effect, second class citizens who are barely to be tolerated.
You are a troll. I suggest people stop feeding you. I will start taking my own advice.
J
James0235
Guest
So, Ron,
What would you suggest one do if the pastor, upon being politely asked why he is still using a glass chalice when the parish has a nice gold one and using glass is considered “reprobated” (Redemptionis Sacramentum 117), replies that “Cardinal Arinze says we are allowed to use glass”. ?
And what if the same pastor has 11 Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (but the pastor insists that the proper term is “Eucharistic Minister” although this is contradicted by RS 154) gather behind him during the Agnus Dei even though several people have politely pointed out to the pastor that they are not permitted to approach the altar until the priest has received Communion (GIRM 162), what would you suggest?
What if the pastor takes it upon himself to insert a prayer into the Mass even though the Church says “that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.” (RS 10) ?
And what if several people have politely written letters about some of these things to 2 bishops asking for guidance on what to do about these Liturgical abuses only to have both bishops ignore all of these letters?
Any suggestions on that? It is a very specific example of a “traditionalist” trying to embrace reform only to witness a priest commit Liturgical abuses (which “contribute to the obscuring of the Catholic faith” - RS 6).
How would you handle this if you were to encounter these things?
James
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
Hi Ron,
Okay:
"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).
I agree that the liturgy is quite important as it transmits the Faith to the people (along with catechesis). However, the decision to reform the liturgy is not a teaching concerning Faith and Morals which is where infallibility applies. It is a prudential decision. Now, you can argue that it was a wonderful decision, and that’s fine. However, it is not correct to say that we must believe that the decision to reform the liturgy was done by the work of the Holy Spirit or that it has anything of the nature of infallibility attached to it as it is not even a teaching, (or a definition), much less a teaching on Faith and Morals.
Fr. Parsons makes the logical point that if one wants to take the prudential decisions of Councils as works of the Holy Spirit then we need to take other decisions of Councils as works of the Holy Spirit as well:
“It is only a false ecclesiology and a false pneumatology that can lead to the exorbitant assertion that a council is “the voice of the Holy Spirit for our age”. Are we really obliged to believe that the Holy Spirit demanded the launching of a Crusade at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215? And must we hold that in 1311 the Holy Spirit dictated the Council of Vienne’s rules regulating the use of torture by the Inquisition? And is it *de fide *that when Alexander IV ordered those suspect of heresy to be tortured to confess their guilt, this was what “the Spirit was saying to the churches” on 15 May 1252?”
christianorder.com/features/features_2001/features_bonus_dec01.html
Regarding circumcision the Catholic Encyclopedia states:
Acts 15:28
Finally, the consciousness of corporate infallibility is clearly signified in the expression used by the assembled Apostles in the decree of the Council of Jerusalem: “It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you”, etc. (Acts 15:28). It is true that the specific points here dealt with are chiefly disciplinary rather than dogmatic, and that no claim to infallibility is made in regard to purely disciplinary questions as such; but behind, and independent of, disciplinary details there was the broad and most important dogmatic question to be decided, whether Christians, according to Christ’s teaching, were bound to observe the Old Law in its integrity, as orthodox Jews of the time observed it. This was the main issue at stake, and in deciding it the Apostles claimed to speak in the name and with the authority of the Holy Ghost.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
I think that says it well. When the Bishops together make statements (a teaching) regarding salvation then infallibility is in play. Deciding to reform the liturgy is not a teaching.
However, this does not mean a prudential decision can be disobeyed. The Council decreed a reform of the liturgy and it was carried out. Needless to say as infallibility (or a work of the Holy Spirit) does not apply to a decision to reform the liturgy, it certainly does not apply to the way it was carried out by Archbishop Bugnini’s committee.
R
roncriss
Guest
Since I never suggested such I feel no need to defend your examples. V2 doesn’t say that the Liturgy will be all in the vernacular. In fact it suggests that Latin be preserved, but allows the vernacular. Pope Benedict’s suggestion that key prayers be in Latin would effect the reform as envisioned by the council fathers. “The words of consecration” are a matter of translation. The priest doesn’t face the people, he faces Christ on the altar. The fact is that the orientation of the priest varied from church to church. Traditionalists are wrong to suggest that God is in the East, not on the altar. In the early Church the tabernacle was not even in the church. The tabernacle on the altar is a late innovation. Its not important, though I would prefer it to be outside of the church if not on the altar itself. V2 doesn’t say the laity will distribute communion or that it will be in the hand. have you read the decrees of V2??? Nothing about pop music. What is inherently wrong with optional prayers?
Ron
R
roncriss
Guest
Earth to Alex: Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. Apparently I struck a chord. Catholics follow the Pope. I encourage you to join us in submission and full obedience to the Magisterium. You will find it liberating.
Luke 9
23 Then, speaking to all, he said, 'If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross every day and follow me.
24 Anyone who wants to save his life will lose it; but anyone who loses his life for my sake, will save it.
Ron
R
roncriss
Guest
It sounds like you’ve done everything you could. But, again, you are talking about abuses, not the reform mandated by V2. Try writing to Rome.
Ron
L
LatinOnlyPlease
Guest
That is the problem w Vatican II, there are no longer any rules, only guidelines. Each Diocese does what they want. An abuse to one person is just dandy to another. We are supposed to be ONE Holy Catholic Church. With no set rules, and only guidelines we have , well, a big mess…
…The mass should be the same no matter where on the planet you go, unfortunately it’s not the same with churches down the street from one another…truly a desperate state we are in…
…The mass should be the same no matter where on the planet you go, unfortunately it’s not the same with churches down the street from one another…truly a desperate state we are in…
M
Miles_Mariae
Guest
From what I understand, it’s not the Council’s fault. The Church’s ecumenical councils do not teach error, but it is the way people understand the council, or try to carry it out, that causes problems.That is the problem w Vatican II, there are no longer any rules, only guidelines. Each Diocese does what they want. An abuse to one person is just dandy to another. We are supposed to be ONE Holy Catholic Church. With no set rules, and only guidelines we have , well, a big mess…
S
SFD
Guest
The ones who “carried it out” were and are the ecclesiastical magisterium…which we Catholics are bound to follow. The rule of faith for a Catholic is the proximate one…that is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium…which are the Bishops and their auxiliaries.
Do you see the problem?
SFD
M
Miles_Mariae
Guest
It’s quite evident that there is a problem. Nonetheless, it is possible for individual Bishops to teach error. I do not see how this contradicts my point that all of the Bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council cannot teach error.
S
SFD
Guest
Yes, this is correct, I believe.That is the problem w Vatican II, there are no longer any rules, only guidelines. Each Diocese does what they want. An abuse to one person is just dandy to another. We are supposed to be ONE Holy Catholic Church. With no set rules, and only guidelines we have , well, a big mess…
Vatican II did not lay down any rule against the Faith. The Faith was not outlawed by Vatican II. Nor was actual heresy imposed as an infallible law of belief. But it was an “anti-council”, because the council and various other statements of doctrine contradicted Church teaching on many points, and they led the clergy and the faithful to think that they could freely doubt anything that suited them.
This was what happened at Vatican II … the faith as a law of belief … as a rule to which one submits one’s intellect … was dissolved. In its place was put a set of opinions. Many of those opinions coincided with traditional Catholic beliefs, but they only had the status of opinions now. That is what it meant to dismantle the Index of Forbidden Books, and to “reform” the Holy Office so that it would no longer condemn error, but rather “encourage doctrinal initiative.” You cannot have institutions defending a fixed rule which doesn’t exist. The institutions have to change to reflect the new reality … a “church” in which the doctrines are a set of opinions. Ancient, venerable opinions, but opinions all the same. This was the corrosive spirit that was unleashed. The reaction of the orthodox-minded men who remained in that structure was, at best, “Oh, I believe it, but how can we prove it?” That is where the Faith went.
Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre described only one year after the Council closed:
ArchBp. Lefebvre said:
SFD
S
SFD
Guest
Except we’re not really talking an individual Bishop or even groups of Bishops teaching error. The Faith is to be found in the catechisms, and in the liturgy, and in the common preaching of these Bishops. So, is anybody really open to learning his Faith from those awful catechisms? Or even the CCC? Or the Novus Ordo Missae? Or the moral unanimity of bishops who hold and preach that all men have a natural right to religious liberty? Or the moral unanimity of bishops who hold and preach that there is abundant salvation outside the Church?
So, in this crisis, why must the Faithful become doctrinal archeologists and discover what used to be taught and compare it with what is taught now?
SFD
A
AlexV
Guest
Ron Criss:
Answer this, O arrogant one.
Am I disobedient to the Pope because I attend the so-called Tridentine Mass every Sunday and Holy Day?
Yes or no. No prevarication, no obfuscation, no periphrasis.
Yes or no.
(We’ll leave out the unbelievable arrogance of how your post to me implies I’m not Catholic. Guess what: you don’t get to decide that).
Answer this, O arrogant one.
Am I disobedient to the Pope because I attend the so-called Tridentine Mass every Sunday and Holy Day?
Yes or no. No prevarication, no obfuscation, no periphrasis.
Yes or no.
(We’ll leave out the unbelievable arrogance of how your post to me implies I’m not Catholic. Guess what: you don’t get to decide that).
S
stmaria
Guest
Has Latin been preserved? No
.
That is what the Constitution call for and that is what the Council envisioned.
.
No, the words have been changed. “Mystery of Faith” was removed. “which is given up for you” has been added" The same changes that Martin Luther made.
No. He faces the people. Read the documents of the Counsilium
.
Pope Benedict: "praying toward the East is a tradition that goes back to the beginning. Moreover, it is a fundamental expression of the Christian synthesis of cosmos and history, of being rooted in the once-for-all events of salvation history while going out to meet the Lord who is to come again "
.
It began around the fifth century
Popoe Pius XII: "“To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and nature should** remain united**.”
I have read them. You are right. Vatican II never said the laity will distribute communion and that it will be in the hand
.
It says Gregorian Chant
It destroys unity. One never knows what one will get. The “Roman Canon” is the best and the longest but it is seldom used. Eucharist Prayer II is most commonly used. It is the shortest. This is the prayer that the Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass written by 12 theologians in 1969 said, " a Protestant minister could use it in his own celebration."
F
FAB
Guest
These threads always amaze me! How so many who profess to be Traditional Catholics, and in part of that tradition was always to follow the teachings of the Magisterium, will now question so deeply the very teachings they profess to follow because now is not like it use to be or because they don’t like the changes.
What is even more amazing is that these discussions continue, and this push to go back to the “good old days” is on going. Of all lost causes, this has to be the one of the biggest.
Of the people I know, who grew up pre vatican II, they do not want to go back to the days were they were seperated from being part of the mass and the body of Christ on so many levels.
There is certainaly tradition in our church. It is from which we have such a rich faith. But there are also many things that were part of the church in the past, that have been left by the wayside because of our continuing enlightenment through the Holy Spirit. We are all on a pilgrimage together, but each of us find our own connection with Christ in a different ways. I can respect and understand those who like the TLM, but for me it leaves me wanting. The Novus Ordo speaks to me on many levels and allows me to have a personal connection with my savior. Pope Benidict, as I see it, recognizes the same. In allowing the TLM, it did not mean he was turning back the clock. It instead was to give the faithful another way to be closer to Christ allow another path to be open.
Instead of this vs that, the discussion should be on how we can fullfill Christ mission as a faithful people. “If a house is divided against itself, that house will not stand” Mark 3:25
Peace,
FAB
What is even more amazing is that these discussions continue, and this push to go back to the “good old days” is on going. Of all lost causes, this has to be the one of the biggest.
Of the people I know, who grew up pre vatican II, they do not want to go back to the days were they were seperated from being part of the mass and the body of Christ on so many levels.
There is certainaly tradition in our church. It is from which we have such a rich faith. But there are also many things that were part of the church in the past, that have been left by the wayside because of our continuing enlightenment through the Holy Spirit. We are all on a pilgrimage together, but each of us find our own connection with Christ in a different ways. I can respect and understand those who like the TLM, but for me it leaves me wanting. The Novus Ordo speaks to me on many levels and allows me to have a personal connection with my savior. Pope Benidict, as I see it, recognizes the same. In allowing the TLM, it did not mean he was turning back the clock. It instead was to give the faithful another way to be closer to Christ allow another path to be open.
Instead of this vs that, the discussion should be on how we can fullfill Christ mission as a faithful people. “If a house is divided against itself, that house will not stand” Mark 3:25
Peace,
FAB
- Status