A
AlexV
Guest
I suggest we move out of the Ontology 101 class and into the real world of liturgical practice.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Well, that particular ordinary could probably stand a daily letter from the pope.And the cardinal archbishop of a rather prominent archdiocese once indicated, in writing, that flagons could be used to distribute the “consecrated wine” (sic) in his archdiocese.
I guess flagons enjoy “negative infallibility” in his territory.
I’m increasingly reminded of the 19th century Ultramontanist who said he prayed that the Pope might write a letter every morning telling him what to think and do.
Some would extend that to their ordinary, as well.
No, flagons don’t enjoy negative infallibility, as they are at odds with the specifice directive from the competent authority.
A
AlexV
Guest
Well, actually, the cardinal in question has claimed he has the authority since he is the chief liturgist for his diocese. This starts to touch on collegiality, subsidiarity, Petrine authority extents, etc.
The silence from Rome in these cases is deafening.
You start playing with norms/indults/negative infallibility/other popularly repeated tedium, you run into thorny problems.
“Negative infallibility” has a very limited, specific definition. It’s ontological. End of story.
The silence from Rome in these cases is deafening.
You start playing with norms/indults/negative infallibility/other popularly repeated tedium, you run into thorny problems.
“Negative infallibility” has a very limited, specific definition. It’s ontological. End of story.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
That’s awful. Liberals and progressivists saying that communion on the tongue is not allowed, “we don’t do that anymore,” “that changed with Vatican II,” etc., all of it is error. But it is equally error to call a discipline permitted by the Church an impiety.Again, I was told as a child I was not allowed to receive on the tongue. That was a lie. I was lied to. So were many others.
A
AlexV
Guest
You’re a broken record.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
“Limited” and “specific” must be relative terms, because negative infallibility extends to all the disciplines of the Church (as per Trent).“Negative infallibility” has a very limited, specific definition. It’s ontological. End of story.
And could I ask a favor? Just to keep the tone befitting the gravity of the argument (we’re talking about the Mass, the Most Sacred Body, the Most Precious Blood, the Truth of the Church), could we drop the references to jumping jacks at the Consecration? No pope is ever going to order that and it’s demeaning to to the argument.
S
Serene
Guest
I have been away from that Church for many years and just came back two years ago. I went through some RCIA classes. Our parish priest came to one of the classes and we were talking about receiving on the tongue as apposed to receiving on the hand. He explained to us that either was acceptable. Then he told us about people who did not have their mouth open enough to place the Host on the tongue and you felt like you were having to almost throw it through a mail slot or people who would shut their mouth so quickly you thought you were going to be bit. I felt that I was never instructed properly about receiving the Holy Eucharist on the tongue so I decided then to receive the Eucharist in my hand because I wanted to be as respesctful as possible while receiving this Blessed gift.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I’m defending the authority of the Church.You’re a broken record.
A
AlexV
Guest
You’re defending it against a phantom enemy.
A
AlexV
Guest
Fine, EVERY discipline approved by the Church?
Well now…how interesting. A certain cardinal archbishop has declared certain disciplines for his diocese, claiming he has the authority to do so legislatively in his archdiocese. Rome has not said a word.
I guess his “disciplines” also have “negative infallibility”.
As for jumping jacks at the Consecration, welcome to the ultimate reduction of your arguments. If your way is right, then a future pope could declare them, and we’d have to do them. I didn’t invent the idea. A certain web apologist who likes to brag about how “obedient” he is says he’d do them, if the pope said so.
Well now…how interesting. A certain cardinal archbishop has declared certain disciplines for his diocese, claiming he has the authority to do so legislatively in his archdiocese. Rome has not said a word.
I guess his “disciplines” also have “negative infallibility”.
As for jumping jacks at the Consecration, welcome to the ultimate reduction of your arguments. If your way is right, then a future pope could declare them, and we’d have to do them. I didn’t invent the idea. A certain web apologist who likes to brag about how “obedient” he is says he’d do them, if the pope said so.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I have to respectfully disagree. I go back to your citation of your experience in grade school and my response. Truth is truth and we all deserve to be told the truth, regardless of what camp we identify with.You’re defending it against a phantom enemy.
A
AlexV
Guest
Did I ever say or post that Communion in the hand is impious PER SE? Nope. Don’t lecture people. I’m well aware of Catholic doctrine, history, tradition, and legality.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
So bascially what your saying is that an Apostolic practice, restored by the Church for whatever reason, can be letitimately called impious? Please note, I’m not saying it could not or should not be changed. All I’m saying is that it cannot be called impious of itself.
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm
V. DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY
…To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform.
A
AlexV
Guest
Alas, it never occurs to some that throwing words like “infallibility” around for everything from the Immaculate Conception to which knee to genuflect on does little besides cheapen infallilibity.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Your key word is "approved.’Fine, EVERY discipline approved by the Church?
.
Look, what’s so hard about it? If God can part the Red Sea, can raise the dead, can transform bread and wine into His Own Most Sacred Body and Most Precious Blood, can protect the Church when she declares the Virgin Mother of God was immaculately conceived, etc., what’s so difficult about the assurance, promulgated by a council and ratified by a pope, that the disciplines of the Church cannot mislead the faithful, cannot, of themselves, be impious?
A
AlexV
Guest
“Approved” is an ambiguous word. If a cardinal archbishop approves something for his territory, where he is chief liturgist, and he argues that it does not conflict with a universal norm, AND Rome does not correct him or stop him…oh well. What a complicated mess, Welcome to the thorny realities of real life, not the ontology classroom.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Your’e not getting it. Reread it. It’s saying that disciplinary infallibility doesn’t mean immutability. No ones has said that it does. All we’re saying is that ***at the very least ***it cannot lead the faithful to impiety, cannot be impious of itself. That’s all we’re saying: “at the very least.”
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm
V. DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY
…To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Rome does what Rome does. We’re getting off track. Flagons? Frowned upon. Communion in the hand? Permitted.“Approved” is an ambiguous word. If a cardinal archbishop approves something for his territory, where he is chief liturgist, and he argues that it does not conflict with a universal norm, AND Rome does not correct him or stop him…oh well. What a complicated mess, Welcome to the thorny realities of real life, not the ontology classroom.
A
AlexV
Guest
And, in the end, WHO CARES???
We live in the real world. Not the world of a classroom where we can nod solemnly and say “In and of itself this cannot be impious”.
THAT’S the extent of this repetitious thread. No more.
We live in the real world. Not the world of a classroom where we can nod solemnly and say “In and of itself this cannot be impious”.
THAT’S the extent of this repetitious thread. No more.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I’m just interested in the Truth. Was Trent correct or not? That’s what it boils down to.Alas, it never occurs to some that throwing words like “infallibility” around for everything from the Immaculate Conception to which knee to genuflect on does little besides cheapen infallilibity.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.