I don’t know what Websters would think, but I know what the Church in the Magisterium has always said: she can propose nothing to the faithful that will lead them into impiety nor promulgate a discipline that would do so.Are you sure about this?
Impiety - n, pl, -ties : (1) lack of reverence for God; (2) lack of respect.
Then why risk it by forming a committee of an alleged freemason and six heretics to completely revamp that which was dear and precious to most Catholics who kept the faith?It is foolhardy to think that a pope would step into Peter’s shoes and start changing the practices and liturgy of the Church in the same way that an upstart CEO marches into his office and starts ordering massive changes around him. The pope’s job is to preserve the deposit of faith.
And you really believe this?she can propose nothing to the faithful that will lead them into impiety nor promulgate a discipline that would do so.
FIRST of all, there is NO credible evidence that Archbishop Bugnini was a freemason. The charge was denied by the Holy See. Second, there is NO credible evidence that the Protestant observers did other than observe. They were shown the drafts, but they had no (name removed by moderator)ut. They said as much and the Holy See also denied that they had had a hand in the drafting. These are conspiracy theories that should be beneath thinking Catholics. Third, as I’ve said before, I know lots of faithful Catholics who grew up before the Council that were pleased with the changes to the liturgy…faithful, orthodox Catholics. I realize that the last observation is anectdotal, but so is your “most.”Then why risk it by forming a committee of an alleged freemason and six heretics to completely revamp that which was dear and precious to most Catholics who kept the faith?
I did say ALLEGED, didn’t I?FIRST of all, there is NO credible evidence that Archbishop Bugnini was a freemason.
I used the word HERETICS. You can call them whatever you want. And do you really think that just one person spoke while six “observed” the entire time? Have you ever been a member of any committee that did this?Second, there is NO credible evidence that the Protestant observers did other than observe.
That may be, but that doesn’t mean that risks weren’t taken prior to promulgating the liturgy. I knew Catholics who were scared as to what would become of the Church after Vatican II.Third, as I’ve said before, I know lots of faithful Catholics who grew up before the Council that were pleased with the changes to the liturgy…faithful, orthodox Catholics.
The disciplines of the Church enjoy NEGATIVE infallibilty. The most that can be said for them is that they cannot lead the faithful into impiety (as is often charged in the forum).And you really believe this?
Remember, the Council of Trent wasn’t completely infallible; otherwise any new rites since then wouldn’t be licit or even valid for that matter regardless of which pastor of the church introduced them.
And why not? Weren’t these writings a basis for his being elected to the Papacy?Many here keep repeating the same things the Holy Father said as personal opinions as Cardinal Ratzinger.
Yeh, right. Who makes this stuff up?The disciplines of the Church enjoy NEGATIVE infallibilty.
**Life and faith are risks. “Be not afraid?” **I did say ALLEGED, didn’t I?
Yes, you did. If you’re operating on charity, why would you bring it up? Is it a sin to engage in detraction EXCEPT in Archbishop Bugnini’s case.
I used the word HERETICS. You can call them whatever you want. And do you really think that just one person spoke while six “observed” the entire time? Have you ever been a member of any committee that did this?** I’m fine with your terminology, though I would qualify it by saying “material” heretics. And I go with what the Church said: that they didn’t help.**
That may be, but that doesn’t mean that risks weren’t taken prior to promulgating the liturgy. I knew Catholics who were scared as to what would become of the Church after Vatican II.
Look it up in the Catholic encyclopedias that are online.Yeh, right. Who makes this stuff up?
I have posted this for you so many times that you should know it by heart:Then why risk it by forming a committee of an alleged freemason and six heretics to completely revamp that which was dear and precious to most Catholics who kept the faith?
His criticisms of Pope Paul VI’s missal was the “basis for his being elected to the Papacy?” Do you have a source for this? So why, exactly, was Pope John Paul II elected? (I can’t wait for this one…)And why not? Weren’t these writings a basis for his being elected to the Papacy?
That’s what a missal is for.I can promise you, you’d get equally orthodox Catholics funding the same in support of the ordinary form, esp. since it is in the vernacular. ** Now, if we could hear the sublime prose of the EF in the vernacular, that MIGHT be a different story. ** But then, there is an austere beauty to the OF properly offered that would still be different from, but just as lovely as the EF.
I didn’t make the original claim, but isn’t it true that they attempted to “remove all stumbling blocks” for Protestants? Didn’t they even want to remove mention of the BVM and the saints from the Mass? I’ll have to look that up…something about Bugnini or one of his cronies.Either you have your head in the sand or you refuse to acknowledge something that you seem to wish to be all too true.
The last time I went to Mass the BVM and the saints were mentioned.I didn’t make the original claim, but isn’t it true that they attempted to “remove all stumbling blocks” for Protestants? Didn’t they even want to remove mention of the BVM and the saints from the Mass? I’ll have to look that up…something about Bugnini or one of his cronies.
The ones who actually did the dirty work of going about inventing a new rite…duh. I never said they succeeded (obviously. I said I’ll look it up; haven’t got there yet.The last time I went to Mass the BVM and the saints were mentioned.
So who, exactly, is “they?”
Do you mean this “new rite?”The ones who actually did the dirty work of going about inventing a new rite…duh. I never said they succeeded (obviously. I said I’ll look it up; haven’t got there yet.
No, but then again I’m going to assume, in charity, that you probably knew that. People who are argumentative for the sake of being argumentative give others ample opportunity to practice the virtue of patience. But what about you? What are you attempting to accomplish by acting this way?Do you mean this “new rite?”
"This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See…"
Pope Pius V Quo Primum 1570
To show just how empty your attempts are to denigrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass.No, but then again I’m going to assume, in charity, that you probably knew that. People who are argumentative for the sake of being argumentative give others ample opportunity to practice the virtue of patience. But what about you? What are you attempting to accomplish by acting this way?