N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Ahh, now it’s all clear. You disagree with the pope.
- Status
B
BobP123
Guest
Good question. I’d also want to know why that same hierarchy would want to create another reverent Mass?
S
Shoshana
Guest
Code:
Again, you provide me with a laugh for my day! It just must be your gift e-bob!!!
T
THurifer2
Guest
What I do know is that the new Calender wasn’t established because it was “better” than the old. If you think the contrary then you must be claiming to be more Catholic than members of the Hierrarchy…
I am a N.O. attender by the way… but obivious logic tells me that that both forms the ordinary and the extraordinary are equally allowable. I gather from your posts that you implying that Catholics who are following the old calander are being disobediant. If this is true you are either a liar or misinformed of the permissions allowing Catholics to use the old Calender with the extraordinary rite. If you think the pope is in error on this issue. I suggest you ask him to step aside so you can be pope and change the matter. Otherwise YOU are in error (and maybe even in grave error on this matter of faith) by implying that people are being disobedient in this matter.
T
thecoach
Guest
Indeed.
T
thecoach
Guest
Whats clear is what you write in private messages and what you say in public appear to be different. And by the way, not everything a pope says or does is infallible. You dont want to make the pope God do you?
T
thecoach
Guest
What bothers me is the illogic of it.
T
thecoach
Guest
The calendar is NOT a matter of faith, and IS NOT infallible, so I am not in danger of grave error. You need to get your threats of hell straight.
L
LilyM
Guest
From the Council of Trent:
*CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. *
Now the above Canon includes the Calendars used in celebration of said Masses. That would be one of the ‘outward signs’.
Certainly by saying something is ‘illogical’ (as you have described the Old Calendar) you’re saying it’s most definitely not an ‘office of piety’ - there’s no such thing as an illogical ‘office of piety’. And you can see that to say so is anathema. Meaning that to do so results in excommunication.
T
thecoach
Guest
Sorry, but your interpretation is incorrect. Besides, you dont quote from the current Code of Canon law. Remember when being a mason was cause for excommunication? not so in the revision.
L
LilyM
Guest
Wrong again. Read book 1 - it specifies which previous laws the current code of canon law abrogates:
"Can. 2 For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code.
Can. 5 §1. Universal or particular customs presently in force which are contrary to the prescripts of these canons and are reprobated by the canons of this Code are absolutely suppressed and are not permitted to revive in the future. Other contrary customs are also considered suppressed unless the Code expressly provides otherwise or unless they are centenary or immemorial customs which can be tolerated if, in the judgment of the ordinary, they cannot be removed due to the circumstances of places and persons.
§2. Universal or particular customs beyond the law (praeter ius) which are in force until now are preserved.
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the** following are abrogated:**
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.
§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition."
So the Canons of Trent are ONLY repealed IF they are contrary to the 1983 code, which they ain’t. It’s for you to demonstrate that they are.
T
thecoach
Guest
even so, and yes you are guessing, your interpretation is incorrect.
L
LilyM
Guest
I’ve revised my post above, please reread it - the 1983 Code of Canon Law only abrogates specific other laws and types of laws. The Canons of Trent are not included among those which it abrogates.
T
thecoach
Guest
And your interpretation IS STILL incorrect.
L
LilyM
Guest
You’re a canon lawyer now? How about we ask a real canon lawyer - cameron_lansing here on CAF is one.
Seriously, it’s a principle common to all legal systems - and I’ve certainly studied enough law to know what I’m talking about, and Canon Law is no exception - that laws that aren’t specially repealed, no matter how ancient, remain in force.
Unless you can show me that the Canons of Trent have specifically been repealed by some other Canon or document, then you haven’t got a leg to stand on.
T
thecoach
Guest
for the fourth time, and try to follow me, your interpretation of Trent is incorrect. As far a being a canon lawyer, you certainly think you are, and I have known enough of my way through the code in days past to help quite a few people. Many here dont realize where I have been in my catholic journey before it came to an end.
L
LilyM
Guest
Are you saying you are a canon lawyer then? As for being able to ‘help quite a few people’ I’ve done the same. So have many on these fora.
If you are not a canon lawyer, of course, then I’ll await the opinion of Deacon Cameron, who actually is a canon lawyer and has studied in-depth. No matter where you or I think we’ve been we almost certainly know less than he does. The difference being I’m willing to admit so.
T
thecoach
Guest
whatever makes you happy. so you pose an argument, want to excommunicate me, then need someone else to finish it for you? Or do you now doubt your own position?
L
LilyM
Guest
What I doubt is that you will be convinced by anything less than the opinion of a canon lawyer, that’s the only thing I doubt.
H
Hijikata
Guest
thecoach, your arguments are the worse I have seen on this thread. You back up nothing of what you say except for “use logic” and if it is not your logic then it is wrong. LilyM provided quotes and documents and all you do is say you are wrong and provide no evidence for your claims. Learn to back up your claims.
- Status