Liturgical Changes and Benedict XVI

[FrRobSST]

RSiscoe:

The changes in the new mass are the same changes made by the heretics of the 16th century. Only one who is ignorant would deny it. Here are just a few of the changes the heretics of the 16the century employed:

1 Priest facing the people
2. Communion in the hand
3. Communion under both kinds
4. profane, or folk music.
5. they removed the statues from the Churches
6. They changed the language from Latin to the vernacular.

These things were all condemned by the council of Trent, yet they are all present in the new mass.

And as Trent condems them, Trent condems the ancient Church. All of these practices were present in the early Church. Ever last one of them. They are still present in the Eastern Rites united with Rome, as well as the Orthodox.

The Early Church didn’t have statues in the Church… they used folk music… they spoke the vernacular… laypeople took communion home with them to recieve throughout the week! GASP! What horrible people!

Rob+

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

FrRobSST:

RSiscoe:

The changes in the new mass are the same changes made by the heretics of the 16th century.

Only one who is ignorant would deny it. Here are just a few of the changes the heretics of the 16the century employed:

1 Priest facing the people
2. Communion in the hand
3. Communion under both kinds
4. profane, or folk music.
5. they removed the statues from the Churches
6. They changed the language from Latin to the vernacular.

*These things were all condemned by the council of Trent, yet they are all present in the new mass. *

And as Trent condems them, Trent condems the ancient Church. All of these practices were present in the early Church. Ever last one of them. They are still present in the Eastern Rites united with Rome, as well as the Orthodox.

The Early Church didn’t have statues in the Church… they used folk music… they spoke the vernacular… laypeople took communion home with them to recieve throughout the week! GASP! What horrible people!

Rob+

Well the Eastern Churches (at least the Byzantine ones) the priest does not face the laity nor do we have communion in hand. Communion is under both species, and always has been, because we do so by intinction.

To make the allusion, as RSiscoe does, that these practices are heretical in anyway just shows ignorace.

First, the Church can and does change discipline.

Second, as Fr Rob points out, music and statues are a non-issue in reality. For something to be heretical it must be so in all the Catholic Church and must have never been done. All these things RSiscoe points out have been done in the early Church.

As for liturgy in the vernacular, not only was it a practice in the early Church, when the Latin Church changed to Latin from Greek it was done so as Latin was the vernacular at that time. Also, at the time of Trent, the Latin Liturgy was done in the vernacular in many places already, as it was done so with an indult form Rome.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Didn’t Like the poll. I couldn’t find an answer that I liked. I just don’t see things changing much in churches in the USA. I think that there are way too many bishops in the USA that are spineless.

If the bishops are afraid of sanctioning politicians who promote abortion, what makes you think that they will sanction liturgical abuses? There is a saying in corporate America that says “you are only as strong as your weakest employee.” My hope is that Pope Benedict recognizes this in his Bishops as well.

 

[MaryRose35]

ByzCath:

Actually it is you who appears to hate Catholicism for some other thing. As you deny the Holy Father’s authority and look to some schismatic group and your own ideas to find the truth.

It is you who are a victim of our day. A day of moral relativism, a day where what ever I want to do is ok as I am the authority.

But you are correct, it is sad.

Actually ByzCath, you are VERY wrong. Traditionalist LOVE Holy Mother the Church with their whole being. That is precisely why they are fighting for her and defending her. It is true that some may go to far, such as the sedevacantists; which BTW does not include the SSPX., but had the Chuch and her shepherds not failed the faithful this would never had happened. Cardinal Ratzinger, himself, takes this position.

"Without any doubt, the problem that Lefebvre has posed has not been concluded by the rupture of June 30th. It would be too simple to take refuge in a sort of triumphalism, and to think that this difficulty has ceased to exist from the moment in which the movement led by Lefebvre has separated itself by a clean break with the Church. A Christian never can, or should, take pleasure in a rupture … **it is a duty for us to examine ourselves, as to what errors we have made, and which ones we are making even now. **The criteria with which we judge the past in the Vatican II decree on ecumenism must be used – as is logical – to judge the present as well.

**"One of the basic discoveries of the theology of ecumenism is that schisms can take place only when certain truths and certain values of the Christian faith are no longer lived and loved within the Church. The truth which is marginalized becomes autonomous, remains detached from the whole of the ecclesiastical structure, and a new movement then forms itself around it. We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally. It will not do to attribute everything to political motives, to nostalgia, or to cultural factors of minor importance. These causes are not capable of explaining the attraction which is felt even by the young, and especially by the young, who come from many quite different nations, and who are surrounded by completely distinct political and cultural realities. Indeed they show what is from any point of view a restricted and one-sided outlook; but there is no doubt whatever that a phenomenon of this sort would be inconceivable unless there were good elements at work here, which in general do not find sufficient opportunity to live within the Church of today. **

**"*For all these reasons, we ought to see this matter primarily as the occasion for an examination of conscience. We should allow ourselves to ask fundamental questions, about the defects in the pastoral life of the Church, which are exposed by these events. Thus we will be able to offer a place within the Church to those who are seeking and demanding it, and succeed in destroying all reason for schism. We can make such schism pointless by renewing the interior realities of the Church. There are three points, I think, that it is important to think about. ***

**"While there are many motives that might have led a great number of people to seek a refuge in the traditional liturgy, the chief one is that they find the dignity of the sacred preserved there. After the Council there were many priests who deliberately raised ‘desacralization’ to the level of a program, on the plea that the New Testament abolished the cult of the Temple: the veil of the Temple which was torn from top to bottom at the moment of Christ’s death on the cross is, according to certain people, the sign of the end of the sacred. The death of Jesus, outside the City walls, that is to say, in the public world, is now the true religion. Religion, if it has any being at all, must have it in the nonsacredness of daily life, in love that is lived. Inspired by such reasoning, they put aside the sacred vestments; they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they have reduced the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings, common signs of friendship, and such things. **
continue

 

[MaryRose35]

continuing
"There is no doubt that, with these theories and practices, they have entirely disregarded the true connection between the Old and the New Testaments: It is forgotten that this world is not the Kingdom of God, and that the “Holy One of God” (John 6:69) continues to exist in contradiction to this world; that we have need of purification before we draw near to Him; that the profane, even after the death and the Resurrection of Jesus, has not succeeded in becoming ‘the holy’. The Risen One has appeared, but to those whose heart has been opened to Him, to the Holy; He did not manifest Himself to everyone. It is in this way a new space has been opened for the religion to which all of us would now submit; this religion which consists in drawing near to the community of the Risen One, at whose feet the women prostrated themselves and adored Him. I do not want to develop this point any further now; I confine myself to coming straight to this conclusion: **we ought to get back the dimension of the sacred in the liturgy. The liturgy is not a festivity; it is not a meeting for the purpose of having a good time. It is of no importance that the parish priest has cudgeled his brains to come up with suggestive ideas or imaginative novelties. The liturgy is what makes the Thrice-Holy God present amongst us; it is the burning bush; it is the Alliance of God with man in Jesus Christ, who has died and risen again. The grandeur of the liturgy does not rest upon the fact that it offers an interesting entertainment, but in rendering tangible the Totally Other, whom we are not capable of summoning. He comes because He wills. In other words, the essential in the liturgy is the mystery, which is realized in the common ritual of the Church; all the rest diminishes it. Men experiment with it in lively fashion, and find themselves deceived, when the mystery is transformed into distraction, when the chief actor in the liturgy is not the Living God but the priest or the liturgical director. **

Many of us were not around at the time of Vatican II or the introduction of the New Ordo Missae; if we were, we were not in the “know” because of the limited technologies available at that time for disseminating the news. However, if we go back to that time and research the thoughts of those who were, we can see that many Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, and faithful were very upset from the outset. Many spoke of the problems from the get go. Who are we to argue with the likes of Cardinals Ratzinger, Stickler, Hoyos, Medina, etc. who all acknowledge that there are problems with both Vatican II and the new Mass? Are they disloyal to the Pope for saying so? Are we disloyal to the Pope for agreeing? Are we to argue with Popes John XXIII and Paul VI for also recognizing the problems, one wishing to stop the council and the other realizing “the smoke of satan” had entered the Church? To recognize that Vatican II and the new Mass brought with it many problems is NOT being disloyal. It is out of love for Holy Mother the Church that this is done. Would anyone of us allow our own earthly mothers to be savaged? I should hope not, we would protect her at all cost, let us do the same for the Church.

 

[MaryRose35]

otm:

Don’t hold your breath. First, the Pope does not micro manage anything, including the liturgy.

Second, the Pope does not operate in a vacuum. Any decisions about increasing the TLM would be taken in conjunction with the bishops. that should tell you something right there.

Third, SSPX isn’t going to regularize if they don’t want to. They were invited back to the table by John Paul, and chose not to come. Benedict isn’t going to go chasing them.

And making one of them a Cardinal? When pigs fly…

And if the TLM was not abrogated, then there is no need for an indult. But there is an indult. Therefore it was abrogated.

I presume that you are an authority on the talks between the SSPX and Rome and that you follow it closely? No, you are not and you do not. The SSPX and Rome have been coming very close to an agreement fo awhile now and this agreement does not have to aproved by the local Bishops. Reuniting with the SSPX was very important to Pope John Paul II. It seems many on here respect and love him and believe everything he says, until it comes to the matter of the SSPX and other traditionlists.
…Cardinal Hoyos then confirms the great affection which John Paul II has for the traditionalist faithful and that Rome has noticed that traditionalists constitute a ‘vast group of faithful’ – growing rapidly with many young families and children. Cardinal Hoyos states that traditionalists ‘should be protected in their right to be able to express their faith and piety…’ He then points to the success of the special arrangements in Campos, Brazil, where the traditionalist Bishop Rifan ministers to over 30,000 traditional faithful in collaboration with the local episcopates.

Cardinal Hoyos finishes by saying that because diocesan bishops are still reluctant to implement the Pope’s request for generous permissions for the traditional rite, Rome is preparing a new ‘juridical guarantee’ of the rights of the traditionalist faithful.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper, Il Giornale, published 31 May, Cardinal Hoyos confirms that traditionalists are not to be seen as ‘second class’ citizens in the Church.

After first discussing the recent Vatican document, Redemptionis Sacramentum, to correct abuses in the new rite, the Cardinal again confirms that traditionalists offer ‘a dynamic Christian view of the life of faith and devotion’ and calls for intransigence towards them to stop and to be replaced by ‘even greater understanding’. Cardinal Hoyos confirms that he is grateful to traditionalists ‘for the effort that they make to maintain a historical memory that should be strongly respected’. Finally, he states that traditionalists are ‘recognised as legitimate by the **Pope’ **and their sensibility ‘has to be protected in the best possible way’.

Why is it that we claim to agree with Pope John Paul II on all things except for the matter of tradionalists and the SSPX? Do those clinging to the traditions of the Church represent a threat to those who do not?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

MaryRose35:

Actually ByzCath, you are VERY wrong. Traditionalist LOVE Holy Mother the Church with their whole being.

Actually they love what they think the Church is, not what it actually is. As evidence I point to the comments from RSiscoe above.

Eastern Churches have never had statues. There is nothing wrong with Folk Music. Communion has always been given under both species in the East. The Liturgy has always been offered in the vernacular in the Church, even in the Latin Church.

Many “Traditionalists”, if not most, seem to deny the right of the Church to change discipline as well as viewing the whole Church though “Latin glasses”.

If something is done in one part of the Church then it can not be a heresay, or sacrilegous, or irreverent, when done in another part of the Church. Now you and others might not like the practice, but, again, there is nothing wrong with it.

To try and claim otherwise is wrong. So is using arguments and sources from schismatic groups.

I would point out one final thing that many of you “Traditionalists” seem to love to do where that is in violation of the forum rules.

Please post link to these sort of articles instead of cuting and pasting them here. One important reason to do so is so that we can see the source of the post.

Here is a link to the forum rules.

Forum Rules

You can clearly see, rule number one under Content Rules says, “Do not paste articles from web sites into a post. If you wish to reference an article on the web, link to its web address, instead.”

 

[MaryRose35]

ByzCath:

Actually they love what they think the Church is, not what it actually is. As evidence I point to the comments from RSiscoe above.

Eastern Churches have never had statues. There is nothing wrong with Folk Music. Communion has always been given under both species in the East. The Liturgy has always been offered in the vernacular in the Church, even in the Latin Church.

Many “Traditionalists”, if not most, seem to deny the right of the Church to change discipline as well as viewing the whole Church though “Latin glasses”.

If something is done in one part of the Church then it can not be a heresay, or sacrilegous, or irreverent, when done in another part of the Church. Now you and others might not like the practice, but, again, there is nothing wrong with it.

To try and claim otherwise is wrong. So is using arguments and sources from schismatic groups.

I would point out one final thing that many of you “Traditionalists” seem to love to do where that is in violation of the forum rules.

Please post link to these sort of articles instead of cuting and pasting them here. One important reason to do so is so that we can see the source of the post.

Here is a link to the forum rules.

Forum Rules

You can clearly see, rule number one under Content Rules says, “Do not paste articles from web sites into a post. If you wish to reference an article on the web, link to its web address, instead.”

Those attached to traditon have a very good idea of what the true Church is. They typically study it and read about it on a regular basis. In searching the net you can find an abundance af articles from Cardinals, Priests, Bishops, etc. from the past and present that validate the thoughts and beliefs of traditonalists. Tradtionalists typically pull from facts when citng their positions, they do not just call on their own personal experiences or limited knowledge.

As for the Eastern Rites of the Church, that is for you to mind. Your customs and norms belong to you and have no direct bearing on the Latin Rite, they are not interchageable.

As far as discipline, I have never heard of the Mass referred to as a discipline.

Cardinal Arinze would disagree with you in regards to being able to do what is done in one part of the Church in others too. He gave a talk on liturgical abuse at the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions in San Antonio, Texas in 2003 that made mention of things of that nature among others.

As for verifying the information previously posted, you can do so online. None of the information came from anything other than the talks of the individuals named.

 

[miguel]

Mt19:26:

Here’s something I always wondered about. If a diocese has a ‘foot-dragging’ bishop that openly defies Rome why doesn’t Rome seem to do anything about it? They should certainly be able to reassign the bishop to some other position.

I think the risk of schism has to be in the back of the Pope’s mind. They have the power to ordain other bishops. A disobedient bishop is a threat to Church unity. Dealing with them can be tricky.

 

[MrS]

miguel:

I think the risk of schism has to be in the back of the Pope’s mind. They have the power to ordain other bishops. A disobedient bishop is a threat to Church unity. Dealing with them can be tricky.

Perhaps that is why, in God’s infinite wisdom, Luther was only a monk!

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

There is nothing wrong with Folk Music.

What about rock music? You’d probably say the same thing about rock music. But guess what? Here is what our beloved Benedict XVI said in The Spirit of the Liturgy:

“On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. “Rock”, on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit’s sober inebriation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments.”

adoremus.org/1101musicliturgy.html

Many “Traditionalists”, if not most, seem to deny the right of the Church to change discipline as well as viewing the whole Church though “Latin glasses”.

I am no Traditionalist being open to married priests, but the Church doesn’t have the right to change discipline according to her whims – that’s a caricature of the authority possessed by the Church. The Church has the right to do what is right. So the Church has the right and only the right to exercise her liturgical authority in ways that are pleasing to Almighty God. If the Church exercises her liturgical authority in ways that are not so pleasing, then that is an abuse of her authority. Surely, you as an Oriental Catholic would understand this fact.

 

[miguel]

MaryRose35:

I presume that you are an authority on the talks between the SSPX and Rome and that you follow it closely? No, you are not and you do not. The SSPX and Rome have been coming very close to an agreement fo awhile now and this agreement does not have to aproved by the local Bishops. Reuniting with the SSPX was very important to Pope John Paul II. It seems many on here respect and love him and believe everything he says, until it comes to the matter of the SSPX and other traditionlists.
…Cardinal Hoyos then confirms the great affection which John Paul II has for the traditionalist faithful and that Rome has noticed that traditionalists constitute a ‘vast group of faithful’ – growing rapidly with many young families and children. Cardinal Hoyos states that traditionalists ‘should be protected in their right to be able to express their faith and piety…’ He then points to the success of the special arrangements in Campos, Brazil, where the traditionalist Bishop Rifan ministers to over 30,000 traditional faithful in collaboration with the local episcopates.

Cardinal Hoyos finishes by saying that because diocesan bishops are still reluctant to implement the Pope’s request for generous permissions for the traditional rite, Rome is preparing a new ‘juridical guarantee’ of the rights of the traditionalist faithful.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper, Il Giornale, published 31 May, Cardinal Hoyos confirms that traditionalists are not to be seen as ‘second class’ citizens in the Church.

After first discussing the recent Vatican document, Redemptionis Sacramentum, to correct abuses in the new rite, the Cardinal again confirms that traditionalists offer ‘a dynamic Christian view of the life of faith and devotion’ and calls for intransigence towards them to stop and to be replaced by ‘even greater understanding’. Cardinal Hoyos confirms that he is grateful to traditionalists ‘for the effort that they make to maintain a historical memory that should be strongly respected’. Finally, he states that traditionalists are ‘recognised as legitimate by the **Pope’ **and their sensibility ‘has to be protected in the best possible way’.

Why is it that we claim to agree with Pope John Paul II on all things except for the matter of tradionalists and the SSPX? Do those clinging to the traditions of the Church represent a threat to those who do not?

SSPX is in schism. Hopefully this can be fixed. But until then, they don’t speak for traditionalist Catholics.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

What about rock music? You’d probably say the same thing about rock music. But guess what? Here is what our beloved Benedict XVI said in The Spirit of the Liturgy:

“On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. “Rock”, on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit’s sober inebriation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments.”

All I can say is that it depends on the individual songs. I do not judge by categories.

I am no Traditionalist being open to married priests, but the Church doesn’t have the right to change discipline according to her whims – that’s a caricature of the authority possessed by the Church. The Church has the right to do what is right. So the Church has the right and only the right to exercise her liturgical authority in ways that are pleasing to Almighty God. If the Church exercises her liturgical authority in ways that are not so pleasing, then that is an abuse of her authority. Surely, you as an Oriental Catholic would understand this fact.

Married priests has nothing to do with this thread but if you have read what I have posted on that topic you will see that I am of a like mind with you on that issue in the Latin Church.

You are correct about changing discipline on a whim. But I disagree that the change in the form of the Mass, which is discipline, was done so on a whim.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

MaryRose35:

Those attached to traditon have a very good idea of what the true Church is. They typically study it and read about it on a regular basis. In searching the net you can find an abundance af articles from Cardinals, Priests, Bishops, etc. from the past and present that validate the thoughts and beliefs of traditonalists. Tradtionalists typically pull from facts when citng their positions, they do not just call on their own personal experiences or limited knowledge.

Actually they seem to pull the “facts” from schismatic sites and ignore history.

As for the Eastern Rites of the Church, that is for you to mind. Your customs and norms belong to you and have no direct bearing on the Latin Rite, they are not interchageable.

This is correct, but if something is done in the Eastern Church then it can not be called heretical, irreverant, or sacrilegous.

As far as discipline, I have never heard of the Mass referred to as a discipline.

The form of the Mass is discipline.

Cardinal Arinze would disagree with you in regards to being able to do what is done in one part of the Church in others too. He gave a talk on liturgical abuse at the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions in San Antonio, Texas in 2003 that made mention of things of that nature among others.

You seem to misunderstand what I said so here goes one more time.

Something that is done in one part of the Church, say the liturgy in the vernacular, can not be called heretical when done in another part of the Church if is has been done so though the proper channels, as was done with the promulgation of the Mass in 1972.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

What about rock music? You’d probably say the same thing about rock music. But guess what? Here is what our beloved Benedict XVI said in The Spirit of the Liturgy:

“On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. “Rock”, on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit’s sober inebriation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments.”

And one last reply to you. Taking a page out of your play book.

The Magestirum has not taught that rock music is heretical or inherently bad. The private writings of one individual, no matter who that individual is, does not make it an offical teaching of the Church.

Seeing that you have accused me in the past of making things up and then ignoring the thread after proof is provided I think I will refrain from replying to your posts.

 

[jimmytoes]

Kielbasi:

A new pope has been elected, and Benedict XVI has assumed the papacy with a reputation as a conservative.

What kind of results do you expect on a local parish/diocesan level, as far as the liturgy?

Wow! A lot of interesting reads here. First of all, I wouldn’t say “conservative”, that’s a media position wherein they assume a multi party system, while what we have is a theocracy… I would say “orthodox”.

In regards to the rest, let me sum up what I’ve learned here.

1. 
   *]The Tridentine missal was never abrogated.
   *]The New Order was earnestly encouraged
   *]An “Indult” would not be possible if there had been abrogation.
   *]The N.O. promulgation is discipline, therefore an indult is needed for TLM.
   
   I can live with that, and would love to see the “discipline” relaxed. On the other hand, I do hope the ICEL can swallow it’s pride and take the direction that Rome has been endeavoring to give it for years. If not, they should be de-commissioned.
   
   I like it! from a Rotweiler to a German Shepherd… Go B16!

 

[chadwilliams]

RSiscoe:

One thing I certainly expect is that he will either declare that the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated (which is true), or else he will grant a general indult for that Mass, thus allowing any priest to say that mass.

I also believe the new Pope will regularize the situation with the SSPX pretty soon, and I hope he will also elevate one of the SSPX Bishops (Bishop Fellay?) to Cardinal.

The SSPX will never admit that they are wrong.

 

[RSiscoe]

ByzCath:

I realize this. As “the spirit of Vatican II” has nothing to do with Vatican II.

Whether or not the documents of Vatican II were written under the “spirit of Vatican II” is debatable, but beside the point. My point was, the “reforms” I mentioned that have occurred in the mass since Vatican II were the result of the so called “spirit” of the council. Vatican II never called for the priest to face the people, for communion in the hand, for the mass to be said in the vernacular only, for profane music to be used, and for the stripping of the Churches. This is all a result of the so called spirit of the Council. But many who claim to reject the so called spirit of Vatican II and realize that it is a false spirit support these reforms, which Vatican II did not call for.

 

[Ignatius]

miguel:

If our new pope attempts to improve the liturgical situation, it will be great in those places where the local bishop co-operates. But in those places where the local bishop drags his feet, improvement will come slowly, until the foot-draggers die off.

Wouldn’t a general indult for TLM nullify their objections, unless they want to directly contradict HH Benedict XVI?

 

[RSiscoe]

ByzCath:

To make the allusion, as RSiscoe does, that these practices are heretical in anyway just shows ignorace.

I never said communion in the hand, or profane music at Mass, or the priest facing the people, or a vernacular mass was heretical. Those things do not pertain to doctrine.

What I said was those were the exact same “reforms” made by the heretics of the 16th century. And the reason the heretics made those changes was in order to destroy the mass. That was their expressed intent.

"When we have overthrown the Mass*” said Luther*,” we shall have overthrown the whole Papacy with it. For it is upon the *Mass, as upon a rock, that the Papacy rests - with its bishoprics, its colleges, its altars, its ministers, and its doctrines. All these cannot fail to fall once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass crumbles to the dust" (Martin Luther, Against Henry King of England, Werke, Vol 10, pg 220). *

So, were the heretics of the 16th century right? And was the council of Trent wrong when it condemned those “reforms”? If you would have lived during the 16th century, whose side would you have been on? The Catholics or the heretics?

Second, as Fr Rob points out, music and statues are a non-issue in reality. For something to be heretical it must be so in all the Catholic Church and must have never been done. All these things RSiscoe points out have been done in the early Church.

You do realize that Fr. Rob is not a Catholic, right? He has admitted to being a schismatic and, although he may not realize it, he is also a heretic since he denies Papal Infallibility (which I am sure he denies). So you are agreeing with a schismatic heretic, and disagreeing with the Council of Trent, when you defend the “reforms” that are based, not on Vatican II, but on “the spirit of the Council”. You do realize that, right?

continue…