J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Sure we have…quoted completely out of context by some “traditionalists” and applied to whatever they happen to be most exercised about at that particular moment.
Q's for Traditionalists who believe Vatican II and NO were wrong/invalid:
- Status
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Absolutely not remotely true.
B
bear06
Guest
If you’d bother reading throught the forums you will notice quite a few threads which both Kirk and I have participated in that focus around the words of the canon that are found in every Mass of the Roman rite. For you to say that we don’t believe this is found in every Mass of the Roman rite and that you are suddenly enlightening us is quite silly.
I notice that you didn’t answer my question. Do you think the format of the Tridentine, or the Novus Ordo for that matter was used at the Last Supper? You seem quite obstinate in suggesting/saying that we’re picking on the Tridentine. Learn the facts.
U
Uxor
Guest
Truth hurts.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Well, since this didn’t come close to the truth, there’ll be no need to crack open the aspirin.
U
Uxor
Guest
I know the facts…it hasn’t just been in discussion with you and Kirk, others as well, same mindset, same argument. I didn’t say you don’t believe, I said you avoid talking about it till it is pointed out to you. You have been caught and don’t like it. It doesn’t play with me anymore. Double standard and hypocristy at its worst.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Clarify what you mean. We avoid talking about WHAT? The core of the canon?
Why don’t you tell us what you think we believe?
U
Uxor
Guest
I don’t know what it is you believe…but it is definately a game. When I say Mass, you say form. When you say Mass it is the same.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Nope, you’ve misread or misunderstood.
M
MTD
Guest
Well, if the council is called into question, so must be the pope who approved it. The two go hand in hand and can’t be separated. So if you try to question the council without questioning the validity of the pope who approved it, of course you’re going to be told the council can’t be questioned.
Maria
M
MTD
Guest
Oh. I guess I was just confused by your challenging the gloomy outlook by quoting Sacramentum Caritatis since…uh…that won’t convince a sedevacantist!
Maria
A
alih
Guest
it must be noted, that no matter what your take on the church may be, it must be noted that, although many may feel good and exited by debate, but it does little to resolve any differences. in 1975 then father ratizinger, wrote “i am convinced that the damage that we have incurred in these twenty years is duenot to the ‘true council’ but to the unleashingg within the church of latent polemical and centrifugal forces: and outside the church it is due to the to the confrontation with a cultural revolution in the west…with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic, ratiionalistic and hedonistic stamp.”
however, in the quarter of a century post that statement he has made other observations which seem in part to inforce his opinion in a different way. therefore, it is known and accepted by the hierarchy of the church that problems of monumental consequence must be addressed…positively. have a good year. (alih)
however, in the quarter of a century post that statement he has made other observations which seem in part to inforce his opinion in a different way. therefore, it is known and accepted by the hierarchy of the church that problems of monumental consequence must be addressed…positively. have a good year. (alih)
G
gorman64
Guest
Maria,Well, if the council is called into question, so must be the pope who approved it. The two go hand in hand and can’t be separated. So if you try to question the council without questioning the validity of the pope who approved it, of course you’re going to be told the council can’t be questioned.
Maria
Who is doing this? Not me. I question them both. I suppose it is a good argument for explaining disciplinary infallibility to a sedeplentist…but when a sedevacantist actually questions them both…the argument shifts back and forth…when one questions the council…or the CCC…or the 1983 Code…eventually the argument becomes circular. “You can’t question the council…it was approved by the pope” then “You can’t question the pope…he is judged by no one”
So what we’re left with is to either ignore what is manifest or explain it away as accidental or something.
Yours,
Gorman
B
bear06
Guest
Whatever would be the reason for avoiding it? Again, you make charges with no basis. Why do we need to talk about it when it’s a given? It’s Catholic 101. I haven’t run into anyone on these forums who avoids this topic. In fact, it’s been covered to death under threads discussing the exact words of the Consecration. Take the splinter out and look at the fact that I’ve asked at least 2 questions you won’t answer.
Caught at what?! I see we’re still playing the “if you say it enough it might just become rational” game.
M
MTD
Guest
No one. I was just answering your post the way it stood.
First you said that those who bear bad fruits are not successors of the Apostles. So I said that is not necessarily the case; in other words, that every bishop who bears bad fruit is not necessarily an invalid bishop.
Then you said the bad fruits give you reason to question VII but that every time you call VII into question, you are given the argument that VII can’t be questioned because the pope approved it. So I said that was because VII can’t be called into question without calling into question the pope who approved it.
Yes, that’s the logical position. But that’s not what the post I responded to indicated.
That’s not my argument.
Or to acknowledge what is manifest but not come to the sedevacantist conclusion because what is manifest does not by necessity point to the pope as being pertinacious in heresy.
Maria
G
gorman64
Guest
Dear Uxor,
Why don’t you ask bear06 and JKirk about the prayers of the propers of the Mass. There were quite a few changes made there that I’m almost positive they don’t even know about. Some of the prayers that were ommitted or changed went back as far as the fourth century. What was removed from the remaining prayers is most interesting.
Yours,
Gorman
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
What follows is an excerpt by Dietrich von Hildebrand, called a “20th Century Doctor of the Church” by Pope Pius XII, from an essay entitled: “Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference.” It is taken from a book called “The Charitable Anathema” published by Roman Catholic Books, pp. 28-32.
This essay alone is worth the price of the book. I am inserting the quote here because the essay deals with the question of the authority of the Pope in regard to discipline. Here is the quote:
"Our belief in the teachings of the Church de fide must be an absolute and unconditional one, but we should not imagine that our fidelity to the Church’s theoretical authority is satisfied merely by acceptance of ex cathedra pronouncements. We also must adhere wholeheartedly to teachings of the Church in matters of morality, even if they are not defined ex cathedra. The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, for example, is binding because its content has always been part of the teaching of the Church; in it we are confronted with the theoretical authority of the Church embodied in the tradition of the ordinary magisterium. It is not a mere practical commandment of the Church, like the commandment to go to church on Sunday. It is a statement about a moral fact; that is, it states a truth: that birth control is sinful. It is forbidden not because of the Pope’s policy, but because the theoretical authority of the Church declares its sinfulness. Here, as in all cases of a teaching of the theoretical authority, the old maxim applies: Roma locuta: causa finita.
The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.
…The point, of course, is that obedience to the practical disciplinary decisions of the pope does not always imply approval of them. When such a decision has the character of compromise or is the result of pressure or the weakness of the individual person of the pope, we cannot and should not say: Roma locuta: causa finita. That is, we cannot see in it the will of God; we must recognize that God only permits it, just as He has permitted the unworthiness or weakness of several popes in the history of the Church.
…Nor can I conceal–and here we are returning to the point from which we started–the fact that the new Missale Romanum seems to me an incomparably greater mistake than that Concordat [with Hitler’s Germany]. I share the view of the great, venerable Cardinal Ottoviani–a true rock of orthodoxy–and of the group of Roman theologians who authored a critical study of the “new” Mass for Cardinal Ottoviani, that this liturgical innovation implies a contrast, at least by omission, with the de fide canons of the Council of Trent about the Mass. ["]http://www.latin-mass-society.org/study.htm]("http://www.latin-mass-society.org/study.htm)].
On account of my deep love for and devotion to the Church, it is a special cross for me not to be able to welcome every practical decision of the Holy See, particularly in a time like ours, which is witnessing a crumbling of the spirit of obedience and of respect for the Holy Father.
(Cont. …)
This essay alone is worth the price of the book. I am inserting the quote here because the essay deals with the question of the authority of the Pope in regard to discipline. Here is the quote:
"Our belief in the teachings of the Church de fide must be an absolute and unconditional one, but we should not imagine that our fidelity to the Church’s theoretical authority is satisfied merely by acceptance of ex cathedra pronouncements. We also must adhere wholeheartedly to teachings of the Church in matters of morality, even if they are not defined ex cathedra. The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, for example, is binding because its content has always been part of the teaching of the Church; in it we are confronted with the theoretical authority of the Church embodied in the tradition of the ordinary magisterium. It is not a mere practical commandment of the Church, like the commandment to go to church on Sunday. It is a statement about a moral fact; that is, it states a truth: that birth control is sinful. It is forbidden not because of the Pope’s policy, but because the theoretical authority of the Church declares its sinfulness. Here, as in all cases of a teaching of the theoretical authority, the old maxim applies: Roma locuta: causa finita.
The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.
…The point, of course, is that obedience to the practical disciplinary decisions of the pope does not always imply approval of them. When such a decision has the character of compromise or is the result of pressure or the weakness of the individual person of the pope, we cannot and should not say: Roma locuta: causa finita. That is, we cannot see in it the will of God; we must recognize that God only permits it, just as He has permitted the unworthiness or weakness of several popes in the history of the Church.
…Nor can I conceal–and here we are returning to the point from which we started–the fact that the new Missale Romanum seems to me an incomparably greater mistake than that Concordat [with Hitler’s Germany]. I share the view of the great, venerable Cardinal Ottoviani–a true rock of orthodoxy–and of the group of Roman theologians who authored a critical study of the “new” Mass for Cardinal Ottoviani, that this liturgical innovation implies a contrast, at least by omission, with the de fide canons of the Council of Trent about the Mass. ["]http://www.latin-mass-society.org/study.htm]("http://www.latin-mass-society.org/study.htm)].
On account of my deep love for and devotion to the Church, it is a special cross for me not to be able to welcome every practical decision of the Holy See, particularly in a time like ours, which is witnessing a crumbling of the spirit of obedience and of respect for the Holy Father.
(Cont. …)
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
(Cont. …)
But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the rubrics of the new Ordo (as distinct from the text itself) are at variance with the definition of the essence and raison d’etre of Holy Mass given by the Council of Trent. Consequently it must be feared that in their sermons, many priests will be encouraged to emphasize the character of the “assembly of the people of God” at the cost of both the mystery of the sacrifice of the Holy Mass and the ineffable gift for every individual soul granted in the sacrament of the Eucharist–faith in which is already menaced by certain heretical trends rampant in the Church.
Are theocentrism, the most intimate communion of the individual with Christ in the Eucharist, the reality of the glorious union with the saints, the militant, suffering and triumphant Church, recollection and reverence–are all these truths fostered in the new Ordo as securely as in the old? And are not these precisely the truths that need to be emphasized at the present moment?
We must not overlook the fact that behind many of the deplorable phenomena of our times–promiscuity, the rapid spread of criminality, student rebellion–there lurks a deep despair which echoes a cry for redemption, the ever-present longing of the anima naturaliter Christiana for Christ, the Epiphany of God, in His full supernatural glory. The unique character of our time calls not for yielding to the secular spirit–that can only increase the current despair–but for the full disclosure of the glory of the depositum Catholicae fidei.
Thus I hope and pray that the Tridentine Mass will not be abolished, but will continue to be celebrated side by side with the new Ordo. Furthermore, I hope and pray that in the course of time, its superiority, from the pastoral as well as the doctrinal standpoint, will be recognized by the Holy See, and that in the future the Tridentine Mass will be reinstated as the official liturgy of the holy Mass in the Western Church."
But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the rubrics of the new Ordo (as distinct from the text itself) are at variance with the definition of the essence and raison d’etre of Holy Mass given by the Council of Trent. Consequently it must be feared that in their sermons, many priests will be encouraged to emphasize the character of the “assembly of the people of God” at the cost of both the mystery of the sacrifice of the Holy Mass and the ineffable gift for every individual soul granted in the sacrament of the Eucharist–faith in which is already menaced by certain heretical trends rampant in the Church.
Are theocentrism, the most intimate communion of the individual with Christ in the Eucharist, the reality of the glorious union with the saints, the militant, suffering and triumphant Church, recollection and reverence–are all these truths fostered in the new Ordo as securely as in the old? And are not these precisely the truths that need to be emphasized at the present moment?
We must not overlook the fact that behind many of the deplorable phenomena of our times–promiscuity, the rapid spread of criminality, student rebellion–there lurks a deep despair which echoes a cry for redemption, the ever-present longing of the anima naturaliter Christiana for Christ, the Epiphany of God, in His full supernatural glory. The unique character of our time calls not for yielding to the secular spirit–that can only increase the current despair–but for the full disclosure of the glory of the depositum Catholicae fidei.
Thus I hope and pray that the Tridentine Mass will not be abolished, but will continue to be celebrated side by side with the new Ordo. Furthermore, I hope and pray that in the course of time, its superiority, from the pastoral as well as the doctrinal standpoint, will be recognized by the Holy See, and that in the future the Tridentine Mass will be reinstated as the official liturgy of the holy Mass in the Western Church."
U
Uxor
Guest
Thank-you for this.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Brennan:
This was Dr. Bonhoffer’s prudential judgement (and I have nothing, but respect for him), and if the popes’ or the councils’ prudential judgement can be questioned, then certainly his can be as well. Nonetheless, that has not been the issue under discussion with Uxor, if you look back through this thread and the one for which I provide you a link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=140811
It’s my prudential judgement that the Pauline Rite, all that I’ve ever known in terms of the Mass, save one occasion at the TLM, hasn’t had a fair shot because of all that has been foisted upon it. As difficult as this is for some to wrap their brain around, some of us love the Pauline Rite as much as others love the TLM. We don’t love the abuses, we love the Mass. I don’t think it lacks anything (it was at the Pauline Mass that I first felt the presence of the anima naturaliter Christiana for Christ, the Epiphany of God, in His full supernatural glory), but then again, that’s simply my prudential judgement.
- Status