Probably a decline… but not a great delcine. Why? Because I beleive the Tridentine Mass can hold on to souls better (specially when the Novus Ordo is so prone to liturgical abuses which over time just invite people to leave, as there is no evident sacrifice… when I say this I have things like this in mind which just did not, and would not fit, in a Tridentine mass: Youtube link. ).
No one is perfect, everyone knows that. We have people on this board who have personal testimonies as to what religious life was like in the 50’s and 60’s, that renewal and change needed to happen. You can’t see the obvious difference when we now have groups like the Friars of the Renewal? When Pope Benedict is staffing several key posts with consecrated religious?
You believe this, that is fine. However I can also say that the Tridentine Mass would be equally abused if it was the norm, because the same people who subvert things now would still be around.
Didn’t he also issue a previous document which allowed the use of “conscience” in the matters of population control? It was obviously misinterpreted but that’s all many read, believed, and extrapolated.
Link is fixed now, sorry about it.
Same people, different education. It is all a matter of how you educate them… people are not predestined to be liturgical abusers.
The use of “conscience” is a valid statement when used in conjunction with NFP. Pope Paul VI likely realized over time that based on where society was going that his previous statement would be misinterpreted, so we released HV.
Some people are pre-disposed to certain behaviors. Further, based off of how society was, it’s possible there could have been more backlash if the EF stayed the norm.Same people, different education. It is all a matter of how you educate them… people are not predestined to be liturgical abusers.
Yes, guess who made it public? The SSPX. Bishop Fellay reported having asked the Holy Father directly why the Preamble had been changed at the last minute. In the Preamble that he and Cardinal Levada had agreed on, there was room for discussing the Council. In the edition that the SSPX received, it said that the Council has to be accepted as is and that it many never be said that there is error in the conciliar documents, because councils cannot teach error. The Holy Father said that this was his last minute edit. That settles that question.
That’s an academic question. It happened. What would it serve to try to speculate?
Because most laymen only saw religious orders from the outside. But they were not pretty places from the inside. There was clericalism running wild. Priests acted like priests, forgteing that they were religious. Superiors governed like despots, when their role is to nurture, guide, protect and protect the constitution. Religious were called “sister” or “brother” but there was no allowance for fraternal relationships and activities in most communities. If there were priests in the house, they could excuse themselves from community meals, recreation, prayer, chapter, retreat and other functions, because they had a parish to run.
FYI- the correct term for the Mass you continue to call “Novus Ordo” is the “Mass in Ordinary Form”, just as the TLM is correctly called the “Mass in Extraordinary Form”.
To give a couple of examples, the Robber Council and the council that preceeded the Seventh Ecumenical Council that actually supported iconoclasm.
I think context is everything. I do hope the Pope has qualifiers for this statement, it can be easily miscontrued to mean that a council automatically is infallible or at the very least, free from error. Church history proves otherwise. But like I said, the context of the Pope’s statement should be clarified lest it may mislead people into thinking that any and all councils are free from error. They are not.There is nothing to clarify. This was Pope Benedict’s message to the SSPX and he said that it is not up for clarification or discussion. “A council cannot teach error; therefore, there is no error in the Council’s documents.”
I doubt very much that this high-handed statement is only for the SSPX. Everyone else can believe that a council can teach error.
If the pope says that a council cannot teach error, even if he says it in a message to the SSPX, it’s a statement that applies to anyone, who like the SSPX doubts this.
In other words, this discussion is closed.
I really can’t clarify that which I’m not even allowed to discuss with you. Obedience says that if the pope says that a council cannot teach error, he’s speaking on a matter of faith and tradition. He is superior to me in dignity and authority. He is Vicar of Christ. And he is the last word on law. If he says that this will never be discussed, that’s a law.
The only clergy and religious whom you’ll hear trying to dance around this one are dissenters. We’ve already dismissed three and suspended two who disagreed with this. No religious or clergyman can disagree with the pope when he speaks on matters of faith, morals, or Church law.
It is our duty to set the example for the laity. In other words, we don’t obey and you guys get a pass. That’s not how religious life works in the Church. Religious life is the school of perfection to which all Catholics should be able to look at to see what is the right and wrong thing to do. One can even learn from dissenter. Hopefully, one will learn not to follow their lead.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
That is the official term… but that does not mean that others are wrong. In fact, before 2007, those official terms did not even exist.
I might be under the wrong impression, but if my memory does not fail, didn’t the Good Shepard get the right to discuss the Council? why wouldn’t they give that to the SSPX?Yes, guess who made it public? The SSPX. Bishop Fellay reported having asked the Holy Father directly why the Preamble had been changed at the last minute. In the Preamble that he and Cardinal Levada had agreed on, there was room for discussing the Council. In the edition that the SSPX received, it said that the Council has to be accepted as is and that it many never be said that there is error in the conciliar documents, because councils cannot teach error. The Holy Father said that this was his last minute edit. That settles that question.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Maybe so, but most of the people on this forum will tell you that using the term “Novus Ordo” has a rather negative connotation that is best avoided by using the term “Mass in the OF”.
Can someone please point me to the documents that state that a council by just the fact of being a council is infallible?Yes, guess who made it public? The SSPX. Bishop Fellay reported having asked the Holy Father directly why the Preamble had been changed at the last minute. In the Preamble that he and Cardinal Levada had agreed on, there was room for discussing the Council. In the edition that the SSPX received, it said that the Council has to be accepted as is and that it many never be said that there is error in the conciliar documents, because councils cannot teach error. The Holy Father said that this was his last minute edit. That settles that question.
That’s an academic question. It happened. What would it serve to try to speculate?
Because most laymen only saw religious orders from the outside. But they were not pretty places from the inside. There was clericalism running wild. Priests acted like priests, forgteing that they were religious. Superiors governed like despots, when their role is to nurture, guide, protect and protect the constitution. Religious were called “sister” or “brother” but there was no allowance for fraternal relationships and activities in most communities. If there were priests in the house, they could excuse themselves from community meals, recreation, prayer, chapter, retreat and other functions, because they had a parish to run.
Teaching orders ran their houses around their school schedule, which meant cutting back on conventual functions.
Priests in religious orders had cars, money and only they could run the order.
If your father or mother was seriously ill, some orders did not allow you to care for them, because you had to care for sick people in your nursing home.
Only priests were allowed to get advanced degrees in philosophy and theology. Only sisters and brothers were allowed to get advanced degrees in secular academics.
The rules written by founders were superseded by new statutes, even though the founders had written their vision and mission into the rule. However, the Vatican granted all kinds of exceptions, because the local bishop needed these religious. In the end, they were at the service of the local bishop rather than living the vision and charism of the founder.
With this, there were other conditions that were not healthy, not Catholic and not intended by the founders. The big problem was this. If you never teach your dog to go to the door, stop and wait, he’ll tackle everyone who comes in or run into the street each time the door is opened.
This is what happened. These men and women were not taught self-discipline. It was controlled from above. The role of religious authority is to nurture, guide, correct and support. Control and consequences come only after the above has failed. When Vatican II opened the door to go back to the roots, the dogs ran out the door. Some tackled the door opener (the Church)
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Oh this I never knew. I did just read up on it and it does say the Council was pronounced Null.
To be honest, I was always under the impression that Councils are infallible with respect to doctrine and dogma. This is actually not true?
Yes, I think I am a bit confused on this too. But I always assumed there was a common consensus on Council pronouncements. It also seems logical that they should all be infallible if they are teaching coherently with the Successor of Peter at that time.
Well there have been valid councils without the presence of the Pope (but rather his delegates).
Well, no. There were a lot of controversial councils from the early days of the Church and to this day. Of course we fondly talk about those councils called Ecumenical and thus at this point in time found to be true councils that proclaimed the true faith. But imagine this, back then there were councils that people thought were true councils and only later on condemned. For example, the council that declared iconoclasm, that icons were to be removed from every Church, that council was thought to be Ecumenical at its time. A number of Emperors supported iconoclasm and a number of bishops followed the decree of the Emperor that the Church must remove all icons. It was only later on that another council was called and the dignity of the use of icons was restored. But even then, that council was not accepted until later on, and finally it was recognized as Ecumenical. I can imagine the Fourth Ecumenical Council took its time before being recognized as Ecumenical because of the objections of the African bishops.To be honest, I was always under the impression that Councils are infallible with respect to doctrine and dogma. This is actually not true?
