Synod of Bishops

[pnewton]

Well, pnewton, you’ve used, misused and misspelled a lot of big words here. Let me explain:

The innovators wanted to change what the “man in the pew believed”. They said this very clearly. They knew full well that prayer and belief are closely related.

Rather than address the spelling issues, I will say your last statement fits your propensity to make wrong assumptions. SInce you have a record of being totally wrong with all you assumptions about me, I have not reason to believe you any more knowledgeable than the man in the moon about anything else.

No, an inference was drawn from the document…and it was valid. You never addressed it…just dismissed it. Stmaria did not claim the document cited said these things directly, and I think you know that. And why the defense of this Catholic Youth Conference leader? It’s like a knee-jerk reaction…only after being prodded along does anyone like you admit that what he did was terribly far from Catholic teaching…but it does falls in line with belief of “modern man”…and I think you know that as well.

SFD

I did address it. To say otherwise is as inaccurate as saying I defended a Catholic Youth Conference Leader. I do not even know any so I have no idea what you are talking about. But again, your ability to make assumptions about me is very poor. You are correct that I know the document does not directly tie into the TLM and that Stmaria did not claim a direct tie. She only implied that on another thread. It is that implication (or inference, as you put it) that I say now is nothing more than begging the question. The inference is only valid if one assmes that there is a causality in the change of liturgy, which is what is being proven.

 

[SFD]

Actually I found a lot of hope in this document also. Thanks to Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the Church is enriched and growing.

Does anyone really believe this has happened? I understand your hopes…but really?

If anyone feels compelled to add their opinion to the Church;s there are a lot of footnotes to explore.

Oh, you’re quoting the Church directly here? Explain.

SFD

 

[SFD]

Rather than address the spelling issues, I will say your last statement fits your propensity to make wrong assumptions. SInce you have a record of being totally wrong with all you assumptions about me, I have not reason to believe you any more knowledgeable than the man in the moon about anything else.

I did address it. To say otherwise is as inaccurate as saying I defended a Catholic Youth Conference Leader. I do not even know any so I have no idea what you are talking about. But again, your ability to make assumptions about me is very poor. You are correct that I know the document does not directly tie into the TLM and that Stmaria did not claim a direct tie. She only implied that on another thread. It is that implication (or inference, as you put it) that I say now is nothing more than begging the question. The inference is only valid if one assmes that there is a causality in the change of liturgy, which is what is being proven.

And I notice you didn’t respond to the direct evidence I provided:

Originally Posted by Consilium Fathers
Revising the pre-existing text becomes more delicate when faced with the need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only form, but also doctrinal reality. This revision is called for in the light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods. The Council clearly proposes this new view and it was kept in mind when the Temporal Cycle was revised. It could not have been ignored in the Sanctoral Cycle. In other cases, ecumenical requirements dictated appropriate revisions in language. Expressions recalling positions of struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the texts, moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives. – Consilium’s Father Carlo Braga, 1966.

The statistics reveal this; that of the 1182 orations in the Traditional Missal, 760 were dropped entirely. The remaining were altered in more that half of the cases. Only 17 % of the old orations made it into the new missal. The Temporal Cycle contained prayers that were ancient, in some cases 1600 years old.

The Consilium incorporated into the new missal only those older texts “which could have a pastoral worth for contemporary man”. To have introduced the unaltered ancient prayers which alluded to doctrinal controversies or fasting, or which disparaged the things of the world, would have created “difficulty for the psychology of the man who experiences other problems, who has a different way of thinking, and who lives in a different material and disciplinary situation.”

SFD

 

[pnewton]

Does anyone really believe this has happened? I understand your hopes…but really?

Oh, you’re quoting the Church directly here? Explain.

SFD

I believe it. Why believe anything the document says if you are going to reject some and accept some? The footnote comment is in reference to the end documentation. Here are the first 10 out of 80 or so.

1 Cf. XLVIII Conventus Eucharisticus Internationalis, 10-17 Octobris 2004: Eucharistia, Lux et Vita Novi Millennii, Memoria, Guadalaiara, Mexicum, 2004.
2 Cf. Ioannes Paulus ii, Litt. Ap. Mane nobiscum Domine (7 Octobris 2004), 28: L’Osservatore Romano: Weekly Edition in English (13 Octobris 2004), Supplement, IV.
3 Cf. L’Osservatore Romano (31 Ianuarii - 1 Februarii 2005), 6.
4 Cf. Annuarium Statisticum Ecclesiae 2003, tab. 4.
5 Cf. Annuarium Statisticum Ecclesiae 1978/2003, tab. 1.
6 Cf. Ibid, tab. 5.
7 Cf. Annuarium Statisticum Ecclesiae 2003, tab. 6.
8 Cf. Ibid, tab. 5.
9 Notitiæ a F.A.O. datæ mense Ianuario 2005. 10 Cf. Ioannes Paulus ii, Litt. Enc. Redemptoris missio (7 Decembris 1990), 11: AAS 83 (1991) 260.

 

[SFD]

pnewton:

I believe it. Why believe anything the document says if you are going to reject some and accept some?

Are you kidding? Are all documents either all true or all false?

What you quoted is not a doctrinal statement.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

And I notice you didn’t respond to the direct evidence I provided:

I can not substantiate it. Since you have already labeled as “fact” an opinion, I have no reason to believe your quote. I attemted to find it. The only for references I could find to Carlo Braga were for ultratraditional websites. I did not even stay to see if the were still Catholic or heretical sedevacantists. Then I tried searching quotes. What a surprise! More ultratraditional websites. I have zero reason to believe your quote is any more than another ultratraditional urban legend. If I were to find the reference, then I would look at the context. Even if it is true that such a comment was made, why would it bear importance? What is its authority? What is its historical context? These are things I consider. I prefer to stick to stuff on the Vatican website, as the original poster linked. I do not have to worry about its origin.

 

[pnewton]

Are you kidding? Are all documents either all true or all false?

That is the wrong question. The better question is whether they are authoritative or not. In matters of doctrine it represents the teaching of the Church. In matters of math and statistics, it may or may not be accurate. I find it duplicitous to accept the numbers the document gives and reject the teaching. It makes no sense to do so, unless one is only using part of the document to prove a point. Thus, a further example that you are only begging the question.

 

[SFD]

I can not substantiate it. Since you have already labeled as “fact” an opinion, I have no reason to believe your quote. I attemted to find it. The only for references I could find to Carlo Braga were for ultratraditional websites. I did not even stay to see if the were still Catholic or heretical sedevacantists. Then I tried searching quotes. What a surprise! More ultratraditional websites. I have zero reason to believe your quote is any more than another ultratraditional urban legend. If I were to find the reference, then I would look at the context. Even if it is true that such a comment was made, why would it bear importance? What is its authority? What is its historical context? These are things I consider. I prefer to stick to stuff on the Vatican website, as the original poster linked. I do not have to worry about its origin.

What you mean is that if you can’t find it on the internet then it’s suspect. Interesting.

Carlo Braga was working under Annibale Bugnini and was responsible for the revisions to the Sanctoral Cycle. It is footnoted as Carlo Braga, "Il ‘Proprium de Sanctis’, " Ephemerides Liturgicae 84 (1970), 419.

Or if it is found on a website you don’t care for…it must be false.

There’s a whole lot you don’t know, pnewton…but I do think you’re searching for the truth. Sometimes it’s found in the funniest places.

You may want to read some theology manuals as well…the pre-V2 manuals are anti-modernist and full of unambiguous Catholic doctrine.

SFD

 

[SFD]

That is the wrong question. The better question is whether they are authoritative or not. In matters of doctrine it represents the teaching of the Church. In matters of math and statistics, it may or may not be accurate. ** I find it duplicitous to accept the numbers the document gives and reject the teaching. ** It makes no sense to do so, unless one is only using part of the document to prove a point. Thus, a further example that you are only begging the question.

What teaching? There is no teaching in the document we are concerned with…and you have to jettison this “begging the question” comment that seems to pop up every other post. It makes no sense whatsoever.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

and you have to jettison this “begging the question” comment that seems to pop up every other post. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Son, you don’t get to jump on and with a few posts start ordering folks around. But I will help out any one tnew that does not know the meaning of the phrase, and then the appropriateness, if any can be decided on an individual basis.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

[stmaria]

We were discussing *this official *Church document.

The claim was made that it was reflective of problems with the current of Mass.

 

[SFD]

pnewton:

Son, you don’t get to jump on and with a few posts start ordering folks around.

Son?

Now that does make me smile.

I’m trying to get you to think, Mr. Newton. Of course, you see that as being “ordered around”…but it’s not. It would behoove you to start answering the points mentioned rather than dismissing them all with the claim of a logical fallacy.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

Son?

Now that does make me smile.

Then I accomplished something. If you are older, then take it as a compliment.