The World Turned Upside Down - The Post Vatican II World and the NO

  • Thread starter Thread starter brotherhrolf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brotherhrolf

Guest
I want to talk to my brothers and sisters who grew up with the Latin Mass. I want to talk about what you remember from 1965 through 1970. The transistional years. And from my point of view, those are only canonical dates. The transition was far quicker. I have a St. Joseph’s Missal dated January of 1966 in front of me.

Ordinary

Introibo - could be in Latin or English. Followed by the Confiteor in either Latin or English. Prayers, followed by Kyrie followed by Gloria.

We did most of it in Latin until 1967. So much for the gradual transition. And we knelt for Communion well into the 70s. My sister was married in 76 and the communion rails are there in her photos.

C’mon all you old fogeys. Let’s see if we can try and make sense of our collective experience.
 
“is” is not the same as “is only”

So if I have two schools which are Catholic, and I say “School#1 is Catholic” that’s not mutually exclusive to say that School#2 is Catholic, unless I say “School#1 is the only one that is Catholic”
 
BobCatholic said:
“is” is not the same as “is only”

So if I have two schools which are Catholic, and I say “School#1 is Catholic” that’s not mutually exclusive to say that School#2 is Catholic, unless I say “School#1 is the only one that is Catholic”
Click to expand...
Last I heard—having a the word “Catholic” attached to a school or university does not necessarity make it Catholic.
 
Walking_Home said:
Last I heard—having a the word “Catholic” attached to a school or university does not necessarity make it Catholic.
Click to expand...
True.

But I’m using that as an example.

Would this be better?

So if I have two schools which are Baptist, and I say “School#1 is a Baptist school” that’s not mutually exclusive to say that School#2 is a baptist school, unless I say “School#1 is the only one that is a baptist school”
 
BobCatholic said:
True.

But I’m using that as an example.

Would this be better?

So if I have two schools which are Baptist, and I say “School#1 is a Baptist school” that’s not mutually exclusive to say that School#2 is a baptist school, unless I say “School#1 is the only one that is a baptist school”
Click to expand...
School 1 = Baptist
School 2 = Baptist
So they are not mutually exclusive unless you say School 1 is the only one Baptist.

Now

Church 1 = Catholic
Church 2 = Protestant
So they are not mutually exclusive unless you say Church 1 is the only one Catholic.
 
Walking_Home said:
Church 1 = Catholic
Church 2 = Protestant
So they are not mutually exclusive unless you say Church 1 is Catholic.
Click to expand...
Church 1 = Catholic in full union with Rome.
Church 2 = protestant church, who are in process of reuniting with Rome - and are almost done (they believe everything we do, but simply haven’t gotten the paperwork finalized)

So, if the Catholic Church is the body of Christ, and it is not the only member of the the body of Christ, would Church 2 be counted as part of the Body of Christ?
 
BobCatholic said:
Church 1 = Catholic in full union with Rome.
Church 2 = protestant church, who are in process of reuniting with Rome - and are almost done (they believe everything we do, but simply haven’t gotten the paperwork finalized)

So, if the Catholic Church is the body of Christ, and it is not the only member of the the body of Christ, would Church 2 be counted as part of the Body of Christ?
Click to expand...
BobCatholic—where in the world did you get that from. No wonder your examples are not correct.
 
O…Kay…So, I’m not alone in my thoughts about this. I did experience what I thought I experienced?
 
TNT said:
Church 1: IS

Church 2: Subsists

Pick one OR the other.
They’re mutually exclusive.

Nuff said.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Check these out.
ewtn.com/library/Theology/subsistitin.HTM
ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm

“Is” indicates a present reality. “Subsistit in” represents a perduring reality–it’s actually stronger. Those who have interpreted as meaning that the Church can subsist in two places at once, are incorrect.

From one of the articles above:
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, already in 1985, in the face of erroneous interpretations, made the following statement in this regard: " . . . the Council chose the word subsistit precisely in order to make it clear that there exists a single ‘subsistence’ of the true Church, while outside her visible structure only elementa ecclesiae exist, which — as elements of the Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church".6

More recently, the same Congregation declared: “The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen Gentium”.7
Click to expand...
A reminder from Pius XII:

"all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. "
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top