Even though the Orthodox church have all the sacraments and that God can work through it.The second Vatican Ecumenical council states clearly in Lumen Gentium that to leave the Church or to refuse to enter into it, when you know the truth, jeopardizes the chance of salvation. God can work through the Protestant sects as well, He is Almighty.
My point in posting is that I mislead no one.
Please review history of the Early Church. It will exhaust the thread but you will see you err. NO DOUBT:thumbsup:Well it was not meant to offend, but certainly it was meant to reinforce the usual traditionalist allegation that the Novus Ordo is Protestantized. If you were referring to the fact that there is more hymn singing, vernacular liturgy, a greater emphasis on the Scriptures, etc., the comparison stops there.
Historically speaking, the very early church also had some of the same features: hymn singing, vernacular liturgy, more emphasis on the Scriptures. Perhaps the early Church was “Protestantized” as well ?
Sorry, is this what Guitton latter admitted that Paul VI never actually said to him? That’s been mentioned in the forums recently, that he admitted that Pope Paul VI had NOT actually said this to him or anything similar.Please review history of the Early Church. It will exhaust the thread but you will see you err. NO DOUBT:thumbsup:
Hope this helps with your confusion:
Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.
Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincidewith the Protestant liturgy There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenicalintention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what wastoo Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”(Rama Coomeraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, Tan Books, p. 34.)
This is where we very easily come to an impasse on this issue up and until the credibility of Rama Coomeraswamy can be established.Please review history of the Early Church. It will exhaust the thread but you will see you err. NO DOUBT:thumbsup:
Hope this helps with your confusion:
Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.
Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincidewith the Protestant liturgy There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenicalintention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what wastoo Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”(Rama Coomeraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, Tan Books, p. 34.)
That is what most of the answers to this very very very important statement are. I realize it has been mentioned, but forgive me if I would like more solid evidence.
Reviewing your recent posts and you history, forgive me if I find your appeal for citations disingenuous. I hate to give in to speculation, but I am left with little doubt that if you give credence to Rama P. Coomaraswamy, you will likely be unsastisfied with any sources offered…
No, no, I’m ASKING!
Yes I see that now. Sorry I am in three threads at the same time
Even granting for the sake of argument that Paul VI said that (which is highly doubtful), the important point is that all his official statements on the mass say nothing of the sort, whether it be the Credo of the People of God, or Mysterium Fidei, which even a traditionalist like Cardinal Alfons Stickler in his 1995 article “The Attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass” says are quite orthodox. Official documents, not his alleged (and doubtful) musings to Guitton is what really matters.Please review history of the Early Church. It will exhaust the thread but you will see you err. NO DOUBT:thumbsup:
Hope this helps with your confusion:
Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.
Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincidewith the Protestant liturgy There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenicalintention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what wastoo Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”(Rama Coomeraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, Tan Books, p. 34.)
If he said that than he is in contradiction:thumbsup:
That is the same argument repeated all the time. That does not make it false since there have been no evidences to say the contrary.
Excellent. It was not meant to offend, it was only a suggestion.
It hardly makes it true either. Jean Guitton was pretty well published. You’d think that one would be easy to find and yet, it’s not.
I have posted this before:
Cardinal Ottaviani had a change of heart and gave his approbation to the NO (unless one has already bought into a conspiracy theory).
You’ve got to be kidding me. This is not a footnote. It’s a change of subject.
And yet another letter a year later:
Notice the sources given? Does Coomeraswamy even give a date that this letter/article was supposedly written? At least the people who quote Ottaviani can give you the source of exactly where it was written. If Coomeraswamy gave one, I wish somebody would supply it.
An excellent reference is the Calvinist service, and the NO. Besides Paul VI is known to have mandated the retention of certain prayers (like Perceptio Corporis Tui) which are at great odds with Calvinist teaching.
Where is that written about Cardinal Ottavianai having a change of heart?
Uusually the sources given is the magazine Christian Order, 1994, which is supposed to be a excerpt from a radio interview the previous year.
Those quotes are just posted on liberal sites… Jean Madiran, editor of the French journal Itineraires, claimed that the letter (I have rejoiced profoundly…) was fraudulently presented to Cardinal Ottaviani for his signature, by his secretary who resigned shortly thereafter. Cardinal Ottaviani was blind at the time.