If any Council should be so arrogant as to reformulate any dogma or doctrine of the historical perennial church such that it does not retain the full uncorrupted historical meaning as the Church has always understood it from the Apostles and pronounced by Ecumenical Councils of old, that Council is Null, Void and of no effect.
Amen!
But liturgy’s always been played around with to some extent - though I’m not going to debate the extent of such prior to Trent nor post Vatican 2. But how else do you think the Eastern churches developed different liturgy to the West, and how do you think all the rites that were suppressed by Pius V (as well as those he allowed to remain) came about?
Exception to the Canon: The ICEL cannot be anathematized.
If any layperson or individual *not *vested with Magisterial authority should be so arrogant as to think that they know better than any Council how to define, redefine, reformulate or whatever ANY teaching on faith or morals, that presumptuous insect of an individual is themselves the one under the stench of heresy.
Lily, this needed to be said for a very, very long time. Thank you. :tiphat:
The idea is to anathematise people who say they don’t need to go to confession. We all know that if Bloggs, a practising but unexceptional Catholic, says hasn’t sinned in a long period of time, then he must be fooling himself. But what if Bloggs really is a great saint? Well, if he is martyred for his pains, we’ll believe him, otherwise we won’t. Since canon law says confession every year, we’ll give him one year and day to get himself martyred and canonised, otherwise he’s out.I don’t understand this one.
And anyone who does the liturgy according to their own designs let him be condemned.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I like to put things in perspective. It goes back to my question of ‘what exactly is an abuse?’ Of course if the mass is celebrated with clowns and liturgical dancers and consecrating chocolate chip cookies, I would get up and leave promply, but would have a hard time ***not ***proclaiming to the congregation that this is indeed gravely sinful. There has to be a special place in eternity for priests that celebrate in this way, and I wouldn’t even want to visit, let alone spend an eternity in.
I keep going back to the words of Jesus when He said, “It’s not what goes into the mouth that makes one unclean, but what comes out of it.” I am in no way in favor of changing wording in order to put a different spin on the meaning, on the other hand, you just don’t go to calvary over inconsequential wording. Leaving important parts out as I have seen is abusive, but I can just see Jesus shaking His head over people debating about things that don’t mean much, and saying ‘You guys just don’t get it.’ Just my:twocents: as well.Not to worry, our canons would contain a WWJS section that would override all anathemas.
A Perfect definition of Zombieism.
As long as the priest still says the actual words of the consecration, the Sacrifice would still be valid. But is changing the words of the