Rather than stand on a street corner and cry “The sky is falling!” like Chicken Little who had no basis for his belief, if the so-called abuses are truly evident, the Church gives all of us an avenue to report them … and it is NOT in the public fora trying to gain supporters and spread venom.Catholics have every right to deplore liturgical abuses and the like. The mud slinging at the Church is done by those who perpetrate abuses…not by those who decry them.
If you read the rest of the doctrines, you’ll find things like why parts of the Mass were to be said quietly, why received and approved rites were not to be contemned, vernacular not to be used everywhere, and the like. Why do these not have the same infallibility protection?Actually, Trent condemns those who say that the Church’s liturgy is an inherent cause of impiety. Therefore the Mass is infallibly protected
Because they are disciplinary.If you read the rest of the doctrines, you’ll find things like why parts of the Mass were to be said quietly, why received and approved rites were not to be contemned, vernacular not to be used everywhere, and the like. Why do these not have the same infallibility protection?
It’s not so easy. Let’s take Communion in the hand. Pope Paul VI tried endlessly to stop the practice and never succeeded. Eventually he gave in and allowed an indult in some places. Pope John Paul II spoke out against the practice many times. Pope Benedict XVI spoke out against the practice as well. Yet none of them were able to stop it.It is also fair to say that IF the OF was a “lesser” form or is less efficacious" as was stated in the OP, that the Holy Spirit would have intervened sometime during the last 52 years to make appropriate changes. Three popes, all having the authority to issue a Motu Proprio on their own authority, have not found cause to do so. Neither have the College of Bishops petitioned Rome to revise the OF liturgy. except for the linguistic changes a couple years ago.
The only ones complaining are the very tiny minority of folks who mistakenly believe the EF is superior and are clamoring to have them celebrated more often.
As promulgated, I’ll buy that, but not because of Trent.Its protected from heresy and guaranteed to be valid
So you’re in disagreement with thinkandmull? What’s disciplinary AFAICT is what’s marked as such (apostolica disciplina) or anathemas. But that doesn’t change the underlying doctrine which is clearly marked at the top of the page. The whole page can’t be disciplinary when it’s marked doctrinal. See Trent Session 22, for example.Because they are disciplinary.
True. According to the Baltimore Catechism,Just because one Mass is valid and equal in dignity does not mean that another Mass cannot be superior in various aspects.
Q. 924. Are all Masses of equal value in themselves or do they differ in worth?
A. All Masses are equal in value in themselves and do not differ in worth, but only in the solemnity with which they are celebrated or in the end for which they are offered.
Absolutely true, especially in subjective areas and in one’s own opinion. This is the advantage to offering both forms of the Mass, at least in some locales.Just because one Mass is valid and equal in dignity does not mean that another Mass cannot be superior in various aspects.
Yes. Let’s take Communion in the hand for starters. An incrediblyJust because one Mass is valid and equal in dignity does not mean that another Mass cannot be superior in various aspects.
It’s not so easy. Let’s take Communion in the hand. Pope Paul VI tried endlessly to stop the practice and never succeeded. Eventually he gave in and allowed an indult in some places. Pope John Paul II spoke out against the practice many times. Pope Benedict XVI spoke out against the practice as well. Yet none of them were able to stop it.
The Pope may be the head of the Church, but there’s only so much he can do without ruffling many many feathers. There are more politics behind the scenes than we realize.
Vatican II did not introduce Communion in the hand. Communion in the hand has nothing whatsoever to do with Vatican II.Yes. Let’s take Communion in the hand for starters. An incredibly
ancient practice that was modernized later to by mouth.
So Vatican II returns to the ancient Christian practice
And Latin was formally reiterated by Vatican II as being the language of the Church.And Latin- yes very old school and exclusionary especially for those who don’t speak it.
Again Vatican II affirmed that the pipe organ was to be held in high esteem in the Liturgy and Gregorian chant as being especially suited to the LiturgyWorries about music or drums or whatever?
Where did you get all this from? Re-read the actual documents of Vatican II and then consider them for what is written in them, not for what some people seem to assume was written in them, but wasn’t.The reality is the Church was ahead of its time with Vatican II. It prepared in advance for a global community civil rights, the cold war ending and the rise of third world nations in which the European Tridentine Mass has as much relevancy as a Packard at a
the Induanapolis Speedway.
The Pope revised the '65 as an interim; the revisions to the OF lectionary cycle were supposedly one of the longest parts of the process. Also, the psalm 42 and last gospel were accretions onto the missal after Trent. (Technically, the last gospel is after the dismissal.)One wonders why this wasn’t immediately done with the 1965 Missal, which instead did away with Psalm 42 and the first verses of St. John’s Gospel, not to mention eventual removal of Psalm 25/26 and other parts of the Mass (Sancta Sanctorum et al) based on scripture.
The council didn’t approve communion in the hand; that was a later (1969 - same as the new Missal) alteration, by the Pope, at the request of several bishops. Mind you, it was part of certain monastic rites within the Roman Church for conventual communion, and for clergy during concelebrations, so it wasn’t alienated completely within the Roman Rite… but it wasn’t the standard. (Keep in mind, concelebrations under the Pre-V II Roman Rite after about 1300 are extremely limited. Pretty much, only for a couple masses a year, presided over by the bishop.)Yes. Let’s take Communion in the hand for starters. An incredibly
ancient practice that was modernized later to by mouth.
So Vatican II returns to the ancient Christian practice
and you have a PROBLEM with this? Lol
You think Ambrose and Acquinas and the Apostles
were some how inferior in their devotion because they
took Communuon in the hand do you?
It is also justification for preservation of, and delatinization of, the Eastern Rite Churches in Communion with Rome.Absolutely true, especially in subjective areas and in one’s own opinion. This is the advantage to offering both forms of the Mass, at least in some locales.
There’s more to it than that.ancient Christian practice
One won’t speak any language unless he hears it first.And Latin- yes very old school and exclusionary especially
for those who don’t speak it.
She would respond that the OF and EF are not rites but forms of the same rite.Does she believe that Vatican II was an authentic council? Because the Council itself declared in Sacrosanctum Concilium 4 “In faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity”
That’s an important point, and emphasized by Pope Benedict. Trent had forbidden new rites to be formed.She would respond that the OF and EF are not rites but forms of the same rite.
I personally have no problem with Novus Ordo. I haveVatican II did not introduce Communion in the hand. Communion in the hand has nothing whatsoever to do with Vatican II.
In fact Communion on the tongue is the current established legal norm within the Church today, Communion in the hand is a discretionary indult granted to Bishops’ Conferences at the discretion of the Holy See.
And Latin was formally reiterated by Vatican II as being the language of the Church.
Vatican II did not aim to eliminate Latin in the Liturgy, it allowed the introduction of some use of the vernacular in the Liturgy. vatican II was not about removing Latin from the Liturgy.
Again Vatican II affirmed that the pipe organ was to be held in high esteem in the Liturgy and Gregorian chant as being especially suited to the Liturgy
Where did you get all this from? Re-read the actual documents of Vatican II and then consider them for what is written in them, not for what some people seem to assume was written in them, but wasn’t.
Vatican II documents were on the whole a set of fairly conservative documents. Much of what is spoken about regarding the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ is simply liberal fabrication.