T
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
So let’s have a beer?
T
Timothysis
Guest
I don’t drink beer, but I’m sure we can settle on something.So let’s have a beer?
U
una_fides
Guest
Interesting point, but I would like you to please cite your source here. You could very well be right. I did a quick search and one source said that protestant observers were present at the last two ecumenical Councils, which would have been Vatican I and II, but either way, I’ll concede that they could have been present. So here’s the question for you: at Trent did the resulting liturgy suppress Catholic dogmas and did it remake the mass altogether from a committee or did it rather solidify the Mass that had been practiced for over 1000 years at that point and had developed organically like the liturgy is supposed to. (Even Pope Benedict has published a document in which he explained the importance of organic growth and development in the liturgy.) You are throwing some smoke in mirrors here and are avoiding the question at hand. Did the resulting liturgy more clearly reflect Catholic dogmas? And did those in the committee from which the NO emerged cut out and revised important prayers so that the resulting mass would not be offensive to protestant sensibilities? Are you honestly defending or saying that it’s better to not invoke the intercession of the angels and saints?? Are you honestly defending the removal of references to sacrifice and sins and eternal punishment??
Also you’ve conveniently seemed to dodge my question on the extent you have actually compared the two masses and seen the extent that these things are true. Is it safe for me to assume that you have not studied it much as of yet?
If you haven’t already, I also suggest reading up on modernism. The vast majority of priests today are infected with one form or another:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Well, the difference of course is that it was expressly stated by Paul VI that the Mass was being changed (in part, at least) in order to be more attractive to Protestants. As the source cited above indicate (and as many others have argued) perhaps it went to an extreme. No such thing happened at Trent, so I guess the comparison limps, for me at least.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
I think we are agreeing to more than we know. Let me see if I can sum it up:- Pope B16 said in Summorum Pontificum that no Bishop could forbid the use of the TLM. I think we agree.
- Quo Primum does not say the NO is invalid or illcit. I think we agree.
- A Pope can suppress a rite at will, i.e. today, Pope B16 could forbid the NO or the Dominician Rite or the Byzantine Rite. I think we agree.
- No Pope can forbid the EF per Quo Primum. Here is where we disagree. I say it is no different than forbidding the Dominician or Byzantine or NO. You say the “forever” line binds all future Popes. We will probably have to agree to disagree.
U
una_fides
Guest
Glad we agree on these things. Concerning the last, no pope ever said that the Byzantine or the NO cannot be forbidden at any time in the future, whereas a pope most certainly did say that concerning the Gregorian/Tridentine Rite. Thus, no future pope would forbid such a rite that a former pope has said will never be bad for souls no matter what. Quo Primum’s wording is so strong that he says that whoever would forbid the Gregorian Rite would incur the wraths of Peter and Paul! How many other documents in the history of the Church use that same type of wording? In all the encyclicals I’ve read, I haven’t found any. I have a computer program that has a lot of Catholic documents on it that you can search through, and I couldn’t come up with anything from there either. Granted the Church anathematized people and said that if they did x or believed y, etc, that they would suffer everlasting punishment, and these things were important to say because they were absolutely true, but never to my knowledge has any pope ever used such strong language pertaining to something like the promulgation of a missal.
As to the canon law question, I have not had time to look it up but I will give it a see.
- Pope B16 said in Summorum Pontificum that no Bishop could forbid the use of the TLM. I think we agree.
- Quo Primum does not say the NO is invalid or illcit. I think we agree.
- A Pope can suppress a rite at will, i.e. today, Pope B16 could forbid the NO or the Dominician Rite or the Byzantine Rite. I think we agree.
- No Pope can forbid the EF per Quo Primum. Here is where we disagree. I say it is no different than forbidding the Dominician or Byzantine or NO. You say the “forever” line binds all future Popes. We will probably have to agree to disagree.
Popes do things for reasons, and if the pope used the word “forever” no doubt God likely moved him to do so because of the opposition to that most sacred form of the Mass that it would encounter both then and later in time. Our present day crisis in the Church and the seemingly limitless opposition to this Mass prove his words to be most applicable today. What priests or bishops would possibly discourage, suppress, or forbid the TLM? Liberals and modernists whose theology is anything but one with the Church for which Christ died. Let us invoke the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, the defenders of the true faith and the destroyers of heresy to end the tyranny of modernists and usher in a resurgence of a love for Tradition and the fullness of the Catholic faith.
M
malphono
Guest
I might suggest that the Byzantine Divine Liturgy be left totally out of this discussion. The matter at hand concerns the Latin Church. The Byzantine Divine Liturgy concerns a variety of Eastern sui juris Churches, and is absolutely and completely outside the scope of the present thread.
P
PJM
Guest
:clapping:Great reply and we agree my friend!
Have you ever herad the expression: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!”?
That is what is behind the many innovations, which time and history have showen to be poorly conceived, as the New Mass, has sent countless Catholics packing, and has proven to be great for other religions.
The stats are readily available that proveout this statement, and yet nouthing is being done about it here in America. And Rome continues to be ignored. Not only does it have me worried, but it also has me asking why:blush::bigyikes::crying: I’m afraid that I amy know the answer!
Love and prayers,
L
Layman
Guest
I wonder if real Catholicism; taking it seriously and doing it with as much reverence, solemnity and beauty as you can offer, was ever truly popular?
Regardless, I think I’m going to have to shift for myself to get to a good mass for the next five-to-ten years.
The X factor is the economic crisis. That could help focus the general public’s mind’s wonderfully. Could speed things up.
Regardless, I think I’m going to have to shift for myself to get to a good mass for the next five-to-ten years.
The X factor is the economic crisis. That could help focus the general public’s mind’s wonderfully. Could speed things up.
T
Timothysis
Guest
That is an excellent question, layman. I’ve often wondered just how devout the Catholic faithful were in the days of Trent and before, and if they were more devout than superstitious. I have a book call The History of the Popes, which relates the times and troubles of each pope from St. Peter. The thing that struck me is that every pope had something to deal with, that there never seemed to be a time of the Golden Age of Catholicism.
L
Layman
Guest
I meant on a nationwide level. Actually, thinking about it, I’m sure there were plenty of times, in different places at different times.
It’s been said before, but if you’re living in a hovel with no books, no education, (no TV!) and no future, going into a beautifully appointed church, to a reverent Mass and communing with Christ would have been a real comfort and a pleasure.
In my opinion, there are always centres of righteousness, even in our era of intellectualisms. If there weren’t, the Lord would be rolling up his sleeve to smite us regularly.
Bishops wore swords in the past. They had to. If you think of previous kings and queens in European history as warlords constantly terrorising each other’s domininons, you get a good idea of what the religious of the time had to put up with. So previous Popes weren’t as diffident as modern Popes. They couldn’t afford to be.
I think Jesus chose Peter to head his Church because he wasn’t afraid of a scrap.
That’s why comparing the past with the present is poor sport. Europe was like Afghanistan or Iraq up to fairly recently.
Just had this thought:
It’s been said before, but if you’re living in a hovel with no books, no education, (no TV!) and no future, going into a beautifully appointed church, to a reverent Mass and communing with Christ would have been a real comfort and a pleasure.
In my opinion, there are always centres of righteousness, even in our era of intellectualisms. If there weren’t, the Lord would be rolling up his sleeve to smite us regularly.
Bishops wore swords in the past. They had to. If you think of previous kings and queens in European history as warlords constantly terrorising each other’s domininons, you get a good idea of what the religious of the time had to put up with. So previous Popes weren’t as diffident as modern Popes. They couldn’t afford to be.
I think Jesus chose Peter to head his Church because he wasn’t afraid of a scrap.
That’s why comparing the past with the present is poor sport. Europe was like Afghanistan or Iraq up to fairly recently.
Just had this thought:
- **1500’s: Bibles widely available; every man becomes his own Pope.
- 1960’s-Present: Third level education widely available; every man becomes his own liturgical expert.**
C
Carl_Abbate
Guest
This Cardinal Bugnini that you all are talking about? Was he one of the Vatican Cardinals that was a Mason? One of the Cardinals Pope John 1 was concerned about? Was he also the Cardinal that hanged himself after his assinment out of the Vatican? I am not that well versed in Vatican Politics but if he was involved in the discussions about the elimination of the Latin Mass I now have real doubts about how we as Catholics got to where we are now in the Liturgy. So Sad…
M
malphono
Guest
There’s a related [thread=315286]thread[/thread] in this forum that may help with the questions about Bugnini.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Quo Primum said nothing about the NO. It was issued in 1570AD, exactly 400 years before the NO.
- Quo Primum does not say the NO is invalid or illcit. I think we agree.
I’m not too sure on this one. I do hold that the Pope can declare a rite to be invalid such as Pope Leo did against the Anglican “Mass” but I don’t see any pastoral value of forbidding any divine rite which has valid priests, form, matter and intention.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
Agreed. The original poster was using hyperbole, I think, as was I.
The questions is not would a Pope do it, but *could *he. Since the power of the Pope is unlimited in matters such as this, he could if he wanted to, i.e. if today, B16 said that the only rite which may be celebrated within the Catholic Church is the EF, I think everyone has to obey.
P
ProVobis
Guest
ANYONE could forbid it, but to what extent and for how long? Almost all bishops got away with it. Some still are forbidding it.
L
LilyM
Guest
Substitute not that well versed for almost totally unversed. There’s no substantive evidence that Bungnini was a Mason, nor is it likely that he would’ve been tolerated if he was - it is still against Church law to be involved in the Freemasons. Secondly it was John 23rd, don’t know where you got John 1 from.
Finally, Bunigni was posted to Iran (basically Siberia) which may indeed be a sign of Papal disapproval, but it doesn’t mean he was a Mason or the liturgy (put together by others as well as himself, and given the stamp of approval by Paul VI - were they ALL Masons? ALL intent on the destruction of the liturgy?) is either invalid or, abuses aside, inferior.
U
una_fides
Guest
I think most traditionalists would agree that the pope could only permit the TLM (EF) and thereby say that the former OF (NO) would be supressed or abolished altogether, as it is a liturgy that is only about 40 years old. I think you will get a different response over whether he could suppress or forbid a liturgy that a former pope said could never be suppressed and said that anyone who does would incur the wrath of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. It’s not simply a matter of one pope “binding” a future pope; it’s a matter of whether a future pope could do something contrary to God’s will and could incur divine wrath as a result. The answer is yes, a pope could deviate from divine law and could go against God’s will. He is only safeguarded when invoking infallibility and any pope could fall into disobedience or even heresy. Whether God would permit a pope to fall into heresy is another question, but we know from history that God has certainly permitted popes to act disobediently and to do things contrary to his Will. God has given man free will, including the pope, and though the pope has special graces and special guidance from God, ultimately God can let his vicar deviate to the greatest possibility without invoking infallibility and teaching error.
That said, I do not believe God will hold the flock responsible for the acts of a pope. When there were three popes (only one valid), it was near impossible for any lay person to tell to whom he should have been faithful as the true pope. God will only hold those accountable who deviate from his Will with any fault, and he holds those in authority to higher standards than laity. We also must be obedient to the pope, even when he does things that seem contrary to God’s will, though we can still state our opinions and convictions humbly as we seek the truth.
E
elts1956
Guest
I think this is what happened and is still happening in some dioceses. We, who thought the Tridentine Mass was universally “forbidden”, myself included, did/do not understand the power of the Bishops.:yup:
- Status