What if...?

[Ghosty]

If a mass is declared to be the only mass that is to be said from this day forwards, I feel it moves from discipline, to doctrine.

It doesn’t say that, however. First off, it doesn’t say it’s the only Mass to be said (at the VERY least the Maronite Mass continued, to say nothing of the other Rites that were brought back into the Church). On the contrary, the quote you used opens with the numerous exceptions to the new rule. Secondly, it doesn’t speak eternally on the matter, but currently. So it lacks both the eternal character of infallibility, and the universal character. Lacking either one cripples your argument of it being doctrine.

 

[Genesis315]

mrS4ntA:

true. the requirement of celibate priests, however, is merely a discipline.

Yep. I think the easiest way to test between discipline and doctrine is to compare across regions and time and see if it’s consistent or not.

 

[JeffreyGerard]

Ahimsa:

Not necessarily. I mean, how do you know that Christ isn’t behind the changes?

I **believe **that God is Truth, always perfect and
therefore always unchangable.

I **believe **that the Catholic Church teaches Truth about
faith and morals and is guarded by the Holy Spirit from
teaching error about same.

I **believe **the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ.

I **believe **that something can not be true for a while and
then mutable when it comes to faith and morals. If a teaching
were true for a while and then not true, one of the
teachings needed to be an error.

and like I said before, I **believe **the Chuch can not teach
error on faith and morals.

If someone believes the Church can teach error, well then I
guess they could belief the Church could change doctrine,
and they are either not Catholic to begin with, or they are
a heretic and are excommunicated ipso facto.

Father Corapi said it best, “If **you **don’t believe what we
believe, **you **excommunicate **yourself **by definition.”
Futher, “what we believe is what we have been given
and Jesus Christ never intended that eternal Truth
be determined by a democratic vote or a concensus.
It is what it is whether you like it or not or believe it or not.”
(Fr. John Corapi - The Catholic Church, Part 5, Peter)

I **believe **The Catholic Chruch can not change the Truth
because the Truth is God, and God can not change.

Jeff

 

[gelsbern]

Ghosty:

It doesn’t say that, however. First off, it doesn’t say it’s the only Mass to be said (at the VERY least the Maronite Mass continued, to say nothing of the other Rites that were brought back into the Church). On the contrary, the quote you used opens with the numerous exceptions to the new rule. Secondly, it doesn’t speak eternally on the matter, but currently. So it lacks both the eternal character of infallibility, and the universal character. Lacking either one cripples your argument of it being doctrine.

First off I was not talking about eastern rites, and they are covered in the Bull as those who have the 200+ years of tradition of using their rite, this includes the Maronite, Byzantine etc…
In fact the permission for the Anglican Rite catholicism follows the guidelines of this bull as well.
But the Bull was/is specifically for those who’s rite was supposed to be western (latin) but each area had some liturgical abuses and differences which destroyed the universality of the western rite which raised the necessity of the declarations in this Bull.

You are correct, the bull didn’t say “from this day forward” it used a stronger phrase “in perpetuity”

Perpetuity: continuing forever in the same way

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede** in perpetuity** that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, **this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, **without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used.

When did perpetuity become temporary.

Also, it states that it can never be banned from use:

Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. **We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, **as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.

But that didn’t stop that from happening either.

Anyway, this is a discussion for a different thread. Please let’s keep on point. I know I brough up the Mass, but it was to support my opinion that changes in discipline, and male only clergy is a discipline in the latin rite is a discipline. In the eastern rite, they do allow deaconesses which is a Holy Order and it’s a tradition that can be traced back to scripture. (Phoebe)

 

[Ghosty]

First off I was not talking about eastern rites, and they are covered in the Bull as those who have the 200+ years of tradition of using their rite, this includes the Maronite, Byzantine etc…
In fact the permission for the Anglican Rite catholicism follows the guidelines of this bull as well.
But the Bull was/is specifically for those who’s rite was supposed to be western (latin) but each area had some liturgical abuses and differences which destroyed the universality of the western rite which raised the necessity of the declarations in this Bull.

If it isn’t something to be held by the whole Church, how is it an infallible teaching? By your own definition of doctrine this does NOT apply since the Missal is NOT necessary for salvation. If it WERE necessary for salvation, then the Eastern Rites would have been abolished at the time the TLM was instituted. Yes, the discipline was needed at the time, but it was only a discipline because it applied only to certain aspects of the Latin Rite, not even to the ENTIRE Latin Rite. If you can’t even established the “universality” of the Missal within a single Rite, I think you have to concede that you are wrong about its stance as a doctrine.

You are correct, the bull didn’t say “from this day forward” it used a stronger phrase “in perpetuity”

Well that wasn’t in the quote you used, which is what I was addressing. Regardless, the fact that it’s not even remotely universal completely rules it out as doctrine without any need for establishing whether or not it was eternal; doctrines by definition are not eternal, regardless of the intent at their implimentation.

As for whether or not it can be banned from use, the Church has never banned its use. Individual bishops, who have the authority to determine which masses are said in their jurisdiction anyway, have certainly frowned upon it, but even the Vatican has said that this constitutes abuse on their part. The fact that individual bishops abuse doctrines is nothing new, nor does it represent any inconsistancy on the part of the Magisterium. You might as well argue that the Church is inconsistant in honoring Joan of Arc as a Saint as well.

Anyway, this is a discussion for a different thread. Please let’s keep on point. I know I brough up the Mass, but it was to support my opinion that changes in discipline, and male only clergy is a discipline in the latin rite is a discipline. In the eastern rite, they do allow deaconesses which is a Holy Order and it’s a tradition that can be traced back to scripture.

Nice try to dodge the issue, but you brought it up specifically to show that the Church has not held to its “doctrines” on the TLM. Since the topic of the thread is the abandoning of doctrines by the Church, this is perfectly on topic. So far you have failed to demonstrate that the text you quoted constitutes doctrine, and therefore your premise has not been established. Try again.

 

[gelsbern]

Not trying to dodge the issue.

I will state out exactly what I think

Women clergy are wrong (priestessses) although I think I could handle deaconesses as long as it’s in the eastern style. I could also deal with married priests if it was handled in the eastern style.

Popes in the past have declared that things would not and could not change ever. Once this happens it moves over from discipline to doctrine. If it cannot be changed ever, it makes it doctrine.

Since it was declared that the Mass of Pope Pius the V was to be the mass in perpetuity (forever) it became doctrine.

If Pope Paul VI could decide that the doctrine on the Mass could be changed and declared as mere discipline, it would not surprise me to see Rome do the same in regards to other issues BUT with that being said, I would be very disappointed if they did, and I pray that the Holy Spirit keeps it from ever happening as I don’t support the the idea of women priests, nor do I support the use of birth control. In fact even in regards to the Mass, I don’t see a problem with the Post-Vatican II Mass even though I disagree with how it came about. I also support Rome, and I especially support Pope Benedict. I look forward to the ecumenism that he supports.

This is my final response on this issue and anything in this thread targetted at me will be considered baiting. If you would like to discuss things further, I will accept Private Messages.

God Bless

 

[Peace-bwu]

snowman10:

What if, hypothetically, a Pope said “The Church now approves of birth control and women ordination”? Would that mean that the Church really is not protected by Christ?

DU

p.s. I bring this up on the issue of Papal Infallability

It will never happen.

Even when there were “bad” popes, they did not change doctrine, they were more concerned with their own money and power, not doctrine, because it is protected by the Holy Spirit. and the “bad” popes were at a time when there were great saints and were followed by great renewal in the Church. All men are human, even popes, but the doctrine is protected. The morality about birth control, abortion, homosexual marriage etc. was hammered out in the first centuries, the doctrine can’t change with the times because it was passed on from Jesus to the Apostles and protected today. It bugs me when I hear newscasters interviewing Church members about whether the new Pope will be liberal, (trying to fit our modern day political interpretation of “liberal”) as if he can change the core doctrine Apostolic Tradition of the Church to be more “modern!” These issues have been around for thousands of years, they are just coming back into popularity in our culture. The church can’t change the laws of God to fit the whims of the people, it doesn’t work that way. The pope won’t do this.

 

[Ghosty]

This is my final response on this issue and anything in this thread targetted at me will be considered baiting. If you would like to discuss things further, I will accept Private Messages.

Public attacks on the Church that refuse public response? Nice.