A
Aragorn1
Guest
Because it was not a definition on faith or morals.
Would you like to see a phasing out of the Novus Ordo Missae leading to a return to only the TLM?
- Status
F
Freshman88
Guest
bingo.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Aragorn are you not aware that many of the Liturgical Abuses in the NO are blasphemous. I didn’t say that the Novus Ordo was Invalid or Illicit, however my point was that some of the heretic priests in the Church do make Sacraments received via Novus Ordo Invalid. Do you not understand that many innocent babies have been recently Baptized Invalidly? What if that was your child? Pope Benedict XVI did condemn this practice however it still happened before.
L
LilyM
Guest
As a practical matter Popes WILL not infallibly teach heresy or contradict Tradition or previous Popes, but I still want to see your evidence that Popes are actually bound by teachings of previous Popes or Councils.
As I said, I’m open to such, but everything I’ve read leads me to the opposite conclusion.
For that matter, the idea that Popes can teach heresy raises all sorts of problems. If Popes can indeed teach heresy, then how do we know that, for example, in a conflict between Pope Joe-joe I and Pope Pius V that it wasn’t Pius who was the heretic and Joe-joe actually teaching truth? What would happen if Joe-joe or his College of Cardinals solemnly declared Pius to have been a heretic?
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Define Faith. Faith means doctrine and dogma. I would well believe that the Mass form has something to do with Faith.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Let’s forget infallibility for just a minute. This was Benedict XVI’s description of the conclusions of the Eleventh Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which took place Oct. 2-23, 2005, in the Vatican:So you believe that the Church should continue to use the inferior Novus Ordo that is full of Liturgical Abuses causing blasphemy, Invalid Sacraments, and sometimes even Invalid Baptism?
“The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored.” (boldface mine: EasterJoy)
As my final post on this thread, having made it clear, I hope, that I don’t want to see the NO phased out but would submit to the Magesterium if it were phased out–and, for the record, would submit to the USCCB if they and only they of all bishops on the earth authoritatively disallowed it in the US only–I’m going to go out on a limb, here:
I believe them, not you.
If I’m going to have to go before the Throne of Heaven having been sold a pile of malarkey in place of the truth, I’m going to go before the Throne of Heaven having believed the Magesterium, not you. If that makes me a neo-something or a stooge or liberal idiot or a half-traditional-hybrid-disgrace or I don’t care what else, so be it. I’ll have to throw myself on the mercy of God for worse than this when I die, of that I’m sure.
You have not made your case with me, and so I choose obedience. So shoot me.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
If a Pope contradicts the Infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church he is then a heretic. That is what a heretic is. Church Tradition cannot be changed.
“Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.” (First Vatican Council)
“faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith” (First Vatican Council)
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Easter Joy,
The question was would you rather see the Novus Ordo go away and my answer is yes.
The question was would you rather see the Novus Ordo go away and my answer is yes.
L
LilyM
Guest
Just what I said - pronouncements of current Popes as a practical matter will not conflict with those of past Popes.
But I edited my post - I’m more interested in how you’d resolve the conflict I described. Assuming one Pope pronounces contrary to another, if the current Pope can be a heretic in his pronouncements, so could past Popes have been heretics in theirs. How to determine which Pope is the heretic?
F
Freshman88
Guest
Adherence to Orthodoxy and tradition.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Thank You. So many people here have been supporting the “Pope can do whatever he wants stuff”. The Pope is a Fallible person just like you and me.
P
pnewton
Guest
L
LilyM
Guest
Whose orthodoxy? Whose tradition? Whose definition of both?
In what way was Pius being orthodox when he presumed to bind future popes to allow the TLM in perpetuity? That certainly, if I understand rightly, was an unprecedented and unorthodox use of the Papal prerogatives.
What of an instance like the Immaculate Conception - plenty of evidence for and against. Or the doctrine of Papal Infallibility itself? Also plenty of evidence both for and against.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
If a Pope taught heresy it would have to be compared to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. For instance if a Pope said there is Salvation outside of the Church this would obvioussly be heresy. Lets say for example he taught it to the entire Church and said that everyone must believe this de fide. Well the Church would look at the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and see that this statement contradicted Magisterium and was thus heresy and wrong. His statement wouldn’t be Infallible because it was heresy.
However on the purpose of Pope St. Pius V, what he said in no way contradicted the Magisterium so it was indeed Infallible. If a Pope was to declare him a heretic, he could not as Pope St. Pius V was teaching in accordance to the Magisterium.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
You will be in my prayers during adoration tomorrow morning.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
J
JReducation
Guest
**From the very first, upon Our elevation to the chief Apostleship, We gladly turned our mind and energies and directed all out thoughts to those matters which concerned the preservation of a pure liturgy, and We strove with God’s help, by every means in our power, to accomplish this purpose. For, besides other decrees of the sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God’s help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper - for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass - We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible.
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
It is Our will, therefore, and by the same authority, We decree that, after We publish this constitution and the edition of the Missal, the priests of the Roman Curia are, after thirty days, obliged to chant or read the Mass according to it; all others south of the Alps, after three months; and those beyond the Alps either within six months or whenever the Missal is available for sale.
(Quo Primum)**
Lest we all become confused, let us observe two things in Quo Primum.
First: In the opening paragraph Pope Pius V makes it clear that his intention was liturgical reform.
Second: In the second paragraph he speaks of who may not make changes to the Roman rite, he does not include his successors the popes. He stops at the Cardinals and those who hold other offices in the Church.
Third: In the closing paragraph he makes it very clear that this is a reformation of the liturgy and a liturgical constitution. He does not apply infallibility to it or use the word dogma of faith anywhere in the document.
The dogma of faith is the Eucharist, not the rubrics. Therefore, no pope who succeeds Pius V is bound by this Constitution. Everyone else is, unless the Pope abrogates it. Benedict XVI has made it clear that the Roman missal was never abrogated, but that the Tridentine form of the mass is the Extraordinary Form and the Novus Ordo is now the Ordinary Form of the Roman rite. Both co-exist harmoniously.
There is another weakness in San Rafael’s defense of the Tridentine mass. It was also the intention of the Church that the Missal and the Breviary would be in perfect harmony. I have not seen San Rafael defend the order of the Breviary in any form.
You cannot try to maintain the Tridentine mass without the Tridentine Breviary. They go hand in hand. Therefore, the Church today is working to restore the Tridentine form of both mass and breviary as extraordinary form of liturgy and the newer form of the mass and breviary as the ordinary form of liturgy.
If you are truly a traditionalist, why are you ignoring half of the liturgy? You have said nothing about the Breviary.
To understand liturgy properly, Catholics must understand both the mass and the breviary and how they are inseparable in the lives of Catholics and the Church.
You cannot talk about restoring the mass without the Liturgy of the Hours. It would be incomplete liturgy.
JR
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
It is Our will, therefore, and by the same authority, We decree that, after We publish this constitution and the edition of the Missal, the priests of the Roman Curia are, after thirty days, obliged to chant or read the Mass according to it; all others south of the Alps, after three months; and those beyond the Alps either within six months or whenever the Missal is available for sale.
(Quo Primum)**
Lest we all become confused, let us observe two things in Quo Primum.
First: In the opening paragraph Pope Pius V makes it clear that his intention was liturgical reform.
Second: In the second paragraph he speaks of who may not make changes to the Roman rite, he does not include his successors the popes. He stops at the Cardinals and those who hold other offices in the Church.
Third: In the closing paragraph he makes it very clear that this is a reformation of the liturgy and a liturgical constitution. He does not apply infallibility to it or use the word dogma of faith anywhere in the document.
The dogma of faith is the Eucharist, not the rubrics. Therefore, no pope who succeeds Pius V is bound by this Constitution. Everyone else is, unless the Pope abrogates it. Benedict XVI has made it clear that the Roman missal was never abrogated, but that the Tridentine form of the mass is the Extraordinary Form and the Novus Ordo is now the Ordinary Form of the Roman rite. Both co-exist harmoniously.
There is another weakness in San Rafael’s defense of the Tridentine mass. It was also the intention of the Church that the Missal and the Breviary would be in perfect harmony. I have not seen San Rafael defend the order of the Breviary in any form.
You cannot try to maintain the Tridentine mass without the Tridentine Breviary. They go hand in hand. Therefore, the Church today is working to restore the Tridentine form of both mass and breviary as extraordinary form of liturgy and the newer form of the mass and breviary as the ordinary form of liturgy.
If you are truly a traditionalist, why are you ignoring half of the liturgy? You have said nothing about the Breviary.
To understand liturgy properly, Catholics must understand both the mass and the breviary and how they are inseparable in the lives of Catholics and the Church.
You cannot talk about restoring the mass without the Liturgy of the Hours. It would be incomplete liturgy.
JR
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Papal Infallibility has always existed from St. Peter onwards. The First Vatican Council merely described it. Pope St. Pius V merely stated it because he saw the chance that someone could get rid of it and he wanted it to last forever. If he believed that what he said was not Infallible then there would be no purpose in saying it. He knew that one must stay faithful to the Magisterium.
Many Early Church Fathers agreed with the Immaculate Conception, however not all did, however this is a different story in itself. However I took a long look for instances of Papal Infallibility and I can assure you that it always existed. As long as you understand Vatican I and don’t take it for something that it isn’t as many “Neo-Catholics” do.
L
LilyM
Guest
I see problems with this - a tendency to divorce the Popes from the Magisterium as if they themselves aren’t part of that very Magisterium, and in fact the most important part, since they as individuals DO enjoy the charism of infallibilty and Magisterial authority to a unique degree (for the record, I do not say absolutely).
And binding Popes to previous Popes and Councils as though whoever pronounces first upon an issue or a doctrine is somehow more infallible then their successors who may expand and further refine that doctrine.
With every new Papal pronouncement, unless it be mere repetition of what has been taught by previous Popes and Councils, comes the opportunity to teach heresy, if we believe your view, and anything that can’t be verified against previous Popes and Councils could potentially be heresy, if we are to believe your view. Which is ridiculous - Popes and Councils do and always have taught ‘outside the box’ of their predecessors, and taught infallibly as well.
So how are we to believe 90% of what any Pope purports to infallibly teach, even when they declare it ex cathedra and all the rest?
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
An Infallible statement doesn’t have to use the words Infallible JR 
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Lily,
it seems as if you don’t agree that Popes are bound to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. A Pope is only Infallible when teaching with the Magisterium. Otherwise they are fallible people.
it seems as if you don’t agree that Popes are bound to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. A Pope is only Infallible when teaching with the Magisterium. Otherwise they are fallible people.
- Status