Would you like to see a phasing out of the Novus Ordo Missae leading to a return to only the TLM?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lovesMary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes some of us are “hung-up on the language” because the language of the Roman rite is Latin even to this day. This is for good reason too. The use of a liturgical language is an ancient practice having its roots in the liturgy of the ancient Israelites. To resort to the vernacular is to throw-out this development and to boldly claim that our generation knows better than those who preserved the use of a liturgical language within the liturgy.

It has nothing to do with pride and everything to do with a desire to uphold the nature of the liturgy.
Ahh but do we live for little details in the Liturgy (the language), or for Christ and his Church?
Latin is a dead language , and for some people (like me) a hard language to learn. Most parishes in the world celebrate the mass in the vernacular, not because they’re trying to crush what our ancestors developed or prove they are better but in order that they can understand better the liturgy because its in their own language. It doesnt matter what language the mass is celebrated in as long as the people can understand and actively participate as outlined in Vatican II.
 
Ahh but do we live for little details in the Liturgy (the language), or for Christ and his Church?
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.

We live for Christ and the Church, hence why we must care for every little detail in the liturgy, for each prayer, practice and custom gives life to the Church. It is by these very prayers that Church becomes exactly that, the Church. Without these liturgical prayers and customs the Church ceases to be.

That is how fundamental the liturgy is.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
 
Next time I’ll be sure to bold this part.

I never said that NO was impious or leads to impiety instead I merely provided an example as to how it would be possible that Church members could promulgate an impious liturgy.
Church members as individuals or small groups yes. As a practical matter, since Trent no liturgy has been promulgated by individuals or small groups - rather they’ve come from the Pope and the collectivity of the world’s bishops. And I don’t see any situation in the future in which a Bishop or anyone else would attempt to actually promulgate (publish as opposed to just improvising and using privately) forms of liturgy other than those handed down by the Magisterium.

To clarify, finally, for anyone who doubts, both the NO and TLM enjoy the protection to which Quo Primum refers.
 
Church members as individuals or small groups yes. As a practical matter, since Trent no liturgy has been promulgated by individuals or small groups - rather they’ve come from the Pope and the collectivity of the world’s bishops. And I don’t see any situation in the future in which a Bishop or anyone else would attempt to actually promulgate (publish as opposed to just using) forms of liturgy other than those handed down by the Magisterium.
You misunderstood me, or it is the more likely case that I was not clear enough.

Let’s suppouse a future Pope, say, Pope Joe-joe I, all of the sudden issues a barney-mass. As you could probably gather yourself, this “barney-mass” leads to impiety.

In such a case, Pope Joe-Joe I and his supporters acted outside of the Church and there is then a liturgy being supported by Church members but not being supported by the Church in its truest sense.
 
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
…Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
If CAF got a dollar for everytime some tried to use this saying to prove a point, they would need no other support. The only problem is it never proves a thing. It only begs the question. The prayers of the ordinary form are also orthodox theology.
 
This is the great error that lays at the very heart of the current crisis in the liturgy.
If the practices, customs, and traditions of the liturgy are nothing more than “fluff and nonesense”, then the liturgy is no longer a deposit of faith. Indeed the liturgy can only be a deposit of faith in as much as it transmits those ancient practices. Discard this “fluff” and you throw-out one of the most fundamental characters of the liturgy.
Indeed your post seems to fly in the face of that ancient law “lex orandi, lex credendi”. “The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.” The key there is the Church believes as she prays - She does not pray as she believes. In other words, the Church cannot treat these pious customs as “fluff” that would be a fundamental error.
In any case, I think this part of my post is much more interesting. I am curious as to how you or anyone else would respond to this.
 
You misunderstood me, or it is the more likely case that I was not clear enough.

If a future Pope, say, Pope Joe-joe I, all of the sudden issues a barney-mass. As you could probably gather yourself, this “barney-mass” leads to impiety.

In such a case, Pope Joe-Joe I and his supporters acted outside of the Church and there is then a liturgy being supported by Church members but not being supported by the Church in its truest sense.
Nu-uh. Joe-joe I is protected by the charism of infallibility, surely, from doing such a thing, on such critical issue as the form of the Mass, as are the collectivity of the world’s Bishops if they act in unity with him (and sometimes if they act collectively without him too), they being also of the Magisterium.

Infallibilty attaches to the holders of certain offices by virtue of those offices, not to some mythic Church that exists outside of those individuals. Christ didn’t promise simply to lead some vague amorphous body into all truth, rather He promised this to specific individuals - namely the Apostles and their successors.

Of course you could argue that Pope Joe-joe was mad or something and thus his proposal of a Barney Mass wasn’t a true exercise of Papal Infallibility.
 
If CAF got a dollar for everytime some tried to use this saying to prove a point, they would need no other support. The only problem is it never proves a thing. It only begs the question. The prayers of the ordinary form are also orthodox theology.
Then you misunderstand lex orandi lex credendi.

IT is not a question of whether the beliefs are orthodox or not, or if the paryers are themselves orthodox, but rather the origin and nature of those prayers.
 
Nu-uh. Joe-joe I is protected by the charism of infallibility, surely, from doing such a thing, on such critical issue as the form of the Mass, as are the collectivity of the world’s Bishops if they act in unity with him (and sometimes if they act collectively without him too), they being also of the Magisterium.

Infallibilty attaches to the holders of certain offices by virtue of those offices, not to some mythic Church that exists outside of those individuals. Christ didn’t promise simply to lead some vague amorphous body into all truth, rather He promised this to specific individuals - namely the Apostles and their successors.

Of course you could argue that Pope Joe-joe was mad or something and thus his proposal of a Barney Mass wasn’t a true exercise of Papal Infallibility.
If the pope contradicts a teaching, doctrine or council, then the action is no longer infallible.
 
Then you misunderstand lex orandi lex credendi.

IT is not a question of whether the beliefs are orthodox or not, or if the paryers are themselves orthodox, but rather the origin and nature of those prayers.
No I do not. I could accuse you of misunderstanding begging the question. I have learned it is best not to accuse others of not understanding something when you don’t know them.
 
I would love to see the Novus Ordo completely phased out. The Tridentine Mass brought me to the Roman Catholic Church some forty years ago. I was a little Presbyterian boy who was so very curious about it all…and once I attended Mass with a little friend, I had received a good dose of grace which led me to eventually enter the seminary, just at the close of Vatican II.

The Holy Catholic Church did fine for centuries before the Pauline Mass. It is an inferior product, concocted by Protestant theologians so as not to offend anyone not of Traditional Catholic persuasion. The whole concept has eroded the faith of millions.

See it disappear? By all means. But I know it will not happen. People will just stop going to church at all before the powers that be discontinue the Novus Ordo.

Greg
 
No I do not. I could accuse you of misunderstanding begging the question.
Lex orandi Lex Credendi - the law of faith is the law of belief.

The order in which they are presented is not accidental.

I’ll be getting back to my exams now, but, I’ll be sure to create a thread in the future discussing this principle.
 
I am sincerely trying to follow this logic, but your premesis in your first and second paragraph contradict each other and it seems circular to me. What am I missing.
Prayers & blessisngs
Deacon Ed B
I’m trying to say that a heretical Pope cannot say something with the intention of it being Infallible if the statement that he proclaims is heresy.
 
This is a common argument that I come across.

What is more important, avoiding an argument or seeking the truth? If a certain action is the right thing to do then the Church has an obligation to do so. If an abrupt change could lead to schism, then the Church should make the change with charity and patience, but the fear of schism is a call for charity and patience, not a reason to drop changes which concern the well-being of souls.
Nice point.
 
If the pope contradicts a teaching, doctrine or council, then the action is no longer infallible.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"EXPLANATION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
The Vatican Council has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra – that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church – is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent” (Densinger no. 1839 – old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:

what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church’s in order to be infallible.
infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see D size=-2>EFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible. "

No mention there of the Pope being bound by previous Councils or tradition. In fact the opposite, Councils have declared themselves bound by Papal teaching. From the same article:

"* the Fathers of Ephesus (431) declare that they “are compelled” to condemn the heresy of Nestorius “by the sacred canons and by the letter of our holy father and co-minister, Celestine the Bishop of Rome.”
  • Twenty years later (451) the Fathers of Chalcedon, after hearing Leo’s letter read, make themselves responsible for the statement: “so do we all believe . . . Peter has spoken through Leo.”
  • More than two centuries later, at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), the same formula is repeated: “Peter has spoken through Agatho.”
  • After the lapse of still two other centuries, and shortly before the Photian schism, the profession of faith drawn up by Pope Hormisdas was accepted by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), and in this profession, it is stated that, by virtue of Christ’s promise: “Thou art Peter, etc.”; "the Catholic
religion is preserved inviolable in the Apostolic See."

De facto, though, whatever Popes teach infallibly will be in accord both with prior councils and tradition.

And the Holy Spirit certainly works to protect the unity of Church teaching - one Pope, for example, died shortly before he was due to promulgate a Bible translation that was full of errors. But that’s neither here nor there.

I’m open, though, to see your evidence that Popes ARE so bound.
.
 
I agree with some other people here. The statement made by Pope St. Pius V was Infallible and Ex Cathedra. How could you say that it is not.
 
I was referring to your attitude towards those who would leave the Church.
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? :eek:
 
Nu-uh. Joe-joe I is protected by the charism of infallibility, surely, from doing such a thing, on such critical issue as the form of the Mass, as are the collectivity of the world’s Bishops if they act in unity with him (and sometimes if they act collectively without him too), they being also of the Magisterium.

Infallibilty attaches to the holders of certain offices by virtue of those offices, not to some mythic Church that exists outside of those individuals. Christ didn’t promise simply to lead some vague amorphous body into all truth, rather He promised this to specific individuals - namely the Apostles and their successors.

Of course you could argue that Pope Joe-joe was mad or something and thus his proposal of a Barney Mass wasn’t a true exercise of Papal Infallibility.
Infallibility cannot contradict Tradition, so Joe-Joe could not teach heresy like this. He could not claim heresy to be Infallible because heresy cannot be Infallible.
 
So you believe that the Church should continue to use the inferior Novus Ordo
For the record, yes. And I don’t believe it is inferior. But that wasn’t the point. I was shocked that you could express such indifference towards people leaving the Church (“that’s their problem”!), just because you wanted a form of Mass to be abolished.
that is full of Liturgical Abuses
You’ve committed Saint Rafael’s Blunder. I don’t approve of liturgical abuses. I want the OF as it was promulgated, with no abuses attached.
causing blasphemy,
Sez who?
Invalid Sacraments,
:eek:
and sometimes even Invalid Baptism? :eek:
:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top