FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Restored Order of Sacraments - Oops!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
In looking at the issues we have in the Church today, I found that Pius X changed the order of the sacraments, and now some are trying to change them back.

https://dioceseofgallup.org/restoring-th...nitiation/

This doesn't leave me feeling like I joined the Church that holds to the Apostles all the time for two reasons:

1.  They seem to feel the Papal authority allows any changes deemed fit.

2.  When they "restore" things they are restoring to they year 600 or 800, yet the goal should be Apostolic ways if the Church is one, holy, and Apostolic.   That would mean giving all the sacraments of initiation at once as the article admits, and as the Orthodox still do.

When coupled with the massive change of the liturgy, and the influx of the Charismatic movement, it feels like Catholicism can and does change a lot.  What do you make of Pius X sacrament order changing?  And what should it be restored to?
I don't think you understand the difference between refining a tradition and fundamentally changing one. For example, do you honestly believe any of the liturgies we have are direct copies of what the Apostles used? Of course not. If that were the case, then the Novus Ordo is more accurate than the Roman Rite and Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom because it returns to the banquet format. But this isn't true because the Novus Ordo fundamentally changes the essence of the Mass from a sacrifice to a communal banquet.

St. Pius X changing the order of the sacraments does not change the essence of the sacraments. They are still just as efficacious and licit in one order as they were in another. Having a desire to return completely to an earlier practice of the Church is antiquarianism and can lead to novelties in doctrine. Novelty is a core problem with the current order of Mass and doctrine in the Conciliar Church.

Pius XII warns against antiquarianism in his encyclical "Mediator Dei:"

"62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation."

If supposed "innovations" are your main concern with Catholicism, yet you claim mainline Orthodoxy supposedly never innovates, then why not mention the Old Believers and the reforms of Patriarch Nikon of Moscow in the 17th century?
I guess some things just raise flags for me. When I look a the state of the Church it's pretty hard.

Like mandatory celibacy - that was not the rule of the Apostles nor of Jesus. So who's rule is it? I just have a hard time making peace with doing some things in a way that Jesus and the Apostles didn't.
(05-24-2019, 10:43 AM)Markie Boy Wrote: [ -> ]I guess some things just raise flags for me. When I look a the state of the Church it's pretty hard.

Like mandatory celibacy - that was not the rule of the Apostles nor of Jesus. So who's rule is it? I just have a hard time making peace with doing some things in a way that Jesus and the Apostles didn't.
Remember that Christ asked the Apostles to give up all that they had to come follow Him. St. Peter had a wife and family which he clearly left in order to preach the Gospel. And Christ Himself was celibate you must remember. Since the ordained priest is traditionally meant to be a "little Christ" it comes with the role to maintain complete detachment from the world and to wed themselves to Christ through the Church. The sacrament of Holy Orders is essentially a marriage between the priest and Christ through the Church. Therefore, in order to fully commit to the priesthood, a priest cannot have attachments such as a wife and family of his own as his parish and parishioners become his family.
That all sounds OK at first - but there are Eastern Catholic rites that have never broken with Rome, and have never abandoned the earliest way of married priesthood as an option.
(05-24-2019, 11:30 AM)Markie Boy Wrote: [ -> ]That all sounds OK at first - but there are Eastern Catholic rites that have never broken with Rome, and have never abandoned the earliest way of married priesthood as an option.
Yeah, but I think we're getting away from the topic at hand here.
(05-24-2019, 11:30 AM)Markie Boy Wrote: [ -> ]That all sounds OK at first - but there are Eastern Catholic rites that have never broken with Rome, and have never abandoned the earliest way of married priesthood as an option.

I’m sure that you’re aware of the fact that Orthodox (and Byzantine Rite Catholic) bishops cannot be married? They’ve usually (with some exceptions) taken monastic vows before they’re ordained bishops.

We Orthodox don’t view the distinction so much as a matter of married vs celibate. Instead we view the distinction as married vs monastic.

Such as distinction makes a huge difference. Celibacy is hard, but adding additional disciplines (such as regular ascesis, prayer, poverty, etc.) makes celibacy only one cross out of many. Incidentally, with so many other crosses, the question of celibacy becomes far less relevant.  

If the Catholic Church wants to maintain celibate clergy, then it should make priestly life stricter along monastic lines (poverty, ascesis, etc.) in addition to the celibacy requirement, even for priests who are not part of any religious order.
(05-24-2019, 09:04 AM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]If supposed "innovations" are your main concern with Catholicism, yet you claim mainline Orthodoxy supposedly never innovates, then why not mention the Old Believers and the reforms of Patriarch Nikon of Moscow in the 17th century?

First, the Nikonian changes weren’t ecumenical, i.e. they took place only within the Moscow Patriarchate. Second, the changes’ were motivated by a desire to conform to the older, correct practices of the Greeks, which had been lost through typological errors. Modern scholarship indicates that Nikon's belief in the antiquity and propriety of Greek practice was factually incorrect. But you can see his logic. Third, the scope of changes, when compared to even Pius X’s revision of the Breviary, was minimal (obviously not to the Russians, but since we’re comparing).

- the two-finger sign of the cross, received by Russia along with Christianity, as part of the holy apostolic tradition, was replaced with the three-finger sign;
- the name of our Savior, conventionally spelled, Isus, was unaesthetically converted to, Iisus;
- the clockwise procession around the church was reversed; 
- the word, True, was deleted from the Creed, with reference to the Life-giving Holy Spirit;
-the double Alleluia was replaced by a triple pronouncement;
- two of the seven prosphorae used in Divine Liturgy were negated.


Finally, the Moscow Patriarchate has lifted the anathemas against the Old Believers. Moreover, a Edinoverie (”one faith”) arrangement exists (since the 18th century) whereby the Old Believers can retain their rites within the canonical structures of the Russian Orthodox Church. These Old Believers are referred to as ”Staroobriadtsy” (Old Ritualists).

But the point remains, that the Old Believer controversy happened only in the Russian lands, not in other Orthodox lands. The Catholic innovations, on the other hand, where devised in Rome and imposed globally. Big difference.
Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose, in Heaven and on Earth, to St. Peter and the apostles with him.  Either that considerable authority has been passed on and the Church continues, or it hasn't been passed on and the Church doesn't continue.  If the authority is still here and the Church with it, then St. Peter's successors can issue new rules and laws, so long as they do not contradict Divine law.  I see nowhere in Divine law where marriage is commanded.  Nor do I see anywhere in Divine law that dictates the order of sacraments.  So, the issue, at least for me, isn't "who changed what, when, why, etc."  The question is who can make the decisions and who can't.  There are really only two plausible candidates for the one true Church that Jesus Christ founded, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.  But I do not think you can answer the question of which one is the true Church by examining how each one has changed or modified various Apostolic traditions.  Both have done so.   For me, the issue has always boiled down to the claims about the Papacy.  If the Catholic teaching on the Pope and his role in the Church is correct, it rules out the EO as the true Church.  If, however, the Catholic teaching on the Pope is incorrect, the answer is settled, I think, in favor of the EO.  I've noticed you've started several threads on that subject, the Papacy that is.  I haven't followed them very closely, sorry, but I'd continue working on that question, seeking a thorough study (if that hasn't been done, yet).  Unless you've already decided to leave the Catholic Church, I think questions like the ones in this thread are only going to distract you from finding the answer that you seek.  I really sympathize with your position, as it is one that I've found myself in at one time.
(05-24-2019, 12:51 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: [ -> ]Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose, in Heaven and on Earth, to St. Peter and the apostles with him.  Either that considerable authority has been passed on and the Church continues, or it hasn't been passed on and the Church doesn't continue.  If the authority is still here and the Church with it, then St. Peter's successors can issue new rules and laws, so long as they do not contradict Divine law.  I see nowhere in Divine law where marriage is commanded.  Nor do I see anywhere in Divine law that dictates the order of sacraments.  So, the issue, at least for me, isn't "who changed what, when, why, etc."  The question is who can make the decisions and who can't.  There are really only two plausible candidates for the one true Church that Jesus Christ founded, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.  But I do not think you can answer the question of which one is the true Church by examining how each one has changed or modified various Apostolic traditions.  Both have done so.   For me, the issue has always boiled down to the claims about the Papacy.  If the Catholic teaching on the Pope and his role in the Church is correct, it rules out the EO as the true Church.  If, however, the Catholic teaching on the Pope is incorrect, the answer is settled, I think, in favor of the EO.  I've noticed you've started several threads on that subject, the Papacy that is.  I haven't followed them very closely, sorry, but I'd continue working on that question, seeking a thorough study (if that hasn't been done, yet).  Unless you've already decided to leave the Catholic Church, I think questions like the ones in this thread are only going to distract you from finding the answer that you seek.  I really sympathize with your position, as it is one that I've found myself in at one time.

You’re right about the papacy. I decided after much prayer, contemplation, reading, etc. that the papacy is false. Hence, I became Orthodox. Each will have to make such a journey, with a variety of results. I only leave the following question for those contemplating such decisions; does truth come from authority, or does authority come from alignment with the truth?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6