FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians (/showthread.php?tid=48895)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - devotedknuckles - 09-23-2011

So do you believe 1777 thstvthebpope is either a Jew oe a mohamadan as he has prayed wih both? Afer all u sem to argue going onu NO makes one a pod bastard?
Facinsting
sip
ah yes jaynke. I'd be on titanic doing exactly that as u would be bitching  in the background the " captains the csptians and the titanic isnt sinking. As that's a  rather simplistic take on he situation"
so your lips would flap
Sip


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - devotedknuckles - 09-23-2011

Spare me jaynke
rubbish pure rubbish
nonit would not be rhe same if th NO ne'er was. Hardly. Tht demonstrates a serio lack of fsith.
Your fsith must be thstvof z paper tiger or eorde
sad
u have the big words yet not the big Meaning . U hav th paperwork and rubber stampa but it all shadow no substance
your fsith is a Potemkin viklige by the sounds of it
sad



Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - INPEFESS - 09-23-2011

(09-23-2011, 03:18 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-23-2011, 08:46 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 09:18 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 08:40 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 08:31 PM)JMartyr Wrote: I think it is amazing that the original general instruction on the NO was changed to sound more orthodox, but the mass itself remained the same.

At the very least, it echoes the intentions of the council. It was approved by the pope himself.

It was only later changed because of the reaction it received.

But the question here is important: the original meaning is what they actually intended it to mean, and they approved it with (allegedly) the authority of Almighty God.

I don't care so much what the new definition says. They are only trying to please all parties involved so as not to lose half the Church. Their original definition is indicative of the intentions of the authors and the principles of the whole Novus Ordo; and it is manifestly anti-Catholic.
The GIRM teaches at the level of Church discipline.  It is not definitive teaching with the authority of God.

The disciplines of the Church aren't legislated by the authority of God? Even the laws of state are legislated with the authority of God. They, however, are not protected in the same way the Church is, so if the state "binds" something against the law of God, it does not actually bind because God cannot bind Himself against God.

The Church, however, is protected from binding against God: She cannot bind a discipline that is contrary to the teachings of the Faith. This is known as secondary infallibility.

The passage in the GIRM you find so objectionable is not a doctrinal definition so it is not in the form of a doctrinal definition.  There was nothing in it that contradicts Church teaching.  Again you seem to be grasping at straws to come up with something to criticize.

I am not grasping at straws; you simply don't understand the point.

No, it is not a doctrinal definition. But it is the underlying theology of the new liturgy that is being discussed. That theology is not Catholic, yet it was promulgated with the purported authority of the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo has made the nouvelle theologie its theology. That theology is condemned by the power of God through His Church. Yet you support this novel program (and its liturgy) as being authentically Catholic, despite the fact that it is based upon condemned theology.

Am I grasping at straws or are you not wanting to acknowledge the problem?


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - JayneK - 09-23-2011

(09-23-2011, 03:55 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: I actually had someone at my church the other day tell me that the focus on the TLM was a waste of time because despite the expansion of the TLM these past few years the Church hasn't gotten better.  I think this is a very sad statement.  It's like saying what did praying the rosary ever do.  The TLM is not a silver bullet and the NO isn't the cause of all the problems in the church.  But, one can't get around the fact that the NO isn't helping, and is probably making things worse.  The NO doesn't deny Catholic theology, but it does significantly downplay many parts of theology that were front and center in the old mass. The Virgin Mary, the saints, the trinity, man's sinful nature, and transubstantiation are all things that get downplayed in the new mass in favor of a focus on community.  Nothing wrong with community, but it is problem the emphasis on community is so great that many Catholics don't believe the Virgin was ever virgin, don't understand the basics of the trinity, don't understand why confession is important and what a mortal sin is, and don't believe in transubstantiation.  Maybe we would be in the same boat if the TLM had stayed, but at least you couldn't fault the mass for not trying to educate people in the faith. 

The NO is a Catholic mass (perhaps by the skin of it's teeth), but we can do so so so much better than that. 

I think this is a very good analysis.  I agree that the NO does not present Catholic theology as well as the TLM does.  I wonder, though, if the superior theology of the TLM would really do much make up for the abysmal state of Catholic education.  At any rate, improving liturgy is one of the needs of the Church and increased access to the TLM will help with that.  This is one reason (going back to the original topic) the regularization of the SSPX would be such a good thing.  It will allow more people to attend the TLM.




Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - JayneK - 09-23-2011

(09-23-2011, 05:43 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: ..

I am not grasping at straws; you simply don't understand the point.

No, it is not a doctrinal definition. But it is the underlying theology of the new liturgy that is being discussed. That theology is not Catholic, yet it was promulgated with the purported authority of the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo has made the nouvelle theologie its theology. That theology is condemned by the power of God through His Church. Yet you support this novel program (and its liturgy) as being authentically Catholic, despite the fact that it is based upon condemned theology.

Am I grasping at straws or are you not wanting to acknowledge the problem?

I am fairly sure that I understand you are claiming that the underlying theology of the GIRM is not Catholic.  I think you are wrong and that your argument is spurious.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - devotedknuckles - 09-23-2011

Don't think it prove it. U dsnt because u refuse to even look at rhe wvedence
again with a horse is  not r a horse and a mouth not mouth
neat trick




Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Someone1776 - 09-23-2011

DK your being inconsistent. If the NO is a prot bastard it stands to reason that the people are attending it are prot bastards too. I am trying to figure out how you can possibly not think they are.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - devotedknuckles - 09-23-2011

Not at all.
Is the pope a Jew because he prayed wih them?
Is he?
Your the one beign inconsistant.If what u argue  is true  (it is NOT) then the pope is a Jew as heprayed with Jews
mmmmmmm
odd don't irhink
the mass and human beings as Iindividual People are not the same thing. If u don't  Get that, u should pay all that loot back to your university  as u learned shit



Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - INPEFESS - 09-23-2011

(09-23-2011, 06:18 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-23-2011, 05:43 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: ..

I am not grasping at straws; you simply don't understand the point.

No, it is not a doctrinal definition. But it is the underlying theology of the new liturgy that is being discussed. That theology is not Catholic, yet it was promulgated with the purported authority of the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo has made the nouvelle theologie its theology. That theology is condemned by the power of God through His Church. Yet you support this novel program (and its liturgy) as being authentically Catholic, despite the fact that it is based upon condemned theology.

Am I grasping at straws or are you not wanting to acknowledge the problem?

I am fairly sure that I understand you are claiming that the underlying theology of the GIRM is not Catholic.  I think you are wrong and that your argument is spurious.

I have made a case, but you simply state that, in your opinion, it is wrong without demonstrating that you are right.

You are making claims about arguments being wrong, but you infrequently back them up. Please do so.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Someone1776 - 09-24-2011

(09-23-2011, 06:53 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Not at all.
Is the pope a Jew because he prayed wih them?
Is he?
Your the one beign inconsistant.If what u argue  is true  (it is NOT) then the pope is a Jew as heprayed with Jews
mmmmmmm
odd don't irhink
the mass and human beings as Iindividual People are not the same thing. If u don't  Get that, u should pay all that loot back to your university  as u learned shit

If the Pope solely prayed in synagogues and never attended a Catholic Mass....yes we might need to wonder if he was a Jew. 

Also I mostly went to school for free....so I guess you could say I got what I paid for.