Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians
(09-21-2011, 09:15 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 08:36 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 06:37 PM)JayneK Wrote: The Mass is extremely rich in meaning.

And the meaning has already been explained and defined. It can only be specified further. It can't evolve into a new meaning or purpose.

Quote:  Expanding on what was said at Trent to include other traditional ideas on the Mass is perfectly reasonable and orthodox.

Then please provide evidence that the common practice of the Church is to change (rather than further specify) Her traditional teachings to suit the needs of the time.

The Church specifies concepts within an already-infallible definition. It answers challenges to the meanings of the words themselves. It doesn't apply new concepts or new ideas to what has already been infallibly defined.

The Mass is Christ's sacrifice on the cross made present.  It is also a gathering a God's people.  It is also a foretaste of the Heavenly Banquet.  It is also an opportunity to receive Grace.  It is also an opportunity for the faithful to be instructed.  It is also the supreme prayer of the Church. It is also the New Passover. It is also the Lord's Supper. Etc. 

But the Mass is the Sacrifice; it's purpose is to make propitiation for sin. This is what Trent already defined. There are other functions of the Mass as well, but without they sacrifice they are ineffective. It is a sacrifice first and foremost. It is not a gathering first and foremost to celebrate Christ's presence among the people.   

Quote:The Church's teaching on the Mass has many, many things to say.  There was nothing in the GIRM that was a new teaching or a change to tradition or a contradiction of what went before, even if it did not use the exact same wording as Trent. 

You have not provided evidence. You are simply making claims. Find that definition of the Mass taught by the magisterium of the Church throughout all the ages pre-Vatican II--including Trent--and I'll concede that this just a reiteration of what the Church has always and everywhere taught.

Quote:From my perspective, you keep seeing problems that aren't really there.  You seem to be looking for the most negative way to interpret what is said and done in the Church. And you certainly look to me like you already have your conclusion.  I am not going to accept anything just because you say it.  You have absolutely no authority in yourself.  Your words can only have value to me if you are able to convince me of their truth.  When I weigh what you write against what I know of Church teaching, I conclude that you are wrong.

The Church teaching is being contradicted whether you like it or not. I have shown this to you in black and white and you find excuses to get yourself off the hook. This is not weighing what I write against what you know of the Church; this is you not wanting to have to deal with evidence.

You are making claims (that this has always been the teaching of the Church) and then not backing them up. Intellectual honesty demands that you stop side-stepping the words of the Church, which I have been providing to you over the past several months, and actually deal with them. Instead, you simply say: "Oh, these three pages of text is only saying simply x," when it is written in black and white that they are explaining in great detail that they are saying y. They don't mean x because you say they mean x. The words say what they say, JayneK. They don't say something different because you want them to.

The Novus Ordo teaches, in its own words, that "non-Catholic Christians are therefore not outside of the one church." It uses those exact words. I have shown you this before.

That is a black and white denial of the Church's teaching, and it appeals to the ambiguity of Vatican II to teach that error. And Benedict XVI stated in black and white that the said-ambiguity (that everyone tries to justify by interpreting it "in the light of tradition") of Vatican II was intentional for the purpose of facilitating the teachings of those same texts that now deny the teachings of the Catholic Church. You can make excuses all day long, but at the end of the day, the denial is still there in black and white and so is the intention to do it. It doesn't go away because you think that I am reading too much into things.

What if tomorrow BXVI stated that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not the mother of God? Would you tell me that I'm just perceiving problems where there really are none? What do words mean if not what they mean?

What is the point of having teachings of the Church necessary for the salvation of all if we haven't the competence to even know what they mean, to understand the basic truths of the Faith, or to recognize error when we see it? How do we know we aren't in error if no-one really knows what error is? How is there a unity of faith if no-one can know what the Faith is? How can we avoid error if we aren't even able to know truth--because it is, as you say, too complex to really know what truth is?

The Church has told us that we are permitted to use Her teachings to recognize even subtle error. You seem to disagree. And so out of obedience to the hierarchy today you seem to forsake obedience to the entire hierarchy of the Church for the past 2000 years, including St. Paul himself, who says that we are to recognize even perversions of the truth (not outright denials of it) and then consider such a person to be anathema. 

Quote:It is a basic principle of theology that one ought to start with the presupposition that the magisterium is correct.

It is a basic principle of logic that one ought to start with one's premise.

You, however, assume that this is the magisterium when that is the very point being debated.

The magisterium is pristine. If only one error is taught using the teaching authority of the Church, it cannot be the magisterium.

If a cardinal tells me the magisterium says that the Blessed Virgin Mary is not the mother of God and then hands me some document confirming it with BXVI's signature on it, I'm obviously going to reject it as not being from the authentic magisterium. I don't care what men signed it. "We ought to obey God rather than men." The ordinary magisterium cannot teach errors pertaining to the Faith. It is impossible. That is an eternal truth. If something claiming to be the magisterium contains error, then (1) either the Catholic Church is false, or (2) it is not actually the magisterium. The only other option is to turn a blind eye to the document and pretend that it really means something different than what it actually says. This destroys the unity of faith, is intellectually dishonest, destroys the purpose of divine revelation, and reduces the Catholic Church to a political game.

It is not hard to know what the Church teaches. Difficult to fully comprehend these truths, yes; difficult to know what these truths are, no.

For example, I don't have to understand how the Trinity works to know what the Church teaches about it. If BXVI comes out and says that there are really four persons of the Blessed Trinity--of which Mary is now the fourth person--I don't have to understand the complexities of the Trinity to conclude that that is not what the Church teaches.

Similarly, the Church teaches that non-Catholics are outside of the one true Church. It doesn't matter how God's grace maintains this unity, how He sees to it that even those who privately deny truth separate themselves from the Church, or at what exact point someone separates himself from the Church. What the Church teaches is what we must believe. She teaches that non-Catholics are outside of the one true Church. A statement that manifestly contradicts it is in error, and no appeal to complexities beyond our understanding can reconcile them. We don't have to know how the Church works, but we do need to know what She teaches in order to maintain the unity of faith. If no-one knows what the Church teaches, and if no-one can recognize error, then how is this unity maintained and how do we ever know that are not in error?

You have this modern RCIA-esque notion that truth is too elusive to actually know with certainty. That idea, JayneK, comes from the heresy of Modernism. Since no-one can know it, and since dogmas are merely formulas and expressions that can change from age to age, then no-one should be upset when the "magisterium" changes the expression of the dogma to mean something different. After all, who really knows? It's just too elusive and complex to know with certainty, so just obey whatever they tell you and you can't go wrong. Meanwhile, the divinely-revealed truth continues to twist and turn to adapt to the needs of the age.

God has divinely revealed His religion to us that we might know, with absolute certainty, what that Truth is. We don't have to understand how it works in order to know what the truth is. If something contradicts what that truth is, then it is in error. "But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil." To deny that these truths are simply too complex to know with certainty is a denial of divine revelation and is condemned as a heresy by the Church.

But this brings up an interesting question: How do we know it is condemned by the Church? Maybe all those wordy encyclicals that explained this to us are simply too complex to understand. Maybe all the popes, saints, fathers, and theologians were simply wasting their time telling us about the truth when there was really no way to know what truth was in the first place.

But then if that is the case, then God, too, wasted His time sending His Son to teach us a truth that was too complex to know with certainty. Those disciples who walked away when Christ told them, unequivocally, of His Real Presence in the Eucharist just didn't understand. Maybe they weren't wrong after all. Maybe it was just too complex for them to know with certainty.

But all of this denies the whole point of Catholicism, which is the divinely-revealed truth of God. It is called "revealed" because it has been made known to us and is no longer hidden from us as it was from the Jews. It has been taught to us by Christ and His Apostles that we might know what the truth is. St. Paul warns us to keep a look-out for false gospels that pervert the teachings of Christ. He tells us that even if an angel from Heaven or they, the Apostles themselves, who were the Church hierarchy, teach anything besides that which we had already received (meaning that we are comparing a new teaching from the hierarchy itself to the old teaching already set in stone), then we are to consider such a teacher to be anathema. In order to do this, it requires that we know what truth is and be able to defend it; to recognize error when we see and then then condemn it; and to hold fast to these teachings even if our leaders are effectively denying it. 
Pope Leo XIII Wrote:"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative magisterium."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, no.  9, June 29, 1896.

Teaching from St. Paul's divinely-revealed teaching, that means anyone, and it means that we have to be able to detect even the least degree of recession from the faith. If it is as you say--that it is too complex to know--then you have to ignore Leo XIII and the unanimous teaching of the fathers.

We are to know the Faith and be able to recognize heresy when we encounter it:
Pope Pius IV Wrote:“These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.”

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 4.

In order to buy into the post-conciliar magisterium, and in order to ignore its contradictions in the name of some illusive, unknowable truth, you have to effectively reject what the Church taught before Vatican II. That is impossible for a Catholic to do in good faith.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - by INPEFESS - 09-22-2011, 04:18 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)