Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians
(09-22-2011, 12:37 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-22-2011, 04:18 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 09:15 PM)JayneK Wrote: 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 thuee 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. 

If I were to invoke the Blessed Virgin as Our Lady Seat of Wisdom or as Queen of Apostles, this would not imply that I do not consider her the Mother of God.

No, but if you were teach, with Abp. Zollitsch (who is still "in full communion" by the way), that, though it was relevant at the time to teach that Christ may have died for our sins, the primary purpose of His dying on the Cross was to express His solidarity with the sufferings of mankind, you would be compromising the dogma of the redemption in the name of novel, humanistic interpretation. It may be somewhat true, but it is not found as the teaching of the Church throughout antiquity, and it serves only to marginalize the dogma of the Redemption. Such an error is perfect for bringing all peoples and religions together by appealing to the least common denominator upon which we can all agree while still paying lip-service to the dogma that was relevant at that time.

Traditionally, you would chastised for teaching such a thing as that--excommunicated perhaps. In the Vatican today, however, there would be no condemnation; instead, you would be promoted by the pope himself, as was the case of Abp. Zollitsch.


Quote:  
(09-22-2011, 04:18 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 09:15 PM)JayneK Wrote: 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.

And this is probably why you keep seeing heresies in Church teaching.  You want to see them because you do not want to accept the authority of the magisterium.

You can choose to believe this, of course, but let's try to be reasonable: Is is probable that I'd rather drive 2 hours and 20 minutes one-way each Sunday to attend the Mass of St. Pius V than 20 minutes to the beautiful new cathedral built for the Indult Mass?

I find errors because the errors exist. You ignore the errors because you don't want to have to consider there might actually be errors, due to your false premise that reduces your arguments to circularity: 'He must be the pope, so any contradiction that is found must just really be an illusion to the unknowability of what the Church really teaches.'

You can try to impugn my motives, but in the end it is you who fail to address the evidence I provide. I face the evidence; you ignore it by making excuses such as "too simple", "too complex", "inconclusive", "not enough", "benefit of doubt", etc.

But when the words themselves no longer leave any room for doubt, what then is left of its benefit?   

Quote:  You see errors because you want to find errors.

No, I see errors because I read objectively. When I see an error I try to excuse it; I can excuse many Vatican II documents. But when it cannot be excused, I do not defend it.

I have told you before. I approach this matter inductively. I start with observations, and then I come to a conclusion based upon the only possible meaning of those observations: the Novus Ordo denies what the Church has always taught. This does not destroy the Catholic religion, however, because I know that such a thing does not contradict the teachings of the Church concerning Her visibility and indefectibility. On the contrary, it is these very teachings of the Novus Ordo that contradict what the Church has taught concerning Her visibility and indefectibility.

You, however, start with your premise, which you stated:
JayneK Wrote: There is no question in my mind that the Pope is truly the Pope and this is my starting premise.

Based on a premise that refuses to acknowledge possibilities taught by Paul IV, Aquinas, Suarez, Bellarmine, Vidal, Liguori, Antoninus, et al., you then come to a conclusion: there is no contradiction. When I ask that you explain yourself, you simply brush aside the issue with the aforementioned excuses.

I think it you will agree that such a method is not objective reasoning.

Of this I could quote you and say, 'You refuse to find errors because you want to refuse to find errors.'

Quote:    That is not something that I wish to debate and it is against the rules of this forum to do so.

I understand, but (1) truth is no always what we wish, and (2) there is truth outside of what this forum permits to be discussed. So, if it indeed could be true, then I should hope that this forum would not be accountable for keeping you from it.

Quote:I have not been able to address all the points you raised, since I have limited time available for this forum.  Researching and replying to your posts would be a full-time job.  If you would raise one question at a time, I could show that the contradictions and errors you claim exist, do not.

I have raised the objection that the original GIRM is un-Catholic; it is Protestant at best. But it is not borrowed from the Protestants to be used for Protestants. It was borrowed from the Protestants to be used for false ecumenism, which was condemned as one of the goals of Modernism.

This official statement, which was promulgated by Paul VI, clearly shows what the purpose of the new liturgy was all about. If we want to know what the creators' intentions were concerning the point of the new liturgy, then the investigation starts there.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - by INPEFESS - 09-23-2011, 08:04 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)