Universae Ecclesiae released - full English text
#61
(05-13-2011, 01:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: What else could you expect of a man who doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted?

Same old same.

Well, I actually believe  in his heart he thinks they need to be converted, but he doesn't have the strength and fortitude to say so publicly....So in that sense, he could be weak minded... But we shouldn't judge what he truly thinks as laymen!
Reply
#62
Whispers in the Loggia blog is already reporting that Archbishop Nichols of Westminster already says it's not needed, like i said no teeth in it, I'm sure Cardinal Levada watered it down
Reply
#63
I found Fr. Z's comments on section 28 very helpful:
Quote:Derogate means that things are partially replaced, set aside.  So, insofar as the use of the 1962 books is concerned, if there is something that came into law after 1962, and that thing or practice conflicts with what is in the 1962 books, then those later, post-1962 things don’t apply to the use of the 1962 books.

Communion in the hand is after 1962, as are Extraordinary Ministers of Communion, altar girls….  As read this, and I checked with canonists, since the employment females substituting for Instituted Acolytes came with an interpretation of the 1983 Code, you cannot have altar girls for the Extraordinary Form which was in 1962 carried out by all male ministers and servers.  This would then probably apply to other issues such as the substitution of music, the use of proper vestments and choir dress, who gives which blessings, etc.
Reply
#64
(05-13-2011, 02:53 PM)JayneK Wrote: I found Fr. Z's comments on section 28 very helpful:
Quote:Derogate means that things are partially replaced, set aside.  So, insofar as the use of the 1962 books is concerned, if there is something that came into law after 1962, and that thing or practice conflicts with what is in the 1962 books, then those later, post-1962 things don’t apply to the use of the 1962 books.

Communion in the hand is after 1962, as are Extraordinary Ministers of Communion, altar girls….  As read this, and I checked with canonists, since the employment females substituting for Instituted Acolytes came with an interpretation of the 1983 Code, you cannot have altar girls for the Extraordinary Form which was in 1962 carried out by all male ministers and servers.  This would then probably apply to other issues such as the substitution of music, the use of proper vestments and choir dress, who gives which blessings, etc.
Fr Z did a whole post just on UE 28 and the NO practices under law that will not apply to the 1962 missal.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/05/quaeruntu...practices/

He also did one on Chapel Veils and the NO practices. Since it was never part of the mass rubrics and contained in the Code of Canon law, UE doesn't obligate the use of them. However Cardinal Burke has said that in the spirit of the motu proprio, women should wear veils because it was the custom of the rite.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/05/universae...s-and-you/
Reply
#65
(05-13-2011, 02:11 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 01:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: What else could you expect of a man who doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted?

Same old same.

Vetus, here are my suggestions for you:

1. Keep your irrelevant racist Jew-baiting crap to yourself
2. At least keep your hatred for the Jews in the appropriate subforums instead of polluting other threads. Thats what the Jewish subforum was created for
3. If you want to keep insinuating that Pope Benedict XVI is a heretic, have a mosey on over to another forum that allows you to do so freely instead of skating around the issue here.

Accusing someone of racism and hate where none exists is the first tactic used by liberals who have nothing logical or cogent to add.

Way to go, bud.
Reply
#66
(05-13-2011, 02:00 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 12:00 PM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: Gerard,
What year(s) did the major abuses start to take shape at the NO in these United States??
I find it ironic that Extraordinary Ministers didn't start showing up until after a directive called "Immensae Caritatis" in, I think it was January of 1973?? So up until that time laypeople were still kneeling at the Altar Rail and receving on the tongue by the ordained only?? What year did most dioceses take out the Communion Rails and introduce all those abuses to the Mass?? Did the "modernistic" churches that were constructed after 1966 include Altar Rails or no??
CITH may have started in Europe in 1969-70, but I don't think it really took hold until 1976-77 here in the states, is that correct???
Thanks in advance!

Everything was gradual and subtle from what I remember and from what I've been told by my siblings and parents. Very very slow change but constant from what I remember.  You were given only enough time to get used to the last change before the next one was promoted.  I remember intense practice sessions in the Church for recieving Communion in the Hand.  From my perspective we were taught in the early grades that "they changed everything for you!" and they would run down the TLM.  I remember this being prompted by our noticing that the priest pictured in the Baltimore Catechism did not look like what we were experiencing on alternate Fridays at Mass. That and the fact that as a class we were blatantly complaining about the pointlessness and boredom of the mass.  This was around 1975-76 that I remember that incident.   

Early on the "sign of peace" was originally one side of the Church slightly bowing to the other side and vice versa, and it gradually became a hugging orgy of people rollling around the aisles within 10 years. 
Each change was separated by a few years and "the cool priests" were the ones who were telling you to relax as they gave their sermons in the aisle and not from the pulpit.   The older folks did not help, they presented themselves as angry, mean and totally unpleasant.  It was inevitable to gravitate to the more friendly authorigy figures. 
In philadelphia Cardinal Krol was very slow to implement Vatican II, and when JPII came to Philadelphia it was reported that he gave Krol a dressing down about swifter implementation.    Schools began to have individual classroom masses, which in retrospect were litrugically abusive, the Baltimore Catechsims was abandoned.   Removing altar raisl was and still is partial.  Some Churches still have most or all of their altar raisl.  But altar rail destruction and new  construction without altar rails was all in the 1980s at its peak at least. 

And the real destruction was going on in earnest at the Universities run by the religious and out of the control of the local Ordinary. 


I went to Philadelphia Cathedral and I saw that the altar rail whole and entire was still in place. You are right. It looked very traditional.
Reply
#67
(05-13-2011, 04:34 PM)username123 Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 02:11 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 01:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: What else could you expect of a man who doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted?

Same old same.

Vetus, here are my suggestions for you:

1. Keep your irrelevant racist Jew-baiting crap to yourself
2. At least keep your hatred for the Jews in the appropriate subforums instead of polluting other threads. Thats what the Jewish subforum was created for
3. If you want to keep insinuating that Pope Benedict XVI is a heretic, have a mosey on over to another forum that allows you to do so freely instead of skating around the issue here.

Accusing someone of racism and hate where none exists is the first tactic used by liberals who have nothing logical or cogent to add.

Way to go, bud.
I’m basing myself on many months of viewing Vetus’s comments on the Jews and I cannot read his heart any more than you can – God alone can – but on the whole I stand by my assessment that the comments themselves are hateful and racist. Quis created a subform – Judaism, Zionism, Other Religions, Cults & Spiritual Movements – to keep all those “Jewish” subjects in one place so they don’t drift all over the rest of the forum.

Why even bring up the Jews in a discussion on UE? It’s completely irrelevant. There is no logic behind it… and yet you’re saying I’m the one who’s illogical?

There are Trads who refuse to participate in FE because these sort of close-minded comments are given free reign. I defer to Quis in terms of running the site the way he sees fit, but if you think I’m gonna say nothing when Vetus spouts his ridiculousness, you’re fooling yourself.

When we allow nonsense like this, just bitter spite against the Holy Father, to crop up unchallenged on FE, then we’re just giving more reasons to otherwise well-meaning Catholics to write off Traditionalists (and, thus, Tradition) as un-Catholic gibberish. I think it needs to stop. Trads need to grow up and forget this black-and-white cold-hearted thinking we can be so prone to.

Reply
#68
(05-13-2011, 02:23 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 01:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: What else could you expect of a man who doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted?

I would like to challenge you to point out where Vetus said anything that was not true.

If Pope Benedict "doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted" then he's a heretic. Do you think the Holy Father is a heretic? Where has the Pope ever contradicted this essential Biblical and Catholic teaching, that all must convert to be saved? In his recent book, he merely discussed that the hardness of the hearts of the Jews will make it such that, on the whole, the church's efforts of evangelize them will prove largely unfruitful.

But to state that “the head of the Church of Christ on earth believes that the Jews don’t need to convert” is a blatant attempt to drag his name thru the mud, and is completely inappropriate on a Catholic discussion board.
Reply
#69

(05-13-2011, 04:44 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: I’m basing myself on many months of viewing Vetus’s comments on the Jews and I cannot read his heart any more than you can – God alone can – but on the whole I stand by my assessment that the comments themselves are hateful and racist. Quis created a subform – Judaism, Zionism, Other Religions, Cults & Spiritual Movements – to keep all those “Jewish” subjects in one place so they don’t drift all over the rest of the forum.

Why even bring up the Jews in a discussion on UE? It’s completely irrelevant. There is no logic behind it… and yet you’re saying I’m the one who’s illogical?

There are Trads who refuse to participate in FE because these sort of close-minded comments are given free reign. I defer to Quis in terms of running the site the way he sees fit, but if you think I’m gonna say nothing when Vetus spouts his ridiculousness, you’re fooling yourself.

When we allow nonsense like this, just bitter spite against the Holy Father, to crop up unchallenged on FE, then we’re just giving more reasons to otherwise well-meaning Catholics to write off Traditionalists (and, thus, Tradition) as un-Catholic gibberish. I think it needs to stop. Trads need to grow up and forget this black-and-white cold-hearted thinking we can be so prone to.

This!
(05-13-2011, 04:49 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 02:23 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote: I would like to challenge you to point out where Vetus said anything that was not true.

If Pope Benedict "doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted" then he's a heretic. Do you think the Holy Father is a heretic? Where has the Pope ever contradicted this essential Biblical and Catholic teaching, that all must convert to be saved? In his recent book, he merely discussed that the hardness of the hearts of the Jews will make it such that, on the whole, the church's efforts of evangelize them will prove largely unfruitful.

But to state that “the head of the Church of Christ on earth believes that the Jews don’t need to convert” is a blatant attempt to drag his name thru the mud, and is completely inappropriate on a Catholic discussion board.

And this! Thanks, Bak. :)
Reply
#70
(05-13-2011, 04:34 PM)username123 Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 02:11 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 01:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: What else could you expect of a man who doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted?

Same old same.

Vetus, here are my suggestions for you:

1. Keep your irrelevant racist Jew-baiting crap to yourself
2. At least keep your hatred for the Jews in the appropriate subforums instead of polluting other threads. Thats what the Jewish subforum was created for
3. If you want to keep insinuating that Pope Benedict XVI is a heretic, have a mosey on over to another forum that allows you to do so freely instead of skating around the issue here.

Accusing someone of racism and hate where none exists is the first tactic used by liberals who have nothing logical or cogent to add.

Way to go, bud.

While that may be true, Bak is not a liberal who has nothing logical or cogent to add.  I disagree with his assessment of Vetus Ordo's post, but I see Bak as a traditional Catholic, doing his best to follow God. Bak is my dear brother in Christ.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)