All Souls (Go to Heaven) Day
#21
(11-03-2009, 06:54 AM)Credo Wrote:
un-giornamento Wrote:He did not renew the liturgy, but rather restored

Oh, yes he did. His Breviary changes, however welcome, were quite dramatic.
Yes, I acknowledged that he changed the Breviary earlier. However, I would be careful calling it a "renewal." That implies that the previous form was somehow deficient.

Quote:
Quote:That's why he was so beloved.

I wouldn't exactly say Pope S. Pius X was "beloved" in his day.
The calls for his canonization came immediately after he died. I would call that beloved.

Quote:
Quote:If he really wanted to stress renewal, why didn't he use a more blatant word, like "innovare"?

Because Pius was quoting a passage from the Scriptures which was translated into Latin, which we in turn are translating into English.
I realize that. I know he is quoting a passage from Scripture. The English language is not foreign to bad translations. The commonly understood biblical English translation is "restore." Period.

Christ made all things new on the Cross. We cannot make things new, as did He. We, however, can restore what has been lost or neglected by many or most, i.e., the Traditional Latin Mass, sacred music, etc. Make sense?
Reply
#22
un-giornamento Wrote:That implies that the previous form was somehow deficient.

The previous form of the Office prior to Pope S. Pius X was deficient. One of the "welcome changes" the pope made was to restore the custom of saying the entire Psalter weekly.
Reply
#23
(11-03-2009, 08:29 PM)Credo Wrote:
un-giornamento Wrote:That implies that the previous form was somehow deficient.

The previous form of the Office prior to Pope S. Pius X was deficient. One of the "welcome changes" the pope made was to restore the custom of saying the entire Psalter weekly.

If the previous form of the Office was deficient, then did priests ever fulfill their obligation to say the Breviary? It may have been inferior, but that does not mean it was deficient. Deficiency means a lack of efficaciousness. For example, the Novus Ordo Missae is inferior to the Traditional Latin Mass. However, if it is deficient, that would mean it is not efficacious, and therefore, not valid. I hope that clears things up. God bless.
Reply
#24
You might be parsing words a little too closely here.
Reply
#25
(10-11-2009, 05:27 PM)Credo Wrote:
Louis_Martin Wrote:as he's a neocon and won't listen to reason (or any document before Vatican II).

How does the doctrine of American social and political imperialism have to do with prayer methods?

(11-03-2009, 09:50 PM)Credo Wrote: You might be parsing words a little too closely here.

Beam, eye, splinter, etc.
Reply
#26
(11-03-2009, 09:50 PM)Credo Wrote: You might be parsing words a little too closely here.
:huh-uh:
I'm just trying to get at the real meaning of things. Most disagreements result from a lack of a common definition of terms. I think specificity is pivotal to any discussion/dispute.
Reply
#27
(11-02-2009, 12:48 PM)Steven Wrote: I heard Mass twice this morning (in the Ordinary Form), and neither homily was as you described.  One was about praying for the dead, and the other was about Purgatory.

In Christo Rege,
    ~Steven


...Ordinary Form.  I HATE that term for the Novus Ordo Mass.  The Traditonal Latin Mass should be the "ordinary" form - and the N.O. Mass should be called the "Protestant Form."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)