Universae Ecclesiae released - full English text
#91
(05-13-2011, 11:35 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: There have been heretical popes in the past and the Church has managed to survive, thank God! Don't get your panties in a wad about this.

By using the word "this" you're admitting that you believe that Pope Benedict is a heretic. You keep alluding to this in your posts. I think this resembles the techniques of modernists: always skirting around the issue, never saying exactly what they think, never being able to be pinned down, always trying to appear orthodox. You're following the letter of the law (we can't call the Pope a heretic on FE) but you're completely ignoring the spirit of the law and that's what I find so dangerous and harmful.

Let's be frank: when the Pope releases a document on the TLM, many neo-Catholics will look to the Trads. You're needlessly causing scandal. That you bring the Jews up disparagingly on this thread and drag the Holy Father's name thru the mud is completely unacceptable. And that's getting my undies in a knot? How about not wanting to turn people off from Traditionalism unnecessarily. I think that's of paramount importance. 

(05-13-2011, 11:35 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I'm just stating the obvious here: that you can't expect much from a pope who is clearly not known for orthodoxy and clear teaching, unless you enjoy engaging in the periodical petty games of salvaging everything a pope happens to utter.

This is really what I find upsetting - you're painting a false dichotomy here. It appears you offer two choices: Pope Benedict isn't orthodox (which is like saying he's not Catholic) or we have to be neo-Catholic Pope devotees. There is always a middle road. I mean the Pope writes a 200-page book and folks get tied up in knots over a few lines. It was the same with Verbum Domini - the document has many excellent passages, encouraging the faithful to pray the Angelus, for example, which is an extremely traditional practice, yet that text was basically ignored on FE except some folks were going bonkers about female Lectors. But in UE we have ironclad assurance from the Holy Father that altar girls and female Lectors cannot be introduced into the TLM. So there's a middle way. I don't like everything the Pope does but I'm not going to dismiss him as a heretic or automatically assume that I know better than he does on complex controversial issues. 

(05-13-2011, 11:35 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Universae Ecclesiae is just another demonstration of the shady conciliar reasoning of the past 50 years.

If you believe that, I'd sure love to hear why. This subforum Is called "Catholic News, Discussion, History, and Culture" but I don't hear much discussion from you, just a sort of "woe is me, when will the church wake up and become as brilliant as I am" attitude. I know you have at least on online persona of being self-effacing but you sure have zero trouble telling us how heretical the Pope is and how lost 99.9% of the church has become. That's most humans do - they dismiss the Pope out of hand as irrelevant so that they don't have to listen to him. It's hard to submit to leadership. It's easier and more enjoyable to "live by our own convictions" but taken to its logical conclusion that becomes a Protestant ethos. 

So if you have something specific to say abbot UE, as in discussion, not pontificating, then feel free. 

(05-13-2011, 11:35 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Finally, your irrational hysteria about anti-semitism reveals more about your own intellectual enslavement to the new order than any of my perceived prejudices. It's a sad state of affairs: the "fear of the Jews" has been present since Pentecost but it's ruling the stage since Vatican II.

Vetus, I know this is a story you like to tell yourself and maybe you believe it a little more each time you say it aloud but things are so much more complicated than you'd like them to be. 

That you even bring up the Jews on a thread that has nothing to do with them makes you look far more hysterical than I do. And you do this in thread after thread. It's like there's this need to prove that the Jews are the root of all evil. 

In terms of my own "intellectual enslavement"... I mean, really. I brought a Jew to the TLM with me on Maundy Thursday this year. Oh look at me! I'm so intellectually enslaved that I'm actively working for the conversion of Jews! Boy are my priorities out of whack!
Reply
#92
(05-14-2011, 01:55 AM)Joshua Wrote: Overall, Universae Ecclesiae, is painless and simply reiterates much of the same language of the Motu Proprio. To be honest I'm rather underwhelmed except for a couple of good sections and one very bad one. One good section is the surprising call for the instruction of Latin and the TLM in diocesan seminaries. While the language used to convey this "request" is hopelessly weak and devoid of any authoritative demand, the mere fact that our reigning Pope is even daring to call on dioceses to incorporate TLM and Latin training for their seminaries is a dramatic expression of the changing mood in the Church.

The other notable positive notion is the clarification of what a "qualified" Priest is. UE states:

UE Sec. 20 - A. Wrote:Every Catholic priest who is not impeded by Canon Law  is to be considered idoneus (“qualified”) for the celebration of the Holy Mass in the forma extraordinaria.

I've run into a few occasions where a Bishop has declined the permission for a Latin Mass to be said in a parish due to the lack of a "qualified" Priest. He'd go on to invent his own criteria for what he considers "qualified" which usually involves an exaggerated process of leaving town for training and becoming perfectly fluent in the Latin language. This clarification takes away this bit of ammunition from dissident Bishops.

However the one very bad section that I've yet to see anyone dedicate any attention or commentary on is the portion dealing with the conferral of the clerical state. UE states the following:

UE Sec. 30 Wrote:... consequently, in Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life which are under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, one who has made solemn profession or who has been definitively incorporated into a clerical institute of apostolic life, becomes incardinated as a cleric in the institute or society upon ordination to the diaconate, in accordance with canon 266 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law.

I interpret this is saying that a man becomes an incardinated cleric upon the reception of the Diaconate, whereas a tonsured seminarian in an un-incardinated cleric.

Most will continue to interpret this (including Fr. Z) as saying that even when the minor orders are conferred (as they are with the ICKSP, FSSP, SSPX, etc.) the clerical state is not attained until the Diaconate. This interpretation is a gross distortion of sacramental realities. In addition to the 1962 Missale Romanum, the Motu Proprio allows the the Pontificale Romanum to be used among the TLM groups. It is the Pontificale that contains the rites of ordination for the Priesthood, the Major Orders and the Minor Orders among other things. Within the rite of Tonsure, it explicitly states that the clerical state is being conferred.

What are you getting at, Joshua? Well, here's the rub, folks: If someone believes that, even when the Minor Orders are conferred, the candidates do not receive the clerical state until the Diaconate then they would be forced to believe that the Church is allowing a liturgical rite to exist that contradicts itself. They are forced to believe that the rite of tonsure (which the Church allows to be used in full) which states that the clerical state is being conferred is in fact lying. In other words they believe that the Church allows a rite to exist that says God is doing something (conferring the clerical state) when, in reality, He really isn't. For anyone in the Church to make use of any liturgical rite that claims it is doing something when in act it isn't is committing the grave sin of sacrilege.

Has anyone else caught on to this ignored but very significant issue?

Joshua,


Your discussion of the possible sacrilege involved here is very disturbing and interesting. Have you discussed this with Father Z or any other clergy?

C.
Reply
#93
(05-14-2011, 01:55 AM)Joshua Wrote: Quote from: UE Sec. 20 - A.
Every Catholic priest who is not impeded by Canon Law  is to be considered idoneus (“qualified”) for the celebration of the Holy Mass in the forma extraordinaria.

I've run into a few occasions where a Bishop has declined the permission for a Latin Mass to be said in a parish due to the lack of a "qualified" Priest. He'd go on to invent his own criteria for what he considers "qualified" which usually involves an exaggerated process of leaving town for training and becoming perfectly fluent in the Latin language. This clarification takes away this bit of ammunition from dissident Bishops.

However the one very bad section that I've yet to see anyone dedicate any attention or commentary on is the portion dealing with the conferral of the clerical state. UE states the following:

This is a great observation.  With this in mind, the game was not really a no hitter.
Reply
#94
(05-13-2011, 10:36 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 09:32 PM)LausTibiChriste Wrote: That was it? Considering all the hype I was expecting more, though I knew I shouldn't have got my hopes up.

Well it is a clarification document after all - a dicasterial document and not a papal document, though it has full force - not exactly a new motu proprio. What would you have liked to see it say? What would've wowed you? They can't really abrogate the NO until seminarians know Latin and the TLM... So at least it could've been far more forceful in that regards, as many have pointed out.

I would have been wowed had it spoke the truth......................

Quote:3. The Holy Father, having recalled the concern of the Sovereign Pontiffs in caring for the Sacred Liturgy and in their recognition of liturgical books, reaffirms the traditional principle, recognised from time immemorial and necessary to be maintained into the future, that “each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only regarding the doctrine of the faith and sacramental signs, but also as to the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition.

Nice words, but, er, tradition is forsaken and universally broken by the NO.


Quote:6. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi of the Church. On account of its venerable and ancient use, the forma extraordinaria is to be maintained with appropriate honor.

Both are not expressions of the same lex orandi of the Church and the TLM cannot "coexist one alongside the other."

Quote:7. Among the statements of the Holy Father was the following: “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.”

Give me a break with this paragraph. Do people actually believe this?

That's enough - from what I see, there are no shortages of errors - if not outright lies. Should've expected that I guess - but I was hoping for much more.

Same old modernist bs.
Reply
#95
I'm wondering where this issue of "qualified" priest will go in the future. Suppose a bishop has no priests willing to say the TLM. Can he compel one to take the assignment?

C.
Reply
#96
(05-14-2011, 05:52 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 06:09 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: I think this thread needs less discussion of Hebrew and more discussion of Latin!

Here's an amazing analysis that a trad buddy sent me by email. He read the original Latin version first:

Quote:Point 22 is crucial. "In dioceses where priests proficient [in Latin] do not exist, it is _fas_ for diocesan bishops to sincerely seek assistance from priests from traditional priestly institutes, so they might celebrate [Mass] or teach the art of celebration." (my translation and additions)

_fas_ is a Classical Latin idiom.  _fas_, for ancient Romans, meant more than "obligation".  Literally, _fas_ was a sacred duty that must be obeyed unless the gods become angry with humanity.  With _fas_, Pope Benedict unequivocally demands that bishops supply traditional order priests if there are not enough diocesan priests for the traditional faithful.  Indeed, it is almost a divine commandment that the traditional faithful are provided with pastoral care! 

Nice.

That is interesting.  But does it have any practical effect?  Are any US bishops going to read this in Latin?

As I said, I'm happy for whatever we can get, but "fas" is a pretty slim reed to support many hopes.
Reply
#97
I finally got a chance to read the document and all of your posts,.....even the off topic argument concerning the Jews and the Pope.

I enjoyed reading your opinons and I'm not the least bit suprised by the majority of them.

In a nut-shell,...this document does not in the least suprise me,...as a matter of fact it's exacty what I expected.
The other night I posted that I was going to pray for a document that would not leave the "wiggle-room" that the Bishops would probably be praying for.

I should have prayed harder.


Reply
#98
(05-14-2011, 06:28 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: By using the word "this" you're admitting that you believe that Pope Benedict is a heretic. You keep alluding to this in your posts. I think this resembles the techniques of modernists: always skirting around the issue, never saying exactly what they think, never being able to be pinned down, always trying to appear orthodox. You're following the letter of the law (we can't call the Pope a heretic on FE) but you're completely ignoring the spirit of the law and that's what I find so dangerous and harmful.

There's nothing dangerous or harmful in believing that a certain pope has fallen into heresy. This and other scandalous things have happened before and people didn't cease being Catholics. Actually, the real danger here is believing that heresies magically become orthodox teachings by the mere fact that a pope utters them.

Yes, I don't directly accuse the pope of heresy in obedience to the forum rules, that's all. Are you accusing me of obeying the forum rules?

Quote:Let's be frank: when the Pope releases a document on the TLM, many neo-Catholics will look to the Trads. You're needlessly causing scandal. That you bring the Jews up disparagingly on this thread and drag the Holy Father's name thru the mud is completely unacceptable. And that's getting my undies in a knot? How about not wanting to turn people off from Traditionalism unnecessarily. I think that's of paramount importance.

LOL!

Yes, you and others have become the paramount leaders of on-line "traddom," perhaps the quintessential "welcome wagon." Get real.

These papal issues will pop up time and again because the Pope isn't orthodox to begin with. That's the real scandal, not the fact that there are Catholics who recognise that the Emperor wears no clothes. You can't hide the truth or make up lies in order to become more appealing. I get the sense that many people here are falling for this classical modernist trap: an urge to make the faith appealing and credible to those outside at the expense of truth. Newcomers will be able to deal with hard issues in due time and if they aren't, then that's because the grace of God wasn't operating within them to begin with. The question about the Jews is crucial because the modern Church is ruled by them. It's the big elephant in the room. If you want to know where a given person really stands in regard to tradition and the faith, bring up the Jews. The "fear of the Jews" is now a universal phenomenon, unfortunately even within traditional fraternities like the SSPX.

Quote:This is really what I find upsetting - you're painting a false dichotomy here. It appears you offer two choices: Pope Benedict isn't orthodox (which is like saying he's not Catholic) or we have to be neo-Catholic Pope devotees. There is always a middle road. I mean the Pope writes a 200-page book and folks get tied up in knots over a few lines. It was the same with Verbum Domini - the document has many excellent passages, encouraging the faithful to pray the Angelus, for example, which is an extremely traditional practice, yet that text was basically ignored on FE except some folks were going bonkers about female Lectors. But in UE we have ironclad assurance from the Holy Father that altar girls and female Lectors cannot be introduced into the TLM. So there's a middle way. I don't like everything the Pope does but I'm not going to dismiss him as a heretic or automatically assume that I know better than he does on complex controversial issues.

You're exhibiting incredible ingenuousness here. I hope and trust this will change with time.

The very definition of a modernist is that he's able to utter in the same breath something clearly orthodox and then something unmistakably heretical.

Quote:That's most humans do - they dismiss the Pope out of hand as irrelevant so that they don't have to listen to him. It's hard to submit to leadership. It's easier and more enjoyable to "live by our own convictions" but taken to its logical conclusion that becomes a Protestant ethos.

Of course.

Unlike your "Catholic ethos" that submits to error and heresy. St. Paul should have learned from you.

Quote:That you even bring up the Jews on a thread that has nothing to do with them makes you look far more hysterical than I do. And you do this in thread after thread. It's like there's this need to prove that the Jews are the root of all evil.

See my second response in this post. 
Reply
#99
(05-14-2011, 12:18 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I get the sense that many people here are falling for this classical modernist trap: an urge to make the faith appealing and credible to those outside at the expense of truth. Newcomers will be able to deal with hard issues in due time and if they aren't, then that's because the grace of God wasn't operating within them to begin with. The question about the Jews is crucial because the modern Church is ruled by them.

This, could not have been said any better. No truth can be let go of for the sake of modernist (or Jewish) appeal.
Reply
I am too lazy to read through 10 pages of replies but Fr. Z. notes that we of the English language seem to have an "ICEL" version. So where it is strongly urged for seminarians to be trained, we just see that they are "asked" and so on. Sigh.

The word 'pastoral' is a loophole too.  Oh, Bishop so and so is just 'pastoral' which seems to say that he will not stand up forcefully for the Truth.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)