Universae Ecclesiae released - full English text
#31
(05-13-2011, 09:28 AM)Gerard Wrote:
Quote: 19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.

I understand and I obey.  The Novus Ordo though valid and legitimate still stinks in its impoverishment and in its faulty and prone-to-be- heretical translations and the SSPX is correct since they don't question the validity or the legitimacy of the Pope's right to introduce a rite nor the validity when properly offered as in the edition signed by PaulVI.  The SSPX is against the sacrilege and apostasy it represents in its teleological function.  As the never-to-be-abused-enough Bishop Williamson has said, "Had the Novus Ordo been a rite which more clearly expressed the faith than the TLM, there would have never been a crisis nor an SSPX. "

That said, the Novus Ordo is not everywhere and in all cases celebrated legitimately or validly by apostates who while being in "full communion" canonically are deliberately or not using the wrong form, matter or intent or any combination of the 3. 

So in the end,   it's those Novus Ordo groups which abuse the Novus Ordo that the Pope is essentially telling us to not support.  Any bishop that resists the Pope's Summorum Pontificum is not to be supported in any way. 

THANK YOU HOLY FATHER!   Now nobody should fear acknowledging the crisis and avoiding the diocesan structure if there is an SSPX chapel nearby.   Since the SSPX doesn't abuse the Novus Ordo and the Bishops of the SSPX acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as the Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church, which is more than many diocesan bishops. 

Hmm. My gut says 'blackmail'  [ETA -]  appropo to how the avg. Bishop or pastor will interpret this.
Reply
#32
(05-13-2011, 10:44 AM)Donna Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 09:28 AM)Gerard Wrote:
Quote: 19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.

I understand and I obey.  The Novus Ordo though valid and legitimate still stinks in its impoverishment and in its faulty and prone-to-be- heretical translations and the SSPX is correct since they don't question the validity or the legitimacy of the Pope's right to introduce a rite nor the validity when properly offered as in the edition signed by PaulVI.  The SSPX is against the sacrilege and apostasy it represents in its teleological function.  As the never-to-be-abused-enough Bishop Williamson has said, "Had the Novus Ordo been a rite which more clearly expressed the faith than the TLM, there would have never been a crisis nor an SSPX. "

That said, the Novus Ordo is not everywhere and in all cases celebrated legitimately or validly by apostates who while being in "full communion" canonically are deliberately or not using the wrong form, matter or intent or any combination of the 3. 

So in the end,   it's those Novus Ordo groups which abuse the Novus Ordo that the Pope is essentially telling us to not support.  Any bishop that resists the Pope's Summorum Pontificum is not to be supported in any way. 

THANK YOU HOLY FATHER!   Now nobody should fear acknowledging the crisis and avoiding the diocesan structure if there is an SSPX chapel nearby.   Since the SSPX doesn't abuse the Novus Ordo and the Bishops of the SSPX acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as the Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church, which is more than many diocesan bishops. 

Hmm. My gut says 'blackmail'.

I agree with you Donna.  I think that this will be used as an excuse to deny people the EF.

I wish I wasn't so pessimistic, but I am not sure that UE will do any good.  I have watched to many Bishops blatantly disobey the Holy Father's wishes to get my hopes up.  I would absolutely ecstatic if PCED begins takes names & kicking a** of those who don't follow SP and UE.
Reply
#33
(05-13-2011, 08:35 AM)timoose Wrote: We might want to remember he is the Pope of all Catholics.
Amen.
Reply
#34
(05-13-2011, 07:40 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 07:35 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: If a government can required English or French proficiency for university why can't the church require it of its priests?

The U.S. government doesn't require this.
I'm pretty sure they require certain TOEFL scores to attend University. My college is notoriously bad for foreigners who can barely speak English, but we have minimum TOEFL scores.
Reply
#35
(05-13-2011, 10:50 AM)Landelinus Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 08:35 AM)timoose Wrote: We might want to remember he is the Pope of all Catholics.
Amen.

And yet this is true, too. Well, ML, with our gut feelings, one can only continue to apply the Rule of Inspector Clouseau: ahh, but these are not normal times, Kato. It still applies that it's back door, side-window time. Do what one must to get the Faith, for one's children aren't getting any younger.
Reply
#36
(05-13-2011, 08:02 AM)Cetil Wrote: A Carmelite over at CAF is whining that some part of the seminary curriculum would have to be chucked in order to offer Latin classes. (?) (!)

Hah.  Cry me a river.  As someone who has studied alongside many seminarians, priests, and religious pursuing STLs and STDs I can say that this is not a problem.  The curriculum is brimming with Rahner, de Lubac, and von Balthasar, giving only cursory mention to St. Thomas, and reimagining all of the Church Fathers, most especially St. Augustine, in light of their doctrines.  There are exceptions, but they are very rare.

Adjusting curriculum to include Latin does two things:  It, hopefully, removes the seminarian from at least some untruths which would be taught in its place, and it creates a natural doorway to traditionalism and the Church's past (and thus true character).

At any rate, we can't expect big changes in the Church or the abrogation of the NO until every seminarian is required to learn the TLM.  That will be the first sign that the Church, or at least God, is putting the pieces back together for a total rejection and purging of Modernism, the "new springtime", and everything which Vatican II has wrought.

Reply
#37
(05-13-2011, 10:21 AM)DJR Wrote: I agree (except for the spelling of "lightening").  LOL.

For those of you who are younger and were not around to witness "the changes," you have to understand that, although you may not think so, the pendulum has swung significantly from "the early years," when the old Roman Mass seemed to have disappeared from the face of the earth and we had congregations of the Vatican basically lying about its legitimacy (1974, I believe), as is now evident from the pope's statement awhile ago. 

This is a significant document in the life of the Church and will have great influence on the future, even if we cannot see its full impact now.

While the TLM may be much more prominent than it was in the early years.  The Novus Ordo on average is so much worse that it was in the early 70s.  I remember the reverence and care the priests took with the Eucharist in the early Novus Ordo days.  Incense, communion on the tongue at the altar rail.  In the late 70s into the 80s that reverence and care slipped away, due to the imposition of Communion in the Hand, Communion under both species, the simplication of vestments from decent looking to the nighgowns now so prominent. 

We won't reach a real reversal until the Novus Ordo is being again offered in a reverent manner.  Only then, when it is offered that way and the TLM is prominent will the TLM start to draw down the remaining numbers of the Novus Ordo.  My Dad has frequently said, "They did away with the Latin Mass because  if it had been offered alongside this "thing" nobody would go to the new mass."
Reply
#38
(05-13-2011, 11:13 AM)Walty Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 08:02 AM)Cetil Wrote: A Carmelite over at CAF is whining that some part of the seminary curriculum would have to be chucked in order to offer Latin classes. (?) (!)

Hah.  Cry me a river.  As someone who has studied alongside many seminarians, priests, and religious pursuing STLs and STDs I can say that this is not a problem.  The curriculum is brimming with Rahner, de Lubac, and von Balthasar, giving only cursory mention to St. Thomas, and reimagining all of the Church Fathers, most especially St. Augustine, in light of their doctrines.  There are exceptions, but they are very rare.

This was also my experience when working on my MDiv over ten years ago.  There was no Latin requirement and minimal philosophy requirement that did not even specify Aquinas.  It was necessary to take 5 philosophy credits but any 5 would count.  Even if someone wanted to study him, as I recall, there was only one course.  I took it and it was a reasonable enough intro course but not enough for the formation of priests.
Reply
#39
(05-13-2011, 10:21 AM)DJR Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 08:35 AM)timoose Wrote: If you had been 20 when those changes came like I was, you all would be bitter old men now. The Pope wants to keep as many as he can. This is lightening like speed compared to the Church before Vatican II. Do not despair this Pope will have more  as long as he lives. If it isn't apparent to us, he is cerebral and measured, and as much as Father Z. has some kinks his analysis is spot on "brick by brick".

I agree (except for the spelling of "lightening").  LOL.

For those of you who are younger and were not around to witness "the changes," you have to understand that, although you may not think so, the pendulum has swung significantly from "the early years," when the old Roman Mass seemed to have disappeared from the face of the earth and we had congregations of the Vatican basically lying about its legitimacy (1974, I believe), as is now evident from the pope's statement awhile ago. 

This is a significant document in the life of the Church and will have great influence on the future, even if we cannot see its full impact now.

It would appear that things are in place to reverse many of the errors, but the world has significantly fallen, even since the 60s.  For the Church to return to where She needs to be, I think that She would have to be nearly as strong and courageous, perhaps even more so, than She was during the time of Roman persecution and Christian martyrdom.  The Church will be seen as laughably primitive and will totally lose respect from the world to the point where Catholics may qualify for their own severe mental disorder.

Of course, a Chastisement could change this.
Reply
#40
My thoughts (somewhat disjointed). I preface by saying I think this will do good for the Church. It is positive in that the Novus Ordo has a further prodding to get its act together. I, however, see much that drags the document down into the same mire we’ve been in since at least the 60s. I also give complete honor to the Holy Father as Pope and Vicar of Christ, and offer this criticism in accordance with canons 211- 214. So:

The Holy Fathers have been obsessed with the 1962 missal and the proto-Novus Ordo Holy Week which it contains. This is partially the faults of the SSPX which accepted this Missal alone without any provision for the traditional Holy Week. I think it’s high time for traditionalists to assert that they have a right to pray the traditional Holy Week and not the committee created one.

He admits the old missal is ancient tradition, but expresses no indignation such tradition has been treated like an old rage to be thrown out. No indignation that there were “indults” issued which gave the impression that the Mass was abrogated but he admits was never abrogated. And most bishops aren’t going to do what you yourself aren’t doing. Does he lead with his own liturgies? Does he practice what he preaches?

I dislike the extraordinary and ordinary false distinction. Sure it is being used by many, but it is essentially false and links the true Mass with such things as lay people handing out communion. The old rite is the authentic traditional Roman Rite. The new rite is the false creation of Vatican busy-bodies. Everybody on both sides admitted it was a new creation at the time, a break with tradition. Traditionalists should see this as another document trying to pass-off this farse as somehow Catholic. This blatant falsity is reiterated in number 7, in which the Holy Father has the audacity to state what everyone knows otherwise. You can’t fairytale wish the rupture to go away. In fact the rupture was so strong that by the age of 24 (in 2002) I NEVER KNEW THE TRADITIONAL MASS EVER EXISTED. He makes a statement at the end of the quote which seems positive, but it is prefaced by the absurd. The rupture is so strong you, Holy Father, are having trouble getting the people back on board after 50 years of rupture, rupture, rupture.

See, this document is solidifying that the traditional Mass is a museum “treasure” which we can  view whenever we want, not promoting that it is the authentic Roman Rite passed on from St Peter.

And number 19 wishes to shut down debate on true questions about the New Mass, its validity or legitimacy, and place another barrier between Catholics of good will. These question are vital questions of our time which need to be debated. We know this to be true since they changed the Novus Ordo texts to address just these questions! (I do not advocate Sedevacantism nor do I advocate the invalidity of the New Mass at all times, but I advocate that it is illicit and was beyond the bounds of the Holy Fathers authority to impose it on the people.)

I understand the Holy Father needs to treat lightly as he implements his reforms, but this is weak. And weakness doesn’t win the day. A few bishops will react, but where I live in Mahonyville, there will be nothing, because they do that bare minimum and the Vatican doesn’t do anything. It’s been the same story since the 60s.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)