What causes a Sacrement?
#11
(06-14-2011, 04:45 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: The Council of Trent also declared (Session 21, Chapter 2):

"It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church,

But Bugnini and the Protestant advisers where not in the Church...

..and who can argue that the substance of Bugninis sacrament is that of our Lords!?
Reply
#12
I'll give my two cents, although I most certainly am NOT willing to be plunged into some sort of argument over whether or not I believe Benedict VXI to be a legitimate Pontiff.  

Supposing that the celebrating Priest possesses valid Holy Orders, and there is proof of matter, form, and genuine intention, the Mass is valid.  However, this says nothing for the spiritual character of the Liturgy itself, nor the effects conferred, as the Missale Romanum does not fall under any form of infallibility.   But, at a minimum, the Novus Ordo is a valid Sacrament in *theory*.  This says nothing for the many cases of doubtful validity due to the lack of any of the above pretenses.

However, when have authentic Catholics EVER striven for minimum?  I most certainly know that none of the Saints have ever settled for the bare minimum, and as a Priest, I certainly try not to either.  That is why I have perpetually refused to celebrate a Novus Ordo, to buy into the laissez-faire standard promoted by ecclesiastics in recent times, or to sell myself to popular desire.  We are all better than that, believe me.
Reply
#13
(06-14-2011, 04:55 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: But Bugnini and the Protestant advisers where not in the Church...

You simply assume that Bugnini was a Mason despite evidence to the contrary. Don't get me wrong. I don't like Bugnini and I would be happy to find proof that he was a Mason, but I've never seen the allegation proven.
Reply
#14
(06-14-2011, 04:58 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(06-14-2011, 04:55 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: But Bugnini and the Protestant advisers where not in the Church...

You simply assume that Bugnini was a Mason despite evidence to the contrary. Don't get me wrong. I don't like Bugnini and I would be happy to find proof that he was a Mason, but I've never seen the allegation proven.

It should remain unequivocally clear that all evidence advocating for Cardinal Bugnini's supposed freemasonry is STILL conjecture and hearsay, and no official declaration has been made, or likely ever will.
Reply
#15
(06-14-2011, 04:45 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: "It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,--or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places."

Furthermore Bugnini admitted that the reason for change was not "for the profit of those who receive" ,but to appease our heretical and separated Brethren.Veneration was not on his radar.
Reply
#16
(06-14-2011, 04:58 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(06-14-2011, 04:55 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: But Bugnini and the Protestant advisers where not in the Church...

You simply assume that Bugnini was a Mason despite evidence to the contrary. Don't get me wrong. I don't like Bugnini and I would be happy to find proof that he was a Mason, but I've never seen the allegation proven.

And you ignore the Protestant advisers who helped formulate the New World Order Mass. I assure you,they were not in the Church as Trent requires for liturgical development.
Reply
#17
(06-14-2011, 04:58 PM)InNomineDomini Wrote: I'll give my two cents, although I most certainly am NOT willing to be plunged into some sort of argument over whether or not I believe Benedict VXI to be a legitimate Pontiff.  

Supposing that the celebrating Priest possesses valid Holy Orders, and there is proof of matter, form, and genuine intention, the Mass is valid.  However, this says nothing for the spiritual character of the Liturgy itself, nor the effects conferred, as the Missale Romanum does not fall under any form of infallibility.   But, at a minimum, the Novus Ordo is a valid Sacrament in *theory*.  This says nothing for the many cases of doubtful validity due to the lack of any of the above pretenses.

However, when have authentic Catholics EVER striven for minimum?  I most certainly know that none of the Saints have ever settled for the bare minimum, and as a Priest, I certainly try not to either.  That is why I have perpetually refused to celebrate a Novus Ordo, to buy into the laissez-faire standard promoted by ecclesiastics in recent times, or to sell myself to popular desire.  We are all better than that, believe me.

Father,

Thank you for your insights on this question.  Your erudition and common sense are a big contribution to these forums. 
Reply
#18
(06-14-2011, 04:45 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: In Mediator Dei, Pius XII drew the same distinction:

"50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites."

You feel the NO was good for souls and the Church at large? If anything,the needs of the age required a  turbo charging of the existing liturgy,not wholesale and sweeping change resulting in banality and Puppet shows.
Reply
#19
(06-14-2011, 05:07 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(06-14-2011, 04:58 PM)InNomineDomini Wrote: I'll give my two cents, although I most certainly am NOT willing to be plunged into some sort of argument over whether or not I believe Benedict VXI to be a legitimate Pontiff. 

Supposing that the celebrating Priest possesses valid Holy Orders, and there is proof of matter, form, and genuine intention, the Mass is valid.  However, this says nothing for the spiritual character of the Liturgy itself, nor the effects conferred, as the Missale Romanum does not fall under any form of infallibility.  But, at a minimum, the Novus Ordo is a valid Sacrament in *theory*.  This says nothing for the many cases of doubtful validity due to the lack of any of the above pretenses.

However, when have authentic Catholics EVER striven for minimum?  I most certainly know that none of the Saints have ever settled for the bare minimum, and as a Priest, I certainly try not to either.  That is why I have perpetually refused to celebrate a Novus Ordo, to buy into the laissez-faire standard promoted by ecclesiastics in recent times, or to sell myself to popular desire.  We are all better than that, believe me.

Father,

Thank you for your insights on this question.  Your erudition and common sense are a big contribution to these forums. 

After a clear and concise post like this from the good Father, I don’t really see the purpose or usefulness of further discussion when emotions are so inflamed. I think time would be better spent reading works by Michael Davies or others.

Specifically, HabRit, this is your stated intent:

(06-14-2011, 04:39 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: I would hope we can keep this one on track...

But then you say things such as…
(06-14-2011, 04:39 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: That is up to you and certain other derailers.
(06-14-2011, 04:53 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: Does a Buddist, or indeed a Satanist, have the grace and authority necessary to alter the sacraments then also?
(06-14-2011, 04:55 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: ..and who can argue that the substance of Bugninis sacrament is that of our Lords!?
(06-14-2011, 05:01 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: Furthermore Bugnini admitted that the reason for change was … to appease our heretical [color=red]and separated Brethren.
What are heretical Brethren, exactly?
(06-14-2011, 05:02 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: the New World Order Mass.

See, you might want to spend your time just writing a blog post about your thoughts… I’m not convinced that you’re interested in actual discussion, at least not serious discussion… maybe some arguing…
Reply
#20
(06-14-2011, 05:13 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(06-14-2011, 04:45 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: In Mediator Dei, Pius XII drew the same distinction:

"50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites."

You feel the NO was good for souls and the Church at large? If anything,the needs of the age required a  turbo charging of the existing liturgy,not wholesale and sweeping change resulting in banality and Puppet shows.

Do you have any thoughts on Father's comments?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)