Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians
(09-21-2011, 09:30 AM)Nic Wrote:
(09-19-2011, 06:37 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-19-2011, 06:31 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: lVB claims he NO was a Protestant bastard mass. Indojbt bishop Felly had. A plm with that take

As I recall the actual quote, he said it was "protestantized"  i.e. made more similar to a protestant service.  This does not mean the same thing as being protestant.  We can see the same word formation when people say that a man is feminized.  They are claiming that his behaviour has become more like a woman's.  They are not saying that he has literally turned into a woman.  He is still a man.  Similarly, the NO Mass is still a Catholic Mass.

Protestant or "Protestantized," the simple fact remains that it is the clear position of the SSPX that we should NOT attend the N.O. Mass - this is something that you simply cannot deny or weasel around.  This is not due to its validity, but due to its sacrilege and its faulty foundation that is most clearly not rooted in the Faith.  Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.  This law absolutely speaks volumes concerning the simple fact that the New Mass doesn't teach traditional Catholicism - therefore, albeit possibly valid, it is not a Catholic Mass because a Catholic Mass has to teach the Faith.  The utter magnitude of the modern crisis we are going through is because people claiming Catholicism have been duped - they have been told that this New Mass is Catholic.  We have seen the outcome with our own eyes.  If this Mass taught the Faith then we wouldn't see the statistics that we do.

Therefore, it doesn't matter one bit if modern "Rome" calls this Mass Catholic or the "Ordinary Form" because we can clearly see otherwise.  The all-time Tradition of the Church fervently condemns the New Mass and I am 100% confident that the New Mass will be condemned by a future Magesterium.  Just like people 30 years ago who believed with all of their hearts that the Latin Mass was not suspended, those same people didn't need "Rome" to tell them otherwise - they already knew it from Tradition.  I don't need "Rome" to tell me that the New Mass is condemned, although one day they surely will (unless Christ returns beforehand).

I am aware that it is the SSPX position that Catholics should not attend the NO Mass.  They are wrong and so are you.
Reply
Why "Rome"?
Reply
You don't know? 
Reply
And you are wrong jaynke
as usual
sip wink

Reply
I think it is amazing that the original general instruction on the NO was changed to sound more orthodox, but the mass itself remained the same.
Reply
It's classic behavour of a bunch of thrives, and imposters
Reply
(09-21-2011, 06:37 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 06:22 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-20-2011, 03:22 PM)JayneK Wrote: I agree with you that the wording of the original version was not good Catholic theology.  However, I disagree that the revised version is wrong.  Many different things are happening at the Mass.  It is not uncatholic to say that it is a gathering of the people of God.  It is uncatholic when this is the only thing said to the exclusion of all else.

It is antithetical to Catholicism to subordinate--or make merely complementary--the purpose of the Mass, as infallibly defined by the Council of Trent, to a novel, ecumenical purpose.

The Holy Ghost of the Catholic religion doesn't change His mind about what the purpose of the Mass is.

If the first was by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, by whose inspiration is the second? The "wisdom of Man" (Paul VI), no doubt.

The Mass is extremely rich in meaning.

And the meaning has already been explained and defined. It can only be specified further. It can't evolve into a new meaning or purpose.

Quote:  Expanding on what was said at Trent to include other traditional ideas on the Mass is perfectly reasonable and orthodox.

Then please provide evidence that the common practice of the Church is to change (rather than further specify) Her traditional teachings to suit the needs of the time.

The Church specifies concepts within an already-infallible definition. It answers challenges to the meanings of the words themselves. It doesn't apply new concepts or new ideas to what has already been infallibly defined.

Quote:  The current edition of the GIRM does not seem to me to be subordinating the purpose as defined by Trent to other ideas or to be introducing change.

But you always just deny that there's any real problem. Such a subjective denial (it doesn't seem that way to me) does not mean that you are right. It simply means you are unwilling to let yourself be convinced. I don't mean this condescendingly or arrogantly, but I think we can both agree that something can be true without you agreeing with it. The way you speak here, nothing is true unless you agree that it is true. This puts you in an extremely powerful position of superiority whereby you are the judge of all truth and we have to run our opinions past you to get them approved. If I were absolutely convinced that there were no possibility that the Novus Ordo were wrong--perhaps because such a consideration might endanger my faith--, then I would be arguing just as yourself: from a conclusion. But I have been there; I have done that. I am done making excuses that only tear apart the Faith. The Faith exists regardless of what the Novus Ordo says. You can't refute logic by claiming that it doesn't convince you.

What I'm trying to show you is that nothing is ever conclusive to you. There is never enough evidence. You are never convinced, even by statements that directly contradict the magisterium. You marginalize the problem by accusing others of conflating the problem. You disregard logical arguments by claiming you don't see a problem. When the problem is shown to you, you conclude that the issue to too complex to understand. When posters then argue from basic principles of Christianity (to show you just how obviously and fundamentally wrong this whole systems of "reforms" actually is--if you are objective enough to step back and look at it without arguing from a conclusion), you argue that they are oversimplifying the matter; it is always more complex than that. So, to you, the teachings of the Church are just too complex to actually be able to recognize denial of them, or every argument is just too simplistic to actually be objectively considered. With this sort of argumentation, you always win without actually debating anything, and it places you on a pedestal of false objectivity in the eyes of all who don't see what you're doing. I don't mean that you're intentionally being dishonest; I simply think that you can't face the other view (for whatever reason), so you won't seriously consider it. But this in no way makes you correct.

Quote:  On the contrary it emphasizes the unchanging nature of the Catholic Mass and our understanding of it.

That definition could be said of Communion, perhaps, but Communion is not the Mass. Communion is an effect of the Mass. The Mass is the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary; and the purpose of the Mass is accomplished even if no-one is there save the priest. The sacrifice still takes place; the propitiation for sin is still effected. People don't need to be there for that to happen. People gather at Mass to receive the fruits of the Mass that are derived from its purpose: to re-present the Sacrifice of Calvary to the Father, which, as I said, happens even if only the priest is present. The gathering of the people is not the purpose of the Mass.

But if it only emphasizes the unchanging nature of the Catholic Mass and our understanding of it", as you say, then it is should be evident that it only teaches the same thing that has always been taught throughout the history of the Church. But if you're going to make such a claim, then you need to demonstrate where the Church has applied that teaching (and that verse from Scripture) to the purpose of the Sacrifice of the Mass (not Communion) throughout Her entire history--unchanging, as you say. If this has always been our understanding, then there should be no trouble finding magisterial documents pre-Vatican II that state that the purpose of the Mass is to gather the people together to celebrate Christ's presence among the people.
Reply
(09-21-2011, 08:31 PM)JMartyr Wrote: I think it is amazing that the original general instruction on the NO was changed to sound more orthodox, but the mass itself remained the same.

At the very least, it echoes the intentions of the council. It was approved by the pope himself.

It was only later changed because of the reaction it received.

But the question here is important: the original meaning is what they actually intended it to mean, and they approved it with (allegedly) the authority of Almighty God.

I don't care so much what the new definition says. They are only trying to please all parties involved so as not to lose half the Church. Their original definition is indicative of the intentions of the authors and the principles of the whole Novus Ordo; and it is manifestly anti-Catholic.
Reply
(09-21-2011, 08:36 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 06:37 PM)JayneK Wrote: The Mass is extremely rich in meaning.

And the meaning has already been explained and defined. It can only be specified further. It can't evolve into a new meaning or purpose.

Quote:  Expanding on what was said at Trent to include other traditional ideas on the Mass is perfectly reasonable and orthodox.

Then please provide evidence that the common practice of the Church is to change (rather than further specify) Her traditional teachings to suit the needs of the time.

The Church specifies concepts within an already-infallible definition. It answers challenges to the meanings of the words themselves. It doesn't apply new concepts or new ideas to what has already been infallibly defined.

The Mass is Christ's sacrifice on the cross made present.  It is also a gathering a God's people.  It is also a foretaste of the Heavenly Banquet.  It is also an opportunity to receive Grace.  It is also an opportunity for the faithful to be instructed.  It is also the supreme prayer of the Church. It is also the New Passover. It is also the Lord's Supper. Etc. 

The Church's teaching on the Mass has many, many things to say.  There was nothing in the GIRM that was a new teaching or a change to tradition or a contradiction of what went before, even if it did not use the exact same wording as Trent. 

(09-21-2011, 08:36 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
Quote:  The current edition of the GIRM does not seem to me to be subordinating the purpose as defined by Trent to other ideas or to be introducing change.

But you always just deny that there's any real problem. Such a subjective denial (it doesn't seem that way to me) does not mean that you are right. It simply means you are unwilling to let yourself be convinced. I don't mean this condescendingly or arrogantly, but I think we can both agree that something can be true without you agreeing with it. The way you speak here, nothing is true unless you agree that it is true. This puts you in an extremely powerful position of superiority whereby you are the judge of all truth and we have to run our opinions past you to get them approved. If I were absolutely convinced that there were no possibility that the Novus Ordo were wrong--perhaps because such a consideration might endanger my faith--, then I would be arguing just as yourself: from a conclusion. But I have been there; I have done that. I am done making excuses that only tear apart the Faith. The Faith exists regardless of what the Novus Ordo says. You can't refute logic by claiming that it doesn't convince you.

From my perspective, you keep seeing problems that aren't really there.  You seem to be looking for the most negative way to interpret what is said and done in the Church. And you certainly look to me like you already have your conclusion.  I am not going to accept anything just because you say it.  You have absolutely no authority in yourself.  Your words can only have value to me if you are able to convince me of their truth.  When I weigh what you write against what I know of Church teaching, I conclude that you are wrong.

(09-21-2011, 08:36 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: What I'm trying to show you is that nothing is ever conclusive to you. There is never enough evidence. You are never convinced, even by statements that directly contradict the magisterium. You marginalize the problem by accusing others of conflating the problem. You disregard logical arguments by claiming you don't see a problem. When the problem is shown to you, you conclude that the issue to too complex to understand. When posters then argue from basic principles of Christianity (to show you just how obviously and fundamentally wrong this whole systems of "reforms" actually is--if you are objective enough to step back and look at it without arguing from a conclusion), you argue that they are oversimplifying the matter; it is always more complex than that. So, to you, the teachings of the Church are just too complex to actually be able to recognize denial of them, or every argument is just too simplistic to actually be objectively considered. With this sort of argumentation, you always win without actually debating anything, and it places you on a pedestal of false objectivity in the eyes of all who don't see what you're doing. I don't mean that you're intentionally being dishonest; I simply think that you can't face the other view (for whatever reason), so you won't seriously consider it. But this in no way makes you correct.

It is a basic principle of theology that one ought to start with the presupposition that the magisterium is correct.  There must be overwhelming evidence in order to say otherwise.  I do not speak of the complexity of theology as some sort of rhetorical device.  That is my conclusion after years of studying it.  The more I studied the more I knew I did not understand.  This is my genuine position. 

Reply
(09-21-2011, 08:40 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 08:31 PM)JMartyr Wrote: I think it is amazing that the original general instruction on the NO was changed to sound more orthodox, but the mass itself remained the same.

At the very least, it echoes the intentions of the council. It was approved by the pope himself.

It was only later changed because of the reaction it received.

But the question here is important: the original meaning is what they actually intended it to mean, and they approved it with (allegedly) the authority of Almighty God.

I don't care so much what the new definition says. They are only trying to please all parties involved so as not to lose half the Church. Their original definition is indicative of the intentions of the authors and the principles of the whole Novus Ordo; and it is manifestly anti-Catholic.
The GIRM teaches at the level of Church discipline.  It is not definitive teaching with the authority of God.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)