Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians
(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.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - by INPEFESS - 09-21-2011, 08:36 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)