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


Messages In This Thread
Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - by JayneK - 09-21-2011, 09:15 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)