Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians
(09-23-2011, 03:18 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-23-2011, 08:46 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 09:18 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(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.

The disciplines of the Church aren't legislated by the authority of God? Even the laws of state are legislated with the authority of God. They, however, are not protected in the same way the Church is, so if the state "binds" something against the law of God, it does not actually bind because God cannot bind Himself against God.

The Church, however, is protected from binding against God: She cannot bind a discipline that is contrary to the teachings of the Faith. This is known as secondary infallibility.

The passage in the GIRM you find so objectionable is not a doctrinal definition so it is not in the form of a doctrinal definition.  There was nothing in it that contradicts Church teaching.  Again you seem to be grasping at straws to come up with something to criticize.

I am not grasping at straws; you simply don't understand the point.

No, it is not a doctrinal definition. But it is the underlying theology of the new liturgy that is being discussed. That theology is not Catholic, yet it was promulgated with the purported authority of the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo has made the nouvelle theologie its theology. That theology is condemned by the power of God through His Church. Yet you support this novel program (and its liturgy) as being authentically Catholic, despite the fact that it is based upon condemned theology.

Am I grasping at straws or are you not wanting to acknowledge the problem?

Messages In This Thread
Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - by INPEFESS - 09-23-2011, 05:43 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)