My experience at the NO
I'm still curious about the Ottaviani intervention being on the Vatican website . . .
Reply
(01-27-2012, 10:00 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I'm still curious about the Ottaviani intervention being on the Vatican website . . .

Shocked

That is fairly surprising
Reply
(01-27-2012, 10:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-27-2012, 10:00 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I'm still curious about the Ottaviani intervention being on the Vatican website . . .

Shocked

That is fairly surprising

Well it hasn't been established.  GMUAlex claimed so, but Someone asked for a link, we haven't gotten one yet.
Reply
I think there's an awful lot of confusion here about "imposing" a new rite versus "allowing" or "promoting" or whatever other word you want.  People are going to TLM's, right?  The SSPX is growing, SP exists.  The Church hasn't been "imposing" the NO as a law.  But I'm not sure that that has anything to do with it's validity.

TLM's can be illicit too.  Before anyone says "how is that relevant" the argument here is that the NO is harmful, and therefore cannot be "imposed".  The NO can either be harmful by consequence of how it is done, or intrinsically harmful, that is, because of what it is.  Obviously there are illicit and invalid NO's.  I saw a TLM with a two minute homily once, and one where the words of consecration were audible, and I'm pretty sure, said wrong.  So the question is, is the NO harmful in and of itself?

Usually the arguments that it is seem to be "look at what's happening" but that is a bigger and more complicated issue with more contributing factors than the validity of the NO.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)