Why was the Mass changed?
#21
(02-28-2012, 12:45 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: So the Church, who is indefectible and infallible, has "officially promulgated" a liturgy which destroys the Faith, and hundreds of millions of people are forced to attend this Mass as they have no other option?
A "Catholic Mass" can destroy Faith and "fulfill" obligations?  ???

The New "mass" is not protected by the Churchs indefectibilty

Here, this snip is from A Theological Critique OF Rev. James F. Wathen, O.S.J's THE GREAT SACRILEGE by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Br. Alexis Bugnolo ends up agreeing with Fr. Wathen and admits that the NOM is not a liturgical norm and it is not protected by the Church’s infallibility or indefectibility.



.........The general interpretative principle that a universal disciplinary decree is protected from error, on account of the Church’s indefectibility, is based on its precise nature both as a universal decree and as an exercise of the infallible Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium.

Because inasmuch as the decree, even if it virtually teaches in regard to some matter of faith or morals, does not fulfill the other conditions for infallibility established by Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, it fails to represent that form of the exercise of the Magisterium of the Church which Christ willed to be protected from error.

In addition, the Missale Romanum of Paul VI clearly was not a universal norm, because Paul VI never formally made it such, never formally derogated the Old Rite, granted a general exemption for England to use the liturgy of 1965, and did not require the non-Roman Rite Churches in communion with the Apostolic See to use it.  Clearly then, it was not a universal decree, nor did it rise to the level of that form of liturgical norm, which expressly confirmed by Trent and the decree of St. Pius V, is expressly recognized as free from error and valid for all times.

The constant changes made to the Missal and its translations, norms, rubrics, etc., clarifies that it was never intended to be a stable, liturgical form.  For all these reasons, since the very nature of infallibility and indefectibility requires a stable adherence to the deposit of the faith, the Missale Romanum of Paul VI, cannot be considered a universal liturgical norm that is protected by the Church’s infallibility or indefectibility. And if not, then it is capable of containing errors, which while not formally heretical, to the extent that it did not intended to contradict or abrogate formally any dogma of the faith, could contain materially grave errors, even those which could not otherwise be founded but upon heresy; and hence virtually could be as detrimental to the Faith and the Church as something formally heretical.  As for the rest of the merits of the argument I present in this article, I leave them to be, as a historical testament to my own imperfect understanding of the issues.
Reply
#22
Sorry Mr. Hunter I don't understand your last post. My comment about rocks and stones refers to what you said, that the Church has "officially promulgated" a liturgy harmful to souls. Our Lord said what parent would give his child stones if the child asks for bread.
Reply
#23
(02-28-2012, 12:59 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Sorry Mr. Hunter I don't understand your last post. My comment about rocks and stones refers to what you said, that the Church has "officially promulgated" a liturgy harmful to souls. Our Lord said what parent would give his child stones if the child asks for bread.
I ask you to please address me by screen name: "Old Salt".

I will clarify.
The Novus Ordo Mass has produced a lot of bad fruits[rocks]

Our Lord also said 'By their fruits ye shall know them"

We see the fruits of the NO as being by in large very "rocky".
Reply
#24
(02-28-2012, 01:03 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(02-28-2012, 12:59 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Sorry Mr. Hunter I don't understand your last post. My comment about rocks and stones refers to what you said, that the Church has "officially promulgated" a liturgy harmful to souls. Our Lord said what parent would give his child stones if the child asks for bread.
I ask you to please address me by screen name: "Old Salt".

I will clarify.
The Novus Ordo Mass has produced a lot of bad fruits[rocks]

Our Lord also said 'By their fruits ye shall know them"

We see the fruits of the NO as being by in large very "rocky".

Thank you for the clarification, Old Salt.
Reply
#25
(02-28-2012, 12:58 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(02-28-2012, 12:45 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: So the Church, who is indefectible and infallible, has "officially promulgated" a liturgy which destroys the Faith, and hundreds of millions of people are forced to attend this Mass as they have no other option?
A "Catholic Mass" can destroy Faith and "fulfill" obligations?  ???

The New "mass" is not protected by the Churchs indefectibilty

I disagree with this. Have you heard of Fr. Sixtus Cartechini? Fr. Cartechini wrote De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (On the Meaning of Theological Qualifications), published in 1951. Several Roman Congregations used this work to evaluate orthodoxy or its lack thereof, heterodoxy. Chapter 4 is entitled What the Ordinary Magisterium is and how dogmas can be proved from it, or concerning divine and Catholic faith founded on the Ordinary Magisterium.

Fr. Cartechini states

Quote:“The liturgy does not create dogmas, but it expresses dogmas because in her manner of praising God or praying to Him the Church expresses what and how and according to what concepts God wants to be publicly worshipped….[so] the Church cannot permit that things should be said in the liturgy in her name that are contrary to what she herself holds or believes.” (p.37)

He later notes that "neither general councils nor the pope can establish laws that include sin…and nothing could be included in the Code of Canon Law that is in any way opposed to the rules of faith or to evangelical holiness."

Its not only ex cathedra statements that we must believe or are infallible. This is simply not the case. Canon George Smith, PhD DD, wrote "Must I Believe It" in The Clergy Review, sometime in the 1940s, that:

Quote:The Vatican Council has defined that "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by her ordinary and universal teaching, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."3 What is liable to be overlooked is the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church. It is by no means uncommon to find the option, if not expressed at least entertained, that no doctrine is to be regarded as a dogma of faith unless it has been solemnly defined by an oecumenical Council or by the Sovereign Pontiff himself. This is by no means necessary. It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council. If, then, a doctrine appears in these organs of divine Tradition as belonging directly or indirectly to the depositum fidei committed by Christ to His Church, it is to be believed by Catholics with divine-Catholic or ecclesiastical faith, even though it may never have formed the subject of a solemn definition in an oecumenical Council or of an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Sovereign Pontiff.
Reply
#26
Canon Smith, from the same article, said
Quote:It is by no means uncommon to find the opinion, if not expressed at least entertained, that no doctrine is to be regarded as a dogma of faith unless it has been solemnly defined by an oecumenical Council or by the Sovereign Pontiff himself.  This is by no means necessary.  It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary Magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council.
Reply
#27
(02-28-2012, 01:21 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(02-28-2012, 12:58 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(02-28-2012, 12:45 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: So the Church, who is indefectible and infallible, has "officially promulgated" a liturgy which destroys the Faith, and hundreds of millions of people are forced to attend this Mass as they have no other option?
A "Catholic Mass" can destroy Faith and "fulfill" obligations?  ???

The New "mass" is not protected by the Churchs indefectibilty

I disagree with this. Have you heard of Fr. Sixtus Cartechini? Fr. Cartechini wrote De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (On the Meaning of Theological Qualifications), published in 1951. Several Roman Congregations used this work to evaluate orthodoxy or its lack thereof, heterodoxy. Chapter 4 is entitled What the Ordinary Magisterium is and how dogmas can be proved from it, or concerning divine and Catholic faith founded on the Ordinary Magisterium.

Fr. Cartechini states

Quote:“The liturgy does not create dogmas, but it expresses dogmas because in her manner of praising God or praying to Him the Church expresses what and how and according to what concepts God wants to be publicly worshipped….[so] the Church cannot permit that things should be said in the liturgy in her name that are contrary to what she herself holds or believes.” (p.37)

He later notes that "neither general councils nor the pope can establish laws that include sin…and nothing could be included in the Code of Canon Law that is in any way opposed to the rules of faith or to evangelical holiness."

Its not only ex cathedra statements that we must believe or are infallible. This is simply not the case. Canon George Smith, PhD DD, wrote "Must I Believe It" in The Clergy Review, sometime in the 1940s, that:

Quote:The Vatican Council has defined that "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by her ordinary and universal teaching, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."3 What is liable to be overlooked is the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church. It is by no means uncommon to find the option, if not expressed at least entertained, that no doctrine is to be regarded as a dogma of faith unless it has been solemnly defined by an oecumenical Council or by the Sovereign Pontiff himself. This is by no means necessary. It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council. If, then, a doctrine appears in these organs of divine Tradition as belonging directly or indirectly to the depositum fidei committed by Christ to His Church, it is to be believed by Catholics with divine-Catholic or ecclesiastical faith, even though it may never have formed the subject of a solemn definition in an oecumenical Council or of an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Sovereign Pontiff.

Whoever thinks the NOM was Divinely revealed has been duped big time. I'd encourage you to read again the reasons given that insure us that the NOM is not protected by the Church's indefectibilty - not by a long shot.

Remember, Br. Alexis Bugnolo was out to prove the NOM had the protection - but in his efforts to prove such a thing, he found out otherwise and heroically (or humbly) admitted he was wrong - the new mass is not protected for the reasons given.

Too many people look at the NOM and still think that the Church is capable of promulgating a little poison here and there so "looks like we have to go along with it" - inspite of seeing what the NOM is and what it has done - as though it's holy - just not as holy as it should be. Bolderdash!

Start with what you see then go backwards rather than starting with what you feel is supposed to be - then deny what you see.
Reply
#28
The Church cannot give error, She cannot give evil. Arguments to argue that the NO is not protected due to "invalid promulgation," seem weak to me.

I will check out Br. B's argument later. As of right now, from what I just previously posted from Cartechini and Smith, I disagree vehemently.
Reply
#29
(02-28-2012, 01:50 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: The Church cannot give error, She cannot give evil. Arguments to argue that the NO is not protected due to "invalid promulgation," seem weak to me.

I will check out Br. B's argument later. As of right now, from what I just previously posted from Cartechini and Smith, I disagree vehemently.

Fair enough. CITH, EMHCs altar girls and so on - do you believe the Church has promulgated error or are these not error? It is a simple enough question - make a stand.

Do you believe a liturgical innovation which has proven to be disastrous to the faith all over the world enjoys protection of indefectibilty? 1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. - Pope Paul VI Or do you believe the Church, the Bride of Christ promulgates unholy things for the good of souls?

Do you believe the endless novelties are protected as well - or that said novelties are not really part of the NOM?
4. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. . . . . . . . First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. . . . . . - Pope Paul VI

I could go on and on but the point I am trying to make is this - we see the new mass is evil, and we know that nothing evil can enjoy divine protection - for whatever reason, people see evil, believe it's not really too evil - maybe just a little bit evil - because it came from the Church.
Reply
#30
Ecumenism gone wild.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)