I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae
(08-20-2013, 09:07 AM)2Vermont Wrote: I agree with it in matters other than faith and morals.  We know that the Pope can not bind and loose anything he wants.  He can not contradict doctrine.  Even the Pope has limits.  The Mass is the greatest prayer of the Church for hundreds and hundreds of years.  It is not mere Canon Law.  It has more to do with doctrine than discipline (lex orandi, lex credendi).  Pope Paul VI radically changed it.  This is unprecedented.

I found this and thought it was a good explanation of what we are talking about here (and I'm pretty sure these guys are not sedes, so I think it is okay to post):

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questio...Primum.htm

So you posit that the Form of Mass itself is immutable doctrine and cannot be changed? Does this extend to any liturgical function, like the Divine Office?  Is this extended to the other Rites and Forms (for example; was it lawful for the Seraphic Missal to be suppressed?)
Reply
(08-20-2013, 09:15 AM)Melchior Wrote:
(08-20-2013, 09:07 AM)2Vermont Wrote: I agree with it in matters other than faith and morals.  We know that the Pope can not bind and loose anything he wants.  He can not contradict doctrine.  Even the Pope has limits.  The Mass is the greatest prayer of the Church for hundreds and hundreds of years.  It is not mere Canon Law.  It has more to do with doctrine than discipline (lex orandi, lex credendi).  Pope Paul VI radically changed it.  This is unprecedented.

I found this and thought it was a good explanation of what we are talking about here (and I'm pretty sure these guys are not sedes, so I think it is okay to post):

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questio...Primum.htm

So you posit that the Form of Mass itself is immutable doctrine and cannot be changed? Does this extend to any liturgical function, like the Divine Office?  Is this extended to the other Rites and Forms (for example; was it lawful for the Seraphic Missal to be suppressed?)

I'll answer that with an excerpt from another link from the same site:

The reason given for why one Pope can always reform the decision of previous Popes is not applicable to this case. It only applies to those reforms that do not change the substance of the sacraments and the Mass. However, Paul VI changed the substance of the Mass when he changed the formulas of the Canon from Latin to the vernacular, allowed different Canons to be said, hid the sacrificial character of the Mass, gave a different meaning to the Eucharist, and presented a Protestant interpretation to the whole of the Mass in opposition to what had been established by St. Pius V. Therefore, Paul VI frontally defied the sentence of St. Pius V, going far beyond the limits of his authority [for more on this topic, click here]. Hence the reason alleged by the Congregation of the Worship when applied to the New Mass is erroneous.
Reply
(08-20-2013, 09:35 AM)2Vermont Wrote: I'll answer that with an excerpt from another link from the same site:

The reason given for why one Pope can always reform the decision of previous Popes is not applicable to this case. It only applies to those reforms that do not change the substance of the sacraments and the Mass. However, Paul VI changed the substance of the Mass when he changed the formulas of the Canon from Latin to the vernacular, allowed different Canons to be said, hid the sacrificial character of the Mass, gave a different meaning to the Eucharist, and presented a Protestant interpretation to the whole of the Mass in opposition to what had been established by St. Pius V. Therefore, Paul VI frontally defied the sentence of St. Pius V, going far beyond the limits of his authority [for more on this topic, click here]. Hence the reason alleged by the Congregation of the Worship when applied to the New Mass is erroneous.

There's a key line here; "It only applies to those reforms that do not change the substance of the sacraments and the Mass".  I suppose that's the rub; do you believe the *substance* of the Mass changed?  If you did, then I can understand where you are coming from.  However if you do believe this, as someone said before, you're saying every Mass is invalid, plus denying Matthew 16.
Reply
(08-20-2013, 09:49 AM)Melchior Wrote:
(08-20-2013, 09:35 AM)2Vermont Wrote: I'll answer that with an excerpt from another link from the same site:

The reason given for why one Pope can always reform the decision of previous Popes is not applicable to this case. It only applies to those reforms that do not change the substance of the sacraments and the Mass. However, Paul VI changed the substance of the Mass when he changed the formulas of the Canon from Latin to the vernacular, allowed different Canons to be said, hid the sacrificial character of the Mass, gave a different meaning to the Eucharist, and presented a Protestant interpretation to the whole of the Mass in opposition to what had been established by St. Pius V. Therefore, Paul VI frontally defied the sentence of St. Pius V, going far beyond the limits of his authority [for more on this topic, click here]. Hence the reason alleged by the Congregation of the Worship when applied to the New Mass is erroneous.

There's a key line here; "It only applies to those reforms that do not change the substance of the sacraments and the Mass".  I suppose that's the rub; do you believe the *substance* of the Mass changed?  If you did, then I can understand where you are coming from.  However if you do believe this, as someone said before, you're saying every Mass is invalid, plus denying Matthew 16.

Eh, it doesn't mean it has to be invalid.   It can mean it is illegitimate.  And since the Church still has the TLM in the Latin Rite and still has the Eastern Rites, it doesn't deny Matthew 16.
Reply
Conscience vs dogmatic authority
"Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after dinner toasts...I shall drink - to the Pope, if you please, - still to Conscience first, and to the pope afterwards...I wish for the intellect to range with the utmost freedom, and religion to enjoy an equal freedom...Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise...[Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ..."

- Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, (1801 –1890) from his letter to the Duke of Norfolk quoted by Pope Benedict XVI in, "Conscience and Truth"


Its about Conscience vs Dogma.


"...[b]Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority[/b]. The conscience of the individual confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church. In all activity man is bound to follow his conscience It follows he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor…to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious...”

- Pope Benedict XVI, Commentary on the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, in vol.5

We Catholics have always had it made, or, at least during the good times of the Church. We didn't think & study, we just did what the Pope said. Well, the "times they are a changin' " We are actually being called upon to study, tO THINK. This is NOT about the validity of any Mass, this is about using our minds instead of just payin' & prayin'. & obeyin' the Pope If one believes in the quietest part of his being that the NO. has brought blessings to the Church, that it is the Will of God that this Mass is above all others, etc., that person MUST attend the NO.

I do not believe, after honest, prayerful, studying for several years that the NO. is the best we can do & God deserves our very BEST!! The Church teaches that conscience is primary & my conscience tells me that the fruits of Vatican II, the NO. Mass, the blending of the ordained priesthood, CITH (which was brought about in disobedience & manipulation),  the lack of vocations, the nuns who deface government property,  the sexual abuse of pubescent boys, the constant diminishing Mass attendance & on & on are NOT good fruits. 
Reply
(08-20-2013, 10:20 AM)JoniCath Wrote: Conscience vs dogmatic authority
"Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after dinner toasts...I shall drink - to the Pope, if you please, - still to Conscience first, and to the pope afterwards...I wish for the intellect to range with the utmost freedom, and religion to enjoy an equal freedom...Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise...[Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ..."

- Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, (1801 –1890) from his letter to the Duke of Norfolk quoted by Pope Benedict XVI in, "Conscience and Truth"


Its about Conscience vs Dogma.


"...[b]Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority[/b]. The conscience of the individual confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church. In all activity man is bound to follow his conscience It follows he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor…to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious...”

- Pope Benedict XVI, Commentary on the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, in vol.5

We Catholics have always had it made, or, at least during the good times of the Church. We didn't think & study, we just did what the Pope said. Well, the "times they are a changin' " We are actually being called upon to study, tO THINK. This is NOT about the validity of any Mass, this is about using our minds instead of just payin' & prayin'. & obeyin' the Pope If one believes in the quietest part of his being that the NO. has brought blessings to the Church, that it is the Will of God that this Mass is above all others, etc., that person MUST attend the NO.

I do not believe, after honest, prayerful, studying for several years that the NO. is the best we can do & God deserves our very BEST!! The Church teaches that conscience is primary & my conscience tells me that the fruits of Vatican II, the NO. Mass, the blending of the ordained priesthood, CITH (which was brought about in disobedience & manipulation),  the lack of vocations, the nuns who deface government property,  the sexual abuse of pubescent boys, the constant diminishing Mass attendance & on & on are good fruits.

I wonder if the idea of following one's conscience is closely aligned with Free Will. 
Reply
The liturgy is the very center of our Christian lives.  It is a reflection about what the Church teaches and believes.  When that is tampered with, it changes the orientation of not only the faithful, but the clergy.
Reply
(08-20-2013, 10:24 AM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-20-2013, 10:20 AM)JoniCath Wrote: Conscience vs dogmatic authority
"Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after dinner toasts...I shall drink - to the Pope, if you please, - still to Conscience first, and to the pope afterwards...I wish for the intellect to range with the utmost freedom, and religion to enjoy an equal freedom...Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise...[Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ..."

- Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, (1801 –1890) from his letter to the Duke of Norfolk quoted by Pope Benedict XVI in, "Conscience and Truth"


Its about Conscience vs Dogma.


"...[b]Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority[/b]. The conscience of the individual confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church. In all activity man is bound to follow his conscience It follows he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor…to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious...”

- Pope Benedict XVI, Commentary on the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, in vol.5

We Catholics have always had it made, or, at least during the good times of the Church. We didn't think & study, we just did what the Pope said. Well, the "times they are a changin' " We are actually being called upon to study, tO THINK. This is NOT about the validity of any Mass, this is about using our minds instead of just payin' & prayin'. & obeyin' the Pope If one believes in the quietest part of his being that the NO. has brought blessings to the Church, that it is the Will of God that this Mass is above all others, etc., that person MUST attend the NO.

I do not believe, after honest, prayerful, studying for several years that the NO. is the best we can do & God deserves our very BEST!! The Church teaches that conscience is primary & my conscience tells me that the fruits of Vatican II, the NO. Mass, the blending of the ordained priesthood, CITH (which was brought about in disobedience & manipulation),  the lack of vocations, the nuns who deface government property,  the sexual abuse of pubescent boys, the constant diminishing Mass attendance & on & on are good fruits.

I wonder if the idea of following one's conscience is closely aligned with Free Will. 

I don't think so. Conscience involves choice,. while free will is usually followed by action.  For instance......my informed Conscience tells me that it's my duty to help those who are chronically ill, too poor to purchase meds to lonely to care about living..

My free will, on the other hand, can choose NOT to obey my conscience. Say, I plan to go visit this poor person who is lonely & depressed........but I get up in the morning & have 10 good excuses to disobey my conscience,. "I'm too tired, I'll go next week"......or, I've got work to do today & he's not really my "kin".........or, It's such a beautiful day, I'll just stay home & enjoy,.
Reply
I see what you're saying JoniCath.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)