Archbishop Viganò: Is Vatican II “Untouchable”?
#11
(09-28-2020, 07:44 PM)xsantiagox Wrote: I dont know canon law but wouldnt this create,or potentially create, a slippery slope to criticize other past councils? for example someone doesnt like the council of florence or carthage,etc.

This matter has nothing to do with Canon Law.
Reply
#12
(09-28-2020, 08:43 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: They therefore acknowledge that genuine changes occurred at Vatican II (religious liberty is a notable example) but that, somehow, this is still in continuity (but not identical) to Catholic Tradition. 
I have read that after Dignitatis Humanae was promulgated, John Courtney Murray, the Americanist chief architect of the Decree, said, 'The teaching of the Church has changed 180 degrees. It is now up to the theologians to explain it'. And they've been trying and failing for over half a century.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 3 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • Augustinian, HailGilbert, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#13
(09-28-2020, 08:43 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote:  Not too surprisingly, this little revelation during my undergrad days helped turn me against the conservative NO option.  There can be no contradictions or changes in the Church's doctrine. To say otherwise, whether as a liberal NO or a conservative NO, is to admit, at least implicitly, that evolutionary doctrinal change is possible and the Church is as fallible any other institution.

Yeah, the whole issue of the "indefectibility of the Church" kind of makes doctrinal evolution difficult.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • SeekerofChrist
Reply
#14
I agree with Vigano. Vatican II is entirely irregular. Instituted to complete a former counsel?!? Invited Hereticks to CONTRIBUTE their theology?!? Changed the liturgy in violation of St. Pius VI's degree?!? Etc. Vatican II is garbage. Throw it in the trash!
https://historyofnewengland.blogspot.com/?m=1
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
[-] The following 2 users Like newenglandsun's post:
  • austenbosten, HailGilbert
Reply
#15
(09-28-2020, 09:48 PM)Augustinian Wrote: Yeah, the whole issue of the "indefectibility of the Church" kind of makes doctrinal evolution difficult.

St Jude warned us. From the Epistle of St Jude, 1:3 (Knox): Beloved, as one who is ever ready to write to you about that salvation which is your common concern, I am compelled to send you this letter of warning; you have a battle to fight over the faith that was handed down, once for all, to the saints.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 3 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • Augustinian, Ioannes_L, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#16
(09-28-2020, 10:13 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(09-28-2020, 09:48 PM)Augustinian Wrote: Yeah, the whole issue of the "indefectibility of the Church" kind of makes doctrinal evolution difficult.

St Jude warned us. From the Epistle of St Jude, 1:3 (Knox): Beloved, as one who is ever ready to write to you about that salvation which is your common concern, I am compelled to send you this letter of warning; you have a battle to fight over the faith that was handed down, once for all, to the saints.

The Letter of St. Jude is a very undervalued book for some reason.  But it surely packs a prophetic punch in its brevity.

I'm actually quite surprised that we don't see any homilies / videos on Sensus Fidelium or the like sounding the call of this warning.

Although the Church has, in a way, been living through the warnings given in the Book of St. Jude since her beginnings, the words certainly ring true today.  One wonders if it is just a coincidence if Jude is the last book of Scripture before the Apocalypse.
[-] The following 2 users Like LionHippo's post:
  • Augustinian, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#17
(09-28-2020, 09:51 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Changed the liturgy in violation of St. Pius VI's degree?!?

You mean like Urban VIII, Pius X, Pius XII, and and John XXIII did?

Popes cannot bind future popes in disciplinary matters, which the form of the liturgy is. Quo primum (in the Missal) and Quod a nobis (in the Breviary) don't prevent future Popes from making changes. Before Trent, the liturgy was largely up to the bishops of each diocese, but with the Protestant Reformation going on, and a danger of the bishops introducing heresy, Pius V put a stop to that and imposed one Missal on the Latin Rite, saving only those rites which were at least 200 years old. Future Popes could and did make changes, since all Popes have equal power, but a priest or bishop on his own could not.

Also, Paul VI's promulgation of the new Mass didn't abolish the old. Go read Missale Romanum - the new Missal is an option, and nowhere in it does he suppress the old Missal. Benedict XVI recognised as much in Summorum Pontificum.
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • jovan66102, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#18
(09-29-2020, 10:36 AM)Paul Wrote:
(09-28-2020, 09:51 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Changed the liturgy in violation of St. Pius VI's degree?!?

You mean like Urban VIII, Pius X, Pius XII, and and John XXIII did?

Popes cannot bind future popes in disciplinary matters, which the form of the liturgy is. Quo primum (in the Missal) and Quod a nobis (in the Breviary) don't prevent future Popes from making changes. Before Trent, the liturgy was largely up to the bishops of each diocese, but with the Protestant Reformation going on, and a danger of the bishops introducing heresy, Pius V put a stop to that and imposed one Missal on the Latin Rite, saving only those rites which were at least 200 years old. Future Popes could and did make changes, since all Popes have equal power, but a priest or bishop on his own could not.

Also, Paul VI's promulgation of the new Mass didn't abolish the old. Go read Missale Romanum - the new Missal is an option, and nowhere in it does he suppress the old Missal. Benedict XVI recognised as much in Summorum Pontificum.
Those Popes didn't change the liturgy. They issued variations in already existing liturgies.

At my parish, our format for Orthros differs slightly from other Melkite parishes because use a variant that was implemented by a Reader who served there before he fell asleep in the Lord. Does this mean our Orthros has become a new Orthros? Certainly not! There is always room for adjustment and variation based on the needs of the given congregation. The question is whether a different liturgy is being said.

Ive been to four different Anglican parishes and they all used variants but ultimately it was the same Mass that was centered on the 1928 BCP. The rubrics permit certain alterations.
https://historyofnewengland.blogspot.com/?m=1
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
Reply
#19
(09-29-2020, 11:20 AM)newenglandsun Wrote: Those Pope's didn't change the liturgy. They issued variations in already existing liturgies.

At my parish, our format for Orthros differs slightly from other Melkite parishes because use a variant that was implemented by a Reader who served there before he fell asleep in the Lord. Does this mean our Orthros has become a new Orthros? Certainly not! There is always room for adjustment and variation based on the needs of the given congregation. The question is whether a different liturgy is being said.

Ive been to four different Anglican parishes and they all used variants but ultimately it was the same Mass that was centered on the 1928 BCP. The rubrics permit certain alterations.

The word "change" is not univocal.  There are several possible meanings for it and some are compatible with Catholic teaching on doctrine, liturgy, etc.  What needs to be addressed is whether a change is accidental or substantial.  An accidental change is a change in appearance only, not the substance (which would be substantial change).  Accidental changes are allowed to the Mass.  An example would be the changes made between Pius V and John XXIII.  You might call those "variations" but they constitute accidental changes.  Others might be possible, for example, to allow the Scripture readings in the vernacular.  That would be a change (from Latin to a native tongue) yet no substantial change has occurred.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
[-] The following 2 users Like SeekerofChrist's post:
  • Augustinian, newenglandsun
Reply
#20
(09-29-2020, 11:41 AM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: The word "change" is not univocal.  There are several possible meanings for it and some are compatible with Catholic teaching on doctrine, liturgy, etc.  What needs to be addressed is whether a change is accidental or substantial.  An accidental change is a change in appearance only, not the substance (which would be substantial change).  Accidental changes are allowed to the Mass.  An example would be the changes made between Pius V and John XXIII.  You might call those "variations" but they constitute accidental changes.  Others might be possible, for example, to allow the Scripture readings in the vernacular.  That would be a change (from Latin to a native tongue) yet no substantial change has occurred.
Yes. Well said.
https://historyofnewengland.blogspot.com/?m=1
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)