Couple questions about Christianity

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
This was a rite legally promulgated by Paul VI, which he has the authority to do. And yes, not following it is disobedience. And disobedience in not following a scandalous rite is a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit he had the authority to institute a new form of liturgy and yet say that it is a scandalous form. How is that so? And how can you say the bishops have not affirmed it when that new form was merely in response to Vatican II, or that it is not affirmed as well by their reception and practice of it?

[Peter666]

"So you admit he had the authority to institute a new form of liturgy and yet say that it is a scandalous form. How is that so?"

It is so because the indefectability of the Church does not prevent a Pope from introducing new, defective, or erroneous rites. The Pope can introduce the chicken dance in the mass if he wants and make it legally valid.

That being said, there is an argument that Paul VI did not even properly promulgate the Novus Ordo rite, merely giving priests permission to say it at the most. But that is not needed for this specific argument.

"And how can you say the bishops have not affirmed it when that new form was merely in response to Vatican II, or that it is not affirmed as well by their reception and practice of it?"

First of all, it was not a response to Vatican II. Vatican II did not attempt to change the rite. If you read the documents on the liturgy it actually emphasizes that we should preserve the latin and that there may be some investigations made into using the vernacular in a limited way at certain points of the Mass. That is all.

The Novus Ordo rite was a completely uncalled for and unnecessary rite initiated by Bugnini and other Vatican officials to Protestantize the mass. The biggest question Catholics were asking when it came out was: why? Nobody had asked for a change except for the modernists of course.

As noted above, it is arguable that there is no legal basis for having this as the current rite of mass. But assuming that it is, then it is just a legal adoption. There is no infallibility or indefectability involved in having all the bishops use it.

The country of Lithuania practiced the Tridentine rite of Mass up until 1994 because there was no reason or basis to adopt the Novus Ordo rite. Only when their Cardinal retired and some modernist Vatican "yes man" was appointed did they introduce the Novus Ordo rite.

[BluffTHIS!]

You constantly weasel around and instead of saying this or that is definitely wrong/heretical because ABC, you say stuff like "does not prevent", "there is an argument that", or that someone is "suspected" of heresy. A bunch of insinuations only and a classic rhetorical technique of using a lot of "maybes" and "might bes" and then saying where there is smoke there has to be fire.

And the fact remains, that however wrong or ill-advised certain administrative and liturgical changes might have been, if you cannot prove that they were heretical then you in SSPX have no basis for liturgical/canonical disobedience merely because your preferences haven't been met.

And how is it, that the entire church, larger than all other christian denominations combined, with close to a billion faithful in communion with Rome, with thousands of bishops and hundreds of thousands of priests, is so completely wrong on all these things while your group with only 4 bishops and 50 priests stands alone in resisting the dastardly plot to protestantize the catholic liturgy and its theology?

Your group with all its comspiracy theories and inuendos and self-serving rationalizations are the McCarthyites of catholocism. The John Birch Society of religion.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
"It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows."

RJT, do you realize that this is the heresy of Modernism?

Midge was absolutely right in assuming that the meaning and understanding of a Church Dogma can never change or grow. That is why they attach the anathema part to it.

You're confusing when a dogma has to be applied to new circumstances and hence clarification may be needed, but that never does anything to change the meaning or our understanding of the dogma.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not mean to imply that the meaning changes. I don’t really think I said that. It is our understanding that becomes enhances (probably a better word). This is similar to how we as individuals evolve (not literally as science uses the word) as we get older. Perhaps wisdom is the best word of all. As one grows older one certainly has more wisdom (really wisdom without the word “more” - I am not sure if wisdom is something one can have in youth). If you do not view our Church as a Living Church than you probably won’t agree with me.

Certainly you have to agree that we constantly study our texts and tradition. If not, then are you suggesting we retire all theologians? The Holy Spirit might as well sit back and take an eternal sabbatical, too, then. Perhaps, you do consider our Church static as Bluff suggests in the other thread. Where would you have our Church have stopped - with Augustine?

Your final paragraph suggests more of what I had in mind with my post.

[BluffTHIS!]

I would like to note before Peter chimes in again, that although over time doctrine has more fully developed, it does not change its core meaning. But liturgical practices and the methods of approach to the world do change. And you can't just claim those things also fall under the mantle of doctrine in order to stop those liturgical changes at the point you would desire. And if you really want to turn back the liturgical clock, then the western rite should simply adopt the liturgy of the catholic Maronite Rite since that is probably the closest to the way the apostles worshipped.

Hiya BluffTHIS,

Can you explain to me something that I find a bit hard to fathom. If there are issues that are non-doctrinal and don't call the infallibilty principle into play, why are they compulsory and to which extend so? Severing the communion with the church, excommunication, sin (mortal?)?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Here, go play with these "Catholic" losers, I think they will be to your liking.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you are talking about. god too has no idea what you are talking about. was it some joke about buddhists? do you think me and god are buddhists? well, no, lol.

also, god sends you his love again. he appriciates what you are doing "for" him, but really, he would prefer if you just listen to hawaian music as a way of worshiping him. he LOVES hawaian music, especially this dude. very recommended. and good prices. the pope would love it, i'm sure.

[Peter666]

What am I weaseling around? My point in this whole thread was that the New Catechism of the Catholic Church is heretical which I proved logically.

Now you have had to avert the argument to an attack on Traditionalist Catholics, trying to say they are schismtatic, heretical or what not due to your erroneous views on Papal and Church indefectability, the New rite of Mass, and Canon Law. I have answered all these points directly with relevant historical examples where necessary.

Now again, to avert attention you are attacking the SSPX. What is the SSPX? Merely a group of Priests, Seminarians and Bishops who since the early 70's have opened up seminaries to teach authentic Catholic doctrine without modernist influence. Naturally, because modernists hate Catholicism, they are attacked relentlessly. But despite this, the SSPX seminaries have the highest number of vocations in their respective countries. Do you deny there is a crisis in the modern Catholic Church concerning vocations and priestly morals?

You are also attacking the SSPX's doctrinal positions based on sheer numbers. "We are bigger than you, na na na.." And? What's your point? Does that necessarily make you correct? The SSPX and independant traditional priests are holier and smarter than the masses who are the asses. 2+2'ers make the minority in the poker world. Does this make them wrong? What is the correlation between population and truth? I would think the only relevant one is the number of vocations produced, and the SSPX has the post conciliar Church's ass kicked there.

[carlo]

The German poet and philosopher Schiller, when asked,"To which of the existing religions do you confess?" said "To none." And when he was asked why, he replied-"For religious reasons!" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

carlo

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to note before Peter chimes in again, that although over time doctrine has more fully developed, it does not change its core meaning. But liturgical practices and the methods of approach to the world do change. And you can't just claim those things also fall under the mantle of doctrine in order to stop those liturgical changes at the point you would desire. And if you really want to turn back the liturgical clock, then the western rite should simply adopt the liturgy of the catholic Maronite Rite since that is probably the closest to the way the apostles worshipped.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to post a similar thought: Jesus didn’t speak Latin.