Posted on 02/01/2013 6:01:52 PM PST by ebb tide
Or it could mean everybody sits, or everybody stands, or everybody puts their left foot in. Do you not see the ambiguity in the conciliar documents and the abuses that have resulted from them?
Before the 1962 reforms, there were no rubrics for the laity at all. From a liturgical law point of view, turning cartwheels was no worse (and no better) than kneeling. Custom and common sense largely held sway, but things did vary from region to region.
There is a great story about Belloc going to Mass in France and kneeling at a time where it was customary to kneel in England, but to stand in France. An usher thought that Belloc was a confused Anglican, and came up to him and said, “excuse me sir, but we stand here,” to which Belloc replied “Go to hell,” to which the usher replied “I’m sorry, I didn’t know you were Catholic.”
I do agree that if the Council has issued a completely revised Missal itself, things would have been less ambiguous. Given that uniform instructions for the laity had first come into force only in the previous year, the most natural interpretation would be that everybody ought to do what we just got through telling everybody to do. Yes, it is possible that different directions might be forthcoming in the future, but I don’t recall anything in the documents to the effect that “the just given rubrics for the laity on posture aren’t working, please change them.” If you see something to that effect, please give me the paragraph number.
Have you read "Iota Unum" or The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion"?
In all of this, my key point is simple. Both Blessed John XXIII and Pope Paul VI were duly elected in the manner consistent with previous Popes.
While SPXX doesn’t agree with Vatican II and the many changes that came after, doesn’t mean that either the Popes were illegitimate, or the Councils were illegitimate.
What it means is that SPXX thinks it alone is right in its interpretations and in open rebellion. Yes, rebellion.
Instead of rebellion, perhaps SPXX and its leaders should follow the example of St. Pio of Pietrelcina. Be obedient to your superiors, trusting eternally in the Lord that His will be done and Righteousness will reign.
They could also follow St. Francis de Sales and St. Faustina and their lessons in meekness.
Let this rebuke be taken in fraternal charity, with prayers for Christian unity.
“What it means is that SPXX thinks it alone is right in its interpretations and in open rebellion. Yes, rebellion.”
The SSPX is not alone in its “interpretation”. It has 2000 years of pre-conciliar popes and saints in agreement with it.
It is the post-conciliar popes who are in open rebellion, yes, open rebellion with Tradition.
Did Jesus not tell Peter the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church? Does Jesus call us to obedience to Church, even when difficult?
Has there been a single ex cathedra statement since the proclamation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception?
In asking these questions, I am simply pointing out the continuity of the Church. I am also pointing out that no dogma has been added or changed.
While Rites, rituals, and postures have been changed, those types of changes are at the discretion of the Holy Father.
The celebration of Holy Mass has changed throughout the centuries, and is somewhat different throughout the world today. However, the Catholicity of the liturgy is found in the framework, as well as the most essential element, the Eucharist.
The Popes, elected by their brother bishops (Cardinals), under the guide of the Holy Spirit, are the legitimate successors of Peter. Blessed John XXIII was, Paul VI was, just as Pius X, Pope St. Gregory and now Benedict XVI.
Each has/had the authority to teach, administer, and lead the Church. While you may disagree with elements of Vatican II and abuses by individuals that took place following, your stubborn disobedience of the Holy Father and insistence on the views of SPXX create disunity in the Church.
I don’t judge your reasons, and believe you are earnest in your beliefs. However, disunity and disobedience are the hallmarks not of Our Lord, but the Enemy.
Change is hard, but the essential teachings of Jesus, as found in the Scriptures and Magisterium of the Church are unchanging.
May God bring peace to your heart, guidance to your soul, and wisdom to your lips.
“Has there been a single ex cathedra statement since the proclamation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception?”
Not to my knowledge; which makes me wonder why the SSPX is required to sign off on the dogma of Vatican Council II.
Do you know what catholic means? Apparently not; it means "universal".
Each has/had the authority to teach, administer, and lead the Church."
Does each pope have the authority to teach that which is contrary to the teaching of his predecessors?
Did not Peter deny Christ three times in one night? Did not Paul rebuke Peter to his face?
I most certainly know the definition of catholic. I also know that local ordinaries have some flexibility.
A perfect example is Canada. In Canada, they use the Apostle’s Creed instead of the Nicene Creed.
While the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is the guiding document for the celebration of the Mass, there is some variance.
If you recall, Infallibility is a negative power. The Holy Spirit prevents Supreme Pontiff from teaching error in faith and morals.
And finally, you refuse to answer a question I have posed to you 3 times, so I will ask it a fourth, in hopes you will answer it.
Were Blessed John XXIII and Paul VI legitimately Popes?
“The Holy Spirit prevents Supreme Pontiff from teaching error in faith and morals.”
You forgot the most important part: the above is true only when the pope speaks “ex cathedra”.
“The Holy Spirit prevents Supreme Pontiff from teaching error in faith and morals.”
You forgot the most important part: the above is true only when the pope speaks “ex cathedra”.
Of course they were legitimate Popes; but good Popes: not at all.
“While the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is the guiding document for the celebration of the Mass, there is some variance.”
And we all know how screwed up the GIRM has been, needing constant correction since Bugnini’s new Mass:
http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/translating_sixquestions.shtml
“And finally, you refuse to answer a question I have posed to you 3 times, so I will ask it a fourth, in hopes you will answer it.”
I’ve reviewed your posts to me. You didn’t ask me the question three times; you didn’t even ask it one time.
Do you even know what the Eighth Commandment is? Do you take advantage of the Sacrament of Confession?
If they were legitimate Popes, you are obliged to follow their teachings on faith and morals. “Good” or “bad” is subjective. They were elected according to God’s plan for the Church.
All ordained men and other religious are required to be obedient to his teachings on all matters, by their vows.
By virtue of their office and election, Popes have an assumption of correctness. They have the legitimate right to rule the Church, teach, and guide.
When people disagree, they can communicate their disagreement through the appropriate channels. Until such time as it is addressed or changed, the assumption is that the Holy See is correct, and obedience is expected.
If one doesn’t wish to follow these norms, especially the clergy, they need to re-think their membership.
For those unwilling to obey, they should disassociate themselves with the Catholic Church and worship elsewhere, no longer calling themselves Roman Catholic.
After the election of Benedict XVI, someone said, “The cafeteria is now closed.” No more picking and choosing what one wishes to believe.
See post 32, ex cathedra is implied.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.