Posted on 10/19/2006 5:57:34 PM PDT by monkapotamus
Maybe people get the wrong idea about Vatican II, since the writers of the new Mass ignored and went against it's document on the liturgy? Why only a few years later was the Council's document on the liturgy able to be ignored? If you read the document, you'll see the new Mass is not what it outlines.
Sorry, until 11/7/06, I am going to concentrate on the elections and related issues. My best to you as ever. God bless you and yours. Your second paragraph is particularly pertinent and accurate.
Was this in an encyclical? Papal Bull? The documents of Vatican II do not support this AT ALL. Can a Pope Unilaterally make these pronouncements?
Please don't ping me with hysterical rantings and please stop spamming this thread.
The last paragraph is particularly pertinent.
That isn't the issue - chest-beating and macho posing is. Reality takes a back seat to attacking Bp. Fellay.
As St. Jessup said, You can't handle the truth!
And pinging the moderator is not going to prevent the truth being posted
I know y'all hate seeing the truth of the schism exposed to the eys of the lurkers because the ugly truth of the schism is not what y'all want paraded before the public. Y'all prefer the sweet lies there is such a thing as a good schism.
There ain't such an animal. Now, have fun on trhis thread. I am done with it but I will return on every pro-schism thread to expose the truth and warn all who lurk
Posting the reality about the schism is always seen as "attacks" by those who ssupprt the schism. As for chest-beating, I don't monkey around with such worthles pursuits.
Thank you.
Stop pinging me, genius.
Well, frankly, you are making me blush. Genius? Well, even I think that a bit florid. Thank you anyways :)
Do not ping me. Your odd stalking has to stop, as does your odd belief that I am not Catholic.
The ‘Liber Pontificalis’ mentions several of the reforms which were made in it, but not all, since St. Gregory alone, as we know by his correspondence, made many alterations, of which the principal are: the introduction of the singing of the ‘Kyrie,’ changes in that of the ‘Alleluia,’ the alteration of the place of the ‘Pater,’ important modifications of the Gelasian text, and probably of the chant. We must not, then, be astonished if the Roman Mass has conformed far less to the primitive form than the Mozarabic, Gallican, or Ambrosian Masses, and more especially the Eastern liturgies. The Popes possessed an authority which allowed them to change any part of the ceremonial, and they used it.
How does one deal with men like this? At least the Soviet Union admitted signing documents they did sign.
No bishop is permitted under any pretext or privilege whatsoever to exercise episcopal functions in the diocese of another bishop, without the permission of the Ordinary of the place and with regard to persons subordinate to the same Ordinary. If any bishop does otherwise, he will be lawfully suspended from his episcopal functions
As regards your comparison twixt Amedrica and the Soviets, if the Vatican were America and the SSPX the Soviets, then for the comparison to be seen as it really exists, the Soviets would have had to occupy parts of Georgia, Maine, Nebraska etc etc
"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid."
*Nothing has changed vis a vis Divinely-Constituted Authority.
I am sure the Pope would be delighted to hear Fellay and the other heretical schismatics Confess and repudiate their errors and come home to Rome
Borna,
I have documented evidence of at least three cardinals very close to our current Pope (Castrillon Hoyos, Medina Estevez and now REPEATEDLY, Archbishop Ranjith). The fact that you obviously do not keep up with the current goings-on of things traditional in the Church and continue to present your biased and skewed views, purportedly representing Catholicism (rather than your own personal biases) is a shame for all those here with eyes to see and hear.
The priests and bishop of Campos, Brazil in 2001 reconciled with the Church without recanting or correction one single doctrinal view. This is the case with the FSSP and ICR as well. They view Vatican II "in light of Tradition." Same for our current Pope. See his 1988 Address to the bishops of Chile.
Pope Paul VI, nor any other Pope, has the right to suppress a rite of Mass that was the primary rite used (Roman) for 1,600 years in the Church. If Pope Paul VI thought he had the power to do so, this Pope, and immemorial custom, are showing differently.
You are mistaken. The SSPX will eventually reconcile once their excommunications are declared null and void, and YOU will become the Catholic dissenter.
And I thought that true ecumenism was your big soapbox issue. Here it is in spades.
Embrace ecumenism with traditionalists "borna"!
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.