|
Post by ratioetfides on Jul 30, 2023 20:20:44 GMT
Some think they need to establish a lack of proper execution of the document to support their unsubstantiated theories and attempts to sow distrust. Canons 8.1 and 8.2 are very clear on the matter. Those making statement about TC’s “irregularity” have to ignore the second half of these canons which permit the document per se to set the effective date. Some don’t like TC and have to make up reasons why it is not legitimate in order to support their radical ideologies. It is just what they do. Those floating out these theories well know the canons but misrepresent them for personal and financial gains. It is of no surprise some bishops are dispensing from some aspects of TC. There is a long line and current crop of bishops who are well known to not be joined to the mind of the church in this matter. The Bishop of Rome clearly stated the results of the survey. But sone wish to believe a handful of other bishops because it supports their preconceived narrative. It is there and was quoted in black and white. The evidence supporting the survey results is ubiquitous across the web.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 30, 2023 21:28:19 GMT
Some think they need to establish a lack of proper execution of the document to support their unsubstantiated theories and attempts to sow distrust. Canons 8.1 and 8.2 are very clear on the matter. Those making statement about TC’s “irregularity” have to ignore the second half of these canons which permit the document per se to set the effective date. Some don’t like TC and have to make up reasons why it is not legitimate in order to support their radical ideologies. It is just what they do. Those floating out these theories well know the canons but misrepresent them for personal and financial gains. It is of no surprise some bishops are dispensing from some aspects of TC. There is a long line and current crop of bishops who are well known to not be joined to the mind of the church in this matter. The Bishop of Rome clearly stated the results of the survey. But sone wish to believe a handful of other bishops because it supports their preconceived narrative. It is there and was quoted in black and white. The evidence supporting the survey results is ubiquitous across the web. I didn't say it wasn't legitimate. I merely pointed out that there was no vacatio legis. The absence of a VL, while strange, would not make the document illegitimate. The bishops who dispense from certain provisions of TC are "the Church" as well. Each bishop is a vicar of Christ in his own diocese. The "mind of the Church" at the moment is that the TLM will be permitted under certain circumstances and conditions, moreover, the FSSP is exempted from TC. The Church is also quite tolerant of the SSPX, granting it faculties for various sacraments, giving Bishop Fellay jurisdiction over certain matters (such as annulments), and allowing Bishop Huonder to be in residence with the SSPX and to confer sacraments as well as holy oils. I would assist at an SSPX Mass and allow an SSPX priest to hear my confession without the slightest hesitation, moreover, I have told my son (16) that if and when he ever wishes to be confirmed (you really cannot force anyone to receive a sacrament), I will begin the instruction at home and take him to an SSPX chapel when confirmation is being conferred. They permit home formation, and do not require that long, drawn-out, two-year period of instruction.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 31, 2023 1:22:18 GMT
I get this feeling that some of them are being told that Vatican II and Pope Francis are questionable, that one should only refer to the Baltimore Catechism, that only old translations of the Bible should be used, etc.
I've read the entire Baltimore Catechism #2 and #3, and so far as I can tell, aside from purely disciplinary changes (fast and abstinence, etc.), there is nothing in it that Vatican II contradicts in any way. As to themes and topics for which the CCC is well-known, they were "there", at least in germ form, in the BC. For instance, the BC places very severe restrictions on capital punishment, stating that it is only to be used as an absolute last resort when there is no other way (and the Church in recent years has rightly noted that, in today's world, there are always other ways, ergo there is no need for CP), and the recurring theme of the "dignity of the human person" subsists in the Fifth Commandment, "thou shalt not kill", as well as in the various corporal works of mercy. The manifold assaults on the dignity of the human person in the 20th century --- genocide, legally enabled abortion, slavery, systemic racism, human trafficking, the drug trade, pornography, abuse within families, treating man as simply a commodity to be valued only insofar as he can produce economically (this applies both to communism and to unbridled capitalism), treating women as only having worth related to their beauty, the list goes on --- make an emphasis upon the intrinsic worth and dignity of the human person the order of the day. Nowhere does the BC contradict this. My point isn't that VII contradicts BC. It's the constant reference to BC. And older translations of the Bible, and which use archaic English, together with Latin and the EF. It's as if VII and beyond aren't worth noting, and worse, have been formed rather than informed by modernism.
Also, weren't those assaults also taking place long before the 20th century?
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 31, 2023 1:35:17 GMT
Honestly, some of the Masses I have attended in New Zealand have contained such horrific liturgical abuse I have been almost on the verge of tears (and I rarely shed tears), due to the disrespect Our Lord is shown. Last Christmas (Christmas is the only day of the year my parents go to Mass), my parents insisted on us going to Mass at a church I avoid at all costs due to the extreme liturgical abuse that goes on there. The priests laze around in the church pews during Mass, the readings are omitted, balloons are let off around the altar during the Preface, gaudy cheap Christmas decorations flood the altar. Awful. I felt physically sick afterwards that Catholic priests would allow a liturgy to be celebrated that way. For the past 18 months I have mostly attended a very traditional Novus ordo parish. I feel much more at home here. When the new bishop of the neighbouring diocese reestablishes the TLM I will try to drive up there once a month if possible. Not every Sunday as it will be a 5 hour round trip. The problem isn't the form of the Mass but regulations in implementation, and the problems with the latter involve vague points in the GIRM.
My guess is that Church leaders are thinking like a combination of marketing businessmen, strategists, educators, and sociologists. To understand that, consider what polls say about Catholics' sentiments worldwide about their faith, the percentage of them who are knowledgeable about the same, the percentages who attend Mass weekly, the Church's finances, etc., and even in light of secular matters which affect their faith and involving those inside and outside the Catholic world. For example,
The gist is that we're seeing large and increasing numbers of Catholics that lack knowledge of their faith and of the Bible, that don't attend Mass regularly, and that support ideas and causes that put to question their faith. At the same time, they're living in a world driven by turmoil (e.g., climate change, environmental destruction, peak oil, limits to growth, and "black swans" like war and pandemics, and policies driven by a few that control the richest countries and the global economy).
One can assume that Church leaders and experts were seeing similar during VII, where many countries were falling apart as they de-colonized or faced proxy wars employed by military powers, and predicting that they would become part of trends long after VII.
That, I think, is one of the major bases of the OF, and not only that but of the new Catechism, recent encyclicals, and statements concerning many crises plaguing the Church, particularly financial and sex abuses.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 31, 2023 1:38:35 GMT
Yes, TLM adherents are part of the Church, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily right, or that the Holy Spirit is guiding them does it? There have been many, many clergy and lay persons who were part of the Church and not led by the Holy Spirit in their actions. To think that the Holy Spirit is leading people to the TLM, but not believe that the Holy Spirit led the Church through VII is troublesome. I could care less if people choose to go to EF or the OF Mass. Most people could care less either. What gets tiresome is the constant whining, the constant "we are better", the constant division created by a minority group within the Church. Not much different than the minority groups causing division within our own country. When Christ said to believe like a child, he didn't say act like a child. It is clear by the number of posts created by you which try to justify your position, or show support for your position that you need validation of your beliefs. That isn't necessarily the Holy Spirit guiding you along. Last point first, no, I do not post as I do because I need "validation". I defend the TLM because it needs defending in the face of opposition to it, and to join my voice to the many. No, the people in the Church who dissent from Humanae vitae, and worse, go against it in their marital lives, sauntering up to communion every Sunday (not sure what they do about confession), that's not the Holy Spirit (I'll use your terminology here). The homosexuals who actively practice sodomy and receive, likewise, the divorced and invalidly "remarried" with no annulment and not exactly living in Josephite marriages, no, whatever "spirit" is guiding them, it isn't a holy one. I am willing to accept that the Holy Spirit "led the Church through Vatican II", as you put it. I know of nothing in V2 that diametrically contradicts anything that came before it, development of doctrine, yes, change, no. The directives in Sacrosanctum concilium were disciplinary and pastoral, not doctrinal. I am better than no person on this earth, and I've only known of one traditional Catholic in my life (it kind of rubbed off on her son too) who thought that way. They weren't well-liked people. Sounds like a circular argument, i.e., one defends it because it needs defending. But attempts to defend it otherwise were made in various threads and failed.
Making connections to HV and others are notable. It's as if one is fighting not only against the OF but against the Church, and because of VII and what happened after. The proposal is to return to a pre-VII past, which reminds me of Cardinal Ratzinger's late '60s radio interview.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 31, 2023 2:32:35 GMT
Last point first, no, I do not post as I do because I need "validation". I defend the TLM because it needs defending in the face of opposition to it, and to join my voice to the many. No, the people in the Church who dissent from Humanae vitae, and worse, go against it in their marital lives, sauntering up to communion every Sunday (not sure what they do about confession), that's not the Holy Spirit (I'll use your terminology here). The homosexuals who actively practice sodomy and receive, likewise, the divorced and invalidly "remarried" with no annulment and not exactly living in Josephite marriages, no, whatever "spirit" is guiding them, it isn't a holy one. I am willing to accept that the Holy Spirit "led the Church through Vatican II", as you put it. I know of nothing in V2 that diametrically contradicts anything that came before it, development of doctrine, yes, change, no. The directives in Sacrosanctum concilium were disciplinary and pastoral, not doctrinal. I am better than no person on this earth, and I've only known of one traditional Catholic in my life (it kind of rubbed off on her son too) who thought that way. They weren't well-liked people. Sounds like a circular argument, i.e., one defends it because it needs defending. But attempts to defend it otherwise were made in various threads and failed.
Making connections to HV and others are notable. It's as if one is fighting not only against the OF but against the Church, and because of VII and what happened after. The proposal is to return to a pre-VII past, which reminds me of Cardinal Ratzinger's late '60s radio interview.
No, I defend it because it is attacked. If there were no attack, there would be nothing to defend, and no reason to defend it. I do not think I failed. I leave it to the reader to determine whether my arguments are good ones. Better yet, go to the TLM and see for yourself. Some will not care for it, some will like it, some will come to prefer it.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jul 31, 2023 2:47:43 GMT
I've read the entire Baltimore Catechism #2 and #3, and so far as I can tell, aside from purely disciplinary changes (fast and abstinence, etc.), there is nothing in it that Vatican II contradicts in any way. As to themes and topics for which the CCC is well-known, they were "there", at least in germ form, in the BC. For instance, the BC places very severe restrictions on capital punishment, stating that it is only to be used as an absolute last resort when there is no other way (and the Church in recent years has rightly noted that, in today's world, there are always other ways, ergo there is no need for CP), and the recurring theme of the "dignity of the human person" subsists in the Fifth Commandment, "thou shalt not kill", as well as in the various corporal works of mercy. The manifold assaults on the dignity of the human person in the 20th century --- genocide, legally enabled abortion, slavery, systemic racism, human trafficking, the drug trade, pornography, abuse within families, treating man as simply a commodity to be valued only insofar as he can produce economically (this applies both to communism and to unbridled capitalism), treating women as only having worth related to their beauty, the list goes on --- make an emphasis upon the intrinsic worth and dignity of the human person the order of the day. Nowhere does the BC contradict this. My point isn't that VII contradicts BC. It's the constant reference to BC. And older translations of the Bible, and which use archaic English, together with Latin and the EF. It's as if VII and beyond aren't worth noting, and worse, have been formed rather than informed by modernism.
Also, weren't those assaults also taking place long before the 20th century?
Not on the scale that we saw in the 20th century --- genocide made ruthlessly efficient in concentration camps like an industrial enterprise, pornography that can now be had with a few clicks of the mouse, the populations of entire countries corralled together and forced to work for the state (USSR, Mao's China, and so on). As to your first comment, therein lies the rub. Why discourage people from reading older texts? Why not say "yes, that's what the texts said, and it was incomplete (or badly prioritized, or even downright incorrect) because XYZ"? Is the Church afraid of people doing research and asking why this or that was changed? Afraid that people will prefer the old to the new? For the Church to say "don't think, just trust us" is risible given all of the credibility that the Church has lost due to the sexual abuse crisis. There's no putting that genie back into the bottle. Cardinal Newman rightly called for an intelligent, informed, thinking laity, and on forums such as this one --- the best example of "synodality" I can imagine --- that's precisely what he got. Sancta Joannes, ora pro nobis.Sounds to me like there's a little bit of Orwellian "memory holing" going on here. Got to wonder if a Pope Tagle or a Pope Roche would create a kind of "Index of Forbidden Traditionalist Books" (and magazines, and websites, and videos...), which, of course, would mean that people would just quit reading and propagating them, or whether pre-Vatican II books will be required to have a warning label on them "this book is a product of its time and presents outdated concepts, approach with caution", somewhat like the disclaimers that now precede Disney cartoons and shows such as Gilligan's Island and Bonanza.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Aug 1, 2023 3:34:23 GMT
Sounds like a circular argument, i.e., one defends it because it needs defending. But attempts to defend it otherwise were made in various threads and failed.
Making connections to HV and others are notable. It's as if one is fighting not only against the OF but against the Church, and because of VII and what happened after. The proposal is to return to a pre-VII past, which reminds me of Cardinal Ratzinger's late '60s radio interview.
No, I defend it because it is attacked. If there were no attack, there would be nothing to defend, and no reason to defend it. I do not think I failed. I leave it to the reader to determine whether my arguments are good ones. Better yet, go to the TLM and see for yourself. Some will not care for it, some will like it, some will come to prefer it.
I don't think it's being attacked, and it would be absurd to do so because as Pope Benedict XVI points out it and the OF are one and the same Rite. The only reason why he allowed the EF is because some grew up with it, miss it, and for valid reasons can't celebrate the OF.
Given that, the argument that it should be allowed because it appeals to some young people doesn't make sense. It's similar to the point that rock music should be allowed at Mass because that appeals to some young people, too.
In light of that, we'll end up with all types of Masses, which interestingly enough is what happened before the EF was imposed.
|
|