Concerning the Mass

[dabaq]

Well, I'm just transferring this mini-debate over to my journal since Miriam seems to freak out every time I mention this subject in her journal...

Let's see here:

I said:
They can't understand the importance of the Mass if it looks like a Protestant worship service... Change the Mass back to the Catholic Mass and people will go.

God Bless!

Comments

[heyyoimjohnny]

You're saying that a Mass said in the vernacular is less clear and understandable than one said in a dead language? Please be specific on these "guestures" that are missing and make the Norvus Ordo untangible.

Also, the Norvus Ordo Mass is not a protestant service. It is Eucharist centered. Saying the Mass in the vernacular doesn't make it invalid. The faithful have every reason to go for this reason!

The fact that the truths of the Church aren't being well-taught by the priests is not the cause of the Mass. If that's the case, how can you explain the strong Orthodoxy of, say, diocese in the Nebraska area?

God Bless you, too. :)

[dabaq]

The key difference between the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass is not the fact that the Mass is in the vernacular. Firstly the Novus Ordo is technically supposed to be done in Latin anyway and a priest can do so without any need of permission; even then, however, it is essentially just as bad. The vernacular in the Novus Ordo simply aggravates the issue because the translation is deliberately made to make the already skewered Mass seem to be more like a Protestant service by mistranslating the Latin

[heyyoimjohnny]

I'm going to a more basic point; I should have done this earlier, my apologies for that. I'm not going to fight your opinion; you're set in your ideas, and I'm not a forceful person

[dabaq]

Ok, I agree we should go into a more basic point. Firstly, the Novus Ordo was certainly never promulgated officially by the Pope, and hence has no authoritative binding and has no guidance of the Holy Spirit. Hence, it is illicit, which means it is illegal under Church law to say it... Therefore, I'm taking Church authority over worship of the illegal pronouncements of pontiffs. The document "promulgating" the Novus Ordo is a joke; it does not bind the Novus Ordo as law, since it was not declared to be law, no promulgation date was provided (although it was later added as a forgery), and no punishment was given, besides the fact that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil by its nature (a bad law is no law). Hence, under Church law, the law was invalid, null and void.

God Bless!

[heyyoimjohnny]

So are you saying that,

a) no one except the Pope in the entire Ecumenical Council was being guided by the Holy Spirit?

b) Pope Paul VI's Bull Missale Romanum... doesn't exist?

c) that the Church has taught erronously on this subject for 40 years?

[dabaq]

I am saying that:

a) Vatican II was not infallible and thus not guided by the Holy Spirit. This is because the Pope did not wish to exercise his infallibility, which is the only thing that can cause a council to be infallible. Councils without this infallibility can err, such as the Robber Council of Ephesus.

b) Pope Paul VI's document Missale Romanum exists, but carries no legal weight since it promulgates no law, but makes at most a suggestion.

c) That the Church has not officially taught on this subject for 40 years.

God Bless!

[heyyoimjohnny]

information taken from: http://catholic-legate.com/qa/v2infallible.html

"...It is not necessary for a doctrine to be defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium in order to be infallible. The Ordinary Magisterium is good enough. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis (para 20) clearly taught that the words of Jesus in Luke 10:16 applied to the Ordinary Magisterium:

Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

You can't get more infallible than that.

Art Sippo
The Catholic Legate"

that answers a). Godbless!

[dabaq]

No, all it does is explain a concept of the Church that I'm already aware of. The ordinary magisterium of the Church is that which is taught by the Church's magisterium through the pope. It comprises the second tier of Church magisterium. It is not itself ipso facto infallible, but infallible in the sense that it is to reiterate Catholic doctrine; this means that if a teaching in an encyclical or other follows the Church tradition, what it says is infallible and is required to be assented to. An example of this is the perennial Church teaching of the immorality of abortion and contraception. Another example is in the case of altar girls where multiple Popes have condemned it; this reiteration of Church teaching and tradition makes the teaching ordinary magisterium. However, if a teaching is not based on tradition, it is not necessary to assent to it but rather must be rejected. In the case of extraordinary magisterium, however, it by the act defines something and is always infallible

[heyyoimjohnny]

a) Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitutions... representing authentic, new, binding teaching. Defined by VCII. There was nothing contradictory to Church teaching in the second Vatican Council.

Even if the Magisterium don't make an infallible statement, they are still Church authority. It's not your place to shrug it off.

as for b), Missale Romanum was more than a suggestion. Pope Paul VI made that clear: "We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation." It was a reorganization of the liturgy, just as Quo Primum was; nothing new.

Godbless!

[dabaq]

You are looking at this in a very simplistic sense. For something to be infallible ex cathedra, it must be first stated or declared so by the Pope and none other. Furthermore, it must follow a certain formula: "We, by Our Apostolic Authority and the Holy Spirit thus approve, establish, decree, etc." Then, all declarations and definitions must be clearly declared to be so. This was not fulfilled by Vatican II, and even the Pope said that the Council would not define anything new, but would restate Church teaching; at best it would be therefore ordinary magisterium therefore. However, it is not even that if the teachings are contrary to the tradition of the Church

[heyyoimjohnny]

I haven't much time to answer all of it right now, but a quick note: you said, "This was not fulfilled by Vatican II, and even the Pope said that the Council would not define anything new, but would restate Church teaching; at best it would be therefore ordinary magisterium therefore. However, it is not even that if the teachings are contrary to the tradition of the Church."

As the ordinary Magisterium is infallible, it has protection by the Holy Spirit, and therefore absolutely cannot teach error. It is not possible. So as VCII was ecumenical, it was infallible. Pope John XXIII called the council with his Papal authority, it is infallible. I'm looking at it in a simplistic sense because it is very simple: Holy Spirit governs Church; Pope is head of Church. Pope's got infallibility, Magisterium's got infallibility, Pope uses authority and calls an ecumenical council (a general council of the entire Church, which is therefore under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ), anything taught or defined in that council

[dabaq]

You've messed up one of your premises. Ordinary Magisterium is always infallible, but papal teaching is not always ordinary magisterium. Papal teaching is ordinary magisterium when it is reiterating a perennial teaching of the Church, i.e., putting forth a teaching always taught by the Church but being explained again and possibly more clearly. When a teaching is not part of tradition, it is not ordinary magisterium.

And here I can review your logical sequence:

Holy Spirit governs Church; Pope is head of Church. Pope's got infallibility, Magisterium's got infallibility, Pope uses authority and calls an ecumenical council (a general council of the entire Church, which is therefore under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ), anything taught or defined in that council is infallible.

I'll go at them one-by-one:

Holy Spirit governs Church

This cannot be denied, although it would be better said that He leads the Church. Governance is something else.

Pope is head of Church.He is visible head of the Church without a

[dabaq]

The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that he sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously.This is not the quote that I refer to when he says he won't make this infallible, but he hints at it here. He says that the purpose of the council is to guard and teach the sacred deposit of doctrine, and not to define anything, which is the action of an infallible pronouncement

[heyyoimjohnny]

Thank you for correcting my faulty logic. My apologies, I did take logic this year, but didn't retain any of it. ;)

To make it more simple; John XXIII promulgated the council, it's infallible. Doctrine of Papal supremacy can be applied to Vatican II since it was promulgated by Pope John XXIII. It had infallibility, and therefore, it couldn't possibly teach anything contradictory to Church doctrine.

Another note, even if a council or Pope makes a statement that isn't infallible (or follows the certain formula), it doesn't mean it is fallible or unauthoritive. And you don't have the authority to decide whether it is or whether it isn't.

[dabaq]

No. Infallibility ex cathedra is only applied in certain cases and when the Pope makes it explicit that he's using it. Otherwise, when would one know that he is exercising this? Something is not infallible just because it is in a council headed by the Pope.

A non-infallible statement must be listened to unless it can be proven that it is contrary to Church teaching. I myself have no authority to say this, but the Church's previous teachings do, and I can present these to show the errors.

God Bless!

MichaelFilo

[heyyoimjohnny]

Nicely done.