Posted on 01/07/2017 1:03:03 PM PST by ebb tide
So, while the "Reform of the Reform" is dead for the universal Church, some particular churches (and not only parishes) may be moving ahead with bringing some elements of Roman Tradition to the new, and made-up artificial rite of Paul VI.
So it is with the Archbishop of Monterrey (Nuevo León state), in Mexico, Abp. Rogelio Cabrera López, who sent the following message to all his priests:
In the prologue of Saint John is found the synthesis of the Apostolic Faith, centered in the Mystery of the Incarnation: Jesus is the Word, the One who IS for all Eternity, who was made flesh, and shows us the face of God, clarifying the mystery of man.
It is for this that, by way of the present letters and with my ordinary authority, I decree that in all Sunday Masses of the year 2017, beginning on January 1, following the post-communion prayer, the Prologue of the Gospel according to Saint John be read in its liturgical version. Palm Sunday and the Easter Vigil are excepted.
[Source, en español. Tip: Twitter follower.] Note: if you wish to witness the Last Gospel read at every Mass, as in the organic development of the Traditional Rites of the Latin Church, visit the nearer Traditional Latin Mass.
This was added to the Mass originally in the 16th century to combat heretical views sprouting out of Protestantism that denied the divinity or Christ (e.g. Michael Servetus).
It never should have been done away with in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Gospel
Paul VI’s destruction of the Roman Rite will someday be seen as the most megalomaniacal act of vandalism in human history.
He participated in the Protestant Reformation, and later developed a nontrinitarian Christology. Condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike, he was arrested in Geneva and burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the city's Protestant governing council.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus#Imprisonment_and_execution
The denial of the divinity of Christ is not a result of the Protestant Reformation. That assertion was around in the 1st century. For that matter is was around when Christ walked the earth.
John wrote about this in 1 John for example.
Perhaps you should study church history and not just catholic history.
There is only one Church, and it's the Catholic Church. Perhaps you should learn more about her origin and her history, rather than focus on heretical sects.
As you were proven to be in error in your prior post why should I believe anything you say??
You haven’t proven squat.
“Perhaps you should study church history and not just catholic history.”
First, my PhD emphasis was in Church History and Church History and Catholic History are entirely synonymous for the first 1500 years in the West. So maybe you could just not be wrong for a change.
Secondly, let’s look at what you cut from Wikipedia:
“He participated in the Protestant Reformation,”
I already said, “to combat heretical views sprouting out of Protestantism” and then gave Servetus as an example. In other words, you’re just proving I was right.
“and later developed a nontrinitarian Christology.”
I already said, “to combat heretical views ...that denied the divinity or Christ (e.g. Michael Servetus).” In other words, you’re just proving I was right again.
“Condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike, he was arrested in Geneva and burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the city’s Protestant governing”
I already said, “heretical views sprouting out of Protestantism”. You proved my right for a third time.
“The denial of the divinity of Christ is not a result of the Protestant Reformation.”
Yes, I think it is. Protestantism is heretical. It leads to other heresies. Servetus adopted the heresy of Protestantism before he adopted what some might refer to as Socinianism (the term here is technically anachronistic as it is a reference to Sozzini who was also a Protestant and the Polish Brethren - a Protestant sect).
“That assertion was around in the 1st century.”
Not in the same way as expressed by Protestants in the 16th century like Servetus.
“For that matter is was around when Christ walked the earth.”
Again, not in the same way as expressed by Protestants in the 16th century like Servetus.
“John wrote about this in 1 John for example.”
Again, not in the same way as expressed by Protestants in the 16th century like Servetus.
“Perhaps you should study church history and not just catholic history.”
Everything I said was absolutely correct and you proved me right again and again. I not only apparently know Church History better than you do, but I actually know Protestant histiry better as well if your post is anything to go by.
All you have to do is look at more modern examples. Did not the Protestant Pentecostal Movement give birth to the Oneness Movement sects which deny the Trinity? Yes, it did. Were not the original Jehovah’s Witnesses Protestants? Yep, they were.
Thanks for proving I was absolutely correct in everything I said. I appreciate it.
You may note I posted he was condemned by BOTH Protestant and catholic circles. So he was wrong in his assertions regarding the divinity of Christ.
Other historians disagree with your claim church history and Catholic, which I take you mean to be Roman Catholic, are synonymous for the first 1500 yrs. You operate under the false assumption the RCC has always been in existence. It has not and history shows that as has probably been discussed before.
Has not the rcc promoted a false worship of Mary? Yep. Thanks for proving me right.
. I guess you're with ebb tide in denying the current pope is legit. Or are you a Vatican 2 guy?
This was added to the Mass originally in the 16th century
Added only in the sensethat a fairly common extra-Liturgical pious practice that had oftend accompanied the Liturgy was standardized and formally incorporated into the Mass—not unlike the prayers at the foot of the altar.
The practice of having an extra gospel at the end of Mass is not a 16th century innovation and has roots that run far deeper, traceable well into the first millennium, and likely shares an origin with the practice of having multiple collects etc. The near-universal imposition of the prologue of John as the Last Gospel is a 16th century innovation/development. Even with this heavy-handed action of Trent, a trace of the earlier practice is preserved in the 1961 version of the rite on Christmas Day, where the Gospel is the Prologue of John, and so there is room for a different Last Gospel at the end of Mass, and so the Gospel of the Epiphany is used instead.
When there was a desire to observe multiple things liturgically for purposes of piety, but only the resources/time to do one thing, the practice arose of reciting the prayers and readings proper to the Mass that was not being celebrated in conjunction with the Mass being celebrated. Multiple collects etc. were common, and remained common, though the number allowed was gradually diminished, until 1969 (at some point in the 20th century, the number was reduced to three—early on the number was in the teens).
While multiple extra collects were common, from time immemorial only one extra gospel was employed, and while the beginning of John was most commonly used, there were other alternatives. Prior to adopting the liturgical reforms of Trent, the Jesuits, liturgical minimalists from the beginning, gave there celebrants an option of one of two gospels, the other being from Luke 11 (cf. Jungmannn The Mass of the Roman Rite). The Dominican Rite preserved elements of the older tradition as well, and no probably traces of other earlier practices might be found in the rites of other orders even after the initial Tridentine Reforms.
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2007/12/dominican-rite-and-last-gospel.html#.WHHpncenVZ0
I guess you’re with ebb tide in denying the current pope is legit. Or are you a Vatican 2 guy
There is a spectrum between being a Sede Vacantist and thinking that Vatican II is the only word on Church Teaching. I doubt that the two fall on the same place in the spectrum.
The English word “worship” has an interesting history—and while always a term of high praise, was not always generally used as a synonymn for adoration, and in some contexts is still not used in that way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worship_(style)
Catholics “worship” Mary even more than the English worship the Mayor of London, but that is not the same as treating Mary as God.
No matter how much lipstick we put on a pig, it’s still a pig.
“Well glad to know you’ve got a Ph.D. In church history.”
I do not have a PhD in Church History. You need to learn to read. My emphasis in my PhD was Church History. That’s not the same thing. I studied Church History every day for years and years but my PhD is not in “Church History”. That was just my emphasis.
“You may note I posted he was condemned by BOTH Protestant and catholic circles.”
Yes, and that was irrelevant to my point. Protestantism produced him, shaped him. The fact that the earliest Jehovah’s Witnesses were all Protestants is the issue not that they were condemned by “orthodox” Protestants and Catholics alike.
“So he was wrong in his assertions regarding the divinity of Christ.”
Yes, he was - according to the Catholic faith and those parts of it still adhered to by Protestants.
“Other historians disagree with your claim church history and Catholic, which I take you mean to be Roman Catholic, are synonymous for the first 1500 yrs.”
Not really. It would be extremely difficult for you to find a reputable Church historian studying western Church history who would say something different than what I did. If you ran across a Church historian studying the history of the Church in Germany in the 9th century what would he be studying? The Catholic Church. It’s just that simple.
“You operate under the false assumption the RCC has always been in existence.”
No. I make no false assumptions. The Catholic Church has not always been in existence, but it has been in existence for nearly 2,000 years. See, you made a false assumption about what false assumption you mistakenly believe I hold. I just don’t make false assumptions if I can help it. You seem to fall into them with regularity.
“It has not and history shows that as has probably been discussed before.”
As I stated the Catholic Church is nearly 2,000 years old - and that has been discussed before.
“Has not the rcc promoted a false worship of Mary? Yep.”
No. The Catholic Church has never “false worship” of Mary. We do venerate her, but that is not latria, not worship. There you go again making another false assumption. See how easily you make them? I don’t do that.
“Thanks for proving me right.”
Yet another false assumption on your part. You make this so easy. All you have to do is do what you usually do. That’s enough.
“I guess you’re with ebb tide in denying the current pope is legit.”
No, Pope Francis is the pope.
“Or are you a Vatican 2 guy?”
No. That phrase is built upon another false assumption. I’m Catholic. My faith does not begin or end with a particular council.
If you knew and understood more about Church History, you wouldn’t make these errors. If you knew and understood logic better, you wouldn’t make all of these false assumptions. If you knew and loved Jesus more, you wouldn’t spend so much time attacking His Catholic Church. You can fix all of those things. But to do it you need to recognize what you lack, what you need. Maybe you should spend some time praying about that today.
Based on Catholic writings and actions there is worship of Mary. Y’all can deny it all you want.
Do you teach at a college?
“Do you teach at a college?”
Do you make false assumptions?
Then you don’t teach at a college.
Then you do make false assumptions.
Once again, you are not telling the truth.
I have stated that Bergoglio is a material heretic, but I have never said he is a formal heretic. Others have, but I have not. Not yet.
Dude, with the articles you post you’d never know the difference.
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.