Replies

If the reason for promoting this were the same as the Eastern-rites reasoning, then I would have no problem with making it earlier. However, Sinkspur and many others in the Novus Ordo establishment have an underlying agenda to push.

St. Thomas Aquinas gives some very poignant answers as to why the Roman rite (which we ARE the Roman rite, which has never had a history of bowing or raising our hands during prayer in its history; these are Eastern-rite customs importanted into the Latin (Roman rite) liturgy has conferred its sacraments as it has.

Here is an article to begin with. It is a little deep, but you wandered into these waters, so it is time to begin to tread water quickly! :) http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/inerrant.html

The magisterium of the Church has the duty to hand down the Deposit of Faith to us. This "handing on" is called tradition and Tradition. Those who have changed the many "traditions" the past 40 years have done so to destroy the Faith, intended or not. And just because "traditions" (NOT Tradition) can change, does not mean there are good reasons for doing so. The modernists have NEVER given us any good reasons from a theological perspective (turned toward God) for doing so.

Like I said, I love the Eastern liturgies and the Eastern customs. But just like Pope John Paul II has told them to return to their Eastern customs (like dropping the Filioque in the Creed!), I would like the same principles applied to the Latin (Roman) Rite. Let's return to our traditions and customs.

Here is another article for you when you have finished the first. http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/incommut.html

I sure did wander in, didn't I? LOL!!! "Ecclesiastical tradition in the proper sense is inerrant. Hence it can not be alienated from the Church, nor can it ever be held as dangerous to the Faith. Accordingly no reform nor renewal of the Church can improve upon ecclesiastical tradition thus understood; for inasmuch as it is the work of the Church Herself, there exists no power on Earth able to produce something more correct than the Church Herself. Hence, he who would assert the necessity of correction in ecclesiastical tradition asserts equally the impotency and hence infidelity of the Church Herself in the fulfillment of Her Divine Mission. But this is contrary to the Faith. Therefore there can be no renewal or reform of ecclesiastical tradition; by the very fact of being a Catholic one is obliged to embrace both the Church and Her traditions. To do otherwise is apostasy. To advocate otherwise is heresy. Hence the grave necessity of every member of the Faithful, from the Pope, the Cardinals, the Bishops, the clergy, the religious to the layman in the pew, to hold fast to ecclesiastical tradition and to propagate it faithfully in the Church." Makes sense to me. "And thus, just as something can be introduced that disagrees in substance, quantity, and/or quality, so there can be "newness" according to substance, quantity, and quality." Hmmm, I'm still ignorant when it comes to knowing all the specific changes in Vatican II--but, since I've heard/read many priests say Vatican II wasn't the problem. The fact that many were allowed to *interperet* for themselves what it all meant and insert or delete things from the Mass and such was/is the problem. "Likewise ecclesiastical tradition in its proper sense is imcommutable by virtue of its principles. It is not immutable in the sense that is undergoes no change according to quality and/or quantity; quality in the sense of progress in clarity and application, quantity in the sense that there is an increase in the number of things and words in which it is passed on." Again, wasn't this the intent of Vatican II? <> Did I drown? :)