Posted on 07/26/2017 10:35:48 AM PDT by ebb tide
Sources inside the Vatican suggest that Pope Francis aims to end Pope Benedict XVI’s universal permission for priests to say the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), also known as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. While the course of action would be in tune with Pope Francis’ repeatedly expressed disdain for the TLM especially among young people, there has been no open discussion of it to date.
Sources in Rome told LifeSite last week that liberal prelates inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith were overheard discussing a plan ascribed to the Pope to do away with Pope Benedict’s famous document that gave priests freedom to offer the ancient rite of the Mass.
Catholic traditionalists have just celebrated the tenth anniversary of the document, Summorum Pontificum. Pope Benedict XVI issued it in 2007, giving all Latin Rite priests permission to offer the TLM without seeking permission of their bishops, undoing a restriction placed on priests after the Second Vatican Council.
The motu proprio outraged liberal bishops as it stripped them of the power to forbid the TLM, as many did. Previously priests needed their bishop’s permission to offer the TLM.
Additionally, Summorum Pontificum stated that wherever a group of the faithful request the TLM, the parish priests should willingly agree to their request.
The overheard plans are nearly identical to comments from an important Italian liturgist in an interview published by France’s La Croix earlier this month. Andrea Grillo a lay professor at the Pontifical Athenaeum of St Anselmo in Rome, billed by La Croix as “close to the Pope,” is intimately familiar Summorum Pontificum. Grillo in fact published a book against Summorum Pontificum before the papal document was even released.
Grillo told La Croix that Francis is considering abolishing Summorum Pontificum. According to Grillo, once the Vatican erects the Society of Saint Pius X as a Personal Prelature, the Roman Rite will be preserved only within this structure. "But [Francis] will not do this as long as Benedict XVI is alive.”
The plan, as related to LifeSite, involved making an agreement with the Society of St. Pius X and, with that agreement in place, sequestering those Catholics wanting the TLM to the SSPX. For most, that would strip them of access to the TLM since there would not be nearly enough SSPX priests to service Catholics wanting the TLM worldwide.
Moreover, LifeSite’s source suggested that the plan may explain a May 20, 2017 letter by the recently ousted Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller. Even though Cardinal Müller wanted the SSPX fully reconciled to help fight modernists in the Church, the May 20 letter seemed to scuttle an agreement between Pope Francis and the SSPX which would see them get a personal prelature. The letter includes provisions long known to be completely unacceptable to the SSPX, thus nullifying an understanding SSPX leader Bishop Bernard Fellay believed was imminent.
The LifeSite source suggested that the May 20 letter by Muller perhaps was written because he knows what Francis was up to and wanted to avoid the plan to bury Summorum Pontificum with Pope Benedict. “It’s directed not so much against Fellay but against the agreement,” said the source. “Pope Francis was very angry that document came out from Cardinal Muller and some say that’s why he made the decision to dismiss him.”
Not awake enough. Should have read: “Get thee behind me, Satan.”
“Good data points come from those doctrines that we actually find implied or discussed from the Apostolic Age on (papacy, Eucharist). And that is where your argument falls apart. Because there is no change.”
No Apostle discussed the Papacy.
No Apostle discussed the Roman understanding of the elements of the Lord’s Supper.
Nothing before 100 ad that is an unbroken chain for half or more of what Rome teaches.
If you won’t listen to your own beloved pope, your issue isn’t evidence. It is pre-belief apart from evidence.
Good luck with that Claud.
yeah, I guess God is pretty smart huh?
Yeah. Yeah.
What do you mean by “salvation from Rome”?
I used the three year cycle as I'm venturing most Romam Catholics attend services once a week and engage in no other Bible study.
I base the latter part of the statement on observations of the postings of Romam Catholics on these threads. For that matter a lot are poorly catechised from what I've seen.
I know in my own study of the Word once a week isn't enough.
Glad to hear you’re teaching the Greek. I echo your experience with Hebrew. I’m finishing a Graduate level certificate in Greek this Fall. When I’m finished with that I plan to do an independent study of Hebrew.
You've started off with a false premise, my friend Elsie, and gone on to an unsupportable extrapolation: and that's what makes these discussions all turn weird.
Your false premise is that the Catholic Church claims that it practices and beliefs have not changed (in any sense at all) over time.
Your unsupportable extrapolation is that any change over time, in any sense at all, destroys any claim of continuing authenticity.
Wrong, and wrong. And by leaping from a K-3 generalization to a Middle School conclusion, you think you've critiqued Catholicism?
The tough thing about continuing a discussion like this, is that we can't start from a clean slate and just state things as they are. We have to start by banging out the bulges on your fun-house mirror images, or to use a different figure, blasting out and discarding all your deep-rooted distorted presuppositions, which takes more than a stick of dynamite, and then we have to clear away the ashes and rubble.
You want to embark on the blasting and clearing, or you want to remain comfortable in your false premises? Let me know, I've got other things to do this morning.
There's that Apricot Semifreddo with Raspberry Sauce...
Actually this is what we've been told in these forums.....repeatedly.
We've shown where this is not true....repeatedly.
In John 4 He told the Samaratan woman, “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:24 NASB
In John 4:39-42 John records many believed in Him....many more believed because of His word....It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.
In John 5:24 Jesus told the Jews....“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. NASB
No mention of needing to eat flesh or drink blood.
In John 6 Jesus continues with His theme of believing in Him but the unbelieving Jews misunderstand Him and think He's talking about literally having to eat and drink the flesh and blood.
At the end of the discourse He asks the disciples a very important question.
66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?”
68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”
We come to Christ through faith.
That is a clear teaching in the New Testament.
Or else Jesus did not tell Nicodemus, the Samaritans or anyone else He spoke to prior to John 6 the truth on how one comes to faith in Him....and we know He did not tell a lie.
Paul was clear on this necessity of faith as he wrote in Romans.
9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;
13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”
There is no requirement in any of these passages about having to eat and drink flesh and blood.
Of all the errors of Roman Catholicism the notion of having to literally eat and drink His flesh and blood for salvation is the biggest and is not supported by Scripture.
Could you locate for me where where it has been asserted even once, by anybody?
Thank you.
The inability of priests to be married is a good example. We know many of the disciples were married.
Yet in the 4th century prohibitions against priests being married were introduced.
https://www.futurechurch.org/brief-history-of-celibacy-in-catholic-church
This was influenced in part by 2nd and 3rd century Gnosticism which viewed a person could not be married and be perfect.
So obviously Peter and the other married disciples would not have "passed on" the teaching that priests had to be unmarried.
The requirement of a celibate priesthood is but one example of change in the Roman Catholic church from the practice we see in the New Testament.
This is one of the many reasons the Roman Catholic claim to "Tradition" being equal to Scripture is rejected.
Could you locate for me where where it has been asserted even once, by anybody?
Aside from my post 178 where I answered your question regarding unanimity among the ECFs....
We have this post below from one of your fellow Roman Catholics.
The Church's Constant Teaching on our dealings with Non-Catholics
http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3488688/posts?q=1&;page=51
Your arguments are falling apart, Mrs.D.
“I’m venturing most Romam Catholics attend services once a week and engage in no other Bible study.”
Probably half attend weekly at best.
In some countries, +80% of listed members never attend during a year.
Further in the article they suggest that around 3.3% attend more than once a week but don't specify how many times per week.
http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2009/09/nuances-of-accurately-measuring-mass.html
And for the poster who likes to cite the "famous" people who've converted to Roman Catholicism they would be sobered to note there are 30.1m adults who no longer identify as Roman Catholic through 2016.
Neither do your quotes from the ECFs indicate any such thing.
You may have missed the phrase "in any sense at all". Obviously Catholic doctrine does change in the sense of "development of doctrine." This refers to a doctrine being reaffirmed and clarified in the light of new situations, being re-stated to answer new questions, being widened or refined in its application, being deepened, extended, elaborated, made more precise, etc. etc.
All that can change, and does. It is not contradiction, it is development.
What does not happen in Catholic doctrine, is abrogation. Something that was true 20 centuries ago, was true 200 years ago, was true 20 years ago, and will be true two or three or a thousand pontificates from now, per omnia saecula saeculorum, until Christ comes again.
And even if any FReeper Catholic could be found who erred on either side --- who said either that "nothing changes in any sense" or that "the basic doctrines do change," --- that FReeper Catholic would be factually in the wrong, and his/her remarks would need to be corrected by some rmemedial catechist.
Which --- God help us all! --- seems to be my vocation!
So that's why I keep saying, don't TELL us what Catholics believe. ASK. Ask. Because 9 times out of 10, you get it wrong.
1) There have always been married priests in the Catholic Church, continuously, for 2,000 years. They are to be found in the 21 churches (out of 22) which comprise the Eastern Catholic Churches. And yes, they are Catholic, in communion with the See of Rome.
2) Even in the Western Church (that 22nd church) there are married priests, mostly converts who were married Anglican or Lutheran clergy, and later became ordained to the Catholic priesthood.
3) There was never a theological "inability" for there to be married priests, as you mistakenly suppose. The Church has never asserted that. There has been a "discipline" (not "doctrine") of celibacy for priests in the West for over an millennium. But marriage is not intrinsically incompatible with Holy Orders.
4) Even now, there are more married men in Holy Orders in the United States than there are vowed-celibate religious priests. These married clergy are ordained deacons. There are about 14,000 of them in the USA, as compared to 13,000 religious order priests (meaning Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans, Benedictines, etc.)
Your entire argument was based on a non-factual assertion about Catholic doctrine.
I repeat: ASK us, don't TELL us, about Catholic doctrine.
Thank you.
It's not my premise...it's Roman Catholic doctrine. If the Council of Nicea proclaims a that after ordination a priest cannot marry that is a doctrine. This was reinforced over time by various Popes and other Councils.
But again....this was not was is witnessed in the New Testament.
Even the disciple ya'll claim as the first pope was married!!
This even degenerated into such evil as promulgated by Pope Urban II who had the wives of priests sold into slavery and the children abandoned.
Urban was a piece of work. He also promised forgiveness of sins for those who fought and died in the Crusades....a Roman Catholic form of jihad.
There were also rulings that a priest could no longer sleep with his wife. It sure seems Roman Catholicism is hung up over sex.
1) There have always been married priests in the Catholic Church, continuously, for 2,000 years. They are to be found in the 21 churches (out of 22) which comprise the Eastern Catholic Churches. And yes, they are Catholic, in communion with the See of Rome.
We're discussing Roman Catholicism...not the Eastern church. You can't mix and match when it suits your argument.
2) Even in the Western Church (that 22nd church) there are married priests, mostly converts who were married Anglican or Lutheran clergy, and later became ordained to the Catholic priesthood.
Then they are in violation of prior rulings "handed down" from your popes....or there's been another change in the group that claims they never change.
3) There was never a theological "inability" for there to be married priests, as you mistakenly suppose. The Church has never asserted that. There has been a "discipline" (not "doctrine") of celibacy for priests in the West for over an millennium. But marriage is not intrinsically incompatible with Holy Orders.
Your trying to argue semantics and the attempt fails.
The First Lateran Council in 1123 decreed all clerical marriages as invalid. So much for what God has joined together let no one separate.
What this shows is the Roman Catholic Church has introduced something new which is not in accord with the NT.
Mrs D, I know you're a committed Roman Catholic. But being so, you cannot see the forest for the trees in this case.
We'll continue with the argument about the celibacy of the priesthood.
There was no requirement of celibacy in the early NT church. There was no requirement of abstaining from sex as a "priest". Those doctrines came about in the 300s and continued to undergo revisions over time...some pretty evil in nature and contrary to the very institution of marriage initiated by God.
Celibacy was not required by any NT writer.
This is where your argument falls apart.
It was not true 20 centuries ago. It's only been that way in Roman Catholicism since the early 300s.
My arguments are falling apart? Nonsense. What I asked was for you to locate for me some FR Catholic who asserts that "the Catholic Church's practices and beliefs have not changed (in any sense at all) over time". The link you provided did not lead to any Catholic saying any such thing.
You did see the title of the thread...right?
The Church's Constant Teaching on our dealings with Non-Catholics
Now, if you're trying to argue a poster didn't make a comment saying that then we've entered the Clinton world of parsing words...."it depends on what is means" or such nonsense.
You may have missed the phrase "in any sense at all". Obviously Catholic doctrine does change in the sense of "development of doctrine." This refers to a doctrine being reaffirmed and clarified in the light of new situations, being re-stated to answer new questions, being widened or refined in its application, being deepened, extended, elaborated, made more precise, etc. etc. All that can change, and does. It is not contradiction, it is development.
Yes...the Muslims have something along those lines...it's called abrogation.
You're hilarious. Read the African Councils. When they talk about the canon of scripture, they refer to it as the books that are to be read in the church.
What were they doing in the African churches in 397 A.D.? Were they having one of your superfun rock band praise-n-worship sessions? Or were they--according to your own faked-up timeline of Catholic Church corruption--saying Mass?
I say again: the Scriptures were determined by what books were read in the liturgy.
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.