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.”
“You Catholics are wrong because you believe X.”
“We don’t believe X.”
“Wrong again. Yes you do.”
Trait Analysis
* Aggressiveness: 100%
* Rigidity: 100%
* Openness: 0%
* Empathy: 0%
Charitably --- or IS it charitably? --- we could attribute it to:
Which is to say, not only is there a lack of comprehension for what they read, but half the time they "read" things that weren't even there.
Or (the beata in me nudges) might own poor communication skills contribute to the fracas?
"I never said half the things I said" -- Yogi Berra
So, LOLZ all around.
No; that is WONDERFUL!
I’ll use it in the HOMO threads!!
A foreign concept; ain’t it!
What's FALSE about it?
What I wrote was:
...the fact still remains that there is EVIDENCE it's practices and beliefs HAVE changed over time...
It appears you do NOT want to address the EVIDENCE, but make a FALSE claim yourself.
Perhaps you'd best stay in the kitchen; although I hear it can get mighty hot in there at times.
He knows that; and the final Book in the compilation of books that Rome assembled so long ago PROVES it!
How many countless times have FR Catholics told us dumb PROTS that the 'church' has been CATHOLIC from Day One??
And THEN they end up IGNORING what the 'Catholic' churches in Revelation were teaching and practicing!
And now we have someone claiming continuity?
AMAZING!
Yes!
And so can anyone!
So?
There are thousands of PROTS like that as well.
Oh, occasionally some TRAMUA!!! will happen in their life and they'll FLOCK to the church for a while until it the bad thing goes away.
Then revert to a C&E 'christian'.
And then back to not darkening the doors again.
It is WAY too soon to TRY to move your goalposts; Dear.
Besides the NT, there are precisely two works of Christian literature from the first century. The Didache and the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. I already cited the latter as evidence of papal authority, which you conveniently ignored. I can cite the Didache for evidence of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist....but you will ignore that too.
And I'm going to continue pound this question into the ground that none of you will answer:
Where are your doctrines in the Church Fathers? Where is Sola Scriptura? Where is once-saved, always saved?
You like to sit here and snipe about every tiny little doctrine we hold, from the Assumption on, but you won't even flipping admit what denomination or even ideological stream you inhabit so we can pick apart all the distinctively doofus ideas that you hold, and that some of which even your fellow Protestants will find ridiculous.
You relentlessly pick apart our theory of Apostolic Succession but conveniently shield your own ecclesiastical origins from view so no one can know that in 1835 Obadiah Satterthwaite broke away from Cornelius Sludgewick and the Eighth Independent Apostolic Church of Lower Pinkleton. Now you've carved yourselves into so many contradictory denominations you've even rejected the denomination idea entirely. Instead you claim this high and mighty NT Restorationism (We're pure Christianity!) as if you somehow managed to float outside time and history and theological legacy, all while refusing to confirm historically whether your ideas even line up with what we positively know about the early Church.
Whether you admit it or not, your theological ideas can be traced to this guy, who broke away from that guy, who disagreed with that other guy, who split a church led by another guy, and on and on for 500 years. You utterly fail to realize that practically every denomination from Luther on claimed to restore primitive worship, and the fact that they came up with a hundred different supposed "restorations" ought to be a clue that the whole thing was based on nothing more than conjectural fantasy from the start.
Here; have an orange...
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.
Trying to use Biblical FACT against Catholic 'LOGIC'.
Vatican rumblings: Pope Francis aiming to end Latin Mass permission
Factuality?
And then we read things that ARE there!
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM
HMMMmmm...
Uh; in the Book that Rome so meticulously assembled so long ago?
Why do CATHOLICS ignore them?
And neither are considered Canon by anyone. Rome could have made these Canon at Trent but chose not to. There's a reason....they weren't received by the churches.
The only ones claiming papal authority for Clement are Roman Catholics who've retroactively promoted him to Pope. He was not recognized as pope at that time.
The Didache is rejected for a number of reasons not the least among are the contradictory teachings of the Didache as compared to the NT.
Concerning Baptism: But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
41So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. Acts 2:41 NASB
Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets: But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet.
And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. Acts 18:11 NASB
Then Paul went into the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. Acts 19:8 NASB
And I'm going to continue pound this question into the ground that none of you will answer:
Where are your doctrines in the Church Fathers? Where is Sola Scriptura? Where is once-saved, always saved?
Actually, as Christianity does not rely upon the ECF and "Sacred Tradition" like Roman Catholicism does we don't look to the ECFs for doctrines. So pound away all you want.
Sola Scriptura, and let's get the definition clear, means that the Scriptures alone are authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.
You do not find the words Sola Scriptura in the Bible. But if the Roman Catholic wants to play that word game they will quickly lose the argument as so much of Roman Catholicism is not in the Bible.
The Scriptures are the only inspired writings we have (2 Tim 3:15-16). That cannot be said of the ECFs and their conflicting opinions on various issues near and dear to Roman Catholicism.
Any "tradition" has to be compared to revealed Scripture. If it contradicts it it is to be rejected.
This is what happens when Roman Catholic teachings are compared to Scripture....many are rejected as there is no support for them.
When Christ was tempted by Satan to what did He appeal to? Tradition? Nope. Scripture.
When Philip was witnessing to the Ethiopian to what did he turn to? Tradition? Nope. Scripture...specifically Isaiah.
Where is once-saved, always saved?
13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. Ephesians 1:13-14 NASB
The burden is upon the Roman Catholic to show where we are ever unsealed. I'll save you some time....you won't find it in the Bible.
Jesus, in discussion with unbelieving Jews had this to say.... 24“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. John 5:24 NASB
The verb "has" in this passage is a present, indicative, active.
In Greek, the indicative is the mood of assertion, or presentation of certainty (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p.448).
Jesus is making what we believe to be a true assertion...that the one believing "has" life eternal.
The verb "has passed" is a perfect, indicative, active. Wallace notes: the perfect tense is used for "indicating not the past action as such but the present 'state of affairs' resulting from the past action.
The verb, μεταβέβηκεν (μεταβαίνω), conveys the meaning of changing my place, leave, depart, remove.
This statement of Jesus as recorded by John surely gives the indication of a permanent state of affairs for the one believing in Christ.
I'm taking Him at His word....do you?
Whether you admit it or not, your theological ideas can be traced to this guy, who broke away from that guy, who disagreed with that other guy, who split a church led by another guy, and on and on for 500 years. You utterly fail to realize that practically every denomination from Luther on claimed to restore primitive worship, and the fact that they came up with a hundred different supposed "restorations" ought to be a clue that the whole thing was based on nothing more than conjectural fantasy from the start.
And as is done with Roman Catholicism, any group claiming this belief or that belief, will be compared to the Scriptures to determine if they're correct or not.
This has been done with Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Scientology, Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Joel Osteen, etc.
False teachings are not something new the ekklesia has had to contend with. Indeed, Paul and John both wrote against the false doctrines making inroads in the early church.
We have to be ever vigilant to guard against false teaching.
This is one of the reasons God has given us the written Word.
I maintain Roman Catholic worship Mary as evidenced by the idols of Mary before which the Roman Catholic kneels and prays to Mary.
If you don't worship her as claimed....will you throw away your "statues" of Mary and stop kneeling before these and praying to her?
Will you condemn the claims of the apparition regarding the Scapular?
Will you condemn the writings of Montfort and his call for "true devotion" to Mary?
43. I have already said that this devotion consists in performing all our actions with Mary, in Mary, through Mary, and for Mary.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/montfort/secret.htm
Just so we don't think Montfort is some local yocal...
Montfort is considered as one of the early Marian proponents of the field of Mariology as it is known today, and a viable candidate to become a Doctor of the Church. His most notable works regarding Marian devotions are contained in The Secret of Mary and the True Devotion to Mary.
The Roman Catholic Church, under the pontificate of Pope Pius XII canonized Montfort on July 20, 1947. A “founders statue” created by Giacomo Parisini is currently placed at the upper niche of the south nave of Saint Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican.
https://vitaesanctorum.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/st-louis-marie-grignon-de-montfort-priest/
If we are to believe Roman Catholic claims of Apostolic Succession we have to presume that Paul, John, and Peter believed this about Mary....as it was passed down from one to another and so on.
This is in contradiction of the NT and OT command to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and body.
Paul never wrote about Mary....he did write about Jesus though.
7But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Phil 3:7-11 NASB
So what will it be for the Roman Catholic?
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.