Posted on 11/27/2023 3:40:08 PM PST by ebb tide
Even Paul VI explicitly includes Latin references in his specific instruction about the Consecration later in that document:
Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: ACCIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR; over the chalice: ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM. The words MYSTERIUM FIDEI, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful.
The former granted permissions.
The latter issued a mass prohibition while imposing a fabricated “bogus ordo” mass drafted by a Freemason.
Big difference.
You are sourcing an article written by a sedevacanatist.
So? The writer quotes approved Church authorities from prior to Vatican II, and cites the documents that promulgated the Mass of Paul VI in their own words.
Are they wrong or not? Is there a flaw in the argument presented? If so, please point it out.
When I assist at Latin Mass, I see more children than adults. Most of the adults are parents of young children. Relatively speaking, I'm one of the old geezers ... and I'm not that old ...
Do you?
What do you think "to the extent necessary" means? And why was it "necessary" to suppress a universal 1500 year-old Mass?
He is asking those who hold Paul VI to be Pope, yet reject Missale Romanum as an evil or non-Catholic rite, to be logically consistent with the standards demanded by Catholic doctrine.
What extent did the Roman Congregations and the diocesan ordinaries deem “necessary”, based on their actions in the ‘70s?
Let’s cut to the chase.
Do you think the Traditional Latin Mass was ever abrogated?
Yes or No?
Have I not made it clear?
I don’t believe Paul VI was a true Pope, so he lacked the jurisdiction to do so in truth.
HOWEVER, assuming for the sake of argument that he was Pope, he made it clear that the Novus Ordo Missae was lawfully promulgated, and his liturgical legislation was implemented accordingly.
Save for the few exceptions carved out in legislation, the TLM was de jure AND de facto abrogated as the universal liturgy of the Latin Church.
Do you believe Pope Benedict XVI to have been a true Pope when he issued his MOTU PROPRIO: SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM?
If not, why not?
The reasons are manifold.
- His insistence (as outlined in Summorum Pontificum) that the Novus Ordo Missae and the Traditional Latin Mass are both two different forms of the same Roman Rite, even though liturgically and doctrinally, they profess two different religions.
- As noted in the CDF document "RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH" (which Benedict XVI explicitly approved and ordered to be published), he still defended and maintained that Lumen Gentium is orthodox, even though it changed Catholic doctrine with regards to the unity of the Church (namely, that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Catholic Church, with the various Orthodox and Protestant sects treated as having "partial" communion; prior to Vatican II, the Catholic Church was always uniquely identified as the sole Church of Christ, and the various Orthodox and Protestant sects were properly called schismatics and heretics who did not possess the true faith).
- His scandalous and active participation in Islamic prayer at the Blue Mosque in Turkey in 2006 (having removed his shoes, received instruction on the basics of Muslim prayer, and turned towards Mecca in a posture of Islamic prayer, making no public signs that he was engaging in a Catholic prayer whatsoever; this action by itself in a saner era would have him branded as suspect of heresy, if not of tacit apostasy):
- On that note, his scandalous participation in the Assisi interreligious meeting in 2011 (following the example of his predecessor John Paul II from 25 years prior), which would have also been deemed an example of tacit apostasy. For a true Pope to pray alongside pagans, heretics, infidels, and schismatics — at an event not dedicated to their conversion to the one true religion, but one dedicated to 'praying for peace', as though peace is possible without Christ — would have been an unthinkable display of religious indifferentism, which has been condemned strenuously by numerous Popes.
I could go on.
The same Bugnini who crafted the bogus ordo of Paul VI?
Or do you think that the Holy Week liturgy as revised in 1955 contains incentives to impiety or changes to the actual substance of the sacraments (as the Novus Ordo Missae does)?
Say who? You?
How about John XXIII? Was he a true pope or just a bumbling idiot?
John XXIII’s status is more ambiguous, given the oddities surrounding the conclave in which he was elected.
I’m of the opinion that he was not a true Pope. (I also don’t think he was a bumbling idiot, either.)
P.S.
How about Pope John Paul I, who was murdered 33 days after being elected?
Was he a true Pope? If not, why not?
I know all about those oddities, i.e., Cardinal Siri.
It's also obvious there were oddities about Bergoglio's election.
But why do you give Roncalli the benefit of the doubt, but not Bergoglio?
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.