The Pope, the Mass and the Society of St. Pius X

Una Voce ^

[Tantumergo]

<> Fine. Oppose whatever the hell you desire to oppose. You, after all, are above an Ecuemnical Council.<>

Yes I am above an "ECUEMNICAL" Council, but I submit to all Ecumenical Councils and the infallible teaching they define.

I have nowhere mentioned opposing a Council, and I would be grateful if you would not put such words in my mouth as they are inaccurate and misleading.

[ninenot]

I dunno. JPII is the world's SLOWEST administrator. He might very well make it happen, particularly given the strong, principled resistance to many of the abuses here and in W. Europe.

Remember, JPII's 'other motto' is 'Ut Unum Sint.'

[ninenot]

Hate it Weakland did, indeed. HOWEVER--to give proper credit--he also allowed a regularly-celebrated Old Rite Mass in the Archdiocese.

[ninenot]

They will get into the Feeneyite area regarding VII's declaration on religious freedom. This has always been their STRONG #2 issue.

[ninenot]

There are plenty of 'loopholes' in the documents which allow Old Rite celebrations (similarly, Balloon Masses, Polka Masses.)

Most do NOT know that even the old Dies Irae is perfectly legitimate for use in today's funeral Masses--you will have to dig a bit to find the music/text, but no problem using it if you want to. Same with black vestments.

So yeah, someone can use the Old Rite without going through too many hoops. EXCEPT--if you use it and your Bish doesn't like it, you can expect an assignment near Hell real soon.

[Catholicguy]

Father Blet noted that members of the Society had been very warmly received during the Holy Year, but that things have slowed down a little since then due principally to the question of accepting Vatican II. He added that "this was not an impediment given that the Council had not promulgated any binding dogmatic definition. Everyone therefore has the right to examine what he feels able to accept..."

<> Were you defending this priest's position or not?

[ninenot]

Precisely speaking, the Old Rite authorized by the current indult is the Mass of 1962, which had a few tweaks made by HJohn XXIII, as well as by Pius XII (Mass of 1959) and others, prior.

The KEY to your statement is 'organic development,' something CatholicGuy does not understand. Even Ratzinger refers to the current Mass as 'a fabrication.'

[ninenot]

There you go again, CG--you are either misinformed or flat-out lying about Trent.

[ninenot]

The technical word for your analysis is "horsecrap."

Fact is, CG, that there is NO cast-in-iron order of worship mandated by V.II. The Consilium made up a nice Mass with several hundred permutations and combinations--but if you actually read the documents, you will find that even the Old Rite is perfectly acceptable.

[ninenot]

The alternative to Una Voce (the other side) is an organization called Universa Laus.

We also know Universa Laus as 'Universal Lice' because they are really a pestilence. Think Bugnini, Weakland, and a few Jesuits...none of which had any understanding or respect for tradition.

That followed from their problem with fatherhood, by the way.

[Tantumergo]

"And those who say one cannot oppose an Ecumenical Council are, I guess, Lobotomised Conciliar Fundamentalists and self-described traditionalists are the real faithful Catholics and they have the Liberty, and duty, to assert counter-propositions to the Documents of an Ecumenical Council so our Faith will be preserved."

"Lobotomised Conciliar Fundamentalists" was going to be copyrighted and sold to the Remnant for a fortune - but I guess you've scuppered that now! Still - has a nice Pythonesque sort of ring to it.

Again, you are putting polemical words in my mouth that I have not said like "oppose an Ecumenical Council" and "assert counter-propositions to the Documents of an Ecumenical Council". I am also not a self-described traditionalist, and most mainstream traditionalists would probably not so describe me either.

All I am saying is that there are a few passages (in my opinion small in number) in the Council documents which do not easily admit an interpretation which is clearly in continuity with Scripture and Tradition. Much ambiguity and confusion has resulted because of this over the last 40 years.

I should simply like to see the Magisterium, theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences called upon to answer these ambiguities. The extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

Until now the Magisterium has not even attempted to do this as far as I am aware.

[ninenot]

OK, CG: demonstrate that the Uniate Rites are somehow Protestant. That's the analogy, and there's your problem.

Are you making money on the Novus printing business??? It is clear that you will defend Novus to the exclusion of ANY OTHER LEGITIMATE SUGGESTION, which is quite suspicious.

[ninenot]

Gee, TCR doesn't have ANY point of view but the raw truth???

[ninenot]

"Pastoral" is by definition not the same as "dogmatic." There is plenty of room for debate--respectful, well-informed debate.

Not something YOU are interested in at all, I'm afraid.

[Catholicguy]

<> Who knows which of my posts you are referring to.

Perhaps all of them? :) <>

[Catholicguy]

which is quite suspicious.

<> I am one to be watched...no doubt about that. :)

Again, who the heck knows which post you are referring to.<>

[Catholicguy]

"Pastoral" is by definition not the same as "dogmatic." There is plenty of room for debate--respectful, well-informed debate.

<> Immaterial. ALL Ecumenical Councils are Infallible and you have no Liberty to debate or oppose the Magisterium - unless, you are protestant.

Not something YOU are interested in at all, I'm afraid

<> Be not afraid....<>

[Catholicguy]

"Lobotomised Conciliar Fundamentalists" was going to be copyrighted and sold to the Remnant for a fortune - but I guess you've scuppered that now! Still - has a nice Pythonesque sort of ring to it.

<> I like it also. I incorporated its use in my homepage.<>

[Tantumergo]

"Were you defending this priest's position or not".

I was defending his reputation against your charges of heresy and schism, after one of your over the top knee jerk reactions. As part of his position is easily supported by previous cited quotes from Ratzinger and the Catholic Encyclopedia, I would certainly defend his statement:

"this was not an impediment given that the Council had not promulgated any binding dogmatic definition."

[ninenot]

Sorry, you are wrong in your definition of V.II as "infallible." The Fathers of the Council defined it as "pastoral."

In all areas where the Council's teachings were in line with the Magisterium, the teachings are infallible. In areas where they are not, they are NOT.

Liturgical regulation, by the way, is NOT a matter of infallibility, OR the Quo Primum would still be standing, along with the UNMODIFIED Mass of Trent.

Do you see that you have an internal contradiction here?