The Spirit of the Liturgy

Una Voce ^ | November 17, 2002 | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

[RobbyS]

Luther's view was essentially antiquarian. He repudiated the developments of a thousand years and denied infallibility to councils, but in large he still accepted Augustine as his master, at least in the same way that Aristotle accepted Plato as his. He accepted as authetic only the tradition that was consistent with the Scripture as he interpretated it. But of course his interpretation was what was logically consistent with HIS doctrine of grace. He really believe that only HE understood Paul.

[RobbyS]

And I must say again, I do not accept your private definition of Tradition.

[Catholicguy]

<> Perhaps you were at the same sspx mass that I was. If you were, recall the priest saying the new mass was a fake. He said it really wasn't a mass at all.<>

[Catholicguy]

<> I wasn't calling you a slave of Satan to amuse you. I was calling you a slave of Satan because you are a slave of Satan. You ask for arguements, but they do not sway you. Your assertions have been defeated repeatedly, you have been shown to have been a liar on a number of occasions, you have been shown to have manufactured quotes, you have been repeatedly challenged to produce evidence that 40 or more Popes have been heretics, you have been corrected scores of times and nothing changes. You are here day after day after day after day repeating the same old lies, the same distortions, the same arrogant attacks as though you had any authority.

You broke Unity with the Catholic Church and have entered into the camp of Satan. You and your ilk are slaves of Satan. It is that clear-cut. It is that simple. <>

[Catholicguy]

<> you were astute enough not to, I assume. Then why are you not astute enough not to sin when it comes to schism? Is it your thought that watching an R rated movie is worse than schism?<>

[ultima ratio]

No, it is your premises which are wrong. You wrongly assume the Pope is superior to Tradition itself, whereas he is only its protector. His office exists to guard the deposit of faith, not to undermine it. When he assaults that tradition, handed down from apostolic times, he supercedes his own authority and must be disobeyed. This is because the faith itself comes before the papacy, not the other way around.

I think it's instructive how you deal with this. You do not use actual arguments, you use verbal abuse. This has been your tactic from the beginning. When this hasn't worked, you use sarcasm or ridicule. You will post the arguments of others on occasion. What you don't do is trust your own reasoning. I don't wonder at this since your reasoning is bankrupt. There are no arguments to use against what is so compellingly self-evident. So you hurl insults.

If you had been paying attention, you would know I never said 40 popes were FORMALLY heretical, but stated they had been materially so. I posted comments making this clear several times. I stated that Robert Sungenis on CAI, in one of his posts criticizing this Pope for the Assisi prayer meetings, pointed out that Vatican I had documented more than 40 popes who had been theologically mistaken about Catholic doctrines in serious ways. I have repeatedly given this source and you either haven't read it or choose to ignore it.

[ultima ratio]

My definition of Tradition is not a private definition. It is defined by Vatican I and by the Papal Oath itself. Tradition is what is handed-down from apostolic times through the ages. It is the deposit of faith.

[Catholicguy]

<>ME<>

[Catholicguy]

<> Wrong. I provided a link that puts the lie to that false charge. I have never said the Pope is superior to tradition. The rest of that paraghraph is pure protestantism amasquerading as traditiuonalism. Pathetic

I couldn't care less about how you charcaterise my approach. You are an SOS COWboy (Slave of Satan, Church of Winona boy) and I think that fetching appelation for you.

You STILL haven't provided any evidence for material heresy of the Popes. You STILL cite it...Pathetic SOS COWboy<>

[Catholicguy]

<> Yes, I see many things you two have in common, beginning with antipathy towards this Pope. I hope you and Ultima have a long and fruitful friendship:)<>

[RobbyS]

No document is self-defining or self-applying but must be interpreted by a competent authority.

[Desdemona]

Just to play devil's advocate (because in matters of tradition, I'm more on your side than not), what is it about the break in tradition that bothers you? The banality (this annoys me), the "lowering of the bar" of excellence? Losing something that should be treasured and isn't? What?

I ask because it seems that the people who push change in liturgy also like to change their furniture every three years and constantly are buying every new gadget on the market. It's a personality trait.

[ultima ratio]

You're getting funnier and funnier. You have stated over and over that Tradition is whatever the Pope says it is, which is ridiculous. He is the servant of what he has received, not its master. There were other councils and other popes. If this Pope is not aligned with them, he is obviously out of step with Tradition, no ifs ands or buts.

It's not that complicated. In fact, it's very clear. This Pope says capital punishment is wrong, past popes have said it's an important duty of the state. This Pope apologizes to Islam, past popes have warned Islam is an aggressive religion that wins its converts by the sword. This Pope enters a synagogue to pray with Jews for the coming of their messiah, past popes have insisted on the conversion of the Jews to Christ. This Pope prays with animists and voodoo priests and witchdoctors, past popes have condemned such idolatrous practices. This Pope authorizes an acceptance of the Lutheran position on Justification, past popes have rejected the Lutheran argument. This Pope disregards time-tested canonization procedures by loading the evidence in favor of his friends, past popes have supported the need for the process to be above reproach and objective. This Pope awards the red hat to bishops who are openly apostate, past popes have disciplined bishops for signs of even minor doctrinal dissent.

So who is wrong here--someone like you who insist this Pope with his thousand innovations does not contradict Tradition, or myself who presents facts to the contrary?

[Desdemona]

In the Tradition of the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture has NEVER been venerated the way we venerate Christ's Body, which has been ADORED. We do not worship Scripture, but we worship Christ's Presence in the Holy Eucharist.

Okay, no arguments from me. Frankly, I find myself gravitating toward older priests these days who say the first Eucharstic Prayer and really say Mass completely, not leaving things out. For one thing, the language is stronger. For another, you don't come away feeling like Mass wasn't finished. It drives me crazy that the whole part right after Offertory is now pretty much left out, that the Confiteor AND the Kyrie are not said EVERY Sunday Mass. That's what make it complete for me.

So, here I think there is some common ground.

[ultima ratio]

That competent authority is the whole line of councils and popes that have preceded this Pope. Is kissing the Koran traditional? Of course not. We know it is not because past popes would have been horrified by such an act which is tantamount to early Christians kissing the feet of some imperial statue. The early Christian martyrs went to their deaths precisely so that they might not show deference to false gods. Can any one argue this is not the traditional Catholic practice, rather than what the Pope does? Would anyone also contend that a fabricated Mass is traditional? Is it something which has evolved under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and been handed-down through the ages as was the Old Mass? Of course it is not. It is the very antithesis of something traditional--and is therefore rightly suspect, having been engineered by those who had axes to grind. Well, they have ground them for all they were worth for more than thirty years and now look at the consequences: a generalized collapse of the faith even within the highest echelons of the Church itself, with corruption that is mind-boggling involving altar boys and six-year-olds. This should have clued us in long ago that something has gone terribly wrong at the top.

[Desdemona]

Would anyone also contend that a fabricated Mass is traditional? Is it something which has evolved under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and been handed-down through the ages as was the Old Mass? Of course it is not. It is the very antithesis of something traditional--and is therefore rightly suspect, having been engineered by those who had axes to grind.

Axes to grind? You give them too much credit. I still contend that the liturgy changed so drastically when ephemeral aesthetics and short attention spans came into vogue.

Some people want change just for the sake of change and because they don't seem to have anything better to do.

[Catholicguy]

<> Happy Trails SOS COWboys. I have had some fun but you boys are just going endlessly in circles. You may attract a few followers, although I doubt it. Far more have quit your schismatic gang than have joined it over the past several years. Evidence of that is that the few renegades remaining, Ferrara, Woods et all are featured in more and more of the tired, old, schismatic websites.

I am not the only one to notice that your "support," weak as it is, comes from the occasional Calvinist or Orthodox. Happy Trails, boys....<>

[Catholicguy]

<> Just a jape..I decided to see what it was like to engage in private judgement, like you and your ilk :)<>