Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
The new evangelization has nothing in common with what various publications have insinuated when speaking of restoration, or when advancing the accusation of proselytism, or when unilaterally or tendentiously calling for pluralism and tolerance. A careful reading of the Council's decree Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom can help to clear up these problems, and also to allay the fears that some are attempting to stir up, perhaps with the aim of depriving the Church of its courage and enthusiasm in taking up the mission of evangelization. The mission of evangelization is an essential part of the Church. The Second Vatican Council made this point in a colorful way by affirming that "the Church...by her nature is missionary" (Ad Gentes 2).
Jesus put it this way: He spoke of things, saying a good tree bears good fruit, a bad tree bears rotten fruit. And he spoke of people: by their fruits you would know them. But he meant both--people and their institutions.
If the conciliar Church were good, then after forty plus years it should have borne some good fruit. But, in fact, the signs of decay are everywhere. The Novus Ordo itself is one of the fruits of Vatican II. Many of its bishops and priests have been caught up in unprecedented scandals--and polls show that Catholics in generally are morally indistinguishable from their secular counterparts. Doctrinally they are virtually indistinguishable from Protestants. After thirty plus years of Novus Ordo Masses, we should expect better results.
If spiritual leaders were true prophets, they would have produced some spiritually good fruit by now. Yet they don't. Read the newspapers, study the statistics. I don't see how you can quibble about this.
I agree with Dr. Drolesky, and thus disagree with you. That "rock" you refer to was chipped out of the Altar over St. Peter's grave, in St. Peter's Basilica. John Paul II is physically giving away the Church, in the name of false ecumenism.
What's you excuse/explanation for the Assisi I and II sacrileges? You did not address those in your reply.
It wasn't in the name of false ecumenism - no one has shown even that this one incident with the Hindu priests is known to the Pope.
What's you excuse/explanation for the Assisi I and II sacrileges?
They don't affect the church's doctrine on evangelization - they were to promote "world peace". The Holy Office in 1949 allowed saying the Our Father with Protestants as a prayer for Christian unity - does that mean they meant Protestants weren't to be evangelized?
I sent a letter of protest, via e-mail, to every Vatican e-address I could find. All of those e-mails remain unanswered to this day.
That's evidence that the Pope read your mail?
I never said he said it was invalid. But Ratzinger does say it is contrary to Trent--and he has criticized sharply the versus populi.
I cite Ratzinger because people like yourself who have supported the conciliar popes out of a false sense of "obedience" are impressed by such citations. For myself, they are unnecessary. Anybody who's been exposed to the ancient Mass and compares it to the Novus Ordo, would recognize at once that the latter fudges on the sacrificial elements, ignoring entirely the dogma of Propitiation and thereby offending against the Father and the Son. It also offends by turning its back on the Father to face instead the congregation, and by making much of the virtual presence of Christ in the people while ignoring the Real Presence of Christ on the altar. The so-called "sacrifice" you talk about is the usual modernist trick of re-defining established terms and making them mean what modernists wish them to mean. To the modernist, the sacrifice of the Novus Ordo is one of praise and thanksgiving, a celebration of the people's salvation, not a sacrifice of true Propitiation for sins. As such it is an abomination. How can you wonder at the bad fruits that have flowed from it?
By the way, traditionalists like myself are not schismatics. If you continue to use this term, I no longer will exchange posts with you. By now it's pretty clear you do this to insult and not to discuss disagreements reasonably. I have made it clear why this term has been falsely applied. People who mean well respect this. You do not.
I do indeed attribute the Hindu priests worshiping at a Fatima altar to John Paul II and no other. It is a direct extension of Assisi I and II. The Bishop of Fatima did no more than what the Pope did at Assisi. For you to deny the connection is ridiculous.
"world peace"? Is that the primary responsibility of a Holy Pontiff?
I thought Pope John Paul II defers to the wicked UN, on matters of "world peace", while that same agency aggressively pushes for the mass murder of unborn children.
Is not the "salvation of souls", a primary responsibility of a Pope?
What good is a world of peaceful pagans?
It goes way further than that, because it's not a matter of them merely following JPII's lead at Assisi.
The debacle with the Hindus at such a place as Fatima could never possibly have occured without the full approval of the pontiff. This was not some isolated incident that happened due to a few wayard Bishops.
Well, ultima, let's compare. What is the essential difference which makes the Dominican Rite perfectly fine, whereas the 1970 offertory is to be condemned? I assume you refer to the offertory, as the canons of 1970 express the sacrificial nature of the Mass.
Dominican RiteP. Dominus vobiscum.
S. Et cum spiritu tuo.
P. Oremus.P. Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi?
P. Calicem salutaris accipiam et nomen Domini invocabo.
P. Suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem, quam tibi offero in memoriam passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi: et praesta, ut in conspectu tuo tibi placens ascendat, et meam et omnium fidelium salutem operetur aeternam.
P: Lavabo inter innocentes manus meas, et circumdabo altare tuum Domine: ut audiam vocem laudis, et enarrem universa mirabilia tua. Domine dilexi decorem domus tuae, et locum habitationis gloriae tuae.
P: In spiritu humilitatis, et in animo contrito, suscipiamur Domine a te: et sic fiat sacrificium nostrum, ut a te suscipiatur hodie, et placeat tibi Domine Deus.
P: Orate fratres, ut meum ac vestrum pariter in conspectu Domini sit acceptum sacrificium.
P: Domine exaudi orationem meam: et clamor meus ad te veniat.
1970 MissalP: Benedictus es, Domine, Deus universi, quia de tua largitate accepimus panem, quem tibi offerimus, fructum terrae et operis manuum hominum: ex quo nobis fiet panis vitae.
S: Benedictus Deus in saecula.P: Per huius aquae et vini mysterium eius efficiamur divinitatis consortes, qui humanitatis nostrae fieri dignatus est particeps.
P: Benedictus es, Domine, Deus universi, quia de tua largitate accepimus vinum, quod tibi offerimus, Fructum vitis et operis manuum hominum, ex quo nobis fiet potus spiritalis.
S: Benedictus Deus in sacula.P: In spiritu humilitatis et in animo contrito suscipiamur a te, Domine; et sic fiat sacrificium nostrum in conspectu tuo hodie, ut placeat tibi, Domine Deus.
P: Lava me, Domine, ab iniquitate mea, et a peccato meo munda me.
P: Orate, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotem.
S: Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis ad laudem et gloriam nominis sui, ad utilitatem quoque nostram totius que Ecclesiae suae sanctae.
The 1970 Missal has the "In spiritu humilitatis" and the "Orate fratres", which both express the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Admittedly, there is no prayer as exact as the "Suscipe sancta", but this is made up for by the Canon which clearly shows that the "sacrifice" referred to is that of Christ.
To the modernist, the sacrifice of the Novus Ordo is one of praise and thanksgiving, a celebration of the people's salvation, not a sacrifice of true Propitiation for sins. As such it is an abomination. How can you wonder at the bad fruits that have flowed from it?
To the Modernist, the sacrifice of the Tridentine Mass is also one of only praise and thanksgiving. This is because Modernists don't accept the clear words of the Mass given to us by the church - not because of a defect in the Mass. The fact remains that no Protestant could in good conscience say the Canon of the Novus Ordo:
Memores igitur, Domine, eiusdem Filii tui salutiferae passionis necnon mirabilis resurrectionis et ascensionis in caelum, sed et praestolantes alterum eius adventum, offerimus tibi, gratias referentes, hoc sacrificium vivum et sanctum.Respice, quaesumus, in oblationem Ecclesiae tuae et, agnoscens Hostiam, cuius voluisti immolatione placari, concede, ut qui Corpore et Sanguine Filii tui reficimur, Spiritu eius Sancto repleti, unum corpus et unus spiritus inveniamur in Christo. (EP III)
Beside the point. We're discussing how the Pope is supposedly opposed to all evangelization, and instead supports only "dialogue".
One of the many addresses was the Pope's:
john_paul_ii@vatican.va
Holy See divulges Pope´s email address
It was bounced back as undeliverable. I guess he doesn't want to hearabout the rampant apostasy anymore.
See no evil, hear no evil,...
The Pope doesn't have time to read email. That was a special thing for his birthday - obviously the address was deleted once he had read a few mails.
It's not beside the point; you're the one who brought up world peace as a pathetic defense of the Assisi sacrileges.
He has time to write poetry and tinker with Our Lady's Rosary.
You actually prove my point by juxtaposing the two. The first is a true Offertory of a coming Immolation, mentioning the actual oblation in memory of the Passion of Christ (passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi), the second is a mere blessing before a meal (fructum terrae et operis manuum hominum: ex quo nobis fiet panis vitae). In fact, the latter mentions no oblation and is no Offertory at all.
I rest my case.
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.