We ain't!!
We wuz taught by the Apostles themselves!!
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.”
Yes, I figured that, but which specific denomination? Are you not willing to say?
Christian....as noted before.
You do realize these writers often contradict Romam Catholic teachings......right?
Example, please?
We could also contrast V1 and V2.
Elsie has provided a number of quotes from the ECFs regarding who the Rock in Matthew is. They suggest it isn't Peter as claimed by Roman Catholicism.
I'm currently reading Eusebuis' Ecclesiastical History. Some of his accounts contradict Rome.
For that matter we've got Roman Catholics on these threads that disagree with Rome and each other.
That's not a good record for the group that claims it never changes.
You realize that they contradict evangelical Protestant teachings a whole lot more ... right?
What part of reading and singing Scripture texts, saying some prayers, and offering the bread and wine using the exact words related in the Gospels do you feel is somehow in contradiction to the Gospels?
Have you ever actually attended a Mass (and paid attention to it) in your life?
I tend to stick with the Word. It’s the only inspired text we have.
The part where the priest calls Christ down from Heaven and renders Him present on the altar as per O'Brien in The Faith of Millions.
That you have to partake of the Mass to be saved in contrast of Jesus saying we are to believe in Him.
For starters.
Yes I have attended a Mass at a wedding if that counts. Did not participate.
"More courses in the Scriptures would do them well, based on what we see here on FR."
???
How many priests do you know on FR, that you can make a generalization about them? I know of only one, and he is not at all lacking in Scripture.
If “ifs” were “buts” and “buts” were “nuts”, we’d all have a very merry Christmas.
If it's the one I'm thinking yes he is lacking in Scripture...and a whole lot more.
I hope he's not the typical Roman Catholic priest....if so...well....
“I know of only one, and he is not at all lacking in Scripture.”
I only know one. He couldn’t teach his way out of a wet paper bag, nor pass a course in logic. It is sad.
At least he ain't messin' with DOCTRINE!!
Just don't answer him.
You know; the standard MO in other threads like this.
Rome glommed onto that religion. It teaches the unknowing just what the apostles REALLY meant to teach; not the PLAIN truths he had taught them, and to teach people to obey IT's commands.
(And to 'let' Catholics 'obey' the Mary apparition that appears from time to time on Earth; although Rome does not REQUIRE it's members to do so.)
We wuz taught by the Apostles themselves!!
(I hate this Kindle autocorrect. It turned "snark" into "shark" and "proof" into "poof". Proof into poof! T'was brillig! I'm Louis Carroll!)
OK now, seriously.
If you insist on defining Sacred Tradition as the doctrines and practices of the Faith which we know of per documentary evidence and that were seeded, sprouted, and grown to maturity all before 100 AD, I gotta hand it to ya, you win. It's a slam dunk when you can define your own terms to suit a pre-selected conclusion.
But those are not the parameters that establish the reliability of Sacred Tradition --- and if you had proved that, then you had proved too much. Because the Canon of Scripture was not even settled until well into the Fourth Century, AFTER the Faith had been taught by 10 generations of bishops, AFTER the development of the first creeds and the first liturgies.
For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose.
The Canon is, per definition, the writings approved for use in the Liturgy. There were many, many other Christian writings --- you must know that, because Luke says so in Luke 1:1, "many" undertook to write these things; St. Paul alludes to "other" gospels also, many of them false, and he was writing his first Epistles and planting his first local churches before the first Gospel was even written. Of all these writings, only four (4) Gospels, not one of them signed, made it into the Canon.
There were likewise many Apocalypses written in that time period. Only one of them is canonical.
There were countless letters ("epistles") going back and forth. But we know which ones are canonical.
But we --- you and I --- would NOT know which were to be believed de fide and which were not, unless the Church on the basis of Sacred Tradition (the bishops' teachings, the creeds and liturgies) --- had winnowed them and set forth the Canon as truly reflecting the Faith that had been handed on to Her, and thus worthy of belief.
IF-- IF -- you were to succeed in establishing that there is no real "unbroken chain of custody" as you say, then there is no reliable chain of transmission for Scripture.
But tell me: who established your Canon? And when? Where? And on what basis? I would be interested to know.
As for the church history, of which you, as an overburdened seminarian, were forced to read "thousands and thousands and thousands of pages" for apparently no good reason, why did your professors have you read them if they revealed nothing of the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the the continuity of the truth --- always reeling, always embattled, always by the skin of our teeth, but there it is.
If this continuity of custody and transmission did not exist, or petered out at the death of Paul, then the Muslims would be quite right to say that the corrupt Christians screwed up their Scripture so early that it's all null and void and abrogated by the ipsissimi verbi of the perfect Quran.
And, oh heck, maybe ol' Bart Ehrman was the only one savvy enough to really see through the Catholic Errors of the Ages. Because if the Church wasn't doing the Right Thing in recognizing, canonizing, preserving copying and transmitting the true Word of God from Pentecost to Nicaea, Rome, Carthage, Hippo, Florence, Trent, and beyond, the whole thing is a sieve that doesn't hold water. It's a jigsaw puzzle with a thousand drunken copyists and ten thousand missing pieces: fables, apprentices' errors and spin.
That, or: the Church preserved the Word of God.
Via Sacred Tradition.
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.