Motu Proprio after April 16?

[Sean O L]

Pax et Veritas wrote:

“Give me some examples of how the Council of Trent was misunderstood and falsely implemented by the Bishops.”

I reply:

What does THAT have to do with my initial statement? Nothing!

However, in support of my statement, I offer the following from

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/rites.htm


COUNCIL OF TRENT - IMPLEMENTATION

"The decrees of the Council of Trent, while widely received, also were not always uniformly, quickly, or enthusiastically implemented. Just as one example, Trent called for the foundation of diocesan seminaries. Lyons, the second largest city in France, did not establish a seminary until 1618 - more than 50 years after the close of the council. Paris, the largest city in France and that nation's capital, did not establish a seminary until the 1680s. More than 100 years after the close of the council.

"While it may be tempting to believe that the reforms of Trent brought about immediate change throughout the world, that notion is horribly erroneous. Implementation of reform depended upon individuals, be they popes, bishops, priests or laymen. Yes, even some popes and cardinals resisted the reforms. Charles Borromeo's reforming zeal brought about resistance not only from his own clergy in the archdiocese of Milan but also from Rome itself.

[…]

"Establishment of seminaries, formation of priests towards producing better confessors, and frequent convocation of diocesan synods were all new mandates of the Council of Trent. Therefore, they were reforms, and not restorations of old practices. "


Andreas Hofer
October 26, 2004
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=17283&page=1&pp=100

[thecoach]

Originally Posted by Genesis315

I think it's the Watchtower that keeps making these date predictions....

Watchtower? Which one, Jehovah's Witnesses or the Justice League?

[batteddy]

The disciplines of the Church are infallible insofar as they cannot lead the faithful into impiety. They are incapable of being contrary to the Divine Law.

Yes...but theoretically only when universally promulgated. And because of the Rites system, no liturgy or disciplines are usually universally promulgated. The Roman Liturgy is given by the Pope AS patriarch of the Latin Rite, not as Pope. Therefore, theoretically, their could be errors, even dangerous ones. For example, the permission to use oil other than that of olives. It isn't used often, thankfully, but I really have doubts as to whether it is valid.

However, like I said, this was only given to one Rite by that Rite's patriarch (who just happens to also be Pope) and so it is not a question of infallibility because it is not universally promulgated.

Obviously, an individual pastor can err in the sacraments (using invalid matter, etc). And an individual bishop can clearly cause impiety in his celebration. And so I see no reason why an individual patriarch couldnt, even if he is also pope...as long as the error was in an act of his as patriarch, and not as universal pastor.

Another reason why Vatican II, as much it called for respect of the Eastern Rites, was sort of just as biased against them as many other councils.

I often hear it said that "Vatican II called for a reform of the Liturgy just like Trent called for its codification". But really, niether is true. Again, liturgy being only a rite-wide matter, there is nothing ecumenical about it.

There may have been a document calling for a reform of the Roman Liturgy released at Vatican II, but I find the idea that it was realeased "by the Council" theologically troubling exactly because it was a decree directed mostly towards only one Rite's disciplines. But an ecumenical council releases teaching or discipline that bind the whole church. Clearly the call for the reform of the Roman Rite was not made by eastern bishops, nor was it directed towards eastern churches. It was not one of the ecumenical (universal) decrees strictly speaking protected by infallibility, though at the same time I don't think the document does teach any error. But technically speaking, I think it is something released by a more "local" synod (ie, only the Roman Rite bishops) that just happened to use Vatican II as a convenient time to meet (since they were all together anyway).

If a group of bishops get together and release a document applying only to their followers, fine. But that is not the same as a Council releasing a document. Instead, it is a group of bishops using a council as a convenient time (since they're all together) to release a document applying to their rite only, but which is thus not technically ecumenical, methinks. And if they for some reason they had the Eastern bishops sign it...that makes even less sense, and is even more disrespectful to them ("come here and sign this thing. The language sounds as if it assumes the Roman Liturgy is the only one in the Church, and it doesn't apply to you or your flocks...but come sign it"?!?)

In this case (and at most councils since the split) there has been this Roman Rite bias, where it is alleged that the supposedly universal Councils themselves are releasing decrees on the Roman Rite, as if the Roman Rite is the whole Church. But it is not. Why would an ecumenical council issue directives to one particular rite? The answers is, it doesn't. Documents and disciplines that apply to only one rite may be published by a group of bishops (including the vast majority in the case of the Roman Rite even), AT a council, but I really think these documents are sort of parallel to real ecumenical universal decrees of the council.

That is to say, I think when looking at councils, especially since the schism, we must distinguish between the true Ecumenical Council which happens, and then the Roman Rite Synod which coincides with that council. That is to say, there seems to be an Ecumenical Council of Trent, and then merely the Roman Rite Council of Trent...although because of Latin-bias, the two were intertwined, sometimes even in the same documents. Likewise with Vatican II. I think we should think in terms of there being an Ecumenical Second Vatican Council, promulgating decrees and stuff universally, and then (mainly with the decree on the liturgy) a Roman Rite Synod at the Vatican that used the council as a convenient time to meet, but which is not strictly speaking the same as the ecumenical council.

[Aramis]

The Roman liturgy is a church-wide matter simply because the Roman church is some 60% or more of the total church.

And, in the early councils, east and west both discussed matters of the eastern liturgies, even as the west developed in difference.

Think of it as a reserve of theological tradition, a well of strength and stability.

[MMLJ]

Originally Posted by Cor Jesu

Why did we need Vatican II in the first place? You say it was to breathe "renewal" into the Church....what was going wrong with the Church before Vatican II? Actually everything seems to have been going pretty well UNTIL Vatican II.

Excellent point. This is something that although mentioned on many occasion, is brushed aside. It is usually ignored or partially addressed.

[brotherhrolf]

I made my First Communion in 1958 and I was Confirmed in 1963. I was an altar boy and sang in the children's choir - we may not have sung chant but we certainly sang plainsong in Latin - imagine that in today's world.

I don't know what was wrong with the Church before VII. It seemed fine by me. My conscience was formed in this pre-VII world and there was no question of right or wrong, good or evil. I know I'm not alone in my boomer generation who had this experience.

I sang in the choir at my Catholic boy's high school. The music "died" to paraphrase Don McLean in my senior year in the fall of 1968. Those of us who chanted and did four part sacred polyphony were replaced with guitars to make the Mass "more relevant". Relevant to whom?

I'm biding my time. Although I sang in my cathedral choir for over 18 years, all of us "old folks" were "encouraged" to quit. (But that is another story). Now, all of us "old folks" are being contacted to form a Gregorian choir. Fr. has been really vague about the specifics but I can't help but feel that he suspects something is up. And when that time comes, I will serve either on the altar or in the choir or both.

[Uxor]

Originally Posted by Genesis315

. The purpose of Vatican II was to re-evangelize in the wake of that fallen away. The fact that people have instead fallen into a malaise of indifferentism, secularism, and agnosticism is due to the currents building up well before Vatican II, not from the Council itself.
.

We need to remain humble and thankful for any scraps from the table we are given.

l said, "the member who fails to make his proper contribution to the development of the Church must be said to be useful neither to the Church nor to himself." The only way to build up the Church and bring about authentic reform is to live a life enflamed with the fire of charity from the Holy Ghost and to pray until your tears and sweat wipe the face of the Bride that we have all had our part in soiling.

There was no fallen away prior to Vatican II and the numbers also don't indicate that. After Vatican II in one day, overnight the Mass that people worshipped at was taken away. The Mass that they were raised with, their children, their grandparents, their great grandparents etc. Further they were told everything we have been teaching you we no longer believe. Like for instance no salvation outside the church. I still believe that, I think the Church is outside of herself and everyone is hanging on by ropes. Following vatican II people left in droves including a large of priests and nuns because they could not accept what they were taught was now a lie and no these people don't want the scraps, they want the real thing that Christ has promised through his sacraments.

Everyone has soiled the church? People that have lived without the traditional Mass have suffered dearly for 40 years, most silently. Many are devote, pray their rosary everyday, stay obedient, they have not soiled the church. It is the disobedient that have soiled the church. And us who have suffered greatly because of it are not going to be silent anymore. God is raising our voices up and His Church again. We hear His call. He is going to clean house.

[MMLJ]

Originally Posted by Joysong

Thanks for posting this, Patrick.
Unfortunately, some only read the document Quo Primum and are not aware that this was the standard closing language for papal bulls, some of which have the clause in latin. They erroneously believe and publicly promote that it had specific meaning only for this document.

Unfortunately your statement on a standard language for papal bulls defies logic. You make in sound that in essence it has no real meaning, but it is quite the contrary. Papal bulls are not meant to be understood how certain individuals would like them to be, that is how you say, without specific meaning. It is not simply signature or sign off, but it is a reinforcement of the papal document itself. They are to be taken serious and not as a standard closing. Logically speaking, without such closing, what is the need to follow the papal bull? Unless of course that is your intention to consider it just a standard closing language, which in effect is grandiloquence.

[MMLJ]

Originally Posted by JKirkLVNV

I think it's safe to say that the MP is coming (the French hierarchy reacted like scalded cats). I just don't think the pope is going to do it on a significant feast day or Easter (it would detract from the whatever singular message that feast day had), etc., because those days should have their own focus. I think he's just going to release it some Wednesday or Thursday.

You may be correct, however the reason you cited is opinionated, or more of what many would like. In any event, how, when or even if it is done, it shall not be downplayed since already it has aroused interest and concern in various Novus Ordo parishes, and rightly so since the beauty of the TLM cannot be denied.

[bkovacs]

Originally Posted by Uxor

There was no fallen away prior to Vatican II and the numbers also don't indicate that. After Vatican II in one day, overnight the Mass that people worshipped at was taken away. The Mass that they were raised with, their children, their grandparents, their great grandparents etc. Further they were told everything we have been teaching you we no longer believe. Like for instance no salvation outside the church. I still believe that, I think the Church is outside of herself and everyone is hanging on by ropes. Following vatican II people left in droves including a large of priests and nuns because they could not accept what they were taught was now a lie and no these people don't want the scraps, they want the real thing that Christ has promised through his sacraments.

Everyone has soiled the church? People that have lived without the traditional Mass have suffered dearly for 40 years, most silently. Many are devote, pray their rosary everyday, stay obedient, they have not soiled the church. It is the disobedient that have soiled the church. And us who have suffered greatly because of it are not going to be silent anymore. God is raising our voices up and His Church again. We hear His call. He is going to clean house.

"The Return of the Traditional Catholics"

[MMLJ]

Originally Posted by Genesis315

I don't think one can logically say that just like one cannot say the fruit of the Second Vatican Council is the abuses by those who do not obey it. That is similar to those who judge Catholicism by those who don't actually practice it.

Possibly, so may I ask why is the fruit as such after VC2? What is your logic?

Originally Posted by Genesis315

The purpose of Vatican II was to re-evangelize in the wake of that fallen away. The fact that people have instead fallen into a malaise of indifferentism, secularism, and agnosticism is due to the currents building up well before Vatican II, not from the Council itself.

This is simply not true, it is not historically correct. The Catholic Church was at it peak before vatican II. Please review this link which is a study of the Catholic Church Pre- and Post VC2. Many parameters were also taken into account, including # preists, Attendance, ordination, # deacons, seminarians, church orders,etc., all which have declined Post -Vatican II:
http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/gallup.jpg

Perhaps we are living in the "dangerous times" St. Paul warned about. Perhaps this is the time when the devil has been loosed for a while. Perhaps not.

I am inclined to say perhaps.

Originally Posted by Genesis315

We need to remain humble and thankful for any scraps from the table we are given. We are given the heavenly wonders of the sacramaments when we deserve to be living in Hell for our sins. If you cleave to God, live a sacramental life, and stay in the state of grace, you have nothing to fear.

I am not sure about you, but I do not want scraps, I want the Real Deal, that is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the true sacraments which he gave us.

[MMLJ]

Originally Posted by bkovacs

"The Return of the Traditional Catholics"

I do not think Catholicism ever left, it is just as Uxor mentioned, A Housecleaning is in order.

[DallasCatholic]

Originally Posted by CatQuilt

According to Amy Welborn, her husband said that Alice von Hildebrande asked the Pope when it would be published and he said May 5th.

Yes, a reliable source has told me May 5th, the feast of Pope St. Pius V...check out the history and see why it is appropriate.

[AdvanceAlways]

and who is your source?

[THurifer2]

Originally Posted by DallasCatholic

Yes, a reliable source has told me May 5th, the feast of Pope St. Pius V...check out the history and see why it is appropriate.

May 5th is Not the feast of st. Pius V...His feast day is APril 30th

It used to be on May 5th but no longer is.