Why on earth would they want to change tradition? I don’t get it. Fellay mentioned that some who changed the mass had in mind making it more “accessible” or more “comfortable” for Protestants, removing anything that might trigger animosity. I don’t understand this. Why would you want to do this? It seems counter-productive. Not only do we water down the faith (because it truly seems that alteration of the liturgy has significant effect on the faith of the people), but it only sends further confusion into non-Catholic circles.
I need to understand this better.
Christ Lead the Way!
It is doubtful that the Mass was changed to make Protestants more comfortable. First off how do you do that? Protestant beliefs cover a wide spectrum some believe in some level of real presense some don’t. Some are liturgical some are not. Some believe in baptismal regeneration some don’t. Our current mass (outside of the vernacular language change possibly) would be no more or less offensive to the Protestant movement as a whole than the TLM.
Also it is putting the cart before the horse to say that the Pauline Mass is what caused a lack of faith. The liberal Priests and Bishops who are doing all the abuses and were raised under the TLM. By using the anecdotal logic that Pauline Mass is bringing about a lack of faith one could just as easily say that the TLM inspires liberalism. Both concepts of course are rediculous.
A drug and casual sex inspired culture that caused an entire generation to decide that they and only they knew what was right in the world (trust no one over 30) took hold and twisted the minds of millions. It affected religion, politics and social custom. They were an influence back then and they’re in charge now. That’s where it began and it will take time to repair.
Read the great reformer saints throughout the centuries (even in Old Testament times), those who lived during great times of upheaval. confusion, instability, and crisis, but who were raised up by God to help bring back peace, faith, and authentic morality–especially those that were even persecuted by people within the Church herself. See how they spoke, what they said, how they behaved. If you do that, and then watch these videos, it becomes apparent that Bishop Fellay’s movement is not of God. As he himself said, the most dangerous poison is that cloaked in the most truth.
But can’t one conclude that the same forces that caused the lack of faith (way before Vatican II) had some parallel to those forces leading up to the drug and casual sex culture? Also can you rule out those forces that lead to Vietnam War, Kennedy assassinations, etc. in your post? Does anyone really know what “inspired” Pope John XXIII to call a council to begin with? I thought he etched the 1962 Missal in stone.
I’m not saying you’re wrong but I always have to question the conclusions people sometimes draw or infer.
While in the United States’ civil (meaning secular) law, ignorance of the law is not an excuse (though I think it should be in some ways), in ecclesiastical law, ignorance of the law can be an excuse. Here are two canons that seem relevant, especially the second one.
*Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;
**2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance **
3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chanceoccurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;
4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
5° acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor;
6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;
7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.*
Can. 1324 §1 The perpretrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offence was committed by:
1° one who had only an imperfect use of reason;
2° one who was lacking the use of reason because of culpable drunkenness or other mental disturbance of a similar kind;
3° one who acted in the heat of passion which, while serious, nevertheless did not precede or hinder all mental deliberation and consent of the will, provided that the passion itself had not been deliberately stimulated or nourished
4° a minor who has completed the sixteenth year of age;
5° one who was compelled by grave fear, even if only relative, or byreason of necessity or grave inconvenience, if the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
6° one who acted in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor, but did not observe due moderation;
7° one who acted against another person who was gravely and unjustly provocative;
8° one who erroneously, but culpably, thought that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in Can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5;
9° one who through no personal fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept;
10° one who acted without full imputability, provided it remained grave.
§2 A judge can do the same if there is any other circumstance present which would reduce the gravity of the offence.
§3 In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.
So it appears that those who procure abortions but are through no personal fault unaware of the penalty for them would not incur the “latae sententiae” excommunication penalty (“latae sententiae” is the original Latin that some people paraphrase as “automatic”)
Rejecting the will of the Holy Spirit is rather a harsh accusation and probably completely unfounded, don’t you think? Where exactly does the bishop speak untruths? There were many General Councils, don’t forget, some carrying more doctrinal weight than others. From his videos, it’s easy to see/hear that the bishop agrees with A General Council that carried some doctrinal weight.
to me it sounds like in His mind that VII probably was good intentioned but they came so close to crossing the line in so many thing… as he likes to say from these videos "its tricky"
I can agree with this.