The interior of St. Peter's Basilica, suffused with light...
-
Hello po! I am a Catholic po and I believe that there were things that went wrong with Vatican II, at least in its interpretation, as Pope Benedict XVI himself affirmed (and affirms) many times. The real spirit and letter of Vatican II was interpreted in a rather mistaken way (hermeneutics of rapture). That is why, now, Pope Benedict is exerting efforts to salvage the true spirit and letter of Vatican II (hermeneutics of continuity); especially in the realm of the Liturgy of the Church. I do believe that there are ambiguities in the Vatican II documents which sometimes contradict the Church's traditional stance in various matters: religious liberty, the Church of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church, extreme ecumenism,etc. In interpretation there were abuses: the total loss of Latin (which Vatican II did not decree; on the contrary, Vatican II affirms the Church's continued use of Latin, in some parts, in the Liturgy), the "de facto" permission (or at least toleration) of liturgical abuses,etc. But, I admit (and I'm happy about them), there are many good things that came out from Vatican II: the "limited" permission of the vernacular in the Liturgy, the spiritual aspects of the Church in contrast to the rather "hierarchical" view of it (although its an integral part of the doctrine on the Church), the expanded use of the Word of God in and out of the Liturgy, etc. But I regret that Vatican II was tainted with some modernist viewpoints and ambiguities in the documents. As Pope John XXIII said the "teachings (dogmatic) of the Church remain the same" and will never be changed, so I prefer to use/adhere to pre-Vatican II teachings (or formulations), these were not "abrogated". Thanks!
- Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
[Hello po!]
HELLO DIN!
[I am a Catholic po and I believe that there were things that went wrong with Vatican II,]
AS YOU HAVE STATED THERE WERE THINGS THAT WENT WRONG WITH VATICAN II. IT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT THE VATICAN II ITSELF THAT WAS WRONG. THESE THINGS THAT WENT WRONG ARE DISTINCT FROM THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL ITSELF.
THE HOLY SPIRIT PROMISED TO PRESERVE THE CHURCH AND TO PROVIDE INSPIRATION IN COUNCILS BUT THERE IS NO PROMISE THAT EVERYTHING WILL GO SMOOTHLY AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEMS.
ALL COUNCILS ARE ACCOMPANIED BY DIFFICULTIES, TRIALS AND TENSIONS. THAT IS BUT NORMAL SINCE WE ARE DEALING WITH A VERY LARGE INSTITUTION AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
[at least in its interpretation, as Pope Benedict XVI himself affirmed (and affirms) many times.]
THE POPE IS HONEST AND VIRTUOUS AND ALSO REALISTIC. HIS STATEMENT ABOUT THE PROBLEMS OF THE CHURCH IS ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CATHOLIC FAMILY. BUT THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN COMMUNION WITH HIM HAS NO RIGHT TO USE THAT AS A WEAPON TO PROVIDE AMMUNITION FOR THEIR SILLY REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO PAPAL AUTHORITY.
EVERY DOCUMENT, THE BIBLE NOT EXCLUDED, ARE SUBJECT TO VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS AND SOME OF THEM ARE ERRONEOUS AND HERETICAL. THAT IS WHY THERE ARE PROTESTANTS, HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT BLAME THE SCRIPTURES FOR THE SINS OF THESE PEOPLE. SO, IT IS UNFAIR TO BLAME THE VATICAN II FOR THE ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF OTHERS ESPECIALLY ON THE FAILURE OF LEFEBVRE TO INTERPRET VATICAN II CORRECTLY.
OBVIOUSLY LEFEBVRE AND SSPX INTERPRETED THE COUNCIL DOCUMENTS ERRONEOUSLY.
-
[The real spirit and letter of Vatican II was interpreted in a rather mistaken way (hermeneutics of rapture).]
THAT IS THE ERROR OF LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX. THEY ARE INSISTING ON A RAPTURE THAT IS NOT EXISTING. THEY HAVE CREATED HYDRAS IN THEIR MINDS. BESIDES, THE SSPX IS PART OF THE RAPTURE. WHEN LEFEBVRE COMMITTED THOSE EXCOMMUNICABLE ACTS HE BECAME THE SOURCE OF A RAPTURE TOGETHER WITH ARIUS, NESTORIUS, LUTHER, HENRY VIII, CALVIN AND OTHERS.
THE SSPX HAVE NO RIGHTS TO SPEAK TO US OF RAPTURE BECAUSE THEY ARE THE INSTIGATORS OF THAT RAPTURE. THE TRUE CONSERVATIVES WHO SPOKE AND DEBATED DURING THE COUNCIL SUCH AS CARDINAL OTTAVIANI, CARDINAL SANTOS OF MANILA OR CARDINAL SIRI LIVED AND DIED FAITHFUL TO THE MAGISTERIUM AND DIDN'T JOIN LEFEBVRE IN HIS FOOLISHNESS.
[That is why, now, Pope Benedict is exerting efforts to salvage the true spirit and letter of Vatican II (hermeneutics of continuity);]
THE POPES FROM PAUL VI, OF BLESSED MEMORY, TO BENEDICT XVI HAVE CORRECTLY INTERPRETED AND IMPLEMENTED THE VATICAN II. AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS NOT SALVAGING BUT SIMPLY CONFRONTING THE COMMON PROBLEMS OF THE CHURCH.
ALMOST ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS ARE NOT CAUSED BY VATICAN II BUT DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF SECULARISTIC MEDIA, THE RISE OF SEXUAL REVOLUTION BROUGHT BY THE HIPPIES IN THE 70's, THE SECULARIZATION IN THE SOCIETY... PROBLEMS THAT WERE NOT SO STRONG IN THE PREVIOUS CENTURIES.
[especially in the realm of the Liturgy of the Church.]
THE LITURGY OF THE CHURCH HAS UNDERGONE A REVISION AND PROCESS OF SIMPLIFICATION. IT IS BUT NATURAL THAT THERE WILL BE PROBLEMS THAT WILL ARISE. BUT, THE PROBLEM IS MINIMAL BECAUSE THE CATHOLICS BY MILLIONS SHOWED LOVE AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE NEW MASS. ONLY A HANDFUL FEW LIKE THE SSPX REJECTED THE MASS OF PAUL VI.
[I do believe that there are ambiguities in the Vatican II documents]
O NO, THE VATICAN II DOCUMENTS ARE NOT AMBIGUOUS. THEY ARE CLEAR. HOWEVER, IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO REFUSE TO OBEY EVEN CLEAR THINGS ARE DARK FOR THEIR REBELLIOUS HEARTS. JUST LIKE THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. THEY ARE CLEAR BUT THOSE WHO ARE READING THEM CAN COMMIT ERRORS IN INTERPRETATION UNLESS THEY INTERPRET THEM IN COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH.
THE SSPX CAN'T INTERPRET VATICAN II CORRECTLY BECAUSE THEY ARE OUT OF COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH.
-
[which sometimes contradict the Church's traditional stance in various matters:]
IT IS THE SSPX THAT CONTRADICTS THE CHURCH TEACHING AND TRADITION. THE COUNCIL WAS FAITHFUL TO CATHOLIC TRADITION.
[religious liberty,]
IF THEY DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT RELIGIOUS LIBERTY THEN THE SSPX IS PROMOTING RELIGIOUS SLAVERY.
THE CHURCH NEVER FORCES ANYONE TO ACCEPT HER TEACHINGS. THE PEOPLE ARE FREE TO CHOOSE AND DECIDE. EVEN GOD RESPECTS THE FREE WILL OF MAN.
IF THE SSPX REJECTS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY THEN THEY ARE VIOLATING THE FREE WILL OF MAN. THAT IS DEMONIC.
THE VATICAN II SIMPLY RECOGNIZES THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF EVERY PERSON TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN RELIGION BUT IT NEVER TEACHES THAT ALL RELIGION ARE EQUAL.
[the Church of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church,]
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST SUBSISTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? IT MEANS THAT THE CHURCH OF JESUS IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE COUNCIL NEVER STATED THAT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OR THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ONLY ONE OF THE CHURCHES COMPRISING THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. NONE OF THESE THINGS. IT IN FACT, PROCLAIMS THAT IT IS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
HOW ABOUT TRANSUBSTANTATION, THEOTOKOS, CONSUBSTANTIAL, ETC. ARE THEY NOT SUBJECT TO ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATIONS AS WELL? WHY DID THE EARLIER COUNCIL USED TRANSUBSTANTATION WHEN THEY COULD JUST SAY PLAINLY: "THE BREAD BECOMES THE BODY OF CHRIST"?
YOU ARE SPEAKING AS IF THE PREVIOUS COUNCILS HAVEN'T USE VERY DIFFICULT TERMS THAT ONLY THOSE WHO STUDIED CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY COULD CLEARLY UNDERSTAND.
[extreme ecumenism,]
VATICAN II ONLY TEACHES 'ECUMENISM' AND NOT 'EXTREME ECUMENISM'. WHO TAUGHT YOU THAT 'EXTREME ECUMENISM'?
[etc.]
ACTUALLY, IT IS THE SSPX WHO HAS INVENTED DOCTRINES THAT ARE NOT PART OF TRADITION. LOOK AT THE WAY THEY JUSTIFY DISOBEDIENCE TO THE POPE AND THE CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE LOCAL BISHOP. THAT IS SATANIC. THEY ARE DESTROYING THE ESSENTIAL INTEGRITY OF THE CHURCH.
-
[In interpretation there were abuses:]
THE ABUSES ARE COMMITTED BY THOSE WHO ARE UNFAITHFUL TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH AND ONE OF THEM IS LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX. THE DISOBEDIENT LIBERAL AND THE DISOBEDIENT ULTRA TRADITIONAL ARE POSSESSED BY THE SAME DEMON OF DISOBEDIENCE. THEY HATE EACH OTHER WITHOUT REALIZING THAT THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME.
[the total loss of Latin (which Vatican II did not decree; on the contrary, Vatican II affirms the Church's continued use of Latin, in some parts, in the Liturgy),]
THE LOSS OF LATIN IS NOT A LOSS CAUSED BY THE COUNCIL. IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO NATURALLY LOST LATIN. ACTUALLY, LATIN BECAME THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH BECAUSE IT HAS REPLACED GREEK AS THE LINGUA FRANCA OF THE WORLD. NOW LATIN IS NO LONGER SPOKEN BY PEOPLE SO THE CHURCH WISELY DECIDED TO USE THE LIVING LANGUAGE IN COMMON USED.
THE PRESENCE OF LATIN IN THE LITURGY IS NOT A DOGMA BUT ONLY PASTORAL. IT CAN BE CHANGED AND BE REPLACED.
IF THE HOLY SPIRIT WANTED TO RETAIN LATIN AS THE ONLY LANGUAGE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HE SHOULD HAVE PRESERVED IT AS THE LINGUA FRANCA OF THE WORLD. ON THE CONTRARY, HE ALLOWED IT TO DISAPPEAR INTO ALMOST OBLIVION.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT LATIN WAS TOTALLY LOST BECAUSE THE MASSES OF THE POPE IN THE VATICAN ESPECIALLY DURING SOLEMNITIES ARE IN LATIN. AND IN MANY CHURCHES GREGORIAN CHANTS AND LATIN MASSES ARE CELEBRATED AS WE DID IN THE SEMINARY. WE USED TO CELEBRATE THE MASS IN LATIN EVERY SATURDAY EVENING AND DOING IT WITH BEAUTY AND GRACE.
SO, STOP SPREADING THAT LATIN WAS TOTALLY LOST. O NO, NO, NO... JUST LEARN OF WHAT IS HAPPENING INSIDE MANY SEMINARIES, MONASTERIES AND CHURCHES.
[the "de facto" permission (or at least toleration) of liturgical abuses,etc.]
THE PROBLEM WITH SSPX IS THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT TLM IS LITURGICAL ABUSE. THEY SEE ABUSES WHERE THERE IS NONE. LIKE THE PHARISEES THEY DO NOT SEE THE GOOD THINGS ON OTHERS EXCEPT THE ONE THEY PREFER.
LITURGICAL ABUSES MUST BE CONDEMNED BUT THOSE ABUSES ARE RARE. THE LOCAL CHURCHES ALSO WORK HARD TO CORRECT THE ABUSES ON THE GRASSROOTS. THE CHURCH NEVER GAVE A 'DE FACTO' PERMISSION FOR LITURGICAL ABUSES.
THE SSPX DO NOT SEE THEIR CANONICAL ABUSES, THEIR ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, THEIR PUTTING ASUNDER THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH AND THEIR ABUSE OF THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE POPE AS DECREED IN VATICAN I... NO, THEY ONLY LOOK AT OTHERS MALICIOUSLY.
-
[But, I admit (and I'm happy about them), there are many good things that came out from Vatican II:]
PRAISE THE LORD. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
[the "limited" permission of the vernacular in the Liturgy,]
LATIN IS STILL THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH HOWEVER, AS A PRIEST LIVING IN A PROVINCE WHOSE FAITHFUL ARE MOSTLY NOT FLUENT EVEN IN ENGLISH I THINK IT IS FOOLISH TO IMPLEMENT LATIN ON A REGULAR BASIS. SOMETIMES IT CAN BE SO LIKE IN SOLEMNITIES OR INSERT SOME GREGORIAN CHANTS DURING THE MASS BUT IT IS NOT PRACTICAL, PASTORAL AND REASONABLE TO USE LATIN REGULARLY.
THE USE OF A LANGUAGE UNDERSTANDABLE TO PEOPLE IS A PRIMARY DUTY OF THE CHURCH AS TEACHER, EVANGELIZER AND DISTRIBUTER OF THE HOLY THINGS OF GOD. IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE CANON OF THE MASS THE PRIEST IS TALKING TO GOD BUT THE PEOPLE DESERVES TO KNOW WHAT THEIR LEADER TELLS THE LORD GOD BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF THE NEW COVENANT. THAT IS WHY THE DIVINE MASTER CELEBRATED THE LAST SUPPER NOT IN LATIN BUT IN THE LIVING LANGUAGE OF HIS TIME.
[the spiritual aspects of the Church in contrast to the rather "hierarchical" view of it (although its an integral part of the doctrine on the Church),]
CORRECT. THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. BOTH THE HIERARCHY AND THE 'COMMUNIO' MUST BE PRESERVED AND UPHELD. WE TEACHES THE SPIRITUAL ASPECTS TO REFLECT ON BUT THE CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH THAT THE HIERARCHY MUST BE REJECTED.
THAT IS WHY VATICAN II ENRICHES OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHURCH AND OF THE FAITH.
[the expanded use of the Word of God in and out of the Liturgy, etc.]
YES. EVEN THE PROTESTANTS ARE SURPRISED NOWADAYS HOW OUR LAY PEOPLE COULD BE SO WELL-VERSED IN SCRIPTURES. ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE REGULAR CHURCH GOERS.
[But I regret that Vatican II was tainted with some modernist viewpoints and ambiguities in the documents.]
NOT ACTUALLY. THE DOCUMENTS DIDN'T SUCCUMB TO MODERNISM BECAUSE IT PRESERVES OUR BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, IN THE DIVINITY OF JESUS, THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURES AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH WITH THE POPE AS THE SUPREME PONTIFF. MODERNISM REJECTS ALL THESE.
THE COUNCIL SIMPLY GAVE US NEW PERSPECTIVE ON OUR FAITH THAT EMPOWERS US TO FACE THE CHALLENGE OF MODERNISM, ATHEISM, COMMUNISM AND OTHERS. THESE CAN'T JUST BE DEFEATED BY SIMPLE DECLARATIONS OF ANATHEMAS AND PUBLICATION OF PROHIBITED BOOKS. THOSE ARE SUPERFICIAL AND NOT ENOUGH. WHAT IS NEEDED IS TO FACE THESE ENEMIES IN ALL STRATAS OF LIFE AND CONFRONT THEM FAIRLY AND SQUARELY.
INDEED, THE LAY PEOPLE NOW ARE DEBATING AND DEFENDING THE FAITH IN ALMOST ALL FORA. JUST LOOK AT THE BLOG SPHERES HOW OUR LAY INTELLIGENTLY DEBATES THE ATHEISTS AND THE AGNOSTICS. THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT BECAME VERY STRONG AND HIGHLY ORGANIZED THEMSELVES LED BY THE LAY. JOHN XXIII THROUGH HIS PEACE EFFORTS HELPED IN AVOIDING WAR DURING THE COLD WAR. HE DIALOGUED WITH BOTH U.S. AND SOVIET GOVERNMENTS. THEN JOHN PAUL THE GREAT IS CONSIDERED AS ONE OF THE MAIN FORCES THAT BROUGHT THE FALL OF COMMUNISM IN EASTERN EUROPE, THE OTHERS ARE RONALD REAGAN OF US AND MARGARET THATCHER OF BRITAIN.
[As Pope John XXIII said the "teachings (dogmatic) of the Church remain the same" and will never be changed, so I prefer to use/adhere to pre-Vatican II teachings (or formulations), these were not "abrogated".]
CORRECT BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO REMAIN IN THE TEACHINGS OF PRE-VATICAN II THAT ARE NOT ABROGATED. BETTER UPHELD THE ENTIRE VATICAN II DOCUMENTS. THEREIN YOU WILL FIND THE PRE-VATICAN II TEACHINGS THAT ARE NOT ABROGATED BUT THEY ARE EXPLAINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONTEMPORARY SITUATION OF THE CHURCH.
- EVERY TIME THERE IS A COUNCIL, CATHOLIC TRADITION DICTATES THAT WE UPHELD THE COUNCIL IN FULL AND NOT JUST RELY EXCLUSIVELY ON THE PREVIOUS COUNCILS.
[Thanks!]
THANK YOU ALSO.
.jpg)
![ST. JEROME EMILIANI [1486-1537]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/R0lo013dyBI/AAAAAAAAB_4/XzUAPDESwwQ/s1600/St.+Jerome+in+prayer,+small_1.jpg)
Ig you have complains about religious liberty you have the right to complain to lefebvre for signing the declaration on religious liberty... see the previous post of this blog where he signed the approval sheet of that document
ReplyDeleteIf Latin should be the prefered language of the Church,then why the apostles spoke different languages when they were filled with the Holy Spirit?
ReplyDeleteHA, HA, HA... WHAT I LIKE WITH YOU BRO. TITO IS THE FACT THAT YOU ARE USING YOUR BRAIN. HA, HA, HA...
ReplyDeleteAND FOR YOU BRO. EDNARD IS THAT YOU ARE NOT BLIND TO REALITY. HE, HE, HE...
How about obedience to the Church. Vatican II mandates that "the use of the Latin language...is to be preserved in the Latin rites..." and that "care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them..." You are saying that we must obey the Council but now you are contradicting one of the Council's decrees. I thought you were Vatican II fans but now you are "disobeying" or "criticizing" Vatican II... Vernacular languages are PERMITTED by Vatican II but the contrary is happening now. It seems that the vernacular languages are MANDATED by Vatican II and the Latin language DISCARDED. But when we read Sacrosanctum Concilium it is clearly stated there that we must still USE, PRESERVE, STUDY, BE TAUGHT (by our priests/RE teachers), SAY or SING in LATIN. It is very sad that even our priests and apologists are saying something negative about the Church's use of Latin. I can still remember when we were still young (here in Mindanao, province area) we can understand Latin as if mystically even if we did not have any training on it. We can understand and grasp more the grandeur of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form that when it is in the vernacular. Look at some of our churches: the Mass can now be understood but few Mass goers. During the era of the Tridentine Mass: the Mass in Latin, "very foreign," but greater participation, learning, awe, solemnity, etc.
ReplyDelete[How about obedience to the Church.]
ReplyDeleteTHE SSPX IS DEFINITELY DISOBEDIENT TO THE POPE AND THE CHURCH. THAT CANNOT BE REFUTED BY GOOBLEDYGOOK REASONING OF THE SSPX SUPPORTERS.
[Vatican II mandates that "the use of the Latin language...is to be preserved in the Latin rites..."]
IT IS PRESERVED IN THE CHURCH.
ALL THE MAJOR DOCUMENTS IN THE CHURCH SUCH AS THE ENCYCLICALS, THE CANON LAW, THE DECREES OF VATICAN II ARE IN LATIN.
THE MASSES OF THE POPE ESPECIALLY THOSE BROADCASTED AND AIRED UNIVERSALLY ARE IN LATIN. THERE ARE LATIN MASSES IN THE CATHEDRALS, MONASTERIES, SEMINARIES AND GREGORIAN CHANT IS POPULAR NOW A DAYS.
[and that "care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them..."]
THAT IS NOT A DOGMATIC DECREE BUT A PASTORAL ONE. HA, HA, HA... ISN'T THAT YOUR FAVORITE REASONING? HA, HA, HA...
INDEED, THE CHURCH PRESERVES LATIN AND MANY PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH CAN SING THE GLORIA, SANCTUS AND PATER NOSTER IN LATIN. HOWEVER, IN THE LOCAL SITUATION NOT ALL PARISHES ARE GIFTED WITH MUSIC TEACHER TO TEACH THE GREGORIAN CHANTS AND THE SONGS OF PALESTRINA. THE LOCAL SITUATION CALLS FOR GREATER USE OF THE VERNACULAR. AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
LATIN WAS FORMERLY A VULGAR LANGUAGE FOR BARBARIANS AND PAGANS SUCH AS OVID, JULIUS CEASAR, ETC. HOWEVER, THE CHURCH ABANDONED GREEK TO FAVOR LATIN FOR PASTORAL REASON. NOW THAT LATIN IS NO LONGER WIDELY USED AS BEFORE IT IS UNPASTORAL TO INSISTS ON A DEAD LANGUAGE IN THE LOCAL LEVEL.
BUT, YOU CANNOT CLAIM THAT LATIN IS TOTALLY ABANDONED. BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF CHURCHES WHEREIN LATIN, GREGORIAN CHANTS, POLYPHONIC SONGS ARE SUNG IN THE CHURCHES, CHAPELS, MONASTERIES AND SEMINARIES. EVEN THE POPULAR EWTN TV WHICH BROADCAST TO ABOUT 500 MILLION PEOPLE PROMOTES LATIN: THE HOLY MASS AND THE GREGORIAN CHANTS AND THE ORATORIOS. THE SSPX ARE NOT DOING THAT.
BESIDES THE MASS OF POPE PAUL VI IS ALSO ORIGINALLY IN LATIN. AND MANY OF US PRIESTS USE IT FROM TIME TO TIME.
[You are saying that we must obey the Council but now you are contradicting one of the Council's decrees.]
ReplyDeleteWE OBEY THE COUNCIL AND WE DO NOT CONTRADICT IT. THE CONTRADICTION IS EXISTING IN YOUR MIND BECAUSE OF PROBABLY IGNORANCE OF HOW THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH PROMOTES AND PRESERVES LATIN ALL OVER THE WORLD. IN FACT, LATIN IS A REQUIREMENT SUBJECTS IN OUR SEMINARIES AND ECCLESIASTICAL DEGREES. FOR SURE WE HAVE MORE SEMINARIANS AND PRIESTS AND THEOLOGY STUDENTS THAN THE SSPX. HE, HE, HE...
[I thought you were Vatican II fans but now you are "disobeying" or "criticizing" Vatican II...]
YOUR THOUGHTS ARE NOT MY THOUGHTS. SO, BETTER FOR YOU TO ATTUNE YOUR THOUGHTS.
[Vernacular languages are PERMITTED by Vatican II but the contrary is happening now.]
IT IS PERMITTED. AND WHEN IT WAS PERMITTED IT BECAME VERY POPULAR THAT IT SWEPT THE WHOLE WORLD. THERE ARE ALSO CLAMOR FOR LATIN IN THE MASSES AND IN THE SONGS. BUT THE GREAT MAJORITY ARE ALSO LOVING AND ENJOYING THE VERNACULAR.
WHEN IT WAS PERMITTED THEN IT IS PERMISSIBLE AND A GOOD THING TO USE. SO, WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM WITH IT? ANY PROBLEM?
IF YOU WANT TO PRESERVE LATIN THEN TELL YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY AND PARISH TO SPEAK IN LATIN DAILY SO THAT YOUR PARISH PRIEST WILL MAKE IT THE PRIMARY LANGUAGE IN THE MASSES THERE. HA, HA, HA...
[It seems that the vernacular languages are MANDATED by Vatican II and the Latin language DISCARDED.]
LATIN IS NOT DISCARDED. IT SIMPLY NATURALLY DIED OUT AS A LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE. IT IS THE NATURAL COURSE OF HISTORY THAT KILLED LATIN NOT THE LITURGY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. YOU JUST SIMPLY CANNOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT LATIN HAS FADED AWAY. THAT REALITY IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF EVERYONE. WHEN ENGLISH FADES LATER ON THE CHURCH WILL ALSO REPLACED IT WITH THE NEW LANGUAGE. THAT IS THE REALITY OF LIFE.
STOP YOUR DELUSIONS IN FAVOR OF REALITY. THE CHURCH PRESERVES LATIN BUT IT IS OF NO AVAIL BECAUSE THE FACT IS THAT LATIN HAS FADED AWAY.
[But when we read Sacrosanctum Concilium it is clearly stated there that we must still USE, PRESERVE, STUDY, BE TAUGHT (by our priests/RE teachers), SAY or SING in LATIN.]
ReplyDeleteIT IS BEING DONE. HOWEVER, THAT COMMAND IS NOT DOGMATIC BUT PASTORAL. THE VERNACULAR BLEW LATIN AWAY IN THE PRACTICAL LIFE OF THE CHURCH ON THE GRASSROOTS. BUT OFFICIALLY, THE CHURCH STILL EXERTS EFFORTS TO PRESERVE IT.
[It is very sad that even our priests and apologists are saying something negative about the Church's use of Latin.]
EXCUSE ME. I LOVE LATIN MORE THAN YOU. I AM ONE OF THE FEW PRIESTS IN THIS COUNTRY CELEBRATING THE TRIDENTINE LATIN MASS AND TOGHETHER WITH MY BROTHER PRIESTS WE ARE CELEBRATING THE PAULINE MASS IN LATIN. FOR INSTANCE, IN THE DIOCESAN HOUSE FOR THE CLERGY OUR BISHOP, ARTURO M. BASTES, SVD, DD CELEBRATES THE LATIN MASS WITH PRIESTS AND SEMINARIANS WEEKLY IN ORDINARY FORM. THE SAME IN OUR SOMASCAN SEMINARY IN PAMPANGA AND IN TAGAYTAY.
[I can still remember when we were still young (here in Mindanao, province area) we can understand Latin as if mystically even if we did not have any training on it.]
PRAISE THE LORD FOR YOUR MENTAL PROWESS BUT I HOPE YOU WILL ALSO DENY THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME MENTAL ABILITY THAT YOU HAVE. YOU UNDERSTAND IT PROBABLY BECAUSE OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE TEXT BUT NOT REALLY HAVING AN INSTINCTIVE UNDERSTANDING OF ITS GRAMMAR, SYNTAX, EXPRESSIONS AND THE RICHNESS OF ITS EVERY VOCABULARY. STILL YOU WERE VERY MUCH IMPAIRED.
UNLIKE THE MASSES TODAY WHO ARE TRULY UNVEILED TO THE EARS AND THE HEART AND THE MIND OF THE WORSHIPPERS.
[We can understand and grasp more the grandeur of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form that when it is in the vernacular.]
ReplyDeleteO I DOUBT THAT VERY MUCH. I HAVE TALKED TO MANY FORMER ALTAR BOYS WHO ARE NOW OLD. THEY TOLD ME ABOUT THE JOKES THEY WERE DOING WHILE THE PRIESTS WERE CELEBRATING WITH HIS BACK ON THEM. THEY WERE TELLING ME OF OLD PEOPLE JUST RECITING NOVENAS AND ROSARIES DURING CONSECRATIONS AND ALSO SLEEPING BECAUSE OF THE PROLONGED SILENCE.
HAVE YOU HEARD HOW THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF THOSE TIMES JOKED ABOUT 'SAECULA SAECULORUM'? THEY WERE SINGING ON THE STREETS ACCORDING TO MY LOLO: "KOLORUM, KOLORUM... KINULA ANG KOLORUM'. HA, HA, HA... HOW ABOUT THE 'SPIRITUM FACTUM' BEING USED AS A JOKE: "IMPAKTUM, IMPAKTUM...". DO YOU KNOW THAT? HAVE YOU HEARD THAT?
I HAVE TALKED TO MANY OLD PRIESTS WHO ARE SO HAPPY THAT THE RIGID AND METICULOUS RITE WAS REPLACED BY A MORE SIMPLE ONE. AND THEY ALSO TOLD ME THAT THE RICHLY DECORATED VESTMENTS OF THE PRIESTS SCANDALIZES THE POOR IN THEIR POVERTY AND SIMPLICITY.
AS A YOUNG SEMINARIAN I ALSO INTERVIEWED A LOT OF OLD PRIESTS AND MONSIGNORI, AS WELL AS OLD FOLKS. I ASSURE YOU MORE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGE. ONLY WHEN I STUDIED IN PHILOSOPHY DID THE SSPX ISSUE CAME TO ME BUT IT WAS NOT A BIG FACTOR FOR ME THEN BECAUSE OUR PEOPLE LOVES THE VERNACULAR MASS.
DON'T JUST LOOK AT THE GRANDEUR ALSO LOOK AT PASTORAL REALITY.
[Look at some of our churches: the Mass can now be understood but few Mass goers.]
HA, HA, HA... YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY LYING HERE. I'VE VISITED SO MANY PLACES OF THE COUNTRY AND EVERYWHERE I GO THE CHURCHES ARE FILLED EVERY SUNDAY. MANY CHURCHES HAVE SEVERAL MASSES IN EVERY PARISH. HA, HA, HA... MAY BE THERE ARE ONLY 1O HOUSES IN YOUR HOMETOWN THAT IS WHY. HE, HE, HE...
THAT IS A COMMON LIE OF THE SSPX. THAT THE CHURCHES ARE GETTING EMPTY. IN EUROPE MAY BE. BUT NOT HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES. I WAS TOLD THAT IN INDONESIA THE FERVOR OF THE PEOPLE IN THE MASS IS SO GREAT THAT WHILE SINGING THEY WERE EVEN CRYING WITH TEARS OF JOY. THE SAME THING IN AFRICA.
THE EMPTINESS OF CHURCHES IN EUROPE IS CAUSED NOT BY VATICAN II BUT BY PORNOGRAPHY, ABORTIONS, HOMOSEXUALITY, DRUGS, VICES, BUSINESS, ETC.
[During the era of the Tridentine Mass: the Mass in Latin, "very foreign," but greater participation, learning, awe, solemnity, etc.]
THAT IS NOT TRUE. THERE WERE ALSO ABUSES BEFORE. THERE WERE PRIESTS ACCORDING TO OUR OLD PRIESTS WHO WERE CUTTING THE PRAYERS OF THE MASS TO MAKE IT SHORT. THE HOMILY WAS ONLY PURE SHOUTING DECLARING THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE AS IF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY ARE ALWAYS IN MORTAL SIN.
THERE WERE ALSO PRIESTS IMPREGNATING WOMEN BEFORE AND MOLESTING BOYS. BUT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE VICTIMS PREFER TO BE SILENT BECAUSE THERE WERE NO MEDIA THEN TO EXPOSE THE EVIL DONE.
DON'T PRETEND AS IF THERE WERE NO MORTAL SINS DURING THE PRE-VATICAN II CHURCH. EXCUSE ME. SEXUAL, LITURGICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, POLITICAL ABUSES ARE PRESENT IN THE WORLD OR IN THE CHURCH DURING THE TIME OF POPE PETER, POPE PIUS V [THAT IS WHY THERE WERE REFORMATION THEN DUE TO ABUSES AND SCANDALS] OR PIUS XII OR BENEDICT XVI.
THE CHURCH IS ALWAYS COMPOSED OF SAINTS AND SINNERS FROM THE FIRST CENTURY UNTIL NOW. DON'T TELL ME THAT YOUR ERA IS HOLIER THAN OUR AGE TODAY. THE SINS OF THE WORLD TODAY ARE BROADCASTED BY TV AND RADIO. DURING THOSE TIMES THEY ARE SIMPLY KEPT IN SECRET. PADRE DAMASO IS NOT A VATICAN II PRIEST BUT A PRE-VATICAN II. PHILIPPINE HISTORY CAN ATTESTS TO THE CORRUPTION AND EVIL AND IMMORALITIES PRESENT IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE SOCIETY DURING THE PRE-VATICAN II ERA.
There were about 16 documents drawn up in Vatican II. The two you mention below are part of those 16. They are not Dogmatic anything. They were just documents. Lumen Gentium was one of the most heretical of the documents.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the Second Vatican Council Cardinal Felici was asked to make a statement regarding the council and the documents that were drawn up. His statement to the Catholic Faithful was : with regard to the documents, adhere to those things in the Council that the Church has always taught, and be very wary or very careful about new things, or new ideas.
The documents that came out of the council are not infallible definition/documents, nor are they dogmatic.
There were some items in those documents that pertained to what the Church always taught. Anything the church has always taught a Catholic has to adhere to. But new things, should be and can be ignored.
No infallible definitions came out of Vatican II. And remember, a future pope cannot undo any of the infallible definitions. So even if tomorrow, the Pope says that anyone can be saved and you don’t have to be Catholic – that would be heresy and no Catholic should believe it.
[There were about 16 documents drawn up in Vatican II. The two you mention below are part of those 16.]
ReplyDeleteWHAT DOCUMENTS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THERE ARE SO MANY POSTS IN THIS BLOG AND I DON'T WANT TO FIND NEEDLES IN STACK OF HAYS.
[They are not Dogmatic anything. They were just documents. Lumen Gentium was one of the most heretical of the documents.]
IF YOU ARE REFERRING TO LUMEN GENTIUM AND DEI VERBUM THEY ARE DOGMATIC. ONLY IDIOTS WILL CLAIM THAT THEY ARE NOT DOGMATIC. IN FACT, THEY ARE DOGMATIC CONSTITUTIONS.
YOU ARE A FOOL LIKE LEFEBVRE. LUMEN GENTIUM IS DEFINITELY NOT HERETICAL. THERE IS NOTHING IN IT THAT IS HERETICAL. YOU ARE HERETICAL.
[At the end of the Second Vatican Council Cardinal Felici was asked to make a statement regarding the council and the documents that were drawn up. His statement to the Catholic Faithful was : with regard to the documents, adhere to those things in the Council that the Church has always taught, and be very wary or very careful about new things, or new ideas.]
THIS IS PURE GOSSIP AND JUNK. YOU ARE FREE TO HALLUCINATE. CARDINAL FELICI SIGNED THE 16 DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II AND SERVED THE CHURCH UNTIL DEATH LOYAL TO THE POPES UNLIKE LEFEBVRE WHO BECAME A SERPENT-LIKE TRAITOR.
[The documents that came out of the council are not infallible definition/documents, nor are they dogmatic.]
THE COUNCIL RELEASED TWO DOGMATIC CONSTITUTIONS AND THEREFORE THEY ARE DOGMATIC. NOT ALL DOCUMENTS OR DECISIONS MADE IN EARLIER COUNCILS CONCERN ABOUT DOGMA EITHER THERE ARE ALSO ABOUT ADMINISTRATION AND PASTORAL LIFE.
LEFEBVRE AND THE SSPX AND THE SEDEVACANTISTS ARE NOT INFALLIBLE. THEY ARE TRAITORS TO THE FAITH.
[There were some items in those documents that pertained to what the Church always taught. Anything the church has always taught a Catholic has to adhere to. But new things, should be and can be ignored.]
THERE IS NOTHING NEW DOCTRINE IN VATICAN II BUT NEW EXPLANATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS OF THE SAME FAITH.
[No infallible definitions came out of Vatican II.]
THERE IS. THE DEFINITION CONCERNING THE COLLEGIALITY OF THE POPE AND THE BISHOPS IS INFALLIBLE DEFINITION GIVEN IN A DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION. THE ROLE OF MARY IN SALVATION GIVEN IN LUMEN GENTIUM IS ALSO DOGMATIC AND INFALLIBLE.
[And remember, a future pope cannot undo any of the infallible definitions.]
ONLY FOOLS WILL CLAIM THAT THE POPE UNDID ANY INFALLIBLE DEFINITIONS. WHAT IS THAT INFALLIBLE DEFINITION UNDONE BY THE POPE IN VATICAN II?
[So even if tomorrow, the Pope says that anyone can be saved and you don’t have to be Catholic – that would be heresy and no Catholic should believe it.]
SORRY FOR YOU. YOU ARE THE HERETICAL HERE. YOU ARE DENYING THE UNIVERSAL EFFICACY OF SALVATION. JESUS DIED FOR EVERY BODY NOT JUST FOR HERETICS LIKE YOU... NOT JUST FOR THAT WACKY OLD FOOL NAMED LEFEBVRE. JESUS IS THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD. SALVATION IS FOR ALL BUT NOT EVERY ONE WILL BE SAVED BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME WHO WILL REFUSE THE SALVATION OFFERED BY GOD. NO POPE HAS EVER TAUGHT THAT ALL SHALL BE SAVED BUT THEY TAUGHT THAT SALVATION IS FOR ALL... THAT IS BIBLICAL.
(STOP YOUR DELUSIONS IN FAVOR OF REALITY. THE CHURCH PRESERVES LATIN BUT IT IS OF NO AVAIL BECAUSE THE FACT IS THAT LATIN HAS FADED AWAY.)
ReplyDeleteThe Vatican II Church DIDN'T preserved Latin. It killed Latin, the Language and the Liturgy. It was not necessary during that time to change the Litury, but Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI changed it. The faithful didn't ask for it.
Imagine, for almost just half a century since Vatican II Traditional Latin Mass is just a distant past for the present generation. Thanks to the Traditionalists they make us aware of our ancient fervor and its richness. Novus Ordo was not requested by the Faithful but it was given, now we are asking for the Traditional Latin Mass the Bishops do not give what we ask.
(STOP YOUR DELUSIONS IN FAVOR OF REALITY. THE CHURCH PRESERVES LATIN BUT IT IS OF NO AVAIL BECAUSE THE FACT IS THAT LATIN HAS FADED AWAY.)
ReplyDelete[The Vatican II Church DIDN'T preserved Latin.]
LATIN IS STILL THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. NO INSTITUTION HAS PRESERVED LATIN THAN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT THE VATICAN II CHURCH DIDN'T PRESERVE LATIN HOW ABOUT THE TRIDENTINE CHURCH DID IT PRESERVE HEBREW AND ARAMAIC? HOW ABOUT THE LATERAN CHURCH DID IT PRESERVE GREEK AS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH?
THE USE OF LATIN IS NOT A DOGMA OF THE CHURCH. THAT IS JUST A PRACTICAL CHOICE BECAUSE LATIN BECAME THE DOMINANT LANGUAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. THE LORD JESUS DIDN'T SPEAK IN LATIN BUT IN ARAMAIC. THE LITURGY OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS IN JERUSALEM WERE IN HEBREW. THEN WHEN THE FAITH SPREADS IN THE HELLENISTIC WORLD GREEK SUPPLANTED HEBREW AND WHEN LATIN DOMINATED THE GREEK DUE TO THE RISE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE OVER THE INFLUENCE OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT LATIN BECAME THE DOMINANT. READ THE LESSONS OF HISTORY SO THAT YOU WILL NOT BE BLINDED BY STUPIDITIES.
IF THE POPE HAD THE POWER TO IMPOSE LATIN THEN HE HAS THE POWER TO REMOVE LATIN.
IF YOU ARE NOT IGNORANT OF HISTORY LATIN WAS FORMERLY A BARBARIC LANGUAGE. IT WAS A VULGAR LANGUAGE OR SIMPLY COMMON LANGUAGE. THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED LATINA VULGATA. BUT WHEN THE CHURCH USED IT FOR LITURGY AND THEOLOGY IT WAS SANCTIFIED. IF THE CHURCH HAS THE POWER TO SANCTIFY LATIN IT ALSO HAS THE POWER TO SANCTIFY OTHER LANGUAGES BY USING THEM IN THE LITURGY.
IF YOU TRULY LOVE LATIN THEN SPEAK IT. WRITE IT. LET US SEE IF YOU WILL NOT MAKE YOURSELF A FOOL DOING SO.
[It killed Latin, the Language and the Liturgy.]
HA HA HA... FOOLISH. LATIN DIED A NATURAL DEATH. BEFORE IT WAS USED BY THE ACADEMICS AND IN SCIENCES AND IN LITERATURE. BUT AFTER CENTURIES IT DIED A NATURAL DEATH. IT WAS NO LONGER REQUIRED IN SCHOOLS AND SCIENTISTS WERE WRITING THEIR FINDINGS IN LOCAL LANGUAGES. THE CHURCH SIMPLY RECOGNIZED THE FACT THAT LATIN IS DEAD... DEAD AS DEAD.
GOD IS NOT THE GOD OF THE DEAD BUT OF THE LIVING. PRAISE AND WORSHIPS AND PREACHING ARE DONE USING THE DOMINANT LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE. FOR THAT REASON THE LITURGY IS ALWAYS ALIVE AND NOT DEAD LIKE THE ROTTING CORPSE OF LEFEBVRE WHO DIED OUTSIDE THE CHURCH WHERE THERE IS NO SALVATION.
[ It was not necessary during that time to change the Litury, but Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI changed it. The faithful didn't ask for it.]
ReplyDeleteWHO ARE YOU TO SAY THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY THAT TIME? WHO ARE YOU? HELLO. IT WAS THE POPE WHO HAS THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OVER THE CHURCH. HE WAS THE ONE WHO WILL DECIDE WITH DEFINITIVE STAND IF THERE IS A NEED TO CHANGE SOMETHING OR NOT FOR THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH... THE POPE AND NOT YOUR WACKY OLD FOOL LEFEBVRE. THE POPE AND NOT YOU. NOT YOU... MIND YOU. HE HE HE... AND THE POPE DECIDED TO ALLOW THE LOCAL LANGUAGES. THANKS BE TO GOD. NOW ITS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THE LITURGY.
WHETHER THE PEOPLE ASKED FOR IT OR NOT THE POPE AS THE FATHER OF HIS FLOCK HAS THE DUTY TO IMPLEMENT WHAT IS NEEDED. HOW ABOUT THE BABIES ARE THEY ASKING FOR MILK? NO. YET THEY ARE BEING GIVEN MILK REGULARLY. THE IDIOT LEFEBVRE HAD FORGOTTEN THE FACT THAT ANCIENT TRADITION CALLS THE POPE "HOLY FATHER" WHICH IS A MANIFESTATION OF OUR SPIRITUAL CHILDHOOD. HE WANTED TO BE MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN THE HOLY FATHER WHO DECIDED TO GIVE WHAT IS BEST FOR HIS PEOPLE.
[Imagine, for almost just half a century since Vatican II Traditional Latin Mass is just a distant past for the present generation.]
WHO CARES? THE CHURCH PROVIDED THE HOLY MASS FOR ALL FAITHFUL SO THERE IS NO NEGLECT OF SACRAMENTAL DUTIES ON THE PART OF THE CHURCH. THE PROBLEM IS FOR THOSE WHO ARE CAPRICIOUS... PREFERRING A CERTAIN FORM OF THE LATIN RITE OVER THE OTHER.
[Thanks to the Traditionalists they make us aware of our ancient fervor and its richness.]
SSPX IS NOT TRADITIONALISM BUT LUCIFERIANISM AND LEFEBVRISM... DISOBEDIENCE TO THE POPE AND THE BISHOPS. AS JESUS AND MARY UNDID THE DISOBEDIENCE OF ADAM AND EVE, LEFEBVRE WALKED ON THE PATH OF DISOBEDIENCE.
[Novus Ordo was not requested by the Faithful but it was given, now we are asking for the Traditional Latin Mass the Bishops do not give what we ask.]
HOW ABOUT TLM BEFORE QUO PRIMUM WAS IT REQUESTED BY THE FAITHFUL? WHO REQUESTED? WHERE ARE THE MILLIONS OF PETITIONS GIVEN TO POPE PIUS V? HOW COME THE KYRIE IS IN GREEK, DID THE FAITHFUL PETITIONED THE POPE TO KEEP IT IN GREEK?
*****HOW ABOUT TLM BEFORE QUO PRIMUM WAS IT REQUESTED BY THE FAITHFUL?******
ReplyDelete[No.]
YOU SEE WHAT KIND OF LITURGICAL ANIMALS YOU ARE. YOU ARE REJECTING THE PAULINE MASS FOR COMING OUT OF A COMMISSION WHEN IT FACT THE TLM WAS THE SAME. IT WAS NOT REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE AND THE POPE IMPOSED IT ON THE FAITHFUL BY HIS OWN AUTHORITY ALONE AFTER A SPECIAL COMMISSION THAT HE FORMED.
[It developed gradually sa paglipas ng panahon, but what happened was kung anu yung nadevelop gradually sa paglipas ng panahon e biglang pinalitan ng ganoon kadali.]
O NO, NO, NO... IT DIDN'T DEVELOP GRADUALLY. YOU ARE LYING. POPE PIUS V COMMISSIONED A PANEL OF EXPERTS TO COMPOSE IT COMING FROM THE OLDER RITES AND LITURGIES:
"We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor..."
TLM IS AN EFFECT OF A SINGLE WORK. IT WAS A FINISHED PRODUCT COMING FROM A SINGLE POOL OF EXPERTS WHO WORKED ON A TIME DURATION AS REQUESTED BY THE POPE THEN.
[At kung pagkukumparahin ang Novus Ordo at Traditional Latin Mass eh hindi sila magkamukha, may pagkakapareho pero mas malaki ang pagkakaiba.]
ReplyDeleteHA HA HA... THE ESSENCE IS THE SAME ONLY THE ACCIDENTS OR SUPERFICIAL THINGS ARE DIFFERENT. THEY BOTH HAVE THE FOLLOWING:
1. Entrance Procession
2. Kissing of Altar
3. Sign of the Cross
4. Kyrie
5. The Gloria
6. Readings
7. The Creed
8. Offertory
9. Preface
10. Sanctus
11. Canon
12. Holy Communion
13. Prayer & Blessing
14. Kissing of the Altar
15. Final Procession
BOTH CONTAINS THE THEOLOGY AND DOCTRINES OF TRANSUBSTANTATION AND CHRIST'S ETERNAL SACRIFICE.
THE DIFFERENCE ARE SUPERFICIAL:
1. Latin Language for TLM and Local language for Pauline Mass
2. Extravagant and expensive clothes for TLM and simplified for Pauline Mass.
THESE ARE ONLY TWO OF THE EXAMPLES... VERY MINOR THINGS EXCEPT FOR FOOLS LIKE LEFEBVRE.
[Ang daming binago, instead of making it more beautiful, pinapangit.]
ReplyDeleteMAS MAGANDA NGA KASI SIMPLE AT NAIINTINDIHAN. HINDI PARANG FASHION SHOW OF NOBLES DURING THE TIME OF CHARLEMAGNE. THE USE OF THOSE EXTRAVAGANT AND EXPENSIVE CLOTHES ARE SCANDALOUS FOR THE PEOPLE OF TODAY. EVEN THE KINGS AND THE QUEENS ARE NO LONGER WEARING THOSE KINDS OF CLOTHES. IT IS TIME TO WAKE UP TO REALITY THAT WE ARE NO LONGER LIVING IN MIDDLE AGES.
[At ang daming inilagay, tinanggal, inilipat o binago sa Misa na nagdulot ng pagdududa ng ilang Katoliko sa Misa.]
YUNG MGA NILAGAY AY NAPAKAKA-GAGANDA. LAHAT GALING SA BIBLIA AT SA SACRED TRADITION:
1. RESPONSORIAL PSLAM - Only demons will reject the Psalms which are Messianic Prophecies and Word of God.
2. SECOND READINGS - Only demons will reject the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles for Reading Readings. These are Word of God.
3. PRAYER OF THE FAITHFUL - Only demons will reject the Intercession of Saints.
THAT IS WHY OBVIOUSLY THE SSPX IS DEMON-INFESTED BECAUSE EVEN THE WORD OF GOD IS BECOMING EVIL FOR THEM.
ANONG TINANGGAL? LATIN? LATIN BECAME THE LANGUAGE OF THE LITURGY WHEN THE USE OF GREEK DIMINISHED. SO WHEN LATIN DIMINISHED THE POPE ALLOWED THE USE OF THE VERNACULAR WITHOUT REMOVING LATIN BECAUSE LATIN IS STILL THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH. IN FACT, LATIN WAS FORMERLY A VULGAR LANGUAGE... LATINA VULGATA. IT WAS FORMERLY A VERNACULAR LANGUAGE USED BY THE CHURCH. SO WHEN THE POPE ALLOWED THE VERNACULAR IT WAS IN ACCORD WITH TRADITION.
SO WHAT KUNG MAY INILIPAT. BAKIT MASAMA BANG MAGLIPAT? ANG TLM NGA NAGLIPAT DIN DAHIL IBA ANG POSITION NG MGA PRAYERS THAN WITH THE MORE ANCIENT BYZANTINE LITURGY.
["For many" pinalitang ng "For all"]
ReplyDeletePAREHONG TAMA IYON. DAHIL ANG SALVATION GIVEN BY JESUS AY HINDI LANG FOR MANY KUNDI FOR ALL:
John 1:29 "This is the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world."
THE SALVATION OF CHRIST IS 'FOR' ALL HUMANITY AND NOT ONLY FOR SOME. THIS IS FURTHER EXPLAINED BY ST. PAUL:
1 Timothy 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
LEFEBVRE IS IGNORANT OF THESE VERSES AND HE PASSED ON HIS IGNORANCE ON HIS FOLLOWERS.
THE SSPX ARE HYPOCRITES. THEY PRETEND TO BE AGAINST MODIFICATIONS OF THE LITURGY BUT IN FACT THEY DID THE SAME. EXAMPLES:
* INAUDIBLE RECITATION OF THE INSTITUTION NARRATIVE.
DID JESUS SPOKE THE INSTITUTION NARRATIVE: "THIS IS MY BODY" AND "THIS IS MY BLOOD" INAUDIBLY? NO. HE WAS HEARD BY THE APOTLES OTHERWISE HOW DID THEY KNEW THAT HE PRONOUNCED THOSE WORDS. THEY HEARD HIM DURING THE FIRST HOLY MASS. SO WHEN POPE PAUL VI ALLOWED THE RECITATION OF THE CANON TO BE HEARD IT WAS BIBLICAL AND APOSTOLIC AND NOT A MERE INNOVATION DURING THE 16TH CENTURY.
[Yung "Mysterium Fidei" inilipat sa pagkatapos ng elevation ng Host.]
THE TLM ADDED THE WORDS "MYSTERIUM FIDEI" IN THE WORDS OF JESUS WHEN ALL BIBLICAL TEXTS PRESENTING THE INSTITUTION NARRATIVE DO NOT CONTAIN SUCH STATEMENT FROM THE LORD. IT WAS A LITURGICAL INNOVATION. THAT IS WHY POPE PAUL VI DID CORRECTLY TO SEPARATE IT AGAIN FROM THE WORDS OF THE DIVINE MASTER. POPE PAUL VI FOLLOWED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION.
NAGAGALIT KA DAHIL NILIPAT ANG 'MYSTERIUM FIDEI' KASI BOBO KAYO SA BIBLIA. HINDI NINYO ALAM NA WALA YON SA APOSTOLIC TESTIMONY GIVEN BY ST. MATTHEW, ST. MARK, ST. LUKE AND ST. PAUL IN THEIR LAST SUPPER ACCONT. WALA RIN IYAN SA BREAD OF LIFE DISCOURSE NI ST. JOHN. OBVIOUSLY IT WAS A LATER ADDITION. THE POPE HAS FULL AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER IT.
[Yung pagtanggap ng Hostia sa Kamay, na nagiging cause ng libo-libong abuse.]
ReplyDeleteSA TLM ANG ABUSES AY NAGAGANAP SA NGALA NGALA AT SA DILA. KUNG ANG TAO AY MAKASALANAN KAHIT NAKALUHOD MAKASALANAN PA RIN. KUNG MAKASALANAN ANG KAMAY MAKASALANAN DIN ANG DILA AT NGALA NGALA AT MGA NGIPIN AT LAPI AT BITUKA AT LALAMUNAN NG TAONG NAGKO KOMUNYON. KAYA PWEDE BA TIGILAN ANG KAIPOCRITOHAN.
[etc.
Lahat yan may epekto sa theology ng liturgy, at siyempre it is the faithful's right na magkaroon ng moral certitude sa liturgy.]
THERE IS MORAL CERTITUDE IN LITURGY. IT IS IN YOUR MINDS THAT THERE IS NO MORAL CERTITUDE BECAUSE OF YOUR DISOBEDIENCE AND REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE. ACTUALLY THE POPE ENRICHED THE LITURGICAL THEOLOGY BY MAKING EXPLICIT THE EPICLESIS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE PAULINE MASS, UNLIKE IN TLM THAT IS VERY VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS. AND BECAUSE OF LATIN MANY OF THE PEOPLE OF PRIOR TO VATICAN II WERE IGNORANT OF THE LITURGY SO THEY PREFER TO RECITE NOVENAS AND ROSARIES DURING THE MASS OBLIVIOUS OF THE ETERNAL SACRIFICE IN FRONT OF THEM.
[ It is the faithful's right to know certainly if those things invalidates the sacraments or not, and if the Novus Ordo Mass profess the Full Catholic Faith like the Traditional Latin Mass.]
HA HA HA... THE PAULINE MASS IS VALID AND NO SSPX DEMONS FROM LEFEBVRE DOWN TO YOU CAN MAKE IT INVALID. IT IS THE POPE WHO IS THE ULTIMATE JUDGE OF THE LITURGY NOT YOUR WACKY OLD FOOL LEFEBVRE. HE HE HE... SORRY FOR YOU.
[Ayaw niyo palang umatend ang mga Parishioners niyo sa Traditional Latin Mass ng mga SSPX bakit di niyo ibigay sa kanila ang hanap nila. Lalo niyo lang kaming pinalalakas sa pagiging madamot ninyo sa kanila. Haha!]
BINIBIGAY NAMIN AT IBIBIGAY NAMIN ANG HANAP NILA. SUBALIT HINDI NAMIN KAGAD IBINIBIGAY DAHIL KONTI LANG NAMAN ANG NAGHAHANAP. ALMOST ALL ARE HAPPY WITH THE PAULINE MASS. HA HA HA...
WE ARE THE REMNANT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH..
[THANK YOU JESUS FOR PRESERVING THE TRADITION THROUGH US..]
DON'T BLASPHEME THE LORD JESUS. HE DECLARED THAT THE GATE OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST PETER. WHILE IN YOUR TEACHING THE POPES HAVE BECOME MODERNISTS. LUTHER ACCUSED THE POPE OF ABANDONING THE TRUE FAITH... LEFEBVRE ACCUSED THE POPE OF ABANDONING THE TRUE FAITH. EXACTLY THE SAME. LUTHER AND LEFEBVRE BELONG TO THE SAME DEVIL OF DISOBEDIENCE. YOU UPHELD NOT THE SACRED TRADITION BUT THE TRADITION OF LUCIFER - REBELLION AND DISOBEDIENCE.
[AMEN.]
THE GATE OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.