Author Topic: "Subsistit" Ecclesiology and the Trad Seminaries (Read 4922 times)

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #10 on:** July 02, 2016, 09:47:04 AM »

Very profound, it explains everything:

Quote

The SSPX discussions with the Vatican on doctrinal and liturgical questions can go nowhere because the SSPX has taken liturgical and doctrinal positions that in principle are indistinguishable from the Modernists. Their liturgical position, grounded in the Bugnini 1962 transitional extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo Missal, will make it impossible to resist the Reform of the Reform. The doctrinal position that holds that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement, will undermine any possible opposition to Ecuмenical Ecclesiology.

1)Their liturgical position - grounded in the Bugnini 1962 transitional extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo Missal, will make it impossible to resist the Reform of the Reform.

2) The doctrinal position- that holds that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #11 on:** July 02, 2016, 10:47:15 AM »

Last Tradhican,

Forgetting for a moment the large-scale changes to the Holy Week liturgy, I don't see how the 1962 missal leads, in any way, to the novus ordo or modernist rome. I'm a big fan of Fr Wathen (and it seems you are too) and he 'wrote the book' (pun intended) on the evils of the novus ordo, yet he didn't have any (major) problems with the 1962 missal. Even one of his 'email sermons' covered this direct topic: Is the 1962 missal wrong to use? He said, basically, no. It's not perfect but it's not a danger to the Faith, as there are bigger things to worry about.

If you disagree, why? I'm curious.

Cantarella · « **Reply #12 on:** July 02, 2016, 10:52:34 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Last Tradhican,

Forgetting for a moment the large-scale changes to the Holy Week liturgy, I don't see how the 1962 missal leads, in any way, to the novus ordo or modernist rome. I'm a big fan of Fr Wathen (and it seems you are too) and he 'wrote the book' (pun intended) on the evils of the novus ordo, yet he didn't have any (major) problems with the 1962 missal. Even one of his 'email sermons' covered this direct topic: Is the 1962 missal wrong to use? He said, basically, no. It's not perfect but it's not a danger to the Faith, as there are bigger things to worry about.

If you disagree, why? I'm curious.

This article may be of interest:

The Missal Crisis of 1962:

"Look at it this way: All of these changes were masterminded by Annibale Bugnini, a proven Freemason, whose intention as a member of that secret society planted within the very highest echelons of the Vatican was to do as much damage as possible to the Church, Her Faith, and the faith of Her members. Although he would accomplish this most effectively later on with the advent of the Novus Ordo Missae, the changes already introduced into the 1962 Missale were nonetheless intended for that same purpose. The 1962 Missale is corrupted, and substantially discordant with the Missale Romanum as promulgated in fulfillment of the commands of the Council of Trent by Pope Saint Pius V. Neither can the claim that none of these changes is heretical in content be used as an argument in favor of its use, for neither is the employment of hula girls, fireworks, and mariachis strictly speaking heretical in itself, but they belong to that class of novel and profane things that do not belong in the Mass."

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f014ht_MissalCrisis_Perez.htm

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #13 on:** July 02, 2016, 11:12:08 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Last Tradhican,

Forgetting for a moment the large-scale changes to the Holy Week liturgy, I don't see how the 1962 missal leads, in any way, to the novus ordo or modernist rome. I'm a big fan of Fr Wathen (and it seems you are too) and he 'wrote the book' (pun intended) on the evils of the novus ordo, yet he didn't have any (major) problems with the 1962 missal. Even one of his 'email sermons' covered this direct topic: Is the 1962 missal wrong to use? He said, basically, no. It's not perfect but it's not a danger to the Faith, as there are bigger things to worry about.

If you disagree, why? I'm curious.

I agree with Fr. Wathen (in bold).

I also agree with the article I posted: "SSPX liturgical position, grounded in the Bugnini 1962 transitional extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo Missal, will make it impossible to resist the Reform of the Reform".

As Fr. Wathen said: "there are bigger things to worry about", so let's keep this thread on the subject of: "The doctrinal position that holds that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement, will undermine any possible opposition to Ecuмenical Ecclesiology".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** July 02, 2016, 12:01:07 PM »

I'm not sure that I have any problem with the 1962 Missal ... except for the fact that Bugnini was behind it. If Cranmer or Bugnini were to have composed a Mass verbatim identical to the Tridentine Mass, I still would not want to use it just because it came from their hand.