There certainly are a lot of people who know a great deal, and understand little.

J. Paul:

There certainly are a lot of people who know a great deal, and understand little.

But that certainly would not include you, would it, J. Paul?  I mean, not only do you know a lot; you understand everything that you know.  It' folks like Gerard, who may know much, but understand little of what they know.  I think I've got it.   :rolleyes:

There certainly are a lot of people who know a great deal, and understand little.

You are certainly right J.Paul.  I wish to share with you Fr.Kramer's comments on Gerard's Conceitedness. Link below and copy of his comment:

https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611?fref=nf


Gerard is mentally incapable of engaging in disciplined, systematic theological discussion. He replies to properly formulated arguments with mere dogmatic assertions which do not directly address the point demonstrated in the argument presented to him; and with mere ad hominem statements which underscore his incapacity to engage in rational discussion by means of systematically reasoned arguments. Gerard gratuitously pontificates like a self appointed authority, with a great profusion of assertions which are based on merely assumed and unstated premises; with no attempt made to systematically demonstrate his position with reasoned argumentation that directly addresses the point that has been presented to him. Thus, his arguments are without logical foundation, and are easily shown by one with a classical scholastic theological academic training to be fallacious and erroneous. Yet, he obstinately clings to his unfounded and unproven opinions even when the flawed logic of his thinking has been plainly put before him; and he continues to insist that he is right,and that the correctness of his strongly held opinions is demonstrated and underscored by the force of his adamantly repeated assertions. His lack of formal, systematic theological training is patent in every one of the multitude of errant comments he asserts with a bold self assurance that betrays himself to be utterly oblivious of his own intellectual incompetence. It is a fools chore to argue with one who flaunts in such a crass manner, an immense ignorance and bigotry, thinly disguised as erudition by means of elaborations of profuse verbosity which unravel when subjected to the scrutiny of critical examination.

Sorry Meg, but that's just more crazy nonsense from Fr. Kramer. His position is positively Orwellian.

I would be hard pressed to believe that he's even read the docuмent Mediator Dei from start to finish or even a third of it.  

Pius XII was incredibly clear and he did not hold Fr. Kramer's fringe position.

49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.
 

52. Thus, for example, as Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God, the eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice, and Mary the Virgin Mother of God came to be determined with greater certitude and clarity, new ritual forms were introduced through which the acts of the liturgy proceeded to reproduce this brighter light issuing from the decrees of the teaching authority of the Church, and to reflect it, in a sense so that it might reach the minds and hearts of Christ's people more readily.

Fr. Kramer's tortured position is the idea that "introducing a new rite" doesn't mean introducing a new rite, it means modifying an old rite.  

But Pius XII doesn't conflate the two:

58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification


You see the language there? Recognize, establish ANY practice touching the worship of God.  He can INTRODUCE and APPROVE NEW RITES.  

In addition to that he can also modify any rite, new or old if he so chooses.

He also points out that the Pope can introduce the vernacular into the liturgy.  

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.[/b]

And appealing to Quo Primum is ridiculous.  Since Quo Primum allows for other "new rites" that could have been established as late as 1370.  

That means that the "traditional rites" that the Pope is bound by the Council of Constance could have been only 48 years old at the time of Constance for Pope SAINT Pius V to have considered them exempt from abrogation by Quo Primum.  

So Constance claims the Popes are bound to the "traditional rites" but a liturgy younger than Fr. Kramer is now, at the time of Constance would be exempt from Pro Quimum.  

When, in the history of the Church have "new rites" been introduced by popes, other than modifying old rites?

[

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.[/b]

The above says that use of the mother tongue can be used in connection with several of the rites, but that the Apostolic see alone can grant this permission. But that's not what happened with the new Mass, in which Latin was chucked, and the mother tongue was made universal. That's not what the pope was trying to allow. Surely the Pope was aware of the Council of Trent's anathema on the Mass being celebrated in the vulgar tongue only.

Canon lX:

"...If anyone saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone is to be condemned; or, that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or that the water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema."

I know, of course, that you will find a way to dismiss the above, as you always do Gerard, but I just want others to be reminded of what Trent says about use of the vulgar tongue.

Quote from: Gerard from FE

[

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.[/b]

The above says that use of the mother tongue can be used in connection with several of the rites, but that the Apostolic see alone can grant this permission. But that's not what happened with the new Mass, in which Latin was chucked, and the mother tongue was made universal. That's not what the pope was trying to allow. Surely the Pope was aware of the Council of Trent's anathema on the Mass being celebrated in the vulgar tongue only.

Canon lX:

"...If anyone saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone is to be condemned; or, that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or that the water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema."

I know, of course, that you will find a way to dismiss the above, as you always do Gerard, but I just want others to be reminded of what Trent says about use of the vulgar tongue.

That's bad faith on your part.  It's not that I will "find a way" to dismiss the above.   It's understanding what "the above" actually means.

The robber synod of Pistoia's greatest crime was not some of the individual liturgical changes they advocated. It was the taking the authority to do anything like that for themselves and not under the guidance of the Holy See.

Vernacular liturgies cannot be intrinsically evil because the sacred languages were the vernacular.  

Charles Coulombe pointed out in one of his lectures that when the vernacular is used in worship, the vernacular tends to die as a language and only remains in the rituals.  

As far as the Novus Ordo goes, it was published in Latin and a complete translation to the vernacular is a tolerated abuse.  

Quote from: J.Paul

There certainly are a lot of people who know a great deal, and understand little.

You are certainly right J.Paul.  I wish to share with you Fr.Kramer's comments on Gerard's Conceitedness. Link below and copy of his comment:

https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611?fref=nf


Gerard is mentally incapable of engaging in disciplined, systematic theological discussion. He replies to properly formulated arguments with mere dogmatic assertions which do not directly address the point demonstrated in the argument presented to him; and with mere ad hominem statements which underscore his incapacity to engage in rational discussion by means of systematically reasoned arguments. Gerard gratuitously pontificates like a self appointed authority, with a great profusion of assertions which are based on merely assumed and unstated premises; with no attempt made to systematically demonstrate his position with reasoned argumentation that directly addresses the point that has been presented to him. Thus, his arguments are without logical foundation, and are easily shown by one with a classical scholastic theological academic training to be fallacious and erroneous. Yet, he obstinately clings to his unfounded and unproven opinions even when the flawed logic of his thinking has been plainly put before him; and he continues to insist that he is right,and that the correctness of his strongly held opinions is demonstrated and underscored by the force of his adamantly repeated assertions. His lack of formal, systematic theological training is patent in every one of the multitude of errant comments he asserts with a bold self assurance that betrays himself to be utterly oblivious of his own intellectual incompetence. It is a fools chore to argue with one who flaunts in such a crass manner, an immense ignorance and bigotry, thinly disguised as erudition by means of elaborations of profuse verbosity which unravel when subjected to the scrutiny of critical examination.

Ho hum.

"Tu Quoue" is the fallacy at work here in Fr. Kramer's scatterbrained attempt to vent his spleen.  

What we've got is simply a series gratuitous assertions on Fr. Kramer's part.  

He doesn't prove any of them.  He can't for that matter.

What is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied.  

A full rebuttal can be provided by two words to Fr. Kramer, "SEZ YOU."  

This is all just a garrulous attempt at distracting from the fact that I've shown his

arguments to be as I described, intellectually sloppy and he's trying to disguise the fact that all he can rebut with is,  "You too!!!"  

I've got more to add but I'm off to a social event.