Well, good things the stakes aren’t at all insanely high…

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments….

“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

goofy - wait-a-second-funny

And yet, to hear many of my friends tell it, the Magisterium has established a rite of worship and prayer which tends “to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful”.

game over man

Advertisements

About The Codgitator (a cadgertator)

Catholic convert. Quasi-Zorbatic. Freelance interpreter, translator, and web marketer. Former ESL teacher in Taiwan (2003-2012) and former public high school teacher (2012-2014). Married father of three. Multilingual, would-be scholar, and fairly consistent fitness monkey. My research interests include: the interface of religion and science, the history and philosophy of science and technology, ancient and medieval philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience. Please pray for me.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Well, good things the stakes aren’t at all insanely high…

  1. c matt says:

    Having experienced the Extraordinary Form High Mass and Lifeteen and all in between, there is definitely a difference. But a well done NO Mass (ad orientum, foregoing the sign of peace, reverent attitudes) I don’t think by necessity is harmful. Sure, it seems the closer the NO comes to the EF the better it is (which leads to the question – why change it in the first place?). In practice, many NO Masses may be detrimental – but in promulgation I think it was intended to be closer to the EF. Cdl. Ottaviani (sp?) did make many good points on its de-emphasis of the sacrificial nature, but I am not sure the NO, as intended, was some sort of promulgation of error. It might have been more a “perfect storm” of several factors, both within and without the Church.

  2. From what text is that quote taken? Just curious.

    In my view, the changes they thought they would bring about from Vatican II comes from a mixture of being naive about “battling heresy is like fighting the lifting morning mist” and not realizing that while a priest’s best friends might want to recite the prayers, sing the whole time, exchange the sign of peace, etc. the average person wouldn’t. And not being able to think about the needs of the average person hurts the very definition of the Church. Takes away the comfort of being one, obscures things being holy, confuses the catholic, and refusing to make sinners repent hurts the Apostolic.

    But they thought they were doing good and not deviating from the Church’s mission. And while we are now in for dark times, I myself see the Church surviving.

  3. drprice2 says:

    You are 100 percent correct on this, Elliot. The NOM cannot be a spiritual scorpion handed out to the children of Mother Church.

    Does it need work? Oh, Lord, yes. A march TLM-ward would do it some good. But to argue that it is harmful does this to indefectibility:

  4. c matt: “the closer the NO comes to the EF the better it is (which leads to the question – why change it in the first place?)”

    That is the entry point into the really disturbing stuff. Why embed an ersatz Mass over the old one, and then not even stick to enforcing it? Why, it’s almost enough to give comfort to those conspiracy theorists (a hijacked Council, puh-leez!). Right? … Right?

  5. William:

    The source is P. Herrmann, Institutiones Theol. Dogm., Rome: 1904, 1:258.

    It is footnote #1 in this article: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8

  6. Proph says:

    I’m not overly familiar with the Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae. The quotation you provide sounds an awful lot like the insidious pietism that pervaded the first half of the 20th century, which imagined that the Holy Spirit protects the Church not only from doctrinal error but from bad/imprudent decisions, tactical blunders, and PR missteps, and which is the progenitor of modern conservative Catholics’ insistence that everything is fine except all the horrible things, which are really the media’s fault.

    drprice2, I don’t see that the promise of indefectibility protects the Church from the sort of harm that traditionalists allege it causes. Then again, I tend to interpret Christ’s promises very narrowly, in a way that I believe is both consistent with the teachings of the Church and with God’s respect for human freedom. I don’t think there is anything intrinsically erroneous in the NO, but I do think there’s enough about which it is silent that it no longer immediately contradicts popularizers of heresies (i.e., it sufficiently downplays the Real Presence that it becomes possible to attend Mass day-in, day-out, without any irony and without believing in the Real Presence).

Be kind, be (relatively) brief, be clear...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s