caitlin1030 Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 [quote]32. The nature of the "presidential" texts demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen with attention.[/quote] General Instruction of the Roman Missal [quote]If any one says 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... let him be anathema.[/quote] Council of Trent, Canon IX, ex cathedra. So are the G.I.R.M./audible "presidential" text anathematized by Trent's dogmatic decree? It seems likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 The rite of the liturgy is not under infallibility. How things are said and the tone used are most certainly a matter of discipline. An infallible statement requires more than simply being ex cathedra. Further, the document quoted from Trent is out of its effective context. The Council was not restricting the magisterium to a certain code; it was binding the priests to the magisterium's decisions regarding the rites of the Church at that time. Just as Christ is not bound by the sacraments, so the Church is not bound by her discipline. Just as the members of Christ are bound by the sacraments, so the members of the Church are bound by her discipline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God the Father Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 What does Trent have to do with any of this? [img]http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/10/07/test.ban.treaty/link.trent.lott.jpg[/img] Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspen2005 Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 very clever... and funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 [quote name='caitlin1030' post='957268' date='Apr 22 2006, 04:19 PM'] General Instruction of the Roman Missal Council of Trent, Canon IX, ex cathedra. So are the G.I.R.M./audible "presidential" text anathematized by Trent's dogmatic decree? It seems likely. [/quote] I'm not catholic, and I've been colored with the idiot crayon, but I don't get it. The GIRM says in a "loud and clear voice" and Mr. Trent say in a 'low tone', in what part of your post does it indicate exactly which words are to be loud and which low so that we see they are talking about the exact same phrases? But in case the idiot crayon did work, how do you respond to Raphael? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan1104 Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 (edited) C'mon Raphael... [quote]Just as Christ is not bound by the sacraments, so the Church is not bound by her discipline.[/quote] Christ instituted the sacraments. Why should the Church bother with discipline, or even bother enforcing it, if She is not bound by it? e.g. the USCCB's "crackdown" on homosexual clergy, though they exempted themselves from the same scrutiny. "An infallible statement requires more than simply being ex cathedra." That's heresy! Ex cathedra is infallibility, and vice-versa, for all intensive purposes. I did not suggest that the discipline could not be changed. I didn't suggest Trent required all rites to have a silent Canon or that the Novus Ordo is not valid because of the audible Canon (Eucharistic prayer). I am saying that what is binding, is the definite option that the Canon (Eucharistic prayer) may be spoken in a low tone. The [i]GIRM[/i] denies this, in stating that the nature of the text demands that they be spoken loudly and clearly. e.g. the words of the Roman Canon (now Eucharistic prayer I) were not spoken loudly or clearly- for the congregation to hear- for a thousand+ years... so all of a sudden, it is demanded that they be spoken loudly and clearly... the purpose of the Sacrifice of the Mass is not strictly for the people's hearing... Trent, in this case, did not bind anyone to any particular tone of voice, but it did bind everyone, everywhere, always, to accept that the Canon, spoken in a low tone, is not to be condemned; that the nature of that text does not demand they be spoken aloud. The [i]GIRM[/i], by stating, "the nature of the "presidential" texts demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen with attention," condemns the teaching of the Council, and this is not an eternal truth or discipline. Priests are not bound to pray the Canon in a low tone, and the Church has decided that in the revised rubrics. Had the [i]GIRM[/i] required this or even given theological reasons for using a raised tone during the Canon/Eucharistic prayer, deeming such an action acceptable and required in this Rite, there would be no heretical mandate or teaching, but condemnation of the low tone by declaring that Trent was wrong in denying that the nature of the prayers did not require a loud voice is heretical rather than a disciplinary rule. [i]GIRM[/i] suggests in a roundabout way that if the nature of the "presidential" prayers absolutely require that they be spoken aloud, then if the presidential prayers are not spoken aloud, there may be some defect-possibly invalidating defect. Re-read the [i]G.I.R.M.[/i] statement in the first post. It's not just a matter of abuse or discipline. If it's not a matter of heresy, it's almost as problematic. And it certainly not is unimportant, almost as the whole revised Missal is. Those who created the [i]Novus Ordo [/i] (a "complete fabrication" according to Fr. Robert Levis, an EWTN host) and the [i]GIRM[/i], must have had a reason for writing what they did. [quote]The Council was not restricting the magisterium to a certain code; it was binding the priests to the magisterium's decisions regarding the rites of the Church at that time. [/quote] I won't talk about that, seeing that Pope St. Pius V's [i]Quo Primum[/i] and [i]De Defectibus[/i] took care of that for me. Well... think about that for a while. Edited April 23, 2006 by brendan1104 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caitlin1030 Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 [quote name='jasJis' post='957471' date='Apr 22 2006, 09:13 PM'] I'm not catholic, and I've been colored with the idiot crayon, but I don't get it. The GIRM says in a "loud and clear voice" and Mr. Trent say in a 'low tone', in what part of your post does it indicate exactly which words are to be loud and which low so that we see they are talking about the exact same phrases? But in case the idiot crayon did work, how do you respond to Raphael? [/quote] "the presidential texts" are the words. i accept what raphael said, but someone just refuted him... or at least gave the appearance of refuting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Whew. Nothing I gotta worry about anymore. Thank God I wasn't a theology lawyer or something like that. I'd have to quit my job at the vatican too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 If we are bound by discipline, then we'd still say the mass in Aramaic, not Latin or any other language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan1104 Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 (edited) [quote name='jasJis' post='957480' date='Apr 22 2006, 11:30 PM'] Whew. Nothing I gotta worry about anymore. Thank God I wasn't a theology lawyer or something like that. I'd have to quit my job at the vatican too. [/quote] Since no will be as blunt, I will. Our Church was founded directly by Jesus Christ, and it is at least a seven times-defined dogma, Outside the Church there is no salvation. Divine Mercy Sunday is tomorrow, go to confession and Communion. Come home to Rome. Christ and us've been waiting for you. [quote name='Brother Adam' post='957482' date='Apr 22 2006, 11:31 PM'] If we are bound by discipline, then we'd still say the mass in Aramaic, not Latin or any other language. [/quote] Yes, the first Consecration was the first Mass and the first early liturgies- in Jerusalem, etc. were in Aramaic... no doubt about it. But then the Church became univeral, and adopted the universal tongue... Edited April 23, 2006 by brendan1104 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Outside of Grace there is not salvation. The Roman Catholic Church is not the only source of grace. Besides, I've been baptized. I don't have to choose to belong to a hateful legalistic temporal club to know God. If I'm going to Hell, since I'm older, I'll keep a seat warm for ya buddy. You're not the first one to be so 'blunt'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan1104 Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 (edited) [quote name='jasJis' post='957488' date='Apr 22 2006, 11:35 PM'] Outside of Grace there is not salvation. The Roman Catholic Church is not the only source of grace. Besides, I've been baptized. I don't have to choose to belong to a hateful legalistic temporal club to know God. If I'm going to Hell, since I'm older, I'll keep a seat warm for ya buddy. You're not the first one to be so 'blunt'. [/quote] God through Mary is the only giver of grace, and the sole source is through Catholic church, no matter what anyone says. Hope to see you in heaven. Haha maybe I should start a "re-vert jasJis" thread. Whatever happened to you, whoever was the cause of that, was not the Catholic church. The Church is the mystical Body of Christ not a hateful legalistic temporal club. Edited April 23, 2006 by brendan1104 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 No matter what 'anyone' says? Even God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendan1104 Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 [quote name='jasJis' post='957492' date='Apr 22 2006, 11:39 PM'] No matter what 'anyone' says? Even God? [/quote] That is dogma. Dogmas are truths "fallen from heaven" God has promised infallibility in faith and morals, and that the Church will always remain, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Whatever Church you belong to was not instituted by Jesus Christ, but by man. That's a matter of historical fact. God has promised to be with His Church till the end of time, and He does so in a tangible, physical, perceptible way through the Holy Eucharist. If you want to discuss grace and the Church, I'd suggest you start another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 (edited) Where's the Dogma list? Edit to add: I'm still waiting. But while you're getting the 'infallible Dogma list', post a copy of the Catholic Church's 'Canon Law as Inspired by God' like the Bible is. Edited April 23, 2006 by jasJis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now