Council of Trent dilemna

[devotedknuckles]

Its not the abuses of the NO which is the main plm. Its the NO. To only see it as the abuses and not the bastard prod mass it is, means your a neotard (neocath) or libtard and I suppose a motard. (Modernist) not a trad.
Sip

[glgas]

Based on the following anathema of the Council of Trent,.

      “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the service of piety: let him be anathema.”

     But most of us here would agree that the New Mass is one huge incentive to impiety.  NO priests and NO churches all around the world are hugely impious as are many of the congregation directly as a result of the novus ordo and the changes made after V2.

So are we anathema for calling it like we see it?

This is the classic example, that the 'dogmas' shall be interpreted in the context of the time when they were defined, and not in the context of our time without proper explanation.

In the time of Trent the protestants judged the traditional mass as this group is judging the new mass, and said that the revelation was frozen by the Scriptures and everything what is added to that is heresy.

In the reality the Church always needed the living Magisterium as interpreter of the revelation. This interpretation get easier by the tradition in the past, but the frozen tradition cannot step into the place of the living Magisterium. The Pope and the college of Bishops in unity have the binding and loosing power forever.

[devotedknuckles]

The NO is a prod mass
Its dripping with irony how some here u incuded gigas will use Trent to actually support such a prod mass
LOL

[ggreg]

So DK, what is your take on the dilemna then.  The NO clearly encourages impiety so how do you square that with indefectibility (it is the major rite) and the above Canon.

My only explanation is that we might well be in the time of THE Antichrist and therefore the Church has become so corrupt that even the elect would be deceived.  Though where the visible Church actually is, is a mystery to me.

[SouthpawLink]

Based on the following anathema of the Council of Trent,.

      “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the service of piety: let him be anathema.”

     But most of us here would agree that the New Mass is one huge incentive to impiety.  NO priests and NO churches all around the world are hugely impious as are many of the congregation directly as a result of the novus ordo and the changes made after V2.

So are we anathema for calling it like we see it?

I don't see a dilemma because that (Sess. XXII, can. 7) was written in September of 1562, over 400 years before the Novus Ordo. The Fathers of Trent did not have the Novus Ordo in mind when they wrote that anathema. Rather, the canon concerned "the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs" used in the 1560s.

"[T]he ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety..."

Present tense.

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

Based on the following anathema of the Council of Trent,.

      “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the service of piety: let him be anathema.”

     But most of us here would agree that the New Mass is one huge incentive to impiety.  NO priests and NO churches all around the world are hugely impious as are many of the congregation directly as a result of the novus ordo and the changes made after V2.

So are we anathema for calling it like we see it?

I don't see a dilemma because that (Sess. XXII, can. 7) was written in September of 1562, over 400 years before the Novus Ordo. The Fathers of Trent did not have the Novus Ordo in mind when they wrote that anathema. Rather, the canon concerned "the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs" used in the 1560s.

"[T]he ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety..."

Present tense.

But you're ignoring the other posts, who writely point out that the directives of Trent are still in force today.  And it applies to today's situation, even if we don't want them to do so.  Present tense is still present tense.

[Scipio_a]

But if that is the case then we have a contradiction don't we.  Because the NO is the major rite of the Catholic Church said in 99% of Churches around the world and by the last five Popes.

No contradiction...because as DK likes to point out...it's not Catholic...and it is not the thing the writers at Trent had on their mind

[spasiisochrani]

When you interpret a the condemnation of a  proposition, it is important remember that the proposition is condemned in the sense that it was uttered by the heretic whose work is condemned.  For instance, when the Syllabus condemned the proposition that "The pope may and must reconcile himself with, and adapt himself to, Progress, Liberalism, and Modern Civilization", it didn't mean that the Pope should not use automobiles or electricity; it means that he could not go along with an anti-Christian secularism that held itself out to be a progressive, liberal and modern civilization.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm

In the decree you cited, the Council of Trent is simply condemning the then-current Protestant charge that the use of vestments and ceremonies are incentives to impiety.  

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

But if that is the case then we have a contradiction don't we.  Because the NO is the major rite of the Catholic Church said in 99% of Churches around the world and by the last five Popes.

No contradiction...because as DK likes to point out...it's not Catholic...and it is not the thing the writers at Trent had on their mind

Contrary to the snark, the NO is the normative, ordinary form of the Catholic Mass.  Ask the last few popes if you don't believe me.  It's certainly not good or beneficial to the Church, but it is a Catholic Mass (like it or not). 

[SouthpawLink]

Based on the following anathema of the Council of Trent,.

      “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the service of piety: let him be anathema.”

     But most of us here would agree that the New Mass is one huge incentive to impiety.  NO priests and NO churches all around the world are hugely impious as are many of the congregation directly as a result of the novus ordo and the changes made after V2.

So are we anathema for calling it like we see it?

I don't see a dilemma because that (Sess. XXII, can. 7) was written in September of 1562, over 400 years before the Novus Ordo. The Fathers of Trent did not have the Novus Ordo in mind when they wrote that anathema. Rather, the canon concerned "the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs" used in the 1560s.

"[T]he ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety..."

Present tense.

But you're ignoring the other posts, who writely point out that the directives of Trent are still in force today.  And it applies to today's situation, even if we don't want them to do so.  Present tense is still present tense.

Then what about canons 8 and 9 of Session XXII?

"If anyone says that masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema."

Weren't some priests told not to celebrate Mass alone for some time? You can't have a "communal meal" without other people present...

"If anyone 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; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema."

Were not some Catholics led to believe, even at times by bishops, that the Latin Mass had been abrogated, and that only the new vernacular Mass was allowed? Moreover, the words of consecration were said in a loud tone after the promulgation of the Missal of Pope Paul VI. And communion under one species became communion under both the Body and Blood of Our Lord (see Sess. XXI, can. 1 and 2).

If the counter argument is that these were disciplinary changes, then what exactly are we to consider the obvious changes in "the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs"?

[Lee Timmer]

"Contrary to the snark, the NO is the normative, ordinary form of the Catholic Mass.  Ask the last few popes if you don't believe me.  It's certainly not good or beneficial to the Church, but it is a Catholic Mass (like it or not)."

What a load! How can a "Mass" that purportedly comes from Mother Church - supposedly the very Sacrifice of Calvary - not be "good" or "beneficial?" Pffft!

[devotedknuckles]

The is sadly the dominant form of the mass
Sip
That doesn't make it catholic. There is more to being catholic then paperwork
Sip

[ggreg]

The Fathers of Trent did not have the Novus Ordo in mind when they wrote that anathema.

What about the Holy Ghost did He have it in mind?

[ggreg]

But if that is the case then we have a contradiction don't we.  Because the NO is the major rite of the Catholic Church said in 99% of Churches around the world and by the last five Popes.

No contradiction...because as DK likes to point out...it's not Catholic...and it is not the thing the writers at Trent had on their mind

Contrary to the snark, the NO is the normative, ordinary form of the Catholic Mass.  Ask the last few popes if you don't believe me.  It's certainly not good or beneficial to the Church, but it is a Catholic Mass (like it or not). 

I agree hence the dilemna.  If the NO is not the normative ordinary form then it is hard to know what is.  In effect the vast majority of Catholics in the world would not be going to mass and the vast majority of priests would not be saying mass.  And yet......it certainly does appear that that ordinary form enourages impiety much of the time.

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

What a load! How can a "Mass" that purportedly comes from Mother Church - supposedly the very Sacrifice of Calvary - not be "good" or "beneficial?" Pffft!

Save me your Pffft-ing slobber.  The numbers speak for themselves.  Have you ever read The Index of Leading Catholic Indicators? Pat Buchanan wrote the forward:

As the Watergate scandal of 1973-1974 diverted attention from the far greater tragedy unfolding in Southeast Asia, so, too, the scandal of predator-priests now afflicting the Catholic Church may be covering up a far greater calamity.

Thirty-seven years after the end of the only church council of the 20th century, the jury has come in with its verdict: Vatican II appears to have been an unrelieved disaster for Roman Catholicism. Liars may figure, but figures do not lie. Kenneth C. Jones of St. Louis has pulled together a slim volume of statistics he has titled Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II. His findings make prophets of Catholic traditionalists who warned that Vatican II would prove a blunder of historic dimensions, and those same findings expose as foolish and naive those who believed a council could reconcile Catholicism and modernity. When Pope John XXIII threw open the windows of the church, all the poisonous vapors of modernity entered, along with the Devil himself. Here are Jones's grim statistics of Catholicism's decline:

Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.

Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes.

Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.

Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.

Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two-thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven.

The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.

Catholic schools. Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million -- from 4.5 million.

Though the number of U.S. Catholics has risen by 20 million since 1965, Jones' statistics show that the power of Catholic belief and devotion to the Faith are not nearly what they were.

Catholic Marriage. Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments has soared from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.

Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.

At the opening of Vatican II, reformers were all the rage. They were going to lead us out of our Catholic ghettos by altering the liturgy, rewriting the Bible and missals, abandoning the old traditions, making us more ecumenical, and engaging the world. And their legacy?

Four decades of devastation wrought upon the church, and the final disgrace of a hierarchy that lacked the moral courage of the Boy Scouts to keep the perverts out of the seminaries, and throw them out of the rectories and schools of Holy Mother Church.

Through the papacy of Pius XII, the church resisted the clamor to accommodate itself to the world and remained a moral beacon to mankind. Since Vatican II, the church has sought to meet the world halfway.

Jones' statistics tell us the price of appeasement.

So you can say what you want about the Church's Mass.  But you make your claims and history will make hers.  The Novus Ordo is not good or beneficial to Holy Mother Church.