The deliberation of the synod about transferring to Sunday feasts distributed through the year, and rightly so, because it is convinced that the bishop has power over ecclesiastical discipline in relation to purely spiritual matters, and therefore of abrogating the precept of hearing Mass on those days, on which according to the early law of the Church, even then that precept flourished.That is very interesting. I did not know that the Jansenists were in favour of transferring Holydays to the nearest Sunday. So many liturgical changes of recent decades were enthusiastically promoted by the Jansenists.
Pius VI Auctorem Fidei 1794 n.74
To avoid confusion: the condemnation of this proposition is not a matter of infallibility in dogmatic matters but a disciplinary provision, particularly concerning the authority of Bishops. The Holy See has in recent decades subsequently given the necessary permission for Bishops' Conferences to transfer Holydays to Sunday.
9 comments:
The Holy See has in recent decades subsequently given the necessary permission for Bishops' Conferences to transfer Holydays to Sunday.
Whether wisely is a separate question of course. There are, after all permissions for all kinds of things for which the Catholics of England had previously shed their blood.
As more and more evidance of this kind comes to light, it begins to appear that the Vat II revolution was in fact really just a capitulation to nearly every previously suppressed protestant or heretical preference that had been advanced and rejected through the ages. Versus populum celebration; commnion in the hand; communion under both species; vernacular liturgy; popular music; the transferrance of feasts. You have to know that married clergy and women priestesses are coming next.
It's as if the wreckers said, "Lets see what happens if we do everything that a few people always wanted to do, all at the same time, and see how the Church works when we do. Well, it doesn't work at all. But then, every pope that ever came down the pike up to John XXIII - not blessed in my eyes - always knew these were bad ideas. But it's going to continue to cost the Church millions and millions of dollare in legal judgements before she finally lets go of the ideas that being Roman Catholic doesn't always mean being popular. In fact, it rarely does.
Hebdomadary, I take your point, and was dismayed when the English bishops transferred some of the Holy Days recently.
I'm not sure all the things you list were thought up by Protestants or heretics, though. Leaving aside some married clergy in the early Roman Church, and the married clergy today in Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome, the practice of allowing married former Anglican or Protestant ministers to obtain holy orders in the Catholic church was instigated by Pius XII, not a post-Vatican II pope.
I don't think one can say that permitting married clergy is therefore Protestant or heretical, although there are plenty of good reasons for keeping the discipline of clerical celibacy the way it is for the time being. Any thoughts, Fr Tim?
Didn't Pistoia also forbid a congregation orientated liturgy, in the vernacular as well|?
Well, I wasn't going to say...
Oh yes, Pistoia anticipated many of the reforms of Vatican II :-)
On married clergy: the law of celibacy still applies in that a married deacon or a married priest (former anglican or eastern rite priest) may not marry again if their wife dies. This seems a strange rule. However it makes sense if you follow the work of Cochini, Stickler, Cholij and Heid who show that from apostolic times the rule was clerical continence even for married clergy. The continence bit has been forgotten but the rule of not re-marrying is still there as a vestigial remnant. There is no other reason for it.
I will do a post on this sometime...
Edmund, if it's not too late for this post, I actually have no objection to married clergy as an exception, especially in light of the English situation. Fr. David Goddard down in East Grinstead is a prime example. He has done such great work with the Shrine of Our Lady down there, but his son is (last I heard) in the FSSP studying to become a traditional Roman Priest. This is very special fruit indeed. But what I meant was the current I lived with all during the 70's and 80's constantly harping for married clergy as the norm. As the norm, it's a bad idea. The priestly life is busy enough, if solitary at times. There is too much demanded of him to be a family man for himself. He must be that for so many others, and it's a 24hour job. But a priest can mitigate that solitude, by keeping his flock close to him, keeping a busy rectory, being involved with the lives of his flock by letting them be involved with his. Fr. Christopher Baseden in Southwark, at St. Bede's, is a most admirable example of this. I've never seen such a rectory, it's a highway, and a wonderful sight to behold.
Question: where might one find an English version of this document that is trustworthy -- preferably online? The only version I can locate is translated by someone claiming to be "Pope Michael". Thanks in advance for any assistance in locating this.
I used this translation at a Jansenist website. I am not aware of any other English translation. I have checked the section I quoted with the original Latin in Denzinger (DS 2674) and it is accurate.
Post a Comment