Is the G.I.R.M. anathematized by Trent?

[jswranch]

jasJis, could you email me you testimony why you feel you need to leave the church?

[quote name='jasJis' post='958188' date='Apr 23 2006, 03:51 PM']
Please clarify Catholic Church is not the only Church. [/quote] No can do. There is only one church as Christ has only one bride. The Catholic Church would be it. The good news, according to the Catholic Church, is that all christians are members, even you like it or not. If you go non-denominational, the Catholic Church says you are only spreading yourself further from the fullness of truth God has issued to be in physical union with his only Son, Jesus Christ.


[quote]I don't have a hard time seeing that the same body that brought me knowledge of grace does not practice what it preaches. [/quote] Neither do I. However, I do not practice what I preach. I profess we all need to be in complete obedience to the will of God. However, I do not practice it. Does that mean that my profession is wrong or invallidated? No.


[quote]What is tolerable to the Catholic Church many not be tolerable to God. [/quote] I would love to see some references on this one.

[quote]Did not the Jews finally seperate themselves from God and do much that is intolerable to God. [/quote] Only those in hell are finally separated from God. As sinners, we all do what is intolerable to God.


[quote]Hateful? What did the Catholic Church preach direct how the Jews were to be treated until it changed? Only a lawyer's words will twist that to nothing. The Church was corrected, but would it have been wrong of me to treat a Jew like a person in 1382? Wrong by whose standards? [/quote] Your writting style is a bit difficult for me to understand here. I will try.

Have you seen GregoryX's 1272 bull on protection of the Jews? [url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg10/g10jprot.htm"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg10/g10jprot.htm[/url]
Yes, how the church preached to protect the Jews did impact how they were treated. But do the people follow it? No. Do christians of any denomination fully follow Christ's laws? None that I have met. I challenge you to find where the Pope or any council encouraged the mistreatment of Jews. You may find where the Catholic Church found the Jews inital and continued rejection of Christ to be wrong. However, this does not show the Catholic Church wanted their mistreatment (a violation of 'love thy neighbor as thyself). Would it have been wrong to mistreat anyone, Jew or non-Jew prior to 1382? Yes. Can you cite an example of Catholic Church authority denying this? You cannot. If you want examples of Catholics treating Jews well, see the examples of St. Nicholas in the early 300's for starters.


[quote]I[f] the Church has temporal status, it has corruptibility.[/quote] Amen. The pope maintains free will, he has a temporal status. We agree here. However, just because someone or some group has a temporal status, it does not mean they are not capable of some level of infalliblity, if willed by God and therefore non-corruptible. To say so, means one cannot be Christian or Jewish! Let us look a few examples.
1. When Moses declared how the Jews were to build the Ark or how the Levites were to perform sacrifices, was he protected by infallibility? We must say yes. Did Moses later sin? Yes. Was his further teachings still infallible? No. Did his sin remove any level of infalliblity God have given him?
2. When the Jewish theological heirarchy approved the book of Isaiah (example), were they infallible to say, "Yes, this book is to be in our canon of scripture. He was a prophet"? We must say yes.
3. Was not the high-priest infallible when using the urim and Thummim (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers etc.)? Yes he was.
4. Were not the Apostles (temporal men) infallible when writting the scriptures?

So why do you assume infallibility left temoral, theological heirarchies after the Apostles all were finished writting the bible? How could you come to such a conclusion? Prots say that infallibility arises in each individual Christian when they interperet scripture. The Catholic Church believes infallibility still lives on in Christ's Church, the bride, the new Israel. Would not the Prot infallibility model also be considered a temporal institution?

[quote] I did not say complete corruptness, nor, I asssume, do you claim the Church is completely infallible in everything.[/quote] No I do not claim the Catholic Church is completely infallible in everthing. Neither does the Catholic Church. You act as if this is some great revelation. This claim (a complete infallability, aka impeccability) is not held by the church.

[quote]I don't worship the temporal Church.[/quote] Wonderful, if you were to worship the church instead of God, you would be committing idolotry. The Catholic Church condemns such action.

Conclusion: You argue against alot of statements about the nature of the Catholic Church that the Catholic Church does not believe or officially teach about herself. A bigger question is how you, a person who has " 12 years of Catholic education, 40+ years as a member, 4 years teaching it and answering questions," has come to believe these things. Perhaps you need to check your sources. I have two theories on how your path of error came to be. 1) You were improperly taught about the church from birth or in more recent years. 2) Your non-denominational buddies have given you some bad gouge.

Please keep digging brother. Ask questions as you can.

[qfnol31]

What about the Byzantine Church? the Ruthenian Church......

The Church isn't only Roman or Latin, though the entirety does fall at least somewhat under the jurisdiction of the Latin Patriarch (Pope).

[jswranch]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='973085' date='May 5 2006, 09:19 PM']
What about the Byzantine Church? the Ruthenian Church......

The Church isn't only Roman or Latin, though the entirety does fall at least somewhat under the jurisdiction of the Latin Patriarch (Pope).
[/quote]
I am not sure what you mean here. I use the term Catholic Church to talk about the Catholic Chruch. You are right there are many rites, Latin is just one of them. However, this does not change the fact that there is one church, as Christ has one bride.

BTW: The pope dropped the Patriarch title.

[qfnol31]

I know, but I think he's still a patriarch without the title.

I was just warning you that anyone outside the Latin Church might take a little offence at the title "Roman Catholic Church" being applied to them.

[jswranch]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='973107' date='May 5 2006, 09:42 PM']
I know, but I think he's still a patriarch without the title. [/quote]
Ahhh perhaps. pope=patriarch according to who?


[quote]
I was just warning you that anyone outside the Latin Church might take a little offence at the title "Roman Catholic Church" being applied to them.[/quote] When you use 'Latin Church' what do you mean? I am not sure how you are using it. By Catholic Church, I mean all those christians in full communion with the pope to include the Latin rite, eastern rite, etc.. If my use of the term 'Catholic Church' makes other rites feel offence, I need to update my language. To your credit, I believe JPII was not Latin Rite?? What do you recommend I use instead? How about just the Catholic Chruch?

[qfnol31]

He's patriarch to the Latin Church.

Catholic Church is good for it. The Latin Church is the Church found in the Roman Rite.

[quote name='New Advent']We must now add to Western Europe all the new lands occupied by Western Europeans, to make up the present enormous Latin patriarchate.[/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm[/url]

[jswranch]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='973878' date='May 6 2006, 03:23 PM']
He's patriarch to the Latin Church.

Catholic Church is good for it. The Latin Church is the Church found in the Roman Rite.
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm[/url]
[/quote]
I learn something new every day.

[Era Might]

I haven't read through this thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating something that's already been said.

The canon from Trent does not say that the Canon must be said aloud. It simply says that the practice of speaking lowly can't be CONDEMNED. The GIRM doesn't condemn the practice. If it did, the Church wouldn't allow the Tridentine Liturgy to be offered anymore, as she does. Rather, the GIRM makes a positive statement regarding a particular point of the Liturgy. It doesn't say "This can't be done and ought to be condemned," but "This is more fitting, and ought to be recommended."

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='brendan1104' post='957483' date='Apr 22 2006, 07:33 PM']
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...
[/quote]

This is, quite simply, wrong. The Church never adopted a "universal tongue," nor has there ever been a time in history in which every Divine Liturgy was done in Latin. Within the Latin Rite, yes, but the Latin Rite is not the whole Catholic Church, and we would do well to remember it. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was never discarded by the Church, and the Syro-Malabar Church has never broken communion with Rome, while at the same time never adopting latin as the liturgical language.

Moreover, it should be pointed out that this quote betrays a false theology as well. There was never a time when the Church "became universal." The Church has [i]always[/i] been universal because [i]Christ[/i] is universal, and the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. This is why the teaching of the Church has always been that any particular Church is not a "part" of the greater Church, but rather, a perfect instantiation of the full Church in a particular place.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff