|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 7, 2019 17:55:13 GMT -5
Someone has asked me the question of which liturgical calendar we should use, in reference to my post in the resource section on the liturgical calendars linked HERE
This is only my opinion, for what it’s worth. In my opinion, John XXIII, although he did terrible actions that led to the creation of the Conciliar sect, did not himself teach heresy to the universal Church or in any way clearly initiate a schism. He did not approve of any document of Vatican II, as he died only six months into the Council, and there is even an open question as to whether he ordered the Council to be stopped. I do not believe that moral certainty can be formed that he lost his office due to public heresy or that he was a schismatic. In light of that, I believe his laws were binding on the universal Church. I believe the last laws of the Church in effect for the Roman Calendar and Missal were those approved in 1962. I also believe that Catholics are free to voluntarily follow the additional fast and abstinence days in effect at the time of the death of Pius XII. For myself, I follow those days. Today is one of them, actually, for the feast of the Immaculate Conception, which under Pope Pius XII was a day of fasting and full abstinence. For those that reject the laws of Pope Pius XII and John XXIII and revert to previous disciplines, I strongly disagree with that idea. At the very minimum, moral certainty should be formed that Pope Pius XII was a true Pope, and therefore his laws were certainly binding, and in my opinion, there cannot be any legitimate justification in rejecting his laws. In my opinion, Archbishop Lefebvre correctly grasped clearly that there was no danger to the Faith that existed in the liturgical laws of Pope Pius XII or John XXIII, but the danger to the Faith began with the laws of Paul VI when he stated:
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Dec 9, 2019 0:02:50 GMT -5
I don’t really have a problem with the 1962 calendar and really there is nothing that causes impiety in it. Families who have lived by this calendar have raised good, pious children so we are seeing the fruits. I’m partial to the Pius XII calendar because I think it is not possible with what we know to make a determination about John XXIII and I want to follow the last given orders from a pope. In general, If we are going to outright reject something, we need strong evidence.
I think that even is it determined someday that John XXIII was an anti-pope, that there wouldn’t be a dismantling/nullification of many of his actions. I actually think it would be more likely that everything reverted temporarily to ‘58 or ‘62 but that eventually the Roman calendar will undergo some lawful changes. I also think a future pope will change the fasting laws and there will definitely be changes to the Mass of the Roman rite itself.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Feb 26, 2023 16:39:22 GMT -5
Someone has asked me the question of which liturgical calendar we should use, in reference to my post in the resource section on the liturgical calendars linked HERE
This is only my opinion, for what it’s worth. In my opinion, John XXIII, although he did terrible actions that led to the creation of the Conciliar sect, did not himself teach heresy to the universal Church or in any way clearly initiate a schism. He did not approve of any document of Vatican II, as he died only six months into the Council, and there is even an open question as to whether he ordered the Council to be stopped. I do not believe that moral certainty can be formed that he lost his office due to public heresy or that he was a schismatic. In light of that, I believe his laws were binding on the universal Church. I believe the last laws of the Church in effect for the Roman Calendar and Missal were those approved in 1962. I also believe that Catholics are free to voluntarily follow the additional fast and abstinence days in effect at the time of the death of Pius XII. For myself, I follow those days. Today is one of them, actually, for the feast of the Immaculate Conception, which under Pope Pius XII was a day of fasting and full abstinence. For those that reject the laws of Pope Pius XII and John XXIII and revert to previous disciplines, I strongly disagree with that idea. At the very minimum, moral certainty should be formed that Pope Pius XII was a true Pope, and therefore his laws were certainly binding, and in my opinion, there cannot be any legitimate justification in rejecting his laws. In my opinion, Archbishop Lefebvre correctly grasped clearly that there was no danger to the Faith that existed in the liturgical laws of Pope Pius XII or John XXIII, but the danger to the Faith began with the laws of Paul VI when he stated: Personally, since I became a Catholic and adhered to the Sedevacante thesis, I have followed the laws of fasting and abstinence and Holy Week of Pius XII. Pius XII ordered fasting and abstinence for the Christmas Vigil on the 24th, however, in some places Pius XII gave permission for fasting and abstinence on the 23rd (France, Argentina and others). The other countries must fast and abstain on the 24th. following the laws of Pius XII in my country it is convenient to fast and abstain from eating on the eve of the 24th. However, a bishop provided me with a document after the reign of Pius XII, he does not promote it, but warns the faithful that this document It can be used as "epikeia" in current times of apostasy, and it can be used in some complex cases, for example when you are the only Catholic person in the family and thus avoid a scandal or cause a family problem that can generate conflicts and be lack of charity The document is the "Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1959" with John XXIII as "Pope", where John XXIII extended the privilege of France, Argentina to fasting and abstinence on the 23rd given by Pius XII, John XXIII made it a universal privilege. HERE is the Decree of the Congregation of the Council in AAS 1959, p. 918. archive.org/details/AAS-51-1959/page/918/mode/2up“The Sacred Congregation of the Council, decreed the power to abolish the obligation of abstinence and fasting for the vigil of the Nativity of Jesus Christ. Obeying the wishes of many bishops of many nations, His Holiness Our Lord John Pp. XXIII, by the present Decree of the Council of the Sacred Congregation, the grace to anticipate the obligation of abstinence and fasting from the twenty-fourth day, eve of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ deigned to grant it to all the faithful of the worldwide Catholic Church on the twenty-third day of the month of December. Given in Rome, on December 3, 1959. fr. Card. CIRIACI, Governor II. O SP Palazzini, from Secretis" It is clear that at that moment the spirit of the world had already entered Catholic Families and that is why this document was delivered. Can this mandate be used as "epikeia" or as coming from a Pope? Or is it better to follow Pius XII safely in fasting and abstinence on the 24th? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 27, 2023 10:51:55 GMT -5
Someone has asked me the question of which liturgical calendar we should use, in reference to my post in the resource section on the liturgical calendars linked HERE
This is only my opinion, for what it’s worth. In my opinion, John XXIII, although he did terrible actions that led to the creation of the Conciliar sect, did not himself teach heresy to the universal Church or in any way clearly initiate a schism. He did not approve of any document of Vatican II, as he died only six months into the Council, and there is even an open question as to whether he ordered the Council to be stopped. I do not believe that moral certainty can be formed that he lost his office due to public heresy or that he was a schismatic. In light of that, I believe his laws were binding on the universal Church. I believe the last laws of the Church in effect for the Roman Calendar and Missal were those approved in 1962. I also believe that Catholics are free to voluntarily follow the additional fast and abstinence days in effect at the time of the death of Pius XII. For myself, I follow those days. Today is one of them, actually, for the feast of the Immaculate Conception, which under Pope Pius XII was a day of fasting and full abstinence. For those that reject the laws of Pope Pius XII and John XXIII and revert to previous disciplines, I strongly disagree with that idea. At the very minimum, moral certainty should be formed that Pope Pius XII was a true Pope, and therefore his laws were certainly binding, and in my opinion, there cannot be any legitimate justification in rejecting his laws. In my opinion, Archbishop Lefebvre correctly grasped clearly that there was no danger to the Faith that existed in the liturgical laws of Pope Pius XII or John XXIII, but the danger to the Faith began with the laws of Paul VI when he stated: Personally, since I became a Catholic and adhered to the Sedevacante thesis, I have followed the laws of fasting and abstinence and Holy Week of Pius XII. Pius XII ordered fasting and abstinence for the Christmas Vigil on the 24th, however, in some places Pius XII gave permission for fasting and abstinence on the 23rd (France, Argentina and others). The other countries must fast and abstain on the 24th. following the laws of Pius XII in my country it is convenient to fast and abstain from eating on the eve of the 24th. However, a bishop provided me with a document after the reign of Pius XII, he does not promote it, but warns the faithful that this document It can be used as "epikeia" in current times of apostasy, and it can be used in some complex cases, for example when you are the only Catholic person in the family and thus avoid a scandal or cause a family problem that can generate conflicts and be lack of charity The document is the "Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1959" with John XXIII as "Pope", where John XXIII extended the privilege of France, Argentina to fasting and abstinence on the 23rd given by Pius XII, John XXIII made it a universal privilege. HERE is the Decree of the Congregation of the Council in AAS 1959, p. 918. archive.org/details/AAS-51-1959/page/918/mode/2up“The Sacred Congregation of the Council, decreed the power to abolish the obligation of abstinence and fasting for the vigil of the Nativity of Jesus Christ. Obeying the wishes of many bishops of many nations, His Holiness Our Lord John Pp. XXIII, by the present Decree of the Council of the Sacred Congregation, the grace to anticipate the obligation of abstinence and fasting from the twenty-fourth day, eve of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ deigned to grant it to all the faithful of the worldwide Catholic Church on the twenty-third day of the month of December. Given in Rome, on December 3, 1959. fr. Card. CIRIACI, Governor II. O SP Palazzini, from Secretis" It is clear that at that moment the spirit of the world had already entered Catholic Families and that is why this document was delivered. Can this mandate be used as "epikeia" or as coming from a Pope? Or is it better to follow Pius XII safely in fasting and abstinence on the 24th? For myself, I fast on December 24th, the Vigil of Christmas. I believe that John XXIII's laws were not at odds with the Faith, and agree with Archbishop Lefebvre on this. The line in the sand is that space in time of what happened before the Council and what happened after it. I follow this fast as a voluntary fast, and those that follow the law of John XXIII, which is most traditional Catholics, as the greater majority learn from the SSPX and follow their calendar, most likely follow the 1959 law which didn't end the fast but allowed Catholics to fast on the 23rd of December rather than the 24th. I believe it is a safe opinion to hold that all laws of John XXIII, as they were not at odds with the Faith, and were peacefully accepted by the Church, would have been the legitimate laws of the Catholic Church. The question of whether he was pope is not nearly as easy to determine as with Paul VI and the others. There was no smoking gun with him. But either way, whether he was a pope or not, his laws were not evil, an incentive to impiety, or against the Faith, and as Catholics universally believed he was pope, then, even if he was not a true pope, these laws approved by him would have been supplied by the Church, as there was a common error about him being the pope, even if in fact he was not. Whether or not the Church relaxes a fast, doesn't mean that you must eat, you may still fast on your own. In my opinion, Catholics of our times need to be fasting and doing penance now more than ever, so any fasting that you do, beyond what the law of the Church obliges us to do, is a good thing, so long as there is no danger to your health.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 27, 2023 12:58:14 GMT -5
I use the Eastern rite calendar
|
|