1. Celebration of the Mass and administration of the sacraments in the vernacular language
2. Permission for clergy to marry
3. The abolition of auricular confession, replacing it with general or communal confession and absolution
4. Distribution of Holy Communion to the laity under both species (i.e., Host and Blood)
5. Institution of the "permanent diaconate" for married men
6. Celebration of the Mass "versus populi" (facing the people) with the priest behind the altar (i.e. a table)
7. Creation of a Council of Advice, composed of bishops who would govern the Church together with the Pope(read "collegiality")
8. Participation of laypersons in the Mass, including distribution of Communion (1)
The Pope was outraged and Duarte Costa silenced from promoting such heretical, blasphemous and sacrilegious "reforms"!! His sect immediately implemented his agenda, and today is much akin to High Anglicanism! If Duarte Costa (died 1961) had lived just a little longer, he would have witnessed most of his agenda, with other Modernist ideas,fully implemented at the Second Vatican Council by fellow heretic Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI). It's only a matter of time before the married "priests" are welcomed by the Modernist Vatican. If only Paul VI had been as intellectually honest as Duarte Costa to admit that he too was setting up his own sect, divorced from the One True Roman Catholic Church of Christ!
Endnotes
1. See official web site of the Catholic Apostolic National Church at http://www.canc.org.uk/ This sect also calls itself the "Brazilian Catholic Church" which Duarte Costa founded.
What about the eastern Catholic churches ? didn't they traditionally do some of these things with no problem?
ReplyDeletenot a reason for the Latin rite to have been decimated by the novus ordo, but something I was wondering about.
The case with the Eastern Rites (pre-Vatican II) is easily distinguished. In the items listed in the post above:
ReplyDelete#1 The Eastern Rites used ancient forms of the "vernacular." To give but one example, the Ethiopians used Ge'ez, a very old tongue that is no longer spoken (for centuries) outside the Ethiopic Divine Liturgy.
#2. The Eastern Rites allowed married men to become priests, but once a priest you can not marry. Only single priests may become bishops. Married priests must remain celibate if their wife predeceases them. Duarte Costa wanted priests to marry (before and after ordination) and be allowed to become bishops.
#3.The Eastern Rites never did such a thing!
#4. Yes, Communion under both species was allowed in most Eastern Rites, but this was a long standing practice going back to at least the 3rd century. In most cases the priest dipped the Sacred Host in the Precious Blood and then put in on the communicant's tongue. This is a far cry from letting some "liberated nun" in a white robe holding a cup made of clay with some more or less "blessed wine" in it distribute it by letting everyone come up and take a slug.
#5. Deacons had a real place very subordinate to the priest--they are not "substitute priests" as many are in so-called "priest-less parishes.
#6. In many, if not most cases, there was a point where the priest would perform the Consecration shielded from view by Holy Doors with Icons. It was not a table devoid of an altar stone with the (alleged) Blessed Sacrament relegated to a hole in the wall so "the assembly of the People of God" can banter back and forth like some political rally.
#7. Collegiality was a heresy of V2 and unknown in the Eastern Rites. They submitted to the Roman Pontiff, not some "National Conference of Bishops."
#8. No layman in the Eastern Rite could distribute Holy Communion--only deacons, priests, and bishops.
As you can see, there was a big difference. Duarte Costa's package of "reforms" was merely setting the stage for his Modernist theology. Today his sect is every bit as Modernist as the Vatican II sect.
I always like learning from you Introibo.
DeleteSo at first, the East and West distributed both species separately.
Then it evolved to intinction.
Then the East finally used the spoon. And the West finally only the Sacred Host.
Correct?
Also, why don't newly ordained priests in the Roman Rite consume the Precious Blood which they too consecrated at their ordinations? Why are they not bound?
Also, which came first, unleavened bread or leavened bread?
Delete@anon6:43
Delete1. Correct.
2. The Bishop is superior so he receives Communion twice; the priest only once in the Host.
—-Introibo
Thanks. Yes that's what I thought too, that priests not receiving from the chalice symbolizes that they do not have yet the fullness of the priesthood. But I remembered the quote "what type of sacrifice is it when the sacrificer does not consume the sacrifice?" (my paraphrase) which rebuked priests who do not communicate at their very own Masses.
DeleteThe Host suffices as a Sacrament. But not as a Sacrifice. Hence a priest who consecrates bread alone has an invalid Mass. If both the Sacred Host and Precious Blood are essential as Sacrifice, then wouldn't they both need to be eaten by the priest(s) consecrating? It appears as if the newly ordained priests receive only the Eucharist as a Sacrament, but not as a Sacrifice, though they are also the sacrificers.
@anon7:32
DeleteThis is CONCELEBRATED. This is a unique circumstance in which, as long as the principal offerer consummates both Species, the Sacrifice is complete. A priest who offers alone and does not communicate under both Species sins greatly, but the Sacrament is confected.
—-Introibo
Thanks.
DeleteAs to which is more ancient, Introibo, is it leavened or unleavened bread?
DeleteI know majority sides on leavened, but I don't think that's the case in the Trad world. You know, we really love the Latin Mass. Thanks to the Novus Ordo.
Pardon, I'm really curious in a lotta stuff. :)
God bless.
There is no unanimous consensus, but it seems to be unleavened.
Delete—-Introibo
It seems Michael Caerularius argued leavened from an idea Christ could not have meant to celebrate the Seder, since Good Friday was "day of preparation of the Jews". BUT - If Christ and the Temple started Nisan on two consecutive days (by sighting of the new moon) they would have had 14th Nisan also on two consecutive days.
Delete