An Archbishop Lefebvre Question

[JKirkLVNV]

My hope is that if it is determined at some future date that his actions were justified that those of you who have such strong negative feelings towards the society will re consider.

As an aside, why do you think we got the indult if it wasn’t as a gesture to the SSPX and it’s followers?

If one reads the cover letter that the Holy Father sent to the world’s bishops as an accompaniment to the MP, it’s clearly stated that one of his goals in doing so was a reconcilliation. That doesn’t make what the Archbishop did right and it doesn’t make him a hero of the faith. The Latin Rite may someday alter the discipline of priestly celibacy (I hope we don’t). If we do, Milingo won’t have been right.

Regarding the SSPX, I don’t see “negative feelings,” with all due respect. I see a defense of the Church. We are all obligated to want everyone to be united with the Church, in whatever degree of seperation they may find themselves, and to pray for that union.

 

[Rogerteder]

If the reason we got the indult was because the Vatican wanted to bring the SSPX back into the fold then it seems pretty obvious.

As to the emergency situation the Archbishop certainly felt that there was one. Maybe there was, and the situation was pretty grim back in those day and maybe it wasn’t/. As I said history has a way of sorting things out,

My hope is that if it is determined at some future date that his actions were justified that those of you who have such strong negative feelings towards the society will re consider.

As an aside, why do you think we got the indult if it wasn’t as a gesture to the SSPX and it’s followers?

i dont know whether Lefebvre really believed there was an emergency.–how could he? JOHN PAUL II certainly didnt buy that argument. even if Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications(did he lift Lefebvre’s?) he still didnt say Lefebvre’s actions were justified–did he? iF yes quote it.

 

[pnewton]

i dont know whether Lefebvre really believed there was an emergency.–how could he?

I really believe he may have thought this. In what must be an ironic twist, he thought the “Mass of the Ages” could end with his own death.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

i dont know whether Lefebvre really believed there was an emergency.–how could he? JOHN PAUL II certainly didnt buy that argument. even if Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications(did he lift Lefebvre’s?) he still didnt say Lefebvre’s actions were justified–did he? iF yes quote it.

The Pope is the Supreme Legislator and interpreter of canon law. He is its source, in fact. Pope John Paul II clearly stated that there was no emergency. That the Archbishop signed an agreement in which he was largely being given what he wanted (and on which he reneged almost immediately) seems to bear out that there was no emergency.

 

[Glenoy]

he thought the “Mass of the Ages” could end with his own death.

Whether “he thought the “Mass of the Ages” could end with his own death” as you suggest, this we can not be sure of. Abp. Lefebvre just heed the call of his moral duty. And I could understand this because he took the lead and put himself to the front lines.

 

[EnchantedEve]

i dont know whether Lefebvre really believed there was an emergency.–how could he? JOHN PAUL II certainly didnt buy that argument. even if Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications(did he lift Lefebvre’s?) he still didnt say Lefebvre’s actions were justified–did he? iF yes quote it.

Even if Archbishop Lefebvre was mistaken in his beliefs, he would still be justified under canon law if he thought there was good reason to believe he should act.

Again, the Holy Father is Supreme Legislator of the Law, not himself. He is not a religious dictator who can make any act just by the mere fact that he did it. The power to legislate is inseperable from the Law itself.

 

[weepixie71]

For the one millionth time, EVERY new edition of a missal is a “novus ordo.” Pope John XXIII’s missal was a “novus ordo” because it was a new order of the Mass from the previous published missal. The missal published in the 1950’s was a “novus ordo” since it replaced the one before it. When the new missal comes out (hopefully) soon it, too, will be a “novus ordo” because it will replace the current missal. You try to speak authoritatively about things you obviously know nothing about! Here’s one for you to ponder; Pope Pius V, in the apostolic letter Quo Primum that established the Tridenitine missal calls it “a NEW RITE!” In his words, “This new rite alone is to be used unless…” So what do we make of that? Is this “new rite” a break from tradition? Is it “new?” Is it no longer catholic?

The term “novus ordo” is NOT particular to any one missal, most especially the Missal of Pope Paul VI; like I said before, it is applicable to any new edition of the missal, be it the OF or the EF. If a new edition of the missal for the EF were to published it, too, would be a “novus ordo.” There is nothing protestant or sinister about it, only those who don’t understand what it means.

why are you so angry??? there is no reason for such ugly words. i am a very intelligent woman thank you and do not talk to me like im not.

as for the rest of what you say is so ridiculous to me i had to laugh out loud. i grew up in the novus ordo mass. i know all about it. i sat in my pew everyday but saturday growing up. i watched it become less and less of a catholic way of worship and lose its importance to my friends and family because of its lack of well “everything” catholic. people who defend the novus ordo say the word “disciplines” of the mass like they have no importance. they are!!! **i am smart enough to know that much. **they are outward beautiful signs of showing love, adoration, and care for Christ. the novus ordo is so fruitless that you cant even get enough boys to serve the mass. you have to have “girls” do it. without them serving masses good luck getting priests.

HOW CAN YOU SAY THERE IS NOTHING PROTESTANT ABOUT IT? protestants helped make the novus ordo. a lot of them have the same missal in their pews!!!

when he called the tridentine mass the **NEW RITE **I believe he was talking to people like me, cradle catholics born before 1962, and converts who never witnessed a tridentine mass. it is new to us. how dare you insult the very mass that we know for a fact that God, Himself, favors by all the miracles that have taken place in the tridentine mass and all the beautiful saints that worshiped and loved too.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Even if Archbishop Lefebvre was mistaken in his beliefs, he would still be justified under canon law if he thought there was good reason to believe he should act.

Again, the Holy Father is Supreme Legislator of the Law, not himself. He is not a religious dictator who can make any act just by the mere fact that he did it. The power to legislate is inseperable from the Law itself.

Not after the fact of the agreement upon which he reneged. And no, the pope cannot make just just any act, but he is competent, knowing his own mind, to determine whether an emergency is taking place, esp. with a group with whom he is in dialog. That canon applies, for example, when a bishop has to consecrate a successor secretly due to persecution or oppression in a particular place. When the you’re visiting the Holy See, talking to dicasteries and congregations, and the Supreme Pontiff tells you that your circumstance isn’t an emergency…then it isn’t.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

why are you so angry??? there is no reason for such ugly words. i am a very intelligent woman thank you and do not talk to me like im not.

as for the rest of what you say is so ridiculous to me i had to laugh out loud. i grew up in the novus ordo mass. i know all about it. i sat in my pew everyday but saturday growing up. i watched it become less and less of a catholic way of worship and lose its importance to my friends and family because of its lack of well “everything” catholic. people who defend the novus ordo say the word “disciplines” of the mass like they have no importance. they are!!! **i am smart enough to know that much. **they are outward beautiful signs of showing love, adoration, and care for Christ. the novus ordo is so fruitless that you cant even get your boys to serve a mass. without them serving masses good luck getting priests.

HOW CAN YOU SAY THERE IS NOTHING PROTESTANT ABOUT IT? protestants and masons helped make the novus ordo. a lot of them have the same missal in their pews!!!

when he called the tridentine mass the **NEW RITE **I believe he was talking to people like me, cradle catholics born before 1962, and converts who never witnessed a tridentine mass. it is new to us. how dare you insult the very mass that we know for a fact that God, Himself, favors by all the miracles that have taken place in the tridentine mass and all the beautiful saints that worshiped and loved too.

You claim to be intelligent and I will grant you that, but you’ve made several errors.

There is NO credible source that affirms that the NO was the product of the participation of ANY Protestant. They were shown the liturgy, but had no (name removed by moderator)ut. They said so themselves and the Holy See has denied confirmed that they were not a part of it. And MASONS?!?!?! The Holy See has ALSO denied that Archbishop Bugnini was a Mason, most vehemently. You’ve bought into a LIE.

There IS nothing Protestant about the OF. I challenge you to show me what IS Protestant about it. I was raised a fundamentalist Protestant. Not remotely similar. I was then an Episcopalian, a liturgical church. Yes, there are similarities, but that is because they did NOT, in the post-reformation years, throw out the whole of the liturgy. The Anglican service of 20 years ago had similarities to the Tridentine Mass, for pity’s sake.

As careful as you are to defend the EF, there are those for whom the OF is equally precious, because it brought them into the Church. They are ORTHDOX Catholics, not of the ilk of Richard Rohr or Joanie Chichester. You do NOT know for a fact that God “favors” the EF over any other Rite (the OF or the Rites of the Eastern Churches in union with the Holy See) and the assertion is ridiculous. It is your opinion, nothing more, and it is entirely subjective. You say you were born before the council? I know plenty of older, perfectly orthodox Catholics who much perfer the OF and do not remember the EF nostagically at all.

 

[pnewton]

Whether “he thought the “Mass of the Ages” could end with his own death” as you suggest, this we can not be sure of. Abp. Lefebvre just heed the call of his moral duty.

I don’t know. That is the SSPX line, not mine. Without it, there would have been no way to justify an emergency. He thought if he did not ordain bishops to follow him before he died the TLM would be lost. I still think it ironic, contradictory and unsubstantial.

 

[palmas85]

If one reads the cover letter that the Holy Father sent to the world’s bishops as an accompaniment to the MP, it’s clearly stated that one of his goals in doing so was a reconcilliation. That doesn’t make what the Archbishop did right and it doesn’t make him a hero of the faith. The Latin Rite may someday alter the discipline of priestly celibacy (I hope we don’t). If we do, Milingo won’t have been right.

Regarding the SSPX, I don’t see “negative feelings,” with all due respect. I see a defense of the Church. We are all obligated to want everyone to be united with the Church, in whatever degree of seperation they may find themselves, and to pray for that union.

Kirk my old friend, are you going to sit thee and say with a straight face that you don’t see any negative feelings in some of the responses on this and other threads concerning the SSPX?

Kirk on some of these responses you can almost see the venom dripping from the words themselves. That being said, I have never argued that the Arcbishop was right or wrong and personally don’t think too much about it. But it bothers me when people mindlessly attack these people using the same buzzwords, excommunicated disobedient:bigyikes: disloyal etc etc etc.over and over and over again. I don’t support the SSPX position but I can clearly see that if it wasn’t primarily for them the Traditional Mass would be gone. Vanished. Consigned to the trashheap and forgotten except by scholars and a few who clung to it. The SSPX kept it alive. It wasn’t the Vatican or the Bishops, it was the SSPX and it’s successors the FSSP etc. As far as the Archbishop being a hero to the faith, I don’t think he is. But I do believe that time will be the ultimate judge just as it has been on scores of others over the centuries. He would hardly be the first who ran afoul of the Church in his own lifetime only to be vindicated years, decades or even centuries later.

I truly believe that a lot of the antipathy towards the SSPX comes from people who truly dispise the Traditional Mass and wish it had gone away forever. It bothers them that it is still alive and doing reasonably well all things considered. Of course, they really can’t come out and say how they feel because as you know, charity must be maintained at all costs.

I mean think about it for a second Kirk. If by some chance the Traditional Mass became the Ordinary Form do you think all of the posters here who “defend” as you call it the Holy Mother Church would obediently accept the change? I somehow doubt it. I have seen way too many negative, even hostile references not only to the SSPX but to the Traditional Mass itself to believe any different.

In any event, I hope that you are doing well and that your health has improved. Take care old friend.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Kirk my old friend, are you going to sit thee and say with a straight face that you don’t see any negative feelings in some of the responses on this and other threads concerning the SSPX?

Kirk on some of these responses you can almost see the venom dripping from the words themselves. That being said, I have never argued that the Arcbishop was right or wrong and personally don’t think too much about it. But it bothers me when people mindlessly attack these people using the same buzzwords, excommunicated disobedient:bigyikes: disloyal etc etc etc.over and over and over again. I really, truly do not see how these words (maybe not disloyal) are anything other than objective truth. The Archbishop did NOT obey. The Archbishop WAS excommunicated. Those aren’t buzzwords, those are simply truth.

I don’t support the SSPX position but I can clearly see that if it wasn’t primarily for them the Traditional Mass would be gone. Vanished. Consigned to the trashheap and forgotten except by scholars and a few who clung to it. The SSPX kept it alive. It wasn’t the Vatican or the Bishops, it was the SSPX and it’s successors the FSSP etc. As far as the Archbishop being a hero to the faith, I don’t think he is. But I do believe that time will be the ultimate judge just as it has been on scores of others over the centuries. He would hardly be the first who ran afoul of the Church in his own lifetime only to be vindicated years, decades or even centuries later.** If you read what I wrote regarding the Pope’s cover letter to the bishops on the MP, you’ll see that I don’t disagree that part of his goal was reconcilliation with the SSPX.**

I truly believe that a lot of the antipathy towards the SSPX comes from people who truly dispise the Traditional Mass and wish it had gone away forever. It bothers them that it is still alive and doing reasonably well all things considered. Of course, they really can’t come out and say how they feel because as you know, charity must be maintained at all costs. **See, I can see people like Joanie Chichester or Richard Rohr or Richard McBrien or Thomas Gumbleton despising the EF, wishing it had gone away, etc. But those people don’t post in these forums…at all. You get people who may be confused about the Church teaches, you may get seekers, you may get Protestants, etc., but Joanie, the Richards, and Tommy ain’t posting. I don’t think anyone despises the TLM, at least not the posters in CA forums. I think a lot of people simply like the OF (really, what I REALLY think or imagine is that they simply prefer the Mass in their own language. If the EF was offered in the vernacular, they might be thrilled with it). None of the old Catholics I know spoke disparingly of the TLM, they simply liked the NO better. **

I mean think about it for a second Kirk. If by some chance the Traditional Mass became the Ordinary Form do you think all of the posters here who “defend” as you call it the Holy Mother Church would obediently accept the change? I somehow doubt it. I have seen way too many negative, even hostile references not only to the SSPX but to the Traditional Mass itself to believe any different.

In any event, I hope that you are doing well and that your health has improved. Take care old friend.

**I honestly think that most of the people would continue to attend Mass, yes, I honestly believe that. I know I would…and then I’d go join or form a society for the advancement of the Mass in the vernacular! I’d obey, but I’d also take legitimate action, as would be my right, until I was ordered not to do so any longer by the proper authority. Let’s see, we’ve got “Adoremus,” I think I’d call mine “We adore.” **

**And thank you, I’m much better, old friend. God bless. **

 

[Timothysis]

as for the rest of what you say is so ridiculous to me i had to laugh out loud. i grew up in the novus ordo mass. i know all about it.

With all due respect, you seem to still be confused as to what the term “novus ordo” means. You “grew up” with Mass being celebrated according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NOVUS ORDO MASS!!! Do you not understand that the latin phrase “novus ordo” means “new order of the Mass?” And do you not understand that every new publication of a missal is technically a “new order of the Mass,” be it the Tridentine missal or the Missal of Pope Paul VI? What makes this “so ridiculous to me i had to laugh out loud?”

i watched it become less and less of a catholic way of worship and lose its importance to my friends and family because of its lack of well “everything” catholic.

Let’s examine the following; Eucharistic Prayer I in the Missal of Pope Paul VI is the Roman Canon, the same canon that is found in the Tridentine Missal. Eucharistic Prayer II is based on the Anaphora of St. Hippolytus. It pre-dates the Roman Canon by a century or two. It is as catholic as anything can be. Eucharistic Prayer III, the prayer which is supposed to be used on Sunday’s and Holy Days, is a totally catholic creation. I defie you to find one thing in Eucharistic Prayer III that is not traditionally catholic. Please show me how any of these prayers are “less and less of a catholic way of worship.”

people who defend the novus ordo say the word “disciplines” of the mass like they have no importance. they are!!!

I will defend any Mass that consecrates bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Would you not? And who says “the word “disciplines” of the mass like they have no importance,” much less understands what you mean? Disciplines refer to the way things are done; they certainly are important. I don’t recall anyone here saying that they are not, least of all, myself. If you can show who said such a thing then I would be glad to see it.

the novus ordo is so fruitless that you cant even get enough boys to serve the mass. you have to have “girls” do it. without them serving masses good luck getting priests.

So, the sanctification of your soul by partaking the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is “fruitless?” You claim to be “a very intelligent woman;” how can you, as a “good” catholic, even say such a thing?

HOW CAN YOU SAY THERE IS NOTHING PROTESTANT ABOUT IT? protestants helped make the novus ordo. a lot of them have the same missal in their pews!!!

On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.” (Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649).

when he called the tridentine mass the **NEW RITE **I believe he was talking to people like me, cradle catholics born before 1962, and converts who never witnessed a tridentine mass. it is new to us.

Uh, Quo Primum was issued by Pope Pius V in 1571. How in the name of good fortune could he be “talking to people like me, cradle catholics born before 1962?” Perhaps this will educate you a bit:

"We must remember the text of Quo Primum shows that Pope Pius V recognized that his Mass was a NEW RITE, not the same thing that had been celebrated for 15 centuries. A pure reading of the text of the New Testament institution of the Eucharist by Christ, and very early rites showed that since then there were many changes over the years, though the substance was maintained. That is the same thing maintained by Pope Paul VI when he instituted the New Mass. "

how dare you insult the very mass that we know for a fact that God, Himself, favors by all the miracles that have taken place in the tridentine mass and all the beautiful saints that worshiped and loved too.

How dare you to say that the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI is “fruitless,” and your infantile notion that "we know for a fact that God, Himself, favors" the latin Mass. You keep reminding us how “smart” and “intelligent” you are, yet are woefully ignorant of the very things for which you criticize the Ordinary Form of the Mass. There is no such thing as a “traditional” or “modern” Catholic, just as there is no more grace from one form of the Mass as opposed to another. Instead of being so quick judge things that you do not understand as being "so ridiculous to me i had to laugh out loud" perhaps you would benefit from actually researching what it is you are criticizing. Yes, I know it is a crazy concept but just give it a try.

 

[Layman]

If liturgical dancing becomes normal, I think I’ll have a case for attending SSPX Masses, if I can’t get to a ‘legit’ TLM. If there are women doing interpretive dance near the sanctuary at the local N.O., I don’t think the good Lord would mind if I gave it a miss.

A good read. Open Letter To Confused Catholics.

CITH, versus-populum, EMCs, lay lectors, use of vernacular and wreckovation are part of a trend; play down the sacred, play up the mundane. CITH and EMCs play down the sacred nature of the Host; anyone can now hold it.

I think I can see why progessive bishops wanted these things; they thought they had to react to social flux by changing our religion. I get the impression there was a toothing for it since the late 19th century and it could probably be traced back to the Reformation; anyone who owns a Bible could be his own Pope. Nowadays anyone with a certificate can be a ‘liturgical advisor’. We can see the results.

I suspect this, this, this and this are quite rare in Catholicism. However, you can buy liturgical dance costumes online, so, if Father wants to get the laity more involved or draw a bigger crowd (for a while) …

All that’s left for innovators is outright comedy; dancing, Charismatic gibbering, theme Masses. You can only have so much cosmetic surgery on a body before it starts looking ridiculous. But I forgot female deacons and married priests; a rationale can be found for them. One last push by the progressives?

Obedience or no, you’re not obliged to attended Masses you think are impious, surely? You can always attend elsewhere; the most brutal form of criticism, alas.

 

[aicirt]

Actually it did happen. There very few authorized Traditional Mass between the late sixties and the issuing of the Indult. The only ones that were sanctioned were celebrated by Priests who due to their age were granted dispensation and a great many of those Masses were private. The SSPX was formed in 1970 as a direct result of the deteriorating condition of the Church in France, Interestingly enough, the Society was initially supported by Rome and more than a few Priests transferred in legally from both Dioceses and Religious Orders.These actions infuriated a great many Bishops in France who by and large were avowed modernists and progressives and they in turn actively actively sought the suppression of the Society. Given that Europe in general and France and Germany in particular at the time was steeped heavily in anti traditionalism in general the outcome was hardly surprising and the Society was suppressed, some say illegally and in violation of canon Law in 1976.

And that would have been the end of the Traditional Mass right there. Virtually no place to celebrate It and very few Priests either willing or able to do so outside of the Society.In 1971 an allowance was made to allow the Traditional Mass in certain limited circumstances in the UK, but that was it.

Under Pope John Paul II, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in 1984, granted diocesan bishops the Indult which authorized, under certain conditions, celebrations of the Traditional Mass. It was hoped that this would help to regularize the situation with the Society, which after it;s suppression continued on.’

Following the consecration of four bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre and the subsequent excommunications, , Pope John Paul II issued on 2 July 1988 a motu proprio entitled Ecclesia Dei recommending a "wide and generous application of the directives of the 1984 indult. This was done primarily as a peace offering if you will to get the Society back into the Church. However, many diocesan bishops decided not to grant certain priests or lay people permission to use the Traditonal Rite. In many cases this was because, in the opinion of the bishops in question, they did not meet the required conditions. Other refusals of permission were arguably more difficult to explain or justify. In one fairly infamous and well known case the Archbishop of a large Arch Diocese refused to grant permission for any celebration of the Traditional Mass by anyone who had not been an adult and a practicing Catholic in 1962.

So yes, the major if not the only reason we still have the Traditional Mass is because of the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebrve.

Whether or not the Church was actually in a crisis situation as he believed will probably never be known. We do know that no less a figure than the Holy Father himself was pretty traumatized during this same general time period when he was denounced in his own classroom in Germany by outside students who felt he was too old fashioned and not on the cutting edge of theology and progressive thought. An attendee at Vatican II, the Holy Father as a young man was a hearty supporter of the reforms of Vatican II. After the above incident he apparently realized that many of the liberties being taken in the quest for modernization were perhaps doing more harm than good.

Was the Archbishop right or wrong, again history has a way of sorting things out in time,
As Catholics we are required to use our conscience to help make informed decision. . Having lived thriugh the time period myself, I can tell you that it was crazy and the Church was pretty much unrecognizable for more than a little while. It was pretty bad, especially for someone with a more Traditional way of looking at things…

Thank you for a very informative post. I really appreciate it. Having lived through Vatican II, I can attest that the Church was pretty unrecognizable. We lost three priests in our parish. Nuns habits were changed. Priests didn’t seem too interested in confessions. The Catholic high school closed. Many, myself included, did not get the feeling that anyone knew what they were talking about. Many stayed away or were not as enthusiastic about their religion.

 

[aicirt]

If liturgical dancing becomes normal, I think I’ll have a case for attending SSPX Masses, if I can’t get to a ‘legit’ TLM. If there are women doing interpretive dance near the sanctuary at the local N.O., I don’t think the good Lord would mind if I gave it a miss.

A good read. Open Letter To Confused Catholics.

CITH, versus-populum, EMCs, lay lectors, use of vernacular and wreckovation are part of a trend; play down the sacred, play up the mundane. CITH and EMCs play down the sacred nature of the Host; anyone can now hold it.

I think I can see why progessive bishops wanted these things; they thought they had to react to social flux by changing our religion. I get the impression there was a toothing for it since the late 19th century and it could probably be traced back to the Reformation; anyone who owns a Bible could be his own Pope. Nowadays anyone with a certificate can be a ‘liturgical advisor’. We can see the results.

I suspect this, this, this and this are quite rare in Catholicism. However, you can buy liturgical dance costumes online, so, if Father wants to get the laity more involved or draw a bigger crowd (for a while) …

All that’s left for innovators is outright comedy; dancing, Charismatic gibbering, theme Masses. You can only have so much cosmetic surgery on a body before it starts looking ridiculous. But I forgot female deacons and married priests; a rationale can be found for them. One last push by the progressives?

Obedience or no, you’re not obliged to attended Masses you think are impious, surely? You can always attend elsewhere; the most brutal form of criticism, alas.

WOW! I’m shocked!

Sunday night on PBS there was a program with singers in, of all places, what appeared to be a Catholic cathedral. I’m assuming it was in Europe. I was shocked! Terrible. The songs are beautiful but were secular love songs not appropriate for a church. I didn’t think a show was allowed in a Catholic church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

WOW! I’m shocked!

Sunday night on PBS there was a program with singers in, of all places, what appeared to be a Catholic cathedral. I’m assuming it was in Europe. I was shocked! Terrible. The songs are beautiful but were secular love songs not appropriate for a church. I didn’t think a show was allowed in a Catholic church.

Churches can be used for secular concerts (assuming that the material has been vetted and screened), but the pastor/rector is supposed to repose the Most Blessed Sacrament elsewhere and, IIRC, the Altar’s safety must be quaranteed.

 

[palmas85]

**I honestly think that most of the people would continue to attend Mass, yes, I honestly believe that. I know I would…and then I’d go join or form a society for the advancement of the Mass in the vernacular! I’d obey, but I’d also take legitimate action, as would be my right, until I was ordered not to do so any longer by the proper authority. Let’s see, we’ve got “Adoremus,” I think I’d call mine “We adore.” **

**And thank you, I’m much better, old friend. God bless. **

Yes Kirk, after all this time I think you would and some others as well. But not all by any means.

I am truly glad that you are doing better.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

i dont know whether Lefebvre really believed there was an emergency.–how could he? JOHN PAUL II certainly didnt buy that argument. even if Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications(did he lift Lefebvre’s?) he still didnt say Lefebvre’s actions were justified–did he? iF yes quote it.

Of course he did. Read his writings. Also, why would he sacrifice himself if he didn’t believe in what he was fighting for?

Even if JPII believed there was a crisis you don’t think he’d admit it, do you? He was quick to apologize to everybody about everything “the Church” had ever done throughout history, but did he ever admit his own pastoral failures or apologize to Catholics and former Catholics for the havoc he wreaked on the Church? Let’s not even get into the “JPII the Great” farce.

 

[weepixie71]

You claim to be intelligent and I will grant you that, but you’ve made several errors.

There is NO credible source that affirms that the NO was the product of the participation of ANY Protestant. They were shown the liturgy, but had no (name removed by moderator)ut. They said so themselves and the Holy See has denied confirmed that they were not a part of it. And MASONS?!?!?! The Holy See has ALSO denied that Archbishop Bugnini was a Mason, most vehemently. You’ve bought into a LIE.

There IS nothing Protestant about the OF. I challenge you to show me what IS Protestant about it. I was raised a fundamentalist Protestant. Not remotely similar. I was then an Episcopalian, a liturgical church. Yes, there are similarities, but that is because they did NOT, in the post-reformation years, throw out the whole of the liturgy. The Anglican service of 20 years ago had similarities to the Tridentine Mass, for pity’s sake.

As careful as you are to defend the EF, there are those for whom the OF is equally precious, because it brought them into the Church. They are ORTHDOX Catholics, not of the ilk of Richard Rohr or Joanie Chichester. You do NOT know for a fact that God “favors” the EF over any other Rite (the OF or the Rites of the Eastern Churches in union with the Holy See) and the assertion is ridiculous. It is your opinion, nothing more, and it is entirely subjective. You say you were born before the council? I know plenty of older, perfectly orthodox Catholics who much perfer the OF and do not remember the EF nostagically at all.

i feel the proof of protestantism is everywhere. i dont see how you can attend an EF and wonder this.

what i have noticed is all of the things that i loved about my catholic faith were stripped in the churches that held novus ordo mass. things that protestants found strange or thought of idol worshipers.
-most protestants found it odd that we kneeled to receive communion. they assumed we were kneeling to the priest. now we do not kneel
-protestants loved their music and so of it is good. i love “amazing grace” but its not catholic so why put it a catholic mass. our catholic songs are very hard to find now even during the month of may. some didnt even have a may crowning. another point since so many protestants have a problem with mary.
-protestants thought we worshiped saints. our beautiful statues of our saints are gone along with our beautiful stain glass saintly windows. and i know it wasnt do to finances.
-a lot of protestant have their choir in the front of the church and would occasionally let other people talk about their “Holy Spirit” or “Jesus” encounter in the front of the church. our masses used to only have clergy, seminarians and servers to make a point of the importance of the sanctuary. now the priest is lost up there tucked away in the background. sometimes he feels so lost in the background he feels he was to leave the sanctuary to make his point.
-our catholic churches used to be set up so that when you stepped into a Catholic Church you knew it. now they look like any other church. actually they look so bare they look like a priest could pick up an sell at any moment.
-our catholic language, (ecclesiastical latin) is very rarely used.

as far as older people before the OFliking the EF, well everyone is entitled to their opinion. i know a lot of older people too that are ecstatic that they have the EF is back. my grandmother cant stand the EF mass. she is very liberal and she thinks that women will be sent back into the dark ages. while my mother loves the EF and wont step foot into an OF now to save her life. either mass is valid so to each their own.

the thing i love most about the EF is that when i go to that mass their is no doubt i am attending a Catholic Mass. any protestant would walk into that church and know they are in a Catholic church. know they should not receive communion. how many Catholics have come on this forum and said they attended an EF for the first time and were lost, they couldnt follow? dont you think it even just a little sad that your mass is irrecognizable to a Catholic mass that was just 50yrs ago? less than a lifetime. i know i do.