Argumentation in Favor of Traditionalism

[Ockham]

simple. the Church allows it. if its allowed, then its okay. if the Church then decides to take it away, then we should humbly follow the Church. but don’t make people feel bad for doing what the Church says is a perfectly fine practice today

You claim to be a seeker of the truth. How did CITH get int the GIRM?

 

[Ockham]

Ockham, you just make a bunch of false claims about Vatican II.

1. *The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any; heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.*LETTER ON NOVUS ORDO MISSAE
   Cardinal Ottaviani
   Rome, September 25th, 1969
   ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm

Article 36: ‘The use of Latin is to be retained in the Latin rites’

“the serious reasons the Church has for firmly maintaining the unconditional obligation the celebrant has to use the Latin tongue”
Pope Pius XII Mediator Dei 1947

“Let no innovator dare to write against the use of Latin in the sacred rite…nor let them in their folly attempt to minimize the will of the Apostolic See in this manner”
Pope John XXIII Veterum Sapientia 1962

 

[choy]

You claim to be a seeker of the truth. How did CITH get int the GIRM?

why the need to disect something when the Church has already allowed it? if the Church sees it as a bad practice, then why is it still there? i’m calling for a true Catholic attitude of humbly submitting oneself to the authority of the Church. fact is the Church has allowed this practice and therefore it doesn’t matter what you nor i say, it is all valid and good. if the Church changes her mind on this matter, which she is allowed to as this is not doctrine, then we should all humbly follow what the Church instructs us to do. until then, the Church has decided to allow CITH. to question the decision of the Church is to question the authority of the Church, which questions the Church itself. are you questioning the Church?

 

[Ockham]

why the need to disect something when the Church has already allowed it?

Do you not know it or deliberately avoiding it?

 

[MarkThompson]

1. *The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any; heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.*LETTER ON NOVUS ORDO MISSAE
   Cardinal Ottaviani
   Rome, September 25th, 1969
   ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm

Article 36: ‘The use of Latin is to be retained in the Latin rites’

“the serious reasons the Church has for firmly maintaining the unconditional obligation the celebrant has to use the Latin tongue”
Pope Pius XII Mediator Dei 1947

“Let no innovator dare to write against the use of Latin in the sacred rite…nor let them in their folly attempt to minimize the will of the Apostolic See in this manner”
Pope John XXIII Veterum Sapientia 1962

These are (at best) reasons for seeking to retain occasional use of Latin in the Roman Rite – these don’t in any way support your claim that Vatican II didn’t call for vernacular to be permitted in the liturgy. Do you at least acknowledge that Vatican II did do that? I’ve never once seen you admit that you were wrong about a blustery claim; you just come back with off-topic statements, allege vagueness, or say that something is too long to read or you’re tired of discussing it. The world won’t end if you just admit that Vatican II did call for the liturgy to be opened to the vernacular.

 

[choy]

Do you not know it or deliberately avoiding it?

i know it. do you? that is why i asked you why you question what the Church has allowed. because by the authority of the Church it was allowed

 

[Ockham]

These are (at best) reasons for seeking to retain occasional use of Latin in the Roman Rite – these don’t in any way support your claim that Vatican II didn’t call for vernacular to be permitted in the liturgy. Do you at least acknowledge that Vatican II did do that? I’ve never once seen you admit that you were wrong about a blustery claim; you just come back with off-topic statements, allege vagueness, or say that something is too long to read or you’re tired of discussing it. The world won’t end if you just admit that Vatican II did call for the liturgy to be opened to the vernacular.

Not to the extent we have today. The reforms also did not call for the Mass we have today. How about sharing with us why the preparatory documents of V2 got thrown out and an uncalled for agenda brought in?

And don’t lecture me about dodging anything. You are another one who mysteriously can’t explain how CITH got into the GIRM.

 

[Ockham]

i know it. do you? that is why i asked you why you question what the Church has allowed. because by the authority of the Church it was allowed

IF you know then you are aware CITH got into the GIRM through disobedience of the people. If disobedient people got it into the GIRM then obedient people to the actual norm of the Church, not an indult, can get it out. If you sincerely cared about truth you would be quick to point out the facts instead of using a temporary indult to shield your pride.

 

[MarkThompson]

Not to the extent we have today. The reforms also did not call for the Mass we have today. How about sharing with us why the preparatory documents of V2 got thrown out and an uncalled for agenda brought in?

And don’t lecture me about dodging anything. You are another one who mysteriously can’t explain how CITH got into the GIRM.

Um, the Church put it there? Look, I haven’t extensively researched the issue, but my understanding is that it was a combination of factors. That people were illicitly doing it already was certainly one factor, although I’m not aware of any reliable evidence that a schism was threatened over this question, as you’ve claimed.

I also disagree with your implicit premise that if it’s there because of disobedience, then it should obviously be removed. It is what it is, and it should be judged on its own merits, not on the personal qualities of now-dead bishops who once supported it. For my own part, I think that the unique merits of the practice are minimal and the drawbacks are significant (though not earth-shattering), and I’d be happy to see it gradually phased out.

Does that help? It’s nothing I haven’t said before.

 

[choy]

IF you know then you are aware CITH got into the GIRM through disobedience of the people. If disobedient people got it into the GIRM then obedient people to the actual norm of the Church, not an indult, can get it out. If you sincerely cared about truth you would be quick to point out the facts instead of using a temporary indult to shield your pride.

is it my pride thats the problem or yours?

the fact that a provision for it was made for by the Church, why can’t you accept that? you readily judge people for doing something that the Church today has allowed. thats all i’m saying. it is allowed today. if in some point in history someone was doing it when it was not allowed, then those people are the ones in error. not the people today who are doing it because the Church has allowed it. its as simple as that. are you going to criticize the bishops in the early Church for being married? just because today its not allowed for Bishops to be married?

so does being an indult mean its a lesser practice than the norm?

 

[Ockham]

Does that help? It’s nothing I haven’t said before.

Yes, it helps. Well, it’s a start anyway. Actually I do think there is grounds to reject something because it became an indult through disobedience. If the Church is giving us free will between the two, one is the norm, one is an indult, one has been with us for centuries, the other recently through disobedience, when you put them side by side it is clear what God prefers us to do.

 

[Ockham]

so does being an indult mean its a lesser practice than the norm?

You keep casting that bait but I’m not going to snap at it. You’ve stated your purpose here is to expose the truth yet when given an opportunity to prove it you decline. Without having made any positive or productive posts here, it seems your real purpose is to agitate and distract. Are you one of those people who gets their jollies from trolling sites contrary to your own beliefs stirring up trouble?

 

[choy]

You keep casting that bait but I’m not going to snap at it. You’ve stated your purpose here is to expose the truth yet when given an opportunity to prove it you decline. Without having made any positive or productive posts here, it seems your real purpose is to agitate and distract. Are you one of those people who gets their jollies from trolling sites contrary to your own beliefs stirring up trouble?

aw, another ad hominem? you can’t just debate the facts i placed?

it doesn’t matter how it began, the issue is today, is it allowed or not? its that simple. if yesterday there’s a stretch of highway thats the speed limit is 60 and people are going on 75, they’re overspeeding. but if the authorities decide to raise the limit to 75 because there’s no harm in doing so, are people who go through that stretch of highway today reckless speeders?

its the same case. its actually sad that you think the Church can easily be swayed by dissidents. because she has made many decisions that goes against popular opinion, because those popular opinions are against her morals. sure, the practice may have started in disobedience, but the Church allowed it anyway because the Church recognizes that it is a valid practice within the Church and is part of her tradition.

if tomorrow the Church decides to forbid CITH, and some still insist on it, then that is the time you take it out on those who insist. but today, it is allowed, you cannot say something negative about people who do something they are allowed to do

 

[MarkThompson]

it doesn’t matter how it began, the issue is today, is it allowed or not? its that simple. if yesterday there’s a stretch of highway thats the speed limit is 60 and people are going on 75, they’re overspeeding. but if the authorities decide to raise the limit to 75 because there’s no harm in doing so, are people who go through that stretch of highway today reckless speeders?

In fairness, though, the next issue is, should it continue to be allowed or should the rule change? If they raise the speed limit to 75, and traffic accidents go up, it may be time to rethink the change.

Of course, poor reasons to rethink the change include “But traditionally it was always 60 mph,” “But it was only raised to 75 in the first place because so many people were speeding,” and “But 75 mph just isn’t safe, and you know it.” That covers a lot of the arguments going on here.

 

[Ockham]

aw, another ad hominem? you can’t just debate the facts i placed?

What ad hominem attack? The only fact you ever provide is “it’s in the GIRM”. Thanks for that. If that’s all you got then move on, k?

Here is another thread that was started in a postive manner that you’ve hijacked into a flame war.

 

[Ockham]

Of course, poor reasons to rethink the change include “But traditionally it was always 60 mph,” “But it was only raised to 75 in the first place because so many people were speeding,” and “But 75 mph just isn’t safe, and you know it.” That covers a lot of the arguments going on here.

But what if the reasons it was always 60 were supported by the Supreme Court many times?

I like this analogy as I’ve heard it specifically in support of raising speed limits. The argument goes, “everyone is doing 75 (or up here, 120km/hr) anyway so why not just make it the law?”

BTW, you were correct, the documents did call for venacular, however they also called for Latin to be retained. The prep documents made no mention that I’m aware of though. It would be nice and more productive to have more sobre discussions instead of the flame wars that too often break out.

 

[choy]

What ad hominem attack? The only fact you ever provide is “it’s in the GIRM”. Thanks for that. If that’s all you got then move on, k?

Here is another thread that was started in a postive manner that you’ve hijacked into a flame war.

oh, so trying to place me as a troll is not? and now you’re blaming me again for something you’ve done

fact is, you can’t deny that what the Church today is not something you agree to. there’s nothing you can really do or say to change that. people who choose to do what the Church allows are not bad, irreverent, idiotic clowns participating in a bad circus. they placed their faith in God and follows His Church. and His Church says these are the ways they can pray, receive Sacraments, and worship Him. all of it is valid, all of it is good. none is greater, none is lesser

 

[Ockham]

oh, so trying to place me as a troll is not? and now you’re blaming me again for something you’ve done

fact is, you can’t deny that what the Church today is not something you agree to. there’s nothing you can really do or say to change that. people who choose to do what the Church allows are not bad, irreverent, idiotic clowns participating in a bad circus. they placed their faith in God and follows His Church. and His Church says these are the ways they can pray, receive Sacraments, and worship Him. all of it is valid, all of it is good. none is greater, none is lesser

You’ve made your argument. The rest is fluff. Let me know if you come up with something better.

 

[scylla]

Ok…
I will try an explain some of the Modernist heresy, yet it is hard to understand, so stay with me as it so closely resembles Catholicism that many people get confused and think that Modernism is ok when they see it.

I am just a regular guy so forgive me if I make some mistake in explanation and please correct me if I am wrong.

Here is one point of Modernism, it is putting God on a level equal to us and based on us. So an example would be taking the presence of God explained in Sacrosanctum Concilium which essentially says the following…that God truly present as the Eucharist, He is present in the person of the Priest, the written Word proclaimed and in the assembly.

Now forget the Catholic understanding of the presence of God as being outside and independent of us as well as everywhere. The Modernist looks at God from a point of view that God is kind of equal to us.

So from a Modernist point of view, God is among us and in us already. Worship is just affirming our worth and view that we are part of God. God joined Himself to us and we thank Him, but that is about all God is to the Modernist, which leads to self worship.
It sounds close to the Catholic view, but it ultimately denies the majesty, the reality of God.
This leads to a self worship and a desire to put people first as “people” are God.
It sounds similar to the Catholic view, in which we see Jesus in our neighbors, we treat others with love as we are made in the image of God.

The two views are radically different. Yet, use much of the same language and sound similar. The Modernist view leads to confusion and ultimately if taken to its logical outcome, self worship.

There are also many who are confused by the modernist view of God so there is a mixture of belief and confusion that is common today.

There are other aspects to Modernism which I can elaborate on in another post, but this is the main part of the view of God.

If I have made any mis-statements or poor explanations feel free to correct me.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Timothysis]

Ok…
I will try an explain some of the Modernist heresy, yet it is hard to understand, so stay with me as it so closely resembles Catholicism that many people get confused and think that Modernism is ok when they see it.

I am just a regular guy so forgive me if I make some mistake in explanation and please correct me if I am wrong.

Here is one point of Modernism, it is putting God on a level equal to us and based on us. So an example would be taking the presence of God explained in Sacrosanctum Concilium which essentially says the following…that God truly present as the Eucharist, He is present in the person of the Priest, the written Word proclaimed and in the assembly.

Now forget the Catholic understanding of the presence of God as being outside and independent of us as well as everywhere. The Modernist looks at God from a point of view that God is kind of equal to us.

So from a Modernist point of view, God is among us and in us already. Worship is just affirming our worth and view that we are part of God. God joined Himself to us and we thank Him, but that is about all God is to the Modernist, which leads to self worship.
It sounds close to the Catholic view, but it ultimately denies the majesty, the reality of God.
This leads to a self worship and a desire to put people first as “people” are God.
It sounds similar to the Catholic view, in which we see Jesus in our neighbors, we treat others with love as we are made in the image of God.

The two views are radically different. Yet, use much of the same language and sound similar. The Modernist view leads to confusion and ultimately if taken to its logical outcome, self worship.

There are also many who are confused by the modernist view of God so there is a mixture of belief and confusion that is common today.

There are other aspects to Modernism which I can elaborate on in another post, but this is the main part of the view of God.

If I have made any mis-statements or poor explanations feel free to correct me.

In Christ
Scylla

I find it interesting that you can come to such precise applications of “Modernism” when there was never a defined movement known as Modernism. Regardless of the fact that I think your whole post is hogwash, it nevertheless shows how people can spew out information about things that are simply their opinion but present it as fact.