Arrogance & Hypocrisy of "Traditionalists"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nota_Bene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Fogny:
Hello,

Your statement about the Jewish prayer and probably what Jesus really said, is troubling.
The Roman Rite of the mass was by and large taken from scripture that is why it was called “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven”. Also as taken from scripture catholics were assured it was free from error.
Sadly this point has been lost and we now have the NO,Ang-Use and in the future others. We through the abuses of V2 now have masses that are approved by the Church but in reality are not Catholic.
I being old enough to have been baptised and confirmed in the old way, know the difference.
I cannot understand the acceptance of the Ang-use and the persecution of the Latin Rite. In my diocese make no mistake the bishop has no use for it and it is just plain wrong.
I will never take part in this greatest of all heresies a liturgy that takes from Jewish,Protestant,and Gnostic Liturgies. It is not Catholic.

Fogny
But by calling it a heresy, you have just, yourself, uttered heresy, unless the Pope himself is a heretic. I’m not mad or angry or even frustrated, I’m pointing out that logically to call the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as ordered (set up or governed) by the Holy Father a heresy IS heresy. So which is it: Are the NO Mass and the other Rites permitted by the Holy See heretical or not? If you SAY their heretical, you set yourelf against the one who alone holds the power to bind and loose.
 
What I am becoming tired of are the almost daily jabs at anyone who prefers TLM. There is developing a new set of terms that are used to put down ordinary old-fashioned traditional Roman Catholics. As the man in L.A. said when beated by police, “Can’t we just all get along?”

The term rad-Trad is in no way used to put down “down ordinary old-fashioned traditional Roman Catholics”. In fact, I’ve already said this, the first person who used this word in my presence was a Traditionalist. The reason some smart person coined this term was to differentiate between those who are obedient and those who promote disobedience. It’s a way to protect those innocent bystanders who simply have a love and attachment to the TLM. Of course this has been explained before but I know it’s hard to hear with your fingers in your ears. 😉

Do you honestly think that people are making “jabs” at people here because they simply prefers the TLM? What’s the motive supposed to be for this? Do you think that they want to get rid of the TLM? Has thinking actually become this deluded? This is so silly. Some of the people debating against rad-Trad theories are actually those that prefer the TLM so the argument doesn’t hold water. While I don’t prefer the TLM, I’d like to see more Indults allowed for those who do. What then must my motive be? I think there’s a tad bit of a martyr complex here. Those who enter into debates on this forum over this issue do so because of rad-Trad theories expressed, not because ofTraditionalist beliefs. The innocent bystander theory doesn’t really apply here. I’d say that if you are tired of the debating, don’t start one! 👍
 
40.png
katolik:
Msgr. Camille Perl’s response:
Code:
 ... we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.
In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but** illicit** i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass” and our response was:
“1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.
His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:
“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.
… It is true that he (JPII) has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this (TLM) Mass
We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.
With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary
Whew! I was all ready to accept NOTA BENE’s proclamation that it was a service and not really a Mass.
Since my sole intent is to “***participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion” ***I’m in good standing. Besides, my wife entered from Prot sect into the SSPX. So, it pleases her. Yes, I know. The SSPX are actually “proselytizing” other religions, and it’s a neanderthal practice. But, you gotta respect differing “cultures”. Their culture believes in conversion…maybe they’ll finally evolve into dialoging in a more enlightened fashion.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
No, we’ve been asked by our Bishop, Joseph Pepe, not to support it in any way, by attending or by giving money. NOW, when I visit my family in Dallas, I might attend the Indult that’s held at the Carmelite chapel, but that depends on circumstance…I’m basing my judgement thus far on postings from the advocates of the SSPX Mass on these threads, fair, since we’re told :by their fruit you shall know them."
I don’t blame a bishop opposed to the indult for keeping anyone from even visiting the SSPX Churches.
  1. He loses money if people don’t attend the NOM under his diocese.
  2. If people start developing an affection for the TLM, he’ll have to institute the pope’s “Generous application” of the TLM.
    Since he has not done so to this point, and the SSPX is a thriving, growing parish, he has to convince all to never attend a TLM…SSPX or otherwise.
    If he hates the TLM, it’s a no-win, and his actions are coherent with his “charity”. Gotta love a “charitable” episcopate.
BTW:
Coming Attractions of the "Normative"
Lay sermons permitted, Vatican tells Swiss bishops. Proposals by Swiss bishops to allow lay theologians to give sermons and Protestants to receive Communion have met with the approval of the Curia in Rome, Bishop Amédée Grab, president of the Swiss bishops’ conference, said this week.
The Swiss church is having to cope with a shortage of priests and in an effort to deal with the crisis its bishops’ conference has come up with controversial plans to make greater use of the laity serving as pastoral assistants. The Swiss bishops’ conference has now declared that the assistants (who hold university degrees in theology) are to be allowed to preach during Mass and baptise whenever a priest was not available. The bishops, who announced to journalists following their return from their ad limina visit to Rome that they have secured Curial backing for their plans, have also secured the necessary permission for the Protestant partner in a mixed marriage to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church. (I’m going to figure out the difference in worthiness between a married prot, and a single one…someday!) The general secretary of the Swiss bishops’ conference, Agnell Rickenmann, said that the two declarations were partly a response to the shortage of priests in Switzerland, but also reflected the Swiss Church’s “independence”. He said: “In Switzerland we have a 30-year tradition of theologically trained lay people active in the Church.”
 
Nota Bene:
The SSPX is a cancer to the Catholic Church:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM

Consider leaving that schismatic (at least) group and coming Home to the Catholic Church.
The problem of the SSPX is a serious one. And it is one that I pray is resolved soon with the Society submitting to the Holy Father. But the SSPX is most definately not a cancer to the Catholic Church.

Roger Cardinal Mahoney is a cancer to the Catholic Church.
Bernard Cardinal Law is a cancer to the Catholic Church.
William Cardinal Keeler is a cancer to the Catholic Church.
Walter Cardinal Kasper is a cancer to the Catholic Church.
Godfried Cardinal Danneels is a cancer to the Catholic Church.
Bishop Paul Loverde is a cancer to the Catholic Church.

I could probably go on and on. And I’m sure many other here could too.

St. Charles Borromeo, pray for our bishops!

God bless,
James
 
To my Brothers and Sisters in Christ: I’m taking off for two weeks to visit my family in Dallas. I think it will be good for me to stay off the site for at least that amount of time, because I’m finding that I’m getting cranked up and angry most of the time when I get done with posting/reading posts. I want to apologize and ask forgiveness of anyone that I have hurt or offended. I certainly never set out to do so. I love the Church and the Pope and my fellow Catholics (all of them). I guess I just get a little overexcited sometimes.
 
To my Brothers and Sisters in Christ: I’m taking off for two weeks to visit my family in Dallas. I think it will be good for me to stay off the site for at least that amount of time, because I’m finding that I’m getting cranked up and angry most of the time when I get done with posting/reading posts. I want to apologize and ask forgiveness of anyone that I have hurt or offended. I certainly never set out to do so. I love the Church and the Pope and my fellow Catholics (all of them). I guess I just get a little overexcited sometimes. See you in two weeks or a little latter. May Christ hold you all close within His Most Sacred Heart.
 
40.png
TNT:
40.png
katolik:
Msgr. Camille Perl’s response:
… we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.
In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass” and our response was:
“1. In the strict sense **you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.”
His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:
“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. **If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.****”
… It is true that he (JPII) has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this (TLM) Mass
We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.
With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary

Whew! I was all ready to accept NOTA BENE’s proclamation that it was a service and not really a Mass.
Since my sole intent is to “***participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion” ***I’m in good standing. Besides, my wife entered from Prot sect into the SSPX. So, it pleases her. Yes, I know. The SSPX are actually “proselytizing” other religions, and it’s a neanderthal practice. But, you gotta respect differing “cultures”. Their culture believes in conversion…maybe they’ll finally evolve into dialoging in a more enlightened fashion.
Ah but you are wrong.

As has been point out on this forum many times in the past, which katolik seems to ignore, is the fact that this letter from Msgr. Perl is a private communication to a single individual and we do not have the original letter that this individual wrote to e Msgr. Perl so we do not know the circumstances involved.

This letter in no way grants a right to all Catholics to attend SSPX Masses, a fact that Msgr. Perl has stated in a follow up letter when it came to his attention that this letter was making the rounds on the internet.

This is one of the issue I have with the rad-Trad crowd. When they arguements are refuted they continue to bring them up as if they have never heard anything against them. They are intentionally misleading the faithful.
 
40.png
TNT:
I don’t blame a bishop opposed to the indult for keeping anyone from even visiting the SSPX Churches.
  1. He loses money if people don’t attend the NOM under his
I stopped reading here because if you are so wrong on this one then the rest must be at least as off, if not more.

The bishop does not just “make money” off the Mass. First, the parish keeps most of the money for any Masses, they have to pass a certain portion on to the diocese.

An Indult Mass would be just like any orther Mass are regards to the collections.

To say that the bishop would lose money if he offered an Indult is just a joke.

The Bishop of Rochester, NY, is one of the most “progressive” bishops in America and he even offers the Indult. Every Sunday and every Holy Day there is an Indult Mass in the city of Rochester.

Attempting to make this a “money” issue is very disingenuous and disrespectful to the Church.
 
This letter in no way grants a right to all Catholics to attend SSPX Masses, a fact that Msgr. Perl has stated in a follow up letter when it came to his attention that this letter was making the rounds on the internet.
Where may I find a copy of this letter?

Indeed, to whom is the letter quoted above addressed? This seems an important question. It repeats the advice given earlier to a private individual; so if the repeated advice is for public consumption, it seems logical to assume that the advice is good for others as well, unless Msgr. Perl has explicitly indicated that the contrary is true.

It seems that much of this hand-wringing could be avoided by an explicit statement from a competent authority (the C.D.F.?) as to whether assisting at an S.S.P.X. Mass is sinful, and whether it fulfils the Sunday obligation? Has such a statement been requested?

–Paul
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
But by calling it a heresy, you have just, yourself, uttered heresy, unless the Pope himself is a heretic. I’m not mad or angry or even frustrated, I’m pointing out that logically to call the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as ordered (set up or governed) by the Holy Father a heresy IS heresy. So which is it: Are the NO Mass and the other Rites permitted by the Holy See heretical or not? If you SAY their heretical, you set yourelf against the one who alone holds the power to bind and loose.
What follows is what I am saying that the church is entered a period of confusion and and will find the truth someday because it has lost it’s way for the old deception that all men can obtain the Kingdom of heaven no matter what faith they believe.
Christ’s Sacrafice was sufficient for all men But only through his grace will they obtain Heaven. This is the difference between pro multis and pro omnibus.
As for Heresy what is to say that this liturgical experminent, this abuse of the documents of Vatican 2 cannot be denounced by a future Pontiff. 36 years is not to long a time in Church history. The changes in the Church in areas of faith and Dogma have been shadowed and obscured as never before. Confusion is abundant is it not. I offer the following
Code:
 Although it is true that God alone knows, it is also true
that He has given each of us an intellect with which to
reason. And not one scintilla of evidence or proof of the
validity of the changed, mutilated “form” has been thus far
advanced to oppose and counterbalance the mountain of still
unrefuted evidence that it is invalid. Finally, in all
honesty, since the “new words” are so patently contrary to the
words of Christ as found in Scripture, in 2000 years of
liturgical usage and in the solemnly defined Form; and since
the “new words” likewise delete a profound mystery (the
Mystical Body) so intimately bound up with and expressed in
the essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice - HOW COULD THEY
CONCEIVABLY constitute the valid Form, and how, indeed, could
the Innovators and their accomplices escape “the wrath of
Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul,”
invoked by St. Pius V on anyone who would ever have the
audacity to change the Roman Missal or the Holy Mass, let
alone tamper with its very heart and essence, the Canon and
Consecration?
“Take away the Mass: take away the Church” (tolle missam,
tolle ecclesiam) has ever been the program of the Ancient
Enemy. As more and more clearly we recognize that the MASS is
the heart at which Christ’s present-day crucifiers aim, we
should likewise realize that the Heart of the solution is
MARY. In the midst of the present almost UNIVERSAL APOSTASY
foretold by Pope St. Pius X, the key to our perseverance
in the days ahead is the Ever Virgin MARY and in our living in
absolute consecration to her Immaculate Heart. Thus, finally,
my supplication is to her, our “sole refuge” and our last and
“final weapon!” REGNET JESUS PER REGNUM MARIAE!
Code:
                               Rev.  Lawrence S. Brey  
                               February 19, 1969  
                               Ash Wednesday
Fogny
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I stopped reading here because if you are so wrong on this one then the rest must be at least as off, if not more.

The bishop does not just “make money” off the Mass. First, the parish keeps most of the money for any Masses, they have to pass a certain portion on to the diocese.

An Indult Mass would be just like any orther Mass in regards to the collections.
UNLESS you don’t have one! And, people go off to the SSPX.

To say that the bishop would lose money if he offered an Indult is just a joke.
**I NEVER implied losing $ by ALLOWING the Indult. Read my post again and show me otherwise, please. It’s losing $ by NOT having it and people flock to an SSPX. To prevent this, the bishop admonishes to stay away from the SSPX, so a need for an Indult does not become pressing.
It’s a fact by your own admission above that all parishes contribute to the diocese…usually 10-15%
**
The Bishop of Rochester, NY, is one of the most “progressive” bishops in America and he even offers the Indult. Every Sunday and every Holy Day there is an Indult Mass in the city of Rochester
Smart man. Keeps the $ out of the SSPX. And the body count maximized. That’s a practical, and charitable bishop. BTW: Many of the MOST progressive bishops allow the Indult, because they take “diversity” at face value…for all.
Attempting to make this a “money” issue is very disingenuous and disrespectful to the Church.
**Actually, it’s just plain practical…unless a bishop is bent on prohibiting the Indult…at any expense. It has nothing to do with “The Church”, otherwise the CHURCH would have an indult in every diocese that desires one. It’s Bishop-by-bishop. Some respect the Faithful and use charity, some demand “my will be done” regardless of the Pontiff’s encyclical.

**
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Ah but you are wrong.

This letter in no way grants a right to all Catholics to attend SSPX Masses, a fact that Msgr. Perl has stated in a follow up letter when it came to his attention that this letter was making the rounds on the internet.
.
Where did I say “RIGHT” ?
You even pasted my quote:
Here it is:
". If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."
If something is not a sin, then by definition, it is not evil. Period.
Unless you think that practicing an evil is NOT a sin… Even you wouldn’t hold to that.
I’m not exercising a “RIGHT”, but only a tolerance or permission, for the permitted purpose.
BTW:
This part of his statement is universal, not just to one person, YES, another, NO. It applies to anyone who holds the permitted purpose.
 
40.png
pgoings:
Where may I find a copy of this letter?

Indeed, to whom is the letter quoted above addressed? This seems an important question. It repeats the advice given earlier to a private individual; so if the repeated advice is for public consumption, it seems logical to assume that the advice is good for others as well, unless Msgr. Perl has explicitly indicated that the contrary is true.

It seems that much of this hand-wringing could be avoided by an explicit statement from a competent authority (the C.D.F.?) as to whether assisting at an S.S.P.X. Mass is sinful, and whether it fulfils the Sunday obligation? Has such a statement been requested?

–Paul
Private correspondences between a person in the Church, in this case Msgr. Camille Perl to a single individual are just for that individual in the specific circumstances involved.

I find it funny that the response of Msgr. Perl has been posted all over the internet and in magizines while the letter that generated this response has yet to make an appearance.

I would also note that the response was abbreviated.

Here is the link to the letter from Msgr. Perl where he states, “Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us.

Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses
 
TNT said:
**Actually, it’s just plain practical…unless a bishop is bent on prohibiting the Indult…at any expense. It has nothing to do with “The Church”, otherwise the CHURCH would have an indult in every diocese that desires one. It’s Bishop-by-bishop. Some respect the Faithful and use charity, some demand “my will be done” regardless of the Pontiff’s encyclical.

**

Hmmm, “the CHURCH would have an indult in every diocese that desires one.”

I believe that this is what we have. The Church does have an Indult in every diocese that desires one. As it is the bishop who makes this decision.

I understand that those who do not have a TLM but want one might be upset, but maybe the bishop has decided that one can not be supported. If it can be supported then I think it falls on those who want it to show the bishop this.
 
40.png
TNT:
Where did I say “RIGHT” ?
You even pasted my quote:
Here it is:
". If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."
If something is not a sin, then by definition, it is not evil. Period.
Unless you think that practicing an evil is NOT a sin… Even you wouldn’t hold to that.
I’m not exercising a “RIGHT”, but only a tolerance or permission, for the permitted purpose.
BTW:
This part of his statement is universal, not just to one person, YES, another, NO. It applies to anyone who holds the permitted purpose.
So then the your in the quote is you?

You wrote the letter that Msgr. Perl is responding to?

The line you quote, “If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”

The your in that sentence is the individual that Msgr. Perl was responding to. An individual in a certain circumstance that we do not know. This letter does not apply to everyone, just to that one individual in a certain circumstance.

It is not a blanket statement to everyone.
 
40.png
James0235:
The problem of the SSPX is a serious one. And it is one that I pray is resolved soon with the Society submitting to the Holy Father. But the SSPX is most definately not a cancer to the Catholic Church.

Roger Cardinal Mahoney is a cancer to the Catholic Church.
Bernard Cardinal Law is a cancer to the Catholic Church.
William Cardinal Keeler is a cancer to the Catholic Church.
Walter Cardinal Kasper is a cancer to the Catholic Church.
Godfried Cardinal Danneels is a cancer to the Catholic Church.
Bishop Paul Loverde is a cancer to the Catholic Church.

I could probably go on and on. And I’m sure many other here could too.

St. Charles Borromeo, pray for our bishops!

God bless,
James
It’s remarkable how you can defend a septic group like the SSPX while passing judgement 5 cardinals and a bishop of the Church.

Yup, I titled it correctly: Arrogance & Hypocrisy of Traditionalists.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
So then the your in the quote is you?

You wrote the letter that Msgr. Perl is responding to?
If I admit it, will you keep it to yourself?

The line you quote, “If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”

The your in that sentence is the individual that Msgr. Perl was responding to. An individual in a certain circumstance that we do not know. This letter does not apply to everyone, just to that one individual in a certain circumstance.

It is not a blanket statement to everyone.
Ok, then:
“If your intention (but no one else’s) is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin (only for you, and no one else…they would sin having the very same simple devotion).”
Of this is logical to you, then I quit. There’s more logic in the cages of the zoo.
 
Yep, we’re intolerant/sexist towards women too!

Pope Gelasius, in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops
of Lucania, condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his
letter to the bishop of Tusculum:

`Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.’ We too
have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated
constitution Etsi pastoralis, section 6, number 21."

Pope Benedict XIV, Allatae sunt,

July 26, 1755
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top