Arrogance & Hypocrisy of "Traditionalists"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nota_Bene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Fogny:
I must say that I will only attend the TLM as the Novus Order has changed the words of consecration instituted by Christ himself for the Mass.
…To change tradition is one thing, to change Dogma and sacred verse is entirely a different matter.

In my opinion this is wrong.

Fogny
Click to expand...
Ah, but it gets better.
Read this short commentary/investigation on the JPII encyclical;
*Ecclesia de Eucharistia

*In it the Bible text itself gets changed to match the NOM consecration.
Anyone care to explain what is going on??
 
In the end:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Church’s ultimate trial
Click to expand...
675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many Believers.[573] The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth[574] will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems (world social peace, cure to poverty, disease, etc) at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in
the flesh.[575]
Click to expand...
(Be ever watchful, as it is a religoius Deception
Watch for whoever is glorifying man. There one will find the likely sprout of the AntiChrist.)
Click to expand...
This whole thread, and others like it in the past are a sure testimony to one of my Concise Definition Series:
**
Ecumenism:** The destruction of Internal Unity in the false hope of obtaining External Unity.
 
TNT said:
Must we wait til the last original SSPX dies, or can we begin now, with those born into SSPX?
Click to expand...
Good question. I’d imagine that since nobody can be born into schism that if they started out in the SSPX Chapels then they probably aren’t schismatics according to the CCC. The 50 year rule is more of the status of the entire SSPX, Orthodox, etc. Get it? It’s a more formal “this church in its entirety can no longer be called a schism”. That would just be my guess at it though.
Click to expand...
 
I present this question, if a church is not in communion with Rome, and none of the Eastren Orthdox churches are, then what are they?
Click to expand...
This is what the Church says:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says,

1399 “The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.”

838 “Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

844 “Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.”

Orientalium Ecclesiarum:
  1. … “Eastern Christians who are in fact separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, if they ask of their own accord and have the right dispositions, may be admitted to the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick. Further, Catholics may ask for these same sacraments from those non-Catholic ministers whose churches possess valid sacraments, as often as necessity or a genuine spiritual benefit recommends such a course and access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible.”
 
40.png
TNT:
Ah, but it gets better.
Read this short commentary/investigation on the JPII encyclical;
Ecclesia de Eucharistia

In it the Bible text itself gets changed to match the NOM consecration.
Anyone care to explain what is going on??
Click to expand...
Well the fact of two different versions is interesting, as one can only hypothisize what is going on. Chapter 16 of the encyclical does have the coorect wording of Mt 26:28 atleast in the english version of the 104 footnoted version.
Maybe Cardinal Ratzinger proofread it after the first publishing and corrected it, wanting continuity.
But my point is these are very sacred words and to change from pro multis to pro omnibus I believe is a significant error which could not have taken place if the mass had not changed to the vernacular.
Now we can argue all day about the difference of meaning of all vs many, but the crux of my argument is that Christ himself set the form of the words of consecration and was set down for all generations by his apostles as divine inspiration and absolute truth.
So there cannot be two rights, one is false and the other truth.

Fogny
 
Fogny said:
**HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.**FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY SHALL BE SHED UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.
This is from the Canon of the Mass said for over 1900 years in the Church.
Click to expand...

Do you know of any document that is 1900 years old that has these words?

The reason I ask is that most of first Christians spoke Greek and Aramaic. It was my understanding that most of the first Masses were said in Aramaic.
 
Bear, I hear what you are saying, and I could not think of a more polite term to use yesterday when I was reading some of those posts-some so mean towards a group of people whose only desire to pray and worhship as they have always dont for centuries. They are not “inventing a new religion” as the Protestants have done, and in some cases-we did after Vatican II as we have totally abandoned tried and true church doctrine and threw it out the window and then added a New Mass to boot. I understand some of the changes, but I have yet to ever come to grips with the Novus Ordo Mass nor have my friends and family-at least those that still go to mass after the 70’s they just stopped and now pray 15 decades of the rosary at home instead of going to the Novus Ordo Mass as they are to infirmed to drive so far to the TLM.

I have discussions with my uncle who goes to SSPX and we argue about it, but after we are done arguing, I take the literature he gives me from the Angelus and other traditional information, and I read it on the train going to work each Monday-and I have to say it makes a lot of sense what they are trying to do and why they want to worship as always-and about some of precepts for invalidating the sacrements, changing the words of consecration and all, I dont know and I want to believe I am doing the right thing-but it made no sense to make the changes to the Mass that they did-unless the motive was to be more Protestant.

Additionally-the way he explained it to me was if what if tomorrow the President of the US came in and said -we are going to do away with the emancipation proclamation, the statue of liberty, forget about the 4th of July and all of the great holidays and traditions that make us Americans-and start celebrating like the Eskimos or Canadians celebrate-you would be like-hey, this is what makes us what we are-how dare you take that away from us George Bush- and on top of that there are reasons why we celebrate like this as it has been PASSED DOWN from our FOUNDING FATHERS. The case is exactly the same for the traditional catholic.
40.png
bear06:
I wouldn’t use the word hate but I would use the word concern. I’ll tell you the two main reasons why Anglican, Muslims, etc. don’t concern me as much as SSPX. #1 Anglican, Muslims, etc. aren’t trying to say that they are espousing the Catholic faith. I have as equal amount of concern for those who are for women priests, etc. as I do for SSPX and I might just have a tad bit more because #2 the SSPX should know better!!! Face it, the Devil couldn’t get these folks by getting them to go the liberal way so he found another way to do it. This is his new game and they can’t see it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I’ve been asked to jump in here and address the issue of schism. The question, as I see it, is whether or not the SSPX and the Orthodox are in schism. According to the current definitions that the Catholic Church is using, the answer with regard to the Orthodox is that the individuals are not in schism because, canonically, the definition of schism is:
Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Click to expand...
This definition is found in canon 751. Since the Orthodox that are currently alive were, for the most part, never in submission to the Pope they cannot have a “withdrawal of submission” from the pope and, therefore, they are not canonically in schism.

In the common parlance, schism means “separation” and we are, indeed, separated – but this is not how the Church uses this term. In fact, this term is no longer applied to the Orthodox Church because it does not apply to the vast majority of its members. Remember that the Church does not use the plebian definitions of words but, rather, a very precise meaning.

With regard to the SSPX – this is a more complex issue. The SSPX is, specifically, a clerical society and, as a consequence, anything that applies to them applies only to the clergy *except *that individuals are always affected by their clergy. The SSPX has, in fact, withdrawn submission to the Supreme Pontiff. They are not in communion with him, and refused to obey his orders or to enter into communion with the bishops in communion with the pope. This meets the canonical definition of schism. Lay people who subscribe fully to the philosophies and teachings of the SSPX with regard to submission to the pope may, in fact, join in the schism.

The question was raised: if they are in schism, why is it treated as an “internal matter” rather than through the normal ecumenical bounds. There are two reasons for this. First, the Church is a solicitous mother who wants to call back her errant children. She still sees the SSPX as those who are wandering Catholics and is working to bring them back. The second reason is that the SSPX calls itself Catholic. Therefore, the Church honors this position.

I trust this helps to clarify things…

Deacon Ed
 
A small part of an article from an Author with great insight who I saw referenced somewhere on another string. It is what the author states here that I think creates some of the arrogance-which is really just disgust and not arrogance.

Part One: **Modern Trappings Have Rocked the Church **
  • Editor’s Note: We are proud to introduce in this issue a new contributing writer to The DAILY CATHOLIC. He will be a strong addition to the respected cadre of authors presently contributing material to this publication. So many of the post-conciliar bishops today refer to those clinging to the true Roman Catholic traditions that were in vogue for 2000 years prior to the reforms of Vatican II as ‘fossils,’ ‘dinosaurs,’ ‘old folks who will die off soon.’ We beg to differ and offer as proof the youthful wisdom and enthusiasm of the younger generation in the Traditional Insights of Mario Derksen who exemplifies the thinking of many more young men and women today who realize the new thinking of the post-conciliar church does not add up to true Catholic teaching. Thus they long for those traditions so tried and true. His insight shows great promise, optimism and hope for the future of Holy Mother Church.
One really doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to discover the liberal and modernist slant in many Catholic parishes throughout the United States, especially in parishes that have been built fairly recently. In the old days, one would walk into a Catholic Church and be amazed at the splendor of the beauty present there – the Tabernacle, the altar, the statues, the candles, and so forth. All around the holiness of the temple was indicated through the use of stained glass windows and an atmosphere of total silence. Every step a person took could be heard throughout the entire building. In short, it was a given that the Temple of** God **should be kept reverently silent and untainted, and that it should be the most beautiful edifice in the entire city – and, indeed, it was.

Let’s compare this unforgettable experience with late 20th century Catholic “churches” – hardly worthy of the name. We enter what is often merely a “multi-purpose building,” and what we see is clearly the replica of a conference hall. What used to be the sanctuary has now, as the modernists would say, “evolved” into a sterile stage. If you thought you could kneel down in a pew to adore the Blessed Sacrament, you are immediately woken up to reality because you realize that, at best, you could get comfortable in a chair and look at all the great banners that are attached to the walls of the building, often only repeating typically Protestant slogans. Kneelers are long history, and if you look closely, there’s nothing you could actually kneel before. You won’t find a Tabernacle, at least not a recognizable one, and definitely not one in the center of the building. Instead, you’ll see a huge “Presider’s Chair” and a small pitiful table that now serves as the, well, what some older folks would rigidly call the "altar."

But the worst is yet to come. As your eyes stream with tears when they must behold the sacrilege that has been done to the most sacred space of Catholics, you notice something completely foreign and alien to the spirit of Catholic worship. Left and right to the center, where one would normally expect the statues of Mary and Joseph or the Patron Saint of the Church, there are now two white screens on which slides are shown during Mass – sorry, during the “celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy” – in order to “enhance the presence of Christ” [sic]. As if Christ weren’t already present enough in the Tabernacle! But wait – what Tabernacle anyway? In the center of the multi-purpose building we now see a Crucifix (if even that), but the Protestant version, of course: instead of a tortured Jesus hanging on the Cross, we now have a resurrected Jesus hovering in front of it somehow. You wonder what has happened to the Bride of Christ! At this point, we remember the scarily exact warnings of the Venerable** Pope Pius XII** in 1947: “One would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings…” (Encyclical Mediator Dei, #62).
 
Deacon Ed:
The second reason is that the SSPX calls itself Catholic. Therefore, the Church honors this position.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
Thank you for the information. We should all show the same amount of respect and refrain from name-calling.
 
I must agree with Fogny regarding the Eucharistic Prayers, and also the Liturgies of St. Basil & St. John Chrysostom echo the same:

“TAKE, EAT; THIS IS MY BODY WHICH IS BROKEN FOR YOU FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS”.

"Like wise the chalice + after supper saying,“DRINK OF THIS, ALL OF YOU, THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (COVENANT) WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS”.

I am tired of discussions with the New Age Catholics, whose eyes and ears are closed and veiled, within Churches that are hollow. Let them follow their blinded Bishops such as Cardinal Mahony, who are disobedient to Rome’s instructions, and openly admits it and boasts about it, and who hide molesters of our children, for I will do all to protect my 7 grandchildren from these wolves.

By their fruit they will be know, so how is the fruit since Vatican II ?

Repent and pray for the Church, the Shepherds and sheep.

james
 
40.png
Jakub:
I must agree with Fogny regarding the Eucharistic Prayers, and also the Liturgies of St. Basil & St. John Chrysostom echo the same:

“TAKE, EAT; THIS IS MY BODY WHICH IS BROKEN FOR YOU FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS”.

"Like wise the chalice + after supper saying,“DRINK OF THIS, ALL OF YOU, THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (COVENANT) WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS”.

I am tired of discussions with the New Age Catholics, whose eyes and ears are closed and veiled, within Churches that are hollow. Let them follow their blinded Bishops such as Cardinal Mahony, who are disobedient to Rome’s instructions, and openly admits it and boasts about it, and who hide molesters of our children, for I will do all to protect my 7 grandchildren from these wolves.

By their fruit they will be know, so how is the fruit since Vatican II ?

Repent and pray for the Church, the Shepherds and sheep.

james
Click to expand...
This has been discussed already and refuted. There are links to articles.

Maybe someone who is not as tired http://www.rocksmyfaceoff.net/forum/images/smiles/banghead.gif repeatedly addressing the same arguements over and over again will repost the links or maybe even just link to the thread where this has been dealt with.

Even the Bible does not agree on the words.

Mat 26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Luk 22:20 In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

We also do not know the exact words that Jesus used.

This is just a bunch of hooey used to be disobedient and an attempt to disrupt the authority of the Church.
 
40.png
BulldogCath:
Bear, I hear what you are saying, and I could not think of a more polite term to use yesterday when I was reading some of those posts-some so mean towards a group of people whose only desire to pray and worhship as they have always dont for centuries. They are not “inventing a new religion” as the Protestants have done, and in some cases-we did after Vatican II as we have totally abandoned tried and true church doctrine and threw it out the window and then added a New Mass to boot. I understand some of the changes, but I have yet to ever come to grips with the Novus Ordo Mass nor have my friends and family-at least those that still go to mass after the 70’s they just stopped and now pray 15 decades of the rosary at home instead of going to the Novus Ordo Mass as they are to infirmed to drive so far to the TLM.

I have discussions with my uncle who goes to SSPX and we argue about it, but after we are done arguing, I take the literature he gives me from the Angelus and other traditional information, and I read it on the train going to work each Monday-and I have to say it makes a lot of sense what they are trying to do and why they want to worship as always-and about some of precepts for invalidating the sacrements, changing the words of consecration and all, I dont know and I want to believe I am doing the right thing-but it made no sense to make the changes to the Mass that they did-unless the motive was to be more Protestant.

Additionally-the way he explained it to me was if what if tomorrow the President of the US came in and said -we are going to do away with the emancipation proclamation, the statue of liberty, forget about the 4th of July and all of the great holidays and traditions that make us Americans-and start celebrating like the Eskimos or Canadians celebrate-you would be like-hey, this is what makes us what we are-how dare you take that away from us George Bush- and on top of that there are reasons why we celebrate like this as it has been PASSED DOWN from our FOUNDING FATHERS. The case is exactly the same for the traditional catholic.
Click to expand...
Look, I sympathize with Traditional Catholics…right up unitl the point that they become Rad Trads who disparge the Mass of Paul VI (no one here, at least in my recollection, does that to the Indult, for that matter, they don’t mock the TLM…can the Rad Trads say the same about how they treat the NO Mass?), and deny the authority of the Council and the Pope to legislate for the Church. Even then, I try to be patient with them. But they go on and on about Bugninni and the Protestants (an overt LIE), that poor old blind Cardinal, ad orientum, etc., and they are contemptuous, rude and arrogant about it, at least on these threads. I don’t know what sparked the original posters motive in starting this thread, but I’m sure something did. If you don’t like the Mass of Paul VI, attend the Indult. If one isn’t available, petition the Bishop. If he doesn’t respond or won’t grant it, go over his head (you have the right in Canon Law). Start a local Indult Society. If there are abuses in the Mass of Paul VI, report them. If nothing is done, report that, higher up the chain. Just stop badgering us. We’re only going to respond in the same way (ie, “SSPX is in schism, material aid to schism, Council good, abuses bad,” blah, blah, blah). We don’t have any power, or at least, we have just as much as you do. As I said, I sympathize, to a degree. If a Anglican Use parish existed in my diocese, I’d get myself there in short order. Cranmer, heretic and schismatic though he may have been, still wrote beautiful prose.
 
Look, I sympathize with Traditional Catholics…right up unitl the point that they become Rad Trads who disparge the Mass of Paul VI (no one here, at least in my recollection, does that to the Indult, for that matter, they don’t mock the TLM…can the Rad Trads say the same about how they treat the NO Mass?), and deny the authority of the Council and the Pope to legislate for the Church. Even then, I try to be patient with them. But they go on and on about Bugninni and the Protestants (an overt LIE), that poor old blind Cardinal, ad orientum, etc., and they are contemptuous, rude and arrogant about it, at least on these threads. I don’t know what sparked the original posters motive in starting this thread, but I’m sure something did. If you don’t like the Mass of Paul VI, attend the Indult. If one isn’t available, petition the Bishop. If he doesn’t respond or won’t grant it, go over his head (you have the right in Canon Law). Start a local Indult Society. If there are abuses in the Mass of Paul VI, report them. If nothing is done, report that, higher up the chain. Just stop badgering us. We’re only going to respond in the same way (ie, “SSPX is in schism, material aid to schism, Council good, abuses bad,” blah, blah, blah). We don’t have any power, or at least, we have just as much as you do. As I said, I sympathize, to a degree. If a Anglican Use parish existed in my diocese, I’d get myself there in short order. Cranmer, heretic and schismatic though he may have been, still wrote beautiful prose.
Click to expand...
:amen: **With a standing ovation!:clapping: **
If any Traditionalist forgot to read my links, or have yet to get around to it, here they are again.

Concerning the validity of the Paul VI Mass:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=35146

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3400

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11161

And the schismatic status of SSPX:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=182
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
If a Anglican Use parish existed in my diocese, I’d get myself there in short order. Cranmer, heretic and schismatic though he may have been, still wrote beautiful prose.
Click to expand...
As a Catholic I would not even consider this.

Every person on this thread have already made up their minds. I realise there is a genuine split here and the Church knows it. that is why the Tridentine as a Indult exists, even though most Bishops do in no way encourage it. Thanks to FSSP and SPPX it will never disapear. There will always be a remnant selected out of grace.

Rev 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

Fogny
 
I refer the reader to check this Zenit file, which addresses this particular issue from the linguistic and scriptural point of view. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church has always taught the objective redemption of all as found in her liturgical rites: for our salvation and the salvation of all, that is on this day…(pro nostra omniumque salute pateretur, hoc est, hodie) is inserted into the Qui pridie on Holy Thursday.1 In addition to this text, the offertory prayer of the Chalice offers the Chalice with the express intention of being ‘for our salvation and that of the whole world’ (pro nostra et totius mundi salute). If these examples do not suffice to convince the inquirer to the truth that this is the constant teaching of the Church, perhaps the problem is not theological but attitudinal.

**1 **Missale Romanum editio princeps, pg. 238 Libreria Editrice Vatticana, Citta del Vaticano, 1998. Fr. Lasance, The New Roman Missal, pg 453.
 
40.png
Fogny:
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
If a Anglican Use parish existed in my diocese, I’d get myself there in short order. Cranmer, heretic and schismatic though he may have been, still wrote beautiful prose.
Click to expand...
As a Catholic I would not even consider this.

Every person on this thread have already made up their minds. I realise there is a genuine split here and the Church knows it. that is why the Tridentine as a Indult exists, even though most Bishops do in no way encourage it. Thanks to FSSP and SPPX it will never disapear. There will always be a remnant selected out of grace.

Rev 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

Fogny
Click to expand...
Just a point of clarification. Anglican Use parishes are fully Catholic. They use the Anglican Use Liturgy, which is the Anglican Liturgy after it has been reworked by the Catholic Church.

Again, Anglican Use parishes are fully Catholic an in communion with Rome and the local bishop.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
This has been discussed already and refuted. There are links to articles.

Maybe someone who is not as tired http://www.rocksmyfaceoff.net/forum/images/smiles/banghead.gif repeatedly addressing the same arguements over and over again will repost the links or maybe even just link to the thread where this has been dealt with.

Even the Bible does not agree on the words.

Mat 26:27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Luk 22:20 In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

We also do not know the exact words that Jesus used.

This is just a bunch of hooey used to be disobedient and an attempt to disrupt the authority of the Church.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. Your argument is flawed in a very specific way pro omnibus is infinite, pro multis is finite. Christ in instituting the new covenent no where uses the form of “all”.
This change spawns the heresies of indifferentism and rationalism. Both denounced by the Church in teaching and encyclicals by the Papacy. These heresies are all part of gnostiscism and all other non christian sects.
To make further point what better sacraficial form is there then Christ’s own which is perfect and pleasing to God. As a example of the possibility of right and wrong Cain vs Able.

I give you Pope Leo XIII on the subject

“To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.”

Fogny
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top