Bishop Banning Latin Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter MaryZ30
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProVobis said:
Sort of a Catch-22 here, no?

SSPXers seem to be some of the few who know what the EF is, but can’t ask for it. 😦
Click to expand...
thewanderer said:
If they don’t identify themselves with SSPX, there shouldn’t be a problem, no? Its possible to go to a SSPX chapel and not consider yourself a part of the order, or as though you ‘belong’ to it.
Click to expand...
There are two kinds of people.
  1. Those who attend mass at an SSPX chapel because they want the EF, but have nothing else to do with the SSPX. These are not considered SSPXers. They can certainly approach and ask for an EF in their diocese.
  2. Those who not only attend mass at an SSPX chapel, but challenge and question their bishops, refuse to receive any sacraments from other priests other than SSPX, defend the SSPX against the Holy See. That would be the group that alleges that the excommunications was invalid. Repeats what the SSPX teaches, such as the OF is not as holy and does not mediate as many graces. Refuses to use the CCC because the SSPX does not like it.
If someone known to the pastor to be of that ilk, he has every right to say no and close the discussion and the individual or group has no right of appeal. UE makes it very clear who can and who cannot ask for the EF. The first group certainly can ask for it. In fact, Group 1 has a very legitimate reason. It no longer wants to go to the SSPX for a mass that they diocese can provide. Group 2 has become spokes people for the SSPX. There is a big difference between the two.

If you want to ask, you must divorce yourself from the SSPX or any other group that is in conflict with the Holy See on this issue. If the SSPX becomes regularized, I’m sure that there are going to be some who will not want to come back this way. They will continue to do things their way. Those Catholics will not be able to ask for an EF from their bishop. Until the SSPX’s issues are settled, not Catholic that supports the SSPX and repeats what they say about the Church and the Ordinary Form can ask for the EF. If the pastor knows that you belong to such a group, he is free to turn you down.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
thewanderer said:
If they don’t identify themselves with SSPX, there shouldn’t be a problem, no? Its possible to go to a SSPX chapel and not consider yourself a part of the order, or as though you ‘belong’ to it.
Click to expand...
It’s possible, but realistically if you even drive by an FSSPX chapel, the bishop has sufficient reason to deny you the EF. Just saying.
 
JReducation said:
I’m remembering St. Maximilian Kolbe. When he was sent to Japan as the national superior of the Franciscans, he ordered the friars to celebrate the mass in Japanese. When questioned by the bishop, his answer was very simple. "The Friars are here to raise up Japanese Catholics, not to transplant European Catholicism to Japan.
Click to expand...
We’ll, Latin words are familar to English, Spanish, French, Portugese and Italian speaking people. They are not alien. That’s a lot of people. Further, we’re not talking about pagans, here ('though I think Bishops get surprised when they find out how little their flock know, nowadays).

Then there’s the matter of Latin Mass being the norm for x hundreds of years. It was dropped only recently.

But I do think there’s a pathetic strain in Western society, these days. The victim culture, coupled with an awesome sense of self-entitlement and also intellectual pride, in people who are in truth much less educated than their forefathers: *“Y’can’t tell me what to do!”. * “If I can’t understand every word … the Mass is directed at me!” These things will work against the old rite coming back.

But they’re no excuse not to try!
 
I’d stop, unless you understand what you are saying, it would be like chanting nonsense.
If you like it so much, get yourself a MP3 version of it and play it on your headphones.

Protesting is what Protestants do,
you’re Catholic so abide by what the Church says,
or move to Rome where they will do it in Latin.
 
Catholic_Prime said:
I’d stop, unless you understand what you are saying, it would be like chanting nonsense.
If you like it so much, get yourself a MP3 version of it and play it on your headphones.

Protesting is what Protestants do,
you’re Catholic so abide by what the Church says,
or move to Rome where they will do it in Latin.
Click to expand...
Those poor Italians in Rome that can’t understand their liturgy…

😃
 
Julia_Mae said:
Wow. We need “protection” because it’s possible we might not have something our own way because maybe, possibly, the Bishop just doesn’t like it?

Guess what? *That’s a perfectly valid reason because he is the Bishop. * He is not answering to you or subject to your desires or mine.
Click to expand...
That is not in keeping with the mens of the Holy Father, and is a violation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.
After reading this thread, I think the EF should be done away with altogether.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this a bannable offense?
 
wasserfall said:
That is not in keeping with the mens of the Holy Father, and is a violation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.

Isn’t this a bannable offense?
Click to expand...
She’s not saying the Form is bad, but rather the proponents. The logic being if the Form goes away, the attitude the proponents have will as well.

No different than a segment of un-banned people who post in this section when directing comments at the Ordinary Form, really.
 
Melchior said:
She’s not saying the Form is bad, but rather the proponents. The logic being if the Form goes away, the attitude the proponents have will as well.

No different than a segment of un-banned people who post in this section when directing comments at the Ordinary Form, really.
Click to expand...
There’s no logic to that thinking. I mean, if we got rid of the NO, would that mean that suddenly everybody would be gung-ho about the TLM? It defies logic, really.

There was a time when the TLM had pretty much “gone away”, but there were proponents of it still. They sure didn’t go away! They’re also, in my opinion, the reason why we have it now.
 
The_Curt_Jester said:
There’s no logic to that thinking. I mean, if we got rid of the NO, would that mean that suddenly everybody would be gung-ho about the TLM? It defies logic, really.

There was a time when the TLM had pretty much “gone away”, but there were proponents of it still. They sure didn’t go away! They’re also, in my opinion, the reason why we have it now.
Click to expand...
Hey, I never said it was logical 😃
 
Julia_Mae said:
After reading this thread, I think the EF should be done away with altogether.
Click to expand...
I wonder.

Not about the EF specifically, but having two forms of the Mass.

If this thread is any indication, having two forms is a major source of disunity and division, one which I believe works against our Lord’s prayer for unity in John 17, at least at the present time. At a minimum, it does seem to cause many individuals a great loss of peace.

Fortunately, the majority of Catholics in the pew are never exposed to these discussions and few are even aware that any of this is going on. My parish is too busy praying the rosary and going to adoration 😃

In the long run, I trust that God is in charge of his Church and that he will lead the Holy Father and Bishops to right decisions. But I do wonder.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
I wonder.

Not about the EF specifically, but having two forms of the Mass.

If this thread is any indication, having two forms is a major source of disunity and division, one which I believe works against our Lord’s prayer for unity in John 17, at least at the present time. At a minimum, it does seem to cause many individuals a great loss of peace.

Fortunately, the majority of Catholics in the pew are never exposed to these discussions and few are even aware that any of this is going on. My parish is too busy praying the rosary and going to adoration 😃

In the long run, I trust that God is in charge of his Church and that he will lead the Holy Father and Bishops to right decisions. But I do wonder.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
In a way I know what you mean, but there is no feasible way to remove either of them because of the strong attatchment different people have to the different forms. 🤷
 
thewanderer said:
In a way I know what you mean, but there is no feasible way to remove either of them because of the strong attatchment different people have to the different forms. 🤷
Click to expand...
I’m not attached. That’s just me personally.

The Eucharist is the source and summit of my faith. As long as Jesus is present on the altar, everything else is icing on the cake. Don’t get me wrong… a well done and reverent Mass is breathtaking. Its one of the reasons I became an altar server, because I think altar servers add dignity and reverence to the Mass.

But for me it is the Eucharist.

What language the priest uses or what direction the priest faces or what type of altar he uses to to get there is a secondary issue. Franciscan, Dominican, Latin, Divine Liturgy, Mass, versus populum orientum pontificum whatever…

I’ve stood in the sanctuary gathered around the altar with Cistercian Monks, have been to the Rite of Ordination of priests at a cathedral, and have seen Orthodox and Eastern Divine Liturgies, and it always boils down to one thing for me… Jesus.

To me, our Church is like a giant buffet, and every tray has Jesus in it. 😃

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
If this thread is any indication, having two forms is a major source of disunity and division, one which I believe works against our Lord’s prayer for unity in John 17, at least at the present time.
Click to expand...
Our Lord’s prayer for unity is efficacious. It’s a Protestant belief that the Prayer is but a wish or something to be sought after or obtained. The True Church is and always will be absolutely one. Further, no human will can either break or vitiate her unity (cf. Pope Leo XIII’s SATIS COGNITUM and Pope Pius XI’s MORTALIUM ANIMOS).
 
TimothyH said:
I wonder.

Not about the EF specifically, but having two forms of the Mass.

If this thread is any indication, having two forms is a major source of disunity and division, one which I believe works against our Lord’s prayer for unity in John 17, at least at the present time. At a minimum, it does seem to cause many individuals a great loss of peace.
Click to expand...
I think this is Pope Benedict’s goal – not in the sense that he wishes to attempt this during his pontificate. He knows he can’t, but rather he wishes to lay the groundwork such that at some future time (perhaps a couple hundred years), there will be one form of the Roman Rite.

Currently, the traditional mass cannot be suppressed practically. It was tried, and it didn’t work.

On the other hand, suppressing the new mass and requiring all priests to celebrate only the traditional mass is also a practical impossibility.

So for now, we have both.
 
1AugustSon7 said:
Our Lord’s prayer for unity is efficacious. It’s a Protestant belief that the Prayer is but a wish or something to be sought after or obtained. The True Church is and always will be absolutely one. Further, no human will can either break or vitiate her unity (cf. Pope Leo XIII’s SATIS COGNITUM and Pope Pius XI’s MORTALIUM ANIMOS).
Click to expand...
This seems to contradict the idea that the Body of Christ has two lungs and is fractured. And that various groups are in “partial Communion,” as if the body of Christ has prosthetics and what not. Just saying, it’s very confusing.

I am with you, and with Leo XIII and Pius XI. The Body of Christ is one. It’s a mark of the Church. The Orthodox are outside. The Protestants are outside. The Orthodox are closer, but they are not in the Church.

That part is clear. How the later teachings fit in with this, I am not mentally flexible enough to figure out, so I stick with what I know. I mean this honestly: the new teachings seem like contradictions, they seem motivated by false ecumenism, but at the same time the Church is indefectible so their must be a way to reconcile it.
 
ProVobis said:
By similar logic, maybe the vernacular should be done away with altogether since on the other forum no one seems to agree to the correct translation.
Click to expand...
But it’s not the job of people not appointed by the Pope or his designee to decide what a proper translation is, and no two parishes are going to use different translations. So I don’t think the logic is that similar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top