Calling all traditional-minded Catholics, please refute this film!

  • Thread starter Thread starter JSmitty2005
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JSmitty2005

Guest
Okay guys, I just watched a video put together by traditionalists that I found disturbing. I want to remain loyal to the current Magisterium, but the video seems to make some good points. I hope they’re wrong in their conclusion, though. I’m just getting into this traditionalist stuff, so maybe this video raises points that are easily refuted, but I’m not sure. Can anyone out there watch it and tell me why they’re wrong? I’d really appreciate it, thanks!

Here’s the link to my blog where you can watch it: click here.
 
Without even watching the film I can tell you that it probably tells its story from a very one-sided position, using as many scare tactics as possible, while lacing it with half-truths and distortions.

How can I know this? Because I have never viewed or read or heard any form of media bent on trashing someone or something that didn’t. Think Fahrenheit 911 and you’ll understand what I mean. 😉

Who are you going to trust? Christ who promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church or a group of malcontents bent on destroying the faith of ordinary Catholics?
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Okay guys, I just watched a video put together by traditionalists that I found disturbing. I want to remain loyal to the current Magisterium, but the video seems to make some good points. I hope they’re wrong in their conclusion, though. I’m just getting into this traditionalist stuff, so maybe this video raises points that are easily refuted, but I’m not sure. Can anyone out there watch it and tell me why they’re wrong? I’d really appreciate it, thanks!

Here’s the link to my blog where you can watch it: click here.
I’m sorry, I can’t see the visual part of it. Would you be able to help us to see the video? I can hear the sound.

Thank you!
 
I only watched a few minutes

I could tell form the opening sequence where they were going and the 60 minutes type editing turned me off.

Looks like a typical “it was better in the good old days” lament

“Once the church was united, but now it is a house divided” :eek:

Are the filmmakers trying to suggest that was never any dissention or conflict until recent years?

History is full of splits, divisions, schisms, apostasies, heresies, and reform movements

If things were so unified in the past then why are there Protestants? Why is there an Eastern Church?

Is the modern music terrible? Sure, it can be. But remember that newfangled Gregorian music came along centuries after the Church was already in operation. And I bet you dollars to donuts that the original Mass wasn’t in Latin either.
 
40.png
GoLatin:
I’m sorry, I can’t see the visual part of it. Would you be able to help us to see the video? I can hear the sound.

Thank you!
I’m not sure what to tell you. Do you have RealPlayer? If not, you might have to download it. HERE
 
40.png
steveandersen:
I only watched a few minutes
Please watch the entire thing before passing judgement, it doesn’t help me any if all you do is make general statements.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Please watch the entire thing before passing judgement, it doesn’t help me any if all you do is make general statements.
you’re right I should :o

I will try
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Okay guys, I just watched a video put together by traditionalists that I found disturbing. I want to remain loyal to the current Magisterium, but the video seems to make some good points. I hope they’re wrong in their conclusion, though. I’m just getting into this traditionalist stuff, so maybe this video raises points that are easily refuted, but I’m not sure. Can anyone out there watch it and tell me why they’re wrong? I’d really appreciate it, thanks!

Here’s the link to my blog where you can watch it: click here.
I’m having difficulty downloading it completely; maybe you could just briefly describe what it is that “disturbs” you about it and we could go from there.

Thanks,
Brenda
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
I’m not sure what to tell you. Do you have RealPlayer? If not, you might have to download it. HERE
When I bring up the page on your blog, I see something that says “real”, on it. I assume that this is RealPlayer. But like I said before, I cannot see the visual part of it.

Also, I had to click on the link in your signature to get to your blog. The link in the main body of the message did not work.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Here’s the link to my blog where you can watch it: click here.
I probably should have clarified this, but the video doesn’t start on its own, you have to click the play button (triangular) in order to get it to play.
 
This video presents some of the worst liturgical abuses you can imagine and implies that they are ubiquitous. It also claims that changes in the sacraments have rendered them invalid – which sounds like some sort of heresy to me, since to claim this is to assert that the Holy Spirit will not protect and preserve the Church. Or that God has withdrawn His protection. But Christ said that the gates of Hell shall not prevail.

😦
 
Speaking of the “Mystery of Faith” (“Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again”), the narrator says that this is more a statement of the obvious, than of a mystery.

Speaking as a former atheist, I can tell you that Christ’s identity, nature, and Resurrection are NOT obvious to everyone. If they were, the world would be a very different place.
 
40.png
5-Decades-a-Day:
This video presents some of the worst liturgical abuses you can imagine and implies that they are ubiquitous. It also claims that changes in the sacraments have rendered them invalid – which sounds like some sort of heresy to me, since to claim this is to assert that the Holy Spirit will not protect and preserve the Church. Or that God has withdrawn His protection. But Christ said that the gates of Hell shall not prevail.

😦
Thank you for giving the overall view of the video for those of us who cannot download it.

Even though there are those who abuse the Sacraments and fail to give reverence to Our Lord in so doing, this does not invalidate the Sacraments per se, as a whole, nor the Church. It only makes their sin obvious, our hearts sorrowful, and our minds and spirits inclined to pray, fast and intercede for the Sorrowful Hearts of Jesus and Mary. :gopray2:
 
I found the vidio very interesting. some of the points it makes are right on. however, they seem to blame that all on vatican II which is what so much harrasy is commited in the name of. it fails to mention, though, that vatican II never called to do any of the things that are going on in this vidio. People have made some poor judgements and done some bad things. it’s a sign to me, that the end is near. but watch out for people who are this concertative. they, in my opinion, will be just as much as a problem when the great schisim and purging of our church happens. and it will happen some day. and it will be yucky. there will be the wacky liberals on one side, wanting gay marrage, women priests, watered down truths about the sacragments and so on. on the other side, there will be insain concervatitves accusing anyone who wants anything to be different at all as being a luther like haratic. and stuck in the middle are the poor catholics who just want to worship Jesus and be in His Church and seek Truth. that’s my prediction. and the people who made this vidio will probably be part of the problem.

but I do see their point in the lack of reverance and respect for the real presance of Jesus. that Irks me beyond words.
 
Smitty,
Just because someone asserts that something is so you believe it off the cuff? C’mon!

I’ve seen enough. The fact is that the junk they are decrying is the very same trash that all of us hate. BUT! They make it sound like it’s everywhere and it’s NOT. Does it go on at your church? Doesn’t happen at mine!

Yes, there are some folks out there who have lost their minds (and maybe their souls) by some of the foolishness that they’ve done, but they are small in number compared to the parishes where things are being done right.

I have had so many discussions with one of my friends who is all hung up in that stuff, but like I told him, those abuses are not nearly as widespread as these people make them out to be.

Furthermore, do you want the Mass back in Latin all over the world? Why? Yeah, it’s nice and all, but I grew up with it and frankly I am more deeply moved by the Mass In English. If I want a Latin Mass, I know here to go to find one but it’s just not that important to me. The problems they have with the sacraments, again are not as wide spread as they allege. Do you have a problem with taking communion in your hand? Why? That’s the way the apostles took it as well as the early church. From the CA Library
How to receive Communion
Communion may be received either in the hand or on the tongue. Around the year A.D. 390, Cyril of Jerusalem indicated that the early Church practiced Communion in the hand when he instructed his audience: “Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having hallowed thy palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, ‘Amen.’ Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone gave thee gold dust, wouldst thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss?” (Catechetical Lectures 23:22).
The Congregation of the Sacraments and Divine Worship permitted the U.S. Bishops’ Conference to authorize reception of Communion in the hand on July 25, 1977, provided the local bishop implements the practice in his diocese. Once implemented, the option to receive Communion either in the hand or on the tongue always remains with the communicant. No priest, deacon, acolyte, or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may refuse a communicant Communion on the tongue. Likewise, once the local bishop has introduced Communion in the hand, none may refuse a communicant Communion in the hand (except when Communion is being given by intinction, in which case it must be given on the tongue).

Finally, after you have received Communion, it is appropriate to stay after Mass and thank Jesus for coming to you in the Holy Eucharist. The Church mandates that: “The faithful are to be recommended not to omit to make a proper thanksgiving after Communion. They may do this during the celebration with a period of silence, with a hymn, psalm or other song of praise, or also after the celebration, if possible by staying behind to pray for a suitable time” (Inaestimabile Donum 17).

After receiving Jesus into one’s own body and being drawn more closely into his, how could one do any less? Do I want to go back to the Pre Vat II way of doing things? No thank you.
Pax tecum,

BTW, if you are so faithful a Catholic, why does your webpage tell your astrological sign since the church discourages such things?
 
The original Mass was NOT in Latin. The Church has always had the Mass in the vernacular of the day. Originally it was in Greek. At the time of the Apostles, Greek was the language spoken just about everywhere (everywhere the Church had spread to by that time anyways), somewhat like English is today. When this begane to change, the Church changed the Mass to Latin because Latin was a language that was spoken just about everywhere. Why would the Church not simply have Italian Masses in Italy and Greek in Greece and so forth? One reason is very likely that the Church wanted to be universal, having the Mass done the same way everywhere. Another reason was likely that the Church wanted to protect the integrity of the Liturgy, something which was much easier done (especially in the early centuries) by having it in one common, same everywhere language.

Latin remained common until around the 16 to 1700s, and so it remained as the language of the Mass. By the 1960s, there really was no universal language like Latin used to be (English was not as prominent then as it is now throughout the world). On top of this, the Church was in far more places, including Asia. Asia was not a place where Latin was particularly well known, or English. One reason that the Church decided to make the Mass in the vernacular of each particular region because there was no single language that would do that job. In fact, it is entirely possible that She would have changed the Mass to the vernacular during Vatican I 100 years earlier if not for that council having had to be unexpectedly closed.

In any case, the Mass was NOT always in Latin, and even when it was there were plenty of other rites out there using different languages. Anyone who argues that the Mass is invalid because it is not in Latin simply has no grasp of history or the nature of the Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top