Can one question liturgical decisions without being “disobedient?”

[GemmaRose]

My point was that Pope Paul VI was a weak Pope that allowed the the Novus Ordo mess into the Church. A strong Pope like Pius IX and Puis X would have told Bugnini to get lost and completely rejected the brand new revolution. Pope Paul VI also had chances to stop all the abuses but did not.

As far as Pope John Paul II, I would honestly state that he was a blockhead :bigyikes: :bigyikes: when it came to liturgy. Liturgy was his biggest weakness. This was because Pope John Paul II was really a philosopher and not a theologian.

I think I have had a better grasp of liturgy than he did. Men like Michael Davies have wrote volumes about the problems in liturgy and Pope JPII did nothing. He would make paper attempts by putting out instructions, but they were ignored because he attached no penalties and disciplined no one in decades.

I really, REALLY, hate to burst the deluded bubble in which you apparently reside, but to think that the Lord would choose Pope John Paul II as Pope if he were a “blockhead” in any regard is either blasphemous, heretical, sacriligious, or a little bit of all three.

Outside of the depth of his faith and his brilliance, when you were in his presence, it felt very, very close to how it feels to be in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. I don’t know how to adequately describe it, but it left absolutely no doubt that not only was this man chosen by God to lead His Church, but was imbued with God’s Spirit and lived and acted in God’s favor.

 

[GemmaRose]

It could just be that God sent these weak men to the Church as a chastisement. When God is mad at the Church, he sends bad clergy.
God allowed these weak papacies as a punishment for the sins of the Church.

And you call yourself a Catholic?

Or are we to believe that the wisdom you have amassed in your scant 25 years is greater than our recent Popes??

 

[saint_rafael]

Well that’s a new on on me. What exactly is a conservative neo-Catholics ? Could I venture a guess that that is someone who doesn’t believe John Paul the Great was a Blockhead?

I have a hard time following your posts but to be honest they do tend to reek a bit of a condescening attitude seasoned with a wee bit of arrogance. I tell you this not to take a dig at you ( I am sometimes guilty of both myself) but to let you know why it is that people may soon quit responding to your posts.

I did not want to come across a such, but I detest when people pull out the Sede card as if any criticism automatically is proof that traditional Catholics believe there is no Pope and Church.

The Neo-Catholic group is real. There are about three serious groups within the Church. The Sedevacantists are not serious and are a fringe.

The first group is the liberals and modernists. These people want to completely revolutionize the Church and liberalize it. These are the heretics who have done the most harm to the Church.

Then there are the traditionalists who know that something is wrong. The Church has fallen away frm the traditions and doctrine. We want to reform the Church because the liberal errors has done great damage.

The conservative neo-Catholics are the vast majority of conservative Catholics who are not aware of the crisis. They are conservative but accept the novelties and everything that has gone on since VII. They just follow everything and accept everything that has gone on as good and holy. They accept the mistakes of the recent Popes and bishops.

These groups are all around the world and internet. Most Catholics are not aware of the traditional movement and are isolated what is Novus Ordo land or the neo-Catholic world.

 

[saint_rafael]

I really, REALLY, hate to burst the deluded bubble in which you apparently reside, but to think that the Lord would choose Pope John Paul II as Pope if he were a “blockhead” in any regard is either blasphemous, heretical, sacriligious, or a little bit of all three.

Outside of the depth of his faith and his brilliance, when you were in his presence, it felt very, very close to how it feels to be in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. I don’t know how to adequately describe it, but it left absolutely no doubt that not only was this man chosen by God to lead His Church, but was imbued with God’s Spirit and lived and acted in God’s favor.

I was not aware that Pope John Paul II was a god and therefore outside of criticism. He was a man and Catholics are free to challenge the governing decisions of Popes. It is not heretical or sacraligious because he is the vicar of Christ and not Christ himself. He was a normal man with free will.

Pope John Paul II was extremely smart and a very holy man. The problem was that I believe he had a weakness in the area of liturgy. He was not as competent in that area. His holiness is not a guarantee that he was a good administrator. Pope John Paul II was a weak administrator and governing Pope.

I over exaggerate to make a point. It is a style of humor that not everyone gets, but I hope that it brings them closer to an examination of the point.

 

[LRThunder]

Can we discuss this without labeling each other different sorts of names?

 

[ethelzguy]

Can we discuss this without labeling each other different sorts of names?

Love to, but as a practical matter, would you agree that probably 90% of the “questioning of liturgical decisions” come from a fairly well-defined group? And, those who don’t get into “questioning of liturgical decisions” seem to get branded as another?

How do we address the topic while avoiding that issue?

In the past week at CAF alone, I’ve been called, ignorant, lazy, liberal, modernist, blindly obedient, and reprehensible.

I’m all ears.

TBL

 

[EasterJoy]

I was not aware that Pope John Paul II was a god and therefore outside of criticism. He was a man and Catholics are free to challenge the governing decisions of Popes. It is not heretical or sacraligious because he is the vicar of Christ and not Christ himself. He was a normal man with free will.

Pope John Paul II was extremely smart and a very holy man. The problem was that I believe he had a weakness in the area of liturgy. He was not as competent in that area. His holiness is not a guarantee that he was a good administrator. Pope John Paul II was a weak administrator and governing Pope.

I over exaggerate to make a point. It is a style of humor that not everyone gets, but I hope that it brings them closer to an examination of the point.

You believe he had a weakness in the area of liturgy. Really? The Pope who brought back the TLM was a little shaky on that front, was he?

You’re 25 years old, and you’re an expert on what it takes to be a good Pope, so much so that you feel qualified to evaluate the competencies of a man who was elevated to bishop at 38, made a cardinal at 47, and elevated to Pope at 58…who was, in fact, Pope for longer than you have been alive. Do I need to point out that not every Pope has had the crowds shouting “Magnus” at his funeral? The man who was to become Benedict XVI was not rolling his eyes at that. Neither should you.

It is immature and uncharitable to toss off such wild accusations as you have against anyone, let alone someone with such a distinguished academic record as John Paul II, not to mention one with such a lifelong and heroic record of service of the Church. It will not work to pull stunts like that and then try to pass off your flippant and ill-considered judgements as “humor” when you are confronted with how ridiculous they are. You don’t get away with bad-mouthing the revered dead by adding “ha, ha”! Do you really call yourself a traditional Catholic?

There is a long distance between respectful analysis and what you have been doing. Please go and learn it. And by the way: before you start criticizing the Vatican again, at least learn how to spell “sacrilegious”.

Take that point and examine it.

 

[saint_rafael]

You explain to me how someone who understood liturgy can have paganism in the Mass as he traveled around the world? A Pope who should have revoked Communion in the hand, who should have made a serious attempt to end lay members of Holy Conmunion, and who should never have allowed altar girls but did in 1994.

Here’s some pictures of his incompetence in liturgy:

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A027rcOffertoryGift.htm

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A125rcJPIIDancingNewDelhi.htm

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A018rcBarebstdReads%20Epistle.htm

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A015rcIndianChief.htm

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A022rcExitsTeepee.htm

Many traditional Catholics had problems with his pontificate. I am not the only one. I am not sure if you have met any traditional Catholics or are familiar with the traditional movement, but Pope John Paul II had many critics and most traditionalists consider his pontificate a disaster.

 

[NicPais83]

The first group is the liberals and modernists. These people want to completely revolutionize the Church and liberalize it. These are the heretics who have done the most harm to the Church.

Then there are the traditionalists who know that something is wrong. The Church has fallen away frm the traditions and doctrine. We want to reform the Church because the liberal errors has done great damage.

The conservative neo-Catholics are the vast majority of conservative Catholics who are not aware of the crisis. They are conservative but accept the novelties and everything that has gone on since VII. They just follow everything and accept everything that has gone on as good and holy. They accept the mistakes of the recent Popes and bishops.

These groups are all around the world and internet. Most Catholics are not aware of the traditional movement and are isolated what is Novus Ordo land or the neo-Catholic world.

Again, I am sorry to speak up, but I feel that I need to make a comment. I think that it starts to hit dangerous territory when we start labelling each other as different groups. As it is, I know that I personally do not fit into any of your groupings. I am not a modernist, nor am I a liberal, nor am I a traditionalist or a conservative neo-Catholic.

In terms of a crisis, I think you’re overstating by a lot. We do live in a time period where many priests and bishops disregard tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. But, it is a bold statement to make that one of our beloved Popes has erred in tending Christ’s flock. I am just as old as you are, and I can say that while I think I know a lot about tradition, liturgy, and Church dogma, I would never declare that those whose authority it is to teach us (the Pope and the Clergy who are in Communion with him and speak actual Catholic teaching) are at fault. Pride goes before the fall.

The crisis is not in the Magisterium (spelling?). Christ promised never to abandon the Church, and it would be a cruel God to abandon us and give us badly formed Clergy just to teach us a lesson, which would call to question the validity of our Sacraments. What is going on instead is that we live in a relativistic time, and this concept has affected some of the Clergy; they have the same free will we laity do to accept or reject God. The answer isn’t in dividing ourselves into traditionalists, liberals, conservatives, etc. The answer is buckling down and, to borrow from JPII, to do as we ought! That is submit to the Holy Spirit, love each other, and accept all that God has revealed to us through Holy Mother Church…the same Church that existed before and after the Second Vatican Council.

 

[estesbob]

You explain to me how someone who understood liturgy can have paganism in the Mass as he traveled around the world? A Pope who should have revoked Communion in the hand, who should have made a serious attempt to end lay members of Holy Conmunion, and who should never have allowed altar girls but did in 1994.

Here’s some pictures of his incompetence in liturgy:

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A027rcOffertoryGift.htm

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A125rcJPIIDancingNewDelhi.htm

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A018rcBarebstdReads%20Epistle.htm

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A015rcIndianChief.htm

traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A022rcExitsTeepee.htm

Many traditional Catholics had problems with his pontificate. I am not the only one. I am not sure if you have met any traditional Catholics or are familiar with the traditional movement, but Pope John Paul II had many critics and most traditionalists consider his pontificate a disaster.

Those were great examples of how John Paul the Great was able tto reac out to Catholics of all cultures. Thanks for posting them When are you going to post the picutres that show his is a liturgical knukclehead?

 

[saint_rafael]

Those were great examples of how John Paul the Great was able tto reac out to Catholics of all cultures. Thanks for posting them When are you going to post the picutres that show his is a liturgical knukclehead?

If you are serious you have obviously are very confused and basically have lost anything connected to the sacred or supernatural.

That sort of paganism should make Catholics vomit. It is an abomination that the holy sacrafice of the Mass should be profaned with such disrespect for the glorification of God. It is not a circus where immodesty and irreverence takes place during what should serious worship of God. No Pope before this time would have allowed such nonsense.

 

[GemmaRose]

I did not want to come across a such, but I detest when people pull out the Sede card as if any criticism automatically is proof that traditional Catholics believe there is no Pope and Church.

The Neo-Catholic group is real. There are about three serious groups within the Church. The Sedevacantists are not serious and are a fringe.

The first group is the liberals and modernists. These people want to completely revolutionize the Church and liberalize it. These are the heretics who have done the most harm to the Church.
Your claims - your burden of proof.

1. Define the Liberals.
2. How do Liberals want to revolutionize the Church and liberalize it.
3. Define the Modernists.
4. How do Modernists want to revolutionize the Church and liberalize it.

Then there are the traditionalists who know that something is wrong. The Church has fallen away frm the traditions and doctrine. We want to reform the Church because the liberal errors has done great damage.

1. Itemize the liberal errors.
2. Name the traditions and doctrine the Church has fallen away from.

The conservative neo-Catholics are the vast majority of conservative Catholics who are not aware of the crisis. They are conservative but accept the novelties and everything that has gone on since VII. They just follow everything and accept everything that has gone on as good and holy. They accept the mistakes of the recent Popes and bishops.

1. Define “novelties.”
2. Itemize the “mistakes” of recent Popes and bishops.
3. Explain how obedience to Popes and Bishops is a bad thing.

These groups are all around the world and internet. Most Catholics are not aware of the traditional movement and are isolated what is Novus Ordo land or the neo-Catholic world.
I must have lost count.

You claim “[t]here are about three serious groups within the Church.” You then go one to list (a) Neo-Catholics, (b) liberals, (c) modernists, (d) traditionalists, (e) conservative Neo-Catholics, (f) conservatives. That’s 6 groups that I count.

1. Does any one of the above 6 categories contain true Catholics… in your opinion?
2. According to you, in which category do you place those who prefer the N.O.?

Additionally, what are your overall qualifications to identify “mistakes” of Bishops and Popes and to classify your fellow Catholics into categories.

 

[GemmaRose]

You believe he had a weakness in the area of liturgy. Really? The Pope who brought back the TLM was a little shaky on that front, was he?

You’re 25 years old, and you’re an expert on what it takes to be a good Pope, so much so that you feel qualified to evaluate the competencies of a man who was elevated to bishop at 38, made a cardinal at 47, and elevated to Pope at 58…who was, in fact, Pope for longer than you have been alive. Do I need to point out that not every Pope has had the crowds shouting “Magnus” at his funeral? The man who was to become Benedict XVI was not rolling his eyes at that. Neither should you.

It is immature and uncharitable to toss off such wild accusations as you have against anyone, let alone someone with such a distinguished academic record as John Paul II, not to mention one with such a lifelong and heroic record of service of the Church. It will not work to pull stunts like that and then try to pass off your flippant and ill-considered judgements as “humor” when you are confronted with how ridiculous they are. You don’t get away with bad-mouthing the revered dead by adding “ha, ha”! Do you really call yourself a traditional Catholic?

There is a long distance between respectful analysis and what you have been doing. Please go and learn it. And by the way: before you start criticizing the Vatican again, at least learn how to spell “sacrilegious”.

Take that point and examine it.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[GemmaRose]

Those were great examples of how John Paul the Great was able tto reac out to Catholics of all cultures. Thanks for posting them When are you going to post the picutres that show his is a liturgical knukclehead?

 

[estesbob]

If you are serious you have obviously are very confused and basically have lost anything connected to the sacred or supernatural.

Diagreeing with you does not make one confused.

That sort of paganism should make Catholics vomit. It is an abomination that the holy sacrafice of the Mass should be profaned with such disrespect for the glorification of God. It is not a circus where immodesty and irreverence takes place during what should serious worship of God. No Pope before this time would have allowed such nonsense.

I didnt see any Paganism. You have placed style substance.

 

[EasterJoy]

If you are serious you have obviously are very confused and basically have lost anything connected to the sacred or supernatural.

That sort of paganism should make Catholics vomit. It is an abomination that the holy sacrafice of the Mass should be profaned with such disrespect for the glorification of God. It is not a circus where immodesty and irreverence takes place during what should serious worship of God. No Pope before this time would have allowed such nonsense.

I find your rhetoric far more nauseating than I do the idea that a European could actually understand that there are different standards of modesty in Papua New Guinea than in other parts of the world. I hope you get a chance to see the art collections at the Vatican some day. You’ll see a bare nipple or two, let me warn you. I can understand how living in the Golden State could make someone into a reactionary with regard to sexual mores, but give me a break.

Another by the way: After you learn how to spell “sacrilegious”, go learn the meaning of the word “pagan”. You seem to think that the two are interchangeable. Don’t get me started on your concept of the word “respect.”

 

[saint_rafael]

I didnt see any Paganism. You have placed style substance.

Hindu dancing during Mass is not paganism?

Pope John Paul II putting on the costumes of African voodoo witch doctors is not paganism?

If Catholics cannot even notice the abuses with their own eyes, it is proof the most Catholics have basically lost the traditional Catholic faith.
Those liturgies look like a new religion.

We have a major apostasy in the Church.

 

[saint_rafael]

I find your rhetoric far more nauseating than I do the idea that a European could actually understand that there are different standards of modesty in Papua New Guinea than in other parts of the world. I hope you get a chance to see the art collections at the Vatican some day. You’ll see a bare nipple or two, let me warn you. I can understand how living in the Golden State could make someone into a reactionary with regard to sexual mores, but give me a break.

Of coarse their culture is different, but that is why Christianity is supposed to be spread around the world.

Western culture is superior and it is this culture that Christianized the pagans of the world.
Catholics who hold the truth are supposed to instruct the ignorant. It is a matter of truth that the Church has norms for dress that have to be enforced worldwide.

It is objectively immodest for anyone to be dressed with revealing clothes.
The dignity of man and out reverence for God is why Christians dress up to worship God.

That is why women wore dresses and men wore suits to Mass in what was traditional Catholicism.

 

[EasterJoy]

Hindu dancing during Mass is not paganism?

Pope John Paul II putting on the costumes of African voodoo witch doctors is not paganism?

If Catholics cannot even notice the abuses with their own eyes, it is proof the most Catholics have basically lost the traditional Catholic faith.
Those liturgies look like a new religion.

We have a major apostasy in the Church.

Hey, Chicken Little, have you ever had a Christmas tree in your house? Mistletoe? Gone trick-or-treating? Bobbed for apples? Do you have any idea why All Saints Day was moved from spring to November 1? Why the Mexican Days of the Dead aren’t in August any more?

Have you written a letter to Proctor and Gamble yet? Isn’t that chick on the justice building with the scales and the blindfold some kind of a pagan thing, too? Do you get freaked out by that pyramid with the eye on the dollar bill?

Lions and tigers and bears, OH MY!!

 

[saint_rafael]

Hey, Chicken Little, have you ever had a Christmas tree in your house? Mistletoe? Gone trick-or-treating? Bobbed for apples? Do you have any idea why All Saints Day was moved from spring to November 1? Why the Mexican Days of the Dead aren’t in August any more?

Have you written a letter to Proctor and Gamble yet? Isn’t that chick on the justice building with the scales and the blindfold some kind of a pagan thing, too? Do you get freaked out by that pyramid with the eye on the dollar bill?

Lions and tigers and bears, OH MY!!

That is the reason why the Church moved some of her feasts, in order to KILL the pagan holidays. The Church wanted to replace those pagan festivities and to Christianize culture. The Mass is the holy liturgy of the Church. It is a direct insult to God and a sin against the first commandment that the elements of false religions or paganism should eneter the sacred worship that has already been laid down in the rubrics.

The blessing in disguise is that it exposes the utter disaster that is the New Mass. The rubrics are so loose that these abomniations are allowed to happen.

The day will come when the Church will finally get rid of the New Mass and go back to the Mass of all time, the TLM as the rightful sole liturgy in the Church which will bring back the faith.