Clowns Clowns Clowns!!!!!!!!

[terillmorris]

I have a master’s degree and those that I talk to at the EF have at least a bachelor’s and some have degrees in theology. Your sample size is small because the number of trads can’t compare with the numbers who have been trained/conditioned in modernistic religious practices.

Where the heck did you get your master’s??? They ought to give you your money back. You dont even know that the rite of a particular Mass is a discipline (at least your statements dont reflect that). It is not a dogma it can be suppressed or changed by the Pope any time he wants. There was a time when there was no tridentine mass. The first Mass and subsequent Masses werent tridentine masses. It is a great holy Mass yes, but it can be revocked, changed or suppressed if the Vicar of Christ says so.

 

[terillmorris]

Even traditionalist Bob Sungenis agrees with me. People please stop being clowns by saying that the Traditional Latin Mass cannot be revocked. You sound like fools. Read Mr. Sungenis’ words. Pro Vobis listen PLEASE!!!

Question 21- Pope Paul VI Suppressed the Traditional Latin Mass?

Mr. Sungenis, in answering some of the questions posed to you, you said that the Novus Ordo can be imposed by the Pope. Do you also say that the Traditional Latin Mass can be also forbidden? I read an article from Catholic Family News (the link is oltyn.com/tridmass.htm ) that it was never forbidden and priests in good standing can’t be forced to say the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass by any bishop; Cardinal Stickler made this comment. Please clarify.

Sincerely,
Paul D.

R. Sungenis: Paul, the pope could suppress the traditional mass. If he can create the Novus Ordo he can certainly demand that the traditional mass be stopped. In fact, by the very fact that John Paul II asked nine of his top cardinals whether Paul VI had stopped the traditional mass and found out by an 8-1 margin that Paul VI had not stopped it means that John Paul II understood that Paul VI had the prerogative of stopping the traditional mass but didn’t choose to exercise it.

PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS!!! UNREAL!!!

 

[piouswoman]

Even traditionalist Bob Sungenis agrees with me.

Bob Sugenis!!! That is too much! I invite you to broaden your knowledge and read an opposing argument:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/legitimacy_of_quo_primum_today.htm

Surely, you will not be close-minded and read only the things which you wish to hear.

 

[stmaria]

Owned? What are you talking about? The Tridentine rite of Mass is not a dogma therefore the Pope can suppress or change it anytime he wants. I dont care what Pius V said.

We all know that the way Mass is celebrated is a discipine. However all Popes are equals. One is not over another. A Pope would only abrogate another Pope’s decree in very, very serious circumstances.
That is why the Traditional Mass has never been abrogated. It exists today just like it did 500 years ago, just like it did in 1962. Maybe, just maybe, one day you will realize that the Holy Spirit is at work here. HE is protecting the Traditional Mass. Bishops have tried for over 40 years to destroy it. They have often allowed it only once a month, in the worst locations, at the worst possible times, they have refused to advertized it in Church bulletins or in Catholic newspapers. Those that wish to go have to travel 40, 50, 60, 70, miles to attend and yet it lives.
The Holy Spirit is at work here. There is no other explanation.

 

[terillmorris]

We all know that the way Mass is celebrated is a discipine. However all Popes are equals. One is not over another. A Pope would only abrogate another Pope’s decree in very, very serious circumstances.
That is why the Traditional Mass has never been abrogated. It exists today just like it did 500 years ago, just like it did in 1962. Maybe, just maybe, one day you will realize that the Holy Spirit is at work here. HE is protecting the Traditional Mass. Bishops have tried for over 40 years to destroy it. They have often allowed it only once a month, in the worst locations, at the worst possible times, they have refused to advertized it in Church bulletins or in Catholic newspapers. Those that wish to go have to travel 40, 50, 60, 70, miles to attend and yet it lives.
The Holy Spirit is at work here. There is no other explanation.

Well you cant say “why a Pope would do something” sorry. He can revoke the Mass and he can do so just because “he said so.” If that is what he wants. I never said the Mass was revocked. I said and I am saying that it can be revocked. People (the clowns) erroneously state that the TLM can never be revocked. WRONG!!!

 

[terillmorris]

Bob Sugenis!!! That is too much! I invite you to broaden your knowledge and read an opposing argument:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/legitimacy_of_quo_primum_today.htm

Surely, you will not be close-minded and read only the things which you wish to hear./QUOTET
The article you posted simply deals with whether Paul VI supressed Pius V’s ruling. I never said Paul VI did. I am saying, since the rite of Mass is a discipline and Vatican I infallibly taught thaT the Pope is the supreme leader even in matters of discipline, that Paul VI or another Pope CAN do away with the TLM. I am urging the clowns to stop saying he cant.

 

[piouswoman]

Well you cant say “why a Pope would do something” sorry. **He can revoke the Mass and he can do so just because “he said so.” **If that is what he wants. I never said the Mass was revocked. I said and I am saying that it can be revocked. People (the clowns) erroneously state that the TLM can never be revocked. WRONG!!!

No, he cannot. You evidently didn’t thoroughly read the link I posted. Furthermore, it would help to show that you are mature and diplomatic by not referring to others whose views are opposed to yours as “clowns”. That is really high school stuff.

 

[kristie_m]

You forgot to look right there in your own back yard…the Novus Ordo…that’s where the clowns are:
youtube.com/watch?v=NsC4wRPybpA

I’m pretty sure this was not a Catholic Mass. I believe it was actually in an Episcopal church (not that it makes it better, but just for the record…)

 

[Volodymyr_988]

I hope we have more clowns:

[SIGN] We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are honourable, but we without honour.[/SIGN]

1 Corinthians 4:10

I’d like to see more Sts. Francis of Assisi, Benedict Joseph Labre, Anthony the Great, Genesius, etc…

And, I’d like to see more Brother Junipers, and the Russian Saints Basil, Procopius, and Xenia.

 

[MementoMori3283]

HE SPOKE WITH AUTHORITY, EX CATHEDRA.

I believe that is what the OP is stating. Pious V did not speak ex cathedra, thereby pronouncing dogma. This has been done on only three occasions, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and I am at a loss for the third.

Also, something that you may have overlooked in your zeal, is that when promulgating Quo Primum, Pious authoritatively states, “We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used.” And further down, " We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering** this **Missal…"

Furthermore, when read in context, His Holiness goes on to state, “and **this **present **Constitution **can never be revoked or modified…”

So, one can clearly see that His Holiness is not binding the faithful or his successors to the Tridentine Mass, but emphatically stating that the faithful will not be in error when celebrating the sacrifice of our Lord, Jesus Christ, in this Mass. Therefore, the Norvus Ordo, as well as the TLM, are both valid Masses.

A question, what was the Mass in the 850th year of our Lord?

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

To the poster above:

I am going to be brutally honest. The amazing lack of charity among some members in this forum, on both sides of various arguments such as this one, has confounded and horrified me. If I was a non-Catholic (or even non-Christian), the Catholic Church is the last place in which I would want to claim membership.

There are people who do not prefer the Pauline Mass and instead find reverence and awe in the language and ritual of the Tridentine Mass. I respect that, and I would not wish to try to pressure the person to attend a Pauline Mass if they did not freely choose to do so. On the other hand, I have already posted in the Irreverent Mass thread and given my parish as an example that yes, reverently celebrated Pauline Masses do exist. While petty disagreements occasionally occur between liturgical ministers (especially among the lectors and the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion), it is usually about what a person is wearing or how they didn’t enter the sacristy through the side door and instead entered by way of the sanctuary.

I do not deny that the Tridentine Mass is a valid, licit form of the Mass, and that it was never abrogated as per Trent. But if you would like my personal opinion, I do not necessarily believe that my attendance at a Mass said or sung in Latin, with the priest facing ad orientam versus Deum, is the only, true way I will deepen my personal relationship with Christ or experience the Sacrifice of the Cross. In fact, each time we come to the consecration at Mass, I allow myself to spiritually “travel” back to the night of the Last Supper and join Jesus and his disciples in the upper room. The eyes of faith, though they may be blinded by sin, see the Person of Christ in the priest as he says the words of consecration and elevates the Host and the chalice. In the case of my parish, he is facing versus populo and uttering the words of consecration in English, but the experience of awe and reverence is no different than what another person experiences at the same moment in the Tridentine Mass.

For people who prefer the Latin Mass, I share your view that there is a richness and beauty in that particular form which cannot be compared. I ask, though, that you don’t feel affronted that I am not “taking your side”; as another person has mentioned somewhere in this forum, the Pauline Mass has, in and of itself, a sanctity which cannot be denied by anyone. Why must we let this issue divide us? Both forms of the Mass are perfectly valid, licit, and the faithful may, in good conscience and with pure intentions, attend either one without incursion of penalty.

 

[childofmary1143]

You seem to be running a a little behind the curve kiddo,
It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.
(Pope Benedict XVI, , September 7, 2007)
Whether or not the TLM could be lawfully “revoked” is now an irrelevant question, since Pope Benedict has clearly stated what traditional folks knew all along.

Do please try to keep up.

DD

Attention OP:

Do try to refute this but if I see that you are going to ignore this very relevant and FACTUAL post then I know who is dealing from emotion and not from fact.

 

[BSHoop96]

To the poster above:

I am going to be brutally honest. The amazing lack of charity among some members in this forum, on both sides of various arguments such as this one, has confounded and horrified me. If I was a non-Catholic (or even non-Christian), the Catholic Church is the last place in which I would want to claim membership.

There are people who do not prefer the Pauline Mass and instead find reverence and awe in the language and ritual of the Tridentine Mass. I respect that, and I would not wish to try to pressure the person to attend a Pauline Mass if they did not freely choose to do so. On the other hand, I have already posted in the Irreverent Mass thread and given my parish as an example that yes, reverently celebrated Pauline Masses do exist. While petty disagreements occasionally occur between liturgical ministers (especially among the lectors and the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion), it is usually about what a person is wearing or how they didn’t enter the sacristy through the side door and instead entered by way of the sanctuary.

I do not deny that the Tridentine Mass is a valid, licit form of the Mass, and that it was never abrogated as per Trent. But if you would like my personal opinion, I do not necessarily believe that my attendance at a Mass said or sung in Latin, with the priest facing ad orientam versus Deum, is the only, true way I will deepen my personal relationship with Christ or experience the Sacrifice of the Cross. In fact, each time we come to the consecration at Mass, I allow myself to spiritually “travel” back to the night of the Last Supper and join Jesus and his disciples in the upper room. The eyes of faith, though they may be blinded by sin, see the Person of Christ in the priest as he says the words of consecration and elevates the Host and the chalice. In the case of my parish, he is facing versus populo and uttering the words of consecration in English, but the experience of awe and reverence is no different than what another person experiences at the same moment in the Tridentine Mass.

For people who prefer the Latin Mass, I share your view that there is a richness and beauty in that particular form which cannot be compared. I ask, though, that you don’t feel affronted that I am not “taking your side”; as another person has mentioned somewhere in this forum, the Pauline Mass has, in and of itself, a sanctity which cannot be denied by anyone. Why must we let this issue divide us? Both forms of the Mass are perfectly valid, licit, and the faithful may, in good conscience and with pure intentions, attend either one without incursion of penalty.

AMEN to that!!

We had some Latin during Lent and it was beautiful but I don’t think that just because Mass is spoken in the vernacular makes it less reverent than Latin. I do agree that some people took liberties with Vatican II and went farther than was actually intended. For instance, liturgical dance would make me scratch my teeth out! My parish is NO but very reverent and what I consider “traditional”. As far as I’m concerned, if “Rome” says its okay, then it’s okay.

And by the way, I read somewhere on a link in one of these forums that the “clown” mass wasn’t what it appeared. It was something about they actually were “clowns” from a circus that had been there…not people brought in and dressed up to be clowns and entertain. The earlier poster may have been right…they may not have been even Catholic…I’ve forgotten. So can we not use that anymore, please?

 

[Graing]

To be rather blunt I would suggest that a material number of those who label themselves as “traditionalists” lack the education and critical thinking ability to be uniform in their thought-making processes. Often times there are two standards – for themselves and everyone else.

While my sample size is admittedly small I would bet dollars to donuts that the typical self-described “traditionalist” has completed fewer years of formal education on average and has studied less about the faith than those they attack. Further, often times (as was done here) a question is answered not with facts or logic, but with emotion. Another indicator of the above…

This is hilarious. Terril’s posts are nothing BUT emotion in this thread. And of course if someone does not agree with you, they must be imbeciles that are lacking in education and the ability to think critically. This post made me sad.

I don’t understand all the labels being tossed around lately either. Does it make it easier for you to justify attacking someone in your own mind if you call them a “trad” or a “lib”? What would you call me? I consider myself fairly orthodox, traditional… yet I attend N.O. mass - oh the horror! Last I checked we were all Catholic and all looked to and obeyed the Church that Christ built for us. But if it will make you feel better to demean someone’s mental apptitude and set people in nice little bins for easy categorization and identification, best of luck to ya slugger.

 

[MementoMori3283]

Attention OP:

Do try to refute this but if I see that you are going to ignore this very relevant and FACTUAL post then I know who is dealing from emotion and not from fact.

*It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 *

If Pious V spoke ex cathedra, why would Blessed John XXIII need to promulgate the same and Benedict XVI declare it an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church?

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.
(Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, September 7, 2007)

or do you believe that neither Pope Benedict, nor Pope Paul VI nor JPII for that matter, hold or held the office of Pope and sit in the Chair of Peter as his successors?

 

[jmcrae]

Of course Pope Pius V meant what he said…and think about this, the modernists KNOW THIS TRUTH. He (Pope Pius V) didn’t hint, he didn’t suggest, he didn’t beat about the bush, HE SPOKE WITH AUTHORITY, EX CATHEDRA.

See here:
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/qprimum.htm

That was not an “ex cathedra” statement. No Pope can take authority away from subsequent Popes. The authority to set the form of the Mass belongs to the present, living Pope, and comes to him from Christ through Peter. This authority cannot be taken away from him by any of his predecessors.

Subsequent Popes can do the exact same thing that he did, and with the exact same Papal authority that he had - they can change the Mass around to suit the needs of their own generation, just as he changed the Mass around to suit the needs of his generation.

 

[Spiller]

I have a master’s degree and those that I talk to at the EF have at least a bachelor’s and some have degrees in theology. Your sample size is small because the number of trads can’t compare with the numbers who have been trained/conditioned in modernistic religious practices.

Your sample size sounds even smaller than my own…

 

[Spiller]

To the poster above:

I am going to be brutally honest. The amazing lack of charity among some members in this forum, on both sides of various arguments such as this one, has confounded and horrified me. If I was a non-Catholic (or even non-Christian), the Catholic Church is the last place in which I would want to claim membership.

I agree.

There are people who do not prefer the Pauline Mass and instead find reverence and awe in the language and ritual of the Tridentine Mass. I respect that, and I would not wish to try to pressure the person to attend a Pauline Mass if they did not freely choose to do so. On the other hand, I have already posted in the Irreverent Mass thread and given my parish as an example that yes, reverently celebrated Pauline Masses do exist. While petty disagreements occasionally occur between liturgical ministers (especially among the lectors and the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion), it is usually about what a person is wearing or how they didn’t enter the sacristy through the side door and instead entered by way of the sanctuary.

I appreciate both Masses. Non-issue.

I do not deny that the Tridentine Mass is a valid, licit form of the Mass, and that it was never abrogated as per Trent. But if you would like my personal opinion, I do not necessarily believe that my attendance at a Mass said or sung in Latin, with the priest facing ad orientam versus Deum, is the only, true way I will deepen my personal relationship with Christ or experience the Sacrifice of the Cross. In fact, each time we come to the consecration at Mass, I allow myself to spiritually “travel” back to the night of the Last Supper and join Jesus and his disciples in the upper room. The eyes of faith, though they may be blinded by sin, see the Person of Christ in the priest as he says the words of consecration and elevates the Host and the chalice. In the case of my parish, he is facing versus populo and uttering the words of consecration in English, but the experience of awe and reverence is no different than what another person experiences at the same moment in the Tridentine Mass.

OK.

For people who prefer the Latin Mass, I share your view that there is a richness and beauty in that particular form which cannot be compared. I ask, though, that you don’t feel affronted that I am not “taking your side”; as another person has mentioned somewhere in this forum, the Pauline Mass has, in and of itself, a sanctity which cannot be denied by anyone. Why must we let this issue divide us? Both forms of the Mass are perfectly valid, licit, and the faithful may, in good conscience and with pure intentions, attend either one without incursion of penalty.

That’s your personal opinion, OK.

 

[Spiller]

This is hilarious. Terril’s posts are nothing BUT emotion in this thread. And of course if someone does not agree with you, they must be imbeciles that are lacking in education and the ability to think critically. This post made me sad.

I don’t understand all the labels being tossed around lately either. Does it make it easier for you to justify attacking someone in your own mind if you call them a “trad” or a “lib”? What would you call me? **I consider myself fairly orthodox, traditional… yet I attend N.O. mass **- oh the horror! Last I checked we were all Catholic and all looked to and obeyed the Church that Christ built for us. But if it will make you feel better to demean someone’s mental apptitude and set people in nice little bins for easy categorization and identification, best of luck to ya slugger.

Often times many “traditionalists” are very quick with the labeling…

I also consider myself extremely orthodox, with a penchant for reverence and solemnity – which some equate to “traditionalism.” I attend the Pauline Mass though – not the “N.O. mass.”

 

[DustinsDad]

*…*If Pious V spoke ex cathedra, why would Blessed John XXIII need to promulgate the same and Benedict XVI declare it an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church?

I’m not arguing that the Quo Primum was or was not ex cathedra - I’m saying the point is moot now (and btw, given the nature of the document, I’d tend to say it wasn’t ex cathedra - but it certainly was authoritative and worthy of respect). The missal of Blessed John XXIII *was the missal of Pius V with some minor organic changes…as such had taken place very rarely over the course of centuries since Quo Primum to no great confusion or scandal of the faithful…*And none which changed the character of the liturgy in a great way.

You can’t really say the same thing about the missal of Paul VI - the human side of the mass was changed, in a great way. Sure, it’s a valid mass if done according to the books by a valid priest - God’s part is always infinitely perfect - our part? Well not so much. It can vary. Anyway, the N.O. liturgy itself did not grow organically from Apostolic Tradition and constituted a great - even shocking and abrubt abandonment of tradition in favor of, as someone smarter than I once said - something “banal”:
“We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.”
-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, (source)-
As such, the subsequent “bans” on the TLM were, in fact, injustices. And despite the multitude of enemies of tradition (of which you seem to be a card carrying member) claiming otherwise, no one who was prohibited from saying the TLM was prohibited justly. As per Quo Primum:
Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used.
-Pope Pius V, Quo Primum-
Whether or not Quo Primum is ex cathedra or not? Well, that’s moot (at least for the time being). The Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI, has vindicated us.
It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church.
-Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, September 7, 2007-

*…*or do you believe that neither Pope Benedict, nor Pope Paul VI nor JPII for that matter, hold or held the office of Pope and sit in the Chair of Peter as his successors?

Fishing for sedes are we?

Good grief.

DustinsDad