H
holdencaulfield
Guest
I don’t understand where this “clown” fad came from. Regardless, most of those priests will probably spend the rest of their lives in Hell, it’s their choice. 
- Status
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The liturgy is indeed the source and summit of our faith, inasmuch as it is the vehicle by which the Holy Sacrifice is confected and presented anew. The liturgy is, however, the clothing adorning that Holy Sacrifice, not the Sacrifice Itself. The Sacrifice is immutable doctrine which cannot be altered, but the clothing around it is not.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Your argument is as absurd as what’s going on the pictures. These are not “from” the Novus Ordo Missae, they do not rise out of it. They are an abuse of it. It’s disengenous and, as has been pointed out, a straw man.
T
terillmorris
Guest
The Liturgy or Mass is a matter of faith and morals yes. The rite or the way the Mass is celebrated in it’s non essentials is not. Only matters of faith and morals are infallible. Latin in the mass is not infallible, the rubrics of the TLM are not infallible. You have no clue!!! None, zero as to what you are tlaking about. It isnt a cop out it is true. The rite of mass is a discipline not a doctrine. Please just admit you are wrong.The Liturgy is having to do with faith and morals. This is just a cop out for not listening to Pope St. Pius V and Pope Benedict XVI. How am I a Neo-Catholic, for believing what the Church has always taught. Sorry I don’t worship the ground the heretic Pope Paul VI walks on.
G
Ghoti
Guest
I believe referring to a pope as being a heretic may be against forum rules as well.The Liturgy is having to do with faith and morals. This is just a cop out for not listening to Pope St. Pius V and Pope Benedict XVI. How am I a Neo-Catholic, for believing what the Church has always taught. Sorry I don’t worship the ground the heretic Pope Paul VI walks on.
Please stop.
T
terillmorris
Guest
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
I didn’t say the TLM was Infallible. My point was that the TLM can never be abolished. That’s Infallible. Argue with Pope Benedict XVI if you want.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
I don’t honestly believe he was a heretic, however my point was that he did some hasty things that were unnecessary and bad moves. He wasn’t a good Pope.
What can I not call Pope Honrious a heretic
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
If this is “traditionalism,” then the Church needs none of it! Unless you can back up what you’ve said with reliable evidence against Pope Paul VI, not merely heresay, how is this other than the grave sin of calumny? Your remarks about the priests being in hell is very telling as well (the Church does not venture to go where you’ve gone regarding a comment on any individual person’s eternal destiny and, if they were inclined to do so, I very much doubt if they would do so with a winking smile) and you simply have no idea what you’re talking about vis a vis the divine constitution of the Catholic Church or the pope’s role in it. You vacilate back and forth on papal infallibility by your own admission. It’s evident that you’ve no understanding of it at all.The Liturgy is having to do with faith and morals. This is just a cop out for not listening to Pope St. Pius V and Pope Benedict XVI. How am I a Neo-Catholic, for believing what the Church has always taught. Sorry I don’t worship the ground the heretic Pope Paul VI walks on.
T
terillmorris
Guest
Again I ask what is wrong with Bob Sungenis’ argument here?
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 tell me or just admit what is obvious to all fair minded catholics. That it can be surpressed if the Pope wants, but we hope no Pope ever will. Also promise never to be a clown by repeating, “The Traditional Latin Mass can never be supressed.” Dont be a clown.
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 tell me or just admit what is obvious to all fair minded catholics. That it can be surpressed if the Pope wants, but we hope no Pope ever will. Also promise never to be a clown by repeating, “The Traditional Latin Mass can never be supressed.” Dont be a clown.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
How do I not understand it?
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
If Pope Paul VI suppressed the TLM, then why did Pope Benedict XVI say that he didn’t?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
If you believe that Quo Primum was an infallible document that bound Pope Saint Pius V’s successors to never change the liturgy or if you believe that the Tridentine Mass could not be suppressed, then you don’t understand it. You keep saying “Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Benedict XVI!!” HE’S never said that it COULD not be abrogated or suppressed, simply that it HAD NOT been. Learn the faith you so blithely profess.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
NO one has asserted that Pope Paul VI suppressed the TLM! No one!
P
piouswoman
Guest
I’ll assert it.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Then you prove it, using the document that he promulgated, which you should be able to find on the Holy See’s website.
P
piouswoman
Guest
A Vatican statement released on June 28 says the forthcoming Motu Proprio, a decree the pope issues “on his own initiative,” will expand “the use of the Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962.”
In 1969, Pope Paul VI suppressed that missal, which was issued on the eve of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), by promulgating a radically revised one that reflects Council-inspired changes, including the use of the vernacular.
Full article here:
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24566
In 1969, Pope Paul VI suppressed that missal, which was issued on the eve of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), by promulgating a radically revised one that reflects Council-inspired changes, including the use of the vernacular.
Full article here:
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24566
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I should be very careful taking ANY media statement at face value. The writer may have mispoken, ie, used the word “supressed” when he meant something else. Surely you can find the document Pope Paul VI promulgated when he “suppressed” the TLM? Because the cardinals that Pope John Paul II convened to examine the question couldn’t find it and neither could Pope Benedict XVI. They said it had NOT been suppressed. Where is it?
I’m asking you for what historians call a “primary source.”
P
piouswoman
Guest
The media statement I cited was from Vatican City, so you are implying that one must be very wary of the Vatican itself! I will not go in search of said document. I have read it however, and to be quite frank, when Paul IV forced the new mass on the faithful, by that very action he was suppressing the TLM. The devil needn’t wear a name tag to be identified as the devil.
G
Ghoti
Guest
I came to these fora to learn some things about my faith. As a cradle Catholic who may very well not have been properly catechized, I began to realize that there were things I needed to learn – my faith was, for want of a better word, “unfinished”.
Just as an example, I always received Communion in the hand. It is allowed by Rome, I have no quarrel. But some traditionalists have made cogent, well-reasoned, and convincing arguments for a preference for receiving on the tongue – without casting aspersions on those who receive in the hand (or casting aspersions on he who granted the indult). I must note that these arguments were also made gently and charitably. It is from some of these same posters that my interest in the Rosary had been renewed, that my desire to assist at a Latin Mass has been stirred, and that I have begun reading about the saints. I can also thank one poster for spurring me (indirectly) to make a good confession.
Unfortunately, these positive experiences are few and far between.
As I read through these fora, I have come to a sad realization: this is not the place to learn about Catholicism. There is an astonishing lack of Christian charity on these threads. I am sick of the “libs” and the “trads” baiting each other and turning this into a proxy war between Pius X and John XXIII. I am sick of the “progressives” or whatever you want to call them crying that the Church will somehow implode if Latin is reinstated. I am as sick of the “traditionalists” who think that infallibility only applies to those particular pronouncements of the popes they like or agree with. I’m sick of links to sites with connections to Holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorists. I’m sick of the links to sites who refer to Pope Benedict as “Benedict-Ratzinger” and Rome as “Newchurch”. I’m sick of the judgementalism that somehow person A is a better Catholic than B because she wears a veil/hat/mantilla/doily on her head – or on the other, that B is somehow better because she doesn’t.
This has got to be one of the worst threads on the whole board. Screaming, insults, accusations of heresy against deceased Popes, accusations of being a “neo-Catholic” (whatever the hell that is), off-topic replies with pics of clergy in clown dress referencing the NO Mass (which has nothing to do with whether Pope Anyone can change the Mass), as well as the OP which itself was a provocation rather than an invitation for a debate to seek or explain the truth – an ironic tactic since provocation is one of the habits the progressives continually accuse the traditionalists of.
Now on this thread there’s someone who opposes the term “N.O.” for the Mass – “Pauline” I guess being the preferred term. You know what? It’s the only Mass I have ever been to (not by choice, but only by knowledge and availability). Before I came here, I had never heard of “Novus Ordo” or “Ordinary Form”. So to me, it’s not the N.O., it’s not the Pauline, it’s not the OF, it’s not the Clown Mass, it’s THE MASS.
Sometimes, I don’t even know why any non-Catholic with a hate-on for the Church would even bother to come here and pretend to be a Catholic to mess things up. You lot are doing a fine job all by yourselves by tearing each other apart. You have replaced charity with calumny and gentleness with venom. Some of you give me the impression that you see some people going to Hell – and are glad of it.
I am starting to believe that any further involvement by me would be damaging to my faith.
To those of you who are driving me out of here: congratz. You are accomplishing what Dawkins, Hitchens, & Co have failed to.
May the Lord have mercy on me, I am so damn angry.
Just as an example, I always received Communion in the hand. It is allowed by Rome, I have no quarrel. But some traditionalists have made cogent, well-reasoned, and convincing arguments for a preference for receiving on the tongue – without casting aspersions on those who receive in the hand (or casting aspersions on he who granted the indult). I must note that these arguments were also made gently and charitably. It is from some of these same posters that my interest in the Rosary had been renewed, that my desire to assist at a Latin Mass has been stirred, and that I have begun reading about the saints. I can also thank one poster for spurring me (indirectly) to make a good confession.
Unfortunately, these positive experiences are few and far between.
As I read through these fora, I have come to a sad realization: this is not the place to learn about Catholicism. There is an astonishing lack of Christian charity on these threads. I am sick of the “libs” and the “trads” baiting each other and turning this into a proxy war between Pius X and John XXIII. I am sick of the “progressives” or whatever you want to call them crying that the Church will somehow implode if Latin is reinstated. I am as sick of the “traditionalists” who think that infallibility only applies to those particular pronouncements of the popes they like or agree with. I’m sick of links to sites with connections to Holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorists. I’m sick of the links to sites who refer to Pope Benedict as “Benedict-Ratzinger” and Rome as “Newchurch”. I’m sick of the judgementalism that somehow person A is a better Catholic than B because she wears a veil/hat/mantilla/doily on her head – or on the other, that B is somehow better because she doesn’t.
This has got to be one of the worst threads on the whole board. Screaming, insults, accusations of heresy against deceased Popes, accusations of being a “neo-Catholic” (whatever the hell that is), off-topic replies with pics of clergy in clown dress referencing the NO Mass (which has nothing to do with whether Pope Anyone can change the Mass), as well as the OP which itself was a provocation rather than an invitation for a debate to seek or explain the truth – an ironic tactic since provocation is one of the habits the progressives continually accuse the traditionalists of.
Now on this thread there’s someone who opposes the term “N.O.” for the Mass – “Pauline” I guess being the preferred term.
You know what? It’s the only Mass I have ever been to (not by choice, but only by knowledge and availability). Before I came here, I had never heard of “Novus Ordo” or “Ordinary Form”. So to me, it’s not the N.O., it’s not the Pauline, it’s not the OF, it’s not the Clown Mass, it’s THE MASS.Sometimes, I don’t even know why any non-Catholic with a hate-on for the Church would even bother to come here and pretend to be a Catholic to mess things up. You lot are doing a fine job all by yourselves by tearing each other apart. You have replaced charity with calumny and gentleness with venom. Some of you give me the impression that you see some people going to Hell – and are glad of it.
I am starting to believe that any further involvement by me would be damaging to my faith.
To those of you who are driving me out of here: congratz. You are accomplishing what Dawkins, Hitchens, & Co have failed to.
May the Lord have mercy on me, I am so damn angry.
- Status