Clowns Clowns Clowns!!!!!!!!

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

No, I’m afraid if you look into the matter, you’ll find that it is a news agency that may have a bureau in Rome. It is not the official “mouthpiece” of the Holy See (it does have one). It’s entirely possible that the writer mispoke (and if we listen to the Cardinals of Pope John Paul II’s commission, not to mention Pope Benedict XVI, it become even more probable that the writer DID misspeak).

The document that Pope Paul VI issued was *Missale Romanum. *Here is a link to it:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html

Perhaps you could point out what His Holiness and Their Eminences missed when they said that the Tridentine Mass had NOT been suppressed?

Finally, it is heartening and cheering, given the enormous number of postings by “traditionalists” in these fora on how we CAN’T trust the Holy See, on any number of topics ranging from the Mass to the consecration of Russia, that you are shocked and dismayed at the idea that someone MIGHT not trust the Holy See (and I DO trust the Holy See)…either that, or the richest of ironies.

 

[Spiller]

…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…

I certainly don’t object to the moniker “Novus Ordo” – although I do personally prefer “Pauline” as it is more historically accurate. “NO” or even “N.O.” on the other hand is intrinsically offensive – and should be to anyone attempting to use such a crude abbreviation.

 

[Spiller]

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.

:dts:

“Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.” (Matthew 16:23)

You need to leave if you are going to continue to pump-out toxic LIES like that one.

 

[ethelzguy]

Here is something from the Novus Ordo:

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0508s.jpg

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0209b.jpg

Please, some NEW material ???

 

[MrS]

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.

I agree with Sungenis. And he never said the OF could be abrogated. Suppressed, yes. And in some countries all of Catholicism is suppressed. But that is a far cry from abrogated.

Your own “witness” disagrees with you. The Pope will not call the OF “verboten”… in any language.

.

 

[MementoMori3283]

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”:

And despite the multitude of enemies of tradition (of which you seem to be a card carrying member) The Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI, has vindicated us.

Fishing for sedes are we?

Good grief.

DustinsDad

On one side we have seen the sacred liturgy degenerate into a sort of show, in which an attempt is made to make religion look interesting by using fashionable follies and shallow cliches, which, for the liturgical innovators produces a fleeting success, but only serves to repel more and more those who are looking for God rather than a spiritual showmaster in the liturgy… On the other side, there is a conservation of ritual and ceremonies, which always impresses by its solemnity, but which, when carried to extremes, is ultimately unsatisfying. Of course, there remains between these two positions those priests and their parishioners who celebrate the new liturgy with respect and solemnity. But their position is undermined by the two extremes, and the lack of internal unity in the Church, in the end, at least for many, makes their fidelity look simply like their own particular type of neoconservatism. Thus a new spiritual boost is needed to make the liturgy once more for all of us a community action of the Church, and to save it from the whims of parish priests and their liturgy groups." [La Reforme Liturgique en question: Mgr. Klaus Gamber, p.6].

It really is quite easy to take something out of its context to promote one’s opinion.

what is a sede?

 

[DustinsDad]

*…*It really is quite easy to take something out of its context to promote one’s opinion.

I don’t understand your statement above in relation to my post. Pleae explain.

what is a sede?

Sedevacantist - one who denies the pope is the pope (as in the seat is vacant).

DD

 

[MementoMori3283]

you posted:

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”:

In support of the term banal, you provide this:

“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)-

Thus implying that Benedict believes the Novus Ordo Mass to be a banal on-the-spot product, when in fact, taken in context, this an example of what can happen when the Liturgy is abused, not the normative.

So we see Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments in their context:

*"A young priest said to me recently: “What we really need nowadays is a new liturgical movement”. This was an expression of a concern which, these days, only the wilfully superficial can dismiss. What mattered to this priest was not the pursuit of new and daring liberties: what liberties, in fact, remain to be taken? Rather he felt that we need a new beginning, coming from the heart of the liturgy - in fact, what the Liturgical Movement itself wanted in its heyday, before it became involved in manufacturing texts, and making up ceremonies and forms of worship- a rediscovery of the living centre, a penetration into the very body of the liturgy, so that the new beginning should emerge from that body. The liturgical reform, as it has been carried out, has moved further and further away from this original ideal. The result has been not reanimation but devastation.

On one side we have seen the sacred liturgy degenerate into a sort of show, in which an attempt is made to make religion look interesting by using fashionable follies and shallow cliches, which, for the liturgical innovators produces a fleeting success, but only serves to repel more and more those who are looking for God rather than a spiritual showmaster in the liturgy… On the other side, there is a conservation of ritual and ceremonies, which always impresses by its solemnity, but which, when carried to extremes, is ultimately unsatisfying. Of course, there remains between these two positions those priests and their parishioners who celebrate the new liturgy with respect and solemnity. But their position is undermined by the two extremes, and the lack of internal unity in the Church, in the end, at least for many, makes their fidelity look simply like their own particular type of neoconservatism. Thus a new spiritual boost is needed to make the liturgy once more for all of us a community action of the Church, and to save it from the whims of parish priests and their liturgy groups." [La Reforme Liturgique en question: Mgr. Klaus Gamber, p.6]. *

 

[kristie_m]

You are absolutely WRONG. This is a “Catholic” Mass at a “Catholic” church, Christ the King in Pleasant Hill, CA.
Please don’t make false and misleading statements without proof.
ctkph.org/

I stand corrected…but there’s no need to get snippy about it.