Difference between trad., SSPX etc

[Missa_Solemnis]

JKirkLVNV:
I ought to go to sleep now.

I just had to make a comment on your last statement.

“I dont know any Catholics who dont know that the Mass is a Sacrifice or re-enactment”

Is that so?

You must have an extraordinary Novus Ordo parish, because I cant even say the same for my FSSP parish.

Who’s providing propaganda now?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Here is where we can all see for ourselves wether or not Paul VI suppressed certain aspects of the Mass.

geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/compare.html

No one said he didn’t simplify. But I would still argue that nothing essential is lost, not the notion of sacrifice, not of oblation.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I ought to go to sleep now.

I just had to make a comment on your last statement.

“I dont know any Catholics who dont know that the Mass is a Sacrifice or re-enactment”

Is that so?

You must have an extraordinary Novus Ordo parish, because I cant even say the same for my FSSP parish.

Who’s providing propaganda now?

I’m not surprised, if they’re the ones teaching you the garbage about the Mass that you’re espousing, they must be missing other things (of course, we both know it isn’t really their fault). Do they know you regard the Mass of the Church as an abomination?

 

[AJV]

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

Might be considered ‘propaganda’ (which by the way is not a good term to used in the context of a discussion)
but it is factual.

If you dont believe it…take a NO missal and a TLM missal and just look for yourself where the prayers are taken out.

I said references by the way…not beliefs.

And it is indeed “rubbish” if you think the NO does not lack references to the above doctrines that are found in the Tridentine.

One thing I hate about these sort of comparisons (proganda is a good word) is that they are always half.

1. Really. As if the Traditional Mass has never been said in the vernacular.
2. Sorry-it doesn’t say that anywhere. Or if it does, I must have missed it And the TLM can indeed be celebrated facing the people.
3. Considering that the GIRM consistently refers to it in that way, and even in the flawed 1969 version says that “at the altar the sacrifice of the cross is made present”, and in the Order of the Mass, I somehow am not convinced that is the reason it was omitted.
4. Retained in the first Prayerbook. And the point is?
   Did they retain introits, collects for majority the saints? do their collects for example, ask for the intercession of the saints?

And please note that both the books that are so often compared, Luther’s “Formula missae” and the 1549 BCP were in use for a VERY short time-in fact, for the latter less than 3 years. And secondly both do not adopt the perfect ideals of their composers: the BCP was produced partly by Convocation and partly under Henry VIII, who for his schism was still burning people at the stake for heresy like denying transubstantiation, and so did not embody Cramner’s perfect ideals. Cramner himself admitted later that his theology had evolved-and that did happen with the aid of Martyr and Bucer both whose advice he solicited. His views are better found in the 1552 Prayerbook-which of course, no one will bother comparing, or even the 1559 or 1662 (that is the official CofE book even today)ones, because they are so unlike the NO, that the point will be lost.

1. Does he really think that the Protestants would have no problem with In spiritu humilitatis? Point me to ONE liturgy that includes it?
   As as regards the much refered to Offertory prayers…a case could (I don’t mean should) be made on account of their proleptic nature.
2. Point is, its there.
3. This is the good one. Even cleverer. He knows fully well that the Secret has sacrificial language frequently, and for this reason was the original Offertory prayer until the 12th century when “In spiritu humilatis” was added. Can anyone imagine the Protestants saying this, even in the yucky ICEL version?

Ecclesiae tuae, quaesumus, Domine, dona propitius intuere, quibus non iam aurum, thus et myrrha profertur, sed quod eisdem muneribus declaratur, immolatur et sumitur, Iesus Christus……

And till today, no Protestant liturgy includes a Secret or Super oblata.

1. Again, retained completely by Cramner in the FIRST Prayerbook, and not entirely in the second. Also note that minor point of how the prefaces of the BVM and the Holy Cross, etc. are suppressed: whereas the NO doesn’t and in fact, provides some more.

 

[AJV]

1. Interestingly, in all the early editions of the Roman Canon known, there is also no distinction between priest and people. At least, I can’t see any.

Compare the language between Cramner and the arguably most defunct (according to traditionalists) of the prayers- Eucharistic Prayer II (ICELised version)

BCP-Hear us O merciful Father we beseech thee; and with thy Holy Spirit and word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts, and creatures of bread and wine, that they MAY BE UNTO US the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ.

NO-Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they MAY BECOME FOR US the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

The first is ambiguous while the second is not. “Be unto us” can well be construed as “represents”:- in other words “appear to us(who receive with faith)”

BCP- With these thy holy gifts, the memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make, having in remembrance his blessed passion, mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension, renderyng unto thee most hearty thanks, for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same, entirely desiring thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept THIS OUR SACRIFICE OF PRAISE AND THANKSGIVING:
NO- In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this Life-giving Bread, this Saving Cup.

The first mentions nothing but a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Notice the position of the sentence “rendering unto thee hearty thanks….desiring thy fatherly goodness….accept this our sacrifice”. Thus “this” can refer to the “hearty thanks”. Whereas the second is clearly offering the Body and Blood of Christ- the “Bread of life” and the “Chalice of salvation”. And if you go and look, absolutely NO Protestant liturgy, even the ones who have begun to pray for the dead and insert it as such in their Catechisms, have such a statement. None.

BCP- Humbly beseeching thee, that WHOSOEVER SHALL BE PARTAKERS OF THIS HOLY COMMUNION, MAY WORTHILY RECEIVE THE MOST PRECIOUS BODY and blood of thy Son Jesus Christ:

NO-May all of us WHO SHARE IN THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

Again the second clearly states that it is sharing in the Body and Blood of Christ. Whereas the BCP prays that in receiving Communion, one may be made a partaker in the Body and Blood of Christ. A great difference because that is open to Calvin’s “dynamic presence” theory.

1. Significant how exactly?
2. Yes, one has to find something to snipe at, no?
3. Nice try. Cramner’s statement which he interpreted was his “whoseoever shall be partakers” given above. Which is entirely open to such an explanation while these prayers are not.
   And a few further points here: (1) This prayer distinguishes between priest as people, if you wish to accept the opinion regarding “Domine Jesu Christi qui dixisti”. (2) that the omission is of the words “Qui vivis et regnas….” not anything in the prayer itself. (3) This prayer itself would be acceptable to a lot of Protestants.
4. Possibly multiplying in the States and Canada and al, but certainly not in many parts of Africa and Asia. And another thing: Protestants HAVE to receive under both kinds, whereas Catholics are under no such obligation.
   (c)No quibble here: but since the 1552 BCP represents the proper Protestant practice, why hasn’t that been used throughout the rest of the article?
   (b). Small difference is that whereas the NO is speaking of the priest’s host, the BCP is referring to all the bread used.
5. But I thought we shouldn’t put too much emphasis on retaining the prayer* Corpus tuum*, should we, since the ‘Reformers’ would have reconciled it with their own theories, correct? (cf no. 19)
6. Undoubtedly. And if it had been retained they would have said it was inconsequential to the issue of the Real Presence and the Sacrifice of the Mass as there is nothing the Protestants can object to there. And secondly while Cramner and Luther concludes with a blessing the NO does not-if you want to split hairs on the topic

And of course, the article has failed to take into account such practices as no elevation, no saluting of the altar, the absence of sanctoral propers except for the apostles, St. Michael, Holy Innocents, and those Marian feasts found in Scripture (i.e. the Annuciation, Purification, etc.)and so forth. And even such small things like washing of the hands.

And regarding the so-called ecumenical Ordinary, nowadays Protestants are borrowing from every liturgy on the planet.Byzantine, Coptic, Assyrian

 

[Joysong]

Triumpha:

I’ve said things which can be backed up with something a saint has said, but I’m told “that’s a very Protestant thing to say!” or “Luther would have said that!”

Problem is … they are not backed up. In all the websites that posted St. Catherine of Siena’s supposedly true statement, not a single one backed it up with a reference. It is the custom of the Vatican, the CCC, and almost any true bibliography to give the source of its statements. That’s because they are supporting truth with authentic background. Not so with these websites, for they are not interested in stating truth.

For your own protection, Triumpha, I pray that enough information has been given to you regarding this to help you be wary of what you read, and always look for documentation.

Here is a source that gives all three letters of St. Catherine written to Pope Gregory. Not a single word of what the website supposedly attributed to her can be found in any of them. (Scroll up to read the other two)

 

[dumspirospero]

Exactly…so why do you all insist that John Paul II, Benedict, etc are infallible in matters of personal preference, etc…as soon as someone disagrees with something the Pope says or does, that was not infallibly defined…we are called schismatics, etc.

A saint, no matter how holy, does not speak infallibly.

 

[dumspirospero]

It seems to me that what she has been reading is just fine…she is not the one(s) on this thread with a sub-standard Catechesis

For your own protection, Triumpha, I pray that enough information has been given to you regarding this to help you be wary of what you read, and always look for documentation.

)

 

[dumspirospero]

Outstanding point…they are quick to condemn a marriage where the priest presiding over the marriage was a SSPX priest…however, they will fight tooth and nail to prove the validity of a marriage held at a drive thru in Vegas.

It’s too bad that the ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the couple, not the priest. Catholics will accept marriages performed by any protestant minister as valid, but perhaps not licit, meaning allowed.

This is a small consolation to those of us that refuse to beg for the true traditions of the church.

 

[Triumpha]

For your own protection, Triumpha, I pray that enough information has been given to you regarding this to help you be wary of what you read, and always look for documentation.

I am wary. That’s why I rarely venture onto sede territory, and if I do, I am cautious!

I may have been rash in this instance with the St Catherine quote. I wasn’t even looking for that quote. I just found it and remembered I’d seen it before in CFN. So, I seized it! I think it was that Pharsea site I stumbled upon it on. Again, not a great site, I know, since I gather it is run by a “gay traditionalist”.



Triumpha.

 

[Triumpha]

This is the second site now with the danger rating, yet you believe it is “trustworthy.” Are you aware of where you get this information? I posted the link to site reviews for your future reference.

I am aware of that site that “reviews” other sites.

It is no more infallible than I am!

Triumpha.

 

[Triumpha]

This is the refutation and correct context of his words:

Joysong.

I don’t think that the context makes any difference in this case.

St Robert Bellarmine said it was licit to resist a pope who endangers souls, or words to that effect.

'Nuff said.

Triumpha.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St Robert Bellarmine said…

You are ripping St. Robert’s words out of their proper context.

St. Robert is speaking of refusing to submit to the bad example of the pope, the fraternal correction as exemplifed by Paul towards Peter and St. Catherine towards Pope Gregory.

St. Robert is NOT declaring that the TAUGHT CHURCH are free to commit criminal acts contrary to Catholic Canon Law and approved ecclesiastical discipline of the Catholic Church (which can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful according to Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei), or disobedience to the decisions of Ecumenical Councils ratified by the Roman Pontiff, or the Constitutions, Declarations, Decrees, and disciplinary norms promulgated as an Acta Apostolicae Sedis by the Roman Pontiff.

 

[Genesis315]

You are ripping St. Robert’s words out of their proper context.

This is a common theme in most self-proclaimed “traditionalists” arguments.

I am currently finishing up a refutation of a “traditionalist” attack on the Catechism (it can be found on some SSPX sites.) They basically take a snippet from the Catechism and then compare it with a snippet from a pope, council, saint, or even scripture verse to show how the Catechism is in error (the snippets often contain a convenient ellipsis or two). Literally for every point it is simply a matter of putting things in their proper context. Attacks such as those give traditionalists the reputation of being either too lazy to read more than a sentence, too ignorant to know better, or too self-absorbed to care.

 

[AJV]

And a few further points here: (1) This prayer distinguishes between priest as people, if you wish to accept the opinion regarding “Domine Jesu Christi qui dixisti”. (2) that the omission is of the words “Qui vivis et regnas….” not anything in the prayer itself. (3) This prayer itself would be acceptable to a lot of Protestants.

Correction: This prayer would NOT be acceptable to a lot of Protestants.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St Catherine of Siena said to Pope Gregory IX

Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation

You are rash indeed, as this quote you lifted is a complete fabrication. I have all the letters of St. Catherine, and it appears in none of them. However, there are authentic quotes from St. Catherine which you should take to heart…

**St. Catherine of Siena:**Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him. (St. Catherine, Letter to Bernabo Visconti)“Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.” (St. Catherine, Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza)

St. Thomas Aquinas, likewise affirms:“We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians” (Questiones Quodlibetales, IX:8).Since for TRADITIONAL Catholics, the pope’s judgment trumps the judgment of theologians, I recommend you consider this saintly pope’s teaching, which agrees with St. Catherine and not with your erroneous interpretation of St. Robert…

St. Pius X: "If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. " (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

 

[Thursday1]

Outstanding point…they are quick to condemn a marriage where the priest presiding over the marriage was a SSPX priest…however, they will fight tooth and nail to prove the validity of a marriage held at a drive thru in Vegas.

You seem determined to hold members of SSPX to the same standards as non-catholics. These two cases are apples and oranges. Are non-catholics bound by the CIC? No, of course not. Are Catholics, even those in schism, bound by the CIC? Yes. That is why many (I will not say all, common error might provide jurisdiction in some very limited cases) marriages witnessed by SSPX priests are invalid. If you are talking about a catholic couple at a drive thru, then that marriage is equally invalid.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

I’m not surprised, if they’re the ones teaching you the garbage about the Mass that you’re espousing, they must be missing other things (of course, we both know it isn’t really their fault). Do they know you regard the Mass of the Church as an abomination?

Wait…so your saying the FSSP teaches garbage to the souls entrusted to its care?

I really have nothing to say to that.

And yes they do know I regard the NO as an abomination, and as far as I can tell they think the same.

Most Priests in the FSSP that I’ve met have similar beliefs, I know all my fellow parishoners do.

And by the way…the number one source where I find reasons to despise the Novus Ordo…is not from my priests…its from experiences with the Mass itself, as well as a copy of the Missal I have.

 

[AJV]

And yes they do know I regard the NO as an abomination, and as far as I can tell they think the same.

Most Priests in the FSSP that I’ve met have similar beliefs, I know all my fellow parishoners do.

Hate to say this and pontificate: but if they think that the NO is less than ideal, imprudent, less aesthetic,not needful etc., etc., etc. that’s fine. If they are using the word “abomination” to describe it even when it is celebrated with no abuses, they either need to improve their English or they should attend the seminary again. I’ve little doubt that they are probably wonderful priests and holy ones too, but if they can say that about a liturgy of the Church (which one can say a lot about) then well…

 

[pnewton]

St Robert Bellarmine said it was licit to resist a pope who endangers souls, or words to that effect.

'Nuff said.

Triumpha.

I know that saints are oft quoted and cited as excuse for disobedience. Doesn’t this assume the saint is correct? Are the saints writings protected by a charism of infallibility, of could one make a mistake?