Difference between trad., SSPX etc

[dumspirospero]

Is the pope…or anyone for that matter, protected by infallibility…except under certain circumstances?

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?

 

[djrakowski]

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

Then you and the FSSP have set yourselves up as authorities of authentic Catholic faith and practice, over and above the ordinary magisterium. This Mass you call an abomination is the normative Mass of the Church, and is the rite celebrated every time I’ve watched a Mass from the Vatican on EWTN (including Masses celebrated by our Holy Father himself).

If the ordinary magisterium doesn’t consider the Novus Ordo to be an abomination, then why do you and the FSSP feel as such?

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.

In other words, your personal aesthetic preferences have been set up as superior to the judgment of the ordinary magisterium. How is that any different than Protestantism?

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

Then you and the FSSP have set yourselves up as authorities of authentic Catholic faith and practice, over and above the ordinary magisterium. This Mass you call an abomination is the normative Mass of the Church, and is the rite celebrated every time I’ve watched a Mass from the Vatican on EWTN (including Masses celebrated by our Holy Father himself).

If the ordinary magisterium doesn’t consider the Novus Ordo to be an abomination, then why do you and the FSSP feel as such?
In other words, your personal aesthetic preferences have been set up as superior to the judgment of the ordinary magisterium. How is that any different than Protestantism?

Now before this goes to far, I don’t speak for every FSSP priest out there.

The Novus Ordo Mass is valid…but I consider removing reverent prayers and traditions from the Mass as an abominable act. I consider watering down the liturgy until it looks neo-Protestant an abominable act as well.

There is no doctrine out there that forces me to accept the NO as anything other than an abomination.

And if the argument is that in doing so I place my personal beliefs than tradition and the Church…well that is exactly what created the Novus Ordo.

Paul VI presumed he knew how to reform centuries of liturgy and tradition over a span of a few years.

Look at our brothers in the East. How they retain their traditions with pride. How every part of their liturgy and churches scream out their heritage and beliefs. Everything magnifies their Catholic/Orthodox identity.

The Western Church is rapidly losing its Catholic Identity.

It was unthinkable before for a Catholic Church to be mistaken for a Protestant Church…yet today there are Anglican and Lutheran Churches that appear more reverent and traditional than your average parish.

I’m not setting myself up as a superior over the Church. I just recognize that tradition is superior to a novelty. A harmful novelty at that.

I just refuse to trick myself into believing that the NO is anything other than a mistake. A valid yet wretched mistake.

How many reverent NO Masses does it take to make up for a heretical, invalid, neo-protestant liturgy? (and im not even talking about clown Masses…just look at some of the approved LifeTeen and Charismatic Masses out there)

The answer is…you cannot make up for such a disgrace. The spirit of Vatican II will go down as one of the most harmful threats to the Catholic Church in a long time.

Its to bad you cant perform an exorcism on those priests and liturgists who have been possessed by the Spirit of VII…oh wait, the Rite of Exorcism has basically been nullified as well by its subsequent reforms.

The FSSP isnt as radical as the SSPX, but dont say we set ourselves higher than the Church just because a Pope and liturgical commission suddenly feels like the Mass is their personal sandbox.

An interesting point that I read on these forums is that the TLM is the Mass envisioned by the Vatican Council…not the Novus Ordo.

A NO cannot be ‘without’ the influence of the spirit of Vatican II. It is a direct product of that wandering ghost.

Vatican II (while vague and unnecessary, filled with problems of its own) is fine insofar as it is not particularly damaging/beneficial to the faith. But the NO does nothing but dilute the liturgy.

If you wanted participation…add participation to the TLM.
If you wanted vernacular…maybe translate the TLM.
If you wanted _______…do the appropriate reforms to the TLM.

Thats what VII would’ve done if it had reformed the Mass directly…all Paul VI did was create a brand new Mass.

You said I sound Protestant.

Well it was to my knowledge that it is the Protestants who refuse to reform, who refuse to fix, who refuse to trust in God and tradition.

It is the Protestants who instead of reforming….create. Luther didnt reform the Catholic Church (and thank God for that) he created a brand new church.

Paul VI created a new Mass. Never in the history of the Church has one liturgy been suppressed and replaced by a new liturgy. Even when the Tridentine became the normative Mass of the Church, other Rites that had a heritage of 200 years or more could still be celebrated. Oh and it helps that the Tridentine wasn’t an on the spot production either.

If what happened to the liturgy seems abominable, if what happened seem like an abomination.

I have every right to call it so.

 

[djrakowski]

Now before this goes to far, I don’t speak for every FSSP priest out there.

Fair enough, and I thank you for the clarification.

The Novus Ordo Mass is valid…but I consider removing reverent prayers and traditions from the Mass as an abominable act. I consider watering down the liturgy until it looks neo-Protestant an abominable act as well.

Neo-Protestant? That’s interesting… I’ve never been to a Protestant liturgy that includes, for example, the Penitential Rite. You consider it an abominable act, but the ordinary magisterium has set it up as normative. That’s enough for me to accept it as legitimate, and significantly better than an abomination.

There is no doctrine out there that forces me to accept the NO as anything other than an abomination.

I wonder how Pope Benedict XVI, who publically celebrates the Novus Ordo, would feel about your characterization. The fact that you think the Mass celebrated by the Pope is an abomination speaks volumes.

And if the argument is that in doing so I place my personal beliefs than tradition and the Church…well that is exactly what created the Novus Ordo.

Yes, and the Novus Ordo was created by, in part, Pope Paul VI - another one of those pesky successors to the See of Peter.

Paul VI presumed he knew how to reform centuries of liturgy and tradition over a span of a few years.

And you presume to know better than Paul VI and the other members of the ordinary magisterium, who don’t consider the normative Mass of the Latin Rite to be an abomination.

Look at our brothers in the East. How they retain their traditions with pride. How every part of their liturgy and churches scream out their heritage and beliefs. Everything magnifies their Catholic/Orthodox identity.

And everything in a properly-celebrated Novus Ordo, as well as a properly celebrated TLM, magnifies our Latin Rite Catholic identity.

 

[djrakowski]

The Western Church is rapidly losing its Catholic Identity.

That’s your opinion, and I happen to share it to some degree. However, it has nothing to do with the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, but rather, the unfaithfulness of many of the priests and bishops of the Church that has made it so.

It was unthinkable before for a Catholic Church to be mistaken for a Protestant Church…yet today there are Anglican and Lutheran Churches that appear more reverent and traditional than your average parish.

Good for them… but you’re going to have a hard time proving that this has anything to do with the Novus Ordo, and that the situation would be any better if the TLM were the normative celebration of the Mass in the Latin Rite.

I’m not setting myself up as a superior over the Church. I just recognize that tradition is superior to a novelty. A harmful novelty at that.

Prove it.

I just refuse to trick myself into believing that the NO is anything other than a mistake. A valid yet wretched mistake.

In other words, the majority of the world’s Catholics are hopelessly lost in a ‘valid but wretched mistake.’ How charitable of you!

How many reverent NO Masses does it take to make up for a heretical, invalid, neo-protestant liturgy? (and im not even talking about clown Masses…just look at some of the approved LifeTeen and Charismatic Masses out there)

Then recognize the source of error for what it is… and it has nothing to do with the form of Mass. These folks would be engaging in terrible practices regardless of which Mass is celebrated, and you have nothing to prove otherwise.

The answer is…you cannot make up for such a disgrace. The spirit of Vatican II will go down as one of the most harmful threats to the Catholic Church in a long time.

Disgrace… abomination… wretched mistake… one of the most harmful threats… This is the language you use to describe a council of the Church, and the normative Mass of the Latin Rite, and I’m supposed to believe that you’re in full accord with the authority of the ordinary magisterium?

Someone needs to let the Holy Father know about all the laypeople who think his celebrations of the Mass are disgraceful, abominable, wretched and harmful mistakes.

Its to bad you cant perform an exorcism on those priests and liturgists who have been possessed by the Spirit of VII…oh wait, the Rite of Exorcism has basically been nullified as well by its subsequent reforms.

Prove it. Where has the Rite of Exorcism been nullified? You need to either produce documentation, or leave me to believe that your opinion is more important than documented fact. Furthermore, the crack about being possessed by the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ is about the most uncharitable comment I can imagine being made toward a legitimate council of the Church.

The FSSP isnt as radical as the SSPX, but dont say we set ourselves higher than the Church just because a Pope and liturgical commission suddenly feels like the Mass is their personal sandbox.

Interesting that you don’t even see the contradiction in this statement… we’re not above the Church… but we’re better authorities than the Pope and his liturgists when it comes to valid liturgical practices.

An interesting point that I read on these forums is that the TLM is the Mass envisioned by the Vatican Council…not the Novus Ordo.

Documentation, please? And, which Vatican council?

A NO cannot be ‘without’ the influence of the spirit of Vatican II. It is a direct product of that wandering ghost.

Vatican II (while vague and unnecessary, filled with problems of its own) is fine insofar as it is not particularly damaging/beneficial to the faith. But the NO does nothing but dilute the liturgy.

More personal opinion masquerading as fact. What gives you the right to determine that a properly-convened council of the Church was unneccesary. The Pope and bishops believed differently. In deciding otherwise, you’ve proven my original contention - that you’ve decided that your private judgment is more important than the corporate decisions of our leadership.

If you wanted participation…add participation to the TLM.
If you wanted vernacular…maybe translate the TLM.
If you wanted _______…do the appropriate reforms to the TLM.

The bishops and Pope have decided otherwise.

 

[djrakowski]

Thats what VII would’ve done if it had reformed the Mass directly…all Paul VI did was create a brand new Mass.

And, did he do so in a vaccum?

You said I sound Protestant.

Well it was to my knowledge that it is the Protestants who refuse to reform, who refuse to fix, who refuse to trust in God and tradition.

It is the Protestants who instead of reforming….create. Luther didnt reform the Catholic Church (and thank God for that) he created a brand new church.

I don’t see how this is germane to your argument at all. You’re basically stating that your stylistic preferences should be normative, but the Church has decided otherwise. What authority do you and those who think like you bring to the table to legitimize all the slander and false accusations you’ve hurled at the normative celebration of the Mass and a legitimate council of the Church?

Paul VI created a new Mass. Never in the history of the Church has one liturgy been suppressed and replaced by a new liturgy. Even when the Tridentine became the normative Mass of the Church, other Rites that had a heritage of 200 years or more could still be celebrated. Oh and it helps that the Tridentine wasn’t an on the spot production either.

Prove it - that liturgies were not written out of whole cloth in the past. Furthermore, alternative celebrations of the Mass exist, including at least the Ambrosian. I believe that the TLM should be permitted more generously, however, so on that point, we most certainly agree.

If what happened to the liturgy seems abominable, if what happened seem like an abomination.

I have every right to call it so.

Sure you do… but you don’t have a ‘right’ to not be questioned for your disrespectful attitude toward the normative Mass, the Second Vatican Council, and the authority of the magisterium to hand down such decisions.

 

[pnewton]

Is the pope…or anyone for that matter, protected by infallibility…except under certain circumstances?

No, and that’s not what I asked. I answered your question. How about answering mine and not just with another question. The pope has authority to act on earth, whereas saints in heaven do not, though.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

And, did he do so in a vaccum?
I don’t see how this is germane to your argument at all. You’re basically stating that your stylistic preferences should be normative, but the Church has decided otherwise. What authority do you and those who think like you bring to the table to legitimize all the slander and false accusations you’ve hurled at the normative celebration of the Mass and a legitimate council of the Church?
Prove it - that liturgies were not written out of whole cloth in the past. Furthermore, alternative celebrations of the Mass exist, including at least the Ambrosian. I believe that the TLM should be permitted more generously, however, so on that point, we most certainly agree.
Sure you do… but you don’t have a ‘right’ to not be questioned for your disrespectful attitude toward the normative Mass, the Second Vatican Council, and the authority of the magisterium to hand down such decisions.

Oh of course not.

I dont mind being questionted at all.

Thats what discussion forums are all about.

The only thing is, both you and I know that we’ve stumbled upon the neverending arguement.

It simply boils down to…

Was it right to promulgate the NO?

Was it right to suppress the TLM?

Should a New Mass have been made instead of a modified TLM?

Is the NO the root of the Church’s problems?

Is it really the Spirit of Vatican II or is it the NO Mass itself that causes ______?

These questions only bring uncharity, hurt feelings, a stronger dislike and distrust of the opposite viewpoint etc. etc.

Examples of this are all over the forums.

If I think that the NO is an abomination, I ought to state my reasons. And while you disagree with my reasons, none of them are actual errors in themselves. They are educated opinions (as are yours) and cannot be ‘proven wrong’ in the sense of the term.

So I hope that in peace and charity we can make a simple compromise?

1. I will apologize for using strong words like ‘abomination’ towards the NO, but will retain my right to consider it a harmful mistake.
2. We will agree that the Church could have handled the situation better…that the TLM should have not been suppressed, the schismatics handled with closer attention and detail, more practices and prayers from the Old Rite incorporated into the New etc. etc.
3. Both the NO movement and the Traditional movement are not turning out the way they should.
4. Its the same Eucharistic Lord we share after all.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

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?

To be a Saint you have to be a member, and to show heroic virtue in the face of the hostlity of the world. That is not incompatible with making doctrinal errors. It is also not incompatible with committing serious sins.

 

[Joysong]

Hello Missa,

The only thing is, both you and I know that we’ve stumbled upon the neverending argument.

It simply boils down to…
Was it right to promulgate the NO? [Holy Mother Church thinks so. Do you belong to the Church?]

1. I will apologize for using strong words like ‘abomination’ towards the NO, but will retain my right to consider it a harmful mistake.

Yes, you apologize for this particular instance, but according to the strong language in your profile and other posts of yours, I doubt this will be the end of it … least of all, in your thinking, for you have been well indoctrinated against the N.O. with false propaganda. As an example from a FSSP website (which I understand is your association) :

II. NOVUS ORDO MISSAE: Following the Second Vatican Council, various commissions were established to modernize the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the traditional rites of the Sacraments. The particular commission established to modernize the Mass included well-known Protestant theologians. To use the words of a well-known Cardinal, Alfredo Ottaviani, in 1969: “(The Novus Ordo Missae) represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.” The results of this modernization were a new definition of the Mass (reflecting Luther’s concept of the Last Supper), the alteration of the Offertory prayers to delete the concept of propitiatory Sacrifice, and the substantial alteration of the very words of Consecration (this alteration occurs in the vernacular translations).

THEREFORE, the Novus Ordo Missae, when offered with the altered words of Consecration, is an invalid Mass and in all other cases it is of doubtful validity. It always is a clear danger to one’s faith. For all these reasons, active participation in it would be a grave sin.

And hundreds of arguments have been posted to refute the argument, but you and your associates reject authentic teaching for your personal “pope’s” assertions.

Thinking to be a defender against this “abomination” you have placed yourself in the position of St. Paul, whose armies were well satisfied with murdering St. Stephen, and others who followed this new heretical sect. Nobody doubted the zeal and intelligence of St. Paul who knew the law more profoundly than his associates.

Guess what, Missa? He was dead wrong! It took an extraordinary correction from Jesus Himself to put him on the right track, for Christ said Paul was persecuting “HIM!”

You see, Jesus identifies Himself with His Body, the living organism that Paul was attacking, unknowingly. This is my only hope, that you are misinformed and doing this out of ignorance. It is beyond my ability or anyone else’s on this forum to write enough words to correct your thinking. As long as you continue to fixate on these erroneous beliefs, you will attack the living Body of Christ, if not in words, at least in mind and spirit.

Coincidentally, today the Pope (if you even believe he is a lawful Pope?) sent this message from Zenit this morning that is well worth one’s while to read it.

Hence, also among saints there are oppositions, discords and controversies. And this is very consoling for me, as we see that the saints have not “fallen from heaven.”

They are men like us, with complicated problems. Holiness does not consist in not making mistakes or never sinning. Holiness grows with the capacity for conversion, repentance, willingness to begin again, and above all with the capacity for reconciliation and forgiveness.

Edit: Link to website. This was obtained by searching Google under “FSSP.”

 

[AJV]

Hello Missa,

Yes, you apologize for this particular instance, but according to the strong language in your profile and other posts of yours, I doubt this will be the end of it … least of all, in your thinking, for you have been well indoctrinated against the N.O. with false propaganda. As an example from a FSSP website (which I understand is your association) :

Thinking to be a defender against this “abomination” you have placed yourself in the position of St. Paul, whose armies were well satisfied with murdering St. Stephen, and others who followed this new heretical sect. Nobody doubted the zeal and intelligence of St. Paul who knew the law more profoundly than his associates.

Guess what, Missa? He was dead wrong! It took an extraordinary correction from Jesus Himself to put him on the right track, for Christ said Paul was persecuting “HIM!”

You see, Jesus identifies Himself with His Body, the living organism that Paul was attacking, unknowingly. This is my only hope, that you are misinformed and doing this out of ignorance. It is beyond my ability or anyone else’s on this forum to write enough words to correct your thinking. As long as you continue to fixate on these erroneous beliefs, you will attack the living Body of Christ, if not in words, at least in mind and spirit.

Coincidentally, today the Pope (if you even believe he is a lawful Pope?) sent this message that is well worth one’s while to read it.

Joysong,
As much as I deplore MissaSolemnis’ position and if this is indeed the position of certain peopleof the FSSP regarding the word “abomination” in relation to the Mass, you really ought to provide a link before (pardon me if this seems rude) slandering the FSSP. The FSSP could (or rather, I should say would) never hold officially that the NO Mass is invalid: they are in full communion with the Holy Father, and not even they will question that the words of consecration render the Mass invalid. I have tried to find your quote but it has not turned up any FSSP sites. Perhaps the site is not run by the FSSP but you have mistaken it for the FSSPX which is the SSPX?- though even they mostly do not dispute the validity of the Mass

EDIT:

Edit: Link to website. This was obtained by searching Google under “FSSP.”

You will note that it has no formal assosciation whatsoever to the FSSP but merely provides a link to it together wiht the SSPX and the CMRI. It should not be said that that is the promotion of the FSSP

 

[AJV]

Edit: Link to website. This was obtained by searching Google under “FSSP.”

You might want to look a little more carefully? It says:

Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen

And they have absolutely NO affiliation whatsoever, with the FSSP- they are in fact, sedevacantists.

 

[Joysong]

Dear AJV,

Whatever.

Can Missa Solemnis affirm that he does accept the N.O.? His strong language calling it an abomination seems to indicate otherwise. If that is not his true feeling, then I apologize. If it is his thinking, then I simply pray.

Originally Posted by Missa Solemnis
I just refuse to trick myself into believing that the NO is anything other than a mistake. A valid yet wretched mistake.

Originally Posted by Missa Solemnis
How many reverent NO Masses does it take to make up for a heretical, invalid, neo-protestant liturgy?

Difficult to know which he believes.

 

[AJV]

Edit: Link to website. This was obtained by searching Google under “FSSP.”

You will note that it has no formal assosciation whatsoever to the FSSP but merely provides a link to it together wiht the SSPX and the CMRI. It should not be said that that is the promotion of the FSSP

 

[AJV]

Joysong, I really don’t think that MissaSolemnis:
-believes the Mass is invalid
-believes the Pope isn’t a real Pope

And as regards the quote of his, I believe he was talking about certain abberations of the liturgy. I would sincerely hope he was not saying that all NO Masses provide a heretical atmosphere.

Anyhow it’s probably ridiculous for me to try and interpet his quotes? He’ll probably turn up and then he can explain what he meant.​

I think perhaps there might be some element of confusion. While one might regard the PROCESS and ATTITUDE towards elements of the Mass (Classical liturgy) by some of the revisers of the liturgy as abominable, it doesn’t follow from there that the NO is abominable OR that it is Protestant. How many Protestants can use the NO liturgy including the Propers without any alteration? It is too often judged on what it does not contain rather than what it does.

 

[Joysong]

AJV:

It is too often judged on what it does not contain rather than what it does.

Wouldn’t that be a subjective personal opinion in that case? I was raised in the TLM, but when the instructions came from the pulpit during the change to the N.O., everything made perfect sense and I had no trouble with understanding the changes.

The problem with new generations that were not exposed to the instruction is that they gain their learning from the wrong sources, many of which are biased. This knowledge is flawed, yet once accepted, it becomes the rationale to slander the holy sacrifice of Jesus Christ which is a *most sacred gift *He left to His church … nobody ought to publicly speak in this disgraceful manner about ANY liturgy, IMO.

 

[Joysong]

AJV:

It should not be said that that is the promotion of the FSSP

If that is true, then it is a sorry witness that these young men give the FSSP, for they claim to be a member. One would think that this is being taught to them from within, but I realize Missa and his friends do read the errors posted in traditional websites. Maybe they got this misinformation from them, as many others have done.

One would surely think their priests are teaching Catholic doctrine and are not teaching that the N.O. is an “abomination,” but maybe these three young men believe they have more insight than the priest??? Certainly, no other forum members have been unable to convince them either.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

Joysong, I really don’t think that MissaSolemnis:
-believes the Mass is invalid
-believes the Pope isn’t a real Pope

And as regards the quote of his, I believe he was talking about certain abberations of the liturgy. I would sincerely hope he was not saying that all NO Masses provide a heretical atmosphere.

Anyhow it’s probably ridiculous for me to try and interpet his quotes? He’ll probably turn up and then he can explain what he meant.​

Dont worry…sometimes I have problems interperting myself as well.

Id have to agree with you…I firmly believe that Pope Benedict XVI is not only a brilliant theologian, but I find his writings as an example of true traditionalism, and himself a Great Pope.

The NO is valid. Only the words “This is my Body, This is my Blood” are needed for a valid Mass. (The Form, Intention, Matter)

As I said I do apologize for using the word abomination.
But had I used any other words, I would not have clearly expressed my frustration towards NO Masses.

From dictionary.com

Abomination

1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation: He regarded lying with abomination.
3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.:

Like I said…the word itself is a bit strong and uncharitable but it is in no way heretical for me to call the NO Mass as such.

Therefore I have said above that I will refer to it as a Grave Mistake and a Problem. But no longer an “abomination”.

I thank people like AJV for not jumping to conclusions and whipping out the “your assuming the title of Pope” comments.

Since for some reason my personal stance is being discussed allow me to clear it up:

1. I am obviously a Traditionalist Catholic.
2. I am not a Sedevacantist.
3. I only attend the Tridentine Mass and would not attend the NO Mass unless there were no TLM’s or Eastern Catholic liturgies available.
4. I dislike an abuse-free Novus Ordo Mass, on the grounds that it does not seem to me like the way the Mass should be celebrated.
5. I **strongly dislike **an abuse free NO Mass that has certain innovations such as an altar facing the people, tabernacle off center, Protestant songs, lack of Latin etc. etc.
6. I** DO find it abomindable **to recieve communion in the hand, have Eucharistic Ministers, not genuflect upon passing either of the consecrated species and/or Tabernacle.
7. I completly detest, and find it sacreligious when a NO Mass is twisted even beyond the above. To allow liturgical dance, rock music, tongues, laity in the sanctuary, protestants participating in the liturgy, interfaith prayer, no genuflections, communion forced on the hand, etc. etc. (all of the above represents a significant majority of Catholic NO Masses out there…)

Since we all know that Clown Masses or Halloween Masses are not common I have not included them.

1. Finally…I do firmly believe that the Pauline Mass has opened the doors to all the above problems. That it DOES promote a relaxed opinion of the liturgy and DOES remove certain aspects of the Old Mass that strenghtened varios doctrines of the faith.

I believe that the NO Mass IS the source of the problem in itself and should be removed promptly. While the ‘spirit of Vatican II’ is a part of the problem…it is the Pauline Mass itself that is so open to abuse.

Now since a few people are saying that some of my beliefs are heretical…Id like to see why.

I dont deny that my beliefs are extreme, nor will I take back anything written on my profile since they acurately express my Catholic Identity.

If certain Catholics can: recieve in the hand, distribute a Consecrated Host with unconsecrated fingers, sing Protestant hymns at a Catholic mass, etc. on the grounds that it is not IN ITSELF heretical.

Then I dont see why I cant think the Pauline Mass is not just a problem, but a grave and serious mistake and error on the part of Paul VI and his liturgists.

 

[Joysong]

Missa Solemnis:

Then I dont see why I cant think the Pauline Mass is not just a problem, but a grave and serious mistake and error on the part of Paul VI and his liturgists.

I believe that the NO Mass IS the source of the problem in itself and should be removed promptly.

You CAN think, and you will continue to think as you do, and certainly none of us will convince you otherwise using written argument. It would take a movement of grace.

The only problem I have is your personal lament that the N.O. should be removed promptly is being expressed to an entire host of readers as though this opinion is absolutely 100% correct and that the N.O. is absolutely a grave mistake, putting it mildly. Would you use the medium of the internet to lure people away from this mass and cause them to abhor it as you do? It seems propagandic to me, based solely on your personal preference.

Can you allow the same preference to those who do not share your dislike, without denigrating their opinions?

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

You CAN think, and you will continue to think as you do, and certainly none of us will convince you otherwise using written argument. It would take a movement of grace.

The only problem I have is your personal lament that the N.O. should be removed promptly is being expressed to an entire host of readers as though this opinion is absolutely 100% correct and that the N.O. is absolutely a grave mistake, putting it mildly. Would you use the medium of the internet to lure people away from this mass and cause them to abhor it as you do? It seems propagandic to me, based solely on your personal preference.

Can you allow the same preference to those who do not share your dislike, without denigrating their opinions?

This is a major problem with the pro-NO arguement. It relies solely on the word ‘preference’.

It is a common misconception among mainstream Catholics that the Traditionalist Movement is simply a ‘preference’ or a ‘nostalgic longing’ for Latin and/or the liturgy of the Tridentine Rite.

This is not the case at all. I honestly doubt that true Catholics (among which do exist among schismatic and sedevacantist groups) would put themselves in a state of schism or disobedience over the matter of language or decoration.

The problem is deeper than the outward appearance of the Mass. Using Catholic terminology, the outward appearance and language of the Mass are the ‘accidents’. It is the substance of the Mass that is the true reason Traditionalist Catholics prefer their Rite and/or dislike the Novus Ordo Mass.

We must honestly and sincerely examine both of these Liturgies. First the NO and then the TLM. We must ask ourselves, is it simply the removal of Latin? Is it simply the repositioning of the Altar, the vestments, the words and prayers? Or is the change deeper?

I think that one would have to truly condition themselves to ever admit semi-honestly that the NO and the TLM are only different in words and appearance.

Therefore, it is my personal belief (a belief that cannot be changed by written word as you mentioned) that the NO is ‘missing’ something important that the TLM captures beautifully.

It is also my belief that not only does the NO lack something the TLM embodies, it also creates an enviornment for ‘additions’ and ‘innovations’ that can and have provided an atmosphere for heresy.

So when you ask me if I try to lead people away from the NO. I would have to say that there is substantial evidence in my posts and beliefs which would lead somone to come to that conclusion. It is understandable and makes perfect sense.

However, the truth is I do not explicitly desire to lead people away from the New Mass. I do not wake up in the morning and decide to turn somone against the NO.

Instead I would say that I wish to lead people to the closest experience of Catholic Spirituality and Liturgical Tradition. I want people to experience a Liturgy and Mass that contains everything befitting our Eucharistic King and His Holy Church.

It is that belief which encourages me to spread the love of the TLM. And a consequence of spreading the significance of the TLM, is also to spread belief in its superiority.

What is one of the easiest ways to spread belief in the TLM’s superior liturgy and the spirituality that is found within it?

It would be to point out the faults of the NO.

You cannot truly appreciate the tradition…if you regard its opposites as traditional or equal.

Just like I cannot in good conscience attend a NO, I cannot in good conscience recommend anyone to either.

I dont believe I lead people away from the Eucharist, just away from a Missal that fails to give to that same Eucharistic Lord his well deserved due.