Was a new mass created for the fun and exercise?Funny, I’ve read Sacrosanctum Concilium many times, and nowhere does it say the old mass is to be “moved out” and a new mass “moved in”. Also, nowhere can I find where the old mass was abrogated to be replaced with a new mass. Care to cite a source?
If you truly follow the faith the way the current Pope does you cannot reject the OF.Please don’t attempt to label me. That tactic is old, time worn and does not work any longer. I am tired of the antics that neo-catholics use to try to cut down those who only do ONE thing…follow their faith just as popes, bishops, saints, martyrs, and doctors of the church have for near two thousand years. If you truly believe that the Church began with Vatican II, then we can start a role reversal of name calling here. Please learn some Church history.
Again, the canon lawyer who defended the Hawaii Six disagrees with the sedevacantist website traditio.com He says that those excommunicatiedin Lincoln cannot be defended by the overturning of the Hawaii Six excommunicaitons (and remember, this is the guy who defended them).Here’s something I found from traditio.com/tradlib/indults.txt
"[Even in the face of all these acts on the part of The Honolulu
Six, the Vatican decreed that the six did not commit the crime of
“schism” and declared that the bishop’s action in “excommunicating” them
was null and void. Subsequently, the bishop was removed from office by
the Vatican on a morals charge.
[In clear violation of the Vatican’s decree, the Bishop of Lincoln,
Nebraska, later threatened with “excommunication” any Catholics in his
diocese attending the Traditional Latin Mass at independent and SSPX
chapels. Although the threat was given much publicity, the bishop in
the end backed down when his bluff was called and declined to take any
such illegal action.]"
The Mass of 1962 is not 2,000 years old. It’s younger than I am, by one year, and it is only seven years older than the so-called “New Mass.”Please don’t attempt to label me. That tactic is old, time worn and does not work any longer. I am tired of the antics that neo-catholics use to try to cut down those who only do ONE thing…follow their faith just as popes, bishops, saints, martyrs, and doctors of the church have for near two thousand years. If you truly believe that the Church began with Vatican II, then we can start a role reversal of name calling here. Please learn some Church history.
No, the fun and exercise came in the years of ignorance after VATII… first by the laity and clergy who usurped a “right” to inovate (as referenced directly in the Pope’s MP), and continuing today by those who actually prefer the horizontal liturgy (more new “norms” the better)Was a new mass created for the fun and exercise?
Where they all high in the Vatican that they could not stop the new ordinary mass from being created and implemented?
It does not make any sense to claim that there were any ‘false pretenses’ - and since that is an outrageous claim we deserve some serious back up for it.
I can and I do. If a pope teaches that which is contrary to the faith, the faithful have a DUTY to reject that error.If you truly follow the faith the way the current Pope does you cannot reject the OF.
Please pray about what you have written here…this Church was given an infallible pope to lead us and unless you’re him…Please stop dissing the NO Mass as Jesus is there just as much as He is at TLM (and I attend TLM whenever I can). “Feeling” more Catholic? How do you define being Catholic? By surroundings and externals and ancient languages? While I find my heart and mind lifted more deeply at a TLM at times, I certainly can achieve that emotional state at a NO Mass and just did, in fact, even though is was more like the Chucky Cheese Mass with kids screaming all over the place and running the aisles…you block it out and make it Jesus and me…and OFFER IT UP!!!We’re all part of the same church, but different people have different preferences. I have an affinity for the Latin Mass and will choose it every time over the NO. In my opinion, they never should have dropped the TLM in the first place. I feel more Catholic now than I ever felt in my entire life. I am not worshipping a Mass; I am worshipping God in THE MASS.
Do those Catholics who refuse to attend Latin Mass baffle you?
And, just who has decided that a pope has taught an error? And what is this error the pope taught?I can and I do. If a pope teaches that which is contrary to the faith, the faithful have a DUTY to reject that error.
Do you see the contradiction in your statements? First, you claim to only care what is “right with the Church” but then you state you will go against the Church to suit your “schedule” of convenience…hhhmmmmmmIn the absence of better wording, I don’t care what this group thinks. I only care what is right with the Church and, ultimately, God. I just want to go to a Latin Mass. If anyone has any information on a Latin Mass before noon tomorrow, I will gladly go. To make it clear, I will avoid the SSPX if I can find a TLM that fits my time constraint.
.
Do you mean the Mass of 1962 or the “Missal” of 1962? There is no such thing as the Mass of 1962. The Traditional Mass goes back to the time of Pope Gregory and that was over 1400 years ago.=jmcrae;3436442]The Mass of 1962 is not 2,000 years old. It’s younger than I am, by one year, and it is only seven years older than the so-called “New Mass.”
No, I would show reverence to thier beliefs, as it would hopefully inspire them to do the same. I would never deny my faith, nor promote thiers. But I would show the respect that should be given when in a place of worship.So in essence you would deny or denigrate your faith in order to achieve peace? Many in the early Church denied the faith in order to escape persecution as well.
Sounds like pretty much the same thing if you ask me.
ummmm, i dont even know where to start here. What about the Catechism do I need to read? I have read Church history, both by Catholic and Secular writers. Niether argue that the Crusades didnt happen, or that Catholics never killled “In the name of God”. I have also read about the martyrs, but that is irrelevent to my comments that the Catholic Church has been “those barbarians” at points in history, its shameful, and we are sorry for it, but that doesnt make them go awayYour statements here are totally apostate, and scandalous. Take the time to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church before the modernists got their hands on it, and read some Church history while you are at it. It wouldn’t hurt either if you would read about the martyrs that shed their blood for our faith.
I did not make the outrageous claim that the OF was accepted under false pretenses - I don’t have a thing to prove so keep your ‘challenge’.No, the fun and exercise came in the years of ignorance after VATII… first by the laity and clergy who usurped a “right” to inovate (as referenced directly in the Pope’s MP), and continuing today by those who actually prefer the horizontal liturgy (more new “norms” the better)
The New Mass was not so new as invisioned by VATII. The creative liberties were implemented in spite of, and after VATII.
As to the false pretenses, I offer you a challange EM… one I know you will not answer on other threads concerning the NO: Find a reference of mention in all of the VATII documents which describes the NO Mass. Then compare it to what you seem to approve of as the NO Mass we most often see today. Specifics would be nice, for a change.
.
Exactly what item(s) contrary to the faith does B16 teach???I can and I do. If a pope teaches that which is contrary to the faith, the faithful have a DUTY to reject that error.
How about this idea that one does not need to convert to Catholicism to be saved? Does that not fly into the face of divinely revealed church doctrine that “there is NO salvation outside of the Catholic Church?”. How can one sit blindly by as the pope promotes ecumenism and boldly defies this perennial church teaching?Exactly what item(s) contrary to the faith does B16 teach???
I have to agree with you on this one, pious. Why be Catholic if I can be saved in some other religion? Either you’re Catholic, faithless, or invincibly ignorant.How about this idea that one does not need to convert to Catholicism to be saved? Does that not fly into the face of divinely revealed church doctrine that “there is NO salvation outside of the Catholic Church?”. How can one sit blindly by as the pope promotes ecumenism and boldly defies this perennial church teaching?
How about you site some source and not from Tradition in Action or such outfits not in communion with the Vatican.How about this idea that one does not need to convert to Catholicism to be saved? Does that not fly into the face of divinely revealed church doctrine that “there is NO salvation outside of the Catholic Church?”. How can one sit blindly by as the pope promotes ecumenism and boldly defies this perennial church teaching?
Hmmm…let’s see now…if I am to CITE a source that IS NOTHING MORE THAN A MOUTHPIECE OF THE VATICAN… well then, what would be the point of that? How else are we to expose the errors if not by citing opposing sources, or outfits that fight for the traditions of our faith, such as tradition in action? What would you have me cite? “Father Flapdoodle’s lesson on the beauty of the Novus Ordo, altar boy girls, communion in the hand, and Eucharistic ministeresses”?How about you site some source and not from Tradition in Action or such outfits not in communion with the Vatican.
I never said The Real Presence is absent in NO, but I never felt it growing up, and I was an altar boy. Growing up, the Mass was described as a Eucharistic Meal and the host/wine was symbolic of Jesus’ body and blood, respectively. Without understanding a word, my first TLM made me shed a tear. It brought me back to my faith, but it felt new, not renewed. I really do feel like I am part of a new religion because the NO unknowingly denied me the real reason why I am at Mass: to assist in the Sacrifice of the Mass. I am just one person with an anecdotal story and maybe my parish is the only one who did their job horribly, but I doubt I am alone here.Please stop dissing the NO Mass as Jesus is there just as much as He is at TLM
That’s part of it. Part of being Jewish is knowing Hebrew. Part of being Muslim is knowing Arabic. Why do Catholics have to be the only ones to drop the language used at Masses since time immemorial? I don’t need more bells and smells in my Mass; what I need is timeless liturgy and a real sense of purpose at the Mass. I need to know The Real Presence is there and it was done with the utmost respect: genuflecting, kneeling, atonement, etc. I cringe looking back at some of the practices of my old parish. I used to look forward to the Sign of the Peace so I can make eye contact with a girl I liked!“Feeling” more Catholic? How do you define being Catholic? By surroundings and externals and ancient languages?
Why is that? You made my case for me. I need that. I want that. The Holy Trinity wants me to lift my heart and soul as high as possible. Why would I give God anything less?While I find my heart and mind lifted more deeply at a TLM at times
Seeing the Mass in Latin will give only one signal, how foreign the Church is. Who are you convincing by speaking of the Unity of the Church if the American Catholics hear mass in a strange tongue..
You are really disturbed. Memorize the Holy Fathers words. Latin in the liturgy at international gatherings.
Pope Benedict
“In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, **it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. **”