Has anyone changed there mind here?

[Cat]

For one example would be the idea of membership in the church.
The Catholic Church has always taught precisely who is part of the Catholic Church.

During and after Vatican II, “the people of God” term showed up. From this vagueness comes the idea of “the anonymous Christian” and “partial communion” and all sorts of boundaries and definitions have gone out the window. Vatican II undefined things, when the Magisterium’s power is to define things.

Some of the explanations in the post-Vatican II period can be reconciled with previous teaching (eg. a Lutheran family baptizes their babies, they are Catholics until they hit the age of reason and accept Lutheranism)

I’ve never heard of these practices.

To me, these sound like some of the practices of the sects that claim to be Catholic, but are not in communion with Rome, although I can see the logic behind the “Lutheran baptism” thing.

What do these practices have to do with a liturgically-correct, reverent NO Mass?

 

[ac_claire]

I’m confused by the “in total” part of your reply. What traditional spirituality and devotions do you reject and why?

No, if you go back and read that post, I said: For example, you know what mass I attend, but you can’t just therefore assume that I reject traditional Catholic spirituality or devotions in total.

My point was that I don’t reject it, and in fact–with the exception of attending the OF mass-- I embrace traditional spirituality/devotions because it was how I was raised in the faith by my grandma. Which is why I instinctively came to the TC forum when I found this site…

Aren’t you using the broad brush here?

Eh, Gerard…didya even read the post you responded to?
In response to your comment(s) about “NO Catholics”, I said I’ve seen the same attitude from “Traditional Catholics” on this forum, and then I added this big cheesy disclaimer so there’d be no misunderstanding: *(Note that I don’t think all or even most of the TCs here fit this description…so if you’re not one of those who I’m talking about, please don’t be offended.) *

 

[ac_claire]

I’m just curious as to whether or not you catch this attitude among conservatives that "if only Trads would do such and such…(ie. do what we do…) they would be so much better off.

Well, I’ve more often seen it among the liberal/charismatic types, and the prevailing attitude seems to be that Trads are too judgemental, critical, etc. Mostly I’ve seen reaction against Trads perceived behavior/attitude/antagonism toward the non-Trads, but not against their actual Traditional-ism. (is that a word?)

I don’t doubt that you have seen what you described, though. I have friends who mainly attend the TLM who’ve said the same thing.

 

[Conservative]

I believe Traditional Catholic worship and doctrine are how God wants us to worship. I see great debate here on many topics, now it seems that some topics are to tough to arbitrate and we need to keep our debates to mantillas and why the Church does not eat meat of Fridays year round. If we can’t debate the challenging topics, is this of any use? It seems that there are staunch positions here held by the same people that never change. Has anyone come to love the TLM and or turned from happy clappy parishes because of this Traditional Forum?

Dear LatinMass -
I was raised pre-Vatican II and once the changes came, I went along with them. Years after, I attended a lecture discussing the pros and cons about the changes, which was perhaps the first time I sat up and took notice. It was long before I found this forum.

At present, I not only attend TLM - I treasure it.
And I’m grateful for the section given us here to discuss our views.
I’m not the greatest Catholic by any means - My life, my soul - leave alot to be desired.

But I love the Tridentine Latin Mass, in its entirety still recalling the name of Our Lady. All the rubrics, the vestments, the altar facing away from the people, genuflecting, silence - sheer silence as the congregation draws nearer to Calvary - deep in prayer without the need to wave to fellow worshippers - the prayers after Mass (from St. John’s Gospel all the way to St. Michael’s Prayer). I watch the priests in awe - yes, in awe of their spirituality - as I am reminded of even the smallest reverences from years past that I’d forgotten. Happy Clappy? I come away so “happy” from my TLM that I don’t want to leave. I want to stay with my God - alone to pray, to venerate, or cry for my needs. But I don’t want to leave. Maybe that says it all.

 

[zerocrossing]

I’m not sure that “changed my mind” is the right term. I still believe in the validity of the vernacular Mass.

But I did find out about the Summorum Pontificum from reading this forum. I attended the EF on Thanksgiving weekend at a parish nearby, and I have attended ever since. I don’t really consider myself a Traditionalist. But I am better able to lift my eyes towards God in the Latin Mass.

Now please understand that I’m make a subjective, not an objective or universal, statement when I say that. I can hear God better in the Latin Mass. I’m not going to claim that the same would be true for everyone.

 

[Cat]

I’m not sure that “changed my mind” is the right term. I still believe in the validity of the vernacular Mass.

But I did find out about the Summorum Pontificum from reading this forum. I attended the EF on Thanksgiving weekend at a parish nearby, and I have attended ever since. I don’t really consider myself a Traditionalist. But I am better able to lift my eyes towards God in the Latin Mass.

Now please understand that I’m make a subjective, not an objective or universal, statement when I say that. I can hear God better in the Latin Mass. I’m not going to claim that the same would be true for everyone.

Thank you. You are absolutely correct. Latin does NOTHING for me. And I have no problem lifting my eyes to God in a Mass with rock music, English, and waving to other people around me. I am very pleased that the Catholic Church has APPROVED of Mass in the vernacular, along with the music of the people, and the Sign of Peace.

 

[GerardP]

Thank you. You are absolutely correct. Latin does NOTHING for me. And I have no problem lifting my eyes to God in a Mass with rock music, English, and waving to other people around me. I am very pleased that the Catholic Church has APPROVED of Mass in the vernacular, along with the music of the people, and the Sign of Peace.

While you are waving and winking and enjoying music that is Satanic in its origins, (wine turned to vinegar) this is going on.

CANDU777: Situs Slot Online Gacor Resmi Gampang Menang Maxwin

Raih jackpot maxwin bersama situs slot gacor CANDU777! Temukan permainan judi slot online gacor gampang menang dan memiliki winrate RTP tertinggi hari ini.

kaganof.com

The fact that the Churchmen have “permitted” something doesn’t mean the Church “approves” of it.

“And after they had crucified him, they divided his garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: They divided my garments among them; and upon my vesture they cast lots.”

 

[ac_claire]

Thank you. You are absolutely correct. Latin does NOTHING for me. And I have no problem lifting my eyes to God in a Mass with rock music, English, and waving to other people around me. I am very pleased that the Catholic Church has APPROVED of Mass in the vernacular, along with the music of the people, and the Sign of Peace.

I agree with the language, but rock music…?? At mass?
I can’t even imagine. You are stronger than me if that wouldn’t totally distract you.

 

[GerardP]

I agree with the language, but rock music…?? At mass?
I can’t even imagine. You are stronger than me if that wouldn’t totally distract you.

The point of it is distraction. The Novus Ordo was designed with subtle and not so subtle distractions. Why do you think the sign of peace was placed right after the consecration? It’s to take your mind off of the sacrifice of Calvary and to put it back on the “community” gathering.

I watched a priest say a Latin Novus Ordo facing the East. As well done as could be according to the books of Paul VI. He consecrated the host, put it down walked over to shake the altar boys hands and walked over to the other side without even twitching his knee at Our Lord right there in front of him. You can even see that he’s trying to protect his thumb and forefinger.

It’s on video it’s at the 4:50 time stamp.

video.aol.com/video-detail/novus-ordo-solemn-mass-part-2/4226735974

 

[Cat]

While you are waving and winking and enjoying music that is Satanic in its origins, (wine turned to vinegar) this is going on.

- Advocate of the Wanderlust

The fact that the Churchmen have “permitted” something doesn’t mean the Church “approves” of it.

“And after they had crucified him, they divided his garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: They divided my garments among them; and upon my vesture they cast lots.”

Yes, I know that the Mass re-presents the Crucifixion of My Lord. In the NO Masses that I attend, this is the focus of the Mass. I’m sorry that you have had such horrible experiences with NO Masses. But your experience is not the norm. Honest.

I do not “wink” during Mass. It would be helpful if you didn’t make things up.

A “wave” does not express irreverence towards our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. A “wave” is a U.S. way of saying, “We’re one in Christ.”

Your statement that rock music has Satanic origins can be disputed by music historians The Lord redeems what formerly belonged to Satan and makes it holy–e.g., me and you.

Could you please explain your statement The fact that the Churchmen have “permitted” something doesn’t mean the Church “approves” of it. ?

Who are the “Churchmen?”

Are you saying that the Catholic Church does not approve of the NO Mass?

Thank you.

 

[ac_claire]

The point of it is distraction. The Novus Ordo was designed with subtle and not so subtle distractions. Why do you think the sign of peace was placed right after the consecration? It’s to take your mind off of the sacrifice of Calvary and to put it back on the “community” gathering.

But surely you don’t think that rock 'n roll was part of the design of the NO mass…? It’s an aberration.

As for the placement of the sign of peace…Thankfully that’s right at the top of the Holy Father’s list of things to fix. Hopefully this’ll actually happen, maybe when the new translation is instituted.

 

[Joannm]

But surely you don’t think that rock 'n roll was part of the design of the NO mass…? It’s an aberration.

As for the placement of the sign of peace…Thankfully that’s right at the top of the Holy Father’s list of things to fix. Hopefully this’ll actually happen, maybe when the new translation is instituted.

In the early Church the sign of peace was done after the catechumens were dismissed, But in the fourth century and for several centuries following, it was done right before communionm where it is now. And the kiss of peace was a real kiss, on the lips. Then it became a symbolic sort of hug among the clergy only.

 

[Brother_John]

The point of it is distraction. The Novus Ordo was designed with subtle and not so subtle distractions. Why do you think the sign of peace was placed right after the consecration? It’s to take your mind off of the sacrifice of Calvary and to put it back on the “community” gathering.

Wow ! All that’s missing is Oliver Stone

 

[ac_claire]

In the early Church the sign of peace was done after the catechumens were dismissed, But in the fourth century and for several centuries following, it was done right before communionm where it is now. And the kiss of peace was a real kiss, on the lips. Then it became a symbolic sort of hug among the clergy only.

…and some people have a problem with holding their neighbor’s hand!

But don’t you think the sign of peace right in the middle of the liturgy of the Eucharist…is just out of place? Right between kneeling at the EP (solemn) and the Agnus Dei (solemn). It’s kind of jarring.

Someone mentioned something on another thread, that it was possibly going to be moved to immediately before or after the creed…Don’t know if that’s a fact or not, but it’d be a better fit.

 

[Brother_John]

…and some people have a problem with holding their neighbor’s hand!

But don’t you think the sign of peace right in the middle of the liturgy of the Eucharist…is just out of place? Right between kneeling at the EP (solemn) and the Agnus Dei (solemn). It’s kind of jarring.

Someone mentioned something on another thread, that it was possibly going to be moved to immediately before or after the creed…Don’t know if that’s a fact or not, but it’d be a better fit.

I was out of town this weekend, and attended Mass at a small parish in eastern Oklahoma.

Prior to Mass, the priest read a letter from the Bishop, stating that due to the influenza epidemic in the diocese, that Communion in both species, as well as peacetime handshaking, would be suspended.

(The traditionalists would have jumped for joy to hear that, for sure )

Nonetheless, the congregation held hands during the Our Father, and shook hands at peacetime as usual.

Guess they weren’t afraid of getting the flu at Mass

I can’t really say if moving it will help or hurt…it has been my observation, that the priest pretty much breaks up the “peace party” by starting the “Lamb of God”…

 

[Like]

As for the placement of the sign of peace…Thankfully that’s right at the top of the Holy Father’s list of things to fix. Hopefully this’ll actually happen, maybe when the new translation is instituted.

That was nearly a year ago and it would not upset me one bit if it were released TOMORROW!
Or better yet, remove it all together. My parish does it twice, once just before the Mass & at the usual time.

 

[GerardP]

Wow ! All that’s missing is Oliver Stone

What’s the sarcasm for? Does the thought of the Church having enemies both within and without disrupt the “lollypops and gumdrop…everything is dandy” delusion that your maintaining?

Ever hear of Popes describing enemies within the Church and warning Catholics to be vigilant?

 

[Brother_John]

What’s the sarcasm for?** Does the thought of the Church having enemies both within and without disrupt the “lollypops and gumdrop…everything is dandy” delusion that your maintaining? **
Ever hear of Popes describing enemies within the Church and warning Catholics to be vigilant?

Pot meet kettle. Kettle meet pot.

 

[GerardP]

But surely you don’t think that rock 'n roll was part of the design of the NO mass…? It’s an aberration.

As for the placement of the sign of peace…Thankfully that’s right at the top of the Holy Father’s list of things to fix. Hopefully this’ll actually happen, maybe when the new translation is instituted.

I’m sure Paul VI would have blanched if he’d known what liturgies would look like as the last 38 years have gone.

But Sacrosanctum Concilium gives wide authority to the local ordinary and so, if the local ordinary thinks the Rock music
is

*116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music*, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

SC doesn’t determine exactly what constitutes “other kinds” of sacred music. It also talks about inculturation and musical traditions.

It’s full of loopholes that a modernist bishop can use to do things that would have made Pope St. Pius X excommunicate them instantly and declare them partakers in sacrilege.

I would recommend Micheal Davies “Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II” for a well researched and well documented exposition of the problems.

Also Chris Ferrara did an examination of the loopholes in the document on the liturgy.

debugmybrain.blogspot.com/2006/09/sacrosanctum-concilium-part-1.html

 

[GerardP]

Pot meet kettle. Kettle meet pot.

I’m not being sarcastic. I seriously think your comment indicates that you have a twisted perception of reality and that you know very little of what the Popes have historically taught about the Church’s enemies.

Why choose Oliver Stone for your comment and not Popes Leo XIII or St. Pius X or Pius XII or others?

“At this period, however, the partisans of evil seems to be combining together, and to be struggling with united vehemence, led on or assisted by that strongly organized and widespread association called the Freemasons. No longer making any secret of their purposes, they are now boldly rising up against God Himself. They are planning the destruction of holy Church publicly and openly, and this with the set purpose of utterly despoiling the nations of Christendom, if it were possible, of the blessings obtained for us through Jesus Christ our Saviour.”

Oh, I wonder what nutcase conspiracy theorist said that?

Here’s another:

“It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office.”

That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad,** to the ranks of the priesthood itself, **who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man. "

Is that another Oliver Stone conspiracy theory?

Here’s another more subtle one:

“Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”

Is this another conspiracy nut?

Or this:

“from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God”