Has anyone changed there mind here?

[GerardP]

I’m trying to wade through Sacrosanctum Concilium right now, and I find myself agreeing with Adoremus that there aren’t really problems with the document itself so much as radical changes that have been made “in the spirit of Vatican II” (in other words, extrapolating pretty far beyond the original intent of what’s on the page).

Compare what you’re reading now with Chris Ferrara’s examination of the “loopholes” in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

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

Cardinal Mahoney is a master of finding the language in Vatican II documents that justify some of his more avante garde behaviors.

As a new Catholic, there’s a lot I’m trying to catch up with. Would someone please recommend a Catechism or documents about liturgy from before V2 so I can read the V2 documents in context? A lot of people here have said or implied that things are missing from the NO mass without really giving examples or info, so I’d like to research it for myself. Thanks!

Radio Replies: amazon.com/Radio-Replies-One-Leslie-Rumble/dp/089555089X

Catechism of Trent: catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/trentc.htm

Latin Mass magazine both the website and the magazine

(good articles, allows people of differing positions to write articles and express their opinions, supporters of both SSPX and FSSP contribute without wars breaking out.

latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SU_Ripperger.html

I hope to attend a TLM soon at Mission San Juan Capistrano My experience of the Latin NO mass while visiting a Norbertine monastery was a really amazing experience, and I’m eager to learn more.

You are so lucky. I’m very familiar with the Norbertine order having been educated in part by them. The Norbertines are either incredibly modernistic or incredibly traditional. There is a such a divide in the order it is visually perceptible. I find it amazing that the liberal Norbertines don’t see the amazing growth and effectiveness of the traditional Norbertines.

And they are the envy of many traditional orders of priests because they get to wear the white biretta.

 

[Cat]

Isaiah 28: 10 “For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.”

Read the verse in context. It’s all about how to preach and tell people about God.

I’m with Brother John. I was born and raised evangelical Protestant and spent over 40 years devoted to being involved with many ministries in various churches. I KNOW evangelicalism.

And I know that most evangelicals would be extremely disturbed by a TLM, even with a missal.

Please try to understand. These people have been taught that ALL ritual and most liturgy is pagan and devilish and created by men, not God. To plunge people with that background into pure ritual and liturgy is foolish.

I think that most evangelicals are longing for liturgy because that’s the way God created us. But they don’t KNOW that. The best way to help them to understand is to gradually accustom them to a formal “worship” and explain everything that happens from the Bible (it’s all there).

There are exceptions and perhaps some of you have met these people who come from informal churches and immediately latch onto the TLM.

But believe me, most evangelicals would not be receptive to a TLM. Even an NO Mass is a major, MAJOR shock.

 

[GerardP]

Welcome… it is strange that a “new Catholic” can understand this reality… yet some posters here are either to stubborn, biased or blind to see what you see.
There is hope!!!

Unfortunately I believe Ferrara pointed out in his article what the good folks at Adoremus as well-intentioned as they are did not want to see.
Fr. Malachi Martin for decades held out that the documents themselves were fine when understood in the light of tradition. Considering his vast scholarship and knowledge and his close proximity in the formation of the documents, he knew them upside down and right side up. Ultimately by the end of his life, he concluded that the problems were in the documents themselves due to the ambiguities. He thought Vatican II would not be understood until a Pope goes through all 16 documents and clarifies them according to tradition and condemns errors resulting from the misreadings whether unintentional or deliberate.

“The Spirit of Vatican II” was present in the formation of the documents themselves. It was called the “Spirit of Giovanissimo” at the Council itself. And was invoked by liberals to exert political pressure on the votes.

The only thing that would have kept Vatican II under control would have been the personal charisma of Pope John. He was interested in one thing, expressing the Catholic faith in a way that would evoke zeal on the part of the clergy and the faithful.

Pope Paul VI was much more interested in a Utopian humanist approach and did not have the charisma to keep the liberals under wraps or keep the doctrines of the Church from being distorted. As Fr. Ralph Wiltgen wrote in “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” he was reduced to tears when he heard of the plot to undermine the papacy by a certain German peritus. Instead of calling a halt to Lumen Gentium and having it rewritten. He instead wrote the “Preliminary Explanatory Note” to protect the papacy and insisted that it be placed at the beginning of the document. Instead it was placed in the Index and hardly anyone (except traditionalists) ever mention it.

 

[MrS]

But believe me, most evangelicals would not be receptive to a TLM. Even an NO Mass is a major, MAJOR shock.

Now that I could understand. Teach them gradually.

What I found strange was the implication that first you give them a liturgy that is “acceptable” to them, and then eventually give them one that is “better”.

However, as “evangelical” Catholic (the Great Commission afterall was given to the Church), I find that some who are better with the scriptures than many Catholics come to understand John 6 for what it really is… and crave for the Eucharist. They just can’t wait to attend a real liturgy.

Have you ever seen a grown man cry that Easter cannot come fast enough for him?

.

 

[GerardP]

Both opinions, not official Church doctrine. St. Francis Xavier lived in a different place and time.

I stated that it was my opinion with “I think” but as far as I know, liturgical abuses are not justified by “the ends justifies the means.” Pope Paul VI issued one missal. It wasn’t a hootenany Mass. (even though it has degraded to such)

As long as I am able to bring others to the Church, I will continue to do so in a manner that is successful, providing that it remains consistient with Church teaching.

God brings others to the Church. Though I’ll bet St. Francie Xavier was a more successful vessel.

I predict your methodology will come back to bite you. Eventually someone will feel betrayed or deceived when they discover how far Catholicism really is from Protestantism.

Catholicism and only 100% Catholicism will work for the good of a soul, nothing else.

 

[GerardP]

Now that I could understand. Teach them gradually.

What I found strange was the implication that first you give them a liturgy that is “acceptable” to them, and then eventually give them one that is “better”.

Perfectly stated. It has an air of “wolves dressed as sheep” about it. Teaching gradually is one thing, tricking someone is something else. Catholics make bad Protestants anyway.

 

[Brother_John]

I predict your methodology will come back to bite you. Eventually someone will feel betrayed or deceived when they discover how far Catholicism really is from Protestantism.

Catholicism and only 100% Catholicism will work for the good of a soul, nothing else.

I’ll stand on my track record. How many converts have YOU sponsored or “brought home”? I only serve as the training wheels until they are ready to ride on their own. If they want to dive into “tradtional catholicism”, I certainly won’t stand in their way.

I’m not sure what you are implying with your 100% Catholicism remark. There isn’t anything “un-Catholic” in exposing a potential convert to a more modern, genteel liturgy to get their feet wet.

“Guitar Mass” or “Teen Life Mass”, is still valid Mass, whether you like it or not.

 

[GerardP]

One has to draw the line somewhere. A more realistic issue is when someone links to www.thepopeisaheretic.com, for example, I will not waste my time.

I’m sure you would not consider it a waste of time if you had gone there, found out what was wrong with it if anything and then had an answer that kept someone in the Church, right?

*"But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, **being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason *of that hope which is in you." 1 Peter 3:15

I will not consider it sad at all if I am wrong, or more accurately, some position is reversed.

You say that now, but there may come a day…

I will accept the new change and not bust a gut about it. I do not believe in the OF of the Mass. I believe in the Church behind it.

But the question is how do you know that what you believe is accurate? (It’s very hard to get people back to the first principals here. )

 

[GerardP]

I’ll stand on my track record. How many converts have YOU sponsored or “brought home”?

It’s vulgar to keep score and I wouldn’t even know how to count people. All I care about it whether what I write is the truth or not.
I can tell you, I’ve never brought anyone to some hootenany liturgy and tried to pass it off as Catholic.

“Brought home?” Home is Heaven. Despite Scott Hahn’s “Rome is Home” stuff, we are on a pilgrimage through a valley of tears. The Church is Noah’s Ark outside of which no one can survive the deluge.

I only serve as the training wheels until they are ready to ride on their own. If they want to dive into “tradtional catholicism”, I certainly won’t stand in their way.

Harry Crocker III the historian and author or “Triumph” said in a speech that is available at “Keep the Faith” that sometimes the people that help bring you into the faith aren’t always giving you the best example or the best catechesis. So perhaps you’d better examine “track record” in light of your positions a bit and see if people aren’t getting into the Church despite some of your positions.

I’m not sure what you are implying with your 100% Catholicism remark. There isn’t anything “un-Catholic” in exposing a potential convert to a more modern, genteel liturgy to get their feet wet. “Guitar Mass” or “Teen Life Mass”, is still valid Mass, whether you like it or not.

It’s pure Progressivism you are promoting. As I stated earlier in this or another thread. The Black Mass is valid. What Pope issued a "Guitar rite of Mass? " What Pope issued a missal called a “Teen Life Missale Romanum?”

This is the kind of absurdity that is going on during the Sacrifice of Calvary. romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/11/indicted-life-t.html

Calvary

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/030808/172027__passion_l.jpg

At the foot of the cross at a Life Teen mass

http://holytrinitybandon.com/admin/upload/stories/story1138680495.jpg

 

[Brother_John]

It’s pure Progressivism you are promoting. As I stated earlier in this or another thread. The Black Mass is valid. What Pope issued a "Guitar rite of Mass? " What Pope issued a missal called a “Teen Life Missale Romanum?”

Please define “pure progressivism”, citing Church documents.

What Pope decreed that guitars should NOT be used at Mass?

What Pope decreed that “Teen Life Mass” was an inappropriate liturgy?



In the meantime, I will continue my efforts to bring others to the HMC, thank you very much.

 

[GerardP]

Please define “pure progressivism”, citing Church documents.

Haven’t you ever read Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII?

Here’s one from St. Pius X in his condemnation of the modernists.

The progress of dogma is due chiefly to the obstacles which faith has to surmount, to the enemies it has to vanquish, to the contradictions it has to repel. Add to this a perpetual striving to penetrate ever more profoundly its own mysteries. Thus, to omit other examples, has it happened in the case of Christ: in Him that divine something which faith admitted in Him expanded in such a way that He was at last held to be God.** The chief stimulus of evolution in the domain of worship consists in the need of adapting itself to the uses and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by long usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of accommodating itself to historical conditions and of harmonising itself with existing forms of society.** Such is religious evolution in detail. And here, before proceeding further, we would have you note well this whole theory of necessities and needs, for it is at the root of the entire system of the Modernists, and it is upon it that they will erect that famous method of theirs called the historical.

1. Still continuing the consideration of the evolution of doctrine, it is to be noted that Evolution is due no doubt to those stimulants styled needs, but, if left to their action alone, it would run a great risk of bursting the bounds of tradition, and thus, turned aside from its **primitive vital principle, would lead to ruin instead of progress. Hence, studying more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as resulting from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. **The conserving force in the Church is tradition, and tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact; for by right it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition, and, in fact, for authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress. **The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs lies in the individual consciences and ferments there - especially in such of them as are in most intimate contact with life. Note here, Venerable Brethren, the appearance already of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity a factor of progress in the Church./**B] Now it is by a species of compromise between the forces of conservation and of progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences of some of them act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositaries of authority, until the latter consent to a compromise, and, the pact being made, authority sees to its maintenance.

With all this in mind, one understands how it is that the Modernists express astonishment when they are reprimanded or punished. What is imputed to them as a fault they regard as a sacred duty.

What Pope decreed that guitars should NOT be used at Mass?

What Pope decreed that “Teen Life Mass” was an inappropriate liturgy?

No…No…No…You cannot justify liturgical tinkering because a Pope hasn’t forbidden something.

You or anyone else is not allowed to touch the Liturgy. It is reserved only to the Pope.

And you whole philosophy has been condemned numerous times. Here are just a few examples: (to be continued)

 

[GerardP]

(…continued)

Pope Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae

The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: “For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.” -Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.

We cannot consider as altogether blameless the silence which purposely leads to the omission or neglect of some of the principles of Christian doctrine, for all the principles come from the same Author and Master, “the Only Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father.”-John i, I8. They are adapted to all times and all nations, as is clearly seen from the words of our Lord to His apostles: “Going, therefore, teach all nations; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all days, even to the end of the world.”-Matt. xxviii, 19. Concerning this point the Vatican Council says: “All those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.”-Const. de fide, Chapter iii.

**Let it be far from anyone’s mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ. **

The rule of life laid down for Catholics is not of such a nature that it cannot accommodate itself to the exigencies of various times and places. (VOL. XXIV-13.) The Church has, guided by her Divine Master, a kind and merciful spirit, for which reason from the very beginning she has been what St. Paul said of himself: “I became all things to all men that I might save all.”

History proves clearly that the Apostolic See, to which has been entrusted the mission not only of teaching but of governing the whole Church, has continued “in one and the same doctrine, one and the same sense, and one and the same judgment,” – Const. de fide, Chapter iv.

Pius XII in Mediator Dei:

It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

In the meantime, I will continue my efforts to bring others to the HMC, thank you very much.

Trent anathematizes anyone who would think that if a liturgy will chase someone away that it’s the liturgy’s fault and therefore should be changed:

“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.”

 

[Eilish_Maura]

(…continued)

Trent anathematizes anyone who would think that if a liturgy will chase someone away that it’s the liturgy’s fault and therefore should be changed:

Seems some ‘traditional’ Catholics will be in deep doo doo.

 

[GerardP]

Seems some ‘traditional’ Catholics will be in deep doo doo.

Actually the ones who will be in trouble are the ones who thought the TLM had “too many gestures” and “needless repetitions” and
“people don’t understand Latin anyway.” and introduced a badly translated optional rite and tried to pass it off as mandatory.

The problem of the Novus Ordo in it’s purest form is its impoverishment. It is missing things. As I’ve stated before, it gains stability the closer it imitates the TLM. Nothing in the Novus Ordo is a positive incentive to impiety. It simply needs more of them and more reinforcements.

The problem isn’t the ceremonies, the vestments or outward signs. It’s the lack of them especially when compared to what it illegally replaced.

 

[Indyann]

Seems some ‘traditional’ Catholics will be in deep doo doo.

It does seem that way, but we must not forget God’s infinite mercy. He does desire that all men be saved.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Actually the ones who will be in trouble are the ones who thought the TLM had “too many gestures” and “needless repetitions” and
“people don’t understand Latin anyway.” and introduced a badly translated optional rite and tried to pass it off as mandatory.

The problem of the Novus Ordo in it’s purest form is its impoverishment. It is missing things. As I’ve stated before, it gains stability the closer it imitates the TLM. Nothing in the Novus Ordo is a positive incentive to impiety. It simply needs more of them and more reinforcements.

The problem isn’t the ceremonies, the vestments or outward signs. It’s the lack of them especially when compared to what it illegally replaced.

But when it comes to saying a mass ‘drives away’ people then it is too many from the TLM adherents in the doo doo.

 

[elt1956]

I don’t like happy clappy stuff either but I do like to have what the majority of believers have enjoyed for the past two millenia-a Mass I can understand because its in my own language. I’m not sure why not understanding it should make the Mass more reverent.

Okay, I apologize in advance if anyone has read my posting about the New and Latin Masses on other forums. Don’t want to bore anyone. But here goes again. Pcelli75 and I have a lot in common when it comes to Mass.

I was raised with ONLY the Latin form of the Mass. It was beautiful, dignified, kept one’s attention because of the rituals and emphasized the Majesty of the Church and the Mass. I was exposed to this through Grade School, High School and so on until Vatican II. Did I miss my Latin Mass when the New Mass was introduced? Yes, emphatically yes, but I adjusted, because the Catholic Church was my church. Would I like to attend a Latin Mass again? Yes, very much so, but I still accept the New Mass. Perhaps the biggest difference I have found between the Latin Mass and the New Mass is that because of all the ritual of the Latin Mass, one was drawn to it through the senses. We could see, hear, smell the Mass. And because a child first learns through the senses, this was an experience that cannot be forgotten by me. It is part of me and will remain with me always. It is part of my childhood. The beauty of the Latin Mass is unforgetable. Fortunately, although the Mass was in Latin, we could also understand what was happening because of the Latin/English Missles. Latin was on one side of the missle with the English translation on the other. So, although the Priest was speaking in Latin, which is a wonderful language, we still knew what was happening during Mass. So to me, the understanding of both the Latin and New Mass is not the barrier of language, but the barrier of not experiencing both kinds of Masses. I hope this explanation of how I feel about the Latin Mass will help those who love the New Mass and don’t understand why we oldsters have the tendency to want to hold on to our beautiful Latin Mass. It is a part of us. It was especially a part of my childhood. Peace.

 

[Cat]

Okay, I apologize in advance if anyone has read my posting about the New and Latin Masses on other forums. Don’t want to bore anyone. But here goes again. Pcelli75 and I have a lot in common when it comes to Mass.

I was raised with ONLY the Latin form of the Mass. It was beautiful, dignified, kept one’s attention because of the rituals and emphasized the Majesty of the Church and the Mass. I was exposed to this through Grade School, High School and so on until Vatican II. Did I miss my Latin Mass when the New Mass was introduced? Yes, emphatically yes, but I adjusted, because the Catholic Church was my church. Would I like to attend a Latin Mass again? Yes, very much so, but I still accept the New Mass. Perhaps the biggest difference I have found between the Latin Mass and the New Mass is that because of all the ritual of the Latin Mass, one was drawn to it through the senses. We could see, hear, smell the Mass. And because a child first learns through the senses, this was an experience that cannot be forgotten by me. It is part of me and will remain with me always. It is part of my childhood. The beauty of the Latin Mass is unforgetable. Fortunately, although the Mass was in Latin, we could also understand what was happening because of the Latin/English Missles. Latin was on one side of the missle with the English translation on the other. So, although the Priest was speaking in Latin, which is a wonderful language, we still knew what was happening during Mass. So to me, the understanding of both the Latin and New Mass is not the barrier of language, but the barrier of not experiencing both kinds of Masses. I hope this explanation of how I feel about the Latin Mass will help those who love the New Mass and don’t understand why we oldsters have the tendency to want to hold on to our beautiful Latin Mass. It is a part of us. It was especially a part of my childhood. Peace.

Actually, most of the oldsters I know do NOT long for a return to the Latin, but are thrilled with the NO Mass.

I am not claiming a scientific poll, but only stating my own experiences. I play piano for a hundred year-old Italian parish. A lot of people who attend have had family involved with that parish since the beginning. Many are elderly, although a lot of young families attend. These are loyal Catholics. Many drive long distances to attend this parish because it is specifically stated that it is the Italian parish.

These dear people are adamantly NOT desirous of a Latin Mass. If they wanted one, there is a Latin Mass every weekday and several times each Sabbath right down the street, and it has been happening since the mid-1980s in our city. There is a respectable flock of people attending, but most do NOT attend TLM. The people at the Italian parish are very happy with piano and guitar music and the English (and Italian) language.

 

[Cat]

Actually the ones who will be in trouble are the ones who thought the TLM had “too many gestures” and “needless repetitions” and
“people don’t understand Latin anyway.” and introduced a badly translated optional rite and tried to pass it off as mandatory.

The problem of the Novus Ordo in it’s purest form is its impoverishment. It is missing things. As I’ve stated before, it gains stability the closer it imitates the TLM. Nothing in the Novus Ordo is a positive incentive to impiety. It simply needs more of them and more reinforcements.

The problem isn’t the ceremonies, the vestments or outward signs. It’s the lack of them especially when compared to what it illegally replaced.

I find this post extremely disturbing. You are claiming that the NO illegally replaced the TLM.

And you are claiming that the NO is deficient.

If you are NOT making these claims, then I accuse you of using written language that is confusing and misleading.

Would you like to write to my bishop and make these claims? I’m asking you to go away and pick on someone your own size.

My bishop is Thomas Doran of the Diocese of Rockford. Here is a link to his bio which is part of our diocese website: rockforddiocese.org/bishop/Default.htm

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The problem of the Novus Ordo in it’s purest form is its impoverishment. It is missing things. As I’ve stated before, it gains stability the closer it imitates the TLM. Nothing in the Novus Ordo is a positive incentive to impiety. It simply needs more of them and more reinforcements.

The problem isn’t the ceremonies, the vestments or outward signs. It’s the lack of them especially when compared to what it illegally replaced.

This kind of language I have heard before, from those of SSPX. Is this where you are coming from. Whether you agree or not the Novus Ordo is equally as valid and efficacious as the Latin Mass. Please tell me where the Holy Spirit guided you and how, in order for you to make such statements. Because believe it or not, they do not agree with official Church teaching. Rethink your statement that “nothing is an incentive to piety”, especially at the time of the consecration, or do you believe it to be invalid as many in SSPX believe? I know one in particular who told me, he "had to go there in order to save his immortal soul?. Do you make this statement also?
Deacon Ed B