How to respond to traditionalist catholics about their attitude towards the new mass

[Atreyu]

Then you are losing sleep over a very insignificant portion of the Church. If I were you, I’d lose a lot more sleep over the radical modernists who infest most chancerys in America and are in a position to inflict their radicalness on the rest of us. All that radical traditionalists can do is ankle bite and shake their fists. They aren’t being hired to fill important positions in the USCCB bureaucracy.

Yes I do “lose sleep” as it were over these people too. But I have faith that the Holy Spirit will keep the Church free from error. It doesn’t matter how many modernists there are in the Church; Rome will never be infected, in the same way she stayed free from error when a majority of bishops were Arian. So why do I criticise the radical traditionalists more? Because like I said, they should know better. By the way I often have double-standards in that I tend to treat “my own” more harshly than those who are not “my own”. Maybe this is a reason why I treat radical traditionalists more harshly than I treat radical liberals.

And there was nothing sarcastic in the portion you quoted.

No, I was referring to other parts of your post.

 

[bear06]

That was never said.

My dear Bombay, the OP did mention his “My irritatingly (yet lovely in other ways) traditionalist friends”. He also went on to add his brother in another post.

That’s my point. Do try to pay attention.

I think that you may have misunderstood my post. The original poster agrees with most everything his friends/relatives do except the invalidity of the Novus Ordo. He doesn’t feel the need to argue with them on the beauty and value of the TLM for he prefers it himself.

Again - that’s my point.

Again, I think you misunderstood. The OP poster was addressing his friends lack of belief in the validity of the Novus Ordo. He wasn’t addressing their other opinions, only this one.
EDIT

 

[Dr.Bombay]

One could get the impression that you think mighty highly of yourself. You and I have both been here a very long time and have discussed many topics and I’m sure our paths will cross again. And, BTW, you were the first one in this thread to mention the SSPX. You can’t fault someone for responding to your lead.

It seems I don’t think as highly of myself as you think of me. Otherwise, why would you continue to stalk me?

I don’t fault anybody. People can respond to whatever they like, no matter how off topic.

 

[Atreyu]

I don’t fault anybody. People can respond to whatever they like, no matter how off topic.

Erm, did you just contradict your first paragraph with the second?

 

[bear06]

Erm, did you just contradict your first paragraph with the second?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Erm, did you just contradict your first paragraph with the second?

No, I didn’t. But thank you for asking.

 

[corvidae]

I would ask them to study the Waldensians and the Fransicans.

These two were almost identical at their beginings. Both begun by men who rejected wealth, and sought to live for God in simplicity. One of the groups (the Waldensians) would not abide by the Pope’s request that they not preach unless they were ordained. The other obeyed the Pope.
One of the groups (the Waldensians) became heretical and taught dualism, and kept getting further and further from the Truth. The other helped reform the worldliness of the Church, and is still around today.

Where Peter is, There is the Church, and Where the Church is, there is Salvation.

We cannot fix the Church from outside it, but only from within, and only by clinging to the boat of St. Peter.

A lone Raven

 

[mercygate]

Nobody has mentioned Quo Primum. Why is this even being brought up?

Quo primum has been mentioned. It is the main document traditionalists claim excludes the validity of the Mass of Paul VI. The title of this thread is “how to respond to traditionalist Catholics . . .” The Zenit article delivers the goods on that question.

 

[Genesis315]

The Catechism of Pius X (1910) said the necessary form for a valid Eucharist is:

4 Q. What is the matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist?

A. The matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist is that which was used by Jesus Christ Himself, that is, wheaten bread and wine of the vine.

5 Q. What is the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist?

A. The form of the sacrament of the Eucharist consists of the words used by Jesus Christ Himself: “This is My Body: This is My Blood.”

 

[palmas85]

I attend the tridentine rite because it is an excellent mass and has a good community. I do not hate the new mass, though many current versions of it and the communities that attend it in my area are not as uplifting as my own. However I do like to defend the validity of the new mass and have used the example of the past pope who did celebrate the new mass. I assume the current pope also celebrates the new mass.

My irritatingly (yet lovely in other ways) traditionalist friends have brushed off my comments by saying that the Pope is only a leader in matters of faith and morals. If he chooses to celebrate the new mass, say my friends, that does not indicate that it is okay to attend.

I think that the mass one celebrates is a matter of faith and morals, but I can’t seem to get the argument on a good logical footing. I get mad because they shrug and turn away without willingness to continue the debate. I also get mad because they say they would never attend a new mass. This attitude, I know can lead to sin.

PLease help with a few pointers on this topic.

It would help to know exactly who who your friends are. Are they attendees of an indult Mass or followers of some schismatic group?

 

[bear06]

It would help to know exactly who who your friends are. Are they attendees of an indult Mass or followers of some schismatic group?

I respect you asking this question but, **I **wouldn’t find this necessary because, just like a liberal person holding positions contrary to the Magisterium attending a valid Mass so can the conservative person who holds positions contrary to the Magisterium attend a valid indult Mass. It’s not necessarily where you go that is the problem or the plus, it’s what you believe when you go there.

 

[AlexV]

And let’s always remember that there are different levels of magisterial statements, and one isn’t required to assent to all of them.

 

[bear06]

And let’s always remember that there are different levels of magisterial statements, and one isn’t required to assent to all of them.

I’ve always been curious about this. Is there actually a Church document out that says this?

 

[AlexV]

Guess what? Catholicism isn’t about taking every conceivable, possible problem or question and consulting a document stamped “Magisterial judgment…Must obey.”

 

[CatholicNerd]

The Catechism of Pius X (1910) said the necessary form for a valid Eucharist is:

4 Q. What is the matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist?

A. The matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist is that which was used by Jesus Christ Himself, that is, wheaten bread and wine of the vine.

5 Q. What is the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist?

A. The form of the sacrament of the Eucharist consists of the words used by Jesus Christ Himself: “This is My Body: This is My Blood.”

That’s a most excellent point.

 

[bear06]

Guess what? Catholicism isn’t about taking every conceivable, possible problem or question and consulting a document stamped “Magisterial judgment…Must obey.”

So does that meant he answer is no? I’m not making an argument here. I’m asking a question.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Quo primum has been mentioned. It is the main document traditionalists claim excludes the validity of the Mass of Paul VI. The title of this thread is “how to respond to traditionalist Catholics . . .” The Zenit article delivers the goods on that question.

No, Quo Primum was not mentioned on this thread until you brought it up in an obvious attempt to derail the discussion.

 

[bear06]

No, Quo Primum was not mentioned on this thread until you brought it up in an obvious attempt to derail the discussion.

The OP wanted to know how to respond to the invalidity arguments. The document mercygate gave is one such argument. Besides, if you really feel it’s off topic you said yourself:

Originally Posted by Dr. Bombay
I don’t fault anybody. People can respond to whatever they like, no matter how off topic.

So, we’re all good! You’re not faulting anybody and mercygate is providing info to marcsababa.

 

[Atreyu]

Dr Bombay, are we in accord?

 

[OSPX]

Let me get this straight. It’s okay for some in the Church to declare that they’d never attend the Old Roman Rite, but it’s not okay for others to declare they’d never attend the novus ordo?

Hmmmm…there’s a thread of logic in there I’m failing to grasp. But I’m a traddy, so what do I know?

And, by the way, I’d never attend the novus ordo. Unless I had to. Like due to family obligations. I dread Christmas.

Amen. Amen. Amen.