Irreverent Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter TradCatholic12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
There is no bishop in this liturgy.

It is celebrated by a group that has been condemned by the US Bishops, Call to Action.

How do you get that this is a mass approved by the Church and the bishops?

That’s slander.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
It’s not slander if it happened.
" It should be duly noted that this is the “ordinary form of the Roman Rite” (Benedict XVI), and is being celebrated for the quasi-excommunicated Call to Action group by the retired Canadian bishop (and a key “progressive” Council figure) Bishop Remi Joseph De Roo, who happens to be in good standing with Modernist Rome. "
novusordowatch.org/archive.htm
 
JReducation said:
There is no bishop in this liturgy.
Click to expand...
Actually in the version of the Masster of Puppets that i saw
youtube.com/watch?v=NSbiL3XduvY
there was a pretty good view of the bishop. You can check out his webpage with his photo here:
remideroo.com/
And you can check out his schedule indicating that he would be at the Call to Action Conference in San Jose here:
remideroo.com/activity.htm
And you can check out that he is a bishop in good standing in the Catholic Church here:
catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bderoo.html
 
If I didn’t have to remind myself that the Church is a hospital for sinners, I would be so angry and ashamed that it is filled with people who have no sadness for their relentless attempts to tarnish the Church’s good name in a public forum, no conscience about wounding Her and Her children with scorn. A stumbling block for weaker members and those who could be in the process of being drawn to Her by the Holy Spirit.

But I do keep reminding myself. 😊

I only hope that you all spend as much time praying for Her as you do tearing Her down. 😦
 
Jeanette_L said:
If I didn’t have to remind myself that the Church is a hospital for sinners, I would be so angry and ashamed that it is filled with people who have no sadness for their relentless attempts to tarnish the Church’s good name in a public forum, no conscience about wounding Her and Her children with scorn. A stumbling block for weaker members and those who could be in the process of being drawn to Her by the Holy Spirit.

But I do keep reminding myself. 😊

I only hope that you all spend as much time praying for Her as you do tearing Her down. 😦
Click to expand...
As I understand the thread here, it concerns irreverent Mass.
 
bobzills said:
As I understand the thread here, it concerns irreverent Mass.
Click to expand...
And yet the only ones who seem to be concerned about how all this appears to whomever happens upon this thread are those who are defending the Church.

Love covers a multitude of sins. Hmmm, empty words? I don’t think so or the Holy Spirit would not have inspired them. If you love the Church you will cover her in your love for Her, cover her with your prayers, not your biting tongues.

JMO.
 
Jeanette_L said:
And yet the only ones who seem to be concerned about how all this appears to whomever happens upon this thread are those who are defending the Church.

Love covers a multitude of sins. Hmmm, empty words? I don’t think so or the Holy Spirit would not have inspired them. If you love the Church you will cover her in your love for Her, cover her with your prayers, not your biting tongues.

JMO.
Click to expand...
This appears to be slightly off the topic of the thread which has the title:
Re: Irreverent Mass
I thought that someone said that liturgical dancing is not allowed at a Mass. I gave an example of a bishop celebrating a Mass where there was liturgical dancing and someone denied that it happened and said that I was guilty of slander.
Some people think that the Mass was irreverent, but others may not think so. In any case, there was liturgical dancing. I don’t see how you can deny that.
 
I’ve personally learned a ton from this thread up to this point and
I’m grateful that the Masster of Puppets link was provided for my observation because I had no idea things had gone to that extent.

As a thread progresses, people can become heated because of differences of opinion. A little humour here and there can help deflate / reduce the tension enabling the exchange of viewpoints to continue.

As the thread progresses, peoples manner of exchanging opinions also evolves; as we become more familiar with the subject(s), each other. The point is we continue to exchange and all come away with more than before the thread started. Despite some frustrations, I would go so far as to say that even the members whose opinions were opposed showed ample respect for each other in this thread…(not always easy to do when someone disagrees with you).

Just as important as scrutinizing what people post, is *how much *they post. Threads/forums can be highly addictive.

In the end, it’s what we do more than what we say that matters because we say volumes by what we do, and coincidentally as the epistle of St. James from todays readings says :

"Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith."

Most definitely we should try our best not to neglect prayer. That’s always good counsel.We are meant to be a people of prayer. Permit me to say that I did a lot of work for God and his priests today, and that in itself is a prayer.

Do I love the Church ? … I love the Church Suffering more than you’ll ever know !
 
bobzills said:
This appears to be slightly off the topic of the thread which has the title:
Re: Irreverent Mass
I thought that someone said that liturgical dancing is not allowed at a Mass. I gave an example of a bishop celebrating a Mass where there was liturgical dancing and someone denied that it happened and said that I was guilty of slander.
Some people think that the Mass was irreverent, but others may not think so. In any case, there was liturgical dancing. I don’t see how you can deny that.
Click to expand...
**I said it was slander, because there is no bishop in the video. ** Therefore you are slandering our bishops.

Second, the video clearly says that it is a mass for the Call to Action Group. This group has been corrected and called to account on a number of issues by the Bishops’ Conference of the United States.

By stating that there is a bishop in a mass, where there was no bishop, you are implying complicity where there is none. By failing to mention to your reader that this group if the Call to Action group and that the Bishop’s Conference has called them to accountability and corrected them a number of times, without any cooperation from them, you leave the reader with the impression that this is normative and acceptable within the Catholic Church in the United States. Such is not the case.

Maybe you did not know that Call to Action has been called to accountablity by the Bishops’ Conference. But you can certainly see that the celebrant is not a bishop.

Why would you say that there is a bishop presiding at such an event? Can you not tell the difference between a bishop and a presbyter? Or did you want to add a bite to your post that would leave innocent readers with the wrong impression of our bishops?

That is slander. Slander is sinful and illegal. I can present your post to my bishop and he would probably be so angry that he can decide to take action against CAF for allowing such a post or he may say that people who portray the Church in this light are to be pitied.

I can’t speak for him. I can imagine, based on other actions that I have seen bishops take on such matters.

For the sake of others and for the sake of the Church that we love, I would encourage everyone to give the entir story when you post a link and do not add what is not there. That only hurts the Church and those who are looking at the Church for the first time in their lives.

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
**I said it was slander, because there is no bishop in the video. ** Therefore you are slandering our bishops.

Second, the video clearly says that it is a mass for the Call to Action Group. This group has been corrected and called to account on a number of issues by the Bishops’ Conference of the United States.

By stating that there is a bishop in a mass, where there was no bishop, you are implying complicity where there is none. By failing to mention to your reader that this group if the Call to Action group and that the Bishop’s Conference has called them to accountability and corrected them a number of times, without any cooperation from them, you leave the reader with the impression that this is normative and acceptable within the Catholic Church in the United States. Such is not the case.

Maybe you did not know that Call to Action has been called to accountablity by the Bishops’ Conference. But you can certainly see that the celebrant is not a bishop.

Why would you say that there is a bishop presiding at such an event? Can you not tell the difference between a bishop and a presbyter? Or did you want to add a bite to your post that would leave innocent readers with the wrong impression of our bishops?

That is slander. Slander is sinful and illegal. I can present your post to my bishop and he would probably be so angry that he can decide to take action against CAF for allowing such a post or he may say that people who portray the Church in this light are to be pitied.

I can’t speak for him. I can imagine, based on other actions that I have seen bishops take on such matters.

For the sake of others and for the sake of the Church that we love, I would encourage everyone to give the entir story when you post a link and do not add what is not there. That only hurts the Church and those who are looking at the Church for the first time in their lives.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
See post number 202. And for those who say that there is no liturgical dancing here is another video:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ul24NlRhOJk&feature=related
 
JReducation said:
**I said it was slander, because there is no bishop in the video. ** Therefore you are slandering our bishops. …
By stating that there is a bishop in a mass, where there was no bishop, you are implying complicity where there is none. …
you can certainly see that the celebrant is not a bishop.

Why would you say that there is a bishop presiding at such an event? …That is slander. Slander is sinful and illegal.
Click to expand...
In addition to seeing the bishop on the video, the bishop has responded by e-mail to an inquirer as to whether or not he was actually the presider at the Mass. In addition to what I gave in the previous posts, this can also be checked out. As I said before, some people do not think that this type of Mass is irreverent, whereas, others do.
Bishop “Remi De Roo’s Reply
SilkCut 13 May 2008 22:00
Here is my original email to Remi De Roo: (names changed to protect the shy)

There is currently being debated, on a UK based newspaper blog, a video of a Mass over which you presided. The debate is very derogatory about yourself and the congregation involved.

Here is the video: youtube.com/watch?v=NSbiL3XduvY

Here is the blog: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/may2008/howtoscarethekidsatmass.htm

I do not know the context in which this mass was celebrated, and personally I do have issues with it, but I do feel that you have the right to reply and justify yourself before your accusers.

Best wishes in Christ.

Silk Cut

And here is his reply:

Thank you, SilkCut, for your courtesy in bringing this item to my attention.
Selective excerpts from a ceremony can be used for almost any purpose.
It is not my intention to waste time on this kind of charade.
Sincerely, Remi”
 
I have a book at home here somewhere (buried under 250 other books) entitled, “Call to Action or Call to Apostasy”. I think it’s about 8 or 9 years old now. It exposed a lot of “extremes” on the far side of particularly liturgical experimentation, and I don’t think it’s very accurate to say “within the Church” because those responsible for promoting and procuring such objectives (at the time they are/were doing this) have actually stepped “outside the Church.”
 
NeedImprovement said:
I have a book at home here somewhere (buried under 250 other books) entitled, “Call to Action or Call to Apostasy”. I think it’s about 8 or 9 years old now. It exposed a lot of “extremes” on the far side of particularly liturgical experimentation, and I don’t think it’s very accurate to say “within the Church” because those responsible for promoting and procuring such objectives (at the time they are/were doing this) have actually stepped “outside the Church.”
Click to expand...
True, but I think that the Bishop Remi De Roo is in good standing in the Church, is he not? He is listed as a retired Catholic bishop at:
catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bderoo.html
 
Just so everyone on here is clear, Call to Action and its members have been excommunicated for heresy by the Catholic Church. To follow them is to excommunicate one’s self from the saving Body of Christ, the holy Catholic Church Church.
 
una_fides said:
Just so everyone on here is clear, Call to Action and its members have been excommunicated for heresy by the Catholic Church. To follow them is to excommunicate one’s self from the saving Body of Christ, the holy Catholic Church Church.
Click to expand...
In every diocese? Or is it only in the diocese of Bishop Bruskewicz, Lincoln, Nebraska?
According to the ewtn news service: “The excommunication order applies only within the Lincoln, Nebraska diocese.”
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=74096

Also, certain conditions had to be satisfied in the diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska for this excommunication to take effect, so I don;t see where you could say that every member of the Call to Action in the diocese of Lincoln Nebraska, was automatically excommunicated . And isn’t Bishop de Roo listed as an emeritus bishop in good standing in the RCC?
Also, in addition to Bishop de Roo appearing at the Call to Action conferences, I know that at the 1995 Call to Action conference, the Bishop of Partenia Jacques Gaillot, and the auxiliary Bishop of Detroit Thomas Gumbleton, were speakers.
 
bobzills said:
It’s not slander if it happened.
" It should be duly noted that this is the “ordinary form of the Roman Rite” (Benedict XVI), and is being celebrated for the quasi-excommunicated Call to Action group by the retired Canadian bishop (and a key “progressive” Council figure) Bishop Remi Joseph De Roo, who happens to be in good standing with Modernist Rome. "
novusordowatch.org/archive.htm
Click to expand...
  1. Do you see him wearing episcopal garb in this video? I didn’t. This probably means that he was not a bishop a the time the video was made.
  2. Everyone deserves a chance at conversion. If the now retired Bishop was once part of this movement, he no longer is. So what’s the problem? The SSPX bishops are excommunicated. If they return to communion with the Holy Father they would also be in good standing with the Church and all sins forgiven. That’s part of Catholic tradition. Have you forgotten St. Augustine? He was a scandal, before his convesion. After his conversion, became not only a very good priest and theologian, but also a very good father to his bastard son. We often forget that Augustine had a bastard son.
  3. This mass is not the Ordinary Form (OF) of the Roman Rite. The mass in the video is a bastardization of the sacred liturgy. How can you say that this is the OF? That’s offensive to the OF and to the Holy Father who has declared it the Ordinary Form.
  4. Now you’re calling Rome “modernist”? Are you no longer part of the Church of Rome or are you a modernist too?
  5. What is a modernist? Please don’t give me the nonsense of the 19th century modernist movement, that was something different.
JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I am not interested in seeing every video on youtube.com. You’re missing the point. You made some statements that were not true and you have not retracted them. That’s the point.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Do you deny that Bishop Remi de Roo presided at the CTA Mass in question?
I don’t see how, with any credibility, anyone can deny that he was there since the video clearly shows him there and, in addition, there is other supporting evidence that he was there. And he is a retired bishop in good standing in the RCC.
As I said, the Mass itself may not have been all that irreverent, even though it did incorporate some African music and puppets. It is difficult to say since we were not there and these were clips, as the Bishop himself wrote in an e-mail.
 
bobzills said:
Do you deny that Bishop Remi de Roo presided at the CTA Mass in question?
I don’t see how, with any credibility, anyone can deny that he was there since the video clearly shows him there and, in addition, there is other supporting evidence that he was there. And he is a retired bishop in good standing in the RCC.
As I said, the Mass itself may not have been all that irreverent, even though it did incorporate some African music and puppets. It is difficult to say since we were not there and these were clips, as the Bishop himself wrote in an e-mail.
Click to expand...
I’m not asking you to deny that Remi was there.

I’m asking you to retract the inferrence that you’re making that this is an example of the OF approved by the Church and that this is also approved by the bishops.

Neither of these inferrences that you made are true.

You can say that Remi was there, but that this is not the OF approved by the Church. You can also say that the Bishops do not approve of this mass or this group. You can also say that this is not the norm for the Catholic Church or the Catholic Epsicopacy.

Then your condemnation of Remi and his group would have credibility. But as long as you leave these blanks, you’re a like a jailhouse lawyer, leaving out the good stuff and hoping that the jury won’t notice it.

JR 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top