Is the Ordinary Form Mass licit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaRita5
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem with having sedevacantists post here is that they present their personal opinions and/or the teachings from their sedevacantist clerics as being correct. Obviously when those teachings contradict those of the Pope and Magisterium, the Pope and Magisterium are correct. CAF is trying to give the correct teachings of the Church to people who often don’t know much about what the Church teaches. CAF does not want to explore the fringes of theological thought on hot-button issues.

Also, in my experience, sedevacantists seem incapable of posting without breaking the forum rule on inciting animosity towards the clergy when they denigrate the Pope, etc.
 
MariaRita5 said:
I find it hard to believe that God would allow so many of the faithful to celebrate an illicit Mass. I also don’t really know what to think about Vatican II, particularly since I have to admit that its application was disastrous
Click to expand...
Have you read the 4 principle documents if Vatican 2? Most people who talk of abiquities have not. They are actually quite clear and consistent IMO.

As to the implementation being disastrous, I cannot agree. Should Paul VI’s mass been such a drastic change? Maybe not, but the mass itself has not been a disaster. Were there a lot of bad teaching and liturgical practices for 20-30 years? Yes, but that was not part of Vatican 2’s implementation.

Here is my main point to have your friend consider:. Most of the problems that came about post Vatican 2, came about under people catechized and formed prior to Vatican 2 (both laity and clergy). If everything was so dang hunky dory prior to Vatican 2, how come we had all these problems instigated by people who grew up and became adults prior to the Council? Perhaps the Church was in need of some renewal?
 
I concur that it us most certainly licit. But it was established by the Pope, not by the bishops.
 
So, he is smarter than the Popes? Smarter than each Cardinal and the entire assemblage of Cardinals? He is smarter than Saints?

Wow.
 
This is true about the Sedes, but I don’t see anything in the OP that would lend credibility to their friend being one? I know there are some Hardcore LM people who don’t go to the NO because they, like the priest, say they can’t in good conscious, but still consider Pope Francis the reigning pontiff.

My only reason for saying this is because we shouldn’t be telling this person, who is seeking help, that their friend who they trust is something they are not.
There are orders of Priests who say ONLY TLM. I have also heard of diocesan priests who refused to say the NO and only said TLM.
 
It was implemented by a sainted Pope who was acting on the mandate given to him by the Second Vatican Council… so yes it was very much the Pope in union with the entire college of bishops.
 
ThomasMT said:
Censorship or depravity and profanity, sure. Censorship of opposing opinions is a trend of concern, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
That’s fine and dandy, and I agree. However, the ideological position of CAF should be a little more clear and and transparent. That way, a member such as MariaRita5 is well aware that the answers she seeks will adhere only to the given ideology… hence my original reply to her inquiry. Also, a member such as myself wouldn’t be at risk of falling out-of-line by offering an unpopular response, only to end up scratching my head over being cited with a vague reason such as “inappropriate…” This has happened to me numerous times and it’s a shame that it was the only way that I was able to gauge the consensus thinking on CAF.

Otherwise, the forum does present as “Catholic,” rather than merely modernistic, do not question V2, Roman Catholic. After all, I have read seemingly reasonable arguments for heresy on both sides of the shared isle. Too bad that this isn’t the place to discuss them.

I am grateful, however, for what CAF does have to offer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You know the majority of people who identify as traditionalist (specifically ‘non those who identify as sedevacantist’, as these people are extreme fringe people, much as the Catholics for Choice are extreme fringe members on a ‘liberal’ side) do not call the OF illicit.

I really, really wish that people wouldn’t jump to call out all ‘trads’ based on the remarks (purported) of a self-described ‘trad’ who himself is totally outside the mainstream traditionalist position.

I suppose it’s too much to ask that people just say that the position–i.e. the ‘OF is illicit’–is wrong, is not held by the majority of people who are either ‘traditionalist’ or ‘progressive’ or 'just plain Catholics–and not just jump to ‘tar’ one GROUP as holding that position, when most of them DON’T.
 
Emeraldlady said:
I really wish the traditionalists would just do their thing without needing to bash the Church and the Pope.
Click to expand...
This does not sound like your run of the mill traditional catholic who enjoys TLM Mass… Rather it sounds like someone who is being drawn into a group who rejects VII.
I really wish people would stop jumping to conclusions that all traditional Catholics, ie those who attend TLM, think this way.

Please people, stop generalizing, it is not charitable. I know plenty of TLMers who do not do any such thing.
 
Last edited:
I am thinking this is one of those groups too. It gives those who do enjoy TLM a very bad name with people who do not understand the differences.
 
ThomasMT said:
Otherwise, the forum does present as “Catholic,” rather than merely modernistic, do not question V2, Roman Catholic. After all, I have read very reasonable arguments for heresy on both sides of the shared isle. To bad that this isn’t the place to discuss them.
Click to expand...
This is a very alien way of looking at it, to me.

Vatican 2 has the same authority as the Council of Nicea-Constantinople. If a person came on and started debating the Nicene Creed, it would cause some serious strain. I mean, CAF is an apostolate of the Catholic Church that is meant to reach out to people. A person who is on board with Vatican 2 isn’t modernist. They’re just an ordinary Catholic fulfilling their bare minimum duty to be obedient to the Church. There is no isle.
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t it all sound like a distant echo of the “reformer’s” thoughts? They knew better, too.
 
I meant modernistic in addition to V2 adherent… with regard to the impression that I get.

I would very much enjoy discussing ideas of duty and obedience, regarding infallible doctine… but alas, the boundries have been made clear to me here. At this point, I should leave this thread in peace. Take care.
 
Last edited:
ThomasMT said:
You do need to understand though, that if you trully seek arguments from both sides, in CAF, arguments against NO and V2 will promptly be flagged and removed as blasphemous.
Click to expand...
I presume you are engaging in some not ill-intentioned hyperbole when you use the word “blasphemous”

I expect the actual reason for any flagging and removal is a violation of conduct rules, viz:
  1. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board. Catholics must be respectful of the legitimate religious preferences and practices of their fellow Catholics.
  2. Catholics must be charitable in their discussions about non-Catholic belief and practice.
 
“3. Wasn’t the ‘Tridentine’ Mass banned by Vatican II?”

1 - No. Look up the history of the FSSP. The TLM has been in use since Vatican II.

2 - Papal authority is not vertical with each Pope having a little less authority than the previous Pope. It is horizontal. Each Pope has exactly the same authority that all Popes before him had. If Pope St. Paul VI did not have the authority to reform the Mass, then neither did Pope St. Pius V or Pope St. Pius X.
 
MariaRita5 said:
I have a friend who goes to the TLM, and according to him, the Novus Ordo is valid but not licit. He’s read past papal encyclicals and done other research, and this is the conclusion he’s come to. He said he used to think that the Novus Ordo was fine, he just didn’t prefer it, but now he’s come to this conclusion. He was told by one priest that this priest quit celebrating the NO because he could no longer do so in good conscience.

He also doesn’t think that Vatican II was a valid council because it was a pastoral council full of ambiguities and contributed to by people with bad intentions, not doing what a council typically does which is to define doctrine and combat heresy. He read quoted some of the documents of Vatican II, and I have to admit that I was disturbed.

Considering all this, I don’t know what to believe. I find it hard to believe that God would allow so many of the faithful to celebrate an illicit Mass. I also don’t really know what to think about Vatican II, particularly since I have to admit that its application was disastrous. I’d like to get other people’s opinions on the matter. What do you all think of my friend’s conclusions? What do you guys think about Vatican II? I haven’t had the time to undertake the research myself so if anyone has undertaken to read the VII documents and read past papal encyclicals I would like to hear from you.
Click to expand...
Well, the arguments you present are extremely vague and therefore hard to respond to, so I’ll just point to some writings that give general information about it:

On the mass:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...-form-pauline-mass-a-traditional-defense.html

On Vatican II:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...i-re-vatican-ii-10-pastoral-council-only.html
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/vatican2.html

The two sources I’ve cited also have an “index page” of sorts regarding these sorts of claims, which can be found here:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2006/11/traditional-catholic-quasi.html
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/TRADIT.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top