Just how "traditional" can the N.O. be?

[albert_cipriani]

deogratias:

And who pronounces the norms to be corrupt? You?

The norms of selling indulgences became admittedly corrupt in the late Middle Ages. The corrupt norm (practiced by the pope himself during Luther’s time) was partially responsible for igniting the Protestant revolt.

After the horses had fled the stable, Churchmen secured the door by shutting down the corrupt practice. If I were living in those days, I can only hope I would have been among the small group of Catholics who pronounced those norms to be corrupt. This would have been my Catholic duty.

It’s laxity to shirk one’s own Catholic duty. But you add to that an affront to our fellowship when you cast aspersions upon those of us who are attempting to fullfill our Catholic duty by pronouncing corruption where we see it. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[pnewton]

albert cipriani:

Everything the Nazis did, they did according to the legal norms of their corrupt regime. Surely, that shameful political standard ought not be superimposed upon the Church of Christ.

I think comparing the authority as exercised in the church with Nazi Germany is hardly fair.

The church can, will and always has changed disciplinary practices to meet the specific needs of the church. This is not a rejection of Tradition, but an exercise of her pastoral responsibility. I do not like all that the church does in the way of disciple, but I do accept it and adhere to it.

While the church is not facist, it is also not a democracy or anarchy. The best human analogy would be a family. Like children should obey their parents, so should we obey our Mother Church.

I have a lot of respect for all Catholics who are living up to the teachings of Christ and the precepts of the Church, from Traditional Catholics to Charismatics.

 

[deogratias]

While the church is not facist, it is also not a democracy or anarchy. The best human analogy would be a family. Like children should obey their parents, so should we obey our Mother Church

Good analogy. There are those who will always find a reason to disobey the Church - be it birth conrol, divorce and remarriage or supporting schismatic ideas. They do this to convince themselves that they are right and Mother Church is wrong. But the Father knows and to expand on your analogy, it is the father to whom they will be answerable in the end.

 

[albert_cipriani]

pnewton:

I think comparing the authority as exercised in the church with Nazi Germany is hardly fair.

I do not compare the Church’s authority with that of the Nazis. Such a comparison would at most be erroneous and at least be censorious as something that’s offensive to pious ears.

I compare the excuses Catholics give for obeying the Church’s fallible disciplnes to the excuses Nazis gave for obeying their country’s genocidal laws. The comparison is not one between differing authorities (secular and sacred) but of similar rationalizations.

Just as no soldier can excuse his behavior under the pretext of “just following orders,” no Catholic soldier in Christ’s Church Militant can excuse his impious behavior (not kneeling, not fasting, not evangelizing to the Jews) under the pretext of just obeying his bishop.

The church can, will and always has changed disciplinary practices to meet the specific needs of the church. This is not a rejection of Tradition, but an exercise of her pastoral responsibility.

Of course, we all agree with this truism. It is not at all the issue between us. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
http://www.geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

 

[Crusader]

albert cipriani:

I compare the excuses Catholics give for obeying the Church’s fallible disciplnes to the excuses Nazis gave for obeying their country’s genocidal laws. The comparison is not one between differing authorities (secular and sacred) but of similar rationalizations.

Just as no soldier can excuse his behavior under the pretext of “just following orders,” no Catholic soldier in Christ’s Church Militant can excuse his impious behavior (not kneeling, not fasting, not evangelizing to the Jews) under the pretext of just obeying his bishop.

Of course, we all agree with this truism. It is not at all the issue between us. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani

And who selected you to judge the Catholic Church? If we keep in mind that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ on Earth, nothing short of extreme pride mixed with arrogance could make someone suggest it is right to dissent from the Church based on their own whims – “traditional” or not.

I do appreciate you illustrating my point however – that both the extreme “traditional” and the extreme “progressive” positions seem to be the biggest sources of abuse within the Church.

 

[albert_cipriani]

deogratias:

There are those who will always find a reason to disobey the Church - be it birth conrol, divorce and remarriage or supporting schismatic ideas.

There is no such thing as a “schismatic idea.” If there is, please articulate one.

As a Traditionalist, I have written pro bono for SSPX’s journal The Angelus. Even if you consider the SSPX a schismatic organization, how can said support of them constitute a “schismatic idea” or in any way taint me with the charge of schism?

Schism is clearly defined by the Church as a refusal to accept the authority of the Pope and his bishops (i.e., refusal to be “in communion” with them). Schism has nothing to do with disobeying the pope or his bishops. Refusing to accept authority and disobeying authority are as different as night and day.

Disobeying our churchmen’s pastoral directives may be a serious offence and may even be a sinful offence, but it is not a schismatic offence. And, indeed, such disobedience may, under extraordinary circumstances (as in these end times), be a heroic deed and no offence at all. God will be my judge.

In the meantime, your judgment of Traditionalists is calumny. You err greviously when you publicly judge the pastoral disobedience of Traditonalists to be on a par with the mortal sins committed by those who disobey the Church’s moral and dogmatic doctrines. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[pnewton]

albert cipriani:

As a Traditionalist, I have written pro bono for SSPX’s journal The Angelus. Even if you consider the SSPX a schismatic organization, how can said support of them constitute a “schismatic idea” or in any way taint me with the charge of schism?

For those new to the SSPX, I would advise they are a group best steered clear of. It is up to the Holy Father alone to say who is and is not in communion or schism. Here are two good answers by the CA apologists.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12147

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38

 

[Crusader]

albert cipriani:

There is no such thing as a “schismatic idea.” If there is, please articulate one.

As a Traditionalist, I have written pro bono for SSPX’s journal The Angelus. Even if you consider the SSPX a schismatic organization, how can said support of them constitute a “schismatic idea” or in any way taint me with the charge of schism? …

Why do you spend time writing for a Protestant rag?

 

[Crusader]

Is it possible that the postings of "albert cipriani" are actually an attempt at parody from an extremely “progressive” Catholic?

I have seen something like this before on Beliefnet. Someone who claimed to be ultra-conservative posted enough downright silly messages to make “traditionalism” look absolutely foolish. In reality the person was very progressive and was making a parody of “traditonalism.” It was effective until it was discovered.

I would not ask this, but this situation was extremely amusing on Beliefnet, and I am seeing more and more old nicknames that look familiar. This, and the content of the postings is really making me wonder about how genuine the “albert cipriani” letters are…

 

[deogratias]

I doubt this to be the case since there is an open letter to Albert posted on Matt’s Catholic Apologetics web site

matt1618.freeyellow.com/albert.html

 

[deogratias]

albert cipriani:

There is no such thing as a “schismatic idea.” If there is, please articulate one.

As a Traditionalist, I have written pro bono for SSPX’s journal The Angelus. Even if you consider the SSPX a schismatic organization, how can said support of them constitute a “schismatic idea” or in any way taint me with the charge of schism?

Schism is clearly defined by the Church as a refusal to accept the authority of the Pope and his bishops (i.e., refusal to be “in communion” with them). Schism has nothing to do with disobeying the pope or his bishops. Refusing to accept authority and disobeying authority are as different as night and day.

Disobeying our churchmen’s pastoral directives may be a serious offence and may even be a sinful offence, but it is not a schismatic offence. And, indeed, such disobedience may, under extraordinary circumstances (as in these end times), be a heroic deed and no offence at all. God will be my judge.

In the meantime, your judgment of Traditionalists is calumny. You err greviously when you publicly judge the pastoral disobedience of Traditonalists to be on a par with the mortal sins committed by those who disobey the Church’s moral and dogmatic doctrines. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[deogratias]

the meantime, your judgment of Traditionalists is calumny. You err greviously when you publicly judge the pastoral disobedience of Traditonalists to be on a par with the mortal sins committed by those who disobey the Church’s moral and dogmatic doctrines. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

In the meantime when I address a post to you, you may reply and when I address it to someone else - butt out.

I made NO mention of traditionalists in my post and I do not consider you to be one. Nor do I consider myself to be guilty of any calumny.

But since you had to bring it up -

Schism is clearly defined by the Church as a refusal to accept the authority of the Pope and his bishops (i.e., refusal to be “in communion” with them). Schism has nothing to do with disobeying the pope or his bishops. Refusing to accept authority and disobeying authority are as different as night and day

Well you have that wrong -
The word is not “Accept”, the word is “Submit” -

Schism - The refusal to submit to the authority of the pope OR to hold communion with members of the Church subject to him.

And Schismatic - In its strict sense, one who voluntarily, knowingly, and deliberately separates himself from the unity of the Church. Ordinarily one who is so separated is called a schismatic regardless of the circumstances.

As for Traditionalist - hey I consider myself to be a Traditionalist but not as you define one - I’ll address Traditionalisim - again - in another post.

 

[albert_cipriani]

deogratias:

when I address a post to you, you may reply and when I address it to someone else - butt out.

As you wish. Goodbye, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[JNB]

albert cipriani:

There is no such thing as a “schismatic idea.” If there is, please articulate one.

As a Traditionalist, I have written pro bono for SSPX’s journal The Angelus. Even if you consider the SSPX a schismatic organization, how can said support of them constitute a “schismatic idea” or in any way taint me with the charge of schism?

Schism is clearly defined by the Church as a refusal to accept the authority of the Pope and his bishops (i.e., refusal to be “in communion” with them). Schism has nothing to do with disobeying the pope or his bishops. Refusing to accept authority and disobeying authority are as different as night and day.

Disobeying our churchmen’s pastoral directives may be a serious offence and may even be a sinful offence, but it is not a schismatic offence. And, indeed, such disobedience may, under extraordinary circumstances (as in these end times), be a heroic deed and no offence at all. God will be my judge.

In the meantime, your judgment of Traditionalists is calumny. You err greviously when you publicly judge the pastoral disobedience of Traditonalists to be on a par with the mortal sins committed by those who disobey the Church’s moral and dogmatic doctrines. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Albert, I love the Traditional mass, I love traditional elemnets inm the mass such as use of the altar rail, traditional hymns, no EMHCs, but I will be blunt here. Traditionalists who are what I call the Williamson cult of personality have done far more harm than good to the movment to restore the mass. I recognise the work the late Abp. Lefebvre did to keep the old mass alive, and I am greatful for it, but at the same time, the SSPX from my perspective is now infected with the sin of pride. Rome made its move in 2001, offering the SSPX a deal that would have vindicated the late archbishop, a deal that would have made the restoration movment far more powerful, but it was all for not.

All of this pettyness from the Traditional Movment has in part driven me to worship more often in a parish that use the NO missal but in a traditional manner such as use of the rails, I am just tired of the venom the likes of Bp. Williamson and those of like mind spew.

 

[Crusader]

JNB:

Albert, I love the Traditional mass, I love traditional elemnets inm the mass such as use of the altar rail, traditional hymns, no EMHCs, but I will be blunt here. Traditionalists who are what I call the Williamson cult of personality have done far more harm than good to the movment to restore the mass. I recognise the work the late Abp. Lefebvre did to keep the old mass alive, and I am greatful for it, but at the same time, the SSPX from my perspective is now infected with the sin of pride. Rome made its move in 2001, offering the SSPX a deal that would have vindicated the late archbishop, a deal that would have made the restoration movment far more powerful, but it was all for not.

All of this pettyness from the Traditional Movment has in part driven me to worship more often in a parish that use the NO missal but in a traditional manner such as use of the rails, I am just tired of the venom the likes of Bp. Williamson and those of like mind spew.

Very well said. Liturgical abuse or irregularity is just that – no matter if some feel deviating from the Church is OK if it is more “traditonal”

One horrible consequence of the traditionalist vipers is how they unintentionally aid the ultra-progressive Catholics. Both extremes seem to support and feed one another.

 

[deogratias]

jnb

I

am just tired of the venom the likes of Bp. Williamson and those of like mind spew.

Venom - a very appropriate description of what this Bishop spouts as truth - I think the late Bishop LeFebvre would be appaled were he still alive.

I hope you can find a Traditional Licit Mass such as I atttend - free from the distortions from the pulpit and approved by Rome.

 

[albert_cipriani]

JNB:

Albert, I love the Traditional mass…

“To be or not to be” is the ultimate secular question. To love or not to love is the ultimate sacred question. Free will can be seen as the metaphysical means whereby angels and man have been answering this question since the dawn of creation.

Trouble is, saying you love is not good enough. Anything loved must be suffered for. If you do not suffer for that which you love, there’s no telling that you love it. As St. Paul said, we barely know enough to judge ourselves. But we can know what we have suffered for. The landscape of our life’s suffering is the map of what we love.

So, in short, I suggest that since you do not attend the Mass that you love the most, you do not love it enough. For what we love is weighed on the balance beam of what we will suffer for it. If you are unwilling to suffer the slings and arrows of your fellow Catholics calling you a schismatic or Protestant or worse, if you are unwilling to grunt and groan under the oppressive burden of confusion and strife, you do not love what you love enough. And what is worse, you are unworthy of your love. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[catholiclady]

“To be or not to be” is the ultimate secular question. To love or not to love is the ultimate sacred question. Free will can be seen as the metaphysical means whereby angels and man have been answering this question since the dawn of creation.

Trouble is, saying you love is not good enough. Anything loved must be suffered for. If you do not suffer for that which you love, there’s no telling that you love it. As St. Paul said, we barely know enough to judge ourselves. But we can know what we have suffered for. The landscape of our life’s suffering is the map of what we love.

So, in short, I suggest that since you do not attend the Mass that you love the most, you do not love it enough. For what we love is weighed on the balance beam of what we will suffer for it. If you are unwilling to suffer the slings and arrows of your fellow Catholics calling you a schismatic or Protestant or worse, if you are unwilling to grunt and groan under the oppressive burden of confusion and strife, you do not love what you love enough. And what is worse, you are unworthy of your love. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

I submit to attend the Normative Mass is to suffer more than to attend the one you do love and a great opportunity to offer up your suffering -

I submit that we must love GOD more than our own personal preferences and if there is not a licit Traditional Mass to attend, then we must suffer what we have.

I also submit that God loves obedience and detests pride.

 

[Crusader]

catholiclady:

I submit to attend the Normative Mass is to suffer more than to attend the one you do love and a great opportunity to offer up your suffering -

I submit that we must love GOD more than our own personal preferences and if there is not a licit Traditional Mass to attend, then we must suffer what we have.

I also submit that God loves obedience and detests pride.

You did nothing more than use cutesy language to denigrate the Novus Ordo Mass.

To even suggest that one “suffers” during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because it’s not the specific Mass they prefer smacks strongly of arrogance and pride.

The Mass is heaven on earth. I don’t believe it’s possible for man to suffer during the Mass because God’s Son did that for us…

 

[catholiclady]

Perhaps I worded that wrongly - one can indeed suffer a normative mass full of abuses