Liturgical Changes and Benedict XVI

[RSiscoe]

The fact is, the heretics of the 16th century used the pretext of restoring the mass to its primitive form, when in reality they corrupted the Mass, as Pope Leo XIII himself said:

Leo XIII: “They knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, ‘the law of belief with the law of prayer’(lex orandi, lex credendi), and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators (reformers)” (Apostolicae Curae).

The Novus Ordo mass is vitually identical to the Anglican service that Pope Leo XIII was talking about in the above quote; thus, what he wrote above applies just as well to the new mass.

The new mass was written with the express intent of being less offensive to the heretics. The Vatican newspaper actually admitted this, when it quoted Annibali Bugnini, who designed the new Mass, as saying:

*“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything that could constitute the slightest stumbling block or displeasure for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 16, 1965). *

What was the end result of this new mass that was designed to be “less offensive” to heretics? The end result was a new mass that became more like that of the heretics:

The Vatican newspaper actually admitted: “Liturgical reform has taken a notable step forward on the path of ecumenism. It has come closer to the liturgical reforms of the Lutheran Church”(L’osservatore Romano Octobe 13, 1967).

Luther’s slogan was “destroy the Mass, destroy the Church”. And it is supposed to be a good thing that the new mass has come closer to the liturgical reforms of the Lutheran church?

Now, you can defend the new mass all you want, but the new Pope himself has said that he believe the crisis the Church is in today is a direct result of the “disintegration of the liturgy”.

“… I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” (Cardinal Ratzinger - Pope Benedict XVI).

Notice also that Cardinal Ratzinger was under no illusions that the current state of the Church is a “new springtime”. He knew full well that the Church is in a “crisis”.

Now, we will see who the faithfull Catholics are when we have a Pope who is not politically correct and loved by the world (see Luke 6: 26). Our current Pope will not be loved by the world (see Luke 6:22); in fact, this Pope will probably not be tolerated by the world. He will be demonized by the same media that praised John Paul II just a few weeks ago.

Let us see which Catholics are willing to stand with a Pope who is hated by the world for speaking the truth unambiguously. The Traditional Catholics, who are still militant, will stand up for this Pope - they will be willing to die for him. They are used to being hated by the world so for them this will not be much of a change. We will see who else has the courage to stand with him. I have already heard Catholics begin to shy away from him for his supposed Nazi ties. Well, the slander that is occuring against Pope Benedict is just beginning.

 

[RSiscoe]

chadwilliams:

The SSPX will never admit that they are wrong.

I agree with you.

 

[Iohannes]

Cardinal Ratzinger(H.H. Benedict XVI) Celebrating the TLM
http://www.unavoce.org/ratzingerweimar1.jpg

 

[otm]

RSiscoe:

SeanOL,

Your hatred for Catholicism, in favor of a “new order of things”, has blinded you. You are a victim of our day. It is sad.

OK, you’ve waved the flag, and we all know where you are aligned.

Sean OL doesn’t hate Catholicism. He is just not aligned with SSPX. Obvioulsy, if you are not a memeber of SSPX, you are closely aligned, as you rely on their reading material.

You might re-read your comment about the bishops needing to follow the Pope or be schismatics. It applies to others, also.

 

[otm]

RSiscoe:

You probably do not realize this, but “the spirit of Vatican II” is not the spirit of Catholicism.

Who brought up the spirit of Vatican 2? Why are you dragging that red herring through this conversation?

RSiscoe:

Thus, the Church is no longer recognizeable in many ways, including its new form of worship. The changes in the new mass are the same changes made by the heretics of the 16th century. Only one who is ignorant would deny it. Here are just a few of the changes the heretics of the 16the century employed:

1 Priest facing the people
2. Communion in the hand
3. Communion under both kinds
4. profane, or folk music.
5. they removed the statues from the Churches
6. They changed the language from Latin to the vernacular.

Are you truly that ignorant of Church history? And are you truly that ignorant of the difference between tradition and Tradition, and discipline and doctrine?

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

The Magestirum has not taught that rock music is heretical or inherently bad. The private writings of one individual, no matter who that individual is, does not make it an offical teaching of the Church.

Byz, this is not the approach of docility that Catholics should have towards our beloved Pope Benedict XVI. Do you know more than he? Are you wiser than he? Are you holier than he? Instead of finding a loophole through which you are able to disagree with him, why not prayerfully consider what he has to say with docility?

Seeing that you have accused me in the past of making things up and then ignoring the thread after proof is provided I think I will refrain from replying to your posts.

Byz, I never accused you of making anything up. I only just saw your most recent bump of the thread and have duly replied to your reply. I don’t subscribe to any threads so sometimes I will miss threads even when they are bumped, especially now with all the forum traffic. If you don’t want me to miss something, the best thing to do is to send a PM.

 

[RSiscoe]

otm:

Who brought up the spirit of Vatican 2? Why are you dragging that red herring through this conversation?Are you truly that ignorant of Church history? And are you truly that ignorant of the difference between tradition and Tradition, and discipline and doctrine?

See post # 40

 

[Sean_O_L]

OTM wrote in response to RSiscoe:

Sean OL doesn’t hate Catholicism. He is just not aligned with SSPX. Obvioulsy, if you are not a memeber of SSPX, you are closely aligned, as you rely on their reading material.

Thanks OTM - I apreciate your comments. It is the lot of one who attempts to defend the Faith - as authoratively taught and promulgated by our Holy Father - and the Sacraments (which, of course, includes the Sacrifice of the Mass in an approved and normative liturgy), and other matters which are required by Catholics to be held and accepted in obedience - it it normal to receive insults from dissidents of the right and/or the left.

I have previously advised of some of the insults in the file Litany of Obnoxious “Lefenvrisms”. I will be happy to add RSiscoe’s current offering.

In response to a current SSPXer’s recent mail-out I have just completed the following: Correspondence with Peter Jenkins.

RSiscoe does not yet realize that SSPXism is not Catholicism - it is a pure and simple state of schism and excommunication. Up to 1988, the names of Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer WERE included in the Vatican Year Book, the Annuario Pontifico (which included, inter alia, the names of all prelates in communion with the Holy See. After 1988 their names were expunged, and the SSPX bishops’ names have NEVER appeared therein.

One the other hand, the names of the reconciled Campos bishops are entitled to appear in the Annuario Pontifico as THEY and their priests and laypeople ARE in full communion.

Despite RSiscoe’s opinion, I am perfectly happy for the Latin Liturgy of 1962 to be performed for all who are in full-communion with Rome, AND for all “Traditional” ceremonies and devotions to be practiced and fostered.

 

[RSiscoe]

otm:

Who brought up the spirit of Vatican 2? Why are you dragging that red herring through this conversation?

This is why I mentioned the spirit of Vatican II.

There is a certain disgust, or natural hatred, or…what word can I use… animosity, between Traditional Catholics and liberal/modern Catholics, such as Sean OL.

These liberal/modern Catholics do not realize it, but they have taken on the spirit of Vatican II. Why? Because, unfortunately, the Church has been “reformed”, not based on Vatican II, but on the “spirit of Vatican II”. I think that most people will admit that if they think about it.

Now, the satanic spirit of Vatican II is the exact contrary of the true Catholic spirit. Therefore, those who have taken on this false spirit, have animosity towards those who have not; and those who have not taken on this false spirit have animosity towards them. That is simply the reality. I don’t think it is something of the will (they do not want to have animosity towards the other), but rather something of the “spirit”. God and the devil do not mix well - the spirit of the world and the spirit of God are contrary. Therefore, the animosity is unavoidable.

Now, the question will arise: who has the true spirit of Catholicism and who has taken on the “spirit of Vatican II” (the satanic spirit)?

To find out the answer, all that is required is to read what the Church taught - how the church spoke - from the time of the apostles right up to the time the “spirit of Vatican II” emerged.

This is what Traditional Catholics never tire of saying: If you read the Papal encyclicals before 1960 you will see Popes who spoke EXACTLY as the Traditional Catholics still do, and you will see these same Popes explicitly condemning the new false movement that has emerging (like Traditional Catholics still do). I cannot emphasize that enough.

Now, the new false movement of apostasy, which has become known as the “spirit of the Council” has reformed the Church. As has been said, and as most will readily admit, most of the so called reforms (altar girls, rock or profane music at mass, communion in the hand, etc, etc, etc,) were not called for by Vatican II. All of the changes were influence by the “spirit of Vatican II” and the “feminist spirit” which is inseparable from it (a branch of the spirit of Vatican II).

So, what will naturally happen if a person has been formed in their Catholicism by a movement that has been based on a false spirit – the spirit f Vatican II? What will happen is that they will take on this spirit. That is completely unavoidable; there is almost no way to avoid it.

There was a movement in the late 1800’s, and early 1900’s called the Sillon. This movement is EXTREMELY similar to the “spirit of Vatican II” and is virtually identical to what we see today in American Catholicism. Listen what Pope Pius X said about that movement:

“This organization, which formerly afforded such promising expectations… has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church, … under the pretext of freedom and human dignity. (Our Apostolic Mandate, Pope Pius X).

Notice what pretext is used to by this “movement of apostasy”, which seeks to establish a “One World Church”: freedom and human dignity. They have exalted “freedom and human dignity” above God and His laws. That is exactly what is taking place today, because the spirit of the Sillon movement is the same as the “spirit of Vatican II”, which is what the changes since Vatican II have been based on.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

continuation…

Many people realize that the spirit of Vatican II is false; and they also realize that this false spirit has reeked havoc in the Church through the many “reforms” it has led to; yet what they do not realize is that they too have taken on this false spirit. That is inevitable when one is surrounded by it.

And this is actually the real reason for the animosity between Traditional Catholics, who still believe and think as the Church always has, and many modern Catholics, such as Sean OL, who have taken on the spirit of Vatican II, even though they probably are completely unaware of it (or “blind” as I said in an earlier post to Sean OL).

This is what I would suggest for everyone, including myself. Read the following encyclicals written before the spirit of Vatican II began to reform the Church, and see if we still think as the Popes did:

1.) Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI (on **true **Christian unity)

2.) Mirari Vos, Pope Gregory XVI (on liberalism)

3.) Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII (On the Unity of the Church). This is long, but very good with lots of excellent quotes from the Church fathers.

4.) Our Apostolic Mandate, Pope Pius X, (on the Sillon) This is kind of long, but it gets very good about half way through and exposes many of the errors of our day.

There are many more good encyclicals that apply to today, but these are a good start. Probably the most beneficial thing these boards could be used for is to study and discuss the old encyclicals. The last 40 years of apostasy, which has been a result of the “spirit of Vatican II”, has confused many sincere Catholics. The way to become “unconfused” is to read the writings of the past Popes. Before 1960, the Pope warned Catholics of error and condemned it strongly. Since Vatican II, the Pope focused more on the “positive” aspects of heretical sects and false religions, and only spoke out against moral issues. This may have resulted in less animosity between the Catholic Church and false religions, but it did not help Catholics remain strong in the faith. Today, generally speaking, a conservative Catholic is one holds strong moral beliefs, while one who is still strong in the faith is considered a “Traditionalist”. It has been very cleaver of the devil to emphasize morality to the exclusion of the faith.

But I think things will now begin to change. I think the 40 years of apostasy is now coming to end (close of Vatican II in 1965 + 40 years = 2005). This will certainly result in much “animosity” between the Catholic Church and the world, but that is how it should be. It may also result in an actually physical persecution, but that is, in many ways, easier to deal with than the mental persecution that the Catholics have had to suffer through for the past 40 years, during the time in which “the spirit of the Council” reeked such havoc, and cause the liturgy to “disintegrate” (Cardinal Ratzinger).

But I would encourage everyone to read the encyclicals I posted. They can all be located by typing the name into google. I would suggest printing them out (if you have a printer) and using a highlighter to mark the parts you find interesting. Satis Cognitum is a very good encyclical in giving arguments against Protestants, since it includes so many excellent quotes from the Church fathers, and so many good points from the Pope.

 

[netmilsmom]

RSiscoe:

since it includes so many excellent quotes from the Church fathers, and so many good points from the Pope.

Wow!!!

I am bumping this to the top!!!

 

[Kielbasi]

There is a certain disgust, or natural hatred, or…what word can I use… animosity, between Traditional Catholics and liberal/modern Catholics, such as Sean OL.

I wouldn’t call it disgust or hatred, but it is a dichotomy that isn’t that solvable.

On the one hand, you have the Traditionalists who feel that they are the only ones holding to the true practice, but, by their actions of segregating themselves into Latin Mass communities or even SSPX or other breakaway chapels, they seem to be distancing themselves from the vast majority of the church.

On the other hand, the mainstream Catholics have a firm grip on the universality of the church in the present time, but there seems to be a bit too much eagerness to change the forms of worship.

Which is more important, the tradition of keeping the whole Catholic people together, unity, or the traditional forms of worship. Sometimes, I think that the mainstream community is more traditional in a more meaningful way that the TLM folks.

 

[John_Higgins]

RSiscoe:

I also believe the new Pope will regularize the situation with the SSPX pretty soon, and I hope he will also elevate one of the SSPX Bishops (Bishop Fellay?) to Cardinal.

Are you kidding? Shoot, here’s barely a bishop!

John

 

[jimmy]

I think this is all wishfull thinking. I don’t think there is going to be much change.

 

[netmilsmom]

Kielbasi:

Which is more important, the tradition of keeping the whole Catholic people together, unity, or the traditional forms of worship. Sometimes, I think that the mainstream community is more traditional in a more meaningful way that the TLM folks.

If you truly think there’s unity, come to the Archdiocese of Detroit. The only thing that unites us is the “Catholic” sign in front of the churches.
I think that the “mainstream community” has no clue what the average Catholic wants. We want consistancy.
Read the thread about the new translation of the Missal and look at all the mainstream people stating that they are “used” to a certain way and did not like the new.
Suddenly, as someone pointed out there, the “mainstream community” becomes the traditionalist.

Either allow us to have the traditional (EWTN) Holy Mass, everywhere or one mass for all of us. No inovations, no changes.

Otherwise, lets make us all Catholic and let the group go wild.
Costume/skit Catholic
Mime Catholic (don’t laugh, one of our parishes did Stations w/Mime)
Charistmatic Catholic
Traditional Catholic (tlm)
Conservative Catholic (blend of Latin and Vernacular)
or whatever.

But that looks more mainstream Protestant, doesn’t it?

 

[Kielbasi]

I think that the “mainstream community” has no clue what the average Catholic wants. We want consistancy.

Needless to say, there is a lot of room for improvement in the area of consistency. But moving in the direction of allowing more tlm’s is a move in the direction of diversity.

 

[Kielbasi]

Wow! A lot of interesting reads here. First of all, I wouldn’t say “conservative”, that’s a media position wherein they assume a multi party system, while what we have is a theocracy… I would say “orthodox”.

But you’d be wrong if you said orthodox, as I was just narrowing in on liturgical practice,not on doctrine. Orthodox means “right belief”. The technical term I could have used instead of conservative would have been *orthopraxis *or “right practice”.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Kielbasi wrote:

Quote:

There is a certain disgust, or natural hatred, or…what word can I use… animosity, between Traditional Catholics and liberal/modern Catholics, such as Sean OL.

I wouldn’t call it disgust or hatred, but it is a dichotomy that isn’t that solvable.

On the one hand, you have the Traditionalists who feel that they are the only ones holding to the true practice, but, by their actions of segregating themselves into Latin Mass communities or even SSPX or other breakaway chapels, they seem to be distancing themselves from the vast majority of the church.

On the other hand, the mainstream Catholics have a firm grip on the universality of the church in the present time, but there seems to be a bit too much eagerness to change the forms of worship.

Which is more important, the tradition of keeping the whole Catholic people together, unity, or the traditional forms of worship. Sometimes, I think that the mainstream community is more traditional in a more meaningful way that the TLM folks.

And despite RSiscoe’s false claim - given the opportunity, I would prefer to attend a Latin Mass. I attended that Mass for approx. 60 of my 70 years (23 with the SSPX)!

However, given the fact of the SSPX being in a state of schism and excommunication - the only other alternative is the Indult Mass, which (for me, at my age and circumstances) is not an option for me.

Further, given my acceptance of the liciety and validity of the post Vatican II reformed Rites for the Liturgy of Mass and the Sacraments - I demonstrate my unity with the Holy See through attendance at such Rites that are performed by faithful and obedient priests.

Again, whenever I have been confronted by abuses, I have gone through the “Catholic” method of

1. Speaking with the abuser in private, then
2. Seaking to the abuser with two or three witnesses, then
3. Writing to the local Archbishop, providing substantial evidence, then
4. Notifying the Apostolic Deligate, then
5. Providing the complete documentation to Cardinal Arinze, then
6. Having done all that I could - leaving the matters in God’s hands.

Bitching on Internet Forums is NOT the “way”.

 

[netmilsmom]

Kielbasi:

Needless to say, there is a lot of room for improvement in the area of consistency. But moving in the direction of allowing more tlm’s is a move in the direction of diversity.

I’m sorry but would you please expound on this statement?
How could allowing a TLM make our church any more diverse than it is right now?
We are allowed to have a TLM, only at certain parishes. By allowing it everywhere, it could well bring people back to the church. It certainly could eliminate need for the vernacular churches in my area. People drive miles to get a Polish Mass, a Slovak Mass, and a Spanish Mass. If more churches had the TLM or even a Modern Mass in Latin, we could stay at the parish up the street.
I’m not sure where you are, but here in Detroit, if I go to the church up the street, it will be in English, but who knows what else I will run into. Maybe mimes, maybe people speaking in tongues, maybe dancing girls.
I know what to expect at a TLM.
And please understand, I personally would not be running to a TLM. My girls are young and they are not ready for it. At the same time, my knees are old. After attending the one and only TLM I have been to, my knees were dying!!
But I would not deny someone this mass when it is “anything goes” at others.
In my opinion, the rule I would suggest is that if a church has an innovative Mass then it must also offer a conservative one, with a provision that Mass attendance could eliminate either one. If the 9:00 Mass is an EWTN type mass and the 11:00 is a revival Mass, the congregation could choose which it likes. Not the liturgical committee.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

I’m sorry but would you please expound on this statement?
How could allowing a TLM make our church any more diverse than it is right now?
We are allowed to have a TLM, only at certain parishes. By allowing it everywhere, it could well bring people back to the church. It certainly could eliminate need for the vernacular churches in my area. People drive miles to get a Polish Mass, a Slovak Mass, and a Spanish Mass. If more churches had the TLM or even a Modern Mass in Latin, we could stay at the parish up the street.

So your answer is to have the Mass done in a language no one understands?

People travel to a Mass, such as a Polish Mass, because they want to hear the Mass in Polish, which could be considered the vernacular for the majority who attend such a Mass.

Saying that having all Masses in Latin will eliminate the need to travel, while true, does not answer the reason for the travel.

Just as I, and many other Byzantine Catholics, travel to get to a Divine Liturgy instead of a Mass.