I
I_Believe
Guest
Hey Rich
I was just funnin with EJ. I was in a weird mood.
- Status
I was just funnin with EJ. I was in a weird mood.
I
I_Believe
Guest
Right, and he has also stated that messing with the Liturgy has caused problems, even contributing to the crisis.
If the SSPX thinks he or any Pope will grab a copy of “An Open Letter To Confused Catholics” and use it as a basis for the hurling of anathemas, they are dreaming.
As I’ve said all along, they need to regularize and be a part of the healing. If they don’t trust BXVI, then they need to admit they will never again trust Rome, accept formal schism, and be done with it.
I pray they don’t, because I think the Church would be better with them in full communion. And I would hope they bring their firm stance on Doctrine with them. They are right.
J
JReducation
Guest
One may always express his opinion, but there are lines in any social system that one may never cross.
To insinuate that the OF is of no value is crossing one of those lines. Benedict XVI has already said very clearly that he recognizes its sanctity. This was included in his cover letter.
He also said that it may not be discontinued (at least not during his term in office). He also goes on to say that the EF among religious is up to the religious superior and their councils. Therefore, those parishes who have religious staffing them are subject to agreements between the bishops of the diocese and the major religious superior when it comes to the EF.
He is looking at the historical AND spiritual value of the EF. He’s looking at a bigger picture here. He is not looking down at the OF.
The proof is that he says that the EF may be celebrated at any time in any place, except during the Easter Triduum. From Holy Thursday to Easter Sunday the OF must be celebrated. This is the major holy day of the Christian world.
To take the position that the OF does not have any sanctity to it contradicts the Motu Proprio. Benedict says it has sanctity and it is the only form allowed to be used for celebrating the Easter Triduum. I do not know if this also applies to societies like FSSP. But it applies to all parishes where secular priests celebrate the Easter Triduum.
When all is said and done, whoever tries to dismiss the OF as an inferior form of liturgy has crossed a line that may not be crossed, because that person is making a statement that contradicts what the Holy Father has said about the OF.
We can express our opinions and ask questions, but we may not contradict the Holy Father with assertions. We can be very clear and say, "I don’t like the OF because . . . . " or "I don’t like the EF because . . . . " But any statement that is not prefaced by “I” sounds like a declaration, rather than an opinion.
That’s the line that no Catholic can eve cross. We can opine differently from the Holy See. But we cannot state our opinion as truth. Only the Holy See has that authority.
I believe this is what the Holy Father was referring to when he said of the SSPX that they could not subscribe to any other Magisterium, but his.
When you make an absolute statement that is contrary to one that has been made by the Pope, you are speaking as if you had Magisterial authority, another line that cannot be crossed.
It’s like going into a court and speaking authoritatively before a judge. You may find yourself fined in contempt of court. Lawyers on both sides can make their case, but neither can speak with the authority of the judge.
That’s why I started by saying that in any society there are lines that we cannot cross, not only the Church.
Fraternally,
JR
To insinuate that the OF is of no value is crossing one of those lines. Benedict XVI has already said very clearly that he recognizes its sanctity. This was included in his cover letter.
He also said that it may not be discontinued (at least not during his term in office). He also goes on to say that the EF among religious is up to the religious superior and their councils. Therefore, those parishes who have religious staffing them are subject to agreements between the bishops of the diocese and the major religious superior when it comes to the EF.
He is looking at the historical AND spiritual value of the EF. He’s looking at a bigger picture here. He is not looking down at the OF.
The proof is that he says that the EF may be celebrated at any time in any place, except during the Easter Triduum. From Holy Thursday to Easter Sunday the OF must be celebrated. This is the major holy day of the Christian world.
To take the position that the OF does not have any sanctity to it contradicts the Motu Proprio. Benedict says it has sanctity and it is the only form allowed to be used for celebrating the Easter Triduum. I do not know if this also applies to societies like FSSP. But it applies to all parishes where secular priests celebrate the Easter Triduum.
When all is said and done, whoever tries to dismiss the OF as an inferior form of liturgy has crossed a line that may not be crossed, because that person is making a statement that contradicts what the Holy Father has said about the OF.
We can express our opinions and ask questions, but we may not contradict the Holy Father with assertions. We can be very clear and say, "I don’t like the OF because . . . . " or "I don’t like the EF because . . . . " But any statement that is not prefaced by “I” sounds like a declaration, rather than an opinion.
That’s the line that no Catholic can eve cross. We can opine differently from the Holy See. But we cannot state our opinion as truth. Only the Holy See has that authority.
I believe this is what the Holy Father was referring to when he said of the SSPX that they could not subscribe to any other Magisterium, but his.
When you make an absolute statement that is contrary to one that has been made by the Pope, you are speaking as if you had Magisterial authority, another line that cannot be crossed.
It’s like going into a court and speaking authoritatively before a judge. You may find yourself fined in contempt of court. Lawyers on both sides can make their case, but neither can speak with the authority of the judge.
That’s why I started by saying that in any society there are lines that we cannot cross, not only the Church.
Fraternally,
JR
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
Well, saint rafael, we all make our choices. I will stay with the ship, the barque of Peter. That ship is not going down, unless Christ was mistaken. You choose what course you will. You have my prayers.
M
mattkubes
Guest
Just thought I should say thanks for post #63, JR - I don’t think it’s an overstatement when I say that we all learn a lot from you!
U
Unitas
Guest
If it was all about latin, as you say, then why don’t trads just push for the NO in latin?
Lex orandi Lex credendi. The TLM has an objectively superior lex orandi than the current english NO missal. Therefore the TLM will inspire a superior lex credendi in the faithful.
One must admit that the current english NO missal is defficient in at least some small way, seeing as it’s being reformed.
So yes, improving the lex orandi of the mass will in fact improve the lex credendi of the faithful.
T
Timothysis
Guest
I happen to like the so called Novus Ordo. Why do you want to take it from me? The one I attend is celebrated reverently, with no abuses and yes, even the Agnes Dei thrown in. For you to decide, with your 25 years and scholarly “research”, that the Mass of Paul VI is a blunder is the ultimate act of arrogance.
Like a previous poster stated, how in Hades can YOU know anything about how the Church was 50+ years ago? There are plenty of “latin Massers” who don’t want to go back to the silence and the latin. Perhaps they know more about it than you???
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
Yes why do you want to take away a Mass that I love as well? Is this pay back time for when the TLM was not really allowed after Vatican II? Thinking you would burn us. While it may have been wrong to deny people a chance to worship in a Mass that they knew and loved. It is EQUALLY wrong to do the same to the OFers. Two wrongs do not make a right. It wounds our Lord to see His church being torn apart. Which brings me to a couple of questions that maybe we need to look at. WHO NAILED JESUS TO THE CROSS? WHO STILL IS NAILING JESUS TO THE CROSS? Everytime we sin, fail to love, attack fellow Catholics on what Mass is better. Belittle one another to make one feel superior, holier-than-thou, smarter than others, down right meanspiritred, self-righteous,etc.
I can say a few things about the TLM, EF Mass that I don’t like about it. You see I lived part of my life attending TLM (I’m 49) Most of my recollection comes from Catholic school grades (1st-4th) While I was not quite old enough to fully understand what went on, I still remember the actions of the Mass. I also didn’t know much or anything at all about Vatican II. I stayed out of church during my teenage to mid 20’s. I joined RCIA so I could become confirmed. Through that and many years of attending OF Masses, as well as learning I became more attached to OF. Then you see how Vatican II, the reasons for the changes or restored practices and how the OF are better understood in the light of Church history and Scripture reading. That is why I don’t like the EF. However, I would not mind going to an EF Mass to experience a part of church history. Sometimes we all need a break from the stress of the world. If the quiteness of that Mass helps from time to time. Then I wouldn’t mind. Maybe a chant now and then. Actually, I do own some own some on cassette or DVD, including the monks in the 90’s that made a recording. But make no mistake about it I will still go to an OF with vernacular, guitars, Life Teen, EMHCs, some OCP music selections, Sign of Peace etc. So, in the interest of charity, love and respect for another Catholic.I will end it here by asking please refrain from attacking my style of Liturgy I go to.
I can say a few things about the TLM, EF Mass that I don’t like about it. You see I lived part of my life attending TLM (I’m 49) Most of my recollection comes from Catholic school grades (1st-4th) While I was not quite old enough to fully understand what went on, I still remember the actions of the Mass. I also didn’t know much or anything at all about Vatican II. I stayed out of church during my teenage to mid 20’s. I joined RCIA so I could become confirmed. Through that and many years of attending OF Masses, as well as learning I became more attached to OF. Then you see how Vatican II, the reasons for the changes or restored practices and how the OF are better understood in the light of Church history and Scripture reading. That is why I don’t like the EF. However, I would not mind going to an EF Mass to experience a part of church history. Sometimes we all need a break from the stress of the world. If the quiteness of that Mass helps from time to time. Then I wouldn’t mind. Maybe a chant now and then. Actually, I do own some own some on cassette or DVD, including the monks in the 90’s that made a recording. But make no mistake about it I will still go to an OF with vernacular, guitars, Life Teen, EMHCs, some OCP music selections, Sign of Peace etc. So, in the interest of charity, love and respect for another Catholic.I will end it here by asking please refrain from attacking my style of Liturgy I go to.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Try a nice, warm glass of milk before you go to bed tonite, huh?
Pope Paul VI promulgated the current missal which has been defined as the current Pope to be the Ordinary Form of the Mass. The “traditional” latin Mass is defined as the Extraordinary form.
Saint Rafael’s point was to wish the end of the ordinary form, being replaced by the Extraordinary form. I ask, is it not arrogance to assume the duties of the Supreme Pontiff and determine what is best for the Eucharistic celebration of the entire world’s Catholic population?
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
Hi Tim,
Thanks you for the advice. But, I don’t drink or like warm milk. I prefer my milk nice and cold. Again thank for your concern I’m, fine, no more slightly testy posts.
I agree. The Holy Father has mentioned that both forms are rooted in Church history, and tradition, both have valid expressions of spirituality, both are equal to each other. He also said the OF was the Mass of the Roman Rite.
Yes it is arrogance to assume the duties of the Supreme Pontiff.
R
rlg94086
Guest
EasterJoy…I thought the same thing when I read I Believe’s post: "'cept we now have Pope who prefers kneeling on the tongue.People keep saying that like its a good thing. Sounds a bit sadistic to me.
"I will clarify for the thick - kneeling on someone’s tongue, or your own for that matter, would hurt very much. Therefore, to “prefer” kneeling on the tongue would be sadistic. Now, to prefer receiving the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue while kneeling? Totally different situation.
I tried to joke with someone in another thread who made a similar comment - something to the effect of 'kneeling is a much better way to receive…better than in the hand *or *on the tongue."
I’m not sure what they meant…how did they receive while kneeling? 
J
JReducation
Guest
Highlight is mine.
When one assumes to make declarative statements that properly belong to the Pope or the bishops, then one is creating his or her own Magisterium.
This is what the Holy Father has demanded that SSPXers stop. It would seem proper to assume, that the same would apply to all of us. We cannot make declarative statements that are out of our area of jurisdiction.
At best, we can give our opinion and make sure that the reader knows it is our opinion, not a magisterial statement from the lone magisterium of me.
Fraternally,
JR
P
PatrickJT914
Guest
Hi Tim,
Thanks you for the advice. But, I don’t drink or like warm milk. I prefer my milk nice and cold. Again thank for your concern I’m, fine, no more slightly testy posts.
I agree. The Holy Father has mentioned that both forms are rooted in Church history, and tradition, both have valid expressions of spirituality, both are equal to each other. He also said the OF was the Mass of the Roman Rite.
Yes it is arrogance to assume the duties of the Supreme Pontiff.
T
Timothysis
Guest
There must be an echo here!
E
ethelzguy
Guest
I personally believe that, for the traditionalist crowd, it’s about more than just the Latin. It is about being locked in time, perhaps 1950-62.
Things that came before can be accepted or dismissed, based on one’s opinion…or so it seems…things that came after are all just plain bad to read about it here.
It appears to be as much about rebellion as anything else. Rebellion against the post-Vatican II Church…rebellion as far as it can go without schism/excommunication.
From what I read here, the laundry list is endless…to the point that it will NEVER be totally addressed…but maybe that’s the objective all along?
Reminds me of the March of Dimes. Wasn’t it instituted to combat polio? But when that issue was resolved, they shifted to “birth defects”, something that will never be totally addressed…something that gives them a perpetual purpose?
R
rwoehmke
Guest
Wow, that must hurt. Requires a long, long tongue.'cept we now have Pope who prefers kneeling on the tongue.
Springtime is here Patrick.
C
consumedconvert
Guest
I prefer a shot of whiskey or rum before bed. Does wonders.
That’s neither here nor there of course, but just thought I’d mention it.
U
Unitas
Guest
Ask several trads here, it’s about recovering what was taken from us, and for many young people, what had been kept from us. Many of us feel that when the NO was promulgated, with or without abuses, something very special was lost. We were given a new rite, a new creation, that, in practice, didn’t measure up to the old. Since it was delivered as a new rite, there was no reason to think the old was banned. But, in practice, that’s exactly what happened.
Well, the Church is in an obvious vocation crisis, Catholic Universities are struggling to keep their certification as Catholic, more priests and bishops are espousing very questionable theology, Church attendance is dropping, overal Catholic formation is suffering, etc.
Everything’s not all fine and dandy. Our position is not that latin will fix everything. It’s the superior quality of the lex orandi in the TLM that will influence a greater quality of lex credendi in the faithful. And that is what will help greatly the current situation of the Church.
There is no post Vatican II Church, only the One True Church. But there are men in the Church who take license with the ambiguities in VII to justify their modernism; to twist and exploit to make the Church say things is doesn’t really say.
And we as traditionalists resist that. It’s about resistance, not rebellion. It’s about resisting the spin modernists try to put on old teachings to water them down and make them more politically correct at the expense of truth. It’s about resisting the rotten fruit of the ‘new ecumenism’.
The aim of traditionalists is to promote and preserve traditional practices and interpretations, to resist the tide of modernism trying to do away with it for something new for the mere sake of it being new.
The phrase “reformulated positively…” comes to mind. Why does it need to be reformulated positively? What was wrong with the way it was? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
In many cases, the “reformulation” only made it more confusing, but more PC. Which is the purpose of the ‘new ecumenism.’
The list of issues wil keep growing as long as the modernists keep adding to it.
But, to get things back on track, we strongly believe that the mass, as the lowest and also the highest denominator of Catholic experience, the best way to effect a resoration of Catholic identity and Catholic quality is with the mass. Restore the mass and you can effect more good for the faithful than any encyclical or speech can.
U
UndertheRadar
Guest
There seems to be a little tension 
around here concerning the “pig with lipstick” thing, and I think both sides have a point. The Novus Ordo has been approved by the Church as a valid form of mass which celebrates the Eucharist, and in that respect I can understand that it should not be put down. However, I would like to add that I don’t think that it is the celebration of the Eucharist that is being questioned, but everything around it. I believe that since the liturgical part of the Novus Ordo has been set by man, it can be inferior to the Tridentine Mass. This is not diminishing what God has given us for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, its just saying that we can do better to glorify him instead of ourselves. Sometimes I like to compare it to the lesson given to us by St. Therese’s sister, Pauline, who filled the thimble and the glass with water to illustrate our happiness in heaven. Her point was they are both full but one has more. I think the masses are kind of like this too.
around here concerning the “pig with lipstick” thing, and I think both sides have a point. The Novus Ordo has been approved by the Church as a valid form of mass which celebrates the Eucharist, and in that respect I can understand that it should not be put down. However, I would like to add that I don’t think that it is the celebration of the Eucharist that is being questioned, but everything around it. I believe that since the liturgical part of the Novus Ordo has been set by man, it can be inferior to the Tridentine Mass. This is not diminishing what God has given us for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, its just saying that we can do better to glorify him instead of ourselves. Sometimes I like to compare it to the lesson given to us by St. Therese’s sister, Pauline, who filled the thimble and the glass with water to illustrate our happiness in heaven. Her point was they are both full but one has more. I think the masses are kind of like this too.
I
I_Believe
Guest
How are wisconsin summers ? I hear they are an udder delight
- Status