People who do not like traditional Catholicism

[ethelzguy]

This forum is pretty set up to attack traditional Catholics who are trying to keep Catholic culture alive.

I’d beg to differ.

This forum is far more inclined to START criticizing and bashing the post-Vatican II Church. And, yes, some of us are offended by the constant rants against the Church, and speak out against those doing the criticizing.

 

[ethelzguy]

*Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural. *

But the above quote does not state that we should be in silence throughout the Mass. It says that there are times and places for silence.

 

[richardwy]

I nicked this from the Catechsim of Trent:

• What heart so cold as not to be inflamed with love by the kindness and good will exercised toward us by so great a Lord, who, though holding us in His power and dominion as slaves ransomed by His blood, yet embraces us with such ardent love as to call us not servants, but friends and brethren?*

I like old stuff. Matters not since Rome doesn’t cater to my preferences.

I could state reasons for my views, and defend them. I will not.

Been reading The Desert Fathers of late.

 

[Brendan]

Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it**. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.

But the above quote does not state that we should be in silence throughout the Mass. It says that there are times and places for silence.

See above, and also read Pope Benedict’s “The Spirit of the Liturgy”

These were the men who were AT Vatican II and know what the Council meant.

The “full, conscience and active participation” desired was an interior particpation of the will, not bodily movements or vocal expressions.

Those are allowed, and even mandated at certain times, but they are not to be confused with participating.

If it was, a mute person could not participate. Or a person with spinal injuries. That is certainly not true. We could not, in honesty, look at them and claim that we are participating more than they are. In fact, if we are concentrating on bodily expressions, then it is THEY who are probably not participating.

What is called for, as Pope John Paul said, was to be counter cultural, and listen actively in a liturgy that both favors and fosters meditative quiet .

 

[PrayforMallory]

I’d beg to differ.

This forum is far more inclined to START criticizing and bashing the post-Vatican II Church. And, yes, some of us are offended by the constant rants against the Church, and speak out against those doing the criticizing.

The above posts don’t agree with that.

I’m sorry you wonder whether or not I’m actually Catholic. I’m not sure what would please you.

 

[ethelzguy]

The above posts don’t agree with that.

I’m sorry you wonder whether or not I’m actually Catholic. I’m not sure what would please you.

As you are somewhat new to CAF, you might peruse some of the many pages of threads previous.

Countless thread titles and OPs specifically incite bashing of the post-Vatican II Church. Someone lights a fire, then others start squirting lighter fluid.

Some of us try to douse the Church-bashing flames when the fire gets out of control.

As to “what would please me”…it’s not about me. It’s about the HMC, the faith of her followers, and those who wantonly criticize her, because of what they WANT from her.

I want, I want, I want…

 

[PrayforMallory]

As you are somewhat new to CAF, you might peruse some of the many pages of threads previous.

Countless thread titles and OPs specifically incite bashing of the post-Vatican II Church. Someone lights a fire, then others start squirting lighter fluid.

Some of us try to douse the Church-bashing flames when the fire gets out of control.

As to “what would please me”…it’s not about me. It’s about the HMC, the faith of her followers, and those who wantonly criticize her, because of what they WANT from her.

I want, I want, I want…

Can’t the same thing be said about those who prefer the OF?

And also, is there no room for questioning? We end up not having debates about documents and ideas. We end up with bashing, with traditional folks calling people liberals and Neo-Catholics acting like every parish priest in the whole world is to be absolutely obeyed with blind faith.

I don’t really understand it.

 

[ethelzguy]

**Can’t the same thing be said about those who prefer the OF? **

I’m not clamoring for something that I don’t have, or used to have.

The OF is the current “ordinary form” of Mass, correct? So, if I’m content and obedient with what is the current “ordinary form” that makes me…what?

 

[CradleCath]

Having been floating “out there” someplace since the introduction of the NO, I once asked on a forum how the Tridentine Mass become submerged by the NO? Who said priests could no longer celbrate it and when was this said. The only answer I got was that “no one said the Tridentine Mass was forbidden to be celebrated”. Saying John Paul II gave permission for “limited” celebration leads me to believe that somewhere, sometime, this form of the Mass was forbidden. Can anyone explain what really happened? Thanks.

It’s very simple really. The Amchurch bishops didn’t want it. Even when Pope John Paul gave us an indult & pleaded with them to give it “wide & generous use”, they just denied the laity the choice & placated the Pope with generalities.

I don’t think that a large portion of Catholics are aware of the POWER of some of the most liberal members of the hierarchy during the time of the council & the years right after it. For instance, Cardinal Bernardin who was notorious for his “Boy’s Club” & his entourage of pederast priests, gave lip service to the Vatican, while undermining Communion on the Tongue. He, by manipulation & downright LIES, supressed the Tridentine Mass, the Churches teachings on homosexual practices & just about anything that seemed moderate or “old”.

Others members of the hierarchy who were responsible for so many abuses & the “adaption of the Mass for modern mankind” in the Church were Anthony O’Connel…once head of the infamous St. Thomas Aquinas seminary in Hannibal, Mo…who resigned after admitting to pederasty that continued for more than 40 yrs., Paul Hallinan of Atlanta, Archbishop John Dearden who would be responsible for the appointment of such notorious bishops as Detroit Auxiliary Tom Gumbleton, Ken Untener of Saginaw, Joseph Imesch of Joliet, and Springfield’s Daniel Ryan & his closest friend from the South Carolina days, Monsignor Frederick Hopwood.

Last but not least, we find Archbishop Quinn , the former archbishop of San Francisco arguing (in 1996) that while Pope John Paul II is often eager to “collaborate” with his fellow bishops, true collegiality entails something more substantive than collaboration. Initiative in church governance must not rest solely with the pope.****

Cardinal Ritter of St. Louis was supportive of Bernardin’s progressiveness re the Tridentine Mass, Communion in the Hand & other modernist movements.

Don’t get me wrong, these men also left legacies of good. Cardinal Ritter, for instance, expanded the diocese of St. Louis & brought it to the suburbs. They were big on social movements & lacking in fidelity to the Pope & the ageless doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Just keep reading these boards & search the books & intenet articles that have been written on there subjects. One word of caution, be careful to also do a search on authors of the articles of every web site. Make sure they’re legitimate as the SSPX likes to sneak in bits of “information” without giving their affiliation up front.

Here’s a place to START on the history of the indult that allowed Communion in the Hand:
aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/hand.html

 

[EasterJoy]

This forum is pretty set up to attack traditional Catholics who are trying to keep Catholic culture alive.

No Pope or prelate can prevent a priest from saying the traditional Mass, ever, under any circumstances, if past papal decrees have any validity.

And no, the Church cannot “clean” an abuse any more than she can “clean” a sacrilege. It’s a sign of a weak Church when abuses are allowed just to placate certain segments.

And it’s certainly not the traditional Catholics who have rejected the Church’s teachings on Faith and Morals.

This is incorrect. No priest may rightly say Mass at all, except by the permission of his bishop. Furthermore, while holding preferences and opinions within allowed usage are fine, no one in the Church has standing to correct the Holy See on matters of faith, morals, or liturgy. What is allowed in liturgy by the Holy Father is what is allowed by God. Period.

The weakness in the Church is that too many Catholics, even among the so-called traditionalists, have abandoned the concept of obedience as gratutious.

Pius XII, in exerpts from Mediator Dei:
…the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification…
…Clearly, no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation…
…In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained…

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

This is incorrect. No priest may rightly say Mass at all, except by the permission of his bishop. Furthermore, while holding preferences and opinions within allowed usage are fine, no one in the Church has standing to correct the Holy See on matters of faith, morals, or liturgy. What is allowed in liturgy by the Holy Father is what is allowed by God. Period.

The weakness in the Church is that too many Catholics, even among the so-called traditionalists, have abandoned the concept of obedience as gratutious.

Pius XII, in exerpts from Mediator Dei:
…the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification…
…Clearly, no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation…
…In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained…

Beautiful response. Now lets see how many will say that subsequent popes have changes this.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ethelzguy]

Beautiful response. Now lets see how many will say that subsequent popes have changes this.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Thanks to all of you who have clearly articulated this better than I can

 

[Cat]

Gemma,

You have a misunderstanding about what is meant by ‘participation’.

In Baptism, we became priests. A priest offers Sacrifice, but a priest may only Sacrifice what they have.

A Ministerial, Ordained priest is in persona Christi, he ‘becomes’ Christ so that he may offer Christ Himself.

We, the Common Priesthood, participate by offering ourselves at the same time that the Minsterial Priest offers Christ.

THAT is our participation, and it may occur in any language.

Pope Benedict’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” goes into great depth on what Vatican II meant by “active participation”, he devoted an entire chapter to it. I would highly recommend that you pick up a copy and read it. It is an excellent look at the mind of the Church on the liturgy.

Basically, active particpation requires silence. We participate fully in the actio of the Mass when we listen attentively to the readings and the homily, and offer ourselves to God at the same time as the priest offers Christ.

Here is what Pope John Paul II said about particpation in an address to the US bishops (Oct, 1998)

So, no, you don’t have to sit a read a missal to participate. Just sitting there quietly offering yourselve wholeheartly to God is what is really required.

But this isn’t what the Documents of Vat II say at all.

In the chapter on Sacred Liturgy, 30. “To develop active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalms, antiphons, hymns, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper time a reverent silence should be observed.”

So…do you discount the Vat II Council?

If so, how can you justify discounting it?

This is one of my biggest stumbling blocks with some of the Catholics who call themselves “traditionalists”–they make claims that Vat II wasn’t valid. I just don’t get this at all. If you are not one of those people, I’m glad!

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

For those who hold that Vatican II was not valid, lets just keep them in prayer.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[MrS]

For those who hold that Vatican II was not valid, lets just keep them in prayer.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Does that mean I get no prayers. I know it was valid.

and

For those who hold that the innovations and abuses (not warrented, suggested, or encouraged by the valid VatII ) are valid, let’s just keep them in prayer .

.

 

[PrayforMallory]

I’m not clamoring for something that I don’t have, or used to have.

The OF is the current “ordinary form” of Mass, correct? So, if I’m content and obedient with what is the current “ordinary form” that makes me…what?

It’s not something we don’t have. It’s something encouraged by the Pope. If it wasn’t I wouldn’t be going to an Oratory that exclusively says the EF.

It just makes you someone content with the Ordinary Form, right? I mean, all these labels are lame.

Secondly, I don’t know what kind of OF Masses you’ve been to. Probably, if I went to your Church, I wouldn’t have sought the EF. If you had been to my old Church, you’d probably seek the EF.

Are the priests in communion with Rome who say the EF heretics?

 

[PrayforMallory]

This is incorrect. No priest may rightly say Mass at all, except by the permission of his bishop. Furthermore, while holding preferences and opinions within allowed usage are fine, no one in the Church has standing to correct the Holy See on matters of faith, morals, or liturgy. What is allowed in liturgy by the Holy Father is what is allowed by God. Period.

The weakness in the Church is that too many Catholics, even among the so-called traditionalists, have abandoned the concept of obedience as gratutious.

Pius XII, in exerpts from Mediator Dei:
…the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification…
…Clearly, no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation…
…In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained…

This is interesting. Thank you for the documents.

However, aren’t you picking and choosing the words of Pope Pius XII? I mean, while yes we should obviously obey the Pope (I feel that I’m obedient to the Pope and not a heretic. I didn’t even know about the licit EFs until after SP). But didn’t Pope Pius XII also say the following:

“We observe elsewhere, with anxiety and some apprehension an undue
fondness for innovation and tendency to stray from the path of truth and
prudence. Certain plans and suggestions for the liturgical revival are mingled
with principles with, either in fact or by implication, jeopardize the sacred
cause they intended to promote and sometime introduce errors.” – Pope Pius XII

“I hear around me reformers who want to dismantle the Holy Sanctuary,
destroy the universal flame of the Church, to discard all her adornments,
and smite her with remorse for her historic past,” --Eunenio Cardinal
Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, (1939-1958), to Count Enrico Pietro
Galeazzi.

“The day the Church abandons her universal tongue is the day before
she returns to the catacombs.” Pope Pius XII

I could be wrong. I’m no ecclesiastical expert, but it seems like Benedict is looking to reform the Church where there are these contradictions, SP, Regensburg address, etc.

Also, what about the statement by Pope Pius V, that says that priests have a right to say his Mass (provided they are in good standing, etc.). Are we supposed to ignore that now?

Fact is, ten years ago Trads were considered lepers and heretics, now there are licit Masses they can go to. Were they wrong ten years ago, and are suddenly right now?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Does that mean I get no prayers. I know it was valid.
and
For those who hold that the innovations and abuses (not warrented, suggested, or encouraged by the valid VatII ) are valid, let’s just keep them in prayer …

How about lets just all pray for one another.
Prayers (and I do mean it) and blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[EasterJoy]

This is interesting. Thank you for the documents.

However, aren’t you picking and choosing the words of Pope Pius XII? I mean, while yes we should obviously obey the Pope (I feel that I’m obedient to the Pope and not a heretic. I didn’t even know about the licit EFs until after SP)…

Also, what about the statement by Pope Pius V, that says that priests have a right to say his Mass (provided they are in good standing, etc.). Are we supposed to ignore that now?

Fact is, ten years ago Trads were considered lepers and heretics, now there are licit Masses they can go to. Were they wrong ten years ago, and are suddenly right now?

The Pope alone decides what liturgy is proper in his time.

Under Pius V, the norm was whatever Pius V said it was.

When the TLM was allowed by the Holy See only with permission, it was wrong for a priest to say it without permission.

In days when the Holy See has directed bishops to find a way to offer the TLM to those who seek it, it is, generally speaking, wrong for bishops not to do so. It is not the perogative the laity to attempt to correct their shepherds themselves, but when bishops ignore what the Holy See has directed them to do, it is right for the laity to ask the Holy See to address that, as the Pope sees fit. The request should be made in humility, and the Pope’s decision about how to handle the problem should be respected. If the Pope shall decide a bishop did no wrong in his decision to withhold the TLM under particular circumstances, then that bishop did no wrong. If a Pope is satisfied with a bishop’s obedience, then that obedience is satisfactory.

When and if the Pope says that the NO shall not be said, it shall be wrong to say it. I do not foresee this happening, but if, for instance, it became a means by which a substantial number of Catholics defied Rome or it was foreseen to be likely that it could become such, it would be within the Pope’s perogative to do so.

Now, if you were to say: “The Pope serves at the pleasure of the Holy Spirit, and on this account there is no reason to believe that any Pope will have reason to ever abrogate the TLM”…I would not argue that. I do not foresee that ever happening, either.

I do not expect the TLM will ever be suppressed again, either, because of the outstanding obedience and patience of most of those in the Church who have hoped for its return these last 40 years. I feel certain that the fruits of those who have been so faithful and patient will be enjoyed in the Church for many years to come. Their service to God on this account has been a great grace to the Church, and should never be forgotten.

May we all be so docile to the will of God as they have been.

 

[PrayforMallory]

When and if the Pope says that the NO shall not be said, it shall be wrong to say it. I do not foresee this happening, but if, for instance, it became a means by which a substantial number of Catholics defied Rome or it was foreseen to be likely that it could become such, it would be within the Pope’s perogative to do so.

I really doubt this would happen. It would drive so many folks away. It’d be nice (from my point of view) if both were said by as many parishes as possible. The crazy puppet junk has to stop though. Even the protestants I grew up with know better than to act that way in Church.

Maybe then, we actually would have a chance to assist at the EWTN Novus Ordo that I enjoyed watching on T.V. for so long.

Maybe if they had kept the Tridentine Mass the Novus Ordo could have developed according to the Vatican’s wishes (i.e. no American prelates going nuts with the Crosby, Stills, and Nash!). Maybe now that both are licit, the Novus Ordo will be brought in line with what they wanted it to be.