Pope's Latin mass plans spark concern

[giuseppeTO]

My wife always wears a hat to Mass as she has done for decades. She thinks those hankies on the head that the schismatic women wear are ridiculous. Surely they can afford a decent hat that does justice to their clothing and shows respect at the same time.

The wearing of head coverings for women is an ancient sign of grace, and piety before the Blessed Sacrament for women. I have never seen a woman wear a hanky. I have seen some very beautiful chapel veils. Hats only came in during Victorian times and their use, as opposed to veils, is merely a matter of fashion. I have seen chapel veils that are many times more beautiful than a hat.

However, prior to 1960, it was generally the norm to wear a hat for Sunday Mass and a chapel veil for weekday Mass.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Any priest can call on his parishioners to dress more formally at Mass.

Most priests will not take issue with shorts, sports jerseys, and Led Zepplin tee shirts at Mass at any time, but especially in the summer. It the old Protestant mentality that “God is just thrilled that I showed up and doesn’t care what I’m wearing.”

 

[AquinaSavio]

Most priests will not take issue with shorts, sports jerseys, and Led Zepplin tee shirts at Mass at any time, but especially in the summer. It the old Protestant mentality that “God is just thrilled that I showed up and doesn’t care what I’m wearing.”

It’s even worse when the priest is wearing inappropriate clothes himself!

 

[giuseppeTO]

Originally Posted by Richardols View Post
My wife always wears a hat to Mass as she has done for decades. She thinks those hankies on the head that the schismatic women wear are ridiculous. Surely they can afford a decent hat that does justice to their clothing and shows respect at the same time.

Surely you aren’t that ignorant.

Is somebody keeping a list of all the “bad” things the schismatics are doing. Does it surprise anyone that it is only schismatic women that retain this respect for the Blessed Sacrament and those at the Indult Mass are mimicking the schismatics? Is it a different Christ at the TLM than at the Novus Ordo? Are there different fashion models for each?

In my opinion, the Novus Ordo and the modern move toward centering worship on man, including the orientation of the altar, has led to the steady decline in the belief in the True Presence and the sharp falloff of attendance at Mass. That is why women don’t cover their heads, men wear jeans, shorts, sandals, Redskins jerseys, and Led Zepplin tee shirts. That’s also why (most) people do not genuflect in front of the tabernacle (assuming the taberbacle has not been banished to the broom closet) in modern churches and have a total lack of reverence for the silence that should be maintained before and after Mass. We all want to know who is supposed to win the football game or how you are still cleaning up after the hurricane, but how about some respect for the few people who actually continue to pray after or before Mass?

These are not all things I have read about. This all from first hand experience from 30 years in the Novus Ordo in churches from San Diego to Annapolis. It is always the same, sometimes a little better, some times a lot worse.

For those of you who don’t know the recent history of chapel veils, wearing them was covered in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. After the Conciliar Revolution, they didn’t fit the image of the modern woman or the style of the 1970’s or the underlying idea of submission to Our Lord. Even though the church never issued an opinion that they should not be worn, although still covered by the Canon, the practice was allowed to “fade away” as other novelties, like communion in the hand, were allowed to be instituted without the consent of the Holy See.

So now, it becomes one of the marks of schism for a woman to cover her head at the altar railing of Our Lord, a thousand year-old practice, too silly for most of the modern church.

 

[Stu]

So now, it becomes one of the marks of schism for a woman to cover her head at the altar railing of Our Lord, a thousand year-old practice, too silly for most of the modern church.

Makes one wonder what will be next.

“Look at those schismatics praying the Rosary before Mass.”

 

[Unfinished]

Is somebody keeping a list of all the “bad” things the schismatics are doing. Does it surprise anyone that it is only schismatic women that retain this respect for the Blessed Sacrament and those at the Indult Mass are mimicking the schismatics?

No, you have it backwards. The schismatics are mimicing the tradtional latin rite that is still being celebrated, under indult, in full communion with the Church.

 

[Franze]

I would like to see the moment that my spanish city had the chance to go to a TLM but I know that teh good things need their time, I pray for that.

 

[Mummybee]

When I was in grade school if a girl forgot her chapel veil the Nuns would pin a Kleenex on her head. I always wondered how having a Kleenex on ones head honored God?

Another poster cited the canon law that I was going to mention, but there is more than that. There is also a scripture passage (1 Corinthians 11:1-15) also used by the Amish regarding the fact that their women cover 24/7.

The bottom line is that it shows reverence before the Real Presence of Our Lord in the tabernacle. Did you ever feel so filled with reverence before the sacrament that you felt compelled to lie prostrate on the floor before the tabernacle? It’s like that.

The Corinthians verses cited above give more specifics about why men don’t cover but women do.

 

[estesbob]

Another poster cited the canon law that I was going to mention, but there is more than that. There is also a scripture passage (1 Corinthians 11:1-15) also used by the Amish regarding the fact that their women cover 24/7.

The bottom line is that it shows reverence before the Real Presence of Our Lord in the tabernacle. Did you ever feel so filled with reverence before the sacrament that you felt compelled to lie prostrate on the floor before the tabernacle? It’s like that.

The Corinthians verses cited above give more specifics about why men don’t cover but women do.

I believe it was started in Cornith in the first century because only the temple prositutes went about without their heads uncovered.

Please bear in mind I was relating my story from the standpoint of a third grader-my apologetics have improved a bit since then. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[Mummybee]

I believe it was started in Cornith in the first century because only the temple prositutes went about without their heads uncovered.

Please bear in mind I was relating my story from the standpoint of a third grader-my apologetics have improved a bit since then. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

Ha ha ha, glad to hear it!

 

[giuseppeTO]

Surely you aren’t that ignorant.

No, you have it backwards. The schismatics are mimicing the tradtional latin rite that is still being celebrated, under indult, in full communion with the Church.

There would be no indult if it were not for the SSPX. The indult did not exist and NOBODY was allowed to say the TLM except in private.

So, wrong, Unfinished, you have it backwards.

Study your recent church history, my friend, and you will not find ANYONE performing the TLM except for the SSPX, Campos (Bishop DeCastro Meyer) and perhaps the independent Fr. Depaw in NYC, who never stopped saying the TLM and was ostracisized by the diocese.

The indult was Pope John Paul’s rejoiner to the SSPX - he had no love nor need for the TLM.

You would be doing liturgical dances at the consecration instead of assiting at the TLM were it not for the “schismatics”. They never ceased holding the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church after 1970 … ever. It is the modern church that dumped these practices.

 

[OriginalJS]

Pax tecum!

I wouldn’t use the phrase “so the priest has his back to the worshippers”. The altar was in that position so that the priest and the people would all be facing in the same direction.

In Christ,
Rand

Pax tecum. My choice of words was not the best; your suggestion is correct and is much better.

 

[Unfinished]

There would be no indult if it were not for the SSPX. The indult did not exist and NOBODY was allowed to say the TLM except in private.

So, wrong, Unfinished, you have it backwards.

No, I am quite correct. God does not abandon His Church. Is it in a bad state right now? Yes. But there was not ONE point in history when the Church was NOT in a bad state.

First they were all martyred, then in became a power stuggle for the next thousand years and the Church got involved in a lot of stuff it had no business with. Then, in the midsts of corruption, the reformation happened. The reformation was OUR FAULT. If the Church had been operating as it should, there would of been no cause for complaining. Does that make the Protestants correct? No.

It is the same now with the SSPX. While they are not in outright rebellion, there is NO NEED to leave the Holy Catholic Church’s authority. God will raise someone up to repair His Church, He always does.

So, I had it correct. If the SSPX had never been created, God would raise someone up to repair things. He is doing it now. All the men in my discernment group are overwhelming orthodox. I happen to attend the Latin Mass, but I am the only one who does. And guess what? None of us feel the need to become schismatic.

The Church has always been in a state of peril because it is under Satan’s constant attack. But the gates of Hell will not prevail. Schisms happen because men do not trust God with that promise, instead they try to fix things themselves. God will provide, he is doing it now. If I am ordained, God willing, I may be on my death bed and only see the start of change, but it is coming.

If Luther had stayed inside the Church instead of rebelling, he might of been able to fix it without creating the Protestants. If the SSPX had not schismed, all those orthodox priests could be helping to repair the abuses instead of jumping ship.

I did not mean to stray off topic here. While I am looking forward to a possible indult, just because of my personal preferance, it will not solve the problems of the Church. Even if Vatican II had never happened, the Church would still be rampet with problems. People would just be complaining about something else instead.

 

[estesbob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by estesbob forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
*I believe it was started in Cornith in the first century because only the temple prositutes went about without their heads uncovered. *

Please bear in mind I was relating my story from the standpoint of a third grader-my apologetics have improved a bit since then. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

Ha ha ha, glad to hear it!

Many here, however, would disagree!

 

[estesbob]

Pax tecum. My choice of words was not the best; your suggestion is correct and is much better.

Reminds me of the interview we had with an Architect for builing a new Church. he kept stateing that in his research he found that the the entrance to a Church was traditionally from the West. After he repeated that several times we finally politely told him that that was becuase the Altar traditionally faced the east. he looked at us puzzled-couldnt see what the difference was. needless to say he didnt make the final cut.

 

[giuseppeTO]

No, I am quite correct. God does not abandon His Church. Is it in a bad state right now? Yes. But there was not ONE point in history when the Church was NOT in a bad state.

First they were all martyred, then in became a power stuggle for the next thousand years and the Church got involved in a lot of stuff it had no business with. Then, in the midsts of corruption, the reformation happened. The reformation was OUR FAULT. If the Church had been operating as it should, there would of been no cause for complaining. Does that make the Protestants correct? No.

It is the same now with the SSPX. While they are not in outright rebellion, there is NO NEED to leave the Holy Catholic Church’s authority. God will raise someone up to repair His Church, He always does.

So, I had it correct. If the SSPX had never been created, God would raise someone up to repair things. He is doing it now. All the men in my discernment group are overwhelming orthodox. I happen to attend the Latin Mass, but I am the only one who does. And guess what? None of us feel the need to become schismatic.

The Church has always been in a state of peril because it is under Satan’s constant attack. But the gates of Hell will not prevail. Schisms happen because men do not trust God with that promise, instead they try to fix things themselves. God will provide, he is doing it now. If I am ordained, God willing, I may be on my death bed and only see the start of change, but it is coming.

If Luther had stayed inside the Church instead of rebelling, he might of been able to fix it without creating the Protestants. If the SSPX had not schismed, all those orthodox priests could be helping to repair the abuses instead of jumping ship.

I did not mean to stray off topic here. While I am looking forward to a possible indult, just because of my personal preferance, it will not solve the problems of the Church. Even if Vatican II had never happened, the Church would still be rampet with problems. People would just be complaining about something else instead.

Nice discertation, but unfortunately, you are still quite wrong. You can stray off the topic all you want, but here is the hard fact.

After 1970, NOBODY celebrated the TLM … only the SSPX. The “schism” was not declared until 1988 (that’s 18 years). The SSPX was and is the Lord’s way of preserving the Eternal Mass of Pius V. Every Pope since John XXIII until Pope Benedict has been happy to see it fade into oblivion. Like it or not, the Society has been his instrument to keep this most essential form of worship, The devil, as you have said, had his way within our church, almost to the loss of this precious gift. Pope Paul was correct when he observed that the smoke of Satan had entered.

That Archbishop Lefebvre incurred excommunication for the act of perpetuating a priesthood to continue to celebrate the TLM (and not for heretical dogma) is certainly a tragedy. I can certainly identify circumstances applicable to a majority of the laity and a portion of the episcopate in the modern Catholic Church where they do not follow the Pope and are elligible for schism in graver matters. But that would be for another thread.

Deny it all you want, Our Lord raised up Lefebvre to perpetuate the Mass. Nobody else was “raised up”. We have the TLM because of him and he will be vindicated eventually and recognized for preserving the faith.

 

[Unfinished]

Like it or not, the Society has been his instrument to keep this most essential form of worship, The devil, as you have said, had his way within our church, almost to the loss of this precious gift.

The Latin Mass is not essential. The Novus Ordo is a 100% valid sacrifice of the Mass. Do I prefer it liturgically? Yes. It is required? Not by any means.

Deny it all you want, Our Lord raised up Lefebvre to perpetuate the Mass. Nobody else was “raised up”. We have the TLM because of him and he will be vindicated eventually and recognized for preserving the faith.

That would be up for debate. However, I can promise he will be remembered for disobedience to the See of Peter.

Men like St. Francis preserved the faith. They didn’t go into schism to do it.

I don’t have a problem with the TLM. It is the dissenter attitude that is the problem. Even if this universal indult comes about, I fear it may not solve much. SSPX priests may once again submit to the authority of the Pope, but the Society as a whole probably will not because they have this notion that the current Mass is “tainted.”

Vatican II will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER, EVER be reversed. Liturgical changes may be made for the better, but the second Vatican council will never be declared “wrong.”

Once again, the Church needs work. It always has, and always will. The Lord put the Pope in charge for a reason, there is no need to go into schism.

 

[estesbob]

Deny it all you want, Our Lord raised up Lefebvre to perpetuate the Mass. Nobody else was “raised up”. We have the TLM because of him and he will be vindicated eventually and recognized for preserving the faith.

When did Papal authority pass from the Pope to Lefebrve?? If God had wanted the TLM perpetuated why didnt he instruct the Pope to do so? Why would he have to go to some Obscure US Priest to do it? Of course if you really beleive what you posted above you should fight tooth and nail to keep the Schism intact. Why would you join a Church who’s core Doctrine of apostolic sucession and papal Authority has been, in your opinion, destroyed?

 

[giuseppeTO]

When did Papal authority pass from the Pope to Lefebrve??

I didn’t mean to imply that it did.
estesbob;1633722:

If God had wanted the TLM perpetuated why didnt he instruct the Pope to do so?

He did. He instructed Pope Pius V to preserve it and he canonized it with QP. I guess you would have to ask Pope Paul and Pope John Paul II why they didn’t respect God talking through their predecessor.

Why would he have to go to some Obscure US Priest to do it?

LeFebvre was French. You mean to tell me that you think that the Lord only works through Popes? Why do you think Our Blessed Mother appeared to three shepard children in Portugal instead of the Pope? Why did Our Lord reveal his Sacred Heart to a saint and not bother the Pope with it?

Of course if you really beleive what you posted above you should fight tooth and nail to keep the Schism intact.

Never. The schism should never have happened and the sooner it is ended, the better.

Why would you join a Church who’s core Doctrine of apostolic sucession and papal Authority has been, in your opinion, destroyed?

I don’t quite follow your thinking here. I never joined a New Church. I kept following the same dogma and sacraments that my parents, grandparents, and great-great grandparents followed. When the new religion, new Mass, new sacraments, and new theology was implemented in 1970, they sort of left me behind.

 

[estesbob]

estesbob;1633722:

I don’t quite follow your thinking here. I never joined a New Church. I kept following the same dogma and sacraments that my parents, grandparents, and great-great grandparents followed. When the new religion, new Mass, new sacraments, and new theology was implemented in 1970, they sort of left me behind.

You say God psicked Lefebvre to defy the Pope. That seems to pretty much underrmine everytime have been taught the last 2,000 years.

To be honest I dont care about the TLM one or another.I rank it right up there with whether we should hould hands during ther Our Father.What i do mind is those who claim(NOT refering to you,BTW) that this Mass is some kind of magic wand who’s removal caused everything bad that has happened since and who’s re-insitution will imediately restore the Church to its former glory(whatever that is). .