Q's for Traditionalists who believe Vatican II and NO were wrong/invalid:

[JKirkLVNV]

bear06;2046678:

IQUOTE]

That is the meaning when one says Kool-aide…going to deny that too?

JKirkLVNV
You’re grievously, grievously in error. The Tridentine Mass could be suppressed tomorrow and the Church would still be assured of Christ’s promise. It’s the Church and the Mass, not your idea of the Church and the form of the Mass. You’ve also insulted all of the Eastern Rite Christians in communion with the Holy See, for the promise is theirs as well.

JKirkLVNV
The Tridentine Mass probably never will be suppressed. It certainly shouldn’t be. Whether it is or isn’t will have no bearing on Christ’s promise, however, which was made to the Church long before what we know as the Tridentine Mass took its final form.

Talking form…not Sacrament.

JKirkLVNV
I would never deny that Christ instituted the Mass. I’m a Catholic.

Are you asserting that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, instituted that Mass in the exact form that Pope St. Pius V codified?

Talking form not Sacrament

JKirkLVNV
If our Lord said the Tridentine Mass, then why did the Apostles who took the Gospel and the Mass to the East do it differently? Why does the Church acknowledge these ancient liturgies as being “Apostolic?”

Talking Form…not Sacrament

See post 14, Uxor. They don’t say the Traditional Mass in the Eastern Catholic Churches in union with Rome, yet their Divine Liturgies are regarded as being of Apostolic origin or having Apostolic antecendents (by our Church). Did the Apostles get confused as to which Our Blessed Lord offered?

This is confusing…Our Lord offered…Are you talking now Sacrament or Form

bear06
Oh my goodness. Are you referring to THE Mass? If yes, I would agree. If you mean Traditional Mass as in the TLM, I’d be stunned. Of course Kirk’s not going to refer to the Mass Christ instituted as the Traditional Mass. Who does? It sounds more like you’re trying to “catch” Kirk. He believes (if I may Kirk) in the Mass Christ instituted at the Last Supper.

Talking form
.
JKirkLVNV
No, on the contrary, Christ only instituted one Mass.

Now we are talking Sacrament…

bear06
Uh, no, I’m not. Maybe it would help if you’d share which Mass you are talking about. Christ instituted the Mass of all ages.

Do you somehow think the Mass of Justin Martyr is a different Mass than the one Christ instituted?

Talking Sacrament

guanophore
So, what are you saying? The Eastern Liturgies don’t “count”?

Talking Sacrament

Uxor
I’m not saying your Mass is invalid, the Church as far as I know has never said that. I believe the words in the Core of the Canon are Christ’s words in the Traditional Mass.

Talking Sacrament…And yes it was me (Bear) that said the Core Essentials are Christ’s words, before anyone else did.

Uxor
What about the essential core?

I’m still on Sacrament as initially.

JKirkLVNV
When you say the core of the Canon, do you mean the words of consecration? “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood?”

And this was explained to me 1000 times???

bear06
As far as the Mass of all ages…Isn’t the Mass instituted at the Last Supper the Mass of all ages? Again, it wasn’t the TLM.

Talking form again

bear06
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uxor
What about the essential core?

What about it? The Mass of the Roman rite that I attend every week has it.

I’m referring to the Traditional Mass/Bear referring to the N.O and as the Sacrament not the Form

Uxor
When you made that statement it says to me that Christ had nothing to do with it, man-made, not valid, I don’t know. I’ve never heard anyone ever say that, ever. I believe it was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper, handed down by the Apostles and their successors. It was organically grown, yes there were additions, things moved around, but it leads back to the Last Supper and consists of the very words of Christ.

I’m still on Sacrament

JKirk
The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had."

Yeah, Uxor, it is. It’s the same Eucharist as Jesus instituted.
You can go on and on and on until the hills fall, but the word of the authority of the Church is going to drown you out.

Now when the N.O. Mass is meantioned…we are talking Sacrament…

Uxor: You forgot this quote, from one of my posts:

The TLM confects the same Sacrament as Christ instituted at the Last Supper, as do the Divine Liturgies, as does the Pauline Mass, as does the Anglican Use Mass. NONE of them are precisely the same Mass that our Lord celebrated that night, however.

 

[gorman64]

1. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

That canon from Trent says any minister who disdains, omits, or changes the approved rites of the Church is anathema. This obviously excludes the pope because he has the authority to approve and change rites.

We agree here, as I stated before.

So my answer is that it depends on who is doing those things and whether they have been approved. No one is allowed to forbid the use of images/statues because the pope hasn’t approved that and won’t; such a one who forbids it is anathema (if that anathema still applies in canon law). On the other hand, tableform altars have been approved, so one who installs such an altar in a church is not anathema.

So we have the “Church” doing what Pius XII stated was “straying far from the straight path”. To “wish that the altar be restored to it’s primitive tableform” is “straying far from the straight path”.

Of course, do you think Pius XII meant that a future Pope could rightly wish this as Pope…but not wish it as a modernist Bishop or Priest?

He was addressing a real issue brought about by real people who wanted to do these things, was he not?

There were those in the Church who wanted to do these unspeakable things.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We agree here, as I stated before.

So we have the “Church” doing what Pius XII stated was “straying far from the straight path”. To “wish that the altar be restored to it’s primitive tableform” is “straying far from the straight path”.

Of course, do you think Pius XII meant that a future Pope could rightly wish this as Pope…but not wish it as a modernist Bishop or Priest?

He was addressing a real issue brought about by real people who wanted to do these things, was he not?

There were those in the Church who wanted to do these unspeakable things.

Yours,

Gorman

But in and of themselves, are those things WRONG? Is a free standing altar simply wrong or is it only wrong if it’s the result of an insistence that we have to do it the way it was done in antiquity? I’ve never seen a Catholic Church that COMPLETELY lacked statues (they usually had at least a bas relief), is fewer statues in and of itself WRONG or is it only wrong if it’s hiding an iconoclastic attitude? In order to be “right,” do we have to have an altar backed to the wall and a church stiff with statuary (don’t get me wrong, I quite like statues in church, but I’ve seen it overdone).

 

[gorman64]

But in and of themselves, are those things WRONG? Is a free standing altar simply wrong or is it only wrong if it’s the result of an insistence that we have to do it the way it was done in antiquity? I’ve never seen a Catholic Church that COMPLETELY lacked statues (they usually had at least a bas relief), is fewer statues in and of itself WRONG or is it only wrong if it’s hiding an iconoclastic attitude? In order to be “right,” do we have to have an altar backed to the wall and a church stiff with statuary (don’t get me wrong, I quite like statues in church, but I’ve seen it overdone).

JKirk,

Your response does not really address the point I made, IMHO.

Do you think we should only listen to Popes when the speak ex cathedra and this other stuff they say is just some miscellaenous ramblings to fill up space so there encyclicals aren’t so short?

I noticed that no one touched “the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings”. Examples of this are legion.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Sacrosantum Concilium, no. 30: “To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.”

Now, where did you see bodily self-expression in this quote??? If you think we, composed of body and soul, aren’t supposed to express to some extent with our bodies the sentiments of the soul, think again. We might as well do away with genuflection, or kneeling, or bowing.

Answer to your question: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 827

It would be nice if you would refrain from naming abuses as if they were licit rubrics in the NO.

This is another topic but you sound like you are in denial.

So are you saying that Pope Pius XII was anathema when he said the following in his encyclical Mediator Dei?

“It follows from this that 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.”

Maria

This seems to be a recurrent theme of yours; contradicting/refuting/answering by soliciting a question. I see no argument in your comments.

Now please reciprocate and address the posts (if you can)
#156. 163, 165,166.168,177,178, 179. YOU are very selective in your discussions. ALSO in post #192 Gorman pointed out how you are selective in releasing the full text of references (IMPORTANT see post #192). THIS IS A MEANS TO AN END. It seems your are justifying your position on aspects of the Vatican II sect by selecting parts of statements and/or articles. This is not truthful and is an unfair practice. It is not Christian. This thread demands the truth and nothing but he Truth. Give this thread your insight that the referenced statements have failed to elucidate.

 

[bear06]

Uxor, what part of this statement do you disagree with?

the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the same in all of the Roman rites but the Last Supper was not, in format, the Tridentine.

If you want to claim the title of the first one to mention it in this thread then go ahead. Of course, this topic has been done to death on more than one thread long before you got here. You certainly didn’t enlighten us to the above fact. Also, just for the record, I don’t really consider you to be the first one to mention it because at least 3 other people said that we didn’t consider it the Traditional Mass (because that’s used to describe the Tridentine) we considered it THE Mass which is the “core of the Canon” long before you even used the words “core of the Canon”.

So again, as I’ve said from the very start when I asked what you meant by your confusing “Traditional Mass” usage. The format of the TLM was not found at the First Mass. It was the Mass of the Last Supper as some call it.

And TBCO1, here’s a nifty article that rebutts most of you supposedly contrary papal quotes but watch out, it’s from that extremely leftist publication, the Wanderer.

thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm

 

[paramedicgirl]

But in and of themselves, are those things WRONG? Is a free standing altar simply wrong or is it only wrong if it’s the result of an insistence that we have to do it **the way it was done in antiquity? ** I’ve never seen a Catholic Church that COMPLETELY lacked statues (they usually had at least a bas relief), is fewer statues in and of itself WRONG or is it only wrong if it’s hiding an iconoclastic attitude? In order to be “right,” do we have to have an altar backed to the wall and a church stiff with statuary (don’t get me wrong, I quite like statues in church, but I’ve seen it overdone).

I realize that I have joined this discussion very late, (I am on vacation, after all) but there is much merit to having architecture in our Churches that can elevate our hearts and minds to the worship of God. It is quite true that the Catholic architects of the past who provided us with the most amazing sculptures and incredible beauty within our Churches were sincere, faithful Christians who led deeply spiritual prayer lives, and it shows in the magnificent work and sculptural masterpieces that were their creative outlets for their deep love and devotion to God.

If love of tradition and sacred beauty, with the ability it has to draw one to all its holiness and sanctity, can be called antiquity, then I am guilt of being *ancient. *

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirk,

Your response does not really address the point I made, IMHO.

Do you think we should only listen to Popes when the speak ex cathedra and this other stuff they say is just some miscellaenous ramblings to fill up space so there encyclicals aren’t so short?

I noticed that no one touched “the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings”. Examples of this are legion.

Yours,

Gorman

With respect, though, Gorman, you posted the quotation of Pius XII as though it were a foregone conclusion that any deviation from Pope Pius XII’s statement would be a straying from the straight path.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I realize that I have joined this discussion very late, (I am on vacation, after all) but there is much merit to having architecture in our Churches that can elevate our hearts and minds to the worship of God. It is quite true that the Catholic architects of the past who provided us with the most amazing sculptures and incredible beauty within our Churches were sincere, faithful Christians who led deeply spiritual prayer lives, and it shows in the magnificent work and sculptural masterpieces that were their creative outlets for their deep love and devotion to God.

If love of tradition and sacred beauty, with the ability it has to draw one to all its holiness and sanctity, can be called antiquity, then I am guilt of being *ancient. *

Paramedicgirl, I didn’t say anything at all that would contradict the above (so I don’t really see what you’re getting at). I asked a question about free standing altars being being wrong in and of themselves. I asked (basically) how many statues we had to have to qualify as a Catholic church. I didn’t advocate for auditoriums for churches, or picnic tables for altars, or the ugly statue of Our Lady in LA as a model of what statuary should be.

 

[gorman64]

This seems to be a recurrent theme of yours; contradicting/refuting/answering by soliciting a question. I see no argument in your comments.

Now please reciprocate and address the posts (if you can)
#156. 163, 165,166.168,177,178, 179. YOU are very selective in your discussions. ALSO in post #192 Gorman pointed out how you are selective in releasing the full text of references (IMPORTANT see post #192). THIS IS A MEANS TO AN END. It seems your are justifying your position on aspects of the Vatican II sect by selecting parts of statements and/or articles. This is not truthful and is an unfair practice. It is not Christian. This thread demands the truth and nothing but he Truth. Give this thread your insight that the referenced statements have failed to elucidate.

Dear TCOB1,

We are fortunate that there can only be one of you.

All kidding aside, let me make a couple of observations:

We all quote the things that we think make our arguments “stick”. We are not really interested in pointing out the deficiencies in our own arguments…that is for others to do. To assume ill will on the part of MTD or anyone else is not very Catholic at all.

We, as Catholics, are to assume others have a good intention until we can no longer do so. I’m not saying there is not a time when someone actually is deceiving or unfair…but those individuals are a rarity here…I believe. That does not mean I do not find some here maddeningly frustrating (you know who you are), but they are to be assumed of good will…if at all possible.

This is the true charity that is required of Catholics…it is after all, the greatest of the theological virtues.

Yours in Christ,

Gorman

 

[Uxor]

Uxor;2046907:

Uxor: You forgot this quote, from one of my posts:

The TLM confects the same Sacrament as Christ instituted at the Last Supper, as do the Divine Liturgies, as does the Pauline Mass, as does the Anglican Use Mass. NONE of them are precisely the same Mass that our Lord celebrated that night, however.

And you forget my reply: All I was trying to get you guys to say from the beginning

This needs to stop…move on.

 

[Uxor]

Uxor, what part of this statement do you disagree with?

If you want to claim the title of the first one to mention it in this thread then go ahead. Of course, this topic has been done to death on more than one thread long before you got here. You certainly didn’t enlighten us to the above fact. Also, just for the record, I don’t really consider you to be the first one to mention it because at least 3 other people said that we didn’t consider it the Traditional Mass (because that’s used to describe the Tridentine) we considered it THE Mass which is the “core of the Canon” long before you even used the words “core of the Canon”.

So again, as I’ve said from the very start when I asked what you meant by your confusing “Traditional Mass” usage. The format of the TLM was not found at the First Mass. It was the Mass of the Last Supper as some call it.

And TBCO1, here’s a nifty article that rebutts most of you supposedly contrary papal quotes but watch out, it’s from that extremely leftist publication, the Wanderer.

thewandererpress.com/b5-29-03.htm

Go get some help…

 

[MTD]

So we have the “Church” doing what Pius XII stated was “straying far from the straight path”. To “wish that the altar be restored to it’s primitive tableform” is “straying far from the straight path”.

Far from the straight path. You sure he said that?

Of course, do you think Pius XII meant that a future Pope could rightly wish this as Pope…but not wish it as a modernist Bishop or Priest?

Frankly, I don’t wish to get into this argument. It’s irrelevant as to whether the last five papal claimants are valid or not. It seems to me the statement of Pope Pius XII about the altar being restored to its primitive form really has to do with the practical aspect rather than the doctrinal aspect of the discipline. I don’t think we should distort it.

He was addressing a real issue brought about by real people who wanted to do these things, was he not?

Yes.

There were those in the Church who wanted to do these unspeakable things.

I realize that.

I noticed that no one touched “the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings”.

I didn’t because I didn’t really know what he was talking about. I guess I just haven’t been to enough modern churches or something.

Maria

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirkLVNV;2047074:

And you forget my reply: All I was trying to get you guys to say from the beginning

This needs to stop…move on.

And then you got upset because I stood by my original statement that IF the TLM were supressed tomorrow (not should be supressed, not will be supressed), Christ’s promise to His Church that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it would remain. I still stand by that statment.

 

[bear06]

Go get some help…

I’ve got plenty but thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Uxor]

Uxor;2047319:

And then you got upset because I stood by my original statement that IF the TLM were supressed tomorrow (not should

be supressed, not will be supressed), Christ’s promise to His Church that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it would remain. I still stand by that statment.

I did not get upset…I was quoting what you orginally had said at the beginning. Didn’t I say…we are back to square one…I know your position, more or less we agree to disagree.

Have a nice evening Hannity Kirk and tell the same to Hannity Bear for me too. Thanks …

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirkLVNV;2047485:

I did not get upset…I was quoting what you orginally had said at the beginning. Didn’t I say…we are back to square one…I know your position, more or less we agree to disagree.

Have a nice evening Hannity Kirk and tell the same to Hannity Bear for me too. Thanks …

So you’re essentially saying that if the TLM was suppressed, the gates of Hell would prevail or would have prevailed against the Church?

 

[gorman64]

With respect, though, Gorman, you posted the quotation of Pius XII as though it were a foregone conclusion that any deviation from Pope Pius XII’s statement would be a straying from the straight path.

JKirk:

That’s the point I was trying to make. Pius XII said what he said. It applied to everyone at that time. If a future pope would deviate from what Pope Pius XII said…then why? I’m sure there would be an explanation that outlined the circumstance that dictated the deviation (and I mean a deviation from Pius’ words…not a deviation from the straight path). We would all understand it.

What possible reason is there for a “crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings”?

“Because protestants don’t like crucifixes” is the only one I can come up with.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[bear06]

JKirkLVNV;2047485:

I did not get upset…I was quoting what you orginally had said at the beginning. Didn’t I say…we are back to square one…I know your position, more or less we agree to disagree.

Have a nice evening Hannity Kirk and tell the same to Hannity Bear for me too. Thanks …

Not too hypocritical. Did you know that you and I disagree with Catholic teachings, Kirk? Did you know that we publicly contradict Church teaching? I’m so glad someone is here to enlighten us. I’m just waiting to called a modernist. Shall we start a pool as to when this will happen?

Anybody have a kool-aid smilie? The dead horse one doesn’t seem appropriate here.

 

[AJV]

Let us continue with, Q’s for Traditionalists who believe Vatican II and NO were wrong/invalid shall we?

Concerning Sacrosanctum Concilium of Vatican II:

Is it not clear that in Sacrosanctum Concilium #37 and #40.1, the Vatican II Council is heretical against the teaching of Modern Worship according to Pope Pius X in Pascendi?

Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (# 26), Sept. 8, 1907, On the Worship of Modernists:
“THE CHIEF STIMULUS IN THE DOMAIN OF WORSHIP CONSISTS IN THE NEED OF ADAPTING ITSELF TO THE USES AND CUSTOMS OF PEOPLES, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by long usage.” (The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 83.)

Also in Sacrosanctum Concilium #34 and #50, Again Vatican II is in contradiction to authoritative doctrine of the Church
As posed by Pope Pius VI: Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28. 1794, # 33: “The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, ‘by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice…’” – Condemned as rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.(Denzinger 1533.)

These direct contradictions of dogmatic constitution of the Church assert the invalidity of the New Order Missae. If they do not in your opinion please elucidate.

The great problem is that the quotes are taken in isolation form the time. One can do the same thing:

Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius IX ARE NOT TRUE POPES

As excommunicates they cannot have been elected to the Papacy! having contradicted the AUTHORATATIVE teaching of Pope Alexander VII by sanctioning vernacular missals

**
Pope Alexander VII:** Ad aures nostras excommunication *latatae sententiae * on all who possess vernacular missals.

…regardless of the author, no matter where and under what circumstance it might be written and published, to all and several of all sexes of whatever rank, order, dignity, state of life, honour or preeminence, under pain of excommunication latae sententiae to be incurred by the vigour of the law itself **we forever forbid **its printing, reading and possession.

Why did Autorum fidei condemn the liturgy and the vernacular? In the first place because it was Jansiestic. It was “favorable to the charges of heretics” by introducing such conepts, “insulting to the Church” because it was the will fo the Synod made with no authority whatsoever. If the vernacular was so offensive to pious ears then Popes wouldn’t have been able to grant vernacular priveleges.

And secondly you are giving a different meaning to the encyclical Pascendi. What the encyclical is condemning is that the worship has developed as a response to man’s needs. This is entirely false because it is not that the Mass, the sacraments, or anything else started because we had a gradual and better understanding in the subconcious of what Christ did at the Last Supper and so we began to esteem it more grealy and eventually from a simple commeorative meal it it took on a different meaning of sacrifice and somesuch.