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

[Uxor]

Uxor, you are incredible. You are new to the boards and you have no idea what Gorman is about. He hardly sees things through the eyes of Vatican II. As a matter of fact you couldn’t be more wrong. Why don’t you try reading some of his posts to see where he is coming from before you try and classify him.

Just like that site you gave me you think is traditional.

 

[AJV]

I find that hard to believe…these are Sacraments that you are talking about…you’re saying Christ doesn’t care about matter, form in the Sacraments He instituted…

As regards the form, for Baptism it is the same. And for the other 5 sacraments, the form is given* in genre *not in specie as with the Baptism and the Eucharist. Hence there can be great latitude (with limits: of course, they have to signify the grace)

 

[MTD]

So yes I do think the N.O. Mass is valid. But when I look at the fruits they are not good. This is spoken about in the Old Testament and by Christ…to look at the fruits. I’m not going hide my head in the sand and pretend nothing is going on here. And that is my blunt answer.

That’s fine, Uxor. And that’s all I’m asking; namely, that you recognize the validity of the Pauline Rite. However, there is the practical aspect of any discipline, and this is where you have the right to be concerned about the Pauline Rite.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

I attended a N.O. Mass for 30 years. something is wrong, something off…I don’t know what it is…it could be it had to do with the Parish I was attending, it is a matter that I’m seeking discernment on. From changing the words of Consecration to introducing ancient rites, Communion in the Hand, Extra Ordinary Ministers, etc (which I don’t agree with). but it is more than that…it is spiritual. People that attend the N.O. that I have talked to don’t even know what the Mystery of Faith is, that is mind bogglingly… I feel I could attend the Mass at the Holy Angels Monastery and it wouldn’t be a problem. So yes I do think the N.O. Mass is valid. But when I look at the fruits they are not good. This is spoken about in the Old Testament and by Christ…to look at the fruits. I’m not going hide my head in the sand and pretend nothing is going on here. And that is my blunt answer.

Dear Uxor,

I agree. Bad fruits. By their fruits you shall know them…and the “them” are not the successors to the Apostles…when the fruits are bad. Our Lord speaks of this many times.

I don’t appreciate your tone to me…and it seems to be the norm with orthodox catholics here.

Well, it is nice to be called an orthodox Catholic for a change.

I meant no offense by what I said. The argument you were making was flawed in that is opposed to doctrine theologically certain.

Some of which I understand because how you view the past through Vatican II.

I view V2 from a Catholic point of view. The bad fruits came after the Council…we must look at the Council. I believe the documents of V2 are essays in ambiguity…for the most part. What became manifest after V2 is the problem…and it has nothing to do with “the spirit of the Council”. Those in “authority” did what they did. That’s what we know…what some think they should have done is irrevelant. You can’t really make the charge that they “didn’t do it right”.

And just like a Father who loves his daughter, that can’t see she could never do anything wrong [By “wrong” I assume you mean teach error, and not just be a source of scandal].

Of course, you said this because you thought I was a neo-Catholic. But I will say that what you are implying here is contrary to the indefectibility of the Church. The daughter in your example is not the Catholic Church.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The fruits of the Council and the NO Mass that many complain of can also be traced to other sources and need NOT be blamed on the council, the popes, or the Mass. Those fruits can be blamed on the times (which contributed to the “Spirit of Vatican II,” something entirely different, indeed, entirely ALIEN to that council). Finally, when it comes to judging fruits, our opinions should not be contrary to the Church. There’s no such thing as a bad question, but there are certainly bad conclusions.

The Pope and the Synod of Bishops don’t seem to take as gloomy an outlook as Uxor and Gorman, though they acknoweldge problems. From Sarcamentum Caritatis:

“In a particular way, the Synod Fathers acknowledged and reaffirmed the beneficial influence on the Church’s life of the liturgical renewal which began with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (5). The Synod of Bishops was able to evaluate the reception of the renewal in the years following the Council. There were many expressions of appreciation. The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities.(6)”

 

[MTD]

…and the “them” are not the successors to the Apostles…when the fruits are bad.

Not exactly a flawless argument. Bad fruits does not per se indicate that they are not successors of the Apostles. Bad fruits can give a clue, which in turn prompts further investigation, but it does not necessarily indicate invalidity of succession.

Maria

 

[bear06]

Just like that site you gave me you think is traditional.

Which site is that? Are we talking about the 1913 or 17 C.E. now?

 

[MTD]

The Pope and the Synod of Bishops don’t seem to take as gloomy an outlook as Uxor and Gorman, though they acknoweldge problems.

It looks like you and Uxor don’t realize Gorman is a sedevacantist.

Maria

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It looks like you and Uxor don’t realize Gorman is a sedevacantist.

Maria

No, I was aware of that. I regard that as being a rather gloomy outlook!

 

[bear06]

No, I was aware of that. I regard that as being a rather gloomy outlook!

And yet he’s quite cheery.

 

[Uxor]

The fruits of the Council and the NO Mass that many complain of can also be traced to other sources and need NOT be blamed on the council, the popes, or the Mass. Those fruits can be blamed on the times (which contributed to the “Spirit of Vatican II,” something entirely different, indeed, entirely ALIEN to that council). Finally, when it comes to judging fruits, our opinions should not be contrary to the Church. There’s no such thing as a bad question, but there are certainly bad conclusions.

The Pope and the Synod of Bishops don’t seem to take as gloomy an outlook as Uxor and Gorman, though they acknoweldge problems. From Sarcamentum Caritatis:

“In a particular way, the Synod Fathers acknowledged and reaffirmed the beneficial influence on the Church’s life of the liturgical renewal which began with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (5). The Synod of Bishops was able to evaluate the reception of the renewal in the years following the Council. There were many expressions of appreciation. The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities.(6)”

Address by Pope Paul VI Nov 19, 1969.

“.The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had.”

No it is not.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Address by Pope Paul VI Nov 19, 1969.

“.The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had.”

No it is not.

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.

 

[gorman64]

Not exactly a flawless argument. Bad fruits does not per se indicate that they are not successors of the Apostles. Bad fruits can give a clue, which in turn prompts further investigation, but it does not necessarily indicate invalidity of succession.

Maria

Maria,

I don’t disagree with this. It does however give reason to question V2…but every time I do that, someone ends up saying that it is a valid council accepted by the Pope and it cannot be questioned.

I’m not saying you have said that…but many other do.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

And yet he’s quite cheery.

I knew if I waited long enough you’d begin to grow on me.

 

[Uxor]

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.

That is amazing…when Paul IV quotes the N.O. Mass you suddently know he is speaking about the Sacrament. But there is a double standard here when it comes to the Traditional Mass/Tridentine Mass, I’m playing a trick, this is not the same Mass as Christ said at the Last Supper, not the same liturgy as Justin the Martyer, 3rd century is brought in, I’m insulting eastern rites, which prayers did Christ actually say, the Mystery of Faith was not said by Christ, the list goes on and on and I’m called ignorant on top of it.

I don’t like to attack any Mass because it is the Sacrament Christ instituted, and I don’t think it is the case when I say they are not the same Mass. One only has to attend to notice the vast difference

And the next time somebody says to me the Tridentine Mass is not the same Mass as instituted by Christ at the Last Supper you can be assured I will ask about drums and guitars, handshakes and smiles, liturgical dancing, cell phones, extra eucharist ministers and the English language not spoken by Christ or the Apostles at the Last Supper…

Get a liferaft

.

 

[BobP123]

Address by Pope Paul VI Nov 19, 1969.

“.The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had.”

No it is not.

Pope Paul was wrong in his Progressio Populorum as well. Humanae Vitae was damage control even though that was locking the barn door after all his good horses ran off.

Too bad he effected no real damage control against his (other) New Order. Not too many heard his “smoke of Satan” speech.

 

[bear06]

And the next time somebody says to me the Tridentine Mass is not the same Mass as instituted by Christ at the Last Supper

Where’s my dead horse emoticon when I need it?
Various people have explained to you about 50 times that the FORMAT of the Tridentine was not found at the Last Supper but the essential Canon is found in all of the approved Masses of the Roman rite throughout it’s history. Was the Tridentine format of THE Mass used at the Last Supper? You can’t possibly answer yes here and the “no” you give is exactly what we give. Nobody has denied that the Holy Sacrifice of the Tridentine Mass Tridentine is any different than Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at the Last Supper.

 

[Uxor]

Where’s my dead horse emoticon when I need it?
Various people have explained to you about 50 times that the FORMAT of the Tridentine was not found at the Last Supper but the essential Canon is found in all of the approved Masses of the Roman rite throughout it’s history. Was the Tridentine format of THE Mass used at the Last Supper? You can’t possibly answer yes here and the “no” you give is exactly what we give. Nobody has denied that the Holy Sacrifice of the Tridentine Mass Tridentine is any different than Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at the Last Supper.

Nobody talks about the Core of the Canon, till I bring it up. They talk about everything else except the Core Essential when it comes to the Tridentine Mass and that is the truth. And I am the one that explained that not various people. I just find it ironic that we speak about the N.O. Mass we are talking about the Sacrament instituted by Christ, but when we talk about the Tridentine Mass, it is everything else but. :tsktsk:

 

[Uxor]

Pope Paul was wrong in his Progressio Populorum as well. Humanae Vitae was damage control even though that was locking the barn door after all his good horses ran off.

Too bad he effected no real damage control against his (other) New Order. Not too many heard his “smoke of Satan” speech.

I think Christ is seeing to that.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That is amazing…when Paul IV quotes the N.O. Mass you suddently know he is speaking about the Sacrament. But there is a double standard here when it comes to the Traditional Mass/Tridentine Mass, I’m playing a trick, this is not the same Mass as Christ said at the Last Supper, not the same liturgy as Justin the Martyer, 3rd century is brought in, I’m insulting eastern rites, which prayers did Christ actually say, the Mystery of Faith was not said by Christ, the list goes on and on and I’m called ignorant on top of it. **What in the name of goodness and mercy are you talking about??? We’ve gone over and over this. If you think that the form of the Last Supper was identical to the Tridentine Mass, you’re mistaken. It wasn’t. The Pauline isn’t, either, nor are the Divine Liturgies of the East. They are, however, ALL THE SAME EUCHARIST, ALL THE SAME MASS. **

I don’t like to attack any Mass because it is the Sacrament Christ instituted, and I don’t think it is the case when I say they are not the same Mass. One only has to attend to notice the vast difference. **But you quoted Pope Paul VI: “The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had.” He didn’t mean it was the same FORM, he meant it was the same Mass that Jesus instituted. Did you think he meant the same FORM? **

And the next time somebody says to me the Tridentine Mass is not the same Mass as instituted by Christ at the Last Supper you can be assured I will ask about drums and guitars, handshakes and smiles, liturgical dancing, cell phones, extra eucharist ministers and the English language not spoken by Christ or the Apostles at the Last Supper…

**Do you imagine He spoke Latin?

Mass>same

Form>different
**