Question for you Trad. Catholics

[JKirkLVNV]

Ferrara is just as bad, with his accusations against EWTN and his defense of Fr. Grunner, a priest not in good standing with the Church. The OP should really stick to the Catechism of The Catholic Church or it’s compendium. The apologists here at CA could also help direct him.

 

[At_Trent]

I have not viewed their discussion forums, so that wasn’t what I was talking about. I’m talking about where one is taken when one hits “index.” Among other things, their links repeat the old saw that Archbishop Bugnini was a mason (something the Holy See has categorically denied),** that the liturgy has been destroyed, ie, the EF and the OF are so radically different as to almost oppose one another **(something the Holy Father has denied in his cover letter to the Bishops on the promulgation of *Summorum Pontificum), *promote the conspiracy theory that Cardinal Ottaviani did not know he signed a detraction of his earlier reservations on the Mass of Paul VI, etc., and links to places like “Traditio” should sound a warning bell in the ears of Catholics. Their agenda is not the Church’s agenda and they apparently not thinking with the mind of the Church (the whole Church, pre-and post-conciliar). For this reason, I advised caution (and still do).

Good grief, here we go again. “Time out, that’s a trad site !”

Hey, this forum is too… but anyway… sigh

Alluding to the composition of the New Mass, Father Duggan states: **"It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change **(November AD2000).

Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative.** Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.**

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes: **“Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit)” **(pages 9-10).

Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes:** “[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed”** (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).

Father Kenneth Baker SJ, who is editor of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, concurs with Fr Duggan that the liturgical changes have been revolutionary. Lamenting the numerous changes imposed on the people which they scarcely had time to digest, Fr Baker wrote: **“We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately” **(February 1979).

Cardinal Ratzinger claims that our ecclesial malaise is attributable, at least in part, to the condition of the Liturgy. He writes:** “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy”** (Milestones, page 148).

VALENTINE GALLAGHER
Arnecliffe, NSW
ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html

I reckon all those quoted are trad extremists ? Kyrie eleison, one of them is now the Bishop of Rome ! The Vatican has been infiltrated ! We’re doomed !


jk

 

[At_Trent]

Shoot Mcklintock82, forget all the suggestions, just send 'em a link to TC here and let 'em see how we love one another They will convert immediately

 

[Mcklintock82]

Shoot Mcklintock82, forget all the suggestions, just send 'em a link to TC here and let 'em see how we love one another They will convert immediately

LOL it’s ok if you think this is bad you should see my family reunions! We have 2 rules

1. never bring up politics… we have Hardcore Dixiecrats (Southern Democrats) and Hardcore Republicans… then you had me… for 7 years ( up until a few months ago) I was a Libertarian… so yeah fun times…
2. Never talk about religion… We did have a guy that married one of my cousins and he was Catholic but converted to Methodism (my cousins belief). Rumor has it he did it to get the Southern Baptists in the family off his back lol…

But thanks for all the info guys! You’ve been a lot of help! But if you guys get anymore please post them, there’s no such thing as too much useful information.

 

[mick321]

Ferrara is just as bad, with his accusations against EWTN and his defense of Fr. Grunner, a priest not in good standing with the Church. The OP should really stick to the Catechism of The Catholic Church or it’s compendium. The apologists here at CA could also help direct him.

Sorry, but you lost me here. [Assuming you were responding to my post #20] Ferrara is just as bad as who?

Are you referring to this book?

EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong
networkgonewrong.org/

There are excerpts on the site, but I have not read the book itself. Have you? Do you recommend it?

I’m afraid that I am not familiar with Fr. Grunner or his legal problems. Is Mr. Ferrara defending him in some sort of official capacity?

And yes, the OP would do well to obtain a printed copy of the Catechism:
amazon.com/Catechism-Council-Trent/dp/0895551853

Or download it in PDF format:
www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf

Or view it online:
catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/trentc.htm

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Good grief, here we go again. “Time out, that’s a trad site !”

Hey, this forum is too… but anyway… sigh

I reckon all those quoted are trad extremists ? Kyrie eleison, one of them is now the Bishop of Rome ! The Vatican has been infiltrated ! We’re doomed !


jk

First of all, the OP is considering conversion to the Faith and asked about books that would be most helpful to him in that process, so your whole post is hardly on topic. This isn’t about why one rite of the Mass is better than the other. Second, all of, you’ve strung a lot of stuff together out of context. I agree that there is something wrong with our liturgy, as it is offered. I do not believe that there is something inherently wrong with our liturgy and Cardinal Ratzinger does not necessarily seem to imply that, either. Apparently, he has high hopes and aspriations for the OF, as can be seen in his cover letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum, where he speaks of it having “spiritual richness and theological depth.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html.

Further, I never said any site should be avoided because it’s “trad” (I never used the word “trad”). I said (and will say again) that certain sites should be avoided because they don’t speak the mind of the Church. And the term “traditional” doesn’t give anyone a free pass to subvert the truth. You seem to imply that “traditionalists” can come to this forum and post anything they want without being challenged. No, if they post stuff that is contrary to the mind of the Church (or links), then they SHOULD be challenged. If a someone said to me, “I’m interested in converting to Catholicism,” then in reason, I’m not going to say, “Well, let me trot you down to the SSPX chapel and you can hear how the Mass of the Church as celebrated by the Holy Father and the last few popes is an abomination.” I’m going to point him to material that thinks with the mind of the Church, which is what we’re all called to do. In fairness, I would also caution him against a lot of what goes on in some RCIA programs (I’ve been a sponsor and seen it). Whether one falls out of the boat on the left side or the right side, however, one has still fallen out of the boat.

Of course, I do NOT think the Holy See has been infiltrated and that we’re doomed. In fact, the only times I’ve seen that asserted has been by…hmm…by “traditionalists.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Sorry, but you lost me here. [Assuming you were responding to my post #20] Ferrara is just as bad as who? Just as bad as the questionable stuff on Fisheaters.

Are you referring to this book?

EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong
networkgonewrong.org/

There are excerpts on the site, but I have not read the book itself. Have you? Do you recommend it? Only excerpts, and a full list of his objections as detailed by reviewers. You can look Ferrara up and see his issues with the Church.

I’m afraid that I am not familiar with Fr. Grunner or his legal problems. Is Mr. Ferrara defending him in some sort of official capacity? **I don’t know if Fr. Grunner has legal problems. I simply know he is not a priest in good standing with the Church. **

And yes, the OP would do well to obtain a printed copy of the Catechism:
amazon.com/Catechism-Council-Trent/dp/0895551853

Or download it in PDF format:
www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf

Or view it online:
catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/trentc.htm

One can never go wrong with the Catechism. I actually find it to be rich devotional reading.

 

[floresco]

Further, I never said any site should be avoided because it’s “trad” (I never used the word “trad”). I said (and will say again) that certain sites should be avoided because they don’t speak the mind of the Church. And the term “traditional” doesn’t give anyone a free pass to subvert the truth. You seem to imply that “traditionalists” can come to this forum and post anything they want without being challenged. No, if they post stuff that is contrary to the mind of the Church (or links), then they SHOULD be challenged. If a someone said to me, “I’m interested in converting to Catholicism,” then in reason, I’m not going to say, “Well, let me trot you down to the SSPX chapel and you can hear how the Mass of the Church as celebrated by the Holy Father and the last few popes is an abomination.” I’m going to point him to material that thinks with the mind of the Church, which is what we’re all called to do. In fairness, I would also caution him against a lot of what goes on in some RCIA programs (I’ve been a sponsor and seen it). Whether one falls out of the boat on the left side or the right side, however, one has still fallen out of the boat.

The phrase “mind of the Church” is a somewhat subjective one. Clearly there are things on the Fish Eaters site that go against Church teaching as you understand it. I am also a knowledgeable Catholic and I have a different view. FE has a lot of material specifically aimed for new and inquiring Catholics and does a really good job of explaining things. While some of it pertains to why some people prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, much of it is good basic information on Catholicism that I wish I had learned about as a new Catholic. (And, just to clarify, in case anyone has misunderstood your example, Fish Eaters is not an SSPX site.)

While I suppose it is possible the OP might be confused if FE were the only thing he ever read on Catholicism, I really don’t see that as a danger if it is one resource among the others recommended here. Some caution is good, but missing out on good stuff because there are some points of controversy or a few questionable links is perhaps too much caution.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The phrase “mind of the Church” is a somewhat subjective one. Clearly there are things on the Fish Eaters site that go against Church teaching as you understand it. I am also a knowledgeable Catholic and I have a different view. FE has a lot of material specifically aimed for new and inquiring Catholics and does a really good job of explaining things. While some of it pertains to why some people prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, much of it is good basic information on Catholicism that I wish I had learned about as a new Catholic. (And, just to clarify, in case anyone has misunderstood your example, Fish Eaters is not an SSPX site.)

While I suppose it is possible the OP might be confused if FE were the only thing he ever read on Catholicism, I really don’t see that as a danger if it is one resource among the others recommended here. Some caution is good, but missing out on good stuff because there are some points of controversy or a few questionable links is perhaps too much caution.

“as you understand it”

When FE links to sites that aledge, for example, that Archbishop Bugnini was a Mason, there is no “as you understand it” involved. The Holy See forthrightly denied it. Either the Holy See is lying or the Holy See is telling the truth. It’s the same with Cardinal Ottavianni’s withdrawl of his objection (the Cardinal lived for some time after that and never asserted that he had been decieved in what he wrote). It either happened or it didn’t. My opinion and yours has no bearing on it.

If it comes down to a question of “I prefer one form of the Mass to the other,” of course there are going to be different opinions and that’s fine. It isn’t fine to hold up either form (but in this case, almost exclusively the OF) to mockery and derision. That, by the way, goes both ways. I’ve been equally critical, in these fora, of Cardinal Martini’s (emeritus of Milan) remarks about and refusal to celebrate the EF. One doesn’t deride a Rite of the Church.

I simply cautioned the OP that Fisheaters is not, in its entirety, of a mind with the Church.

 

[At_Trent]

I simply cautioned the OP that Fisheaters is not, in its entirety, of a mind with the Church.

That could be said of almost every Catholic Forum. Anyhow, I didn’t suggest the forum, I suggested an info resource that busts some Protestant myths.

 

[At_Trent]

First of all, the OP is considering conversion to the Faith and asked about books that would be most helpful to him in that process, so your whole post is hardly on topic. This isn’t about why one rite of the Mass is better than the other. Second, all of, you’ve strung a lot of stuff together out of context. I agree that there is something wrong with our liturgy, as it is offered. I do not believe that there is something inherently wrong with our liturgy and Cardinal Ratzinger does not necessarily seem to imply that, either. Apparently, he has high hopes and aspriations for the OF, as can be seen in his cover letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum, where he speaks of it having “spiritual richness and theological depth.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html.

Further, I never said any site should be avoided because it’s “trad” (I never used the word “trad”). I said (and will say again) that certain sites should be avoided because they don’t speak the mind of the Church. And the term “traditional” doesn’t give anyone a free pass to subvert the truth. You seem to imply that “traditionalists” can come to this forum and post anything they want without being challenged. No, if they post stuff that is contrary to the mind of the Church (or links), then they SHOULD be challenged. If a someone said to me, “I’m interested in converting to Catholicism,” then in reason, I’m not going to say, “Well, let me trot you down to the SSPX chapel and you can hear how the Mass of the Church as celebrated by the Holy Father and the last few popes is an abomination.” I’m going to point him to material that thinks with the mind of the Church, which is what we’re all called to do. In fairness, I would also caution him against a lot of what goes on in some RCIA programs (I’ve been a sponsor and seen it). Whether one falls out of the boat on the left side or the right side, however, one has still fallen out of the boat.

Of course, I do NOT think the Holy See has been infiltrated and that we’re doomed. In fact, the only times I’ve seen that asserted has been by…hmm…by “traditionalists.”

Point is, you said some things regarding the Liturgy were gibberish (paraphrasing of course), and I provided documentation of prominent clergy saying the same things.

Trads don’t make it all up. Those quotes all preceded the SP of course and as we see, the EF itself has not been destroyed, Deo gratias.

 

[At_Trent]

LOL it’s ok if you think this is bad you should see my family reunions! We have 2 rules

1. never bring up politics… we have Hardcore Dixiecrats (Southern Democrats) and Hardcore Republicans… then you had me… for 7 years ( up until a few months ago) I was a Libertarian… so yeah fun times…
2. Never talk about religion… We did have a guy that married one of my cousins and he was Catholic but converted to Methodism (my cousins belief). Rumor has it he did it to get the Southern Baptists in the family off his back lol…

But thanks for all the info guys! You’ve been a lot of help! But if you guys get anymore please post them, there’s no such thing as too much useful information.

I’m sure it can be entertaining

 

[floresco]

When FE links to sites that aledge . . .

It sounds like any contradictions to Church teaching are on sites that FE links to rather than FE itself. I too consider some of these problematic. But why discourage someone from reading an otherwise helpful site? You could just say to avoid the links.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Point is, you said some things regarding the Liturgy were gibberish (paraphrasing of course), and I provided documentation of prominent clergy saying the same things.

Trads don’t make it all up. Those quotes all preceded the SP of course and as we see, the EF itself has not been destroyed, Deo gratias.

No, I did not say that what was said (by the FE link) was gibberish. I said it was not the mind of the Church that promulgated that liturgy. Also, “prominent” doesn’t mean “right” (Cardinal Martini was patently wrong about the EF, for example,on the other side).

It is also “traditional” (indeed, it is orthodox) that the Church cannot propose to the faithful a discipline (and that’s what the rites are) that could lead them to impiety OR that could fail to do what the Church purports and intends that rite to do. THAT is Church teaching. To say, then, that “I prefer the EF” is perfectly permissiable. To say “the OF is an abomination” or that it is defective is to depart from the mind of the Church. I daresay none of the priests you quote went that far, but there are links out there (*Tradito) *that do go that far and so we should be careful in proposing them. I think FE has verged on that, but then, perhaps they’ve had a change of heart (some of their older stuff cannot apparently now be accessed). They still promote things that are directly at odds with what the Holy See itself has said is factually true (ie, that Archbishop Bugnini was a Mason and Cardinal Ottaviani was deceived. As an aside, a question: isn’t calumny regarded as a sin by the Church? I assume that traditionalists subscribe to that? Isn’t it, then, a sin to assert that the Archbishop was a Mason when the Holy See denies that he was?). Thus, I don’t think it’s a site that can be endorsed for neophytes.

The OF also has not been destroyed and it doesn’t seem to be Pope Benedict’s intent that it should be, nor that one rite should gain ascendency over the other.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It sounds like any contradictions to Church teaching are on sites that FE links to rather than FE itself. I too consider some of these problematic. But why discourage someone from reading an otherwise helpful site? You could just say to avoid the links.

If you look at my original post, you’ll find I did little more than that. The original link, as a single page, was fine. As for links, the FE index quite often takes one directly to the linked site.

 

[floresco]

Thus, I don’t think it’s a site that can be endorsed for neophytes.

I think it depends on the neophyte. Since this was posed as a question for Trad Catholics, it seems the OP may specifically want a trad perspective. At any rate, it doesn’t cost him anything to take a look and decide for himself if the good outweighs the bad. I expect your cautions will be useful if he does that.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I think it depends on the neophyte. Since this was posed as a question for Trad Catholics, it seems the OP may specifically want a trad perspective. At any rate, it doesn’t cost him anything to take a look and decide for himself if the good outweighs the bad. I expect your cautions will be useful if he does that.

There’s no such thing as a “trad” Catholic. There are just Catholics and non-Catholics. And that is also rather what I meant by “the mind of the Church.” There isn’t a “traditional” mind and a “liberal” mind. There is just the mind of the Church.

 

[At_Trent]

There’s no such thing as a “trad” Catholic. There are just Catholics and non-Catholics. And that is also rather what I meant by “the mind of the Church.” There isn’t a “traditional” mind and a “liberal” mind. There is just the mind of the Church.

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”

• Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique

Sure there are traditionalists. And there are indeed different Catholic mindsets and worldviews. If there were not, we would never bicker over anything at all would we ? We’d all be “just Catholics”

The quote above proves it. I’m not on a crusade to prove you incorrect, but you keep insisting things that just aren’t so

Edit: btw, the priest pictured below was sent home from his diocese for being “too traditional” His sermons are not unlike what you’d hear form SSPX clergy of even some independent clergy, except he is obedient in the strictest sense. He prays the EF exclusively, and does so with the blessing of the Archbishop here.

“You will only gain what you seek according to how much you sacrifice” - his words from last Sunday’s sermon He is a Saint !

 

[JKirkLVNV]

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”

• Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique

Sure there are traditionalists. And there are indeed different Catholic mindsets and worldviews. If there were not, we would never bicker over anything at all would we ? We’d all be “just Catholics”

The quote above proves it. I’m not on a crusade to prove you incorrect, but you keep insisting things that just aren’t so

Edit: btw, the priest pictured below was sent home from his diocese for being “too traditional” His sermons are not unlike what you’d hear form SSPX clergy of even some independent clergy, except he is obedient in the strictest sense. He prays the EF exclusively, and does so with the blessing of the Archbishop here.

“You will only gain what you seek according to how much you sacrifice” - his words from last Sunday’s sermon He is a Saint !

Pope St. Pius X was not speaking of “traditionalist” Catholics as a “party.” He was speaking of traditionalists in general or conservatives, if you will. There may be people who self-identify as traditionalists, but what of this, from HH Pope Benedict XV’s Beatissimi Apostolorum:

" It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself."

We are either Catholics, believing the whole body of the Church’s teaching, or we aren’t Catholics. The names we give each other are hardly helpful. We refer, for example, to “cafeteria Catholics,” when in truth, if they are picking and choosing, then they’ve ceased to be Catholic. And one who does not pick and choose, but gives the assent of faith to all that the Church teaches is likewise not “traditional,” they are simply Catholic. The person who attends the OF as opposed to the EF is not lacking in “tradition,” but it doesn’t matter anyway, because, in the eyes of the CHURCH, they are JUST A CATHOLIC.

 

[floresco]

There’s no such thing as a “trad” Catholic. There are just Catholics and non-Catholics. And that is also rather what I meant by “the mind of the Church.” There isn’t a “traditional” mind and a “liberal” mind. There is just the mind of the Church.

I am familiar with the argument. But if we are trying to answer the question of the OP rather than ride our own hobby horses, what is important is what he meant by the term.