Rejecting the Teaching Authority of the Chruch?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Legal_Eagle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been a member of my local cathedral parish for close to 25 years. We drive 25 miles to attend our reverent NO parish.
I had to get permission from the parish in which I actually resided and was basically told I was “damned to hell” for even thinking I should join the cathedral parish when I joined. This was in the mid-80s. Anyone now is free to join the cathedral parish.

And I must admit, on my own part, that I dropped out of HMC in the 70s (never went anywhere else). I don’t consider myself a revert in that I never stopped being Catholic. I simply couldn’t stand what I saw going on then and, in my humble opinion continues to go on today.

We are Catholics. We have a 2,000 year history. We have a 1,500 year history of our very own liturgical music tradtion. We have no need to throw our traditions out but that is exactly what we did after 1965. There is good music composed by protestant composers…that’s not the issue. But the “dumbing down” of the Catholic populace after Vatican II is. In our rush to be “modern” we have forgetten who we are.

I haven’t forgot. And I am glad to see that I have brothers and sisters who remember who we are. I may have been a teenager when the world changed, but I have never forgotten. And I don’t believe that I am the lone voice crying in the desert.
 
There is nothing worth committing mortal sin for. Nothing!
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you, brother Nick. Besides losing sanctifying grace, which is an immeasurable loss, one is not being nourished by Holy Communion. Didn’t Jesus say that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we would not have LIFE within us? There is no ability to withstand the temptations of the world, flesh, and devil if we are not supernaturally armed with sanctifying grace … the very reason Jesus gave us this sacrament.

In the same manner as the body will die if it has no food to sustain it, so will the soul if it has no spiritual food. One just doesn’t obtain strength through personal prayer alone. No doubt this is the reason the Church mandated reception of confession and communion at least once a year, although that is hardly sufficient, IMO.

My dear mother refused to attend Mass for years (and died in that state) simply because the church added the wording after the Our Father. Her prejudice against the Protestants was so great that she couldn’t accept this prayer ending. :crying:
 
brotherhrolf said:
I haven’t forgot. And I am glad to see that I have brothers and sisters who remember who we are. I may have been a teenager when the world changed, but I have never forgotten. And I don’t believe that I am the lone voice crying in the desert.
Click to expand...
From a quote on my blog…
Could it be that the post-Vatican II suppression of the Tridentine Mass was providential, a God-permitted evil from which the Church could finally gain the kind of profundity of understanding and depth of gratitude for her liturgical treasure that she could never posses absent the experience of almost losing it? Would the level of devotion, richness, and depth of perspective regarding traditional Catholic liturgy and culture, evinced in the writings of this journal, have been possible absent the post-Vatican II crisis?
Click to expand...
link
 
I am not judging anyone, but it is crucial to remember that sin must be genuinely repented of and a firm purpose of amendment must be made in order to receive forgiveness in the Sacrament of Confession.
 
40.png
SnorterLuster:
I am not judging anyone, but it is crucial to remember that sin must be genuinely repented of and a firm purpose of amendment must be made in order to receive forgiveness in the Sacrament of Confession.
 
Not going to Mass never felt right, but to go back didn’t feel right either. As far as finding a better parish, in asking around to friends and relatives, there wasn’t a whit of difference between the parishes. You would just drive further to the same things.
Click to expand...
Mass isn’t about our “feelings”. God never said “You’ll know the true faith because it’s easy and feels good!” In fact we grow in our spirituality when we struggle in our faith. Just because you don’t feel like you’re getting anything from the Mass doesn’t mean that you aren’t. Practicing obedience to the Church and heirarchy that God established even when it is uncomfortable for you is a special way for you to grow closer to Christ and His suffering.

❤️
 
Legal_Eagle said:
Let me restate what I believe that you said, please correct me if I’m wrong. 1) It’s basically impossible to say that Traditional Catholics believe this or that because there are several aspects to the movement some more radical, some more moderate than others. 2) That point considered, most Traditional Catholics do not out-right reject Vatican II, and are loyal to their Bishops and the Church. Others have left the Church altogether. 3) The changes to the Mass instituted by Vatican II were too much for some to swallow at one gulp.

Is that correct? If so, that’s certainly understandable.

Can you tell me then, what is the attraction to the Traditional Mass? Is it mainly the aesthetic or is there a doctrinal reason to prefer the old to the new? Do you believe that the modern (post Vatican II) rite is corrupt or is it just more susceptible to abuse? What are the Vatican II changes–both to the rite and to the Church as a whole–that you object most strongly to.

Thanks again for indulging me.
Click to expand...
The NO (Pauline Mass) that is used in the USA is an indult and not the one envisioned by VII. For the Mass to be totally in the language of the people is not the norm. The Latin is the norm.
 
i would like to believe that many of the points in opposition to the “tridentine mass” within a few short years will become moot. the recent moto propio by pope benedict xvi, in my opinion, is the first solid salvo in returning to the church that rite which had kept it consistant and continuos for centuries. through-out the history of the church novelties had been attempted without success and many used the term “deeper understanding” in attempt to change. that is, until vatican ii, according to the pope, changed the meaning of the “liturgy.”
it is the position of this writer, that we catholics, instead of trying to play “one up-man-ship” with one another, pray for an amicable re-union with all of the faith. have a good year. (alih)
 
isn’t the mass of martin luther the same as the mass of the catholic church today. how did i knew about that… i went to a lutheran conference (they are liturgical lutherans) regarding the eucahristic celebration, and you know what i found out and learned… their protestant and heretical mass is the same/parallel as the novus ordo missae.
i was shocked about that, and plus they were happy about the catholics following their liturgical rubrics:o

somehow i agree with you that latin wasn’t used by our Lord Jesus on the last supper… and the apostoles used vernacular in their services and writings, no doubt about that.

regarding the way of celebrating the mass i prefer the Tridentine Mass because it is aged old and many saints and martyrs prayed it, and Jesus didn’t punished them celebrating the Tridentine way, so i don’t see anything wrong about it.

in fact when the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II teachings were introduced the church started to declined from vocations, morality, theological stands to church attendance, so there is no doubt there are many problems regarding the second vatican councils teachings and liturgy.

that is why i can’t decide whether i’m going to be a priest on the vatican side that wanted progressions and divided in beliefs (conservatives and liberals) or join schismatic groups that teaches pre-vatican ii curriculums and celebrates one pure liturgy, the Tridentine Mass.
or live a normal american life: shopping during weekends or out in the beach surfing.
or be an atheist because church people fights over one thing… their mistakes… which has been already corrected under the council of Trent or way back during the Apostolic times.

The church fathers during Vatican II made only one big mistake and that was when they completely changed the church internally and externally or physically and spiritually :dts:
sorry but those are the facts i’m seeing and experiencing in the church today :o

Pax
Instaurare omnia in Christo :signofcross:
 
Kikero said:
Where the head goes the body follows. The language of VII left much to be desired. It allowed for those with contrary or dangerous visions of the churgh to interject them. Before VII, a your average Catholic knew and believed pretty much the same as the next Catholic. Now? Combine nominalism with VII and we get the mess we have today. This is not to say that VII taught errors. It is to say that VII opened the door for it IMO.

40 years ago would there have been a Catholic church without kneelers? 30 years? 20 years? While It may have no immediate bearing on someones salvation I believe in the long run it does. A person must humble themselves to some degree to bring themselves to kneel, to bow their head, to prostrate themselves. Over a period of time I believe this does much to mold someones character and dispostion. Likewise, the abject “Refusal” by some to kneel,
And man, bring kneelers back to a parish that got rid of them and listen to them howl, is a sign of self pride that over time can be very harmful and dangerous.
Click to expand...

Go back far enough, & you’ll find there were no kneelers at all. And no pews, either 🙂 - kneeling was adopted at some stage after the fall of the Western Empire, because kneeling, for the barbarian tribes, was a sign of submission; as was holding the hands palms together for prayer. Previously, congregations stood, as they still do in the East; the orans position, which in the West used to be common to all, is now more or less confined to the priest; at least in the West. The *orans *position may be what St. Paul describes when he speaks of “lifting up holy hands” at public worship.​

So kneeling is old, but only 1400 years or so old. It’s not how the Church has always prayed. And if the Church judges that there is sufficient reason to change the posture of prayer again, there is no reason why it should not be changed.

As for Vatican II, what I find surprising is that it says next to nothing about Hell. OTOH, “Solemni hac liturgia” makes up for that.
This is the jist of why I would prefer to see a more traditional Mass. Not just “kneelers” per se. Kneelers is only a small symptom or many that have cropped up over the years since VII…sign of the times.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top