Restoring Tradition

[wisdomseeker]

:clapping::clapping:

As the title of this topic is “Restoring Tradition” I’d like to suggest that the solution is as simple as throwing out so-called “teachings” that contradict Tradition. This includes reaffirming several important points that have been recently discarded like:

1. Reaffirming that the Catholic Church alone is the fullness of truth. Re-educate Catholics about their faith and what *extra ecclesia nulla salus *actually means.
2. Discard “ecumenical dialogue” to the extent that it requires Catholics to assent to or acknowledge so-called “truths” in other false religions.
3. Correct the teaching on the “dignity of the human person” to reject the inflated notion that the purpose of religion is for man to “fully discover his true self” and instead to reflect the truth that man was created for the sole purpose to be ordered to the greater glory of God Almighty.
4. Reject the notion that “it is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the divine law” which has usurped the idea that a Catholic must make a declaration of Faith based on the authoritative teaching by the Church and reduces faith to little more than a matter of personal conscience.
5. Reject the humanising role of salvation which has been adopted, saying that by taking our human nature, Christ “fully reveals man to himself” so “that the mystery of man truly becomes clear.” Re-adopt the traditional teaching that Christ took on our human nature to save us from the punishments we had merited, not so that we can understand the “mystery” of ourselves.

Obviously, restoring Tradition to it’s former beauty is going to take more work than these few steps, but they are a start. We need to get the diseased apples out before we can begin re-seeding the orchard.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

The configuration of the liturgical space was done in accord with what the twin emphases of the liturgy are: recalling the Last Supper and a people called into communion with each other and their God. It had nothing to do with Protestantism, but making efforts to encourage full and active participation. Thus more modern Church architecture has churches built in the round to symbolically and practically demonstrate a community of people gathered together to recall the Last Supper and Jesus’ resurrection. In older church efforts have been made - some successful others not - to re-configure them in this way.

Furthermore, as I noted in another post, changes in the liturgy were done after significant (nearly 100 years of study) on the liturgical life of the early church. The tradition starts with the early Church where vibrant and committed people met to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Renewal starts by looking at the life and experience of the early church…that’s the origin of tradition.

The linguistic changes had to do with the fact that people didn’t understand the Latin. If people fingering their rosary beads during the Eucharistic prayer (which many, many did) is hardly an example of reverence or participation. The aim is to encourage people to participate and they participate best when they understand the language of the liturgy. The majority of the people didn’t understand Latin, nor was Latin really the language people spoke. The early church liturgies were in the languages the people understood…

Their intent was to open the Church to more people, but let’s think about this for a minute. Opening the Church to “more people” basically means non-Catholics. This would be nice if the entire purpose of the Council wasn’t to please the non-Catholics. Protestants gave suggestions at the Council which were taken seriously. They wanted the Mass to focus more on the Last Supper than anything else. And you look at a Protestant service, and that’s what is focuses on. The Last Supper. Almost everything, if not everything, that got taken out was something the Protestants wanted to be taken out. Latin, altars, Communion on the tongue, etc. All those things and more were taken out because the Protestants wanted them to be removed.

Last, the tradition has always been open to change and development. The four hundred years between Trent and Vatican II were often marked by retrenchment and “stone” throwing. The 20th century leading up to and through the council have been a time of intensified historical study on the part of Catholics and Protestants to see where we split apart, what can be done to bring us back together and go through the long process of reconciliation which is slowly happening.

The irony of this conversation is you will find many Protestants who protest when their pastors bring in sacramental practices like ashes on Ash Wednesday, palms on Palm Sunday and the celebration of Advent.

As it stands now the mainline traditions share a common lectionary. Doctrinal differences on the meaning of salvation have been clarified and the distance between Catholics, Episcopalians and Lutherans have been reduced.

We’re still apart on the Eucharist but the discussions continue. Obviously the Protestant churches have developed in other ways in the 20 century with the ordination of women ministers and bishops.

With our renewed and clarified understanding of the tradition, we are going forward in the manner that Jesus and John Paul II called for - Together we are One.

It doesn’t matter if you don’t understand Latin. That’s what you use a Missal for. Tradition cannot be changed. If you’re talking about that kind of Tradition, then it has never been opened to change.

 

[Bbigam]

Their intent was to open the Church to more people, but let’s think about this for a minute. Opening the Church to “more people” basically means non-Catholics. This would be nice if the entire purpose of the Council wasn’t to please the non-Catholics. Protestants gave suggestions at the Council which were taken seriously. They wanted the Mass to focus more on the Last Supper than anything else. And you look at a Protestant service, and that’s what is focuses on. The Last Supper. Almost everything, if not everything, that got taken out was something the Protestants wanted to be taken out. Latin, altars, Communion on the tongue, etc. All those things and more were taken out because the Protestants wanted them to be removed.

So you ask why we should remain Catholic if Vatican II was in error. We should remain Catholic because it’s the Church Christ started. However, we shouldn’t go by the teachings of Vatican II if they don’t go by Tradition. Traditional Catholics go by what was taught before Vatican II mostly. And I do have two parishes near me that are not part of Vatican II. They’re Traditional parishes. I go to them.

Those things that got “taken out” were not removed by Vatican II, which specifically called for continued use of Latin in the liturgy. In fact, they were not even taken out by the Missal of 1969 itself, it was a gradual process after that - much of which shouldn’t have happened, and most of which was never mandated on a Church-wide level, although I realize some bishops and priests demanded the changes. The Ordinary Form still can licitly be celebrated today ad orientem on a high altar with a tabernacle, in Latin, with reception on the tongue while kneeling, etc… admittedly the rubrics allow for far too much of that to not happen, even licitly, but that’s the Ordinary Form, not Vatican II.

And again, Vatican II, as an ecumenical council, is part of Tradition. Which means we can’t reject it, but must accept it in the light of all that came before (i.e. not at all how many people seem to accept or to reject it). If a parish is “not part of Vatican II” then it is not in full communion with the Church, just as surely as if it’s “not part of Trent.” (Note that I am not saying that a parish has to celebrate the Ordinary Form to be in full communion with the Church.)

What have we learned from the second Vatican Council. That our Mass needs to be fun & exciting? That our laity has to be granted access to the Sanctuary? That “active participation” means becoming semi-priests & priestettes? That physical movement during the Mass…shaking hands, assuming the Orans position, people scurrying out of their pews to do the readings, their duties an EEM’s, ect., is so important that, should it create a 3-ring circus…no problem. Too bad for those who believe that INTERIOR participation is the most important. Too bad for those who want to meditate so deeply that they can, with their mind’s eye, see the face of Christ in the host that the priest elevates during the consecration? Too bad if the constant noise & interruption make this impossible for them to reach THEIR goal.

What you list here did not come from Vatican II. A little of it came from the now-Ordinary Form and other decrees that followed, but much of it came from people taking the liturgy into their own hands and ignoring the Traditions of the Church (including the documents of Vatican II and the rubrics of the Ordinary Form itself).

 

[plefe]

1. Maybe you could tell us what came from Vatican II that will help more Catholics achieve the most important goal in one’s life…spending eternity in heaven. I know that your questions aren’t aimed at me, however…I’d like to answer them. Following are the reasons that I will die a Catholic:

Our pope is the direct successor to St. Peter. I would never dishonor him.
Sheer study of history proves that Catholicism is the Church that Christ founded. It was the ONLY Christian Church for 1500 years.
I could never change my very being & Catholicism is the largest part of same. I am a Catholic wife, a Catholic mother, a Catholic grandmother. You can see that the word “Catholic” precedes every description of me. I could NOT be a non-Catholic wife, mother or grandmother.

The above statement about Vatican II “just happening” to take place during an era where movements toward secularism were occuring, tells me that you believe in “fate” & “karma” & coincidence. When it comes to Christ’s Church, I believe that nothing just “takes place”.

BTW., secularism has been an aberrant part of society since the beginning of time. Secularism boils down to the fact that **some **in society separate their secular life (everyday life, at work life, parental lives, etc.) from their religious beliefs. EX: belonging to a Church that forbids abortion, yet votes for politicians who support it. Ted Kennedy’s funeral was a prime example of secularism. Cardinal O’Malley, allowed a pro-abortion Catholic & his friends to turn a Sacred occasion into a political rally. A funeral, fine…what I saw was a travesty of what a Catholic funeral is meant to be.

As I said before, secularism has been with us for centuries. Just study the secular humanist movement in Europe during the 19th century. Better yet, examine the corruption & secularism within the Church before Luther’s defection. (not that I excuse Luther, I totally believe that faith without works is dead, I am appalled at his hatred for the Jews, etc.) This was STOPPED by Council of Trent. If Vatican II didn’t promote the advance of current secularism & moral relativism, it surely did nothing to stop it.

I was an adult, mid-twenties, when the “vatican II Church” was born. Before that time, we heard sermons not watered-down “homilies”. We heard sermons about the importance of family prayers at home, we heard sermons about faithfulness between spouses, about the sin of anger & the damage it does. I have no doubt that if the council had been different, we’d be hearing sermons about the evils of pornography, the dangers of violent video games, consumerism, etc., etc.

The two things that Pope John Paul II did were reviving the practice of saying the rosary & issuing an indult (which was totally ignored by the US. hierarchy) for the Latin mass. Of course, we found later that we didn’t need an indult, but that’s another discussion.

What have we learned from the second Vatican Council. That our Mass needs to be fun & exciting? That our laity has to be granted access to the Sanctuary? That “active participation” means becoming semi-priests & priestettes? That physical movement during the Mass…shaking hands, assuming the Orans position, people scurrying out of their pews to do the readings, their duties an EEM’s, ect., is so important that, should it create a 3-ring circus…no problem. Too bad for those who believe that INTERIOR participation is the most important. Too bad for those who want to meditate so deeply that they can, with their mind’s eye, see the face of Christ in the host that the priest elevates during the consecration? Too bad if the constant noise & interruption make this impossible for them to reach THEIR goal.

more later, I am cleaning my hard-working daughter’s house today.

Don’t stop Brother, you’re just getting started. God Bless.

 

[CradleCath]

Don’t stop Brother, you’re just getting started. God Bless.

It’s SISTER & I’ll never stop. However, I don’t see anybody changing their minds because of my messages. :banghead:

That sounded like self-pity, didn’t it. Sorry…We have to keep getting the message out. Thanks for your support!!

 

[CradleCath]

You’re sort of right there on the intent of the Council, but let me go a little further.

Their intent was to open the Church to more people, but let’s think about this for a minute. Opening the Church to “more people” basically means non-Catholics. This would be nice if the entire purpose of the Council wasn’t to please the non-Catholics. Protestants gave suggestions at the Council which were taken seriously. They wanted the Mass to focus more on the Last Supper than anything else. And you look at a Protestant service, and that’s what is focuses on. The Last Supper. Almost everything, if not everything, that got taken out was something the Protestants wanted to be taken out. Latin, altars, Communion on the tongue, etc. All those things and more were taken out because the Protestants wanted them to be removed.

So you ask why we should remain Catholic if Vatican II was in error. We should remain Catholic because it’s the Church Christ started. However, we shouldn’t go by the teachings of Vatican II if they don’t go by Tradition. Traditional Catholics go by what was taught before Vatican II mostly. And I do have two parishes near me that are not part of Vatican II. They’re Traditional parishes. I go to them.

I also go to a conservative parish that has a Latin Mass every Sunday, Spiritus Sanctus. However, on the subject of the Church councils, I believe that Vatican II must be given NO MORE attention than the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Trent & all of those in between.

piar.hu/councils/
“Council of Trent, lasted eighteen years (1545-1563) under five popes: Paul III, Julius III, Marcellus II, Paul IV and Pius IV, and under the Emperors Charles V and Ferdinand. There were present 5 cardinal legates of the Holy See, 3 patriarchs, 33 archbishops, 235 bishops, 7 abbots, 7 generals of monastic orders, 160 doctors of divinity. It was convoked to examine and condemn the errors promulgated by Luther and other Reformers, and to reform the discipline of the Church. Of all councils it lasted longest, issued the largest number of dogmatic and reformatory decrees, and produced the most beneficial results.”

First Vatican Council was summoned to the Vatican by Pius IX. It met 8 December, 1869, and lasted till 18 July, 1870, when it was adjourned; it is still (1908) unfinished. There were present 6 archbishop-princes, 49 cardinals, 11 patriarchs, 680 archbishops and bishops, 28 abbots, 29 generals of orders, in all 803. Besides important canons relating to the Faith and the constitution of the Church, **the council decreed the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra, i.e. when as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. **

The writings of all of the councils must flow naturally, one from another, to mark the teachings of the Church from the earliest days to the present. There can be no sudden rupture from the past…yet, many on these boards seem to know nothing about any council except VaticanII.

 

[tpw]

Thanks for your responses. First, Roman Catholicism was not the only Christian church for 1500 years. The Greek Orthodox would claim they were first although there’s disagrement. There is also the Coptic Church in Ethiopia who trace their origins to St. Mark; the Chaldean Church in Iraq. The division you refer to involved the European Christian churches. There was a break between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics around 1100.

1. Re: eternal life…it begins here on earth as we grow in understanding and responsibility to continue Christ’s work of building the Kingdom of God. While clearly grace plays a huge role in this, we nonetheless are co-partners in the vineyard.

And there are lots of things being done: education, social services, healthcare, the role of Catholics in different aspects of personal life: law and government, non-governmental organizations working with refugees, immigrants, the destitute, orphans, prisoners of conscience…the list goes on and on and on…

Secondly, I have no idea where you get the idea that I believe in fate, karma, etc. I believe nothing of them although there is a slight similarity between the NT “reaping what you sow” and “Karma” but hardly an exact

You’re right to a degree re: secularism. However the contemporary form of secularism owes it’s origins to the Enlightenment period beginning in the 16th century.

Sorry that you disagree with Cardinal O’Malley. Ted Kennedy was by no means a perfect man. But guess what …the only who is perfect lives and dwells among us encouraging us. None of us unless I’m mistaken and there’s something about casting stones and making judgements about people whose lives we don’t really know too much about that would lead me to be very careful about judgements I made about other people.

If the Council of Trent “stopped anti-Semitism” I sure wish someone would have told the nun who taught me in grammar school in the 1960’s that the Jews were Christ-killers - no nuance, no nothing. You should also tell that to the Poles and Germans who did little to stop Hitler. Furthermoe, if anti-Semitism “ended” why did Pope John Paul II ask the Jewish world to forgive such beliefs and practices which existed in the Catholic Church?

Our understanding of Scripture and biblical studies have changed immensely since the 1940’s. See Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante. Consequently, how priests/deacons homilize has changed. I’m not quite sure you can blame the increase in pornography on whether or not the church preached regularly on this topic. Seems like it became quite a money-making enterprise and has only grown with the internet. Unfortunately, it’s going to be very difficult to stop pornography in a country which values freedom of expression. I agree that it’s growth has had a deadening effect.

The liturgical changes which emerged from the Council were actually do to one hundred years of study of liturgy in the early church. In the early church small, intimate communities gathered to hear the word and share the eucharist. The overall concern was that in Europe and the U.S. liturgy had become an alienating experience. Most people didn’t understand Latin and mumbled the rosary during the Eucharistic prayer. Additionally, there was a need to actively work to encourage a more communally-friendly life where people were encouraged to grow in friendship with each other.

Have there been excesses? Sure. But I bet if you were to look at the aftermath of virtually everyone of the 22 ecumenical councils you would find excesses.

I would really encourage you to take classes or read more closely about Vatican II. Much has been blamed on Vatican II that had nothing to do with the council. The changes which have emerged have been for the better. Frankly, in retrospect in my mid 50’s - I donlt know if I would have remained Catholic had I not studied a great deal more in the 1980’s, 90’s and early 2000’s.

Christ’s peace,
Tpw

 

[Joe_5859]

However, on the subject of the Church councils, I believe that Vatican II must be given NO MORE attention than the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Trent & all of those in between.

Well, yes and no. Certainly all the Councils are important. The first four Councils firmed up the theological groundwork for the Trinity and who Jesus is. Their importance cannot be overstated.

However, I think it does make sense to focus more on the most recent Council that was convened precisely to respond to the problems of our age. We don’t want to go to the extreme that we completely ignore the other Councils or somehow believe that the previous Councils no longer apply. That would be a grave error. Indeed, we cannot hope to correctly interpret the documents of Vatican II without knowing about all the previous Councils. But it’s not as though we need to sit down and spend exactly the same amount of time studying each of the Councils. Some take more time than others. And the most recent one should be at the forefront of our mind. Hence why the Catechism references the documents of Vatican II far more than any other Council.

 

[tpw]

Please read the seven volume Pelican History of Christianity and then tell me tradition doesn’t change…Or better yet read the several volume Patrology (forgotten the author) which examines the life of the early church and then tell me tradition doesn’t change…It’s always grown and evolved…

 

[otjm]

You’re sort of right there on the intent of the Council, but let me go a little further.

Their intent was to open the Church to more people, but let’s think about this for a minute. Opening the Church to “more people” basically means non-Catholics.

What a novel idea - that the Church might want others to join.

This would be nice if the entire purpose of the Council wasn’t to please the non-Catholics.

Again, it is obvious you have done little or no research on the Council; such research starts with what the Church actually said (as in, read what Pope John 23rd actually said, not what someone later proposed). Your comments indicate that you only have read statements (as opposed to information, which would imply facts) from groups other than from Rome.

Protestants gave suggestions at the Council which were taken seriously.

Protestants were observers. Going from observers to some sort of participation needs documentation, not off-the-cuff assumptions.

They wanted the Mass to focus more on the Last Supper than anything else.

You are obviously confusing what the documents of V2 say about the Mass as opposed to the subsequent changes (the OF) which are a separate issue.

And you look at a Protestant service, and that’s what is focuses on. The Last Supper. Almost everything, if not everything, that got taken out was something the Protestants wanted to be taken out. Latin, altars, Communion on the tongue, etc. All those things and more were taken out because the Protestants wanted them to be removed.

Again, you are lumping issues together. Your complaint against the documents of V2 concerning changes in the Mass show that you have not read the documents, as the changes from the EF to the OF as a matter of fact do not follow the documents. In short, your comments about Vatican 2 documents is completely misguided.

So you ask why we should remain Catholic if Vatican II was in error. We should remain Catholic because it’s the Church Christ started. However, we shouldn’t go by the teachings of Vatican II if they don’t go by Tradition. Traditional Catholics go by what was taught before Vatican II mostly. And I do have two parishes near me that are not part of Vatican II. They’re Traditional parishes. I go to them.

To begin with, you have not shown anything in the documents of Vatican 2 to be in error. in addition, you have ignored the magisterial teaching of the Church, and specifically of both the current Pope and of John Paul 2 who have repeatedly said that the documents of Vatican 2 must be interpreted in light of the prior teaching of the Church. Perhaps the most telling comment is your statement about what parishes you attend; it would seem, from your coments, that they just possibly might not be teaching you everything that the Magisterium is saying.

 

[otjm]

It doesn’t matter if you don’t understand Latin. That’s what you use a Missal for. Tradition cannot be changed. If you’re talking about that kind of Tradition, then it has never been opened to change.

If you are referring to Latin as part of Tradition, it is not. It is only part of tradition, which means the particular disciplinary forms and rules of a rite, and not anything doctrinal, dogmatic or moral.

Latin as a language is a tradition of the Roman rite; Aramaic and Arabic are traditions of the Maronite rite (which never broke off from the Catholic Church); and other languages are traditional to other Eastern rites. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, it is a tradition that the vernacular was used in the Mass (or Holy Mysteries, etc.) and each of the rites seem to have continued to use older forms of those vernacular languages (an example would be using Koinae Greek rather than Modern Greek). And so the use of the vernacular is part of the tradition of the Church, and no language is part of the Tradition of the Church as that word with a capital “T” refers to doctrine, dogma and morals, and that which was handed down from the Apostles and not specifically set out in the New Testament.

 

[Timothy17]

Okay, tpw’s thinking is Supper-centric.

Let’s recall that the Last Supper entirely pointed to Christ’s sacrifice for us on the Cross: “which will be given up for you so that…”

Fulfillment of the Last Supper was the Cross. It points to the Cross. If Our Lord himself directed and pointed everything to the Cross, obviously that is where he wants our heads at, even during a re-enactment of the Last Supper. If everything does not point to the Cross, then we are not re-enacting the Last Supper. That’s simply intellectual dishonesty. However we commemorate the event, if we are going to honestly commemorate it, the reality of the Sacrifice at Calvary must be present.

So, if the EF focuses on the Sacrifice on Calvary, then I think its the manifestation or realization of the absolute importance and significance of Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross, however slowly that realization happened over time.

The Last Supper is a horrible and dishonest template for generating a communal or welcoming atmosphere. The Last Supper was explicitly exclusive. It was a private affair of only Jesus’ most trusted and dedicated followers: the Apostles.

Therefore, Ecumenism = Last Supper style worship is trying to wedge two things together that are completely different.

The Cross was public. It was outside. It was for all to see. We could but only watch it and wail and lament and wonder. It was Jesus laid bare upon the Cross, giving his life for us.

“Ecce homo!”

I am an OF Catholic, but personally it makes perfect sense to me if the Priest leads us in the worship and prays for us in our worship even if his back is towards me. Where he stands and how he faces should be decided, IMHO, by what is or would be the most likely to provide instruction. The Mass should be worship and, where possible and appropriate, instruction.

What do you remember from High School? You went to class every day for almost twenty years and yet you forgot 99% of it. Why? Seeing is believing. Doing is understanding. But mere hearing is a planning to forget. Listening is hoping to see, so as to understand and do. It presupposes a willingness or desire to believe.

You could be speaking Swahili during Mass - people will not remember it any more than they might remember English.

Jesus constantly went to Temple, and the Apostles were with him. I am sure the debate raged in Jerusalem about whether Hebrew or Aramaic or sometimes Greek could or should be used during the liturgy to accomodate the diaspora. Still, the Apostles faithfully and frequently went to Temple and the Synagogues until the Temple was destroyed and the Synagogues refused them entrance. If public, liturgical worship was not important - if the traditions of God’s People were vain or meaningless, why on Earth would Jesus be so zealous for his Father’s House and Temple or the Apostles dedicate themselves to its practice?

My Pope and my Bishop grant their blessing on the OF. With that, I can have faith that what I am told to do there pleases and satisfies God; nonetheless, this does not mean for an instant that we Catholics have not been given a precious gift, a gift that ought to be realized in the perfection of our worship.

I go to Mass first and foremost to worship God. To WORSHIP him. That’s my drive; that’s my impulse. The fact that I am also restored/confirmed in my communion with Him and His people is an incomparable gift, treasure and blessing. It’s what makes the worship also a miracle.

I am not there to meet people. I can go to a gym or a Church event/activity to do that.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

What a novel idea - that the Church might want others to join.
Again, it is obvious you have done little or no research on the Council; such research starts with what the Church actually said (as in, read what Pope John 23rd actually said, not what someone later proposed). Your comments indicate that you only have read statements (as opposed to information, which would imply facts) from groups other than from Rome. Protestants were observers. Going from observers to some sort of participation needs documentation, not off-the-cuff assumptions.You are obviously confusing what the documents of V2 say about the Mass as opposed to the subsequent changes (the OF) which are a separate issue.Again, you are lumping issues together. Your complaint against the documents of V2 concerning changes in the Mass show that you have not read the documents, as the changes from the EF to the OF as a matter of fact do not follow the documents. In short, your comments about Vatican 2 documents is completely misguided.

To begin with, you have not shown anything in the documents of Vatican 2 to be in error. in addition, you have ignored the magisterial teaching of the Church, and specifically of both the current Pope and of John Paul 2 who have repeatedly said that the documents of Vatican 2 must be interpreted in light of the prior teaching of the Church. Perhaps the most telling comment is your statement about what parishes you attend; it would seem, from your coments, that they just possibly might not be teaching you everything that the Magisterium is saying.

1.- I know what John XXIII said. I have a book that contains several of his quotes about the second Vatican Council. However, you and others are missing a very important point I’m trying to make and I don’t know how much clearer I can get on this. Let me say this once more. Neither John XXIII or Paul VI, nor the Vatican II documents EVER stated what really went on at Vatican II. You and others keep telling me I need to read the documents, but what you don’t realize is that the documents don’t admit anything about what really happened.

2.- The Protestants were more than observers. They gave suggestions. I have read so many articles and books on that subject. How many have you read on that subject? 1 or 2?

3- The parishes I attend are Traditional parishes. That means they only celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. They go by Tradition, which can’t be changed. Neither I nor the priests at those parishes care what is being taught today because much of it isn’t following Tradition.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

If you are referring to Latin as part of Tradition, it is not. It is only part of tradition, which means the particular disciplinary forms and rules of a rite, and not anything doctrinal, dogmatic or moral.

Latin as a language is a tradition of the Roman rite; Aramaic and Arabic are traditions of the Maronite rite (which never broke off from the Catholic Church); and other languages are traditional to other Eastern rites. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, it is a tradition that the vernacular was used in the Mass (or Holy Mysteries, etc.) and each of the rites seem to have continued to use older forms of those vernacular languages (an example would be using Koinae Greek rather than Modern Greek). And so the use of the vernacular is part of the tradition of the Church, and no language is part of the Tradition of the Church as that word with a capital “T” refers to doctrine, dogma and morals, and that which was handed down from the Apostles and not specifically set out in the New Testament.

I wasn’t actually referring to Latin as Tradition, but saying the Mass in english certainly isn’t Traditional.

 

[CradleCath]

from tpw]

]If the Council of Trent “stopped anti-Semitism” I sure wish someone would have told the nun who taught me in grammar school in the 1960’s that the Jews were Christ-killers - no nuance, no nothing. You should also tell that to the Poles and Germans who did little to stop Hitler. Furthermoe, if anti-Semitism “ended” why did Pope John Paul II ask the Jewish world to forgive such beliefs and practices which existed in the Catholic Church?

One bit of advice that I’ll give you is to read posts more carefully & maybe I need to be more careful with my use of parentheses.
My post said:

"Better yet,** examine the corruption & secularism within the Church **before Luther’s defection. **(**not that I excuse Luther, I totally believe that faith without works is dead, I am appalled at his hatred for the Jews, etc.) This was STOPPED by Council of Trent. If Vatican II

Maybe now you’ll realize **that I said corruption & secularism within the Church was stopped by the Council of Trent.**The anti-semitism that I referred to was Luthers:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

From his treatise, “On the Jews and Their Lies”:

In the treatise, Luther writes that the Jews are a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”[1] Luther wrote that they are “full of the devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine,”

IMO. Luther was mentally ill when he left the Catholic Church, by the time he died he was completely insane.

BTW., I was taught ONLY by nuns during my parochial school days…1946-1959. They were not only my teachers, but my role models, my mentors. They believed in me far more than I believed in myself. I often say that my parents had the help of good & holy nuns in bringing up their children.
For twelve years I had the privilege of knowing 3 orders of nuns.
Benedictines,
Precious Blood,
Nuns of the Sacred Heart (RSCJ.)

Never ONCE did I hear any of these dedicated women degrade another religion…or…another race.

If you are going to post on the Traditional forum, I suggest that you keep your hatred of nuns & all things pre-vatican II to yourself…OR…provide links where we can all read about “the anti-semitism of the Catholic nuns”.

As for why Pope John Paul II apologized for anything that the Church has done…outside of the sexual abuse of it’s own children…I have NO idea. Einstein stated in Time magazine (December 23, 1940):** “Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s **campaign for suppressing truth. …**The Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom.” **Indeed, executing the directives of Pope Pius XII, religious men and women opened their doors to save the Jews.

I do not intend for this to be mean, but you sound as if you learned your Catholicism from some anti-Catholic people.

more later…

 

[Bbigam]

1.- I know what John XXIII said. I have a book that contains several of his quotes about the second Vatican Council. However, you and others are missing a very important point I’m trying to make and I don’t know how much clearer I can get on this. Let me say this once more. Neither John XXIII or Paul VI, nor the Vatican II documents EVER stated what really went on at Vatican II. You and others keep telling me I need to read the documents, but what you don’t realize is that the documents don’t admit anything about what really happened.

2.- The Protestants were more than observers. They gave suggestions. I have read so many articles and books on that subject. How many have you read on that subject? 1 or 2?

3- The parishes I attend are Traditional parishes. That means they only celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass. They go by Tradition, which can’t be changed. Neither I nor the priests at those parishes care what is being taught today because much of it isn’t following Tradition.

I’m still confused. Do you deny that Vatican II is an ecumenical council? The documents themselves are the definitive products of the Council itself, just like the Canons from Trent. They are authoritative. If they are not, then either a) the involvement of the whole Church and approval by the Pope is just a lie and it was a pretend council or b) ecumenical councils are not authoritative, so neither is Trent or Nicea. Since Benedict XVI and the popes before him have all accepted Vatican II, either it is an authoritative ecumenical council or the gates of Hades have prevailed against the Church.

It’s very true that much of what people teach today is not Tradition. But the teachings of the Sacred Magisterium continue authoritatively today and did not stop in 1962.

I wasn’t actually referring to Latin as Tradition, but saying the Mass in english certainly isn’t Traditional.

Neither is it anti-Traditional, although it is untraditional.

 

[CradleCath]

Okay, tpw’s thinking is Supper-centric.

Let’s recall that the Last Supper entirely pointed to Christ’s sacrifice for us on the Cross: “which will be given up for you so that…”

Fulfillment of the Last Supper was the Cross. It points to the Cross. If Our Lord himself directed and pointed everything to the Cross, obviously that is where he wants our heads at, even during a re-enactment of the Last Supper. If everything does not point to the Cross, then we are not re-enacting the Last Supper. That’s simply intellectual dishonesty. However we commemorate the event, if we are going to honestly commemorate it, the reality of the Sacrifice at Calvary must be present.

So, if the EF focuses on the Sacrifice on Calvary, then I think its the manifestation or realization of the absolute importance and significance of Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross, however slowly that realization happened over time.

The Last Supper is a horrible and dishonest template for generating a communal or welcoming atmosphere. The Last Supper was explicitly exclusive. It was a private affair of only Jesus’ most trusted and dedicated followers: the Apostles.

Therefore, Ecumenism = Last Supper style worship is trying to wedge two things together that are completely different.

The Cross was public. It was outside. It was for all to see. We could but only watch it and wail and lament and wonder. It was Jesus laid bare upon the Cross, giving his life for us.

“Ecce homo!”

I am an OF Catholic, but personally it makes perfect sense to me if the Priest leads us in the worship and prays for us in our worship even if his back is towards me. Where he stands and how he faces should be decided, IMHO, by what is or would be the most likely to provide instruction. The Mass should be worship and, where possible and appropriate, instruction.

What do you remember from High School? You went to class every day for almost twenty years and yet you forgot 99% of it. Why? Seeing is believing. Doing is understanding. But mere hearing is a planning to forget. Listening is hoping to see, so as to understand and do. It presupposes a willingness or desire to believe.

You could be speaking Swahili during Mass - people will not remember it any more than they might remember English.

Jesus constantly went to Temple, and the Apostles were with him. I am sure the debate raged in Jerusalem about whether Hebrew or Aramaic or sometimes Greek could or should be used during the liturgy to accomodate the diaspora. Still, the Apostles faithfully and frequently went to Temple and the Synagogues until the Temple was destroyed and the Synagogues refused them entrance. If public, liturgical worship was not important - if the traditions of God’s People were vain or meaningless, why on Earth would Jesus be so zealous for his Father’s House and Temple or the Apostles dedicate themselves to its practice?

My Pope and my Bishop grant their blessing on the OF. With that, I can have faith that what I am told to do there pleases and satisfies God; nonetheless, this does not mean for an instant that we Catholics have not been given a precious gift, a gift that ought to be realized in the perfection of our worship.

I go to Mass first and foremost to worship God. To WORSHIP him. That’s my drive; that’s my impulse. The fact that I am also restored/confirmed in my communion with Him and His people is an incomparable gift, treasure and blessing. It’s what makes the worship also a miracle.

I am not there to meet people. I can go to a gym or a Church event/activity to do that.

This EF person gives your message a

 

[pnewton]

I am not there to meet people. I can go to a gym or a Church event/activity to do that.

From the first “homily” at that first Eucharist.

This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father. It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. This I command you: love one another.

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.

While I sympathize with frustration at some of the extremes seen at Mass, from the very first, love of our brothers and sisters has always been at the heart of the Eucharist and a part of the Eucharist. “Me and Jesus got our own thing going” is not any more appropriate for the Mass than making it into a free for all.

Twice in scripture, in the Gospel of John and in the letter of Paul to the Corinthians, we see the Eucharist tied directly to the love we bear each other, not just outside of Mass, but during Mass.

 

[plefe]

It’s SISTER & I’ll never stop. However, I don’t see anybody changing their minds because of my messages. :banghead:

That sounded like self-pity, didn’t it. Sorry…We have to keep getting the message out. Thanks for your support!!

I’m so sorry, Sister. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

 

[CradleCath]

pnewton;6588686]From the first “homily” at that first Eucharist.

While I sympathize with frustration at some of the extremes seen at Mass, from the very first, love of our brothers and sisters has always been at the heart of the Eucharist and a part of the Eucharist. “Me and Jesus got our own thing going” is not any more appropriate for the Mass than making it into a free for all.

I would like to qoute a few words from Fulton J. Sheen’s book, “Calvary & the Mass” I’ve read Karl Rahner, Kant and Hegel & many of the other “modern” theologians. Nothing I’ve read can even TOUCH the explanation of the Catholic Mass like Bishop Sheen’s book. If those modernist Catholics who post on this Traditional forum will read this book, even the excerpts given over the internet, they might understand Traditional Catholicism.

Jesus spoke to us during His entire life of loving our neighbor. However, ****Calvary **is at the heart of the Eucharist **

catholicprimer.org/home/worship/calvary_and_the_mass/1

Hence the Mass is to us the crowning act of Christian worship. A pulpit in which the words of our Lord are repeated does not unite us to Him; a choir in which sweet sentiments are sung brings us no closer to His Cross than to His garments.** A temple without an altar of sacrifice is non-existent among primitive peoples, and is meaningless among Christians**. And so in the Catholic Church the altar , and not the pulpit or the choir or the organ, is the center of worship, for there is re-enacted the memorial of His Passion. Its value does not depend on him who says it, or on him who hears it; it depends on Him who is the One High Priest and Victim, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Death was the supreme moment for which Christ lived. It was therefore the one thing He wished to have remembered. He did not ask that men should write down His Words into a Scripture; He did not ask that His kindness to the poor should be recorded in history; but He did ask that men remember His Death.** And in order that its memory might not be any haphazard narrative on the part of men, He Himself instituted the precise way it should be recalled.**
With Him we are united, in spite of our nothingness; in a certain sense, we lose our individuality for the time being; **we unite our intellect and our will, our heart and our soul, our body and our blood, so intimately with Christ, that the Heavenly Father sees not so much us with our imperfection, but rather sees us in Him, the Beloved Son in whom He is well pleased. **The Mass is for that reason the greatest event in the history of mankind; the only Holy Act which keeps the wrath of God from a sinful world, because it holds the Cross between heaven and earth, thus renewing that decisive moment when our sad and tragic humanity journeyed suddenly forth to the fullness of supernatural life.

What is important at this point is that we take the proper mental attitude toward the Mass, and remember this important fact, **that the Sacrifice of the Cross is not something which happened nineteen hundred years ago. It is still happening. It is not something past like the signing of the Declaration of Independence; it is an abiding drama on which the curtain has not yet rung down. Let it not be believed that it happened a long time ago, and therefore no more concerns us than anything else in the past. Calvary belongs to all times and to all places.

But how is it made visible? Where shall we find Calvary perpetuated? We shall find Calvary renewed, re-enacted, re-presented, as we have seen, in the Mass. Calvary is one with the Mass, and the Mass is one with Calvary, for in both there is the same Priest and Victim. The**