Restoring Tradition

[tpw]

Thanks for your post. I did not learn my Catholicism from “anti-Catholic” people. I’m grateful that you had a good educational experience under some excellent teaching orders of nuns. For the most part my 12 years of Catholic school education was quite good, despite the turmoil in the years after Vatican II. And in retrospect I’m hardly bitter about that - no one was really prepared to handle the aftermath of the council.

There was one nun who specifically taught us that Jews were “Christ-killers”. I remember it poignantly because at the time I had Jewish friends. Thankfully, my friend’s parents invited me to attend synagogue with them and my parents encouraged me (1965 or so).

Subsequent graduate studies in theology (University of San Francisco), spirituality (Duquesne University) and pastoral studies (Catholic Theological Union) have given me a firm and solid foundation to move forward.

Frankly, I’m not bothered by certain levels of criticism against the church. Sometimes it’s a form of grace; othertimes its a cross…

tpw

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

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.

Vatican II was what might be called a false ecumenical Council. In other words, rather than try to convert the Council tried to reach out to other religions. The gates of Hell have not and never will prevail against the Church, I’m just saying I don’t accept Vatican II as a good Council by any means.

 

[Bbigam]

Vatican II was what might be called a false ecumenical Council. In other words, rather than try to convert the Council tried to reach out to other religions. The gates of Hell have not and never will prevail against the Church, I’m just saying I don’t accept Vatican II as a good Council by any means.

Wow. It seems to me that if Vatican II was a false ecumenical council, but has been approved by all the Popes of that time and since, then the gates of Hades did prevail and the sedevacantists are right.

I can’t accept that.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Wow. It seems to me that if Vatican II was a false ecumenical council, but has been approved by all the Popes of that time and since, then the gates of Hades did prevail and the sedevacantists are right.

I can’t accept that.

I don’t think you get what I’m saying. Our Lady of Fatima warned of what would happen at Vatican II and what she said did happen but Our Lord said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. If they had, then the TLM would not exist today. Our Lord would never lie to us. So therefore we know the gates of Hell haven’t prevailed and never will.

 

[pnewton]

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

Absolutely. That is why I have sympathy which those that get frustrated when this centrality is obscured. However, we also can not view it as* all* the Mass is. To ignore, or consciously avoid the corporate nature of the Mass, that it, the relationship we have with each other within the body of the Church, is not as serious of an error as losing the focus on Calvary, but it is still something that is to be avoided. That is all I was saying.

 

[Bbigam]

I don’t think you get what I’m saying. Our Lady of Fatima warned of what would happen at Vatican II and what she said did happen but Our Lord said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. If they had, then the TLM would not exist today. Our Lord would never lie to us. So therefore we know the gates of Hell haven’t prevailed and never will.

Is your problem with the documents of Vatican II itself, or with the loads of bad stuff that people have done in the Church since Vatican II?

If you are equating the Council with the bad stuff that people chose to do after the Council and in some cases calling it the “spirit of Vatican II,” that’s similar to people who say that there are pedophile priests so it’s a pedophile Church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Is your problem with the documents of Vatican II itself, or with the loads of bad stuff that people have done in the Church since Vatican II?

If you are equating the Council with the bad stuff that people chose to do after the Council and in some cases calling it the “spirit of Vatican II,” that’s similar to people who say that there are pedophile priests so it’s a pedophile Church.

It is the problem, until this day i dont know for sure what the Councill really said. i dont think nobody knows. where did the Council go? there is my question.

what does the Council say and what it really has been done?
i have never seen women going to the Tabernacle before, today, i have seen women going to the Tabernacle, women walking all around the Sanctuary, and it is a growing trend. is this what the Council teach? if not, why is this going on in the Church? and why?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Is your problem with the documents of Vatican II itself, or with the loads of bad stuff that people have done in the Church since Vatican II?

If you are equating the Council with the bad stuff that people chose to do after the Council and in some cases calling it the “spirit of Vatican II,” that’s similar to people who say that there are pedophile priests so it’s a pedophile Church.

Both.

The documents don’t reveal anything that was done at Vatican II. I may read the entire documents (or most) to see just how correct I am on that.

As for the bad stuff the people have done, it really isn’t all about pedophile priests. It’s not a pedophile Church, I can assure you that. The fact is that modernism has invaded the Church. It invaded the Church before Vatican II even began, but didn’t reach its peak until Vatican II itself. I think the Popes should have cleaned it up but they didn’t. So here we are today, modernism all around. From Cardinal Mahony’s clown-like service in LA to Tradition still, for the most part, being ignored. I blame most of it on Vatican II.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

It is the problem, until this day i dont know for sure what the Councill really said. i dont think nobody knows. where did the Council go? there is my question.

what does the Council say and what it really has been done?
i have never seen women going to the Tabernacle before, today, i have seen women going to the Tabernacle, women walking all around the Sanctuary, and it is a growing trend. is this what the Council teach? if not, why is this going on in the Church? and why?

The Council never publicly taught this, but that is what was so dangerous and what got so many people to accept what was taking place. Vatican II gave no explanation on what they were doing, neither in the documents nor Paul VI, though he did hint what was going on a few times. Vatican II approved and introduced all of the things you point out. It was a slow process. It went from no more veils, to no more COTT, to no more kneeling for Communion or altar rails, and then in 1969 the full-blown Novus Ordo Mass was born. Had they admitted what they were really doing, people would not have accepted it. A few people behind the scenes did admit it, but not exactly publicly.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Council never publicly taught this, but that is what was so dangerous and what got so many people to accept what was taking place. Vatican II gave no explanation on what they were doing, neither in the documents nor Paul VI, though he did hint what was going on a few times. Vatican II approved and introduced all of the things you point out. It was a slow process. It went from no more veils, to no more COTT, to no more kneeling for Communion or altar rails, and then in 1969 the full-blown Novus Ordo Mass was born. Had they admitted what they were really doing, people would not have accepted it. A few people behind the scenes did admit it, but not exactly publicly.

yes, it seems that way. JPII did not seem to be able to stop any of this. although i hear many saying that he tried but no one would listen to him. just like today, the liberals still are not listen to the holy father, in fact i see them going forward with their agenda and they are going faster than before. the only ones listening to the holy father are the Traditional Catholics. i just cant think about the year declared for priests when i see no changes in them. i hope and pray that the Traditional Catholics make a full comeback and rescue the Church.

 

[tpw]

i have never seen women going to the Tabernacle before, today, i have seen women going to the Tabernacle, women walking all around the Sanctuary, and it is a growing trend. is this what the Council teach? if not, why is this going on in the Church? and why?

There were women periti at the Council - for the first time perhaps. The role of women in the church has grownn substantially at least in the U.S. It’s women who often pursue advanced studies in theology; it’s women who toil faithfully in our parishes as DRE’s; sacramental preparation; serve as administrators, teachers and counselors in our schools;
Without women it’s safe to say much of the ministry of the church in the US would collapse.

I don’t really understand what difficulty you have with women Eucharistic ministers or lectors. It’s certainly not forbidden in the liturgical documents…

The church continues to evolve organically and in the process broaden itself drawing more and more people to her…and that’s a good thing, right?

 

[wisdomseeker]

i have never seen women going to the Tabernacle before, today, i have seen women going to the Tabernacle, women walking all around the Sanctuary, and it is a growing trend. is this what the Council teach? if not, why is this going on in the Church? and why?

There were women periti at the Council - for the first time perhaps. The role of women in the church has grownn substantially at least in the U.S. It’s women who often pursue advanced studies in theology; it’s women who toil faithfully in our parishes as DRE’s; sacramental preparation; serve as administrators, teachers and counselors in our schools;
Without women it’s safe to say much of the ministry of the church in the US would collapse.

I don’t really understand what difficulty you have with women Eucharistic ministers or lectors. It’s certainly not forbidden in the liturgical documents…

The church continues to evolve organically and in the process broaden itself drawing more and more people to her…and that’s a good thing, right?

Time to ask for discernment. this is a very difficult times for the Church.
the blind leading the blind both will fall into the pit.

:knight2::knight2:

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

i have never seen women going to the Tabernacle before, today, i have seen women going to the Tabernacle, women walking all around the Sanctuary, and it is a growing trend. is this what the Council teach? if not, why is this going on in the Church? and why?

There were women periti at the Council - for the first time perhaps. The role of women in the church has grownn substantially at least in the U.S. It’s women who often pursue advanced studies in theology; it’s women who toil faithfully in our parishes as DRE’s; sacramental preparation; serve as administrators, teachers and counselors in our schools;
Without women it’s safe to say much of the ministry of the church in the US would collapse.

I don’t really understand what difficulty you have with women Eucharistic ministers or lectors. It’s certainly not forbidden in the liturgical documents…

The church continues to evolve organically and in the process broaden itself drawing more and more people to her…and that’s a good thing, right?

No it’s not a good thing. I’ve said this over and over again, women should not be priests, altar servers, Eucharistic ministers, etc. If they want to assist at the Church they can become nuns. Just because the documents don’t forbid it doesn’t mean it’s right.

 

[tpw]

I’m uncertain of the connection between Jesus’ promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church and the Latin Mass? The scriptures were certainly not written in Latin, nor is there evidence Jesus spoke Latin although it’s not unreasonable to assume he heard Latin spoken by Roman soldiers.

Latin wasn’t the formal language of the church for at least the first three hundred years or else Jerome’s translation of the scriptures from Hebrew and Greek into Latin in the 4th century would not have been such a significant event.

And depending on where one lived its probably not the case that Latin was the liturgical language of the eastern Church certainly prior to the split in 1066 during the iconoclast controversy if I recall my church history correctly and definitely not after. This means the Latin liturgy was probably only true for the western Roman Empire and north Africa. Can’t say much about the Slavic countries.

I’m also unclear about your claim that OLF warned about Vatican II. I’ve never heard such a thing. And if that’s true what does that say for Pope John Paul II who had a great devotion to OLF, but was a significant contributor at the Council as was Joseph Ratzinger.
Are you saying they were/are the devil’s handmaidens? And if that’s true you must really be fearful of the on-going process to have John Paul II canonized…

I don’t think you get what I’m saying. Our Lady of Fatima warned of what would happen at Vatican II and what she said did happen but Our Lord said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. If they had, then the TLM would not exist today. Our Lord would never lie to us. So therefore we know the gates of Hell haven’t prevailed and never will.

 

[StAnastasia]

No it’s not a good thing. I’ve said this over and over again, women should not be priests, altar servers, Eucharistic ministers, etc. If they want to assist at the Church they can become nuns. Just because the documents don’t forbid it doesn’t mean it’s right.

I attended a quinceanaera Mass yesterday, attended by about 200m people. The priest told the young lady that more doors are open to women now than ever before. He held up his liturgical vestments and said, “You can’t wear these just yet, but we’re going to fix that!”
The applause from the congregation was thunderous.

 

[grannymh]

I attended a quinceanaera Mass yesterday, attended by about 200m people. The priest told the young lady that more doors are open to women now than ever before. He held up his liturgical vestments and said, “You can’t wear these just yet, but we’re going to fix that!”
The applause from the congregation was thunderous.

Is this parish and priest in communion with Rome?

Who is the "we"in "He [priest] held up his liturgical vestments and said, “You [young lady being celebrated with a quinceanaera Mass] can’t wear these just yet, but we’re going to fix that!”

Is this congregation a separated church? “The applause from the congregation was thunderous.” (see post 235)

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[StAnastasia]

Is this parish and priest in communion with Rome?

Certainly. So is the diocese. The bishop and many of our priests share this view, although most would not voice it from the pulpit.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

I’m uncertain of the connection between Jesus’ promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church and the Latin Mass? The scriptures were certainly not written in Latin, nor is there evidence Jesus spoke Latin although it’s not unreasonable to assume he heard Latin spoken by Roman soldiers.

Latin wasn’t the formal language of the church for at least the first three hundred years or else Jerome’s translation of the scriptures from Hebrew and Greek into Latin in the 4th century would not have been such a significant event.

And depending on where one lived its probably not the case that Latin was the liturgical language of the eastern Church certainly prior to the split in 1066 during the iconoclast controversy if I recall my church history correctly and definitely not after. This means the Latin liturgy was probably only true for the western Roman Empire and north Africa. Can’t say much about the Slavic countries.

I’m also unclear about your claim that OLF warned about Vatican II. I’ve never heard such a thing. And if that’s true what does that say for Pope John Paul II who had a great devotion to OLF, but was a significant contributor at the Council as was Joseph Ratzinger.
Are you saying they were/are the devil’s handmaidens? And if that’s true you must really be fearful of the on-going process to have John Paul II canonized…

The TLM is the true Mass of the Church. Archbishop LeFebvre referred to it as the “Mass of all Times”.

And where exactly did I say John Paul II and Benedict XVI were/are handmaidens of the Devil? I never said that. However, even though I know I’m going to get slammed for saying this, I don’t think John Paul II should be made a saint. Before you reply, let me say why. First of all, he prayed with people who worshiped false gods. The Church had always taught before Vatican II that doing such a thing was wrong. JPII even once received the mark of a false god on his forehead from a woman priest. We all know in the Bible it says all false gods are devils. As Archbishop LeFebvre said, “How could the Pope receive the mark of the Devil on his forehead?”. That’s not to say the Pope didn’t worship God, obviously he did, but he was trying to reach out to other religions and put them on the same level. That’s a dangerous thing to do. And what about all the relgious meetings he held where he didn’t even offer Mass those days so it wouldn’t offend anyone? Not to mention he ex-communicated LeFebvre, did nothing to free up the TLM, and was accused of covering up a priest that stems from the current scandal Benedict XVI is involved in.

So no, I don’t think he should be made a saint for those very reasons.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

I attended a quinceanaera Mass yesterday, attended by about 200m people. The priest told the young lady that more doors are open to women now than ever before. He held up his liturgical vestments and said, “You can’t wear these just yet, but we’re going to fix that!”
The applause from the congregation was thunderous.

And I should be convinced by that because? The only thing that convinces me on is that the priest at that parish is a modernist and not Traditional.

 

[grannymh]

Certainly. So is the diocese. The bishop and many of our priests share this view, although most would not voice it from the pulpit.

It is well known that some dioceses, bishops, priests, and especially lay people, wear the label of Catholicism. But the label does not always indicate their real leanings and/or desire and/or hope that the Catholic Church will change according to the so-called modern times.

The way post 235 is written makes it sound that there is action which is far more than a view.

Please answer.

Who is the “we” in "He [priest] held up his liturgical vestments and said, “You [young lady being celebrated with a quinceanaera Mass] can’t wear these just yet, but **we’re **going to fix that!”

Is this congregation a separated church? “The applause from the congregation was thunderous.” (see post 235)

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception