Y
yankeesouth
Guest
Maybe some livid ‘liberalism’ going on here too.
- Status
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
Many, against all evidence, attempt to absolve the new liturgy of any responsibility for the consistently plummeting Mass attendance since its introduction. Other factors are also at play (cultural shifts, etc.), but it is common sense that if someone doesn’t like something or feels that he is not “getting anything out of it”, he won’t attend it. Many of my friends and family, sadly, are lapsed Catholics. Until recently, the liturgical landscape in the area where I live was barren. Today, many of my lapsed-Catholic friends have told me that one reason they left the Faith was because they simply couldn’t believe that their eternal salvation hinged on attending a Sunday Mass rife with disheveled misbehaved ill-trained altar boys and girls, warbling lectors, priests cracking jokes, felt banners, etc. - the whole gamut of banality that one must endure at your average Sunday Mass in America. “How can my salvation depend on my attendance of this?” they ask. “Its the unbloody re-presentation of the one Sacrifice of Calvary offered for our redemption by Our Lord on the cross brought forward in time” I tell them. “But if that’s true then why does ______ (insert any number of the examples listed above) happen at Mass?” I don’t have an answer. The only answer I have found is the Traditional Mass. I still have to travel relatively far each Sunday to attend the Traditional Mass, but I don’t mind. And, thank God, some of my previously lapsed family members express interest in it, as do some of my friends. I’ve even had them join me on several occasions. For some, experiencing the Traditional Mass helps them connect the liturgical act with what they know the Church teaches about the Mass. It is more congruous.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
To toxic trads – anything outside “traditionalism” – is liberalism. The way they are heading – it’s looking like outside “traditionalism” – there is no salvation.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Yet the Church, in all it’s wisdom and knowledge, despite decades of experience does NOT feel the same way you do and has continued to keep the OF form in its proper place while allowing the EF to be said in order to show it’s generosity towards different worship preferences.
Surely you are not implying that you know more than the Vatican, Pope, and all councils what is good for the souls of the Church they are guided by the Holy Spirit to lead.
E
exnihilo
Guest
I agree about the banality and problems you identify. What seems to have been lost is a fear of the Lord. It is replaced with a good bit of presumption and undue familiarity.
But as for your friends, it is a huge mistake to think everything must be according to our taste and judgment. We have a serious problem in our culture. We are in a time of experimentation and extreme individuality. This makes it more difficult to follow those in authority. But, as Catholics that is what we are called to do. A problem can be that more traditionally minded folks themselves give into the spirit of individuality and don’t follow the Church, even when she makes it harder to follow her. It is precisely in those difficult moments that we prove ourselves.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
There are those in the hierarchy of the Church who express a level of agreement with my position. Pope Benedict, when Cardinal Ratzinger, famously said:
The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)
Pope Benedict is also in agreement with me when he says, “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” (Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977)
Last edited:
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
I attend an FSSP parish. My fidelity to the Church and to the Holy Father is unwavering.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Yet – Pope Benedict XVI kept the OF as the normal form in the Latin Rite. And the OF – is the Mass – he himself celebrated.
Last edited:
E
exnihilo
Guest
I don’t question your fidelity. I don’t question the fidelity of anyone who merely goes to a FSSP parish. I wish there was such a parish near me. My point was banality doesn’t invalidate the Church’s authority or legitimacy. I do think some people seem to think otherwise.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
He was not in the Vatican then. And it’s still “feeeeeeeeelings” Just because he became Pope and was later gifted the task of leading the flock doesn’t make all of his words teaching on the faith.Xanthippe_Voorhees:
There are those in the hierarchy of the Church who express a level of agreement with my position. Pope Benedict, when Cardinal Ratzinger, famously said:
The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment. (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)
Pope Benedict is also in agreement with me when he says, “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is, to a large extent, due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” (Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977)
And being that the Holy Spirit saw fit and he did NOT speak the same words, it is clear that the Church still might know more than the people–even powerful cardinals–on this one.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
When did the Holy Ghost speak on this matter? Perhaps you are referring to Sacrosanctum Concilium? If so, many of the prescriptions of that document were ignored, subverted, or hijacked by Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium responsible for the creation and implementation of the New Order of Mass. If SC was considered in the creation of the NOM, its already ambiguous prescriptions were universally interpreted in the most liberal sense.
Last edited:
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Holy Spirit (Ghost is a terrible translation from the Latin Spritus Sanctus) spoke when Benedict 16 was elected. He then gave the power to Benedict 16 to speak in an infallible way. Benedict did and said many things to allow TLM without setting it as the standard. All the Holy Spirit had to do was lead him to say that the TLM was now ordinary and the New Mass was to take second place. Yet he did not. The OF was affirmed.
Do you not think that the Holy Spirit would have guided the church back to a firm ruling rather than just accept and correct Mass Translations? Who do you think lead those changes? The devil? Certainly, God would not call upon the church to correct the translations of something that had no value.
To simply go back to the beginning time and time again and point out errors is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit for the past six decadeds.
Do you not think that the Holy Spirit would have guided the church back to a firm ruling rather than just accept and correct Mass Translations? Who do you think lead those changes? The devil? Certainly, God would not call upon the church to correct the translations of something that had no value.
To simply go back to the beginning time and time again and point out errors is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit for the past six decadeds.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
Cardinal Ratzinger in a 1997 interview said: I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. . . . I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.
The affirmation of the New Order of Mass does not mean that the Church has infallibly declared it to be superior to the Traditional Mass.
The Holy Spirit will never abandon the Church. We both know this. He is constantly ushering the Church towards holiness. But He allows room for the free will of sinful men. The liturgical situation of the Church today is not ideal. Of course, the Holy Spirit will continue to guide the Church and will do so, as He has done since the beginning, by using the less-than-ideal constructs of men. Ultimately, however, do we believe that the Holy Spirit will leave the Church with a liturgy that is a product of 1960’s pop-psychology and a desire to appease Protestants - a liturgy that, only through the most strained concept of a “hermeneutic of continuity” can be reconciled with the ancient and venerable rite that preceded it? Or is He ushering the Church in His ever subtle manner back towards the Mass of Ages? 2007 changed a lot. Both FSSP seminaries are bursting at the seams. The SSPX is knocking on the door. I am excited to see what the next few decades bring.
Last edited:
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
I’m going to stop here.
Benedict was NOT the Pope in 1997.
The church would NOT correct something that was wholly in error, nor would it refuse to restore something to it’s rightful place because of popular opnion.
You know the other parishes that are sending men to the seminary in great number? Lifeteen ones!
If the Church moves, so will I.
But I will not move because people continue to hold on to the belief that the church is somehow erring in it’s duty by allowing the OF.
Benedict was NOT the Pope in 1997.
The church would NOT correct something that was wholly in error, nor would it refuse to restore something to it’s rightful place because of popular opnion.
You know the other parishes that are sending men to the seminary in great number? Lifeteen ones!
If the Church moves, so will I.
But I will not move because people continue to hold on to the belief that the church is somehow erring in it’s duty by allowing the OF.
Last edited:
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
Cardinal Ratzinger in a 1997 interview said: I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. . . . I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.
The affirmation of the New Order of Mass does not mean that the Church has infallibly declared it to be superior to the Traditional Mass.
The Holy Spirit will never abandon the Church. We both know this. He is constantly ushering the Church towards holiness. But He allows room for the free will of sinful men. The liturgical situation of the Church today is not ideal. Of course, the Holy Spirit will continue to guide the Church and will do so, as He has done since the beginning, by using the less-than-ideal constructs of men. Ultimately, however, do we believe that the Holy Spirit will leave the Church with a liturgy that is a product of 1960’s pop-psychology and a desire to appease Protestants - a liturgy that, only through the most strained concept of a “hermeneutic of continuity” can be reconciled with the ancient and venerable rite that preceded it? Or is He ushering the Church in His ever subtle manner back towards the Mass of Ages? 2007 changed a lot. Both FSSP seminaries are bursting at the seams. The SSPX is knocking on the door. I am excited to see what the next few decades bring.
Seriously – you don’t see what you post – doesn’t reconcile itself with your previous post.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
Please explain. How does anything I said call into question my fidelity to the Church or to the Holy Father?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
If you don’t see it – it won’t make a difference.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
I think that if you are going to accuse someone of something, especially of something so heinous, you have the responsibility to explain why. But I really don’t want to see this thread closed down so I will let it go.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Latin Mass never went anywhere.
Mass is still celebrated in Latin.
And in the vernacular as per reforms of Vat 11
Mass is still celebrated in Latin.
And in the vernacular as per reforms of Vat 11
Last edited:
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Blessed first Friday to you Adam
- Status