Should Latin mass be brought back?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walking_Home said:
And what – because other priest have gone off the edge – this does not excuse the ones who go off the edge in the other direction.
Click to expand...
What I posted is factual. You can easily look it up and verify it. Many sources covered it. OTOH, you claim a “traditional site” is giving some FSSP Priests a black eye. Where’s the source for this? Sounds like something the National catholic Reporter would print…and I use the word catholic here loosely.
 
It seems to me that if the Pope approved the use of the EF, then there’s nothing in the EF that is incompatible with what is binding on Catholics from Vatican II…because a Pope would never approve a liturgy that was incompatible with binding teachings.

So this idea that the EF is somehow incompatible with Vatican II is nonsense, because if it were incompatible, the popes would never have approved the EF.
 
You still haven’t addressed the absurdity of your position that was pointed out in post #846. Not only are you violating the rules of a forum on which you are a guest, you are, as Don Ruggero stated, “therefore being disobedient in referring to non-Catholic Christians as “heretics” or in any way that goes against the directives of The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism…which is binding upon Catholics and dispositive.”

Given your stance from post #853, should you be called a heretic?

Will you address your defiance of Unitatis Redintegratio
 
I think RH Benson raised a good point…what he said can be found on page after page of the Breviarium Romanum that the popes allow for use. Why would they allow a book to be used that was somehow improper?
 
1Lord1Faith said:
You still haven’t addressed the absurdity of your position that was pointed out in post #846. Not only are you violating the rules of a forum on which you are a guest, you are, as Don Ruggero stated, “therefore being disobedient in referring to non-Catholic Christians as “heretics” or in any way that goes against the directives of The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism…which is binding upon Catholics and dispositive.”
Click to expand...
As I pointed out to Father, with respect, I believe that his accusation is unfounded. Likewise, I noted how, since the Roman Breviary makes ample use of the term “heretic” to refer to the Protestants, I am entirely justified to use it as well. Certainly you aren’t implying that the Divine Office itself is in violation of the directives of “The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism”? Or maybe you are? Do you hold these “directives” in higher esteem than the Sacred Liturgy? Regardless, as long as the approved Liturgy of the Church expresses the term “heretic” in reference to Protestants, then I too will continue to refer to them as such. So let the accusations fly. But the very language of the Liturgy itself supports my position.
 
Mark121359 said:
What I posted is factual. You can easily look it up and verify it. Many sources covered it. OTOH, you claim a “traditional site” is giving some FSSP Priests a black eye. Where’s the source for this? Sounds like something the National catholic Reporter would print…and I use the word catholic here loosely.
Click to expand...
You want the source – Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=13338.0

Here is the full OP-- by Ascetik
I have been attending my FSSP parish for probably around 10 years or so and we’ve changed pastors maybe 4 or 5 times in that period. Some differ from others regarding this topic so I wanted to see what other’s thought:

I have been told on more than one occasion by different FSSP priests that we should never attend the NO, that it is a sin to go because it’s a break with tradition, could lose my faith, etc, I get that. Trust me I do, and this is the position I hold.

However, our current pastor seems to be extremely hard-lined regarding not missing mass on Sunday if all you have available is the NO, that we should suffer through it and offer reparation to Our Lord for the sins, abuses and blasphemies committed there, to fulfill our Sunday obligation.

His basic argument was that there is no crisis in the Church, that the only true crisis in the Church right now is in China because obviously you would be slaughtered by the govt there for holding the true faith. He does not seem to really believe there is a crisis of doctrine and liturgy, which seems very odd to me seeing as how he is in an order that tries to uphold traditional Catholicism.

He gave the example of the apostles ran away when things got tough at the crucifixion and Peter denied Christ, etc, and I understood the parallel he was trying to make, but I really don’t think they are the same situation. I understand that we are required to suffer for the faith, but attending an illicit mass created by free-masons and Protestants in order to fulfill my obligation seems a bit extreme. I feel like an EO liturgy is more Catholic than the Novus Ordo (I would never attend a schismatic liturgy). I’m not really sure what to make of that example, I feel in one respect it is true, while in another we’re implicitly showing our approval for Our Lord being blasphemed by being there. But then you could make the argument the apostles should not have abandoned Our Lord when he was being beaten, spit-on and cursed at.

What do you all make of this? He also is vehemently against any attendance at the SSPX, whereas I’ve had different FSSP priests tell me it’s alright to go because of the crisis. This priest said there was no such thing as “Eternal Rome” and the Abp Lefebvre was pulling this crisis “Out of the aether”. Which to me seems very extreme, seeing as how if it wasn’t for Abp Lefebvre the order this particular priest was ordained for wouldn’t even exist.

What say ye?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You said you knew the kind of men the FSSP is ordaining/etc. So there you go – and example of some of the men.
 
Last edited:
It’s really disturbing how unjustly the FSSP is being trashed on this thread. Really appalling actually.
 
Hey – it’s a traditionalist speaking about his past and current priest(s) have told him.
 
Last edited:
In all seriousness, this is what I’ve learned from this thread:
  1. Popes John, Paul, and Francis are amazing.
  2. Popes John Paul II and Benedict don’t get mentioned much at all, and never in the same way the other popes are praised.
  3. The 1962 liturgy is opposed to Vatican II.
  4. It was a mistake to allow the 1962 liturgy, and one that needs to get corrected…and that will get corrected under the current pope.
 
I’m not trashing the FSSP – just pointing out that some FSSP priests – trash the OF.
 
The conclusion of the letter Pope Benedict wrote to the Bishops in 2007 when publishing Summorum Pontificum:
In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.
Click to expand...
The bishops and their collaborators have been sharing their thoughts with the Holy See, as has the academic community…especially for this tenth anniversary of the motu proprio. And there is great comprehension.

I don’t, in fact, think that the motu proprio needs to be repealed. I think it needs to be modified, just as it was a modification of documents promulgated by Saint John Paul II.

I also think the time has come to begin the alterations of the 1962 missal, as Pope Benedict said needed to happen. As he wrote:
For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Notice also “mutually enriching.” It’s not a one-way street.
 
And a priest on this thread has trashed the EF…
Click to expand...
Curious Convert:
  1. I am a product of the era of the liturgical movement. Do you know it? Do you remember it? Do you even know what I am talking about?
  2. I have lived through the era of which I write. Did you? As a Catholic?
  3. I have offered the Mass in the vetus ordo. Have you?
  4. Have you the read the following from the guidelines of this forum, under "Conduct Rules?
Do not incite hostility towards anyone, especially the clergy.
Click to expand...
 
Father, how exactly is it “inciting hostility” to speak the truth?

You have spoken disparagingly of priests on this thread, and of an approved liturgy of the Mass. How is that charitable or right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top