Should the TLM become the Ordinary Form?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey_Jackson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Encouraging” never accomplishes anything. Changes must be by force- the Priest MUST celebrate certain parts in Latin; the music MUST be Gregorian Chant. “Encouraging” leads to subjectivity which leads to loopholes- the only people who would take heed are those who would have done it anyway.
 
CassiusLonginus said:
Who refused to accept the legitimacy of the NO? Certainly not the SSPX since they admit the OF is a valid form of Mass.
Click to expand...
Then explain this little ditty from their homepage:

"E. CONSIDERING WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, ARE WE OBLIGED IN CONSCIENCE TO ATTEND THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE?

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc)."
 
Timothysis said:
Then explain this little ditty from their homepage:

"E. CONSIDERING WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, ARE WE OBLIGED IN CONSCIENCE TO ATTEND THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE?

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc)."
Click to expand...
I look at this stuff as being the natural reaction to being discriminated against so badly.

Also, these statements. A lot of them were written when absolutely insane stuff was going on in the Novus Ordo, in the 70’s and 80’s. Of course that stuff still goes on today, but there’s not much that can be done other than supporting the TLM, in my opinion.
 
PrayforMallory said:
I look at this stuff as being the natural reaction to being discriminated against so badly.

Also, these statements. A lot of them were written when absolutely insane stuff was going on in the Novus Ordo, in the 70’s and 80’s. Of course that stuff still goes on today, but there’s not much that can be done other than supporting the TLM, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Uh, huh. Right…and this same group is known to have said that the Missal of Pope Paul VI is “objectively sinful.” Of course, being in schism for the past 20 years, an excommunicated leadership and celebrating the sacraments after being lawfully suspended from doing so isn’t “sinful?” Isn’t relativism condemned by the sspx as well as the official Church?
 
Mickey_Jackson said:
Obviously, we should all abide by whatever the Holy Father ultimately decides. This is why I attend the Novus Ordo, even though I prefer the TLM.
Click to expand...
These two sentances don’t go together (at least in my mind). The Holy Father has decided that you may attend the TLM, and suggests that people request it where it is not offered.
 
Timothysis said:
Uh, huh. Right…and this same group is known to have said that the Missal of Pope Paul VI is “objectively sinful.” Of course, being in schism for the past 20 years, an excommunicated leadership and celebrating the sacraments after being lawfully suspended from doing so isn’t “sinful?” Isn’t relativism condemned by the sspx as well as the official Church?
Click to expand...
Maybe they knew what was coming at the time?

Who could have known how screwed up things would get?

Besides, the whole “schism” business. Don’t you think that’s kind of dated at this point? With the 50,000 threads with the same tired old posts?
 
PrayforMallory said:
Maybe they knew what was coming at the time?
Click to expand...
You’re right; history gives us many examples of what schism does.
PrayforMallory said:
Who could have known how screwed up things would get?
Click to expand...
Obviously, not the sspx leadership!
PrayforMallory said:
Besides, the whole “schism” business. Don’t you think that’s kind of dated at this point? With the 50,000 threads with the same tired old posts?
Click to expand...
Kind of dated…yeah, I suppose so…you’d thought that after all of this time some of the members of the sspx would see the error of their ways.
 
skatepixie said:
These two sentances don’t go together (at least in my mind). The Holy Father has decided that you may attend the TLM, and suggests that people request it where it is not offered.
Click to expand...
Let me clarify: I’m on vacation and there is no TLM available. Groups such as the SSPX would suggest that I skip Mass rather than attend the Novus Ordo, but I have no problem attending the NO because it is a validly promulgated rite of the Catholic Church, even though it’s not the one I prefer. That’s all I meant! Obviously, it is possible to attend the TLM exclusively and still be in obedience to the Church, assuming that you avoided schismatic chapels.
 
bpbasilphx said:
There were no ‘teachings’ of Vatican II. That’s the main point! There were no dogmatic definitions. There was no change in the Faith.

**No Ecumenical Council has ever changed the Faith.

Can you name one that did?**
Click to expand...
Uh…That was my point, Bishop.
 
Timothysis said:
Then explain this little ditty from their homepage:

"E. CONSIDERING WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, ARE WE OBLIGED IN CONSCIENCE TO ATTEND THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE?

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc)."
Click to expand...
Note how the quotation begins with the word “if”. If it’s not Catholic, then it can’t count for your Sunday, the way a Buddhist worship session wouldn’t count. IF! There is no condemnation, as far as I can see, saying that it isn’t Catholic. As I stated before, the SSPX has admitted numerous times that the OF is valid.

In regard to the rest of it: The innovation of the OF is indeed all pervasive. There’s not a person alive who could argue that it isn’t. The council fathers changed up just about everything. Much of this innovation isn’t ‘good’ (as the last 40 years have positively shown), therefore, if the OF contributes to the loss of faith of certain persons due to lax practice and certain banal innovations how can this be good? Remember the supreme law of the Church!
 
Timothysis said:
Uh, huh. Right…and this same group is known to have said that the Missal of Pope Paul VI is “objectively sinful.”
Click to expand...
Hmm, maybe they should have chosen their words differently. Likewise, Rome isn’t all that good at being clear anymore either. A sign of the times, perhaps?
Of course, being in schism for the past 20 years, an excommunicated leadership and celebrating the sacraments after being lawfully suspended from doing so isn’t “sinful?”
Click to expand...
Of course this is already way off topic for this thread, so I’ll just mention that this is exactly where ‘crisis’ and ‘supplied jurisdiction’ come into the picture.
 
bpbasilphx said:
BTW–“Greek Orthodox” properly means the Greek Archdiocese or Church of Greece.
Click to expand...
I know; i said greek orthodox because there is a church belonging to the Greek Archdiocese, under the Ecumenical Patriarch, in the city where i go to school. I have attended DL there, and liked the mix. So i had them in mind when i said i’d like to learn how they decided to split up the vernacular and greek parts.
 
It’s what my priest says about many matters when there is controversy, I enjoy it- personally I think that NO and Latin are good- but for different times in life, and places in the heart’s time, it is the one that God needs now, which is why the church is so different within, although some difference is no longer with the faith, and is no longer of the church, and should be fought, others- well- they are equally good in the right circumstance- the Pope acted against English with discipline, as the Latin tends to bring out traditionalism, but the Novus is more relaxed, and results in relaxation if not controlled adequately, so both must be viewed in situational circumstance, and given out when needed.
 
Mickey_Jackson said:
Let me clarify: I’m on vacation and there is no TLM available. Groups such as the SSPX would suggest that I skip Mass rather than attend the Novus Ordo, but I have no problem attending the NO because it is a validly promulgated rite of the Catholic Church, even though it’s not the one I prefer. That’s all I meant! Obviously, it is possible to attend the TLM exclusively and still be in obedience to the Church, assuming that you avoided schismatic chapels.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, okay. That makes sense now! 🙂

And, in that situation I would attend Novus Ordo as well, though I would most likely try to find the most laid-back on possible (no drums on the altar, please).
 
Timothysis said:
Uh, huh. Right…and this same group is known to have said that the Missal of Pope Paul VI is “objectively sinful.”
Click to expand...
I don’t know if he was SSPXer or not, but one person I knew “proved” this by using several anathemas of Trent.
 
Well its official, we traditionalists on the CAF subforum “Traditional Catholicism” have won! Victory is ours!

Who will notify His Holiness?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top