Should We Turn Back The Clock?

[Malleus_01]

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to debate someone who refuses to assent to the teachings of the Church, all the while insisting his version of Catholicism is superior to all others…including the Pope.

Malleus: Thats obviously not true or this conversation wouldnt be taking place in the TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC thread would it? You have come here precisely for that reason. to insist that your version of Catholicism is superior to Tradition including 260 POPES . I on the other hand - come here to talk about TRADITIONAL CATHOLICISM - what it teaches and what its about. The reason you get angry is because I can.

Pax

 

[Malleus_01]

But it is not REQUIRED to have a Mass at either of those. In fact sometimes it shouldn’t be done, and on a few occasions it CAN’T be done. Your objections are personal preference, and nothing more

Malleus: False. And blatently so in TRADITION Which is where this conversation is taking place I might ADD.

 

[RockyRoad]

Malleus: False. And blatently so in TRADITION Which is where this conversation is taking place I might ADD.

Not only does Church law state that it is not necessary…but in areas where priests are not able to visit for weeks at a time or even longer…marriages can be performed without a priest or deacon…then blessed upon the return of the priest. And…these marriages are fully recognized by the Church as long as the rules governing the process are followed.

CWBetts…please correct me if I’m wrong on this.

 

[CWBetts]

Malleus: False. And blatently so in TRADITION Which is where this conversation is taking place I might ADD.

A funeral on Good Friday or Holy Saturday cannot include a Mass. A wedding where a significant number of the attendees are not Catholic it is not always best to have a mass. So get off of your attitude of condemantion (for example, I am a convert, and as the only Catholic in my family, when I get marries, a large percentage will not be Catholic, and as to not exclude them from the festivities, there should not be a Mass as part of the wedding, though a smaller private Mass would happen at some point).

 

[CWBetts]

Malleus: Thats obviously not true or this conversation wouldnt be taking place in the TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC thread would it? You have come here precisely for that reason. to insist that your version of Catholicism is superior to Tradition including 260 POPES . I on the other hand - come here to talk about TRADITIONAL CATHOLICISM - what it teaches and what its about. The reason you get angry is because I can.

Pax

I come her to try to educate the closed-minded and self-righteous

 

[Malleus_01]

A funeral on Good Friday or Holy Saturday cannot include a Mass. A wedding where a significant number of the attendees are not Catholic it is not always best to have a mass. So get off of your attitude of condemantion (for example, I am a convert, and as the only Catholic in my family, when I get marries, a large percentage will not be Catholic, and as to not exclude them from the festivities, there should not be a Mass as part of the wedding, though a smaller private Mass would happen at some point).

Malleus: For obvious reasons just as Catholics are not allowed in Tradition to get Married during LENT. Is this so in the Modernist Church. NO it isnt. How do I know? Because my Sister in law DID. So you get off your high horse and quit coming to the TRADITIONAL: FORUM to TELL US What is or isnt ALLOWED as though we have to bow and scrape to you. Not only are you arrogant - but condescending. This is the Traditional thread. Perhaps as a CONVERT you should take the time to learn the FAITH rather than pontificate to Catholics like myself who have been Catholic their entire lives. I was Baptised in 1956. I know what Catholicism is about. And I certainly dont need you to teach me Modernism nor do I need to learn about protestantism.

 

[CWBetts]

Malleus: For obvious reasons just as Catholics are not allowed in Tradition to get Married during LENT. Is this so in the Modernist Church. NO it isnt. How do I know? Because my Sister in law DID. So you get off your high horse and quit coming to the TRADITIONAL: FORUM to TELL US What is or isnt ALLOWED as though we have to bow and scrape to you. Not only are you arrogant - but condescending. This is the Traditional thread. Perhaps as a CONVERT you should take the time to learn the FAITH rather than pontificate to Catholics like myself who have been Catholic their entire lives. I was Baptised in 1956. I know what Catholicism is about. And I certainly dont need you to teach me Modernism nor do I need to learn about protestantism.

It has become clear that you do not even know what the modernist heresy is. Modernism rejects the objectivity of the faith (which I do not). What I mentioned during Lent was a FUNERAL. Perhaps you should also brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I have at no time suggested that the NO is “superior” to the TLM. I have stated that they are BOTH valid (every pope since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo would agree with me). I am immersing myself in the faith. Just because you were baptized as an infant MEANS NOTHING. I have at no point indicateed that I am superior to you. What I have done is insist that we follow the teachings of the Church, whether you like them or not! I would venture a guesss that one of the greatest problems in thCHurch today is division caused by Traditionalists.

 

[ProVobis]

But I think it crosses a line to say dumbed down. That implies inferior.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Sometimes you need to resort to grade school arithmetic to explain advanced calculus but it doesn’t make arithmetic inferior, does it? It’s still math. And if you want to spend all your life studying fractions, that’s your right.

 

[CWBetts]

Not only does Church law state that it is not necessary…but in areas where priests are not able to visit for weeks at a time or even longer…marriages can be performed without a priest or deacon…then blessed upon the return of the priest. And…these marriages are fully recognized by the Church as long as the rules governing the process are followed.

CWBetts…please correct me if I’m wrong on this.

I am not sure…I am not well versed in Canon law

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Malleus: False. And blatently so in TRADITION Which is where this conversation is taking place I might ADD.

I have an old Baltimore children’s catechism (pre-Vatican II) that states that Mass is not necessary for a wedding (no mention of funerals). It simply states that the faithful are encouraged to have their wedding celebrated within the context of a Mass, but that it is not manditory.

 

[choy]

No but I don’t see what point you are trying to make by asking that question. I attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and I am in regular contact with traditionalist priests who celebrate devotions that were widespread before Vatican II; I know what pre-Vatican II worship is like.

I grew up with poor catechism classes, folk masses, and doctrinal dissent. I often wonder if these things would have happened if Vatican II did not occur. I look at the statistics and I see a massive, steep decline in vocations and church attendance after Vatican II. I wonder if Vatican II caused this.

I want to know if reversing Vatican II reforms is the antidote to many of the problems we face as a Church?

i would say NO

there are many Catholics today who are in the faith because of the practices today. if you go back to pre-Vatican II practices, it might turn many people off and they would seek other religions. they would have the same complaints as you and the other Traditionalists complain about today. they will say they don’t understand the mass, don’t want to learn Latin, etc.

don’t blame Vatican II for all the problems of the Church today. a lot of it is brought about by the secularization of society, and the powerful role the global media has on this

 

[Malleus_01]

It has become clear that you do not even know what the modernist heresy is. Modernism rejects the objectivity of the faith (which I do not). What I mentioned during Lent was a FUNERAL. Perhaps you should also brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I have at no time suggested that the NO is “superior” to the TLM. I have stated that they are BOTH valid (every pope since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo would agree with me). I am immersing myself in the faith. Just because you were baptized as an infant MEANS NOTHING. I have at no point indicateed that I am superior to you. What I have done is insist that we follow the teachings of the Church, whether you like them or not! I would venture a guesss that one of the greatest problems in thCHurch today is division caused by Traditionalists.

Malleus: No you are here in this forum to insist that we recognise what you percieve as superior. You do believe your form of Worship - the teachings of Vatican II - the changes that occured after Vatican II the Teachings of JPII and Benedict superior to every Prior Pope. And you insist that what you say you believe in are superior to those found in Tradition or you wouldnt be insisting on them here. You are making the claim that a MASS is unnecessary for Funerals and Holy Matrimony and present it as the RULE then cite certain cases where its an exception for OBVIOUS REASONS. Do you honestly think we buy that drivel.

Get over yourself. The TEACHINGS of the CHURCH are not just what you say they are. We are obviously TRADITIONAL for a reason and posting here for a reason. If you come here what do you think you will find? People waiting for you to insist we see things your way? If the way Traditional Catholics believe is offensive to you - then perhaps this thread isnt for you. And Catholic answers has plenty of other threads where perhaps you will feel more comfortable.

And as for Modernism - Perhaps you need to read “Pacendi Domenici Gregis” by St Pope Pius the X and then apply what it condemns to the Teachings of Vatican II and its implementation by Modernist Bishops. New Sacraments , New Scripture , New Practises , New Beliefs . And you can say whatever you want to say. The teachings are what they are. And they are not the same. This is the Traditional Thread. So dont come here pontificating. We know what you believe before you open your mouth. You dont need to attempt to defend yourself here. Nor do you have a right to coerce us into following what you believe is true. Perhaps you should live up to the Precepts of Dignatatis Humanae from Vatican II which you say you believe in.

pax

 

[CWBetts]

Malleus: No you are here in this forum to insist that we recognise what you percieve as superior. You do believe your form of Worship - the teachings of Vatican II - the changes that occured after Vatican II the Teachings of JPII and Benedict superior to every Prior Pope. And you insist that what you say you believe in are superior to those found in Tradition or you wouldnt be insisting on them here. You are making the claim that a MASS is unnecessary for Funerals and Holy Matrimony and present it as the RULE then cite certain cases where its an exception for OBVIOUS REASONS. Do you honestly think we buy that drivel.

Get over yourself. The TEACHINGS of the CHURCH are not just what you say they are. We are obviously TRADITIONAL for a reason and posting here for a reason. If you come here what do you think you will find? People waiting for you to insist we see things your way? If the way Traditional Catholics believe is offensive to you - then perhaps this thread isnt for you. And Catholic answers has plenty of other threads where perhaps you will feel more comfortable.

And as for Modernism - Perhaps you need to read “Pacendi Domenici Gregis” by St Pope Pius the X and then apply what it condemns to the Teachings of Vatican II and its implementation by Modernist Bishops. New Sacraments , New Scripture , New Practises , New Beliefs . And you can say whatever you want to say. The teachings are what they are. And they are not the same. This is the Traditional Thread. So dont come here pontificating. We know what you believe before you open your mouth. You dont need to attempt to defend yourself here. Nor do you have a right to coerce us into following what you believe is true. Perhaps you should live up to the Precepts of Dignatatis Humanae from Vatican II which you say you believe in.

pax

do you think you can stop insulting me long enough to get off of your soapbox and actually address the issues? Like what you think the “evils of Vatican II” even are? Or are you going to continue to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of heresy?

 

[cecilia97]

90 minutes long! Mine…usually about 50 to at most 60 minutes. But its reverent!

God has blessed us with a pastor who is a great preacher (longer but enlightening homilies) and has a deep love of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. He does things slowly and deliberately. He limits the number of EMHCs (as allowed by our Archbishop) so our Communion takes quite a while. Mass can be hard on the little ones at times, but we love it and don’t complain. (Unless there are multiple announcements after Mass!)

And thanks be to God, he exhorts us to confess often during those long homilies! I am convinced that there IS such a thing as a faithful, orthodox, reverent, and beautiful parish offering the OF.

 

[RockyRoad]

God has blessed us with a pastor who is a great preacher (longer but enlightening homilies) and has a deep love of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. He does things slowly and deliberately. He limits the number of EMHCs (as allowed by our Archbishop) so our Communion takes quite a while. Mass can be hard on the little ones at times, but we love it and don’t complain. (Unless there are multiple announcements after Mass!)

And thanks be to God, he exhorts us to confess often during those long homilies! I am convinced that there IS such a thing as a faithful, orthodox, reverent, and beautiful parish offering the OF.

Me too. One of our priests in particular holds up the host during the consecration for sometime as he prays. Same with the cup.

He always starts the Eucharistic Prayer with “we now come to the most sacred part of the Mass”

 

[ProVobis]

He always starts the Eucharistic Prayer with “we now come to the most sacred part of the Mass”

This is okay, I think, but isn’t this further dumbing down the Mass? I would think something said like that would be insulting my intelligence.

 

[Malleus_01]

do you think you can stop insulting me long enough to get off of your soapbox and actually address the issues? Like what you think the “evils of Vatican II” even are? Or are you going to continue to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of heresy?

Malleus: I am not insulting you. I am asking you to stop pontificating about how we have to follow what you believe or believe how you believe. Why would that be insulting to you? Do you even read what you write? And perhaps you need to get down off your soapbox.

The Original question is “Should we turn back the Clock?” Its been 45 years and as others have pointed out (like ProVobis) statistically - an uttter and complete failure.

Benedict obviously sees value in Tradition or there wouldnt be a Motu Proprio would there? As for what are the “Evils” of Vatican II - False Ecumenism - Religious liberty and Religious Indifferentism Chiefly. Couple that with people like you who claim to follow the Teachings of Vatican II - like for example - Dignitatis Humanae: (And I quote

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

Malleus: You claim to follow Vatican II and all its precepts to the letter - perhaps you might want to explain why you insist that Traditional Catholics follow it to the letter when you have aptly demonstrated today in this forum that you do not.

Pax

 

[RockyRoad]

Malleus: I am not insulting you. I am asking you to stop pontificating about how we have to follow what you believe or believe how you believe. Why would that be insulting to you? Do you even read what you write? And perhaps you need to get down off your soapbox.

The Original question is “Should we turn back the Clock?” Its been 45 years and as others have pointed out (like ProVobis) statistically - an uttter and complete failure.

Benedict obviously sees value in Tradition or there wouldnt be a Motu Proprio would there? As for what are the “Evils” of Vatican II - False Ecumenism - Religious liberty and Religious Indifferentism Chiefly. Couple that with people like you who claim to follow the Teachings of Vatican II - like for example - Dignitatis Humanae: (And I quote

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

Malleus: You claim to follow Vatican II and all its precepts to the letter - perhaps you might want to explain why you insist that Traditional Catholics follow it to the letter when you have aptly demonstrated today in this forum that you do not.

Pax

Are you questioning the free will of man to choose wrongly? Religious freedom is a God given right. We know the correct faith. But God does not force those who refuse it the right to refuse it. That doesn’t mean that we cannot evangelize. We are called to do that. But in the final outcome it is up to the person to decide what he/she believes. No Christ…then no salvation. Many refused it when Christ walked the earth and many will refuse it now.

We must evangelize through the love of Christ. It we think we can force it on others, then we are using the same tactics as muslims. And they have been mislead by Satan.

 

[Malleus_01]

Are you questioning the free will of man to choose wrongly? Religious freedom is a God given right. We know the correct faith. But God does not force those who refuse it the right to refuse it. That doesn’t mean that we cannot evangelize. We are called to do that. But in the final outcome it is up to the person to decide what he/she believes. No Christ…then no salvation. Many refused it when Christ walked the earth and many will refuse it now.

We must evangelize through the love of Christ. It we think we can force it on others, then we are using the same tactics as muslims. And they have been mislead by Satan.

Malleus : I am merely questioning if “Dignitatis Humanae” and the portion of it I cited is compatible with What Pope Leo the XIII Wrote in Libertas

We have on other occasions, and especially in Our encyclical letter Immortale Dei,(2) in treating of the so-called modern liberties, distinguished between their good and evil elements; and We have shown that whatsoever is good in those liberties is as ancient as truth itself, and that the Church has always most willingly approved and practiced that good: but whatsoever has been added as new is, to tell the plain truth, of a vitiated kind, the fruit of the disorders of the age, and of an insatiate longing after novelties. Seeing, however, that many cling so obstinately to their own opinion in this matter as to imagine these modern liberties, cankered as they are, to be the greatest glory of our age, and the very basis of civil life, without which no perfect government can be conceived,

Such, then, being the condition of human liberty, it necessarily stands in need of light and strength to direct its actions to good and to restrain them from evil. Without this, the freedom of our will would be our ruin. First of all, there must be law; that is, a fixed rule of teaching what is to be done and what is to be left undone. This rule cannot affect the lower animals in any true sense, since they act of necessity, following their natural instinct, and cannot of themselves act in any other way. On the other hand, as was said above, he who is free can either act or not act, can do this or do that, as he pleases, because his judgment precedes his choice. And his judgment not only decides what is right or wrong of its own nature, but also what is practically good and therefore to be chosen, and what is practically evil and therefore to be avoided. In other words, the reason prescribes to the will what it should seek after or shun, in order to the eventual attainment of man’s last end, for the sake of which all his actions ought to be performed. This ordination of reason is called law. In man’s free will, therefore, or in the moral necessity of our voluntary acts being in accordance with reason, lies the very root of the necessity of law. Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived than the notion that, because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law. Were this the case, it would follow that to become free we must be deprived of reason; whereas the truth is that we are bound to submit to law precisely because we are free by our very nature. For, law is the guide of man’s actions; it turns him toward good by its rewards, and deters him from evil by its punishments.

Malleus : So when you write : "But in the final outcome it is up to the person to decide what he/she believes " But its up to GOD to determine what the LAW is and the Precepts thereof. So to say that MAN has a RIGHT to Liberty that is ERRONEOUS. Man has free will but it isnt a right unles it complies with the Law of and the Will of GOD. If in opposition it no longer is a right and punishment is forthcoming.

Pax

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html

 

[BettyM]

Humanae Vitae was the turning point. The Sexual Revolution was the counterattack. The Hippies who threw marriage out the window, smoked dope and had ‘free love’ with whoever. A coordinated attack that would wreck the sanctity of marriage and even the womb. By 1973, the worst damage had been done. it would be followed by No-Fault Divorce in the 1980s. The family had to be destroyed. The intergenerational bonds had to be dissolved

I agree. I think alot of the problems weren’t Vatican II, it was the times. The 1960’s and 1970’s were strange times. I grew up then and to look back at that, it’s embarrassing. I remember in my young years of Catholic school in the early 1970’s all of us young girls being taught by a nun how to sing “I Am Woman” by Helen Reddy and then singing it for the priests of the parish.

Also, besides the hippies and the Sexual Revolution being a problem there were other issues. During a talk I had heard on EWTN titled “What Went Wrong with Vatican II,” one of the points made was that after Vatican II happened Catholic leaders, nuns and priests, would do things in what they called the “spirit of Vatican II” not following the rules of Vatican II or for that matter any rules set down by the Church. Little by little things got worse and now we are where we are today.

A bright spot is many Catholics today are homeschooling and teaching their children more traditional Catholic education, bringing back the catechism and reverence during Mass and just plain knowledge of their faith. This is a very fast growing movement.

Seeing alot of churches adding latin to the English mass and the new Missal coming soon, I think things will get better. Catholic leaders are realizing mistakes and trying to make corrections.

We didn’t get to where we are overnight and it will take a while to change. Maybe things won’t be like they were in the 1940’s but I thing we can bring back alot.