Should We Turn Back The Clock?

[Timothysis]

1.- You did not say whether you are reffering to the real Third Secret of Fatima or the false secret that was released in 2000.

Please tell us the real Third Secret. If the one released in 2000 is indeed false, then it includes both Pope John Paul II and our current Pope Benedict XVI are both part of a conspiracy to deceive the world. Yet, Pope Benedict is the one who freed the latin Mass, so does that make him ok with you?

2.- Communion in the hand is not valid. It’s dis-respectful. We don’t need Communion in the hand, and we certainly do not need Eucharistic ministers. You can never call a Novus Ordo Mass “reverent” if it includes these things.

Says who, you?!?!? I would never call one “reverent” who can proceed to the communion rail with a holier-than-thou attitude, either.

3.- You have gone so low as to say that I do not believe in the power and guidance of the Holy Ghost? My user-name on here is “Holy Ghost” in Latin! I know I have been given guidance from the Holy Ghost by attending the Traditional Latin Mass and knowing it’s the Mass I should be attending over the Novus Ordo.

Tell me, did the Holy Ghost mention any of the other ancient rites of the Church, or does He have a penchant just for the Tridentine?

 

[AlphaOmega]

What would happen if we reversed all of the reforms that came after Vatican II?

Would it be good if Vatican II was forgotten? The Council was not doctrinal and was pastoral in nature. We have seen what the pastoral reforms of Vatican II have produced. Would the Church prosper if the Holy Father decided to reform the reform and reinstate the previous traditions of the Church?

What effect would this have on the Church? Would it be a total disaster or would we see an immediate increase in vocations, conversions and holiness?

I think it would be better if Vatican II was trashed altogether. And all the Sacraments return to Traditional.

 

[ProVobis]

No need for guessing.
time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19700223,00.html

Thanks for this. Valuable archive.

“Psychological” schisms, I had forgotten about that.

 

[pnewton]

1.- It’s a Mass of the Church, but not a Mass of the true Church.

The Church label as not "the true Church, I call the one, holy, apostolic Catholic Church. I do not think this is what you meant to say, unless you are a sedevacantist, but I do find it revealing.

 

[ProVobis]

Furthermore, in the English translation, the NO has butchered the Canon as well as changed the words of consecration.

No doubt. But as long as it is said SLOWLY, it is considered just as reverent.

 

[Aramis]

1.- It’s a Mass of the Church, but not a Mass of the true Church.

2.-I never said he was the final word on everything.

3.-You may want to elaborate on your third point there.

4.-It IS wrong. Just because Pope Paul VI said it wasn’t wrong doesn’t mean I should be sticking my hands out to receive Christ.

The problem with your statement is that, if the OF is not the mass of the True Church, then neither is the EF in any diocese that celebrates the OF, and you’ve just talked yourself into schism, since the only dioceses which celebrate the EF without the acknowledgment of the validity of the OF are in schism. (Even the SSPX acknowledge it as a valid mass of the True church.)

Not just Pope Paul VI. Pope John Paul II, and 6 or 7 pre-medieval popes, plus the Armenian Catholics and the Syrian Catholics have long histories of use of CITH… going back to the earliest documentation of the liturgies!

Communion in the hand is an ancient practice restored, not properly an innovation. And one that has never ceased being used in some of the Eastern Churches.

 

[Joe_5859]

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

Respectfully, I ask you to consider what is the more likely scenario: that the Council Fathers blatantly contradicted previous Church teaching or that there is something lacking in your own understanding of the issue.

 

[ProVobis]

Communion in the hand is an ancient practice restored, not properly an innovation. And one that has never ceased being used in some of the Eastern Churches.

And you’re trying to sell Eastern Churches to the Traditional forum? What are you, some kind of superior church who’s supposed to set Western standards? Sure CITH was an ancient practice but it worked under different circumstances and was prohibited later. If CITH works for you today, fine, but that doesn’t mean all cultures need to adopt it. The Vatican never specified it as a universal custom so I suggest you respect our traditions as you get to keep yours.

 

[dominicandinah]

1.- It’s a Mass of the Church, but not a Mass of the true Church.

2.-I never said he was the final word on everything.

3.-You may want to elaborate on your third point there.

4.-It IS wrong. Just because Pope Paul VI said it wasn’t wrong doesn’t mean I should be sticking my hands out to receive Christ.

I’m beginning to think Ron Conte has set up a new account using “SpiritusSanctus” as his user name…

 

[Lujack]

Ergo, the Novus Ordo is just an opinion?

No, its not just an opinion, its a discipline of the Church that the Church’s proper authorities can change as the Church sees fit.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

1- Wow. Where is the obedience to Christ’s Church?

2- It was a rhetorical question, a little nudge that maybe it’s not the best idea to quote Saints who denied the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady when you’re trying to defend tradition.

3- Read the Early Church Fathers and see how Catholic Christians in the first 7 centuries after Christ received in the hand. Communion in the hand is arguably a more ancient tradition than Communion on the tongue.

1.-I do have obedience to Christ’s Church. The Traditional Latin Mass is Christ’s Church.

2.- I was quoting him on CITH. Nothing wrong with that.

3.-But in the TLM there is no CITH. Christ is supposed to hold us, not the other way around. And earlier practices have nothing to do with any of this. I’m talking about the TLM and Novus Ordo.

 

[CWBetts]

1.-I do have obedience to Christ’s Church. The Traditional Latin Mass is Christ’s Church.

2.- I was quoting him on CITH. Nothing wrong with that.

3.-But in the TLM there is no CITH. Christ is supposed to hold us, not the other way around. And earlier practices have nothing to do with any of this. I’m talking about the TLM and Novus Ordo.

Earlier practices have EVERYTHING to do with this. It shows that the TLM, as a practice, is subject to change and NOT a dogma. It destroys your argument that the TLM is “the True Mass” (and by extension, that the Novus Ordo is invalid).

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Please tell us the real Third Secret. If the one released in 2000 is indeed false, then it includes both Pope John Paul II and our current Pope Benedict XVI are both part of a conspiracy to deceive the world. Yet, Pope Benedict is the one who freed the latin Mass, so does that make him ok with you?

Says who, you?!?!? I would never call one “reverent” who can proceed to the communion rail with a holier-than-thou attitude, either.

Tell me, did the Holy Ghost mention any of the other ancient rites of the Church, or does He have a penchant just for the Tridentine?

1.- Yet another statement I did not make. Did I say Benedict XVI was part of a conspiracy? No. But the secret released in 2000 was false. The secret released by the Vatican 10 years ago was the assassination atempt against Pope John Paul II. But there are several things wrong with that so-called “Third Secret” in 2000. First of all, according to the Vatican, the secret was a vision of a figure dressed in white (apparently the Pope) roaming through a field of bodies. Then, suddenly, he is shot by soldiers with an arrow and falls to the ground dead. Yet, the assassination attempt of JPII was not soldiers but a single man, it was a gun not an arrow, there were no dead bodies everywhere, and JPII survived. And they did not have Our Lady say anything! How could Our Lady not have spoken a word? The so-called secret left so many scratching their heads. I assure, you that was not the Third Secret. Was JPII involved in a conspiracy attempt? I can’t say for sure. Maybe the Vatican tricked him? Or maybe he knew all along.

2.- I really don’t care if you don’t think I’m reverent. Besides, I’d rather be labeled as Traditional then Reverent.

3.-Perhaps you and others don’t understand this isn’t about ancient rites. This is about the Traditional Latin Mass, the Mass said before Vatican II, ok? We’re going by that Mass now, not any other type. Again, a person can’t tell me I don’t have guidance from the Holy Ghost. It’s not a person’s place to judge souls. Only actions can be judged. I know there is nothing wrong with attending the TLM.

 

[Dempsey1919]

We must not say that the EF is the true Mass and then slander another form of the Mass. Both the OF and the EF are equally valid and both deserve our respect. It is fine if you prefer one form over the other, but this must not cause you to begin attacking a legitimate Mass of the Church.

However, I see no problem in comparing both forms of the Mass in order to determine which best articulates the Catholic faith. In my opinion, the prayers of the EF express the Catholic faith more clearly; and in my opinion, the EF Mass is better because its prayers and gestures strengthen the faith and encourage greater reverence to the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. For these reasons, I think the Church would benefit if every parish offered at least one EF Mass every so often.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Earlier practices have EVERYTHING to do with this. It shows that the TLM, as a practice, is subject to change and NOT a dogma. It destroys your argument that the TLM is “the True Mass” (and by extension, that the Novus Ordo is invalid).

No, the Novus Ordo is valid in the sense that it is a Mass. But in a way it’s sacreligious. We’re not supposed to hold Christ. He is supposed to hold us. Validity is not all that matters about a Mass.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

The Church label as not "the true Church, I call the one, holy, apostolic Catholic Church. I do not think this is what you meant to say, unless you are a sedevacantist, but I do find it revealing.

No, I am not a sedevacanist. I applaud the Pope for freeing the TLM (to a point) and have respect for him. I do not believe that the Chair of Peter is empty.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

I think it would be better if Vatican II was trashed altogether. And all the Sacraments return to Traditional.

I completely agree.

 

[CWBetts]

No, the Novus Ordo is valid in the sense that it is a Mass. But in a way it’s sacreligious. We’re not supposed to hold Christ. He is supposed to hold us. Validity is not all that matters about a Mass.

You keep saying that…do you have a magisterial document to back that up. And for the record, in the Novus Ordo, you can receive on the tongue…as I do almost 100% of the time

 

[otjm]

1.- You did not say whether you are reffering to the real Third Secret of Fatima or the false secret that was released in 2000. You say Vatican II did not call for any of the changes I have stated that did, but they have. Our Lady said altars would be sacked. They were. They were replaced with tables to resemble Our Lord’s Last Supper. They are not altars. Don’t tell me I don’t get it when you don’t see that altars were replaced.

Please cite the document and paragrpah from the Council which said that altars should be replaced. And please define altar, since the Church defines what is used at the OF as an altar; you and they seem to have a language problem in terms of definitions.

2.- Communion in the hand is not valid. It’s dis-respectful. We don’t need Communion in the hand, and we certainly do not need Eucharistic ministers. You can never call a Novus Ordo Mass “reverent” if it includes these things.

The fact that the Church had Communion in the hand for approximately 1000 years is established beyone any rational question. That in and of itself establishes its validity. It is no more disrespectful than COTT. What can be disrespectful is the individual receiving, and the disrespect is in the individual, not in the method. And before you dragout some red herring of some other method that is not used by the Church, the discussion of respect or lack thereof is restricted to the methods the Church has used. And by the way - the Church, perhaps to your surprise, has used additional methods, which include the use of a spoon and the use of a straw. So be careful where you go.

3.- You have gone so low as to say that I do not believe in the power and guidance of the Holy Ghost? My user-name on here is “Holy Ghost” in Latin! I know I have been given guidance from the Holy Ghost by attending the Traditional Latin Mass and knowing it’s the Mass I should be attending over the Novus Ordo.

I know what your name means; I have taken more Latin than you. Whether or not you have received guidance of the Holy Spirit in terms of which form you attend is not the subject of this discussion and I have not made it so. However, your supposed enlightenment by the Holy Spirit concerning what you propose as facts is subject to scrutiny when it contradicts the Magisterium.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The Ordinary Form of the Mass is not sacrilegious; it is a valid Mass of the Roman rite, which has the authority of the Pope behind it. However, it can be celebrated in a sacrilegious manner if the priest deliberately ignores the rubrics; the Mass of Paul VI is beautiful if it is celebrated properly.

However, I think the current OF Mass should be reformed to bring it closer to the EF Mass. The OF can already be celebrated in Latin using the ad orientem posture with incense and gregorian chant; however, I think the priest has far too many options with the OF Mass. The options should be greatly reduced and the manner of celebrating the OF should be more regimented, for example, there should only be one Canon i.e. the Roman Canon. Furthermore, communion in the hand should be abolished and banned. I also think Latin should be a mandatory element in certain parts of the Mass, for example, the phrase “The Lord be with you” could be replaced with “Dominus Vobiscum.”

The Mass of Paul VI is here to stay. I have no problem with this, but I think more rubrics and instructions are needed to make liturgical abuse far more difficult. The priest simply has too many options in the OF Mass, and this makes it easier to celebrate abusive liturgies.