SSPX, Here's The Problem We Have,

[JKirkLVNV]

A possible conclusion is that the defamers and detractors don’t want reconciliation. Every age needs its scapegoat.

Another possible conclusion is that A) they aren’t defamers and detractors at all and that B) they do wish for reconcilliation…but that that means the SSPX making their submission to the Holy See.

 

[StTommyMore]

Just take a look at this, watch out! you might cry.

which of these houses does Our Lord, the King of all Kings, after all His sufferings deserve?

montfort.org.br/index.php?secao=veritas&subsecao=igreja&artigo=missa-nova&lang=bra

Stop this already. This is the 2nd time you posted the same link. It would really help if it was English. There is no way for me to evaluate these photos without the proper context. The original places of worship were cemeteries and cave using wooden tables and no altars. The Eucharist is more important than the house it is in. The Church is so much more than a pile of bricks. Don’t get me wrong, I prefer the older buildings myself, but you may be placing too much emphasis on the trappings of religion, and forgetting altogether about faith.

 

[wisdomseeker]

You are going to the other extreme. Step back, take a deep breath, and think about what you are saying. You prefer the EF? Good for you. Do not insinuate that John Paul II was anything less than a servant of God. It really makes me cranky. It seems to me that you are enamored with the form to the extent that you are blind to the fact that the form of a sacrament is not immutable. The matter is immutable. As was pointed out earlier, the NO was not invented out of thin air in 1968.

really! that is not what BXVI says.

 

[StTommyMore]

really! that is not what BXVI says.

I have learned not to take anything you say at face value. Provide your source.

 

[At_Trent]

You are going to the other extreme. Step back, take a deep breath, and think about what you are saying. You prefer the EF? Good for you. Do not insinuate that John Paul II was anything less than a servant of God. It really makes me cranky. It seems to me that you are enamored with the form to the extent that you are blind to the fact that the form of a sacrament is not immutable. The matter is immutable. As was pointed out earlier, the NO was not invented out of thin air in 1968.

Aw, but you use the word immutable.

Have you read the Veterum Sapientia written by the Pope who called VII ?

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

With the foregoing considerations in mind, to which We have given careful thought, We now, in the full consciousness of Our Office and in virtue of Our authority, decree and command the following:

Responsibility for enforcement

1. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.

1. In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

 

[floresco]

He concecrated bishops without the approval, and indeed, in direct opposition to The Pope. You do not see that that was wrong? You do not see this as pride?

He was in a situation in which it seemed necessary. From what I have read about the historical context, this was an understandable conclusion. I am really not sure if he was wrong.

And I definitely do not see it as pride. The Catechism instructs us to place the best possible motive on people’s actions and I have no difficulty seeing better motives than that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I do not want Catholics to attend Masses from priests who disobey rubrics or preach heresy. I guess we are both out of luck.

That is why I say that we must both guard against extremism from the left and the right. The problem with some people here is they are quick to denounce liberal ideas, but condone traditionalist extremism. Both are bad, we shouldn’t be condoning something just because they hide behind the veil of traditionalism.

 

[StTommyMore]

Aw, but you use the word immutable.

Have you read the Veterum Sapientia written by the Pope who called VII ?

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

The words of the liturgy, outside of the words of consecration, are not the matter of the sacrament. They are the form. The matter is the bread, wine, and words of consecration.

 

[crazzeto]

He was in a situation in which it seemed necessary. From what I have read about the historical context, this was an understandable conclusion. I am really not sure if he was wrong.

And I definitely do not see it as pride. The Catechism instructs us to place the best possible motive on people’s actions and I have no difficulty seeing better motives than that.

Obediance to Rome should be primary, once being taking upon them selves such radical behaviours it becomes very difficult to know what it is they think they’re doing. I don’t need to make assumptions about motives to know what he did was gravely wrong, something he should well have known.

Certainly I would not follow such a Bishop, after all we know the Church will not fail. The premise of such individuals is that it has, I view this as an unreconcilable contradiction.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Stop this already. This is the 2nd time you posted the same link. It would really help if it was English. There is no way for me to evaluate these photos without the proper context. The original places of worship were cemeteries and cave using wooden tables and no altars. The Eucharist is more important than the house it is in. The Church is so much more than a pile of bricks. Don’t get me wrong, I prefer the older buildings myself, but you may be placing too much emphasis on the trappings of religion, and forgetting altogether about faith.

yes, the Church says that each brick represents each one of us.

forgetting about the Faith? do you think that the Church for 2000 had forgotten the Faith and it wasnt until VII that we got the Faith back? where is this Faith recovered by VII?

beautifull houses for the Lord means no faith for the people?

just take some steps back , and look at the Israelites. tell me what the Lord said to them when they abandoned His House and begin to build great houses for themselves.

 

[ConstantineTG]

He was in a situation in which it seemed necessary. From what I have read about the historical context, this was an understandable conclusion. I am really not sure if he was wrong.

And I definitely do not see it as pride. The Catechism instructs us to place the best possible motive on people’s actions and I have no difficulty seeing better motives than that.

Necessity doesn’t justify going against the Church. As my example earlier, St. Paul saw circumcision as unnecessary to Christian faith. Yet he still sought the approval of the other Apostles, most especially St. Peter. Moreover, St. Paul got into an argument with St. Peter when he saw Peter relenting to the desires of the Jewish Christians. But still, St. Paul didn’t move forward until he got St. Peter to agree.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

He was in a situation in which it seemed necessary. From what I have read about the historical context, this was an understandable conclusion. I am really not sure if he was wrong.

And I definitely do not see it as pride. The Catechism instructs us to place the best possible motive on people’s actions and I have no difficulty seeing better motives than that.

Archbishop Lefebreve had a meeting with the Pope, Ven. John Paul II, and with Vatican officials, including then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, at which he was about to be given a great deal of what he wanted (ie, permission to consecrate a bishop, though not as many as he wished, etc.). He signed off on this deal, then reneged on it days latter. The claim that a necessity existed, as provided by the canons, was denied by the Pope, who is the Supreme Legislator and Interpreter of canon law. The Pope, the final line in the sand, as it were, stated that no necessity existed. He did what he did in objective disobedience. I have no window into his soul to determine if pride played any role.

 

[StTommyMore]

yes, the Church says that each brick represents each one of us.

forgetting about the Faith? do you think that the Church for 2000 had forgotten the Faith and it wasnt until VII that we got the Faith back? where is this Faith recovered by VII?

beautifull houses for the Lord means no faith for the people?

just take some steps back , and look at the Israelites. tell me what the Lord said to them when they abandoned His House and begin to build great houses for themselves.

I did not say Churches should not reflect the grandeur of God. I said they are not needed.

 

[At_Trent]

really! that is not what BXVI says.

I know the words you recall

Here also are some interesting comments

Alluding to the composition of the New Mass, Father Duggan states: "It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change (November AD2000).

Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ ** whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative.** Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes:** “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit)” (pages 9-10).**

Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes: “[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed” (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).

Father Kenneth Baker SJ, who is editor of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, concurs with Fr Duggan that the liturgical changes have been revolutionary. Lamenting the numerous changes imposed on the people which they scarcely had time to digest, Fr Baker wrote: “We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately” (February 1979).

**Cardinal Ratzinger claims that our ecclesial malaise is attributable, at least in part, to the condition of the Liturgy. He writes: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy” **(Milestones, page 148).
ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html

The average Catholic just doesn’t understand that revolutionary change can harm HMC in so many ways.

“In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata.”
James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.

“What if some novel contagion seek to infect the whole Church, and not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.” -St. Vincent of Lerins († 445)

That was all before the SP by H.H. BXVI. Deo gratias, the Gregorian Rite hasn’t been destroyed.

 

[floresco]

You are going to the other extreme. Step back, take a deep breath, and think about what you are saying. You prefer the EF? Good for you. Do not insinuate that John Paul II was anything less than a servant of God. It really makes me cranky.

While I am not cranky yet, I was pretty uncomfortable with the post that StTommyMore refers to. I found it unnecessarily disrespectful of Pope John Paul II. I am open to the possibility that he made some imprudent decisions, but any criticism must be made in a context of filial loyalty.

 

[crazzeto]

I did not say Churches should not reflect the grandeur of God. I said they are not needed.

Agreed, there is a hirachy of importance which I fear some have gotten off kilter.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Aw, but you use the word immutable.

Have you read the Veterum Sapientia written by the Pope who called VII ?

adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

The use of Latin by the Church, either in its documents or its worship, is not a matter of faith or morals, nor immutable truth, and thus the directive issued by one pope in this regard is not binding on future pontiffs. Veterum Sapientia was the prudential wisdom of Blessed John XXIII regarding a tradition of the Church, not regarding Apostolic Tradition.

 

[maurin]

Stop this already. This is the 2nd time you posted the same link. It would really help if it was English. There is no way for me to evaluate these photos without the proper context. The original places of worship were cemeteries and cave using wooden tables and no altars. The Eucharist is more important than the house it is in. The Church is so much more than a pile of bricks. Don’t get me wrong, I prefer the older buildings myself, but you may be placing too much emphasis on the trappings of religion, and forgetting altogether about faith.

Actually from what I observed in person in the catacombs of Rome the
Altars were carved from the tuffa stone. But movable Altars were necessary during the persecutions of two millenia ago. Not much need for a movable Altar since the Edict od Milan, I think we can agree.

 

[floresco]

I have no window into his soul to determine if pride played any role.

I am glad to see you say so.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I know the words you recall

Here also are some interesting comments

thank you. this is one of them. but some just choose to ignore what is going.
the problems in the Church is due to the poor worship to God, but some just choose to ignore that the worship to God comes first.