E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
I don’t know… I just tried to edit it and it kept it lowercase…
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
WFS5801
Guest
Sorry, wasn’t trying to single out your post – just expressing my opinion of the argument itself – which, to me, is ridiculous.I wasn’t the one that broached that topic, mate. Someone else did, leading another person saying “if we did everything in Latin, we would never have this problem!”
I merely pointed out that people will always find a way to twist certain things around, regardless if a “sacred language” was used.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
And the EF was big enough to include whatever other abuses happened in the last, we’ll say, three hundred years. Or however long you want to say it was around for.And, apparently, the OF Mass is “big” enough to include clown masses, charismatic masses and Easter Bunny masses as well.
If you have a problem with charismatic Masses, which aren’t an abuse, talk to Rome who authorized it.
Same thing that happened to the groups before the Tridentine Mass, maybe?What happens, after the SSPX bows to the Vatican II dictates and a new Pope decides that the Traditional Latin Mass (aka the “EF”) is no longer needed? That the “OF” is just as “efficacious” as the Traditional Latin Mass? They have no choice but to comply as they have cut their former argument off at the knees.
I don’t know. But if the laundry list of items which were approved from them before all of this went down is legit, I have no idea how we got to this position in the first place.And, if (lots of “ifs” here) Bishop Fellay signs this agreement and it contains what most think it will contain (which is just a “starting point” of the negotiations, according to the Vatican), what was the whole point of the SSPX in the first place?
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I agree, the conversation was pretty silly. I just happen to have ADHD and was bored at the moment.Sorry, wasn’t trying to single out your post – just expressing my opinion of the argument itself – which, to me, is ridiculous.
W
WFS5801
Guest
Can you name any of these previous “abuses,” or provide any examples?And the EF was big enough to include whatever other abuses happened in the last, we’ll say, three hundred years. Or however long you want to say it was around for.
If you have a problem with charismatic Masses, which aren’t an abuse, talk to Rome who authorized it.
Unfortunately, St. Pius V told us that “EF” form of the mass was to celebrated in perpetuity. When was that negated?Same thing that happened to the groups before the Tridentine Mass, maybe?
I would say that much of what happened in Vatican II (or as the result of the "spirit of Vatican II) is what caused the issue. Too much of it reads like what Pope St. Pius X warned us against in Pascendi. If Bishop Fellay now turns on Bishop Lefebvre, he basically denies that the Bishop had any legitimate argument against Vatican II (or at least what resulted from Vatican II).I don’t know. But if the laundry list of items which were approved from them before all of this went down is legit, I have no idea how we got to this position in the first place.
W
wasserfall
Guest
Uh, no you’re wrong. If the SSPX regularizes and the next Pope tells them they can’t celebrate the traditional mass, they’ll just keep celebrating the traditional mass anyway and deal with the consequences.What happens, after the SSPX bows to the Vatican II dictates and a new Pope decides that the Traditional Latin Mass (aka the “EF”) is no longer needed? That the “OF” is just as “efficacious” as the Traditional Latin Mass? They have no choice but to comply as they have cut their former argument off at the knees.
If you read Bishop Fellay’s letter he says that the reason it is possible to discuss regularization is that the Pope isn’t asking the SSPX to do anything or to believe anything or to teach anything contrary to the faith.
W
wasserfall
Guest
I would say that the fact you think Bishop Fellay is considering “turning on Archbishop Lefebvre” shows that you are a very confused person.I would say that much of what happened in Vatican II (or as the result of the "spirit of Vatican II) is what caused the issue. Too much of it reads like what Pope St. Pius X warned us against in Pascendi. If Bishop Fellay now turns on Bishop Lefebvre, he basically denies that the Bishop had any legitimate argument against Vatican II (or at least what resulted from Vatican II).
M
Melchior_1
Guest
What you want Youtube clips? Do you seriously think there was ZERO abuses during Mass at, say, 1902?Can you name any of these previous “abuses,” or provide any examples?
It was never negated, the Holy Father has said this…Unfortunately, St. Pius V told us that “EF” form of the mass was to celebrated in perpetuity. When was that negated?
This speaks for itself.If Bishop Fellay now turns on Bishop Lefebvre, he basically denies that the Bishop had any legitimate argument against Vatican II (or at least what resulted from Vatican II).
P
ProVobis
Guest
But even with the fullest reconciliation they may not be able to hear confessions, even by your own admissions (I think). In that sense, some may never be able to “come home.” Seems like a meaningless expression these days, IMO.“Home” with zero faculties and the inability to hear confessions. I’m sorry, I thought that having such things restored would be desirable.
W
wasserfall
Guest
It is very likely that there were zero abuses at the very great majority of masses in 1902. What abuses did occur were very minor and, most likely unintentional.What you want Youtube clips? Do you seriously think there was ZERO abuses during Mass at, say, 1902?
Obviously I can not go back in time and prove this assertion, but the whole culture and the way priests were trained demanded complete obedience to the rubrics.
Priests were taught that they sinned gravely by willfully departing from the rubrics and they believed it.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Priests have always been taught that. They were taught that during the time of Francis and Dominic, and there were rampant abuses then.It is very likely that there were zero abuses at the very great majority of masses in 1902. What abuses did occur were very minor and, most likely unintentional.
Obviously I can not go back in time and prove this assertion, but the whole culture and the way priests were trained demanded complete obedience to the rubrics.
Priests were taught that they sinned gravely by willfully departing from the rubrics and they believed it.
C
Cristiano
Guest
Are you talking about the same culture that 30 years earlier allowed Austrian, German and Swiss Catholics to reject the First Vatican Council?It is very likely that there were zero abuses at the very great majority of masses in 1902. What abuses did occur were very minor and, most likely unintentional.
Obviously I can not go back in time and prove this assertion, but the whole culture and the way priests were trained demanded complete obedience to the rubrics.
Priests were taught that they sinned gravely by willfully departing from the rubrics and they believed it.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I hope, too, that the Society will come to again submit to the Holy See. The Church, however, does not need to be saved. She already has been. She is in no danger of failing and the Society’s failure to submit (God forbid) will not alter Her trajectory. She is, and has been, and will be, inviolate, per Christ’s promise. Further, the Church is not divided. She holds the fullness of unity and it is up to those who have departed from that unity to return to it, from both the left and from the right (and from those on both sides that refuse to admit that they have departed). Their return to that unity does not increase it and their refusal to return does not lessen it. That unity simply is.We are so close to healing this divide. The SSPX can give an injection to our church and help save it, and help end the 40 year nightmare.
W
wasserfall
Guest
They are famously not taught it now…Priests have always been taught that. They were taught that during the time of Francis and Dominic, and there were rampant abuses then.
W
wasserfall
Guest
Their masses were celebrated according to the rubrics.Are you talking about the same culture that 30 years earlier allowed Austrian, German and Swiss Catholics to reject the First Vatican Council?
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Care to give quantifiable evidence that doesn’t involve extreme examples culled from Youtube?They are famously not taught it now…
W
wasserfall
Guest
If I produce a video from Youtube, you will call it an “extreme example” and dismiss it.Care to give quantifiable evidence that doesn’t involve extreme examples culled from Youtube?
There is no need. Anybody who is not in a state of denial will admit that many priests see no need to obey the rubrics precisely. It may not be that way in your parish (for now), but it is widely known among the general Catholic population.
Of course the general Catholic population usually thinks it is great when Father imposes his own novelties on the liturgy.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Yet we can say this about several times within Church history, the Form of Mass is hardly the reason.If I produce a video from Youtube, you will call it an “extreme example” and dismiss it.
There is no need. Anybody who is not in a state of denial will admit that many priests see no need to obey the rubrics precisely. It may not be that way in your parish (for now), but it is widely known among the general Catholic population.
Of course the general Catholic population usually thinks it is great when Father imposes his own novelties on the liturgy.
“For now?” Nice defeatist attitude there.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Condescending is more like it.Yet we can say this about several times within Church history, the Form of Mass is hardly the reason.
“For now?” Nice defeatist attitude there.
-Tim-
W
WFS5801
Guest
That’s probably true. I’m guessing the FSSP would do the same. But this move definitely compromises their position on Vatican II abuses. And does the SSPX now accept Vatican II teachings?Uh, no you’re wrong. If the SSPX regularizes and the next Pope tells them they can’t celebrate the traditional mass, they’ll just keep celebrating the traditional mass anyway and deal with the consequences.
Yeah, but from the Vatican we read that this is a “starting point.” You have to wonder, a “starting point” towards what direction?If you read Bishop Fellay’s letter he says that the reason it is possible to discuss regularization is that the Pope isn’t asking the SSPX to do anything or to believe anything or to teach anything contrary to the faith.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.