The way people dress to Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter francisca
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Heliotropium said:
Yes I do but the approval of a movement is not the same as the approval of the valid possesion of charisms is it Tommy? Have any of these people in the movement who speak in tongues come forth and been tested by the Church leaders? Have these individuals been approved by the Chuch as geniunley possesing these gifts? They are by the Catechism of the Catholic Church duty bound to do so! Have they though? Nope! But why not?
Click to expand...
How on earth would YOU know that?
Why in the name of heaven would YOU assume that?
 
I think the Lord is more concerned with a person’s attitude at mass than the clothing they are able to wear. Clothing, if it is modest, is less important than almost anything else.
 
Heliotropium said:
Yes I do but the approval of a movement is not the same as the approval of the valid possesion of charisms is it Tommy? Have any of these people in the movement who speak in tongues come forth and been tested by the Church leaders? Have these individuals been approved by the Chuch as geniunley possesing these gifts? They are by the Catechism of the Catholic Church duty bound to do so! Have they though? Nope! But why not?
Click to expand...
We all have gifts of the Spirit of some kind. Every last one of us. Do all speak in tongues? No? Do all prophesy? No. But we all, have some form of gift. St. Paul said as much. If my gift is “teaching” do I need to be approved by the episcopacy before I can catechize another in the Faith? You, I fear, have confused manifestation of gifts with private revelation. The Spirit moves as it will, and as such, you must not only pray for the Charismatic Renewal, it should really not be spoken against. This is coming from someone not active in the Renewal personally.
 
catharina said:
How on earth would YOU know that?
Why in the name of heaven would YOU assume that?
Click to expand...
Know what and assume what exactly? The approval of a movement is differnt then a Church leader approving and individual of validly genuinley possing charisms of the Holy Spirit? Thats not rocket science.

Now if your asking how do I know that no one from the Charismatic Renewal has been approved to individual have these charisms (like Healing and Speaking in Tongues) is becuase neither the Charismatic Renewal has provided news that one of their members have been approved by the Church as possisng these charisms nor has the Church givin news of one of them valdily possesing the charisms of the Holy Spirit or valdily using them (such as Healing, Speaking in Tongues, and etc).

But as a Mod has pointed out this is off topic so I’m finished in this tread in regards to the Charismatics.

God Bless
 
pismopal said:
I think the Lord is more concerned with a person’s attitude at mass than the clothing they are able to wear. Clothing, if it is modest, is less important than almost anything else.
Click to expand...
Of course attitude is important. We can convey our attitude towards an event by our choice of attire. If I so up to an event in bluejeans and a sweatshirt then that event isn’t very important to me nor do I suspect it conveys importance to anyone else. However, if I take the time to wear the best clothing I own, even if that’s bluejeans, then I am revealing my respect and importance I place on the event. I think all societies have a custom of special dress for special occasions. Why not the Church?
 
Heliotropium said:
Know what and assume what exactly? The approval of a movement is differnt then a Church leader approving and individual of validly genuinley possing charisms of the Holy Spirit. Thats not rocket science.

Now if your asking how do I know that no one from the Charismatic Renewal has been approved to individual have these charisms is becuase neither the Charismatic Renewal as provided news that one of there members have been approved by the Church as possisng the charisms nor has the Church gave news of one of them valdily possesing the charisms of the Holy Spirit.

**Bud as a Mod has pointed out this is off topic so I’m finished in this tread in regards to the Charismatics.**God Bless
Click to expand...
Good for the moderator and so glad
to hear you’re done with your “commentary.”
 
catharina said:
Good for the moderator and so glad
to hear you’re done with your “commentary.”
Click to expand...
Ok, heliotrope.
Finally got it.

You’re saying a moderator has stated the issue is off-topic for THIS thread.
Perfect. Glad to hear it.
 
As it is off-topic I’ll say just one thing…thank you for bringing this movement to my attention. I googled it and can only say - oh my goodness! People lost in trance, babbling, swaying hands in the air and then falling to the floor gyrating like a fish out of water. How is it this is approved and the SSPX got excommunicated for clinging to the ancient liturgy of our Church?

Deep breath…quick prayer for patience…Rosary offered tonight…
 
OurLadyPerpHelp said:
How is it this is approved and the SSPX got excommunicated for clinging to the ancient liturgy of our Church?
Click to expand...
The excommunications were for consecrating bishops in violation of papal right. Other groups which “cling” (strange word) to the old form of the Mass (e.g., FSSP, which broke away from the SSPX because it wanted no part in the SSPX bishops’ schismatic actions) are in perfectly good standing with the Church. This claim – “Oh woe is us, look! we are persecuted merely for loving the holy Mass!” – is as false as it is often repeated.
 
MarkThompson said:
The excommunications were for consecrating bishops in violation of papal right. Other groups which “cling” (strange word) to the old form of the Mass (e.g., FSSP, which broke away from the SSPX because it wanted no part in the SSPX bishops’ schismatic actions) are in perfectly good standing with the Church. This claim – “Oh woe is us, look! we are persecuted merely for loving the holy Mass!” – is as false as it is often repeated.
Click to expand...
Mark, thank you so much.
Me? I had to bite my tongue.
 
MarkThompson said:
The excommunications were for consecrating bishops in violation of papal right. Other groups which “cling” (strange word) to the old form of the Mass (e.g., FSSP, which broke away from the SSPX because it wanted no part in the SSPX bishops’ schismatic actions) are in perfectly good standing with the Church. This claim – “Oh woe is us, look! we are persecuted merely for loving the holy Mass!” – is as false as it is often repeated.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying Mark. I’m beginning to trust you as a rational and highly informative source. I don’t know much about the SSPX issue and very reluctant to open a discussion about them here. Could you direct me to objective and informative sites in order to learn this chapter of our Church history?
 
StTommyMore said:
Same here. My temeper tends to get me into trouble when the SSPX gets mentioned.
Click to expand...
For one to compare the sspx (out of full communion) to
the charismatic movement (in full communion) shows a grave
misunderstanding of Church Teaching and history.

The comparison makes me very sad.
 
OurLadyPerpHelp said:
Thank you for clarifying Mark. I’m beginning to trust you as a rational and highly informative source. I don’t know much about the SSPX issue and very reluctant to open a discussion about them here. Could you direct me to objective and informative sites in order to learn this chapter of our Church history?
Click to expand...
Thank you for your remarks, but no, I don’t know of any sites that are “objective” on the issue. Most people in the Church have never even heard of the SSPX or have any idea that there’s supposedly a big “controversy” here, so the relatively small group of people for whom this is such an all-consuming issue that they will produce websites and manifestos about it tend to be their apologists. The Holy See has exercised what I consider to be astonishing restraint in commenting on the topic, so it does little good to look to Vatican statements for a full picture either.
 
I’m sorry the SSPX produces such negative emotions in so many of you. Do you know any SSPXer personally? I know one and so far I’ve heard nothing negative about the Church from him and in fact am learning quite a bit. If the SSPX upsets you so much then maybe it would be best for your inner peace to avoid this sub- forum. From the general forum rules, this sub-forum is described as “talk about the Traditional Latin Mass, the Indult, SSPX, sedevacantism”. By no means am I trying to tell anyone what to do, but in all sincerity and charity trying to make peace among us.
 
OurLadyPerpHelp said:
I’m sorry the SSPX produces such negative emotions in so many of you. Do you know any SSPXer personally? I know one and so far I’ve heard nothing negative about the Church from him and in fact am learning quite a bit. If the SSPX upsets you so much then maybe it would be best for your inner peace to avoid this sub- forum. From the general forum rules, this sub-forum is described as “talk about the Traditional Latin Mass, the Indult, SSPX, sedevacantism”. By no means am I trying to tell anyone what to do, but in all sincerity and charity trying to make peace among us.
Click to expand...
There is good reason that the SSPX generates “negative feelings.” They are not the proper expression of Traditionalism. And this sub-forum is not a “members only” club. Though not a “Traditionalist” I would have never come to appreciate the TLM without the forum. It should be welcoming, not exclusive.
 
OurLadyPerpHelp said:
I’m sorry the SSPX produces such negative emotions in so many of you. Do you know any SSPXer personally? I know one and so far I’ve heard nothing negative about the Church from him and in fact am learning quite a bit. If the SSPX upsets you so much then maybe it would be best for your inner peace to avoid this sub- forum. From the general forum rules, this sub-forum is described as “talk about the Traditional Latin Mass, the Indult, SSPX, sedevacantism”. By no means am I trying to tell anyone what to do, but in all sincerity and charity trying to make peace among us.
Click to expand...
Sure, occasionally people need to be reminded of the forum topic. Occasionally too, though, people need to be reminded that “talk about” ≠ “sing without end the praises of.” Discussion is discussion. That’s why I can feel free to come on here and, for instance, make a considered criticism of the TLM (e.g., the Last Gospel, if it is to exist at all, should logically be before the Ite missa est), instead of always “Golly gee, isn’t X just wunnerful, you guys?” There are plenty of forums out there which amount to little but a mutual self-congratulation society, with “shocked” tut-tutting over things perceived to be “other.” Actual discussion is not always unqualified praise. What’s rightly excluded here is “X stinks, it is awful and probably {was inspired by the Devil / makes baby Jesus cry}.”
 
MarkThompson said:
Sure, occasionally people need to be reminded of the forum topic. Occasionally too, though, people need to be reminded that “talk about” ≠ “sing without end the praises of.” Discussion is discussion. That’s why I can feel free to come on here and, for instance, make a considered criticism of the TLM (e.g., the Last Gospel, if it is to exist at all, should logically be before the Ite missa est), instead of always “Golly gee, isn’t X just wunnerful, you guys?” There are plenty of forums out there which amount to little but a mutual self-congratulation society, with “shocked” tut-tutting over things perceived to be “other.” Actual discussion is not always unqualified praise. What’s rightly excluded here is “X stinks, it is awful and probably {was inspired by the Devil / makes baby Jesus cry}.”
Click to expand...
Why would you want to criticize an approved liturgy of the Church?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the TLM codified by the Council of Trent? To suggest a part of it should be moved or deleted seems to be placing yourself above the Church fathers. Am I off base here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top