TLM minus the Latin

[Rykell]

TNT:

This idea that God directly intervenes in choosing a pope is really beyond the pale for any good Catholic.
It puts the election of a pope, every time, on the level of Divine Inspiration at least equal to the Inspiration of Sacred Tradition which includes the Bible itself.

Do you really believe you should be teaching this on a public Catholic forum? I think you ought to do some homework, my brother. You do not believe that the Holy Spirit inspires the electors? Then you probably ought not to believe the Spirit inspired the authors of sacred scripture either. Nor anything else when people gather and invoke the assistance of the Holy Spirit in making decisions according to God’s holy will.

 

[Triumpha]

Do you really believe you should be teaching this on a public Catholic forum? I think you ought to do some homework, my brother. You do not believe that the Holy Spirit inspires the electors? Then you probably ought not to believe the Spirit inspired the authors of sacred scripture either. Nor anything else when people gather and invoke the assistance of the Holy Spirit in making decisions according to God’s holy will.

The protection of the Holy Ghost is negative. In other words, it cannot be taken as a ringing endorsement of everything any pope ever does. But rather, that the Holy Ghost won’t let the gates of Hell prevail.

There have been bad popes! And the gates of Hell haven’t prevailed.

Triumpha.

 

[Rykell]

No, I would not prefer the TLM if it was prayed in english. There were many positive changes in the new mass that I have come to understand were inspired by the Holy Spirit, in spite of the problems that many endure in transition to this mass. I anticipate that this liturgy will become more purified as the hierarchy calls for strict adherence to the rubrics and in future generations, these problems will simply be rumors of old struggles.

 

[Rykell]

Triumpha:

The protection of the Holy Ghost is negative. In other words, it cannot be taken as a ringing endorsement of everything any pope ever does. But rather, that the Holy Ghost won’t let the gates of Hell prevail.

There have been bad popes! And the gates of Hell haven’t prevailed.

From the Catechism:
937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls”.

You would need to provide sources where the Holy Spirit did NOT inspire the cardinals to elect according to God’s will. Can you? Also a source where a “bad pope” exercised bad faith in the *universal power over souls. *

I agree that there have been “anti popes” but in spite of this, God intervened through St. Catherine of Siena to reveal which was the true pope God had placed in the chair of Peter. Divine Inspiration truly overcame that which was not of God.

 

[maurin]

Dear Rykell,

TNT was responding to a statement that I made above: “…the Holy Spirit chose this man.”

If you feel that TNT is erring on one side of the spectrum, it is because I had erred on the other side. I did suggest that it was by the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit that “habemus Papam.”

sincerely, maurin

 

[Hesychios]

I agree that there have been “anti popes” but in spite of this, God intervened through St. Catherine of Siena to reveal which was the true pope God had placed in the chair of Peter. Divine Inspiration truly overcame that which was not of God.

Where in the world did you get that idea?

Michael

 

[Rykell]

Where in the world? Well, St. Catherine is a Doctor of the Church, and some of us have studied her writings and are well familiar with this. For a quick summary, though, I pulled this from a website, trusting it will be helpful.

Catherine did not know what exactly her mission was, but prepared for it through penance and prayer, devoting herself to the poor. She knew in her heart the Pope belonged in Rome, the seat of Christianity. Therefore, in sight of virtually the whole world, she made a pilgrimage to Avignon in Southern France to persuade the Pontiff Pope Gregory XI to return from exile to Rome where he belonged. By her letters to the kings and queens of Europe all royalty fell in line with Catherine’s request.

Heeding the advice of this simple nun,** he did as she requested for he knew intuitively that it was God’s Will for the Almighty had sent Catherine as a light in the darkness during this dark time in Church history**.

Dissension followed Gregory’s decision to return in 1376 and those who followed their own will tried to elect a false pope and keep him in Avignon, but again Catherine intervened and lovingly, wisely counseled those in power to accept Gregory as the true pope and desist from promoting anyone else.
—skip—
Catherine knew Urban was the true Pope and did all in her power to secure support for him and end the schism. While she was a staunch supporter of his Primacy, she did not hesitate to rebuke him when she saw weakness or knew he was wrong. Knowing it was of the Holy Spirit Who inspired her, Urban VI minded her words and he brought her to Rome to be near him full time. Thus she came to be his close counselor. She never minced words with him or when sternly rebuking other prelates, especially the disloyal cardinals who took part in electing an antipope.

Long had the holy virgin foretold the terrible schism which began before she died.

 

[Adonis33]

No, I would not prefer the TLM if it was prayed in english. There were many positive changes in the new mass that I have come to understand were inspired by the Holy Spirit, in spite of the problems that many endure in transition to this mass. I anticipate that this liturgy will become more purified as the hierarchy calls for strict adherence to the rubrics and in future generations, these problems will simply be rumors of old struggles.

What changes in the mass do youunderstand to be (name removed by moderator)ired by the Holy Spirit? How did you come to this understanding?

 

[Sola_Roma]

What changes in the mass do youunderstand to be (name removed by moderator)ired by the Holy Spirit? How did you come to this understanding?

There were no changes to the Mass.

Only subtractions.

Believing the New Mass is inspired is saying that parts of the old mass needed to go.

Which is insane.

 

[Hesychios]

Where in the world? Well, St. Catherine is a Doctor of the Church, and some of us have studied her writings and are well familiar with this. For a quick summary, though, I pulled this from a website, trusting it will be helpful.

I am sorry, I thought you were implying that she helped prevent the schism, or heal it. Obviously not.

It should be noted that the church does not regard Urban as the true Pope on the basis of what Catherine had said. She merely became a partisan in the ensuing debate. The rule that there cannot be two or more sitting Popes, and an eventual recognition that the election procedure selecting Archbishop Prignano was valid requires that the succeeding line of post schism Popes recognise his line as the valid one.

Michael

 

[Triumpha]

You would need to provide sources where the Holy Spirit did NOT inspire the cardinals to elect according to God’s will. Can you?

Why do I have to? I never said that anyway. You must have misunderstood what I wrote.

Everything that happens is within God’s permissive will anyway! Even bad things. And I guess what I meant by the negative protection of the Holy Ghost, is that the Holy Ghost makes sure the worst doesn’t happen! There may well have been better candidates for Pope than some that got elected!

Also a source where a “bad pope” exercised bad faith in the *universal power over souls. *

I’m no historian. It’ll take some research. I may answer in a few years time. I’ve other easier threads and discussions to participate in!

I agree that there have been “anti popes” but in spite of this, God intervened through St. Catherine of Siena to reveal which was the true pope God had placed in the chair of Peter. Divine Inspiration truly overcame that which was not of God.

I’m not talking about anti-popes. That has nothing to do with it.

Triumpha.

 

[Triumpha]

Also a source where a “bad pope” exercised bad faith in the *universal power over souls. *

I wouldn’t like to accuse anyone of bad faith, but Pope Liberius springs to mind as a Pope who didn’t exactly do his best against the Arian heresy, what with sending the good guy into exile a few times and all, and compromising generally.

Off the top of my head!

Triumpha.

 

[Rykell]

Triumpha:

Rykell:

Also a source where a “bad pope” exercised bad faith in the universal power over souls

.

I’m no historian. It’ll take some research. I may answer in a few years time. I’ve other easier threads and discussions to participate in!

Ouch!
Nevertheless, in stating “There have been bad popes!” … your words suggested that you have full knowledge of this and could readily give examples. However, we see that it would take years of research. The question asked was how did all of these “bad popes” exercise universal power over “souls” (plural). As I suspected, your statement is without foundation, for even in giving the name of one pope, history has not fully concluded that he was a “bad” one, per the information in Newadvent.

Triumpha:

Rykell:

Also a source where a “bad pope” exercised bad faith in the universal power over souls.

I wouldn’t like to accuse anyone of bad faith, but Pope Liberius springs to mind as a Pope who didn’t exactly do his best against the Arian heresy, what with sending the good guy into exile a few times and all, and compromising generally.

It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admitted on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance before his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return, that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound.

newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

 

[Hesychios]

Ouch!
Nevertheless, in stating “There have been bad popes!” … your words suggested that you have full knowledge of this and could readily give examples. However, we see that it would take years of research. The question asked was how did all of these “bad popes” exercise universal power over “souls” (plural). As I suspected, your statement is without foundation, for even in giving the name of one pope, history has not fully concluded that he was a “bad” one, per the information in Newadvent.

I am confused, are you stating that there were no “bad” Popes?

Michael

 

[Triumpha]

As I suspected, your statement is without foundation, for even in giving the name of one pope, history has not fully concluded that he was a “bad” one, per the information in Newadvent.

It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admitted on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance before his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return, that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound.

newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

Quite. It can be freely debated. Therefore it is acceptable to believe he “fell”! And infallibility isn’t involved.

So what’s the issue? Popes make mistakes. How do we know the recent popes acted “freely”? Maybe history will show that they were acting under duress too.

Conjecture, but not impossible!

Triumpha.

 

[Rykell]

Not at all, Hesychios,

— which is why I asked Triumpha for a source showing that their personal lack of holiness was able to exercise “universal power over souls.” I just have a deep reverence for the Chair of Peter, and in spite of the sinfulness that may have been attributed to some popes, I do not believe that they were so bad as to destroy souls “universally.”

This is getting way off topic, and I am probably just as guilty for taking it there, since I originally responded to TNT, and Triumpha took it to another dimension. Please start a new thread if you think it is worth discussing further.

 

[Triumpha]

Not at all, Hesychios,

— which is why I asked Triumpha for a source showing that their personal lack of holiness was able to exercise “universal power over souls.”

Personal lack of holiness? What are you talking about?!

Where does a Pope’s personal holiness come into this?

Triumpha.

 

[Rykell]

I still feel uncomfortable going off topic over semantics, so if it continues to bother anyone, could we start a separate thread, or would you mind doing this by PM? Actually, I am not the one with the concern, as two of you have now brought up the issue.

Triumpha, I was responding to your wording, there have been bad popes. Maybe you can tell me privately what you mean by “there have been many bad popes?” Bad meaning personal holiness? Or bad in the sense of misguiding the faithful? You are the one who made the initial claim, yet you did not have the time to provide examples except for one questionable example of Pope Liberius. Having seen your posts in another thread, it seems likely to me you were misinformed by a sedavacantist website as the source for your information.

 

[Triumpha]

Triumpha, I was responding to your wording, there have been bad popes. Maybe you can tell me privately what you mean by “there have been many bad popes?” Bad meaning personal holiness? Or bad in the sense of misguiding the faithful? You are the one who made the initial claim, yet you did not have the time to provide examples except for one questionable example of Pope Liberius. Having seen your posts in another thread, it seems likely to me you were misinformed by a sedavacantist website as the source for your information.

I seldom look at sede vacantist websites. If I do, and find a useful quote on one, I tend to see if I can find it on a non-sede site too! (Which thread/quote are you talking about? The Catherine of Siena one?)

By “bad popes” I am not talking about badness in terms of their personal holiness. I’m talking about their role as pope. A good man can be a bad pope.

I’ll try to find some examples.

Triumpha.

 

[Don_Ante]

Um, Ken…I have the battle badges and insignia…been there done that.

You are quite correct It was neither hither nor yon. I was senior altar boy for my parish when this happened.

Catholic kids didn’t protest back then. Hippies, yes. Catholic kids, no. I can assure you with all the fervor of my heart that I detested the NO - I was 16 and 17 in 1967 and 1968.

And I SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN SUBJECTED TO HAVING TO SING SIMON AND GARFUNCKLE’S “BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATERS” and 'SOUNDS OF SILENCE" (did I get your attention?) at my graduation Mass from a Catholic high school in 1969.

I didn’t like it then. I was repulsed by it then…and I am repulsed by it now.

I give thanks that I am a member of a reverent NO parish but I will also say that there is an element missing.

Welcome, my Eastern brother in Christ.! I have an old Deustche Grammophone copy of the Galgolithic Mass which I bought back in the 70s. And as you are so confirmed in your eastern rites, so, too, I am confirmed in my western rites.

I just had to back up and delete alot about rites and being Irish. I will not do to others what was done to me.

My cathedral parish uses a lot of the English vernacular motets written during the late Renaissance. And, yes, they work well with a reverent NO liturgy. There’s nothing wrong with a REVERENT NO liturgy.

But, we call ourselves Catholic which means universal. In my youth, I could go to Mass in New Orleans or go to Mass in Sevilla, Spain and I could participate because the Mass was the Mass…Latin…the unifying force.

And, of course, because it is not used that often in most NO parishes, Rite I is a translation of the canon of the TLM Mass.

My friend, don’t you think that as a historian and an anthropologist that I am more than aware that my ancestors in the Emerald Isle were Celtic Catholics long before they submitted to Rome?

The knotwork of their manuscripts suggests a contact with the Coptic Church in Africa. Yes, our tonsure was different.

But there was this little thing called the Synod of Whitby…

I’m sorry. I feel as fiercely as others do. I am Irish and I am Latin Rite. My ancestors did what they had to do to preserve Holy Mother Church against the Sasenach.

More gently…the daughters and sons of Erin’s Isle came here to the swamps and marshes of south Louisiana. I am fourth generation Irish in America. I served as an altar boy for my grandmothers funeral Mass (in black vestments) in 1965 in Latin. I helped bury my grandmother in Latin.

Why, in the name of Our Lord, would I want to adopt a Renaissance English translation of the Latin? ( From a liturgical view, OK, I can see it). But why, would I, being Irish and used to the TLM adopt what could, argueably, be viewed as an English translation.

Parce Domine, parce populum…

Pax Christi,
I know this is many years since this thread was posted, but if you are still out there, I am a Croatian Catholic Priest who says the TLM and wants to say the Glagolitic Mass. I have an original Rimski Misal (1928), but when I saw you have a gramophone record of the Glagolitic Mass, I could not resist. How is it possible for me to get audio of that?
Bog i Hrvati,
Don Ante