To the clerics that are against the TLM

[Ham1]

The examples you gave are perfect examples of what the so-called “spirit of V2” has given us. It it what the majority of the Church Fathers envisioned at the 2d Vatican Council? That’s debatable, but for the sake of discussion, I’ll say no.

Now here’s where the rubber meets the road… what was it that opened the door itself for “the spirit of V2” to cause practicing Catholics to disbelieve The Real Presence, quit going to Mass altogether, vocations to dry up, etc?

I’m of the opinion that it was the vague, generic, do-it-yourself liturgy that is The Mass of Paul VI.

And of course, you’ll disagree with me. That’s OK. But one thing I don’t think can be argues is that pre-V2, Catholicsim was a lot of black on one side… a lot of white on the other… and a very thin strip of gray in the middle. Present day we have a very thin strip of black on one side… a very thin strip of white on the other… and a huge block of gray in the middle.

After all, Lex orandi, lex credendi.

I don’t doubt that the NO made it easier for poorly formed priests to abuse the liturgy. But, they had to be poorly formed first and that happened in the seminary well before Vatican II.
Just like guns don’t kill people, the liturgy doesn’t abuse itself. It needs an agent with poor formation or a bad intention. The fact is with or without Vatican II we would be in bad shape because of the very poorly formed priests who were in seminary in the 40’s through the 80’s. Thankfully, only in the last 10 years are we getting better new priests.

The general changes in society contributed also to a skepticism which began to permeate our culture. After all, Vatican II didn’t cause the hippie movement of the late 60’s. There was a rebellion of the youth against tradition and, no doubt, some of them tragically brought this to the liturgy. Mass attendance started to decline in 1957 and basically was a steady decline through 1995. If the NO was not really implemented until the late 60’s then how did the steady decline begin 10 years prior to the arrival of the NO?

Is the NO solely responsible for the decline in active Catholicism? No. Is it partly responsible? Sort of, because it is easier to abuse. But, make no mistake. If the vast majority of bishops since Vatican II were like Bishop Bruskewitz and others, the NO would not bear nearly the reputation that it now possesses.

So, what was the primary cause of the weak homilies, watered down theology and abused liturgies? Poorly formed (and sometimes ill-intentioned) priests and bishops.

What is the remedy? A return to orthodoxy in our seminaries. A return to orthodoxy in the parishes inspired by the products of these seminaries and the appointment of more bishops in the mold of Burke and Bruskewitz. BUT, it will take a long time to wash away the vestiges of 60 years or more of many, many seminaries infected with modernism.

As for the black and white, there is just as much black and white as before. But, there are far fewer priests and bishops who know what is black and white than back in the 20’s or earlier (I won’t say pre-Vatican II because let’s face it MANY of the priests and bishops who allowed modern heresy into the seminaries and perpetrated abuse in the liturgy were educated way before Vatican II.

Through all of this there is hope. Look at what St. John Vianney accomplished in his lifetime. All it takes are more good priests and bishops to bring us back on track.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Now here’s where the rubber meets the road… what was it that opened the door itself for “the spirit of V2” to cause practicing Catholics to disbelieve The Real Presence, quit going to Mass altogether, vocations to dry up, etc?

I’m of the opinion that it was the vague, generic, do-it-yourself liturgy that is The Mass of Paul VI.

No doubt. A total ruination of the most Holy Mass. I would go further and say that the Mass of Paul VI is not a Catholic mass since it is protestantinized.

And of course, you’ll disagree with me. That’s OK. But one thing I don’t think can be argues is that pre-V2, Catholicsim was a lot of black on one side… a lot of white on the other… and a very thin strip of gray in the middle. Present day we have a very thin strip of black on one side… a very thin strip of white on the other… and a huge block of gray in the middle.

That is putting it lightly.

 

[Ham1]

No doubt. A total ruination of the most Holy Mass. I would go further and say that the Mass of Paul VI is not a mass at all.

That is putting it lightly.

And this is the type of attitude among traditionalists that make good bishops ask “Do I want more people in my diocese heretically proclaiming that the Mass is not a Mass?”

Even the SSPX disagrees with you there (well at least they claim to disagree).

Are you a sedevacantist? You should be, if you want to be intellectually honest.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

And this is the type of attitude among traditionalists that make good bishops ask “Do I want more people in my diocese heretically proclaiming that the Mass is not a Mass?”

I am on my way out, but I will be back later and challenge you of comparing the Novus Ordo with the TLM. And you can enlighten me as to how they are the same. I did not tread here but we shall see who is heretical.

Even the SSPX disagrees with you there (well at least they claim to disagree).

 

[Caveman]

I don’t doubt that the NO made it easier for poorly formed priests to abuse the liturgy. But, they had to be poorly formed first and that happened in the seminary well before Vatican II.

I can agree with you on that only to a certain degree, Ham. Many who were formed pre-V2, WERE formed correctly, The problem lies in that the pervasive “spirit of V2” was all the rage from the close of the Council until present day. What many, amny clerics did was to simply give into the “Rome says it’s OK” mentality, and VIOLA! nonsense like the Archdiocese of LA’s REC (Heresy-O-Rama) are common place.

And as far as the “society was going to hell in a handbasket anyways” argument… again, Catholicism SHOULD have been the bulwark against such. But sadly, due to the “spirit of V2” attitude, the Catholic Church just went with the flow. Where’s my evidence? Just look around you.

 

[Unfinished]

And this is the type of attitude among traditionalists that make good bishops ask “Do I want more people in my diocese heretically proclaiming that the Mass is not a Mass?”

Sure. But half of them never stop and wonder if they want something like a Cardinal Mahoney liturgy in their diocese. You fall of the boat on either end.

Everyone needs to stop blaming the TLM for sedevacantists. Satan will snatch a man up however he can. Let the TLM stand on it’s own merits, not the people who advocate it. The fruits of the TLM are huge, every TLM parish shows that. And because our Bishop took the time to come to a TLM that he inherited, he knows it now too.

Just like some of those who advocate the NO are so liberal it’s silly. (Dare I say heretical?) We all know the NO “should be done correctly.” Yet a LOT of the time it is NOT. We also know that the TLM people shouldn’t be elitist. Yet sometimes they are. Just listening to those folks is listening to extremeists. It never bodes well.

Honestly, you wouldn’t want everyone basing the NO off of Cardinal Mahoney, would you? So stop judging the TLM based on the SSPX attitude.

 

[Ham1]

Honestly, you wouldn’t want everyone basing the NO off of Cardinal Mahoney, would you? So stop judging the TLM based on the SSPX attitude.

I agree very much with what you have said!

I DON’T judge the TLM off the SSPX. But, I believe many bishops out there do. And it’s tough to blame them when traditionalists who are good faithful Catholics who attend indult Masses come flying in to defend the SSPX at every opportunity. To all true Catholic lovers of the TLM: Let the SSPX occupy their mushy middle ground between orthodoxy and sedevacantism. Don’t come rushing to their defense! Distance yourselves from them so that others can see the beauty of the TLM on it’s own merits.

In the same way, that people should not always think of the SSPX and the TLM as one and the same, neither should people think of the NO and Mahony-style Masses as one and the same.

 

[Ham1]

I can agree with you on that only to a certain degree, Ham. Many who were formed pre-V2, WERE formed correctly, The problem lies in that the pervasive “spirit of V2” was all the rage from the close of the Council until present day. What many, amny clerics did was to simply give into the “Rome says it’s OK” mentality, and VIOLA! nonsense like the Archdiocese of LA’s REC (Heresy-O-Rama) are common place.

And as far as the “society was going to hell in a handbasket anyways” argument… again, Catholicism SHOULD have been the bulwark against such. But sadly, due to the “spirit of V2” attitude, the Catholic Church just went with the flow. Where’s my evidence? Just look around you.

I would submit that a properly formed priest does not “give into” abuses of the liturgy when he knows that they are violations of the rubrics. Be serious. Do you think FSSP priests who sometimes say the NO Mass get swept up in an uncontrollable urge to abuse the liturgy???

“Nonsense” like the Mahoney Masses isn’t commonplace. Yes, they happen to often but it doesn’t mean it is commonplace.

 

[Unfinished]

I agree very much with what you have said!

I DON’T judge the TLM off the SSPX. But, I believe many bishops out there do. And it’s tough to blame them when traditionalists who are good faithful Catholics who attend indult Masses come flying in to defend the SSPX at every opportunity. To all true Catholic lovers of the TLM: Let the SSPX occupy their mushy middle ground between orthodoxy and sedevacantism. Don’t come rushing to their defense! Distance yourselves from them so that others can see the beauty of the TLM on it’s own merits.

In the same way, that people should not always think of the SSPX and the TLM as one and the same, neither should people think of the NO and Mahony-style Masses as one and the same.

I don’t like to defend the SSPX. I think they need to tuck their tail between their legs and come home.

But at the same time, I love the Mass. And I don’t want this to turn into a “valid or not” SSPX Mass thread, but a lot of times (in true, manly fashion) I will cry when I attend certain Novus Ordos. And my friends know it. So we avoid them. Or I have to keep my eyes closed the entire time.

Honestly, I would attend an SSPX Mass over that. But then I would have to be wary during the homily. I have heard some bad joo-joo coming from the pulpit there too. But at least I would be able to pray.

I think defense of the SSPX comes in a lot of time because in many areas they are the only source of the TLM. If this Motu Proprio EVER comes out gopray then I think you will see the true seperation between those who merely love the TLM and those who want to be disobedient. When every diocese has multiple indults, there won’t be an excuse anymore.

 

[Unfinished]

I would submit that a properly formed priest does not “give into” abuses of the liturgy when he knows that they are violations of the rubrics. Be serious. Do you think FSSP priests who sometimes say the NO Mass get swept up in an uncontrollable urge to abuse the liturgy???

You know a FSSP who says the NO? Better not tell anyone.

The FSSP priest I know has never said one and he said most never do. It’s kind of a faux pas.

 

[Ham1]

My comments in bold:

I am on my way out, but I will be back later and challenge you of comparing the Novus Ordo with the TLM. And you can enlighten me as to how they are the same. I did not tread here but we shall see who is heretical.

 

[Rykell]

Caveman:

But you, dear Rykell… you just keep covering your ears and scream “On Eagles Wings” at the top of your lungs. Like I’ve stated before, you are typical of the “Spirit of Vatican II progressives”. You sneer down your noses at everything traditional.

This is typical of immature gradeschoolers who get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. In psychology, it is referred to as “transference” – the guilty party transfers the guilt to the one who indicts him. Let’s review. You began the thread with words that “sneered down your nose” at everything NO, yet you accuse me of doing that very thing without a single shred of proof. Your own words stand in evidence of YOUR “sneering,” however. Let me refresh your memory.
OP:

We’re absolutely sure that the overwhelming majority of Catholics will reject the Latin Mass because of it’s lack of tambourines, bongos, hand holding, feel good spirit, arm raising, shaking hands during The Sign of Grope, fast-food gingle hymns, spontaneous applause, chewing gum while taking Communion, self-worship, etc.

Incidentally, On Eagles Wings is the entire Psalm #91 from sacred scripture, and anyone who finds fault with this is totally ignorant of psalmody. You fail to honor that “some” may find refuge and consolation in remembering this psalm as they sing it — they are not heretics if they happen to appreciate it. But that doesn’t fit your image, huh? Solely because YOU don’t like it, so may nobody else.

And you’re especially laughable now that you’re tap-dancing after I’ve exposed you for the snotty child that you are. All of a sudden, you have no problem attending a TLM, but oddly enough, only if they fit your qualifications. Interesting indeed.

No, not all of a sudden. I never said that I had a problem with the TLM, only in attending it where the participants with bigotry make up the congregation. You have difficulty translating the thoughts of others when it suits you, and as you said, it gives you much joy to dissect my words. Isn’t that typical of the name ascribed to many traditionists? Radical? I picture you riding a horse wearing a white hood with a torch in your hand ready to “burn em!” (NO’s)

As for the word “arse,” it is no small secret what you meant had you been allowed to use it here, but the software does not permit it. Maybe you already tried, as you similarly used it in your blog, unedited. This conversation is not going anywhere. I have voiced my opinion that the reason for the delay in the M.P. is due possibly to theads such as this. Many have hoped the Vatican would view You-tube, but I trust they have viewed these threads as well.

What really hurts me is that the honest folks who sincerely pray for the opportunity to worship in the manner they desire in the TLM are going to be prevented in doing so, simply because of the radicalism and dissent from so many in this group. You fail to love your neighbor as yourself and consider the cost to their cause.

Enough. I’m done here.

 

[Ham1]

I don’t like to defend the SSPX. I think they need to tuck their tail between their legs and come home.

But at the same time, I love the Mass. And I don’t want this to turn into a “valid or not” SSPX Mass thread, but a lot of times (in true, manly fashion) I will cry when I attend certain Novus Ordos. And my friends know it. So we avoid them. Or I have to keep my eyes closed the entire time.

Honestly, I would attend an SSPX Mass over that. But then I would have to be wary during the homily. I have heard some bad joo-joo coming from the pulpit there too. But at least I would be able to pray.

I think defense of the SSPX comes in a lot of time because in many areas they are the only source of the TLM. If this Motu Proprio EVER comes out gopray then I think you will see the true seperation between those who merely love the TLM and those who want to be disobedient. When every diocese has multiple indults, there won’t be an excuse anymore.

I agree with you. Except I would never attend an SSPX Mass.

Yes, we need more indult Masses. We’ll get them through good bishops and prayer.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I don’t doubt that the NO made it easier for poorly formed priests to abuse the liturgy. But, they had to be poorly formed first and that happened in the seminary well before Vatican II.
Just like guns don’t kill people, the liturgy doesn’t abuse itself. It needs an agent with poor formation or a bad intention. The fact is with or without Vatican II we would be in bad shape because of the very poorly formed priests who were in seminary in the 40’s through the 80’s. Thankfully, only in the last 10 years are we getting better new priests.

The general changes in society contributed also to a skepticism which began to permeate our culture. After all, Vatican II didn’t cause the hippie movement of the late 60’s. There was a rebellion of the youth against tradition and, no doubt, some of them tragically brought this to the liturgy. Mass attendance started to decline in 1957 and basically was a steady decline through 1995. If the NO was not really implemented until the late 60’s then how did the steady decline begin 10 years prior to the arrival of the NO?

Is the NO solely responsible for the decline in active Catholicism? No. Is it partly responsible? Sort of, because it is easier to abuse. But, make no mistake. If the vast majority of bishops since Vatican II were like Bishop Bruskewitz and others, the NO would not bear nearly the reputation that it now possesses.

So, what was the primary cause of the weak homilies, watered down theology and abused liturgies? Poorly formed (and sometimes ill-intentioned) priests and bishops.

What is the remedy? A return to orthodoxy in our seminaries. A return to orthodoxy in the parishes inspired by the products of these seminaries and the appointment of more bishops in the mold of Burke and Bruskewitz. BUT, it will take a long time to wash away the vestiges of 60 years or more of many, many seminaries infected with modernism.

As for the black and white, there is just as much black and white as before. But, there are far fewer priests and bishops who know what is black and white than back in the 20’s or earlier (I won’t say pre-Vatican II because let’s face it MANY of the priests and bishops who allowed modern heresy into the seminaries and perpetrated abuse in the liturgy were educated way before Vatican II.

Through all of this there is hope. Look at what St. John Vianney accomplished in his lifetime. All it takes are more good priests and bishops to bring us back on track.

Ham1, I recommend you repost that graph in regards to the claim that Mass attendance started to decline in 1957. I disagree of course; it started to decline in 1965, but let people take a look.

By the way, are any of us on this forum really aware at all of what seminary formation was like in the 1940’s and 1950’s?

Although I won’t deny that modernism existed in the Church throughout this time, it had just been pushed underground (as it should have been). Perhaps the discipline of the TLM kept certain priests who were secretly modernists in check, then when the New Mass was introduced along with the attitude that with Vatican II the Church was essentially “starting over” from ground zero these Priests no longer felt any need to stay in check.

Of course, to me, this argues even more for the strength of the TLM if it helped keep the discipline of the Church intact overall despite the inner convictions of some modernist Priests.

Further, if one looks at the article “The Case for the Latin Mass” one notes that Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote that critique in 1966. Apparently it was difficult to find a Latin Mass:

"It is difficult to find a Latin mass anywhere today, and in the United States they are practically non-existent. Even the conventual mass in monasteries is said in the vernacular, and the glorious Gregorian is replaced by insignificant melodies.

MY CONCERN is not with the legal status of the changes. And I emphatically do not wish to be understood as regretting that the Constitution has permitted the vernacular to complement the Latin. What I deplore is that the new mass is replacing the Latin Mass, that the old liturgy is being recklessly scrapped, and denied to most of the People of God."

latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

(Cont.) …

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

(Cont.) …

I futher wish to quote from the statistical analysis done in the article, “Novus ordo Missae: The record after thirty years.” by Dr. James Lothian:

What then went wrong? The problem, I believe, resides in the liturgy itself — both the way in which it was altered and what it was changed into.

For almost fourteen hundred years the Roman Rite remained largely the same. The few changes that did occur were all relatively small in nature and quite spread out over time. Historians of the liturgy point to roots of the Roman Rite that extend back to the fourth century. Three centuries later, according to the great English liturgist Adrian Fortescue it was almost fully developed. “[A] modern Latin Catholic who could be carried back to Rome in the early seventh century would — while missing some features to which he is accustomed — find himself on the whole quite at home with the service he saw there,” Fortescue wrote (1913).

One of the important hallmarks of human institutions that stand the test of time is that they are effective. They do what they are supposed to do better than the alternatives. As a result, they survive, while their competitors go by the boards. This, I would argue, is the reason why the Roman Rite varied so little from one century to the next.

The other general feature of such institutions is that they develop slowly, evolving gradually and seemingly by trial and error rather than being implemented all at once according to some grand design drawn up on high. They are, to use the phrase made popular in my own field of economics by the Nobelist Friedrich von Hayek, the “result of human action not of human design.” In this connection, J.A. Jungmann referred to the Roman Rite as a “liturgy which is the fruit of development” (cited in Ratzinger, 1993).

At heart, the liturgy is our encounter with God. It is the ultimate of human institutions. It is the one institution that aims at uniting created with Creator, imago Dei with Deus. A liturgy that does this well, by the very fact that human nature does not change, will not change in any substantial degree either.

The argument that it had to be radically altered thirty years ago and ever after tinkered with to be relevant to and understood by “modern man” is fundamentally misguided. As Cardinal Ratzinger has argued, it involves “a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of the essence of the liturgy and of liturgical celebration. For in the liturgy one doesn’t grasp what’s going on in a simple rational way, as I understand a lecture, for example, but in a manifold way, with all the senses, and by being drawn into a celebration that isn’t invented by some commission but, that, as it were, comes to me from the depths of the millennia and, ultimately, of eternity” (Ratzinger, 1996, p.175).

Post-Vatican II, it was indeed a commission that ruled. We see the end results of this policy in the data that I have just presented. Msgr. Klaus Gamber, I believe, summarized the situation quite well when he wrote: “The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman Rite, with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which is was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries” (Gamber, 1993, p. 102).

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-10/lothian.html

There was simply nothing significant which happened in 1957 that accounts for the continual plummet in Mass attendance.

God bless.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

ThereCanBeOnly1:
Greetings. I edited my post just prior to your reply as this:

I would go further and say that the Mass of Paul VI is not a Catholic mass since it is protestantinized.

So it is a mass of sorts, but not a Catholic one. If you can support that it is Catholic please do so, I am willing to accept documented evidence. I have been to several denominational masses, and they are very much the same as the Novus Ordo. I am would like to learn as much as possible from this thread.

Is there some peculiar intellectual position that one can hold where one is “non-sedevacantist” and a “sedevacantist” at the same time? I’m sorry but the principle of non-contradiction demands that you either are or are not. There is no in between

.

You must support your view with evidence and so if the so many documented evidences prove that Benedict XVI is heretical or has heretical positions, than I am a sedevacantist. Simply you must substantiate your position. That is why I asked YOU for clarification about the references I cited from the VATICAN itself. I was astounded.

This is very much off the topic of the thread and perhaps a good topic for a new thread. I haven’t gone through and analyzed what he said. Am I to assume that you are of the opinion that what he has done is blasphemy and that he is no longer the Pope?

You should analyze what he said. There are dozens of other references that can be cited from his addresses, his books, etc., that are heretical. You are answering my question with a question. If the previous cited comments of Benedict XVI are true, then is that heretical? If that is heretical can he still be the Pope?
Here is something else I would like clarified :
Benedict XVI, Address, Dec. 22, 2006: “My visit to Turkey afforded me the opportunity to show also publicly my respect for the Islamic Religion, a respect, moreover, which the Second Vatican Council (declaration Nostra Aetate #3) pointed out to us as an attitude that is only right.”( L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 3, 2007, p. 7.)

Please take note: Benedict XVI said that he respects, not just Muslims, but the false Islamic religion itself. This is apostasy. Further, notice that he admits that Vatican II itself teaches respect for the false religion of Islam. Thus, he admits that Vatican II endorsed a false religion and taught that respect for it is “an attitude that is only right.”

Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella fede (# 15), Dec. 8, 1892:

“Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions…”(The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 304.)

Obviously I am not well versed in theology as Benedict and Bishops. I have read these positions, the Bishops must have read at least some of them. Then if they agree with the positions and are heretical positions, it is reasonable to make one wonder why the clerics are against the TLM. So we are not off topic.

Oh, and this quote of your making:

And this is the type of attitude among traditionalists that make good bishops ask “Do I want more people in my diocese heretically proclaiming that the Mass is not a Mass?”

If I have an incorrect understanding then please correct me in a Christian manner not with absurdities. If I am understanding these positions incorrectly prove otherwise. Not by making anti-Christian and anti-Biblical comments. And If I may cite this to you: ** Mt 9: 11-13 **…They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill. Go then and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners (New Testament).
I think it pertinent that you should not talk of your diocese. When I looked last Christ+ was still head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23).

I await your reply
Respectfully and God+ Bless.

 

[Unfinished]

By the way, are any of us on this forum really aware at all of what seminary formation was like in the 1940’s and 1950’s?

Well. I know ONE priest personally who was formed prior to Vatican II. He has been ordained 46 years.

It’s fun to listen to him talk about the entire gauntlet of changes that have taken place. From the Mass to the Divine Office. It is all very interesting.

The way he describes seminary I picture “hardcore.” If anything, I would compare it to the FSSP seminary now. (Go on thier website and check out their daily schedule. Kinda intimidating). He had to delay his formation an entire YEAR to learn Latin.(This was akin to pre-theology). He said for an entire year he did nothing but eat, sleep and breathe the Latin language. I wish we could still do that now.

He is a valuable resource. Pretty soon there will be no pre-Vatican II priests left.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Ham1:
Ham please see my other post for you #154.

HAM1 please tell me what you make of this?

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.** Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:** “Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been
delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to
read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”(Pope St. Pius V, Bull Quo Primum, July 14, 1570.)

Is this true now as it was then or not? If true, makes you wonder why clerics are against the TLM?

Respectfully and God+ Bless.

 

[Uxor]

Honestly, I would attend an SSPX Mass over that. But then I would have to be wary during the homily. I have heard some bad joo-joo coming from the pulpit there too. But at least I would be able to pray.

I think defense of the SSPX comes in a lot of time because in many areas they are the only source of the TLM. If this Motu Proprio EVER comes out gopray then I think you will see the true seperation between those who merely love the TLM and those who want to be disobedient. When every diocese has multiple indults, there won’t be an excuse anymore.

I’ve never attended a SSPX Mass, but I do belong to a Tradtional Parish. Who said there was some bad joo-joo coming from the pulpit? What was that in reference to, talking about sin and the way to holiness, instead of love, love love?

I see the separation coming from liberal catholics who are already disobedient.

 

[Rykell]

Dear ThereCanBeOnly1,

While I cannot speak for Ham1, it is rather disingenuous of you to hijack the OP’s thread to begin your own tear-down of the Church. The moderator closed your last attempt, yet here you go again, same subject matter, all in the name of innocent questioning … forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1991472&postcount=220

It appears to me that since you are extremely well-read, as evidenced in your quoting portions of many official documents and books, that it is a very simple matter to find the answers to your questions, IF they were posed with a view to learning. I suspect they are merely bait to project your own false views upon members of this forum, and that your mind is already made up.

You:

The fact that Benedict XVI holds that Masses without any words of consecration are valid proves that this is contrary to the Catholic Faith. By his own words, he is a manifest heretic against the Church’s sacramental teaching. And this heresy is repeated in a number of his books. This is what I have read in the above cited references. Please if there is another explanation I would greatly like to hear it, since I thought his words and works spoke for themselves.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1991737&postcount=221