L
Lainey63
Guest
Wow! Someone said their prayers before they blogged. You can’t improve on that statement Frosty. Not the content nor the style…was someone speaking through you?
- Status
T
tcm22
Guest
Aka The Catholic Church, the Popes, the Bishops (at least those licitly consecrated), and the Magisterium.
Christ instituted an Apostolic Church led by Peter with the authority to teach and forgive sins.
Clearly the SSPX, as evidenced both here and on their website, don’t accept that. This is the fruit of pride and ego. Its sort of sad that these folks have such a tiny view of the Universal Church. For them Christ can only exist in a limited form and in a specific fashion. Don’t like they hymn or the paint color? Christ has left the building. Clearly they know better than the entire body of Church leaders over the past 40 years, right?
T
Timothysis
Guest
So everything was beautiful, was it? What about the fact that their ordinations, though valid, are illicit, and that they are immediately suspended from their duties without any faculties? What about the fact that they cannot licitly celebrate Mass or any of the sacraments? How can one be “doing the work of God” when they have no active ministry in the Church and their celebration of Mass is unlawful according to Canon law?
P
PJM
Guest
What one choses to believe when it bears to foundation to the Single truth on the issue means nothing to God. He does not ask us to VOTE on His Commandments, the third one COMMANDS “Keep holy the Sabbath Day,” Combine that with Mt. 16:18-19 and they are wrong, and if they have gone to this extent absolutely SHOULD know better!
Heb. 6: 1-8 “Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 with instruction about ablutions, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits. 4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. In a most specific way this applies to fallen away Catholics] 7 For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.”
This frightning and extremely clear to folks like this. They do not have the right to usurp Church Authority and Biblical teaching!
May God have mercy on them and grant then understanding before its too late:blush:
Love and prayers
D
DonaNobis_Pacem
Guest
Vatican Council II did not create a “new” Church. The Holy Father himself has declared that it is a valid Ecumenical Council, even though it did not define doctrine or declare dogma, and must be given assent of faith.
There are no such people as “Novus Ordo-ites”, only Catholics. Catholics who attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass, are in communion with the Chair of Peter, and who practice their faith are just as much Catholics as those who attend the Extraordinary Form, who are also in communion with the Holy Father, and who practice their faith. This is because of the ontological change to the soul when a person is baptized, and by virtue of their baptism become children of God. Personal preferences for the form of the Mass one attends does not trump one’s obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation. Neither can anyone or anything take away the fact that one is baptized Catholic, even if the person were to fall away from the Faith.
There are still seven Sacraments. This has not changed, even after Vatican Council II. They still impart grace because of the authority Christ gives to His ordained ministers, even if they use the current formulae. How much grace we receive depends on how we respond to it.
The Ordinary Form of the Mass is the Mass, except it is one use of the Latin Rite. The Extraordinary Form is the other use. Pope Benedict XVI made this clear when he issued Summorum Pontificum. It is obvious there are people here who do not recognize the authority of the Holy Father, and when ANYONE goes against the authority of Peter for no reason other than spiritual arrogance and pride, that gets my dander up.
I love the Catholic Church. I love the Faith. I love the Holy Father. I am a Catholic who attends the Ordinary Form.
Any questions? :nunchuk:
There are no such people as “Novus Ordo-ites”, only Catholics. Catholics who attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass, are in communion with the Chair of Peter, and who practice their faith are just as much Catholics as those who attend the Extraordinary Form, who are also in communion with the Holy Father, and who practice their faith. This is because of the ontological change to the soul when a person is baptized, and by virtue of their baptism become children of God. Personal preferences for the form of the Mass one attends does not trump one’s obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation. Neither can anyone or anything take away the fact that one is baptized Catholic, even if the person were to fall away from the Faith.
There are still seven Sacraments. This has not changed, even after Vatican Council II. They still impart grace because of the authority Christ gives to His ordained ministers, even if they use the current formulae. How much grace we receive depends on how we respond to it.
The Ordinary Form of the Mass is the Mass, except it is one use of the Latin Rite. The Extraordinary Form is the other use. Pope Benedict XVI made this clear when he issued Summorum Pontificum. It is obvious there are people here who do not recognize the authority of the Holy Father, and when ANYONE goes against the authority of Peter for no reason other than spiritual arrogance and pride, that gets my dander up.
I love the Catholic Church. I love the Faith. I love the Holy Father. I am a Catholic who attends the Ordinary Form.
Any questions? :nunchuk:
I
iluvburpees
Guest
Yes, you’re right. Celebrating the True Mass is evil and disobedient to God. The SSPX is the only priestly society that is doing the Work of God. You don’t see that, however, because you, no offense, are so narrow-minded in your view of Vatican II and the Mass.
Have you ever attended an SSPX chapel and witnessed the Mass as it has always been offered? Just curious.
Last year, I saw the Pope on EWTN saying a mass at the world youth day thing. It was horrendous. Communion in the hand and a popish-type song being sung during communion were two of the disgusting things I saw during this “mass”.
F
fulbert4605
Guest
The path leading to Christ truly is straight and narrow.
Satan’s ultimate goal is to get people damned. An effective way to do this is to get people out of union with the Pope since that broad stroke of the brush will have the greatest chance at getting the most people damned. Some people were never in union with the Pope in the first place. Simply put - these are the liberals. The people satan cannot liberalize he then pulls too far in the other direction - ultra conservatives. Sounds like the family mentioned in the OP is ultra conservative.
For an image i can come up with a ball of play-doh. Satan takes a great portion of the play-doh and stretches it to the left. Satan then takes a portion of the play-doh and stretches it to the right. There is not much that remains in the middle. Where you are located is completely up to you.
The radical traditionalists make the moderate traditionalists look bad. When someone is thinking of joining the ranks of a traditionalist, they might see the radical traditionalists and be turned off. They throw the baby out with the bathwater and decide not to become a traditionalist, not necessarily knowing how many levels of traditionalists there are.
i believe the same situation can be applied to government conspiracies. There does exist light government conspiracies like liberals being in high places when it comes to lawyers, education, seminaries, etc. When a person thinks of becoming a believer in government conspiracies, they might see the 9/11 truthers held up. The 9/11 truthers go too far with government conspiracy. And when said person finds out the 9/11 truthers are false, they throw the baby out with the bathwater and then decide to not believe in government conspiracies.
The path leading to Christ truly is straight and narrow. Please realize that you can veer either way off of a path.
Satan’s ultimate goal is to get people damned. An effective way to do this is to get people out of union with the Pope since that broad stroke of the brush will have the greatest chance at getting the most people damned. Some people were never in union with the Pope in the first place. Simply put - these are the liberals. The people satan cannot liberalize he then pulls too far in the other direction - ultra conservatives. Sounds like the family mentioned in the OP is ultra conservative.
For an image i can come up with a ball of play-doh. Satan takes a great portion of the play-doh and stretches it to the left. Satan then takes a portion of the play-doh and stretches it to the right. There is not much that remains in the middle. Where you are located is completely up to you.
The radical traditionalists make the moderate traditionalists look bad. When someone is thinking of joining the ranks of a traditionalist, they might see the radical traditionalists and be turned off. They throw the baby out with the bathwater and decide not to become a traditionalist, not necessarily knowing how many levels of traditionalists there are.
i believe the same situation can be applied to government conspiracies. There does exist light government conspiracies like liberals being in high places when it comes to lawyers, education, seminaries, etc. When a person thinks of becoming a believer in government conspiracies, they might see the 9/11 truthers held up. The 9/11 truthers go too far with government conspiracy. And when said person finds out the 9/11 truthers are false, they throw the baby out with the bathwater and then decide to not believe in government conspiracies.
The path leading to Christ truly is straight and narrow. Please realize that you can veer either way off of a path.
L
Lainey63
Guest
So an illicit mass is beautiful? What about all the other sacraments you don’t receive from the SSPX priests but you think you do? I hope you didn’t go to confession to an SSPX priest with a mortal sin on your soul then go to Holy Communion. Or do you pick & choose How do you judge within your heart what priest is worthy & what priest is not? Do you totally reject the Holy Father so far it appears you do in word & deed? If that’s the case you are not a catholic in any way shape or form. There are many TLM masses within the True Roman Catholic Church. You can only receive the sacraments from the True Roman Catholic Church by an Ordained Priest. The TLM Masses are said by an Ordained Priest of the Roman Catholic Church or do you think you have cause to reject that too? If you think Christ is being crucified within His own church then why do you abandon Him?
T
Timothysis
Guest
And you, no offense, are so narrow-minded in your view of Vatican II and the Mass that you fail to see the forest for the trees. Catholicism is not reduced to the latin Mass and nothing else; as a priest once told me, the Church is only as small as we make it.
Their Masses are illicit and their priest are acting in disobedience in celebrating the Mass by operating while under suspension and without any ecclesial faculties. Why would any good Catholic attend Mass there.
Communion in the hand is allowed by the authority of those in charge; while you may not prefer it ( and I will sympathize with you here) it is still allowed and is not an abuse against legitimate authority. A “popish-type song” may not be your first preference, but it in no way is an abuse. I don’t see how either of these two examples can be classified as “disgusting.”
What is truly disgusting is your putting the word “Mass” in quotations when speaking of a Papal celebration of the liturgy.
I
iluvburpees
Guest
Yes, it is beautiful. And I not only think that I receive the sacraments, but I do receive them. I go to confession usually once a week, and I go to Communion at basically every mass. I wouldn’t go to confession to any other priest, let alone a Novus Ordo priest (who, if ordained in the new rite, might not even be validly ordained).
I do not “pick and choose” which priest is worthy or not. Judging belongs to God alone. However, I can certainly reach valid conclusions based on observed facts. And this conclusion is that the Novus Ordo is dangerous and essentially Protestant, and that the SSPX is truly smiled upon by God and the Blessed Virgin. I guess it was just a coincidence that the two previous Rosary crusades were a success. I wonder why?
T
Timothysis
Guest
I ask you this; can you please show me examples from the Missal of Pope Paul VI that are “essentially” protestant; not your opinions, but actual examples.
Thank you.
L
Lainey63
Guest
As one who lives in the South, if the NO is Protestant, then someone forgot to tell them. I moved from RI (mostly Catholic) to an area where I am called an idol worshipper and lots of other things simply because I am Catholic.
A smile or an act of Mercy. The Blessed Virgin Mary always hears & listens to her children but we don’t always listen and heed her requests.
I
iluvburpees
Guest
It’s all here: catholic.shrineofsaintjude.net/homec020.html
L
Lainey63
Guest
Just more apologists not inline with the Holy Father. Is this another Sede Vacanist group?
L
Lainey63
Guest
Take a look at this example of the Mercy of God & His Holy Mother
sistersofmarymotherofthechurch.org/67
sistersofmarymotherofthechurch.org/67
D
DorianGregorian
Guest
Two points:
First off there are people here who are confusing a Dogma with a Discipline. Dogmas are fundamental to the faith, examples of this include the Divinity of Jesus, the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, the Blessed Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, etc. These are things that no one, not even the Pope, can change.
However the form of the Mass is not Dogmatic. In reality, there are only 8 words in the Mass that cannot be changed; the unchangeable part of the Mass are the words of Consencration (This is my body…This is my blood…), so as long as you have a valid Priest who has valid Intent, Form, and Matter, Transubstantiation takes place.
Some people say that the Canon is unchangeable, again this is false. The SSPX has no problem with using the name of St. Joseph in the Canon, because this was promoted by St. Pius X while he was a Cardinal well before Bl. John XXIII inserted the words. Similarly St. Gregory the Great (my Patron Saint
) altered the Canon significantly, but kept the intention of the ancients.
Now I do not think the main criticism of the N.O Mass lies in the extremes such as guitars and drums. The N.O Mass to me is a Valid Catholic Mass, but even when celebrated as reverently as possible, cannot express the fullness of the Faith like the Tridentine Mass. However if the Church has approved the form, who am I, a layman who does not (yet
) hold a degree in Theology.
In addition some people have problems with the form of Confirmation and Holy Orders. As far as Confirmation the words are “Receive the Holy Spirit” which are taken from Scripture (John 20:22) how can this not be OK? As far as the form of Holy Orders, it’s well established that the form varies because the different Catholic Rites all have different forms. What’s important is that the form is approved by the Church, which has the power to Bind and Loose.
That said, as long as you are using a rite and form approved by the Holy See, it’s a Catholic Mass. I attend the N.O Mass during school every Sunday (or Sat night, our Chaplain sometimes cannot be present on Sunday as he is the Parishioner at the local Church) because it’s the only one I can get to, but whenever possible I attend TLM offered by Indult (maybe once a month). This does not prevent me however from praying the 1960 Office, and the Chaplain at the College accommodates my traditional requests when possible (he doesn’t mind when I Commune kneeling and on the tounge, and on Ash Wednesday for example he has offered to recite Genesis 3:19 as opposed to Mark 1:15).
Laus Deo
First off there are people here who are confusing a Dogma with a Discipline. Dogmas are fundamental to the faith, examples of this include the Divinity of Jesus
, the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, the Blessed Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, etc. These are things that no one, not even the Pope, can change.However the form of the Mass is not Dogmatic. In reality, there are only 8 words in the Mass that cannot be changed; the unchangeable part of the Mass are the words of Consencration (This is my body…This is my blood…), so as long as you have a valid Priest who has valid Intent, Form, and Matter, Transubstantiation takes place.
Some people say that the Canon is unchangeable, again this is false. The SSPX has no problem with using the name of St. Joseph in the Canon, because this was promoted by St. Pius X while he was a Cardinal well before Bl. John XXIII inserted the words. Similarly St. Gregory the Great (my Patron Saint
) altered the Canon significantly, but kept the intention of the ancients.Now I do not think the main criticism of the N.O Mass lies in the extremes such as guitars and drums. The N.O Mass to me is a Valid Catholic Mass, but even when celebrated as reverently as possible, cannot express the fullness of the Faith like the Tridentine Mass. However if the Church has approved the form, who am I, a layman who does not (yet
) hold a degree in Theology.In addition some people have problems with the form of Confirmation and Holy Orders. As far as Confirmation the words are “Receive the Holy Spirit” which are taken from Scripture (John 20:22) how can this not be OK? As far as the form of Holy Orders, it’s well established that the form varies because the different Catholic Rites all have different forms. What’s important is that the form is approved by the Church, which has the power to Bind and Loose.
That said, as long as you are using a rite and form approved by the Holy See, it’s a Catholic Mass. I attend the N.O Mass during school every Sunday (or Sat night, our Chaplain sometimes cannot be present on Sunday as he is the Parishioner at the local Church) because it’s the only one I can get to, but whenever possible I attend TLM offered by Indult (maybe once a month). This does not prevent me however from praying the 1960 Office, and the Chaplain at the College accommodates my traditional requests when possible (he doesn’t mind when I Commune kneeling and on the tounge, and on Ash Wednesday for example he has offered to recite Genesis 3:19 as opposed to Mark 1:15).
Laus Deo
T
Timothysis
Guest
No sir; you are being disingenuous. These people, Priests of the diocese of Campos, Brazil, are not in union with the Holy Father and, as far as I remember, have been excommunicated.
I ask you again; will you please show me examples from the Missal of Pope Paul VI that are “protestant?”
C
CWBetts
Guest
You, my friend, are ignorant of doctrine. Where in Tradutuin does it say anyone can go against Rome because of personal issues. I can think of some who have in the past. Martin Luther did. So did Henry VIII, under the direction of Thomas Cranmer. In other words, those who hold your views, that you can break with Rome because you are annoyed,pretty much meet the dictionary definition of Protestant.
A
AJV
Guest
If you look at that list, most of the things on it are either just simple statements without backing or support from the text of the Mass itself (“represents a departure”,etc.)
And some are just strange:
How?
In a thread I opened recently, I posted how in fact, the schemas of the Mass show that everything that supposedly came as a result of Protestant collaboration was already done much before they came on the scene in 1966.
The problem is that (a) not all Lutheran Orders had a Prayer of the Faithful, and certainly not in the form that it was incorporated (b) there is ample evidence from schemas, books written by reformers and those advocating liturgical change, even decrees of the Holy Office against innovation before it was legislated that these “Prayers of the Faithful” were not meant to approximate Protestants but to return to a practice believed to have died out in the Roman liturgy, and common to all other liturgies of the East and some in the West.
Now we may ask: where does the judgement, witnessing and interceding come from? Evidently from the absolution the priest recites. But it cannot be the priest reciting the Misereatur, because this does not make him unique- the server does so to him as well. If then, one says it is the priest alone reciting the “Indulgentiam”, in the NO as well, the priest alone recites the “Misereatur”
Which is a quote divorced form it’s context. Which Protestant denomination has adopted verbatim the NO? None. There is always some change.
We can consider this: who bows when narrating something, and then genuflects in the middle of the narration? If the Words of Consecration were only “narrative” then why would the GIRM itself say things like “partem narrationis dicens quae ad consecrationem calicis pertinet”. It clearly shows that it is called a narrative only as it regards its literary structure but is meant to be consecratory.
The quote can be seen to be modified and out of context by its very claim. It doesn’t single out one of the Eucharistic Prayers but indicts all. This is clearly quite laughable when one considers, for example, the highly realistic language of EP IV, which in the oblation is more explicit than even the Canon.
Well, this is not really instrinsic to the missal itself, is it? Because the Traditional Missal prescribes no hymns, only Propers - and neither does the NO.
Oh, no! In fact, the only Anglican service of the period that could be considered to have a close format with the NO was the 1549 BCP. But all the canonized martyrs were martyred either when the Latin Mass was still being used, or under the 1552/9 BCP’s which are NOTHING like the NO (a a simple perusal will show).
There are other numerous examples throughout the so-called reasons, very few of which can actually claim to be decent arguments
R
Rose5
Guest
Numerous statements made on this particular thread, by many of you, are highly impressive in there depth of true knowledge of our Catholic faith and doctrine.
Reading many of these well stated words has actually increased my faith ten-fold, and
reminded me of numerous, historical Catholic facts that I personally had not reflected on
in a number of years.
The people of whom I had mentioned in the beginning of this thread are actually total
strangers. It was actually a couple that had their home advertised for sale by owner.
Whilst viewing their house and grounds, they happened to mention that they were
“Devout and Traditional Catholics”. After I mentioned that I was also Catholic, then they asked me to view their private chapel, which was quite lovely indeed.
That is when I asked them where the closest Catholic Church was located in that area.
Perhaps this better explains to some of you as to why I felt rather uncomfortable when
they told methey had not attended Mass in many years, and it would be better for me to not attend Holy Mass anymore also.
It was an unexpected turn of events, when I only went there, by appointment, to view their
home for sale.
Many of these wonderful apologist facts some of you are stating shall be hopefully
recalled ver batim if/when the need arises in the future.
I was not judging them for their choice, but surprised by their stance, as that
is the first time I had personally experienced speaking to people that state they are devout
Catholic, but do not attend Mass because of various reasons.
Thank you once again to each of you for your enlightenment on this particular subject.
Reading many of these well stated words has actually increased my faith ten-fold, and
reminded me of numerous, historical Catholic facts that I personally had not reflected on
in a number of years.
The people of whom I had mentioned in the beginning of this thread are actually total
strangers. It was actually a couple that had their home advertised for sale by owner.
Whilst viewing their house and grounds, they happened to mention that they were
“Devout and Traditional Catholics”. After I mentioned that I was also Catholic, then they asked me to view their private chapel, which was quite lovely indeed.
That is when I asked them where the closest Catholic Church was located in that area.
Perhaps this better explains to some of you as to why I felt rather uncomfortable when
they told methey had not attended Mass in many years, and it would be better for me to not attend Holy Mass anymore also.
It was an unexpected turn of events, when I only went there, by appointment, to view their
home for sale.
Many of these wonderful apologist facts some of you are stating shall be hopefully
recalled ver batim if/when the need arises in the future.
I was not judging them for their choice, but surprised by their stance, as that
is the first time I had personally experienced speaking to people that state they are devout
Catholic, but do not attend Mass because of various reasons.
Thank you once again to each of you for your enlightenment on this particular subject.
- Status