Vatican II and its changes

[Saxum]

With rare exceptions, most of those priests have retired or are close to it.

Thank God this is true. They inherited a thriving Church and did great damage. I was born post-Vatican II and these men deprived me of my heritage. They kept me ignorant of the Faith, didn’t tell me about the EF Mass, and wreck-ovated my local Churches. I left the Faith - the Faith I never really received to begin with. I might’ve been a priest if I’d had good soil within which to grow. I’m surely not the only missed vocation because the Lord never stops calling men. That’s why I place the blame with the Bishops. They created a noxious environment - is it any wonder many of us fled?

 

[pnewton]

That’s why I place the blame with the Bishops. They created a noxious environment - is it any wonder many of us fled?

Fled? So your an ex-Catholic?

 

[Saxum]

Fled? So your an ex-Catholic?

I lapsed for many years but came back through the grace of God. I learned the Faith through EWTN and Catholic Answers and then I discovered the Extraordinary Form - the Mass that brought me back into the Church.

In my previous post, I referred to the reasons I fled the Catholic Church as a teenager.

 

[commenter]

Thanks for sharing your story. Keep your focus on Christ, and remember to keep loving and praying for our priests. They are under enormous stress, and need our support.

 

[Matt_Michael]

No for one if you re-read scripture and review the office bestowed upon St Peter by Jesus, and secondly we traditionalist need to stick together. We cannot abandon the One True Church because we are “disheartened”. We must stand firm and fight to preserve the authentic and traditional faith. We cannot abandon our brothers and sisters in Christ who may yet come to realize the importance of tradition. My dioceses is terribly liberal but I will always remain loyal to Rome because I love the Church enough to stay with her and to defend her. Even from within.

 

[Walking_Home]

No for one if you re-read scripture and review the office bestowed upon St Peter by Jesus, and secondly we traditionalist need to stick together. We cannot abandon the One True Church because we are “disheartened”. We must stand firm and fight to preserve the authentic and traditional faith. We cannot abandon our brothers and sisters in Christ who may yet come to realize the importance of tradition. My dioceses is terribly liberal but I will always remain loyal to Rome because I love the Church enough to stay with her and to defend her. Even from within.

---

Excuse me – but you seem to be implying that “authentic” faith can only be found via traditionalism – and that non-traditionalists – need some kind of “rescuing” to become “authentic” faithful.

 

[Matt_Michael]

Not specifically but when you break down the teachings of the Catechism of the Church and who they scripturally line up, it’s important to bring back the traditional practices of the faith. The truth is that the Novus Ordo although valid thus “authentic” was in part designed by four Protestant ministers invited to be part of the V II. Along with members of the faithful who were “formally” free masons. Regardless of whether it’s true or not one should be prudent and not readily invite potential opponents to the faith.

We are currently living under the heresy of modernism which erroneously some clergy and laity believe the New Rite enables them too. So in terms of what I meant by when I said authentic, The TLM was the mass of the saints. Saints like St Padre Pio for example. The mass was perfect and didn’t need to be remade or changed. The problem in changing the mass is that the false perception of the Church “changing” its teachings has now been propagated by modernist. This is why we have confusion over the whole thing about civilly divorced and remarried being able to receive communion. The desire of some clergy and laity to change the Churches teachings on homosexuality. The list goes on.

Ultimately one thing that the mass has always been intended to be, is the ongoing unbloody sacrifice. We have the REAL presence of Christ himself! He deserves for one, our complete and total respect and that does mean, we shouldn’t receive in the hand. Which by the way Rome never said it was the preferred method of reception even in the Novus Ordo. But secondly Christ is God. He didn’t come to abolish the old laws but to complete them.

God is the same today as He was yesterday and will be tomorrow. He never changes. The Saints have said the mass is heaven on earth. The mass thus shouldn’t have changed. The Church like God doesn’t need to “get with the times”. God is out side of time and as the Bride of Christ the Church should be as well.

Do I want to “abolish” the Novus Ordo? No. I do not think that is the right way. I think parishes should be restructured to truly have Christ at its centre and two the priest should always face east. Especially for the consecration. The two masses can and must coexist.

 

[Matt_Michael]

Last point of clarity to make. Timothy in the bible mentions the importance of tradition and St Paul emphasized the importance of tradition

 

[Walking_Home]

Not specifically but when you break down the teachings of the Catechism of the Church and who they scripturally line up, it’s important to bring back the traditional practices of the faith. **The truth is that the Novus Ordo although valid thus “authentic” s in part designed by four Protestant ministers invited to be part of the V II. Along with members of the faithful who were “formally” free masons. Regardless of whether it’s true or not one should be prudent and not readily invite potential opponents to the faith.

We are currently living under the heresy of modernism which erroneously some clergy and laity believe the New Rite enables them too. So in terms of what I meant by when I said authentic, The TLM was the mass of the saints. Saints like St Padre Pio for example. The mass was perfect and didn’t need to be remade or changed. The problem in changing the mass is that the false perception of the Church “changing” its teachings has now been propagated by modernist. This is why we have confusion over the whole thing about civilly divorced and remarried being able to receive communion. The desire of some clergy and laity to change the Churches teachings on homosexuality. The list goes on.

Ultimately one thing that the mass has always been intended to be, is the ongoing unbloody sacrifice. We have the REAL presence of Christ himself! He deserves for one, our complete and total respect and that does mean, we shouldn’t receive in the hand. Which by the way Rome never said it was the preferred method of reception even in the Novus Ordo. But secondly Christ is God. He didn’t come to abolish the old laws but to complete them.

God is the same today as He was yesterday and will be tomorrow. He never changes. The Saints have said the mass is heaven on earth. The mass thus shouldn’t have changed. The Church like God doesn’t need to “get with the times”. God is out side of time and as the Bride of Christ the Church should be as well.

Do I want to “abolish” the Novus Ordo? No. I do not think that is the right way. I think parishes should be restructured to truly have Christ at its centre and two the priest should always face east. Especially for the consecration. The two masses can and must coexist.

---

So you are saying – the Ordinary Form and the Catechism of the Catholic Church don’t mesh. Oh and throwing in protestant/freemasons – doesn’t help “traditionalism”.

 

[Matt_Michael]

Will anything help Traditionalism for you? Does any offering actual truth help you? Because all these are readily available facts. Plain and simple the truth isn’t always about what’s “nice” or “easy” or what we “feel”. It’s the uplifting and adherence of the mind to reality. I never once said anything to insult the Novus Ordo. I was confirmed in the New Rite. But seeing the spiritual benefits of the old Rite and the proper Catechesis that Churches everywhere are falling short in these days, I see the need for traditional teaching. Do you know the difference in the blessings for water as a simple example between the old and new? Small details reveal big problems.

Test all things in the spirit. But again it would seem nothing will appease you when it comes to tradition. So let me ask you this. Is there something you struggle with, when it comes to tradition that makes you uneasy about it?

 

[Matt_Michael]

Let me put it to you this way. Pretending there aren’t issues and finding every angle to attack traditionalism from doesn’t make a good case for “modernism”. There has been a lot of protestantisation in the Catholic Church lately and it’s a problem.

 

[Walking_Home]

Oh I see – If it’s not “traditionalism” – it’s modernism/protestant/doesn’t mesh with the CCC.

 

[Matt_Michael]

Perhaps that’s the straightest and clearest answer you gave. Yeah plain and short. The Catholic Church is tradition. Everything that constitutes our faith is comprised of traditions. Protestantism is heresy so yeah it doesn’t mesh. Neither does modernism. Obidience to God and faithfulness to the Magisterium are what constitutes a faithful Catholic. Scripture, interpretation, the rosary, the papacy you name it. All sacred tradition. The TLM as we knew it was hardly change by the pope who ‘revised’ it. That was the mass that fed the Saints we love and that brought many souls to Christ.

If that’s something you have a problem with, then maybe you should ask Christ how He thinks you should treat his bride. As a Catholic you’re my brother/sister sorry not sure which it is. But as a result we are part of the same universal family. We will disagree. But as a brother to you I speak the truth as I see it out of love. Love is willing the good of another. My intention in what I say isn’t to tear you down but to help expand your knowledge of the truth. If you are someone who isn’t a fan of “Trads” then perhaps you need ask yourself why.

 

[Walking_Home]

Perhaps that’s the straightest and clearest answer you gave. Yeah plain and short**. The Catholic Church is tradition. Everything that constitutes our faith is comprised of traditions. Protestantism is heresy so yeah it doesn’t mesh. Neither does modernism. Obidience to God and faithfulness to the Magisterium are what constitutes a faithful Catholic.** Scripture, interpretation, the rosary, the papacy you name it. All sacred tradition. The TLM as we knew it was hardly change by the pope who ‘revised’ it. That was the mass that fed the Saints we love and that brought many souls to Christ.

If that’s something you have a problem with, then maybe you should ask Christ how He thinks you should treat his bride. As a Catholic you’re my brother/sister sorry not sure which it is. But as a result we are part of the same universal family. We will disagree. But as a brother to you I speak the truth as I see it out of love. Love is willing the good of another. My intention in what I say isn’t to tear you down but to help expand your knowledge of the truth. If you are someone who isn’t a fan of “Trads” then perhaps you need ask yourself why.

---

It is the Magisterium – that brought about/authorized/implemented the OF and it’s disciplines, gave us the CCC too. So being non-traditional – does not take one into “modernism”/protestant/unfaithfulness/etc. etc."

 

[Matt_Michael]

Not all things are bad in terms of changes in society but looking through other things you’ve said, you have a toxic and uninformed view of Catholic tradtionalism that you seem to equate with sociopolitical issues. That’s a toxic modernist approach. Do I think women should stay home while the man works? No I think stay at home dads are a good thing too. Should everyone be dressed to the nines in mass? No because some of us are poor. But we should dress respectfully and in a way that yes won’t distract people from the mass. But I’ll say this. No women cannot and should not be priest. Women should yes obey there husbands but husbands should love their wives as Christ so loves the Church. By the way that is an act of submission on the mans part. Want to know what it means by how Christ so loves the Church. Look at a crucifix.

 

[Matt_Michael]

No but liturgical abuse brought about by some of the reformation has. The biggest thing being the lack of reverence for the Eucharist.

 

[Matt_Michael]

It was the V II council that did. The Magisterium still teaches that we should receive on the tongue as an example. Rome never once said the hand was preferred as an example of abuse because of the perceived level of change. The efficacy of the old rite is also greater in terms of blessings and prayers as an FYI. There’s a reason why exorcist prefer to use Latin and the old Rite to expel demons.

 

[Walking_Home]

One more thing – there many, many, many/etc. non-traditional Catholics – who are orthodox in the Faith – without the “need” to be “rescued” by “traditionalism”.

 

[Melchior_1]

The TLM was the mass of the saints. Saints like St Padre Pio for example.

Whenever people say “the TLM was the mass of the saints”, they ignore there’s 20+ rites and forms and uses in the Church, Many, many Saints would have been a part of one of those 20+ rites.

The irony in your statement; Saint Padre Pio was a Franciscan. Throughout his life he would have participating in valid, traditional Masses that used the Franciscan Missal and the Franciscan liturgical calendar.

Last point of clarity to make. Timothy in the bible mentions the importance of tradition and St Paul emphasized the importance of tradition

The “paradosis” (traditions) mentioned by Paul means Sacred Tradition. If he meant customs and practices, he likely wouldn’t have been as opposed as he was to circumcision for new Catholics,

There’s Tradition, then there’s tradition. The latter can change (like fasting regulations) and can even be optional.

There’s a reason why exorcist prefer to use Latin and the old Rite to expel demons.

Quantitative documentation required, please. Something better than an opinion piece.

 

[Matt_Michael]

Again I never made an attack but you have many times in other threads against traditionalist.