M
Matt_Michael
Guest
Go look it up yourself
- Status
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I point out the “toxicity” – that is flowing through “traditionalism”. And it’s this “toxicity” – that is the real/true enemy of the EF/tradition.
Last edited:
M
Melchior_1
Guest
You made a fairly outlandish claim without any citations or reputable sources, it’s reasonable for me to ask you to provide some.
It would also be nice if you could respond to the rest of my previous post as well.
M
Matt_Michael
Guest
Actually it isn’t outlandish. What’s outlandish is Catholics who have lost their sense of faith and pride in their faith. You’re able to use forums, thus you can go and make use of the internet to look this up. Maybe read some Fr Chad Ripperger.
M
Matt_Michael
Guest
Also this is a discussion forum. I’m not here to write you an essay with citations. But hey if you don’t believe all the Catholic faith has to teach you’re more than welcome to go elsewhere.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Not a problem. Pius V clarified the directives of the Council of Trent and kept alive ALL Catholic rites older than 200 years, or 1370 A.D.
Last edited:
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Yes, I’m able to use forums and find out information for myself. However, as someone with a journalism background, I like seeing sources and corroboration when people make certain claims - especially ones that appear to be subjective. It’s reasonable of me to ask you to provide some when you make a claim such as the one you made.
Please show me where I have said I didn’t believe all what the Catholic faith teaches.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Saints participated in those rites during the era of the Tridentine. If the Tridentine was “the Mass of the Saints”, the implication is that other valid rites that produced Saints aren’t as valid or good - which is categorically false.
E
edwest211
Guest
Pope Benedict:
"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
There are some people who make change an idol. There were dissidents inside and outside the Church that were and did use Vatican II as an excuse to introduce “arbitrary deformations of the liturgy.” I was there before and after Vatican II. When I came to Church and saw the small altar and the priest facing the people, I was obeying Holy Mother Church as she, not me, decides. All of the other changes blamed on Vatican II weren’t even mentioned by Vatican II. The goal was to wreck the Church using various means. It took 40 years to finish most of that work but some of it is being undone. What the wolves did is being eliminated. The last sentence in the above sums things up.
E
edwest211
Guest
What I’ve experienced myself and watching adults while growing up, was far more effort being given toward living out what the Church teaches. Both Detroit newspapers would run beautiful articles about Christmas every year. Even one of the local radio channels would sing: “Merry Christmas from CKLW.”
During the 1990s, I was driving past a Christian church, but I’m not sure if it was Catholic, and I saw this sign:
“CH_RCH” “The only thing missing is U.”
Today, Catholic communities and even a sense of community have all but disappeared in larger, urban areas. An hour in Church and then trying to live out all the things Catholics should do, daily, is difficult. Turn on the radio, turn on the TV or go to the movies and you’re exposed to a lot of bad ideas and the acting out of really bad behaviors. And it keeps getting worse and worse. More profanity, more partial nudity, more unmarried people having sex – with no consequences. What are your friends and coworkers doing and talking about? The Walking Dead? Now, those are images I don’t want in my head but I watched it to get a sense of what was going on. Graphic killing, a skull being smashed against the side of a boxcar. Where are the action figures for that? I can’t watch it anymore. It’s disgusting.
And where is the respect for others? Do you even know your neighbors? I wouldn’t blame you for being cautious. My idea of a “fun” weekend is not drinking and watching porn or doing the things “a guy my age should be doing.” I’ve found other things to do that lessen the impact of what is “popular” today. If “America” is doing it, odds are, I’m not. Sure, I get tempted but daily prayer is a big help. A real help.
And we need Catholic communities and groups again. In the front of my Church were banners for the various religious groups associated with my parish. Easter Mass was a big deal. We carried potted lilies while the pastor led a procession and altar boys held a canopy over his head while others swung containers of incense. It was beautiful.
In the 1960s, the Federal Government told us we should be “proud of our Judeo/Christian Heritage.” Where do you hear that today? It’s true. Led by the media, the Body of Christ in the West was gradually, slowly poisoned as the volume was turned up to get us used to a little bad then a little more and a little more until today. Realize this, my friends. Fill your hearts and minds with the Truth. Meditate on it daily.
Psalm 1:2:
New International Version
but whose delight is in the law of the LORD, and who meditates on his law day and night.
New Living Translation
But they delight in the law of the LORD, meditating on it day and night.
English Standard Version
but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.
New American Standard Bible
But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night.
During the 1990s, I was driving past a Christian church, but I’m not sure if it was Catholic, and I saw this sign:
“CH_RCH” “The only thing missing is U.”
Today, Catholic communities and even a sense of community have all but disappeared in larger, urban areas. An hour in Church and then trying to live out all the things Catholics should do, daily, is difficult. Turn on the radio, turn on the TV or go to the movies and you’re exposed to a lot of bad ideas and the acting out of really bad behaviors. And it keeps getting worse and worse. More profanity, more partial nudity, more unmarried people having sex – with no consequences. What are your friends and coworkers doing and talking about? The Walking Dead? Now, those are images I don’t want in my head but I watched it to get a sense of what was going on. Graphic killing, a skull being smashed against the side of a boxcar. Where are the action figures for that? I can’t watch it anymore. It’s disgusting.
And where is the respect for others? Do you even know your neighbors? I wouldn’t blame you for being cautious. My idea of a “fun” weekend is not drinking and watching porn or doing the things “a guy my age should be doing.” I’ve found other things to do that lessen the impact of what is “popular” today. If “America” is doing it, odds are, I’m not. Sure, I get tempted but daily prayer is a big help. A real help.
And we need Catholic communities and groups again. In the front of my Church were banners for the various religious groups associated with my parish. Easter Mass was a big deal. We carried potted lilies while the pastor led a procession and altar boys held a canopy over his head while others swung containers of incense. It was beautiful.
In the 1960s, the Federal Government told us we should be “proud of our Judeo/Christian Heritage.” Where do you hear that today? It’s true. Led by the media, the Body of Christ in the West was gradually, slowly poisoned as the volume was turned up to get us used to a little bad then a little more and a little more until today. Realize this, my friends. Fill your hearts and minds with the Truth. Meditate on it daily.
Psalm 1:2:
New International Version
but whose delight is in the law of the LORD, and who meditates on his law day and night.
New Living Translation
But they delight in the law of the LORD, meditating on it day and night.
English Standard Version
but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.
New American Standard Bible
But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night.
Last edited:
M
Matt_Michael
Guest
Though you may have a background in journalism but that doesn’t mean you have a full understanding on this matter. I recommend you spend a lot of time digging. There are three main branches of Rites. Not 20 plus. That’s a gross exaggeration. The three main rites are Roman, Byzantine and Antioch. There were and are minor variants in such. Such as Chaldean falling under Antioch. If you compare those masses to the mass of Trent there is an incredible striking similarity that speaks to the unity of the mass. The Novus Ordo breaks all that. It hardly resembles anything of our tradition and faith.
Finally it was an error of pope Paul VI to change the mass and technically he went against an unchangable edict. This was Pope Pius V said in his bull: By this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it." And he concluded: “No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
Speaks for itself. This is where you need to set aside academics and pick up faith. If we believe in the Church and thus the rock it was founded upon, than this should be heeded.
Finally it was an error of pope Paul VI to change the mass and technically he went against an unchangable edict. This was Pope Pius V said in his bull: By this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it." And he concluded: “No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
Speaks for itself. This is where you need to set aside academics and pick up faith. If we believe in the Church and thus the rock it was founded upon, than this should be heeded.
I
IrishCoffee
Guest
I hear ya but stay faithful to Rome.
P
pnewton
Guest
Pick a pope? You say one pope was in error for not doing what another pope said four hundred plus years earlier, do you not recognize the internal inconsistency in this thinking? If Pope Paul VI, could make an error in a matter of discipline, then so could Pope Pius V. Or maybe, like has been discussed here ad nauseum, the historical context clarifies that Pope Pius V was addressing an issue of his time and never meant to try and bind all popes, and God, for the future of all eternity over a disciplinary matter.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
To accuse Blessed Pope Paul VI, raised to the altars by beatification, is absurd
There is much to say about erroneous arguments by integralists & sedevacantists that wish to say that the liturgy, as reformed and renewed according to the guidelines and mandates of all Bishops gathered in ecumenical council, were without authority
It is absurd for anyone…layperson, cleric or theologian…to even dare question the decision of the College of Bishops acting with & under their Visible Head, the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Successor of Saint Peter. They are the living Magisterium. They are the guardians of the Deposit of the Faith. They are judged by no one. Their decisions are received with docility
There is an easier way, however, to do proceed
You will note the disclaimer on the forum website
Note that on Catholic Answers, there are the following statements, which are the opposite of what you write regarding the Blessed Pope Paul VI’s power to make changes.
Doesn't the New Mass Reject Pope St. Pius V's Mandate in Quo Primum Requiring the Tridentine Mass?
Quo Primum concerned a disciplinary matter in the Church, not an infallible teaching on faith or morals. Evidence of this is that an infallible teaching on fait...
And the quoted passage below is taken from the following link, also on the Catholic Answers Website.
Is It a Doctrine or a Discipline?
How does the Catholic Church distinguish between "doctrine" and "discipline?" Here are some helpful tips to help you understand the difference.
Users of the Forum are required to yield to declarations from the Catholic Answer Website as the position to be held, per the disclaimer
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
It actually lasted beyond Vatican II, @Xanthippe_Voorhees
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Pope Saint John Paul II answered your question in his motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, in speaking of the tragedy of those who followed Marcel Lefebvre in his schismatic act.
Our beloved Holy Father – the Saint of God – wrote of such people
The measure of your adherence to the person of the Vicar of Christ is the measure of your fidelity to Tradition. Those who are Catholic are bound to a higher standard in their fidelity, as the world’s bishops reminded us at Vatican II in Lumen Gentium
Last edited:
P
ProVobis
Guest
Not Quo Primum but the Council of Trent. Session 7
Might be better translated with a “whomsoever” but the point should be clear.
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
Jumping in a little late, but Trent also taught the Church’s power to institute new rites and change those that are already there:
Trent, Session 21:
It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.
Likewise, Vatican II said the same thing your excerpt from Trent said–that pastors can’t change the approved rites of the Church:
Vatican II, Constitution on the Liturgy:
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Trent, Session 21:
It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.
Likewise, Vatican II said the same thing your excerpt from Trent said–that pastors can’t change the approved rites of the Church:
Vatican II, Constitution on the Liturgy:
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Then the question becomes one of whether the bishop has the authority to suppress a RECEIVED and approved rite of the Church. I believe Benedict XVI gave an answer to that.
- Status