Nothing in the council documents says that a new liturgy is to be formed. The New Mass is not a result of the council. It is a result of the Consilium led by Archbishop Bugnini put together by Paul VI. That is simply historical fact.
'scuse me? The OP cleary stated in post #3 their position. Other posters have been supportive of his stated position.
Unless you were there, you have no idea what they dreamed of brainstormed about. I guess Paul VI just woke up one morning, and all by himself decided that we needed a New Mass…never having had a shred of (name removed by moderator)ut from anyone at the V2 council.
I didn’t take issue with Rome. I took issue with a 31-year-old who was considering the priesthood with a definitive predjudice toward the NO/OF.
Huh? Nobody has tried to talk anybody out of a vocation, except you trying to convince the OP not to a become traditional priest. Insulting orders formed and approved by the Pope is not the kind of “obedience” I’m familiar with.
Actually, there are people here that are members of FSSP and ICKSP parishes. They probably don’t appreciate your insulting their priests, who you’ve never met.
It only sounds bad because you use loaded words like “prejudice.” The Church has no problem whatsoever with priests that don’t want to say the NO. Not to mention the hypocrisy in criticizing priests that prefer not to say the NO, but not saying anything about priests that refuse to say the TLM.
Oh, my understanding was that you take issue with certain orders which are approved by Rome.
And then you said:
Sorry if I misunderstood.
I am not wondering about what each of the council Fathers thought in their minds on each day of the council. I am speaking about the council documents and pronouncements, none of which spoke of a complete revision of the Roman rite or a new rite to be created. That’s just fact. It was a product of Bugnini’s Consilium after the Council which shows it was not a part or product of the council itself.Unless you were there, you have no idea what they dreamed of brainstormed about. I guess Paul VI just woke up one morning, and all by himself decided that we needed a New Mass…never having had a shred of (name removed by moderator)ut from anyone at the V2 council.
In post #3 I said: “Another issue is the TLM. I love the traditional liturgy and would have a difficult time as a priest having to offer the Novus Ordo.” I never said someone discerning a vocation who would offer the New Mass should not be faithful to his vocation. I said that I wouldn’t want to offer the NO if given the option.
I said that I take issue with the idea of a 31-year-old considering the priesthood with a definitive prejudice toward the NO/OF.
Perhaps if you looked up the terms “ordinary” and “extraordinary”…In post #3 I said: “Another issue is the TLM. I love the traditional liturgy and would have a difficult time as a priest having to offer the Novus Ordo.” I never said someone discerning a vocation who would offer the New Mass should not be faithful to his vocation. I said that I wouldn’t want to offer the NO if given the option.
I do see a real issue here. You can say: “I only attend the New Mass and don’t like the traditional Mass” but I can’t say: “I only attend and want to offer the traditional Mass but not the New Mass.” Hmmm.
Pax Christi tecum.
But you don’t take issue with someone with a prejudice against the traditional Latin Mass and who prefers only the NO?I said that I take issue with the idea of a 31-year-old considering the priesthood with a definitive prejudice toward the NO/OF.
The OP made that quite clear in early posts, long before the FSSP was even brought up by another poster.
Nice try, though
See post #70
True enough, but if there are legitimate orders which allow for someone with a preference for the EF, why would you discourage someone from following such a vocation?I said that I take issue with the idea of a 31-year-old considering the priesthood with a definitive prejudice toward the NO/OF.
The OP made that quite clear in early posts, long before the FSSP was even brought up by another poster.
Nice try, though
And it was pointed out to you, multiple times, that Rome has no problem with priests who only say the EF, and that there are priestly societies founded to do just that. You have absolutely no valid basis to attack the poster of this thread. He has done nothing wrong.
I thought we were supposed to believe they’re both equalPerhaps if you looked up the terms “ordinary” and “extraordinary”…
I haven’t seen anyone here state that they were considering the priesthood, and that they wouldn’t want to have to say the TLM.
Nope only one of them is extraordinaryI thought we were supposed to believe they’re both equal
So you think what the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King are doing are wrong and against the Church?
Why are you using the word prejudice to make it sound negative? The Church and the Pope approve of traditional priestly societies, you’re the one that has a problem with it.
That would be dependent on the order in question accepting the candidate, wouldn’t it?