What is the only feasible way out of the current crisis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter At_Trent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
:banghead:

Dude (or Dudette!), šŸ˜‰

YOU ARE WRONG!!

There is only one Church and Benedict XVI is her Surpreme Pontiff.
HE MAKES THE RULES!! IF HE ALLOWS IT, IT’S OK!
šŸ‘

I mean this with no disrespect and say this out of charity,
please get some help! You are seriously mis-informed.
I would suggest contacting the Adult Education/RCIA programs in your Diocese for some guidance.

Peace be with you on your journey.
I will pray for you.:gopray2:
It’s dude just so you know. šŸ˜‰

I actually said there were two Romes. As another poster on this section said, just because a Pope does something doesn’t automatically make it right.

And I’m not contacting anyone. I know there’s nothing wrong with me or my beliefs.
 
QUOTE=JKirkLVNV;6596788]A) First quotation: One rite, two usages, both legitimate.

B) In the second quotation, the Holy Father seems to think the OF will remain and be continued, because of ā€œactual situations in the communities of the faithful.ā€ I think so to, because 1) most people are attached to what they know and 2) the OF is offered in their own tongue, which MOST people, if polled, would probably indicate that they preferred.
C) Third
quotation: Obviously, the OF must be celebrated with the diginity and reverence that the Holy Father, at least, believes is inherent in it. Trouble is, some ā€œtraditionalistsā€ think it inherently flawed. To whom will most people listen? Probably the pope, since most ā€œtraditionalistsā€ who care to speak or write on the subject (setting aside those who simply want to worship according to the EF and aren’t interested in ā€œtriumphingā€ or ā€œascendencyā€ or ā€œwinningā€) range from really angry extremists who aren’t listened to anyway because they espouse other wing-nut propositions (Bishop Williamson with his Holocaust denial and denunciation of the ā€œThe Sound of Musicā€ spring to mind) to moderately angry extremists who cannot extol the EF without damning the OF, cannot sing the praises of the one without disparging the other. I suspect the reaction of many devout, orthodox Catholics who happen to prefer the OF, or who simply haven’t experienced the EF, to this kind of jingoistic rhetoric would be,ā€œCount me out.ā€ I prefer the Mass in the vernacular myself, but I tried to be charitable enough to pray, before Summorum Pontificum, that the devotees of the EF would have their hearts desire. What I have to fight against now is the growing suspicion that the arrogance and hatred toward the Mass that lead me into the Church might actually be engendered by the EF, might be the RESULT of the EF. Fortunately, I realize that IS NOT the case, but since these seem to be the kinds of people that DO frequent the EF, I won’t be any time soon.
D) Open our hearts and make room for everything the faith allows? Wow, sounds like a really good idea. What are the odds that would happen if the SSPX or even the FSSP were in charge?
I truly believe that is the FSSP were ā€œin chargeā€, they would promote both forms of the Liturgy…as the Pope expects us to do. The SSPX, I don’t know enough about their leadership to know what they would do.
since most ā€œtraditionalistsā€ who care to speak or write on the subject (setting aside those who simply want to worship according to the EF and aren’t interested in ā€œtriumphingā€ or ā€œascendencyā€ or ā€œwinningā€) **range from really angry extremists who aren’t listened to anyway because they espouse other **wing-nut propositions ?****(Bishop Williamson with his Holocaust denial and denunciation of the ā€œThe Sound of Musicā€ spring to mind) to moderately angry extremists who cannot extol the EF without damning the OF, cannot sing the praises of the one without disparging the other.
It seems to me that you are lumping all Traditional Catholics into a nice little BOX, tying it up with a pretty ribbon & leaving it out to be tromped on as often as possible. We are, as any other group, quite diverse. If I were to ā€œfollow in your footstepsā€, I would say that** all progressives **vote pro-abortion, attend the Mass they say they love about 30% of the time & LOVE the fact that they can be ā€œpretend priests & priestettesā€ & prance around the Sanctuary for all to admire. I would also say that they are extremely fearful of the TLM.

I don’t do this, because I don’t believe it to be true. I believe that many couldn’t care less about the Latin Mass & more still don’t even know that it’s offered. Yes, there are also several who are downright rude to anyone who sings the praises of the Mass of the Ages. There are quite a few who expect us to ā€œsell out our soulsā€ & say that we believe both Masses to be equal in piety & in holiness when I, for one, do not believe that.
I expect you to treat my views with respect, as I must treat yours with respect…but don’t ask me to be intellectually dishonest about something as important as the Mass.

I must say that I find you to be the angriest person on this thread. (I DO understand how the author of this thread must sound to you…trying to do away with your Mass, as I’ve been through that back in the 60’s. However, your anger has gone way past a rebuttal to the first post.)
ā€œRecognition of its value and holiness,ā€ in reference to the OF. Hmmm…the Holy Father really should hang out in the ā€œTraditional Catholicismā€ forum on CA.
What I’d like to know is why YOU are ā€œhanging outā€ in the Traditional Catholicism forum on CA. Really, I mean it…I would like to know. We have a forum for the Liturgy & knowing that the NO. is the Liturgy that most follow, I have only posted on there 2-3 times in the past several years & never mentioned the TLM.
 
I agree, but who will teach them ? How will we convince an OF priest to promote the EF from the pulpit during an OF Mass ? How can an OF priest convince them without actually praying the EF ?
I have no idea. The priests in my city wil not even announce from their pulpit (or in their bulletins) that there IS one TLM. in town. But, I do know that God is with His Church . For those of you who are young parents & have children still at home, it will be up to you to teach your kids the Tradition, take them to the Mass of the Ages & help them to learn about the (t)raditions & the pious practices that have come close to being lost. It is their heritage.

I do believe that you’ll also see young priests coming out of the Seminaries with broader minds than we’ve seen in a long time. My pastor is young & we hold both the EF & the OF at our parish. We’re also going to see more traditional Bishops as the ā€œwhite haired hippiesā€ of the 60’s retire.šŸ˜‰

Daily prayers for the Church & the Pope are a must.
 
The only divisions I see here are the ā€œEF’rsā€ who want to stomp out the OF and try to turn the clock back to the fantasy world of the 1950s.
**
Seriously, can anyone show me a instance where someone here advocated the banning of the EF? ** Just this thread alone has enough examples of those who wish to ban the OF. What makes you guys think that you have all the answers? I don’t try to interfere in the way you attend Mass…please do the same for me.
You’ve got to be kidding the TLM. was banned for 40 yrs. & how many of you on this forum worried or prayed about that. The ONLY person in this thread who has suggested banning the OF. is the person who started the thread. That is not the answer. If we, who champion the Traditional Latin Mass were to call for a ban of the Novus Ordo, we’d be hurting you in the same way we were hurt. I, for one, would NEVER approve of that.
 
I have no idea. The priests in my city wil not even announce from their pulpit (or in their bulletins) that there IS one TLM. in town. But, I do know that God is with His Church . For those of you who are young parents & have children still at home, it will be up to you to teach your kids the Tradition, take them to the Mass of the Ages & help them to learn about the (t)raditions & the pious practices that have come close to being lost. It is their heritage.

I do believe that you’ll also see young priests coming out of the Seminaries with broader minds than we’ve seen in a long time. My pastor is young & we hold both the EF & the OF at our parish. We’re also going to see more traditional Bishops as the ā€œwhite haired hippiesā€ of the 60’s retire.šŸ˜‰

Daily prayers for the Church & the Pope are a must.
Indeed, we do have Christ’s promise šŸ˜‰

I do love Papa and pray for him, I’ve got his picture on my dashboard lol.
 
There is only one Church and Benedict XVI is her Surpreme Pontiff.
HE MAKES THE RULES!! IF HE ALLOWS IT, IT’S OK!
šŸ‘
Yes, but just because he ā€œallowsā€ it, does it mean you have to do it? I’m sure it would irritate and distract someone if I were to chew gum in church or recite the responses faster than those around me, for example.
 
Huge move toward improvement, but when will it begin ?
At Trent, as a fellow Traditional Catholic, who attends the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively, I must say something & I hope it doesn’t offend you. One thing that is greatly hindering our cause is posts that say the Novus Ordo Mass should be banned. This is not what the Pope is suggesting & it’s very offensive to those who know nothing else.

I personally hope that I will never have to attend a Novus Ordo Mass again. I was 28 yrs. old in 1969 & everything we knew as Catholic was gone within a year’s time. The Churches were gutted, the Mass was changed, the Blessed Virgin was shoved aside, the nuns left their orders & the Sacrament of Penance wasn’t mentioned from the pulpit for 2 decades.

THIS DOES NOT WORK & I would hope it would never happen to anyone else. Pope Benedict is not even considering this. What he wants is for both forms of the Mass to exist side-by-side. If the Bishops would allow this to happen, I think that either the Novus Ordo would slowly fade out of existence & morph into the Mass of the Ages. But, banning & suppressing…NEVER AGAIN!!
 
I didn’t mean ban it, but phase it out. I did say teach the seminarians to pray the EF exclusively, and perhaps that’s a bit much, but they should be apt to pray the EF if asked for it. Then the spirit of the SP can be realized eventually.
 
Try reading Church history. You’ll find many reformers stayed and REFORMED the Church. Pope Benedict has said it’s a continuous process.
That should read a FEW reformers stayed & reformed the Church. Among the best of them were all of the Popes who reigned during the Council of Trent.

BTW., since you mentioned ā€œreading Church historyā€, so many of you act like there was the ā€œearly Churchā€ā€¦first 3 centuries, & today’s Church. If one is educated about the Second Vatican Council, one should be JUST as educated about the First Vatican Council, The Council of Trent & all of those held in between.
 
If the Bishops would allow this to happen, I think that either the Novus Ordo would slowly fade out of existence & morph into the Mass of the Ages.
The English OF will be ā€œmorphingā€ pretty soon into another version. And it will be significant and a major shock to many of those who loved the 1970 texts. Imagine the public outcry if they were to change the words to the Pledge of Allegiance or God Bless America to what the founding fathers intended. I’m not saying it would be wrong though, but do expect a reaction.
 
I didn’t mean ban it, but phase it out. I did say teach the seminarians to pray the EF exclusively, and perhaps that’s a bit much, but they should be apt to pray the EF if asked for it. Then the spirit of the SP can be realized eventually.
Much better!! I do believe that the Novus Ordo Mass will phase itself out. And, yes, seminarians should be taught to say both Masses.
 
The English OF will be ā€œmorphingā€ pretty soon into another version. And it will be significant and a major shock to many of those who loved the 1970 texts. Imagine the public outcry if they were to change the words to the Pledge of Allegiance or God Bless America to what the founding fathers intended. I’m not saying it would be wrong though, but do expect a reaction.
There won’t be as much of a reaction as you might think. The revised texts are not much different than the transitional texts we used in the late 60’s before the Missal of Paul VI was promulgated. The assembly’s changes are relatively minor, although it will take some getting used to and there might be some complaints, it won’t be a ā€œshock.ā€ I have studied the new texts and believe that more of an outcry will come from priests who won’t be able to use texts that they have basically memorized. But that discomfort shouldn’t last long.

I work in preparing people for the revised texts and we expect a few reactions, but if we present it well, we don’t expect a big outcry. People adapt very easily.
 
I work in preparing people for the revised texts and we expect a few reactions, but if we present it well, we don’t expect a big outcry. People adapt very easily.
If you think so. I think the response ā€œAnd also with youā€ alone has been deeply ingrained into our minds, even outside Mass. People say it without thinking all the time now.

I understand Africa has already been introduced to the new language and from various sources, they didn’t take it too well. Just saying. Maybe some warnings could have alleviated a lot of the ā€œshock.ā€
 
If you think so. I think the response ā€œAnd also with youā€ alone has been deeply ingrained into our minds, even outside Mass. People say it without thinking all the time now.

I understand Africa has already been introduced to the new language and from various sources, they didn’t take it too well. Just saying. Maybe some warnings could have alleviated a lot of the ā€œshock.ā€
That was the problem in South Africa, they introduced it before it received the recognitio and without any catechesis. Now, episcopal conferences are planning intense catechesis on this so that no one will be caught unaware. Right now all one has to do is go to www.usccb.org/romanmissal and the whole thing is there. We have over a year to prepare so it should not be a shock to anyone once it is implemented.
 
Sorry for jumping into this thread so late, but there were a few things I thought I could add.
God doesn’t need the Mass at all. We need it. That’s my point.

Why did the Church change from Greek? I don’t know. I’m guessing that politically it was a smart move to change to the language of the Roman Empire. Thus, in time, Christ’s Vicar sat on a throne in the capital of His executioners. As he does today.
I am going to say something that is going to shock some people here, but the Church never had a formal moment when it switched to Latin.

I am not sure, but I suspect that there were always Masses said in Latin from the late first century when Christianity started reaching the Western Half of the Roman Empire where Latin was the common tongue. By the late 4th and 5th centuries, even the educated classes started forgetting Greek in the Western Empire and so Latin became more and more common at the expense of Greek. But the important point is that even then, it was only the language used for the Mass for the Western Church and only then because it was the common tongue. It is only after the fall of the Western Empire, as the Church expanded beyond the borders of the Old Empire and when spoken latin started evolving into modern Romance languages that the Latin Mass became something other than a vernacular mass.

Of course Greek remained the language of the Mass in the Eastern Empire and there were even regions in the Near East where people who were Aramaic and other languages were used for the Mass. After the Islamic Conquests, and the Great Schism, only a relatively small number of non-Latin Parishes remained in the Western Church though they persist to this day.
When did that happen? In the infancy of the Church, I’d guess. 1500+ years later, things are very different. People are literate, for one. We are now called the Roman (Latin) Catholic Church. **Dumping Latin is a wheeze a bad marketing exec might do in a big company: ā€œLet’s meddle with the brand!ā€. **
Being called Roman Catholic is something that every good Catholic should oppose since it is usually used by Protestants and others to denigrate the fact that we are the Catholic Church. If we want to refer to the part of the Catholic Church where Latin used to be the normal language of worship, we should probably refer to ourselves as the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.
We have also had a hateful dumbing-down in Western society and I’m sorry to say the Church has gone along with it.
A small example: the British Daily Mail newspaper printed an exam paper from the Edwardian era. For 12 year olds. Most adults with third-level education could barely get a pass mark in it now. Including me.
**People can certainly understand every word of the Mass now. It’s on their level. Thus, what’s special about it?
Hence, casual behaviour at Mass. **
The dumbing down of society is highly exaggerated. I haven’t seen the exam you are referring to, but I would suspect that it probably was not an exam that a working class student would have been given. It certainly wasn’t the standard of education that was common in Ireland or the United States at the time.
In addition, lets remember that even 12 year olds now understand things that an Edwardian 12 year old couldn’t have even imagined. When I was a twelve year old, I knew about Galaxies, the Big Bang and Relativity… even a scientist with a PhD didn’t know about those things at the turn of the 20th century.
I don’t know. I’m just going by what I see. It’s on my list of things to do; a line-by-line comparison. When I look at a side-by-side comparison of the old vs. the new rite, I feel cheated. If you want the vernacular, that’s one thing, but cut sections out and change the text? Makes no sense to me.

If an offering is being made then why is the priest facing towards us when he does it?

The question there is who is the priest offering too? The offering is to God… not to the people, but also not to the wall.

One thing I noticed when I visited Rome was that the high Altar is usually right behind the crypt. At least the way it is now, if the priest tried to use the altar facing away from the congregation, he would fall into the crypt. Does anyone know if they changed the position of the Altars in the Major Basilicas following Vatican II?

–
Bill
 
I can’t say I have ever seen anyone denied COTT blatantly then most at an English OF receive in the hand and I don’t know what their real intent is. Are they doing it just to follow what everyone else is doing? I know I always feel very self-conscious when I receive COTT and I don’t think it should be that way. And, please, no lectures on this. :rolleyes:
Actually, interestingly enough, I have only ever seen someone denied COTH. Usually, it is a parent carryinging a child who wants to receive on the hand when they only have one hand to extend (not 2 making a throne as described by the early church document). I have also seen someone with gum in their mouth refused communion altogether. (:rolleyes:)
 
Silly question from a new Catholic. What is the main difference between Ordinary Form and EF. I understand EF is in Latin, correct. What is the other differences? I have never been to a Mass in Latin. Why would someone want to attend a Mass that you could not understand?
 
Being called Roman Catholic is something that every good Catholic should oppose since it is usually used by Protestants and others to denigrate the fact that we are the Catholic Church. If we want to refer to the part of the Catholic Church where Latin used to be the normal language of worship, we should probably refer to ourselves as the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.
I couldn’t care less what Protestants think of us. I think the fact that there are other rites in the Catholic Church is used as an excuse to meddle with the Roman Catholic rite. For example, I still don’t know which other Catholic rite uses CITH and whether there are any formalities accompanying it. Or is it an Orthodox practice? I asked on here, but didn’t get an answer.
The question there is who is the priest offering too? The offering is to God… not to the people, but also not to the wall.
Ad-orientem is towards the East, where the sun rises. I’m guessing this symbolises the Resurrection and hope. Also, it makes it obvious that he is making an offering on our behalf. We’re behind him, literally and figuratively. He’s facing the tabernacle. All good connotations.

He’s not making an offering to the wall.
 
Why would someone want to attend a Mass that you could not understand?
If he’s motivated enough, he’d learn it. Unfortunately there’re not enough real teachers to teach English, much less Latin anymore.
 
I couldn’t care less what Protestants think of us. I think the fact that there are other rites in the Catholic Church is used as an excuse to meddle with the Roman Catholic rite. For example, I still don’t know which other Catholic rite uses CITH and whether there are any formalities accompanying it. Or is it an Orthodox practice? I asked on here, but didn’t get an answer.
I wouldn’t care about what the Protestants think of us, but accepting or using that term effectively suggests that the Catholic Church is actually something less than fully Catholic (i.e., universal).
Ad-orientem is towards the East, where the sun rises. I’m guessing this symbolises the Resurrection and hope. Also, it makes it obvious that he is making an offering on our behalf. We’re behind him, literally and figuratively. He’s facing the tabernacle. All good connotations.
He’s not making an offering to the wall.
True, but facing the congregation can also symbolize that the sacrifice is offered on our behalf… and that it reflects the way that Jesus likely offered the first eucharist at the Last Supper, facing the Apostles.

Also, I know that there are some churches, even Pre-Vatican II churches, the Alter is not East of where the congregation sits.

–
Bill
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top