E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
I never said the council was to blame. I blame the liberal bishops who took the council way out of context and tried to create a brand new church out of its wake.
- Status
O
Our_Refuge
Guest
The video mixes truth with error and that is a dangerous mix. It is true that the architecture has changed. I cant’t explain why the Traditional designs have been abandoned.
It is true that the way people dress to go to Mass has become so casual that at times it is shameful, however the Protestant Churches are experiencing the same problem.
It is true that the music has changed. As a cradle Catholic I miss the Traditional Music and that is one of the reasons I go as often as I can to the Latin Mass.
What is false in the video is presenting all of this as if it were the norm. Most of the video was taken in the late 70’s and early 80’s when there was a very liberal movement in the Church. Catholic Answers Apoligist Tim Staples tells a story where, on Palm Sunday, a priest drove a volkswagon up the isle of the Church and into the sanctuary. The priest said that if Jesus were here He would enter on a Volkswagon instead of a donkey. This occured in 1978. If there were a video of this it would be on Youtube and presented as "proof’ that the church is no longer the True Church.
I can remember going to Mass with drums and electric guitars just like in the video shown. But that was 30 years ago.
But Mass with clowns, cookies and grape juice etc were isolated incidents by the liberal movement that still exists today but in far fewer numbers.
The statistics are correct. There has been a decrease in vocations and fewer Catholics go to Mass then ever before. But one statistic has to be false. To say that 70% of priests do not believe in the True Presence is a total fabrication. The video of the woman priest could well be from an Episcopal Mass.
It is a fact that in the 1950’s the Soviet Union infiltrated the priesthood by putting thousands of communists into the seminaries. The goal was to corrupt the priesthood. It is a fact that in the 70’s and 80’s there was a movement to weaken the priesthood by putting homosexuals into the seminaries while excluding anyone who was straight. Their goal was to create a priest scandel thereby creating a priest shortage and making it necessary to allow women into the priesthood.
There is no proof that the main author of the New Mass, Father Bugnini, was a freemason. At the time there were accusations that a large group of priests were freemasons and Bugnini was one of them. None of this was ever proven.
The statement that Quo Primum is "infallible dogma’ is wrong. The way a Mass is said is discipline not dogma. Was the Mass changed too radically and too fast? I believe so. But that doesn’t make it invalid or a product of Masonry.
After watching this video I can see how one can come away with the idea that the New Mass is invalid. But to accept that one must believe that Pope Benedict is allowing a false Mass and that is dangerous ground. It will lead you to become a sedevacantist and put you outside the Church. Be careful. Do not be misled. I am sure if you can find out who produced the video you will find that they believe that all of the post-vatican II Popes are false Popes, including Pope Benedict.
Keep in mind that the majority of the video is from the 70’s and early 80’s when there was a lot of abuse in the Mass. Pope Benedict is reeling in those Bishops that want to deviate from the norms and he will bring back tradition into the Mass. I have seen evidence of this myself.
It is true that the way people dress to go to Mass has become so casual that at times it is shameful, however the Protestant Churches are experiencing the same problem.
It is true that the music has changed. As a cradle Catholic I miss the Traditional Music and that is one of the reasons I go as often as I can to the Latin Mass.
What is false in the video is presenting all of this as if it were the norm. Most of the video was taken in the late 70’s and early 80’s when there was a very liberal movement in the Church. Catholic Answers Apoligist Tim Staples tells a story where, on Palm Sunday, a priest drove a volkswagon up the isle of the Church and into the sanctuary. The priest said that if Jesus were here He would enter on a Volkswagon instead of a donkey. This occured in 1978. If there were a video of this it would be on Youtube and presented as "proof’ that the church is no longer the True Church.
I can remember going to Mass with drums and electric guitars just like in the video shown. But that was 30 years ago.
But Mass with clowns, cookies and grape juice etc were isolated incidents by the liberal movement that still exists today but in far fewer numbers.
The statistics are correct. There has been a decrease in vocations and fewer Catholics go to Mass then ever before. But one statistic has to be false. To say that 70% of priests do not believe in the True Presence is a total fabrication. The video of the woman priest could well be from an Episcopal Mass.
It is a fact that in the 1950’s the Soviet Union infiltrated the priesthood by putting thousands of communists into the seminaries. The goal was to corrupt the priesthood. It is a fact that in the 70’s and 80’s there was a movement to weaken the priesthood by putting homosexuals into the seminaries while excluding anyone who was straight. Their goal was to create a priest scandel thereby creating a priest shortage and making it necessary to allow women into the priesthood.
There is no proof that the main author of the New Mass, Father Bugnini, was a freemason. At the time there were accusations that a large group of priests were freemasons and Bugnini was one of them. None of this was ever proven.
The statement that Quo Primum is "infallible dogma’ is wrong. The way a Mass is said is discipline not dogma. Was the Mass changed too radically and too fast? I believe so. But that doesn’t make it invalid or a product of Masonry.
After watching this video I can see how one can come away with the idea that the New Mass is invalid. But to accept that one must believe that Pope Benedict is allowing a false Mass and that is dangerous ground. It will lead you to become a sedevacantist and put you outside the Church. Be careful. Do not be misled. I am sure if you can find out who produced the video you will find that they believe that all of the post-vatican II Popes are false Popes, including Pope Benedict.
Keep in mind that the majority of the video is from the 70’s and early 80’s when there was a lot of abuse in the Mass. Pope Benedict is reeling in those Bishops that want to deviate from the norms and he will bring back tradition into the Mass. I have seen evidence of this myself.
D
deigloriam
Guest
Leaving aside the particular video (I haven’t watched it, yet), what is the problem with The Remnant? Aside from the Matt family feud (the other half edits another Catholic paper, The Wanderer), I have yet to see anything wrong with them. Have some who have written for them later gone a bit overboard? Yes. Do they still appear in the pages of the paper after that? No. They do nothing Catholics a mere 45 years ago did not do, and they recognize the Pope, aren’t schismatic (can a publication even be?), haven’t ordained/consecrated anyone, etc. Why always the hate?
D
deigloriam
Guest
On top of which, the late Michael Davies - Una Voce International, strong admirer of then Cardinal Ratzinger, etc. - was one of their most vocal supporters.
S
Spiller
Guest
So very true! Sometimes I think a few dozen videos and scripts of terrible abuses like the one you just mentioned were produced by anti-Catholic bigots and then spoon-fed to some members of the “Traditional Catholic” movement.
Then like clockwork when they can’t defend their often outrageous positions, they can go off on a rant about clown Masses, etc.
Sheesh!
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
Cant defend what? Be specific
E
ethelzguy
Guest
F
FrRJBoyd
Guest
Then the priest didn’t follow the Ritual of the Church.
They didn’t need to change, and I wish they didn’t. But the Chuch has the authority to change them, and we must follow the Church. I have Confirmed about two dozen people, and, as was shown in the documentary as the “correct” way, I laid my hand on their forehead as I anointed them and pronounced the form of the sacrament. This is what I was taught in the seminary, and this is how I was confirmed in 1983.
Pope St. Pius V is now in heaven and is not reigning as pope; Pope Benedict VI is the current successor of St. Peter. One pope cannot bind his successors for all eternity on a matter of discipline. Even the SSPX admits this point; i.e., that Quo Primum could, in principle, be abrogated; however, it never was abrogated.
No one can defend the actions of loose canons like this. Cookies, pizza and grape soda cannot be consecated, any more than a rock can be ordained.
I have no idea what you are talking about. The wine is consecrated at every Mass, either in the Extraordinary or the Ordinary form. The words “mysterium fidei” were moved from the consecation to immediately after the consecration, but the Chuch has the power to make that sort of decision.
Unless you produced the documentary, you shouldn’t take this statement personally.
The destruction of beauty, especially when it is dedicated to the Lord, is evil. Religious orders that do not follow their rule are dying. There are many problems in the Church today, but when one questions the validity of the Sacraments --as that documentary most definately did-- then you have nothing left. If the new ordination rite is not valid, then the Chuch is essentially dead. And the Lord has lied, since he promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, and He would be with us until the end of time. Since the Lord cannot lie, we must conclude that the Sacrmants of His Church, which He guarantees, are valid. There is no other alternative.
M
MomblessedX3
Guest
Who or what group made those videos? Does anyone know? I haven’t watched them but I am curious to know where they originated.
Thanks
Thanks
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
Before I open my big mouth, I watched the entire series. There is a great deal of truth in the videos and a great deal of distortion - heavy emphasis on the distortion.
Random observations on my part:
I belong to a reverent NO cathedral parish and have since '83. Our church was one of the very first to be renovated in '65. Out went the side altars, out went the high altar, out went all of the statues except for the Blessed Mother and out with the choir loft and organ. But we got a magnificent crucifix carved by a Croatian who was assisted by a young African American man who later became a professor of art at Southern University in Baton Rouge so not all modern art is detestable.
neworleanschurches.com/br_stjos/brstjos.htm
The choir loft was rebuilt and a new pipe organ installed in 1992. Sections of the high altar were used on the facade of the choir loft. The statuary and marble from the high altar which had been given to parishoners in the 60s is being returned and is used on the cathedral grounds and not as curbing in the parking lot… I really wish I could show you what the inside of the cathedral looked like in '65.
Music: A sense of quiet descends upon me when I sing or listen to chant. Mozart’s Ave Verum Corpus is in my choir’s repetoire. I don’t have to look too far away geographically to attend a Mass with keyboards, guitars, drums - a band not a choir. And with everyone just chatting away out loud before Mass - a time for prayer and contemplation. So, that much is true.
Abuses: Unfortunately I have seen my share of them as a cathedral choir member at diocesan events to the point where I refuse to sing at diocesan events any more. Liturgical dancers? You bet. Women in diaphonous gowns wafting bowls of incense up and down the aisle. Twelve foot tall beribboned poles with banners looking and dancing exactly like marching clubs on Mard Gras day. Cut crystal chalices and ciboriums
So there was truth in the videos but their conclusions are dead wrong. There was much good that came from V II. However, the sheep got loose in '68 and have been feeling their oats since. I believe that the Holy Father is taking steps to gently round them up.
Do I want to go back to 1965? No. I saw Paul VI’s coronation on TV and, frankly, it looked like he took a page from Cecil B. DeMille’s handbook. JPII was the servant of the servants’ of God. He who humbles himself will be exalted. The pendulum, however, needs to swing back the other way and the HF is sending out many subtle signals
Random observations on my part:
I belong to a reverent NO cathedral parish and have since '83. Our church was one of the very first to be renovated in '65. Out went the side altars, out went the high altar, out went all of the statues except for the Blessed Mother and out with the choir loft and organ. But we got a magnificent crucifix carved by a Croatian who was assisted by a young African American man who later became a professor of art at Southern University in Baton Rouge so not all modern art is detestable.
neworleanschurches.com/br_stjos/brstjos.htm
The choir loft was rebuilt and a new pipe organ installed in 1992. Sections of the high altar were used on the facade of the choir loft. The statuary and marble from the high altar which had been given to parishoners in the 60s is being returned and is used on the cathedral grounds and not as curbing in the parking lot… I really wish I could show you what the inside of the cathedral looked like in '65.
Music: A sense of quiet descends upon me when I sing or listen to chant. Mozart’s Ave Verum Corpus is in my choir’s repetoire. I don’t have to look too far away geographically to attend a Mass with keyboards, guitars, drums - a band not a choir. And with everyone just chatting away out loud before Mass - a time for prayer and contemplation. So, that much is true.
Abuses: Unfortunately I have seen my share of them as a cathedral choir member at diocesan events to the point where I refuse to sing at diocesan events any more. Liturgical dancers? You bet. Women in diaphonous gowns wafting bowls of incense up and down the aisle. Twelve foot tall beribboned poles with banners looking and dancing exactly like marching clubs on Mard Gras day. Cut crystal chalices and ciboriums
So there was truth in the videos but their conclusions are dead wrong. There was much good that came from V II. However, the sheep got loose in '68 and have been feeling their oats since. I believe that the Holy Father is taking steps to gently round them up.
Do I want to go back to 1965? No. I saw Paul VI’s coronation on TV and, frankly, it looked like he took a page from Cecil B. DeMille’s handbook. JPII was the servant of the servants’ of God. He who humbles himself will be exalted. The pendulum, however, needs to swing back the other way and the HF is sending out many subtle signals
C
cassman
Guest
Fr. Boyd,
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I’m not speaking to any changes in liturgy introduced by individuals who are not following the dictates of the Holy See. I speak only to what “the Church” can do.
Yes, the Pope has the right to modify any liturgy of the Church, including the sacraments, and there is no one with the authority to correct his decisions. (This makes the third time today I’m quoting Mediator Dei on this point. My apologies to those who wish I would not so belabor it.)
According to Pope Pius X, in exerpts from Mediator Dei: (boldface and underline: mine)
"… Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation. This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy.
…It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification…
…the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See…
…The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
…Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law.** Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation**.
…Only the Sovereign Pontiff…and with him, in obedience to the Apostolic See, the bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed… have the right and the duty to govern the Christian people. Consequently, Venerable Brethren, whenever you assert your authority . – even on occasion with wholesome severity – you are not merely acquitting yourselves of your duty; you are defending the very will of the Founder of the Church
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
No apology necessary. This is really interesting.
Is it ok to question the prudence of a Pope making a certain change? Like, if Alexander VI changed something in the Renaissance, am I guilty of sin when I write a historical paper critical of him?
Also, doesn’t this mean that a future Pope can undo the changes of a previous pope?
C
CradleCath
Guest
The Remnant is a Catholic news source for Roman Catholics. It is NOT an SSPX or sedevacantist tool. Because it promotes the Catholicism of the Ages, many liberal Catholics do not like what it prints:
An excerpt:
Loyal Opposition
**Catholics cannot leave the Church, nor are they free to lambaste and deny the Pope at will for things like his “Altar Girl Permission” or the “Assisi Ecumenical Affair” or the convening of the Second Vatican Council. **
**Catholic lay people must guard against this attitude, which is commonly referred to as “sede vacantism.” **Nevertheless, Catholics must wake up to the fact that the Church is in a state of unprecedented revolution and turmoil at present, and that, since the Council, she has undergone a near total spiritual breakdown.
remnantnewspaper.com/about.htm
O
Our_Refuge
Guest
*Catechism of the Catholic Church *: “even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy” CCC No. 1125
Cardinal Ratzinger:
“From my own personal point of view I should like to give further particular emphasis to some of the criteria for liturgical renewal thus briefly indicated. I will begin with those last two main criteria. It seems to me most important that the Catechism, in mentioning the limitation of the powers of the supreme authority in the Church with regard to reform, recalls to mind what is the essence of the primacy as outlined by the First and Second Vatican Councils: The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law, but is the guardian of the authentic Tradition, and thereby the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and is thereby able to oppose those people who for their part want to do what has come into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. The “rite”, that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living tradition in which the sphere which uses that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit which is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis the handing-on of tradition.
ratzingerfanclub.com/organic_development.html
E
EasterJoy
Guest
This is my understanding: even now, it is not wrong for someone in the laity to write, “I think the TLM has these advantages over the NO. If the TLM were the OF, I would personally prefer that”. There is nothing wrong with having opinions about the advantages and disadvantages of liturgies that were allowed or not allowed under Alexander VI. What is incorrect to say is, “Alexander VI put in the wrong liturgy for his time.” What he decreed was right for his time was right for his time. That was his perogative to decide.
It is not correct to write “The NO is the wrong Mass to have in 2007, just as it was in 1970”, since the Pope decides what is and is not correct liturgy, or “The Pope doesn’t know anything about liturgy”, since the Pope is, by virtue of his office, the ultimate world authority on liturgy.
This is not to say the Pope can’t make a factual mistake with regards to the history of liturgy or whatnot. It is also true that he might promulgate a liturgy, expecting one result, and might in fact get an entirely different result. He is not guaranteed that kind of control over the results of his choices.
It is to say that the Pope is the one and only person who decides what liturgy shall be followed during his Pontificate, that we may trust he has the guidance of the Holy Spirit on this matter, and that we may completely trust that God will never neglect His pursuit of souls in this regard. What the Church decrees for liturgy will be, for souls docile to it, a source of grace, regardless of theoretical considerations that might argue to the contrary.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Exactly. “Put not your trust in princes, in man, in whom there is no salvation.”
In all these matters, we must presume the docility of the Pope to the Holy Spirit in all matters in which we are bound to follow him. If we cannot believe that the Church is ultimately under the control of the Holy Spirit, in spite of the frailties of our shepherds, then the heirarchical structure is ludicrous.
F
FrRJBoyd
Guest
You are quoting me out of context, as is obvious from the rest of my post. The Church cannot change the essence of the Sacraments, but she does have authority over some of the details of how they are liturgically enacted. If she did not, then you would be forced to choose among the rites (Roman, Byzantine, Coptic, Maronite, etc.) for things like which form of sacramental absolution is valid.
I was referring to the ability to offer Mass according to the Traditional Roman Rite, as guaranteed to every priest in Quo Primum, which was, according to SP, never abrogated. I’m sorry if you misunderstood me.
D
da_nolo
Guest
these are very interesting vidoes that could have many effects…
but I pray that no one be discourage, and if it is seen…look into further information dealing with the Curch instead of sticking to vidoes.
D
DrivingReport
Guest
I have just finished watching this documentary for the second time this morning. All I can say is “Hmmmm…”. This is an interesting Documentary. I do applaud the documentary for trying to point out the reality of the Roman Catholic Church today. However, as many of you have pointed out there are some errors and pitfalls in the documentary. I’m going to point out the truths and lies of this documentary.
A. Truths
A. Truths
- It is certainly a truth that the exterior arcitecture of the Catholic Chuch has changed. No longer are Catholic Churches beautiful but are very “Plain-Jane” which is a shame
. I only hope that in the future Catholic Churches will once again be built exteriorly as magnificent as Notre Dame or any Church of Fatima or Medjugorje. - A Second Truth of this Documentary is that the interior look of the Catholic Church has also changed. It is true that many new churches dont contain many Religious artifacts such as Statues and paintings at the front of the Church (The Sanctuary?). I only hope one day the Sanctuary is once again filled with beautiful Relgious artifacts.
- A third truth is respect of the Holy Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ.
Personally for the majority of my life I have recieved the Eucharist in the hand but we should bring back Eucharist rails…it would certainly put an end to Eucharist abuses and it makes more sense to kneel and receive on the tongue since the Eucharist is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ and is very Devine! I don’t want to further elaborate on this because it would be VERY hyprocritical
. - A fourth Truth is that the Tabernacle containing the Body and Blood of Christ has been moved to the side. This is especially true for my Cathedral where the Tabernale is on the left side of the Altar and by itself. In my opinion is it should be with the atar where everyone can see since it DOES contain the Body and Blood of Christ. Again, until this is changed, we will have to grin and bear it.
- One Lie or Pitfall of this Documentary, was the way it seemed to stereotype all Catholic Churches of today. Certainly there was some truth but the blasphames masses (Clown Mass, Using cookie as Eucharist) are seemingly rare. I myself, have not seen anything like Clown Masses where I live thankfully but this documentary takes the worst examples of the Catholic Church Mass and sets it as the norm. This is a Lie! Not every mass is a Clown Mass. Not every priest uses a Cookie as a Eucharist. These are just very bad examples of Masses. Again this documentary sterotypes the Church in a way.
- A Second Pitfall or Lie of this Documentary the ‘Inappropriate Music’ claim. I don’t understand what they’re talking about. As far as I can see songs like ‘Born in USA’ have not been played at my Church or any other place where there has been Mass. Again, this is a stereotype of all so called ‘Norm Catholic Music’ that is played in church. This is NOT so. This ‘Inappropriate Music’ claim isn’t common as far as I know. If it is common then it’s a shame . The closlest thing I’ve seen to inappropriate Music at a Christian service was at a camp I went to where during Chapel we sang “Born to be Wild”
- A third pitfall of this Documentary is it seems to blame everything on Vatican II. Surely there has come some good of Vatican II (Pope John Paul II anyone?) What about World Youth Day (Forget the fact that you have to be able to afford to attend there for it to mean anything.)? Surely some good has come out of Vatican II.
- The fourth pitfall or lie of this Documentary is what ever Catholic or Historical facts that are inaccurate.
- Status