What We Have Lost & the Road to Restoration

[GregoryPalamas]

OK…since we have all finshed assuming things and slandering people can we get back to the topic at hand…and discuss, like adults, the video…I really would like to have an inteligent conversation without insults flying about this!

It would be nice. As an Eastern Catholic I would ask you all why those who believe that the traditional mass is more reverential and faithful to tradition and more helpful for our salvation than is the examples shown in the video. Conversely, would those who believe that the NO as exemplified in the video are more reverential, faithful, and helpful than the traditional mass say why.

This is the kind of approach I think that will keep the discussion on an even keel among those who are loyal to the Church.

CDL

 

[Marilena]

It’s OK, Marilena. it’s all figured out. We are going to kiss and hug, and then sit in a circle holding hands and singing KhumBayYa

 

[JKirkLVNV]

How strange that we live in a time when those who defend the traditions of the Catholic faith and oppose modern errors, those who wish to return to the authentic Catholic Mass which was promulgated by the holy Council of Trent (though it is much, much older than Trent) and Saint Pius V, the Mass that has produced thousands of saints, are accused of being against Roman Catholicism…** Very, VERY stirring (pausing to wipe a tear from my eye). Ahem…there. Slight problem, once you get past the above rhetoric: the film doesn’t simply oppose modern errors. The film lumps modern errors (which certainly is a problem) and modern abuses (with which there certainly is a problem) in together with the legitimately promulgated Mass of the Church. The film doesn’t attack the abuse of the Mass, the film attacks the Mass itself. It is Catholic teaching (VERY conveniently forgotten by “traditionalists”) from the Council of TRENT (which I believe you mentioned) that the Church cannot propose to the faithful an rite, any outward sign, any liturgy, that would lead those faithful into impiety. I can only assume that you must have some sympathy with the idea that the NO Mass is NOT authentic, since you refer to the TLM as the “authentic” Mass. while those proponents of modern innovations and of an artificial, banal liturgy that was carefully crafted by a committee for the purpose of removing whatever might be offensive to heretics (this is well documented, hardly well-documented (with primary sources); though there is PLENTY of subjective propaganda on the topic, there is little credible information from objective sources (sources historians would regard as being bona fide) which is barely distinguishable from the Lutheran order of service (because they have common antecendents in the liturgical history of Christianity), and which, far from increasing faith in the Real Presence and Sacrificial nature of the Mass has actually contributed to a plummet in Mass attendance objective proof, please, correlation does not prove causation**, the belief that the Mass is primarily a communal meal, and the fact the less than one-third of all Catholics even believe in the Real Presence in nearly 20 years, I haven’t met a single Catholic who doesn’t believe in the Real Presence.–yes, the proponents of these things are considered the “faithful sons and daughters of the Church”. **The faithful sons and daughters of the Church are the ones who work against abuses without heaping scorn on the Mass, the popes, the Council. They don’t heap scorn on the Church.

** How is it that those Catholics who merely practice the faith as it has been practiced by saints and popes for centuries, who adhere to dogmas and understand them in the precise, unambiguous way they had always been understood, are suspected and accused of being “disobedient” and having a “schismatic mindset”, If you’re talking about Archbishop Lefebreve and the Fab Four, they are disobedient and schismatic, not to mention excommunicated. Those who associate with them are indeed in danger of developing a schismatic mindset. There are lots of Catholics who attend the TLM by indult who haven’t fallen into this error and haven’t started down the slippery slope of schism.
while those “Catholics” who participate in the personality cult centered around the previous pontiff, OLD and TIRESOME argument, frankly. If John Paul II was treated as a rock star by some, then that’s simply because they didn’t get him. who cheer with enthusiasm at his every whim, at each innovation he introduced what innovations? Do you mean something along the lines of Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel at the end of Mass, an “innovation” of just over a hundred years ago. I assume you object to the Mysteries of Light or each tradition he discarded, He discarded no part of Sacred Tradition at each ambiguous man-centered speech or encyclical I hate to break it to you, but God is somewhat interested in humanity, you know. Interested enough that He died for us., who out of a false sense of obedience promote opinions and customs that would have gotten them excommunicated a century ago, **Since we don’t regard the popes as having departed from the faith, it only makes sense that we should obey them.**who prefer the New Order liturgy (and thus likely would have prefered the Lutheran or Anglican service had they lived during the Protestant revolution) to the Mass of the ages, **Again, perhaps you don’t realize that what the Novus Ordo has in common with protestant liturgies has more to do with common liturgical antecedents than any attempt to “protestantize” the Mass. Also, many prefer the NO simply because it’s generally in the vernacular. Trent never condemned that out of hand, it simply said it didn’t seem to be a good reason at that point. The Mass was allowed in the venacular in parts of Europe by lisence of the Holy See before VII. **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But why am I suprised…this is the time of reNEWal, the “new springtime”, the “new evangelization”, the “new order of the mass”, the new “mysteries of light”, and basically anything else that favors novelty and innovation over tradition.

Think of them as “organic” developments, if you wish.

 

[Anima_Christi]

Thousands? A little exaggerated don’t you think?

And since you made the comment about the Lutheran order of service, would it mind proving it?

Saying that those who favour the NO Mass would have favoured the Lutheran and Anglican service is, if you don’t mind me saying, a little ludicrous. But perhaps you could explain why?

You don’t think that we have had thousands of saints canonized since the Roman Mass has been around? We have had *at least a *thousand saints since the Council of Trent, and the Traditional Mass has been around much longer than that (calling it the “Tridentine” Mass is really a misnomer; it gives the impression that it was just created at the Council of Trent the same way the “Pauline” Mass was created by Paul VI). Even when John Paul II “streamlined” (read: did away with) the canonization process in his immoderate haste to canonize as many people as possible, practically everyone who was declared a Blessed or a Saint during his pontificate actually were products of the Traditional Mass and not the New Liturgy.

The Novus Ordo parallels the Lutheran order of service in many ways. You only need to google it and find a Lutheran order of service online to see what I mean. At home I have a Lutheran hymnal with the Lutheran liturgy at the front and it closely resembles the New Order. Interestingly, in some aspects the Lutheran liturgy retains things that the Novus did away with, though without a doubt the Lutheran Mass (and it was originally called the “Deutsche Messe (German Mass” and is called a “Mass” by many Lutherans today) and the New Ordo Mass have much more in common with eachother than either has with the Traditional Roman Mass.
Not only are there startling similarities between the two, but even more disconcerting is the fact that novelties which Luther and his followers introduced and which were specifically condemned by Popes and Councils before Vatican II are now present in the New Order of the Mass ! Does that mean that all those years Luther was right and we were wrong??
Examples include:
Communion in the hand
Communion under both species
Lay ministers of communion
Meal rather than sacrifice (table replaces altar)
Eucharist celebrated facing the people
“Liturgy of the Word” rather than “Mass of Catechumens”,and
“Liturgy over the Eucharist” rather than “Mass of the Faithful”
Vernacular liturgy
Many New Order liturgists are fond of the term “Word and Sacrament”–this term is Lutheran to the core and reflects Luther’s view of the reading of the Word as being a quasi-sacrament and being on equal footage with the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
Congregational hymns replacing chant
Overemphasis on “active participation” (read: noise)

I’m sure there are many others but this is what I can think of right off the top of my head.
Happy?

 

[Anima_Christi]

In response to JKirkLVNV
Typical reaction. Many Catholics prefer to stick their fingers in their ears, stomp around yelling “Schismatic! Schismatic! Disobedient! Schismatic!” rather than provide a substantial rebuttal. Ignorance IS bliss, after all.

 

[Anima_Christi]

Think of them as “organic” developments, if you wish.

You’re confused. Organic development is one thing…revolution is quite another.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

A few years ago, there was a funeral at our Catholic church, and the pastor from the United Church came. He sat in the pews and recited all of the priests responses (without a missal). He knew them by heart, and I can only reason that it is because the liturgy for our Mass is the same as his protestant service.

Many protestant communities, recognizing the value of a more liturgical service, have borrowed from us. There’s not any remote proof that we borrowed from them.

If prostestants borrowed elements from the TLM (and there are High Anglicans that are very liberal doctrinally, but like a well-done, aesthetically pleasing liturgy who might well), would you favor pitching it?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You’re confused. Organic development is one thing…revolution is quite another.

Not in the least, I was being sarcastic.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

In response to JKirkLVNV
Typical reaction. Many Catholics prefer to stick their fingers in their ears, stomp around yelling “Schismatic! Schismatic! Disobedient! Schismatic!” rather than provide a substantial rebuttal. Ignorance IS bliss, after all.

Since your’s consisted of a rhetorical speech based on an appeal to emotion, I think it actually got a higher level of rebuttal than it deserved. It’s kind of a fact that they’re in schism. Facts are fairly “substantial.”

 

[Anima_Christi]

Since your’s consisted of a rhetorical speech based on an appeal to emotion, I think it actually got a higher level of rebuttal than it deserved.

Please. All of my reasons for being a Traditionalist are based on logic and research and love of the truth. Your reasons for abhorring traditionalists and their faith? I cannot judge your motives, but I have a feeling that it could have something to do with an exaggerated view of papal infallibility and a preference for the banal. Please do yourself and the rest of us a favor and conduct an in-depth study of the Second Vatican Council. You can start with *The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber *and Iota Unum. These books are not just traditionalist propaganda and rhetoric. They really are scholarly works documenting the key players in the Second Vatican Council. The amazing thing about it (and many traditionalists will be suprised at this) is that the “Novus Ordo” and other changes aren’t even nearly as bad as some of the things they wanted to impose on us but did not succeed in.
Most traditionalists are like me…we already “know too much for our own good”, and we could never go back to accepting postconciliar errors or that whopper that Vatican II was good for the Church, anymore than you could go back to being a Baptist. I could not force myself to do the mental gymnastics that would be required to reconcile the way the postconciliar Church is going with what I know to be Catholic teaching. It is hard to be faithful to tradition like St. Athanasius, and to be cast off as a schismatic while true schismatics and heretics–not to mention Jews, pagans, and infidels–are being welcomed and told that they do not need to convert to the one, true Catholic faith to be saved. St. Athanasius was also “excommunicated” when he persevered in Catholic teaching, even though so many of the bishops were in apostasy, even when a cowardly pope at the time allowed errors to creep in. And now look what happened…Athanasius is a saint and the cowardly pope is not. Does this sound familiar?

 

[netmilsmom]

Well the very first Mass, if I recall rightly, ***looked ***very like a Jewish Passover meal. As I imagine did an awful lot of Masses did in the first decades of Christianity.

And the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass LOOKS like bread and wine, just like the elements at most any other Christian denomination’s “Lord’s Supper”.

All the difference in the world between ‘looks like’ and ‘is’ or even ‘is like’ in these particular contexts.

I have got to go get dinner on and take my kids to CCD but Lily let me just say this.

Most Catholics are not CAF posters and have very little clue about being Catholic past what they find in their parishes.

My fear is when the Lutheran service looks like the Catholic Community Mass they take off to where they feel wonderful. Most times Protestant churches are very loving. Many times, we are not.

So for those who have no clue why they are Catholic, the two are interchangable. Why do I have this fear? Because I saw it happen with my own eyes.

 

[Anima_Christi]

I have got to go get dinner on and take my kids to CCD but Lily let me just say this.

Most Catholics are not CAF posters and have very little clue about being Catholic past what they find in their parishes.

My fear is when the Lutheran service looks like the Catholic Community Mass they take off to where they feel wonderful. Most times Protestant churches are very loving. Many times, we are not.

So for those who have no clue why they are Catholic, the two are interchangable. Why do I have this fear? Because I saw it happen with my own eyes.

GOOD point!

 

[Anima_Christi]

i can tell you for a fact that paramedicgirl is not a laity of the SSPX. even if she had been, is it not her right to chose where she would want to be? no one has the right to tell others where they can go, or what church they can go to,and whether or not to be a laity of the SSPX.( except for perhaps the Holy Father ? )

the rules of the CAF forums are to be respected at ALL times regardless of what you think or believe or say. like it or not, those ARE the rules.

Heck, there is even a document from Rome stating that the Catholic faithful are permitted to attend SSPX Masses out of love for the Traditional rite and even provide a monetary contribution AND it fulfills their Sunday obligation! But I’m afraid that’s one document from Rome that the Vatican II enthusiasts on these forums would prefer to ignore!

 

[paramedicgirl]

Heck, there is even a document from Rome stating that the Catholic faithful are permitted to attend SSPX Masses out of love for the Traditional rite and even provide a monetary contribution AND it fulfills their Sunday obligation! But I’m afraid that’s one document from Rome that the Vatican II enthusiasts on these forums would prefer to ignore!

I think we need an SSPX forum here. Mods, are ya listening?

 

[lak611]

watching this video is a complete and utter waste of time. just read the tone of the responses on this thread. it sows a spirit of depression and discord so cannot be of the Holy Spirit.

better tactic: assist at Mass every Sunday and Holy Day at your own parish or the one that feeds you best, daily Mass when possible, with a spirit of unity with Christ and the whole Church, with a spirit of obedience to our Pope and Bishops who have given us the Order of the Mass, the rubrics, the lectionary and who have been charged by Christ with that responsibility, and who are our divinely ordained shepherds. Spend the effort formerly wasted on websites and books of disobedient, schismatic, bitter, ex-Catholics on developing the virtues, beginning with humility and obedience.

Yes, you have the right attitude! There is no such thing as the Church giving us a “bad” Mass. Yes, a Mass can be offered improperly by a priest or assisted irreverantly by members of the congregation (and that is the sin of the priest/congregation, not the Church), but since the Church is preserved from error and guided by the Holy Spirirt, any Mass ritual that the Church gives us truly is a valid Mass, and the same goes for the Sacraments.

 

[anamchara]

Two people on this thread apologized for mistatements. It’s not that hard. If an apology had come, I think that things would be different.

I think you are placing more importance on this apology because you have personal issues with the person, I’m sorry but that is how I read this. I have seen several times rude comments made to her. To be honest Netmil(name removed by moderator), I once apologize to you, not only did you never acknowledge it but you never once apologized to me for making some pretty snide little comments about me to other posters, no you never said my name but it was implied. Actually you said things to me personally when I frist came on here without even knowing me. And no, I don’t have post to go and prove it but I can tell you it hurt and I didn’t like it. Apologies need to go both ways my friend.

Now to the matter at hand I apologize for the thread disruptions.

Is something so big that it can’t be discussed?
Yes, it may well cause rancor and divisions but the divisions stay and get bigger when people refuse to discuss other’s concerns.

We can discuss it yes, but I have to go pick up my daughter now, let me come back later.

 

[tassitus]

How strange that we live in a time when those who defend the traditions of the Catholic faith and oppose modern errors, those who wish to return to the authentic Catholic Mass which was promulgated by the holy Council of Trent (though it is much, much older than Trent) and Saint Pius V, the Mass that has produced thousands of saints, are accused of being against Roman Catholicism…while those proponents of modern innovations–innovations which previous popes and councils would have condemned, and in many cases did condemn–and of an artificial, banal liturgy that was carefully crafted by a committee for the purpose of removing whatever might be offensive to heretics (this is well documented), which is barely distinguishable from the Lutheran order of service, and which, far from increasing faith in the Real Presence and Sacrificial nature of the Mass has actually contributed to a plummet in Mass attendance, the belief that the Mass is primarily a communal meal, a “Lord’s supper”, and the fact the less than one-third of all Catholics even believe in the Real Presence–yes, the proponents of these things are considered the “faithful sons and daughters of the Church”.
How is it that those Catholics who merely practice the faith as it has been practiced by saints and popes for centuries, who adhere to dogmas and understand them in the precise, unambiguous way they had always been understood, are suspected and accused of being “disobedient” and having a “schismatic mindset”, while those “Catholics” who participate in the personality cult centered around the previous pontiff, who cheer with enthusiasm at his every whim, at each innovation he introduced or each tradition he discarded, at each ambiguous man-centered speech or encyclical, who out of a false sense of obedience promote opinions and customs that would have gotten them excommunicated a century ago, who prefer the New Order liturgy (and thus likely would have prefered the Lutheran or Anglican service had they lived during the Protestant revolution) to the Mass of the ages, are considered to be the true Catholics?? What an ODD situation this is. But why am I suprised…this is the time of reNEWal, the “new springtime”, the “new evangelization”, the “new order of the mass”, the new “mysteries of light”, and basically anything else that favors novelty and innovation over tradition.

I notice you included an earlier post of mine at the beginning of the above, as if you were responding to something in my post. May I ask, exactly what in the post are you responding to? The only statement I see that might be objectionable is:And I think it is folly to place oneself in league with those attacking any Roman Catholic Mass.Just curious…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Please. All of my reasons for being a Traditionalist are based on logic and research and love of the truth. **Please, yourself. If that was the case, you wouldn’t be spouting some of the garbage you are about the Mass (at the very least).**Your reasons for abhorring traditionalists and their faith? **Oh, please, how paranoid. I don’t abhor traditionalists or their faith. I have a problem with “traditionalists” who spout untruths and unfounded propaganda about the Church. **I cannot judge your motives, but I have a feeling that it could have something to do with an exaggerated view of papal infallibility and a preference for the banal. I don’t believe the popes are always infallible, I believe that the Church is always infallible in what it presents to the faithful as the Mass (the most critical issue to our salvation). As for banal, that’s in the eye of the beholder. I’ve seen banal offerings of the Pauline Mass, I simply deny what YOU assert about it (and the film) Please do yourself and the rest of us a favor and conduct an in-depth study of the Second Vatican Council. You can start with *The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber *and Iota Unum. These books are not just traditionalist propaganda and rhetoric. They really are scholarly works documenting the key players in the Second Vatican Council. **The popes have confirmed the teachings and documents of the council (something quite different from “spirit” of VII). **The amazing thing about it (and many traditionalists will be suprised at this) is that the “Novus Ordo” and other changes aren’t even nearly as bad as some of the things they wanted to impose on us but did not succeed in.
Most traditionalists are like me…we already “know too much for our own good”, and we could never go back to accepting postconciliar errors or that whopper that Vatican II was good for the Church, anymore than you could go back to being a Baptist. I could not force myself to do the mental gymnastics that would be required to reconcile the way the postconciliar Church is going with what I know to be Catholic teaching. It is hard to be faithful to tradition like St. Athanasius, and to be cast off as a schismatic while true schismatics and heretics–not to mention Jews, pagans, and infidels–are being welcomed and told that they do not need to convert to the one, true Catholic faith to be saved. St. Athanasius was also “excommunicated” when he persevered in Catholic teaching, even though so many of the bishops were in apostasy, even when a cowardly pope at the time allowed errors to creep in. And now look what happened…Athanasius is a saint and the cowardly pope is not. Does this sound familiar?

The two situations don’t compare. I’m not saying that we don’t have modernists in the Church, I’m not saying that we don’t abuses in the Church. I’m saying that none of those things can be blamed on the Mass (contrary to what the film said). I’m saying that the pope wasn’t a modernist. I’m saying that much of what YOU would regard as dead essential, as Sacred Tradition, is NOT that, but tradition that is entirely “mutable,” that the Church in her wisdome may well alter. And it’s my expericence as a Protestant that leads me to defend the Mass against the charges that it’s been protestantized…what a laugh!

Finally, it’s the smug arrogance of some that they know better than (take your pick) the Father’s of the Council or the Vicar of Christ on earth. They’re just little arm chair popes, squeaking away, waving their little minnie anathemas. The Church will never repudiate the Council or the Pauline Mass.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Heck, there is even a document from Rome stating that the Catholic faithful are permitted to attend SSPX Masses out of love for the Traditional rite and even provide a monetary contribution AND it fulfills their Sunday obligation! But I’m afraid that’s one document from Rome that the Vatican II enthusiasts on these forums would prefer to ignore!

Depends on the slant one uses. It was for an isolated situation, all the facts of which we do not have, AND in the same letter the office in the Holy See stated that it could not be reccommended to the faithful that they attend an SSPX Mass.