What We Have Lost & the Road to Restoration

  • Thread starter Thread starter paramedicgirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walking_Home said:

Quote=JKirkLVNV
Again, as far as we know, it was addressed to one person with one set of circumstances. It wasn’t a blanket permission. It still is not recommended by the Apostolic See. It’s still warned against by Ecclesia Dei. If you feel like you want to contend with that, be my guest.​

Well-- there goes your spin that it is meant for one person. This letter is in response to several inquires. Since Ecclesia Dei wanted the letter published—Ecclesia Dei made it public.

Yes the letter speaks for itself. Of course—I will be expecting another spin on this.

Una Voce America has received a communication from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, concerning an article which appeared in The Remnant newspaper and various websites. At the request of the Commission, we are publishing it below.

Pontificia Commissio “Ecclesia Dei” January 18, 2003

Greetings in the Hearts of Jesus & Mary! There have been several inquiries about our letter of 27 September 2002. In order to clarify things, Msgr. Perl has made the following response
Click to expand...
And hear you go: It’s this:
“Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.”

It was to provide the complete context that the letter was made public, not to issue a blanket permission. You know that, Walking Home.
 
Anima_Christi said:
Give me a break! It is only out of my love for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that I attack the New Liturgy, because it is quite unworthy to be the context of the Most August Sacrament of the Altar. So no one is attacking “the Mass” per se, but the New Rite which was designed specifically with ecumenism in mind (does that bother you at all?)
Yes, you come here with your holier-than-thou “I’m obedient and you’re not” attitude…but what you don’t realize is that the Church is not merely limited to whatever the latest trend the Pope and the Cardinals are currently promoting but all of the Popes and bishops and saints and laity who have ever lived, and in that sense I am being 100% obedient to the Catholic Church of Christ.
As for “knowing better than the pope”, either I and other traditionalists know better than John Paul II and Paul VI, or YOU and your fellow Novus Ordo devotees know more than Pius XII, Pius X, Pius V, Leo X, and so on because you promote things which they blatantly condemned! Yes, when I see a Pope scandalizing Catholics all over the world by inviting pagans to one of the holiest sites in Christendom to pray to their false gods (thus inviting them to commit sin and violate natural law, since all the gods of the pagans are demons according to the Psalmist and St. Francis Xavier), in writing and saying things that have confused many such as implying that perhaps no one goes to hell, who allowed pedophile priests to be shuffled from parish to parish and rewarded the bishop who did it, who never once spoke out against heretics such as McBrien and Raymond Brown, who appointed terrible bishops such as Mahoney, who essentially rewarded the abuse of having altar girls by permitting them rather than cracking down on the abuse and thus breaking with a 2,000 year old tradition, by kissing a book which denies Jesus Christ and promotes the killing of Christians and thus giving it the same sign of respect given to the Gospels, and so much more, then YES I do think I know more than that Pope! When there is such a pope, I will submit to him if he makes an infallible pronouncement or is obedient to tradition, but for the sake of my own salvation I cannot follow him in his errors! I choose to stand with all of the other popes and councils in condemning the errors he took part it.
Click to expand...
A) I don’t buy into the mindset that the Pauline Rite was designed with ecumenism in mind. I think it was designed with the idea of noble simplicy in mind.

B) I haven’t come here with a “holier than thou” attitude nor have I said that anyone here is disobedient (I said PuzzleAnnie was obedient, but I haven’t accused anyone of being disobedient other than the SSPX, who patently ARE). Given the tenor of YOUR posts and what you have to say about the Mass, I would avoid accusing other people of acting “holier than thou.”

C) I most certainly DO understand that the Catholic Church is not limited to the current trend promoted by the current pope and the current Cardinals. Where you get the idea that I don’t is a mystery to me. You make leaps in logic.

I stand by what I said. To say what this video says about the Pauline Rite and the Pope and the Council is to be disobedient, unfaithful to the Church.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
And hear you go: It’s this:
“Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.”

It was to provide the complete context that the letter was made public, not to issue a blanket permission. You know that, Walking Home.
Click to expand...
Like I said ----I was waiting for your spin. What you have above references the initial letter that was published in the Remnant.

That is not the one we have been discussing is it.

The one in discussion is the response to several inquires–which Ecclesis Dei wanted to make public. Public — so that it would be an answer to anyone else it may concern.
 
Walking_Home said:
Like I said ----I was waiting for your spin. What you have above references the initial letter that was published in the Remnant.

That is not the one we have been discussing is it.

The one in discussion is the response to several inquires–which Ecclesis Dei wanted to make public. Public — so that it would be an answer to anyone else it may concern.
Click to expand...
That’s also my interpretation.
 
Walking_Home said:
Like I said ----I was waiting for your spin. What you have above references the initial letter that was published in the Remnant.

That is not the one we have been discussing is it.

The one in discussion is the response to several inquires–which Ecclesis Dei wanted to make public. Public — so that it would be an answer to anyone else it may concern.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t. It does what Msgr. Perl states that it does in the first paragraph: it gives a fuller context. I’ve got what you’re saying, Walking Home. I just don’t believe (even remotely) that that was the intent of the office in Rome. I don’t think most would. We’ve gone over and over this.

But why wait on my imprimatur, Walking Home? Like I said, you want to swim against the Holy See (I don’t think you’ll deny that the letter said they were unable to rec. attendance) and Ecclesia Dei, as I said, be my guest.
 
paramedicgirl said:
So the notorious Halloween mass where the priest dressed up as Barney, and EMHC dressed as devils, complete with horns was not a “BAD” Mass? Please. Poor Jesus, having to suffer that indignation.
Click to expand...
That was the priest’s mistake. The priest is the one to blame for this, not the Mass. He did NOT follow the rubrics of the GIRM.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
No, it doesn’t. It does what Msgr. Perl states that it does in the first paragraph: it gives a fuller context. I’ve got what you’re saying, Walking Home. I just don’t believe (even remotely) that that was the intent of the office in Rome. I don’t think most would. We’ve gone over and over this.

But why wait on my imprimatur, Walking Home? Like I said, you want to swim against the Holy See (I don’t think you’ll deny that the letter said they were unable to rec. attendance) and Ecclesia Dei, as I said, be my guest.
Click to expand...
JKirkLVNV—that is just more spin. To try and keep your argument–just say I don’t believe. I Didn’t expect anything less.

Oh–and very good there —you have been learning well. Now I swim against the Holy See. When one is in a spot—just apply some negative connotation to a person.
 
lak611 said:
That was the priest’s mistake. The priest is the one to blame for this, not the Mass. He did NOT follow the rubrics of the GIRM.
Click to expand...
Um, he played fast and loose with the GIRM.
Just like handholding or the Orans for the laity.

Afterall, there is no where that it says in the GIRM that a Priest can’t wear a Barney suit or EMHCs can’t wear Devil horns.

And what did the Bishop say about it?
 
Walking_Home said:
JKirkLVNV—that is just more spin. To try and keep your argument–just say I don’t believe. I Didn’t expect anything less.

Oh–and very good there —you have been learning well. Now I swim against the Holy See. When one is in a spot—just apply some negative connotation to a person.
Click to expand...
Okay, so answer this honest question: do you think that the Holy See wants people to go to SSPX Masses?

See, I’m not spinning anything. I’ve read the letter, you’ve read the letter. I don’t believe it says what you believe it says. That’s not “spin.” I honestly don’t. If I died right now and appeared before the Ancient of Days and He put the question to me and my soul hung in the balance, I’d answer the same way. This isn’t to win an argument. I don’t believe, at all, that the Holy See intended, in making this letter public, to give a blanket permission to attend the SSPX Masses. I do believe that to say that it IS okay is swimming against the Holy See. Am I “applying negative connotations” when I say that the Arch and the Fab Four were excommunicated? To do something that the Holy See cannot reccommend is “to swim against the Holy See” (I actually think that’s a pretty mild way of saying it).
 
I’m a grumpo…so no, not at all. 😃

Googling will not be necessary since I also happen to have a number of hymnals as well as the Deutche Messe and the Formula Missae which someone was kind enough to scan for me. The assertation of the Deutche Mass with the NO:

Questions for starters on the Deutche Messe:
Where is the Sanctus placement?
Where is the Eucharistic Prayer?
Where are there any Offertory prayers (and this includes Secrets)
Does the NO permit substitution of the Sanctus and Gloria with hymns and canticles?
Is there an embolism? A sign of peace? The private prayers before communion?

Communion under both species: I need not tell you that:
-there is no obligation unlike for the Protestants
-despite the prevalence in the West it doesn’t seem to have caught onin other parts of the world.
  • at the time of Luther, communion under both kinds was allowed in parts of Germany as a result of the Hussites
Table replaces altar? I don’t think so. Not only the the Order of the Mass constantly refer to it as an altar but even states very emphatically in the GIRM that “at the altar the sacrifice of the cross is made present”. And that was there even in 1969.

And as for versus populum:it is allowed in the TLM as laid out in the Ritus. Which direction did Pius VI face when he visited Venice? The High altar was covered and he celebrated versus populum.
Interestingly, Luther himself celebrated ad oreintum on more than one occasion in Witten burg

Again, these also deal more with practises…If you could compare the words used, I would be very happy.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
Um, he played fast and loose with the GIRM.
Just like handholding or the Orans for the laity.

Afterall, there is no where that it says in the GIRM that a Priest can’t wear a Barney suit or EMHCs can’t wear Devil horns.

And what did the Bishop say about it?
Click to expand...
Didn’t it happen in Orange County? Isn’t that Cardinall Mahoney’s territoty?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Okay, so answer this honest question: do you think that the Holy See wants people to go to SSPX Masses?

See, I’m not spinning anything. I’ve read the letter, you’ve read the letter. I don’t believe it says what you believe it says. That’s not “spin.” I honestly don’t. If I died right now and appeared before the Ancient of Days and He put the question to me and my soul hung in the balance, I’d answer the same way. This isn’t to win an argument. I don’t believe, at all, that the Holy See intended, in making this letter public, to give a blanket permission to attend the SSPX Masses. I do believe that to say that it IS okay is swimming against the Holy See. Am I “applying negative connotations” when I say that the Arch and the Fab Four were excommunicated? To do something that the Holy See cannot reccommend is “to swim against the Holy See” (I actually think that’s a pretty mild way of saying it).
Click to expand...
Did Msgr. Perl —lie.

His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:

“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”
 
paramedicgirl said:
Didn’t it happen in Orange County? Isn’t that Cardinall Mahoney’s territoty?
Click to expand...
Bishop Todd Brown. He’s the ordinary. It’s abuts LA and is a suffragan diocese of the Archdiocese of LA. Cardinal Mahoney doesn’t have any authority there.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Bishop Todd Brown. He’s the ordinary. It’s abuts LA and is a suffragan diocese of the Archdiocese of LA. Cardinal Mahoney doesn’t have any authority there.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. I wasn’t too sure of whose diocese it was in.
 
Walking_Home said:
Did Msgr. Perl —lie.

His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:

“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”
Click to expand...
Was Msgr. Perl not clear? (My bits are in red)

Answer the question I asked, if you please. Do YOU think that the Holy See wants people to go to SSPX Masses?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Bishop Todd Brown. He’s the ordinary. It’s abuts LA and is a suffragan diocese of the Archdiocese of LA. Cardinal Mahoney doesn’t have any authority there.
Click to expand...
So did he say anything?

Maida didn’t say anything about the Halloween Mass either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top