Well feelings are not a part of the Faith.[but that’s not what charismatics tink} Why would a TLM breed disobedience? Why should one stay away from her? The liberal parishes[which are supposedly in union with the Pope] are not reprimanded as strongly as the sspx is here. Why the bias exist there?
I guess the anti-Trads (perhaps because so many are “Latin-loathers”) want it both ways.
First, the Pope says the NO is a valid Mass, so that is all we should be happy with. But when the Pope says the TLM is fully acceptable, and we should return to a wider use of it and the Gregorian music etc, well, then they say the Trads are jeopordizing the faith.
As for the fruits of Vatican II.,… how can we not include the bad fruits of the abuses of Vatican II?? I guess the fluff-off would be that the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators - the Church Since Vatican II, by Ken Jones, is just putting a spin on the numbers.:banghead: *** I agree, the fruits of the ABUSES are bad. The fruits of the Council itself? History will judge, I suppose.***
Thank God that more and more Catholics (especially younger ones) are in awe of the level of reverence in the TLM and aware of the decrease in reverence and prayer that is the “bad fruits” of VatII abuses.
A) Katolik, I’m not Charismatic, but the Pope, the Bishops, have said that it’s a valid devotion/discipline (that’s how NOT charismatic I am…I don’t even know what to call it!). Should we disparge what they have said is valid? I just don’t say anything at all, other than that I don’t worship like that and am uncomfortable being made to feel I should.
The SSPX has tried to regularize its status in the Vatican. The French and German bishops said they would go into schism if the SSPX schism was declared ended. Then some bishops in the Curia followed up on this. Now since the Pope has not been willing to punish these bishops, the SSPX" schism" still exists. Also the Pope made up a commission to see if it was canonical to suppress the TLM. This commision said that it is uncanonical to prohibit the TLM to be said by any priest of the Latin Rite and that if a priest is prosecuted for saying the TLM without his bishop’s permission,that this is uncanonical. This commission compromised of 9-10 cardinals and many more archbishops and bishops.
The Pope is not Patriarch of these rites.
Nope, the Braga Use,Lyonese rite, and Ambrosian Rite are of the Latin Rite. They are Latin rites. THe Pope has authority over all the rites in the Church. He is the Pope, not just the "Roman Patriarch " as schismatics see him.
JKirk,
I don’t think anyone can say the TLM breeds schism. This would be the same thing as saying Vatican II breeds schism. You cannot blame the mass, the council, etc. for the downfall of those who would go against the Church. However, some (not all) in the TLM community do try and breed schism (although they don’t agree that they are) as much as some in the normative community (who also don’t think they are doing anything wrong.) We can go on and on all day saying that “they aren’t as tough on the liberals” but, according to what most people say, the Traditionalists should know better than the liberals! Besides that, what kind of argument is that? The topic at hand is the TLM not the liberal community. I’m sure if a thread was started about that the same people who are worried about schism being spread in or TLM communities would jump and and take on the liberals.
If what you say is true, I only have this response: There is only one Vicar of Christ on this earth. We must, in conscience, submit to his authority. If SSPX is in schism, then it is their choice as a society to remain in schism, regardless of what might motivate the Holy Father to not bend to their demands/requests/humble petitions. They should leave the Society as individuals and return as individuals, if they cannot come as a society. You say that the Holy Father’s commission found that TLM was a right of all Latin Rite priests. That seems good enough. Let them return and celebrate that rite. I do not mean to sound uncharitible. I do not see why both rites cannot be celebrated. As you said, there are several “rites” within the Latin “Rite.” God bless.
The problem that I perceive is not the Latin language, although there are certain fallacious concepts of Latin that contribute to the problem that I do perceive. I often pray the Rosary in Latin, and the western rites, and possibly others as well, can all be said in Latin without diminishment. Traditionalists often quote papal writings that warn against the vernacular, but the vernacular is enormously beneficial in many respects. It is irrational to believe that one will be as familiar with a language that does not even qualify as a second language; virtually no “traditionalist” would be able to communicate in Latin in any plausible way. Without linguistic familiarity, the Scriptures and liturgical contents will be far less effective. The use of the vernacular in no way harms the validity of the consecration: so what we are left with is a schismatic tendency that takes root, when a person begins to believe that ‘the mass should be in Latin’. Traditionalists are forever glancing from their missals to the altar and back again, perhaps to follow each phase of the mass: why should all of that be necessary? I don’t think Church history demonstrates a necessity to have the language be recondite. Our Lord did not use a recondite language with the disciples. The early Church did not use a recondite language. It is not necessary to suppose that we must use a recondite language; and when we cease to do this, then suddenly we can meditate and contemplate more readily the sacred mysteries. The mass is a celebration and a sacrifice, it is not a homework assignment or an encyclopedia or a vast learning curve.
The Pope’s granting of an indult is an example of the extraordinary lengths Holy Mother Church will go to reach out to the faithful. The rite of mass of Paul VI was fully intended to become the normative rite. Yet despite the fact that “traditionalists” rejected it, and rejected the wisdom of the Church, the Church still is willing to provide for their perceived needs. Yet the Indult is itself taken up by “traditionalists” as a whipping boy, and assumed to be a great offense.
There are a number of fallacious categories used by “traditionalists”. The “fruits of Vatican II” are one of these. Vatican II is an ecumenical council of the Church, and those who are not schismatic will join themselves to the Church, and will help, not hinder, her progress. “Traditionalists” often call for repealing the Council, which is a thoroughly ridiculous suggestion, given the immense wisdom of the documents, and the fact that they are a continued expansion of Church theological exposition.
“VatII abuses” is an irrational category. And, it is unfortunate that those who love the faith isolate themselves in separate chapels and steel themselves in the erroneous belief that there is ‘something wrong out there’. Schism is harmful to the body, and this is something we know by faith. It may well be that among the “traditionalists” there is actually a refusal to serve, a refusal to believe: it may be that “traditionalism” is one of the many ways to fall, when in fact there is only one way to stand: In union with Rome.
The experience of participating in the “traditionalist” community is one of constant derision of Catholics, the Holy Father, the rites of the Church, the Second Vatican Council, and more. “Traditionalist” priests use the confessional to tell the faithful to avoid the “novus ordo”. They use the pulpit to declare that the Church is providing “bad shepherds”.
“The spirit of Vatican II” is a point that gets plenty of play, but in my experience the Pauline rite is celebrated admirably most of the time. The alleged comfort of Protestants with the new rite is connected with fallacious reasoning about what the prayers are alleged to contain and omit: “traditionalists” routinely fail to reason clearly about these issues. And the issue is not how others feel, but about whether the rite is true, which it is. Liturgical dance is rare, and is permitted in certain regions. The pattern among “traditionalists” is to exaggerate stories and liturgical details that are (a) rare and (b) irrelevant to the validity of the rite.
Was that Terese of the Child Jesus? I always thought it was St. Teresa of Avila–perhaps this is why I can never locate that quote. Anyway, the Church is larger than St. Therese of Lisieux, and has every right to adjust her rites for the faithful.
The Church does have an internal problem at the moment, and in my opinion the Third Vatican Ecumenical Council should condemn specific propositions pertaining to the Traditionalism of the late Twentieth Century, as these propositions are noxious.
Here is what I would say, based on my experiences. If you cannot say to yourself, “I wholly accept the Pauline rite and all the other new rites of the Church as completely acceptable and conducive to piety, faith, and doctrinal truth, without reserve, and would and do freely avail myself of them,” then you are at grave risk of schism and your participation in the Tridentine liturgy–owing to the people there and what they plainly believe–will be a grave risk to your faith. You will tend to become your own magisterium, as all heretics claiming “necessity” have, in the past.
Which shows that when you become your own magisterium, there is really no limit to how recursive the error can become. “Trads” doubt the revision of the Breviary even by Pope St. Pius X, too.
is not jeopardizing the faith, of course. The problem is two-fold (at least). First, the TLM is now a separatist segment that is premised upon a fallacious understanding of the rite of Paul VI; it is not the normative rite. Second, the people who attend the TLM, and frequently the priests who offer it, are an unending fountain of criticism of what they call the “novus ordo”.
Sounds like a reasonable man
Wow! I’ll get a passport to heaven if I attend 7 masses every Sunday!
Sheesh, the TFP is a good organization. See for your self www.tfp.org . They fight the sodomites, they fight the baby killers, they fight the men of sacrilege[they protested against "St.Clinton’ ,which was an image of Christ with Clinton’s head and the Sacred Heart}they fight the further degradation of our society.