Why is the Tridentine Mass popular?

[katolik]

misericordie:

Everyone: ECCE HOMO!!! Behold the man. Now here is a CATHOLIC who sincerely knows his faith:clapping: . Yes I TOTALLY agree agree with you: LOL can you imagine the “love” these American Bishops have for the Latin Tridentine Mass?? Of course not, most are older than 64, and well that’s the SP:nerd: IRIT of Vatican II croud Well, maybe there is hope=in another 25 years, half will be very elderly already or will have passed of old age. Of course there are REAL ones(No offense bear06) like Archbishops Chaput, Burke, Curtis of Omaha, and, and, and Sorry I cannot think of any more here, it seems I had to think and think over again to try to find at least one more, but could not.

I can’t wait until the SSPX “schims” is resolved and the SSPX bishops are given bishops’ seats. I would love to you see Card. Mahoney or Kasper replaced with Bp.Fellay or Bp.De Mallerais!!! The Church will be in a much better position when this happens. Don’ you agree?

 

[TNT]

bear06:

In fact, I’m hoping he excludes girls again!

Why?

Was it the will of Christ to exclude altar girls for 1,700 years,
Confirm that exclusion in 1980, then
the same pope
makes the will of Christ include them in 1994?
Still no answer.
So, which is the will of Christ.
Actually, I think you answered that indirectly in the quote of this message. Right?

Surely you are not equating Quo Primus (in perpetuity for the TLM) with communion in the hand?

There is little precedent for communion in the hand, standing for communion, laity giving out the communion (except in protestant mileau), or changing the words of consecration. Every one of these is protestant, except even they dared not change the Gospel, which JPII does without explanation.
Is that just disciplinary? Changing the Gospel??
Your answer please.
The TLM is hated by the VAT II church as an institution, regardless of specific pius clergy. It was defacto banned until a few months after the SSPX broke with the VAT II N-ordo…1988 and tons of money in France headed for the exit doors of the n-ordo temples… No coincidence.
The reason for this disdain is that it is a big insumountable firewall against novelty…hallmark of the VAT II church…and the Novus ordo novelties cannot be applied to it…

BTW. Did you not say that you have a TLM available to you now?
If so, do you attend it?
If not, why not?
Love ya

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

If it had not been for the rising popularity of the SSPX and independent chapels offering the TLM, BEFORE it was ever approved, but believed to be valid under Quo Primus, the Vatican would never have let you have an indult. Rest assured. You have them to thank. The VAT II church hates the TLM. It is a bugger thorn in their side.
I got married at an indult mass recently. I invited all my N-ordo firends - about 200. To the person, including a n-ordo priest, they were in awe.
Thank you, independents and SSPX for forcing the hand of VAT II Church.

God can bring good out of evil, but this does not excuse the one commiting the evil.

We probably would not have had the Tridentine Mass or an effective Catholic Reformation had not the Protestant Reformation force the bishops to assemble in Council and begin to clean up their act. This does not excuse Protestants for their heresy, and does not excuse Rad-Trads for their heresies and schisms.

 

[misericordie]

DominvsVobiscvm:

God can bring good out of evil, but this does not excuse the one commiting the evil.

We probably would not have had the Tridentine Mass or an effective Catholic Reformation had not the Protestant Reformation force the bishops to assemble in Council and begin to clean up their act. This does not excuse Protestants for their heresy, and does not excuse Rad-Trads for their heresies and schisms.

Harly would any logical Catholic compare protestants with traditionalists. HOWEVER, yes there IS schism: I see it at many Novus Ordo Masses: EXP: I saw five nuns in leotards liturgically dancing, the priest sitting down during communion, people chewing gum, talking, laughing, young women in very provacative dress, altar girls with tons of lipstick and giggling with gum in their mouth all througout mass, father just with stole and alb no Chausable. Oj, yes, this is schism alright.

 

[TNT]

DominvsVobiscvm:

God can bring good out of evil, but this does not excuse the one commiting the evil.

We probably would not have had the Tridentine Mass or an effective Catholic Reformation had not the Protestant Reformation force the bishops to assemble in Council and begin to clean up their act. This does not excuse Protestants for their heresy, and does not excuse Rad-Trads for their heresies and schisms.

Pleeeease!
This thread has some really strange ideas of equivalency.
The SSPX was fighting for preservation of the Deposit of Faith which includes the TLM, Council of Trent, VAT I, Pacendi, Syllabus of Errors,etc. that was, and is, being put in jeopardy by the VAT II church, and its novelties in discipline AND theology.
The reformers of the 16th cent. were bent on massive innovation and novelty in discipline and theology, never perceived by the Church Fathers.

Exactly what heresy is the SSPX guilty of? Yes they are in disobedience out of conscience, which the VAT II church says clearly, one cannot be forced to violate.
The VAT II church works like the devil to convert the conscience of the SSPX, and at the same time tells the Jews that they can be saved where they are…denying their Savior, the Trinity, the NT, Mary’s Virginity, etc.
Mercy! !

 

[amasimp]

misericordie:

Everyone: ECCE HOMO!!! Behold the man. Now here is a CATHOLIC who sincerely knows his faith:clapping: . Yes I TOTALLY agree agree with you: LOL can you imagine the “love” these American Bishops have for the Latin Tridentine Mass?? Of course not, most are older than 64, and well that’s the SP:nerd: IRIT of Vatican II croud Well, maybe there is hope=in another 25 years, half will be very elderly already or will have passed of old age. Of course there are REAL ones(No offense bear06) like Archbishops Chaput, Burke, Curtis of Omaha, and, and, and Sorry I cannot think of any more here, it seems I had to think and think over again to try to find at least one more, but could not.

Add Robert J. Baker, Bishop of the diocese of Charleston, SC. He allows an weekly Indult in Charleston, and a FSSP Mass in the upstate in Taylors, SC. He also put out a statement back in the spring denying Holy Communion to pro-abort politicians.

 

[misericordie]

TNT:

Pleeeease!
This thread has some really strange ideas of equivalency.
The SSPX was fighting for preservation of the Deposit of Faith which includes the TLM, Council of Trent, VAT I, Pacendi, Syllabus of Errors,etc. that was, and is, being put in jeopardy by the VAT II church, and its novelties in discipline AND theology.
The reformers of the 16th cent. were bent on massive innovation and novelty in discipline and theology, never perceived by the Church Fathers.

Exactly what heresy is the SSPX guilty of? Yes they are in disobedience out of conscience, which the VAT II church says clearly, one cannot be forced to violate.
The VAT II church works like the devil to convert the conscience of the SSPX, and at the same time tells the Jews that they can be saved where they are…denying their Savior, the Trinity, the NT, Mary’s Virginity, etc.
Mercy! !

AMEN!!! Salus honor virtus quoque!!

 

[Marines]

Add Robert J. Baker, Bishop of the diocese of Charleston, SC. He allows an weekly Indult in Charleston, and a FSSP Mass in the upstate in Taylors, SC. He also put out a statement back in the spring denying Holy Communion to pro-abort politicians.

GO FSSP!!

• Joe

 

[bear06]

Was it the will of Christ to exclude altar girls for 1,700 years,
Confirm that exclusion in 1980, then
the same pope
makes the will of Christ include them in 1994?
Still no answer.
So, which is the will of Christ.
Actually, I think you answered that indirectly in the quote of this message. Right?

You know for a fact that it is the will of Christ that there be no altar girls today? Sorry, I’m not confident enough to answer this one! I’m also not so privy to God’s plans to suggest that the Holy Father is not following His will. It is a discipline and not doctrine. Pater Aeternus is not based on whether something is infallible or not. Once again, does it say this in PA?

Surely you are not equating Quo Primus (in perpetuity for the TLM) with communion in the hand?

Where did this come from? I don’t believe I mentioned this at all.

There is little precedent for communion in the hand, standing for communion, laity giving out the communion (except in protestant mileau), or changing the words of consecration. Every one of these is protestant, except even they dared not change the Gospel, which JPII does without explanation.
Is that just disciplinary? Changing the Gospel??

Ahhhhh!!! Are you actually accusing the Pope of changing doctrine?

The TLM is hated by the VAT II church as an institution, regardless of specific pius clergy. It was defacto banned until a few months after the SSPX broke with the VAT II N-ordo…1988 and tons of money in France headed for the exit doors of the n-ordo temples… No coincidence.

Talk about conspiracy theories!

BTW. Did you not say that you have a TLM available to you now?
If so, do you attend it?
If not, why not?

I don’t have an attachment to it. Besides this, quite often it’s a low mass and it’s impossible for me to follow with or without the missal while keeping my five little ones in line. I am VERY thankful for a mass that I don’t have to count every ringing bell to where we are in the mass. Perhaps you don’t have little ones and it’s quite easy for you to follow the missal. Me, on the other hand, have a 19 mos. old boy to wrestle with and am quite often in the vestibule with no visual. I have no problems with the TLM in any shape or form and my kids have sung for it in the past. I simply want to hear the words of the Consecration and know exactly when the miracle I treasure is occuring. I don’t want to miss that even once!

Good enough for you? Read Pater Aeternus!

 

[TLM_Altar_Boy]

amasimp:

Add Robert J. Baker, Bishop of the diocese of Charleston, SC. He allows an weekly Indult in Charleston, and a FSSP Mass in the upstate in Taylors, SC. He also put out a statement back in the spring denying Holy Communion to pro-abort politicians.

There are also rumors about another Indult Mass in Columbia.

 

[bear06]

Pleeeease!
This thread has some really strange ideas of equivalency.
The SSPX was fighting for preservation of the Deposit of Faith which includes the TLM, Council of Trent, VAT I, Pacendi, Syllabus of Errors,etc. that was, and is, being put in jeopardy by the VAT II church, and its novelties in discipline AND theology.

The SSPX is spreading schism. I don’t care how beautiful and shiny they look.

Exactly what heresy is the SSPX guilty of? Yes they are in disobedience out of conscience, which the VAT II church says clearly, one cannot be forced to violate

.

They are guilty of removing submission to the Roman Pontiff which is noooooooooooo better than the liberals doing it.

The VAT II church works like the devil to convert the conscience of the SSPX, and at the same time tells the Jews that they can be saved where they are…denying their Savior, the Trinity, the NT, Mary’s Virginity, etc.
Mercy!

At this point all I can say is that I’ll pray for you!

Gotta get back to decorating with the kids!

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

The SSPX was fighting for preservation of the Deposit of Faith . . . in discipline AND theology.

Yeah, so (supposedly) were the Novationists, Donatists, Spirituals, Jansenists, Old Catholics, and other “traditionalist” heretical sects throughout history. And even Protestantism claims that it’s trying to restore the primtive, true Faith which was corrupted by centuries of “papist novelty.”

The reformers of the 16th cent. were bent on massive innovation and novelty in discipline and theology, never perceived by the Church Fathers.

Ditto for the Feenyites, Lefebvrists, et al.

Exactly what heresy is the SSPX guilty of?

I addressed this in a pervious thread.

The Church Fathers all regarded schism as being at least partly heretical, since it implicitly involves a denial of papal primacy and/or infallibility; or the divine institution and authority of the episcopacy. As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:

Thus understood, schism is a genus which embraces two distinct species: heretical or mixed schism and schism pure and simple. The first has its source in heresy or joined with it, the second, which most theologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error, directly opposed to a definite dogma. This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. “Between heresy and schism”, explains St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St. Augustine: “By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe” (De fide et symbolo, ix). But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.

Lefebvrists are heretical in that they deny that the Pope has the right to revise the Roman Missal when this disagrees with their own private interpretation of Tradition and doctrinal development.

They also believe that it is possible for the Pope to impose a Missal on the Church which is sinful and deffective, and even possibly invalid.

They also believe that it is possible for an Ecumenical Council to err when it teaches on matters of faith and morals, and in doing so have to convolute the idea of a “pastoral” Council, as if the bishops’ pastoral powers were somehow non-binding on the faithful.

This is heresy.

 

[TNT]

bear06:

Can anyone show me a different document that trumps Pater Aeternus, a dogmatic constitution?

Actually you can.

1. The RCC is not a putty ball of any pope.
2. The overriding DIVINE LAW of the RCC is the Salvation of souls.
3. Any Encyclical or Discipline or canon law must submit to the DIVINE LAW.
4. AND it must be in conformity with the Will of its Head, and Founder.
   Therefore, all disciplines must be submissive to the DIVINE LAW toward the salvation of souls.

The current novelties of VAT II and JPII often do not pass the test.
For instance, by example JPII kisses the Koran, and prays WITH animists.
If He expects me to do as he does, and why not, and I refuse to conduct these disciplines, then I am in disobedience, but rightfully so.
Altar girls is manifestly NOT the Will of Christ, otherwise the Holy Spirit would have put it in His Church many centuries ago.
I refuse to stand to receive communion. I am in disobedience of the bishop, but rightfully so. Why? Because it jeopardizes the salvation of souls by minimizing the Sacred Host in public. It certainly does not promote it.
I refuse to accept a host that is consecrated in contradiction to the Council of Trent and the Gospel. I am in disobedience of the pope when I refuse. But, rightfully so. The True Church does NOT contradict itself, nor confound the salvation of souls or confuse their faith.

Finally, there is this whopper:
It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the Divine Law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God. Therefore, he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience, nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience. Declaration on Religious Freedom, “Dignitatis Humanae,” December 12, 1965
And on and on.
Love ya

 

[albert_cipriani]

DominvsVobiscvm:

They [SSPX] also believe that it is possible for an Ecumenical Council to err when it teaches on matters of faith and morals, and in doing so have to convolute the idea of a “pastoral” Council, as if the bishops’ pastoral powers were somehow non-binding on the faithful. This is heresy.

What matter of faith or morals did the last Ecumenical Council teach? If you are going to accuse SSPX of heresy, don’t you think it only fair to cite the dogmatic or moral teaching they are in heresy over? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic


geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html

groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReligiousPhilosophy/

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Therefore, all disciplines must be submissive to the DIVINE LAW toward the salvation of souls.

And it is Divine Law that all lawful religious superiors must be obeyd in all things save sin.

And this includes in liturgical and disciplinary matters when you personally feel are inappropriate or imprudent. Traditional Catholicism teaches that all benefit of the doubt must be given to superiors. Unless their intentions are manifetly evil, their decrees must be obeyed, even if you think they are harmful. (Unless, of course, what they decree is intrinsically evil.)

Let’s take all the supposed “novelties” of our Holy Father and our bishops and examine them one-by-one. Traditional Catholic theology will tell us that we must interpret them in the best of lights possible, given all benefit of the doubt to our superiros, regardless of what we personally feel about them. C’mon; let’s do it. I’m game if you are.

 

[albert_cipriani]

DominvsVobiscvm:

It is Divine Law that all lawful religious superios must be obeyd in all things save sin.

If what you say is true, then you must think that Saint Joan of Arc was a sinner, for she disobeyed the French bishops who ordered her to stop wearing men’s clothing.

Do you also think that Jesus was a sinner? He’s another one Who disobeyed His lawful religious superiors. Seems like us disobedient Traditionalists are in some pretty good company. – Cheers, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[JKirkLVNV]

TNT:

Actually, Kerry got divorced without anullment and then married outside the Church to another person. I believe that makes him ipso facto excommunicated regardless of his abortion position.
WMI

’

He got an annullment. Amazing, huh? Cared enough to have a decree of nullity, but not enough to forswear the killing of babies.

 

[TNT]

albert cipriani:

What matter of faith or morals did the last Ecumenical Council teach? If you are going to accuse SSPX of heresy, don’t you think it only fair to cite the dogmatic or moral teaching they are in heresy over? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

See the “whopper” in #153. Although there is no consequence for preventing or denying it.

 

[TNT]

’

He got an annullment. Amazing, huh? Cared enough to have a decree of nullity, but not enough to forswear the killing of babies.

NO. The point was, he did NOT get an annulment. Then he married outside the RCC.
You are immunized from me ever calling you as a witness.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[TNT]

DominvsVobiscvm:

And it is Divine Law that all lawful religious superiors must be obeyed in all things save sin.

And this includes in liturgical and disciplinary matters when you personally feel are inappropriate or imprudent. Traditional Catholicism teaches that all benefit of the doubt must be given to superiors. Unless their intentions are manifetly evil, their decrees must be obeyed, even if you think they are harmful. (Unless, of course, what they decree is intrinsically evil.)

Let’s take all the supposed “novelties” of our Holy Father and our bishops and examine them one-by-one. Traditional Catholic theology will tell us that we must interpret them in the best of lights possible, given all benefit of the doubt to our superiros, regardless of what we personally feel (I assume that means one’s conscience) about them. C’mon; let’s do it. I’m game if you are.

Trump Time:
It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the Divine Law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God. Therefore, he MUST NOT be forced to act contrary to his conscience, nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience. Declaration on Religious Freedom, “Dignitatis Humanae,” December 12, 1965
Checkmate.
See you tomorrow,
Love you all, even the Irish