Why is the Tridentine Mass popular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mgy100
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
Click to expand...
You forgot the part about man having a duty to form his conscience by what he knows to be true.

Conscience has nothing to do with how you personally feel about something, but with what you know is objectively true.

If you don’t like what a superior is telling you, and are even opposed to doing it, you still have to do it. It’s called O-B-E-D-I-E-N-C-E. (Unless what you’re being told to do is intrinsically evil.)

This is because, although you don’t feel like doing it, and have good reasons not to, your conscience (i.e. what you know to be true) tells you that owe your superior the benefit of the doubt, and due obedience.
 
As long as there is traditionalist “dissent” the indult will remain. If it werent for the SSPX or indepedent chapels, the indult would just barely exist.
 
See post #143.

You can nevr justify evil by the good that come from it. Rad-Trads seem to have a very selective memory when it comes to recalling Traditional Catholic doctrine.
 
40.png
Podo2004:
I get more out of the NO. mass as i can understand it. 😃
Podo
Click to expand...
Hi Podo… just a quick question:

Have you ever been to a Tridentine Mass? I haven’t, and neither has Uncle Feanaro, so we cannot comment on which one we personally like better.

Auntie Malia
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
.
Click to expand...
**RE:
You forgot the part about man having a duty to form his conscience by what he knows to be true.
Conscience has nothing to do with how you personally feel about something, but with what you know is objectively true.
**I did not forget that. I just did not address it… Sorry.

So, here goes:
What I know to be objectively true, and have ample evidence from my experience and those of superior theological credentials, popes, and councils, is that the TLM is superior to the Novus Ordo mass in regards to Divine Worship, completeness, and any other virtuous quality you may assign.

Therefore, even when it was dis-allowed, I would, in conscience, be required to attend it rather than the NO mass.

There you have it. Even if I did not like the TLM, I know objectively that it is superior in all qualities beneficial to worshipping the Trinity. My conscience tells me so…objectively, no less.

My decision is therefore fully supported by Dignitatis Humanae.
********Re:**If you don’t like what a superior is telling you, and are even opposed to doing it, you still have to do it. It’s called O-B-E-D-I-E-N-C-E. (Unless what you’re being told to do is intrinsically evil.)
**You need to add B-L-I-N-D. **

So, would kissing a book (a public sign of devotion) that is loaded with blasphemies against the Holy Family and Catholicism, and the Muslim world is aware of that, be intrinsically evil?

**Is telling the Jews that they can objectively be saved while denying the Savior, the NT, the Trinity, the virgin birth, and proclaiming that Mary is a whore (talmud), an intrisically evil act to my fellow man? **

How about denying the objective necessity of their conversion to the RCC of Christ?

RE:
This is because, although you don’t feel like doing it, and have good reasons not to, your conscience (i.e. what you know to be true) tells you that owe your superior the benefit of the doubt, and due obedience.

I missed this in Dignitatis Humanae. It must be there somewhere since it is quite a lengthy discourse on conscience. Please, let me know where you found that qualification.
**Actually your conscience tells you what you BELIEVE to be true. If everyone’s conscience KNEW what was true, all would be Roman Catholic, no need to kiss the Koran, or pray with witch doctors and voodoo chiefs… (I think that Dignitatis Humanae supports that definition better.)

Look, I’m a very good obediencer, by nature. But, when it begins to make a shamble out of my conscience, I do draw the line, if only to maintain some sanity.
Love ya
.
 
40.png
TNT:
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.
Click to expand...
This is not a Church document. This is a thesis you put together. That said, I refer you back to PA for our part of the deal in regards to submission in areas of DISCIPLINE.

Now I’m guessing that you are saying that you are submitting Dignitatis Humanae as your proof. I think it’s kind of funny to submit a document which the rest of the title is THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS as having to do with our submission to the Roman Pontiff when the document has to do with our submission or the lack of necessisty for submission to social and civil authorities. Last time I checkedt he Pope wasn’t a social or civil authority.

The other thing I find funny is that most Traditionalist bash HD because its use of the word “subsists”. It would seem that most Trads treat it in the same way as Ecclesia Dei. Look at this part because it back my argument but forget the rest.
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.
Click to expand...
Hey, I believe that saints have said we are to obey unless we know for a fact that what we are being told to do is a sin. Did the Pope tell you to kiss the Koran? No. This is a straw argument. Are you saying that it was a sin on the Pope’s part? I’m thinking that this might not be your authority. 😦
Altar girls is manifestly NOT the Will of Christ, otherwise the Holy Spirit would have put it in His Church many centuries ago.
Click to expand...
So, unless the Church has always done it, it’s incorrect? Do we have some certain time frame to go by? What if it goes on for a few centuries, then will it be the will of God. Face it, this discipline is not in your hands. Like I’ve said before, I’m none to fond of altar girls but I don’t think I’m holier than the Pope. I recognize that it’s his call, not mine and I realize that according to a dogmatic consitution, I am to be submissive.
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should come to my Church. The Holy Eucharist is anything but minimized there! 🙂
I refuse to accept a host that is consecrated in contradiction to the Council of Trent and the Gospel.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Could you clarify what you mean here? Are you saying that a Host consecrated in a normative mass is not validly consecrated?
The True Church does NOT contradict itself, nor confound the salvation of souls or confuse their faith.
Click to expand...
That’s true, truth, our infallible teachings cannot be contradicted.
Click to expand...
 
color=black]My decision is therefore fully supported by Dignitatis Humanae.
Click to expand...
I think we’re comparing apples and oranges here. We have one document talking about our obedience to social and civil authorities and one that talks about obedience to the Pope. I know they are two separate things because then you’d have the Pope contradicting a dogmatic constitution which isn’t happening since the two documents are talking about obedience to two different entities.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
TNT:
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
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you. The problem is some here are opt in making the pope infallible in every single word he uses. I earlier gave the example: that if the pope says he likes hockey, MUST all catholics like hockey? I don’t think so. No POPE can ever break with his predesessors, after all Pope John Paul II quolts other popes before vatpcan II. However, and I do agree with you on all your valid points: Some want to make all BEFORE Vatican II as irrelevant, and this makes me angry: smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_10.gif It seems they just never get it: smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_13_4.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_6.gif
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
For #3, I assume that is simply a deterioration of the world at large and the decline of our society. There isn’t of necessity a correlation between Vatican II, the Mass of Paul VI, and the decline of vocations. The world was changing in LOTS of ways in the 60’s and 70’s.
Click to expand...
You are right,JKirk
I am old enough to have served Latin Masses
in the 1950’s in Scotland.Particularly in poorer areas,people did not turn up at Church with missals,so they didn’t really understand what was going on.There were others prayed the rosary during Mass.The rosary is a great prayer before or after Mass,not during it.In my opinion,the only thing that was great about the Latin Mass was that you could visit a non-English
speaking country and attending Mass was no different from being at home.I have not come across any liturgical abuse in the
way Mass is said nowadays.However,there were a few priests in
the days of the Latin Mass who gave me the impression they were in a desperate rush to catch a train afterwards.
Perhaps the attraction for the Latin Mass is about people thinking the grass on the other side of the fence is always greener.We get nostalgic about a lot of other things such as music.Vatican 2 simply encouraged us to question things more.
Unfortunately,a lot of people just chose the easy option and said “No” to God.Hence,the lack of vocations.Previously,we just
did a lot of things(going to Church was not the only thing)because our parents told us we had to.
 
40.png
misericordie:
I totally agree with you. The problem is some here are opt in making the pope infallible in every single word he uses. I earlier gave the example: that if the pope says he likes hockey, MUST all catholics like hockey? I don’t think so. No POPE can ever break with his predesessors, after all Pope John Paul II quolts other popes before vatpcan II. However, and I do agree with you on all your valid points: Some want to make all BEFORE Vatican II as irrelevant, and this makes me angry: smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_10.gif It seems they just never get it: smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_13_4.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_6.gif
Click to expand...
I repeat.
 
40.png
misericordie:
I repeat.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is that I quoted Pater Aeternus and it was completely ignored by you. Your view of reality is very twisted if you think hockey and Church disciplines are on the same par. Like I said, maybe if you say it enough it will become true! 😉
 
40.png
TNT:
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
Click to expand...
No, truthfully, his wife fought it, but it was granted. Of course, it happened after he married his current wife, but his first marriage was declared null. I assume the second was convalidated, because why go to the bother of having the first annuled?
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
See post #143.

You can nevr justify evil by the good that come from it. Rad-Trads seem to have a very selective memory when it comes to recalling Traditional Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
I am just stating facts. Whether you like the SSPX or not, the fact remains that if it were not for the SSPX, the indult would not be in existence or be very obscure.
 
The problems with many of the posters here is that they think that the pope rules be FIAT and by WHIM, which is simply not the case.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
No, truthfully, his wife fought it, but it was granted. Of course, it happened after he married his current wife, but his first marriage was declared null. I assume the second was convalidated, because why go to the bother of having the first annuled?
Click to expand...
CORRECT: IT OCCURRED IN 1996
Thanks for the heads up
 
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.
Click to expand...
Hey TNT,(Grand Prairie: The city of CareFlite choppers #2 and & 7)😉

Numbers 1-4 are traditional doctrines of the Catholic Church. It must be stressed that the Pope is the leader of the Church to define Sacred Scripture, teach, and lead the faithful. So if the Pope kisses the Koran, it doesn’t really matter. The Church isn’t dead. Popes aren’t saints; they’re are simply the descendants of St. Peter.

Go FSSP!
  • Joe
 
40.png
bear06:
Funny thing is that I quoted Pater Aeternus and it was completely ignored by you. Your view of reality is very twisted if you think hockey and Church disciplines are on the same par. Like I said, maybe if you say it enough it will become true! 😉
Click to expand...
I WILL KEEP MENTIONING TO YOU THE ANALOGY of sports and the Pope, because you say EVERY single word the pope utters MUST be obeyed, because he is Pope, while you quolt Peter Aeternus which is BEFORE Pope John Paul II, you contradict yourself because how this pope is contradictory to his predecessors on many issues make his views(kissing the Koran etc.) UN obeyable: well, let me ask you that: by the Pope kissing the Koran, should ALL catholics therefore kiss it too? He did it, well and you say he is to BE OBEYED in all therefore, lets kiss the koran too, better yet, let’s invite hindus to offer sacrifice to their pagan gods IN A CATHOLIC BASILICA (as was the case in fatima). Well, you may say it’s not discipline, well, but why then would he PUBLICALLY do that, at a prayer sevice(kiss the koran??) Was there a reason to kiss the koran? I wonder if muslims will kiss our Bible? No wait, Pater Aetrnus must not be in effect anymore, after all, does not as you said, a pope can disregard previuos disciplines? Well, if Quo Primus according to you, and Communion on the tongue only was changed in discipline by THIS pope, who is to say that in HIS discipline he did NOT eliminate Pater Aeternus: do you have PROOF it has NOT been eliminated? You keep dancing round the issues:🙂
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_125.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_116.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_122.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_117.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/101.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_123v.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/1055.gif
 
I WILL KEEP MENTIONING TO YOU THE ANALOGY of sports and the Pope, because you say EVERY single word the pope utters MUST be obeyed
Click to expand...
,
Thisi s a false statement which you cannot provide a quote for.
while you quolt Peter Aeternus which is BEFORE Pope John Paul II, you contradict yourself because how this pope is contradictory to his predecessors on many issues make his views(kissing the Koran etc.) UN obeyable: well, let me ask you that: by the Pope kissing the Koran, should ALL catholics therefore kiss it too?
Click to expand...
Hmmm… I must have missed the discipline he gave on kissing the Koran? Can you show me one place where he told us we must do this? Did he make this a Church discipline? This Koran argument is an oldy and has absolutely nothing to do with any teaching from the Pope. It certainly had nothing to do with a Church discipline.
He did it, well and you say he is to BE OBEYED in all therefore, lets kiss the koran too, better yet, let’s invite hindus to offer sacrifice to their pagan gods IN A CATHOLIC BASILICA (as was the case in fatima).
Click to expand...
Bah, hah, hah, this is a new one. When did that happen? Are you referring to the Pope saying mass on the tabernacle which was a rad-Trad fallacy?
Well, you may say it’s not discipline, well, but why then would he PUBLICALLY do that, at a prayer sevice(kiss the koran??) Was there a reason to kiss the koran? I wonder if muslims will kiss our Bible?
Click to expand...
Hey, it wasn’t a discipline and in my opinion probably not a good idea. You seem to think is was a sinful act. Sorry, I have no idea what the Pope’s thinking or culpability was on the matter since he’s never spoken of it despite the rad-Trads constantly bringing it up as their one “See we were right!” argument. In fact, if it weren’t for the good old rad-Trads perpetuating something that is so scandalous to them, I wouldn’t have even known about it. Keep it up, the whole world might know about it someday. That ought to be a proud day for you! 😦
No wait, Pater Aetrnus must not be in effect anymore, after all, does not as you said, a pope can disregard previuos disciplines?
Click to expand...
Helloooooo, PA is a DOGMATIC constitution. It’s not discipline.
Well, if Quo Primus according to you, and Communion on the tongue only was changed in discipline by THIS pope, who is to say that in HIS discipline he did NOT eliminate Pater Aeternus: do you have PROOF it has NOT been eliminated?
Click to expand...
If you think dogma can be eliminated then you have a serious problem! How about you just read this article:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Rad-Trads seem to have a very selective memory…
Click to expand...
And you seem to have a very selective memory when it comes to substantiating your assertions. Will you continue to allow my two unanswered questions to testify against you?

You call SSPXers heretics, yet you are unwilling to elucidate their heterodoxy? Sounds like the sin of calumny to me. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top