Yes, the Catholic Church is still saving souls. And while the doctrine of the Catholic Church certainly undergoes legitamite development, the Gospel truth that she preaches is always the same Gospel truth.
In what way? Let me quote from St. Jerome in his refutation against Rufinius “What sin do I commit if I follow the judgement of the churches?”
I disagree. Nonetheless, my pastor and bishop are very orthodox, so at the moment I’m quite blessed.
How? According to Dr. Ludig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *
My home is in the house of the Lord. Where are you? In the house of Lefebvre or some other “independent” church?
I understand. However, I trust in the Lord.
However, we do now have a wonderful bishop. Hopefully he won’t need as long to get us out of the mess as it took to get us into the mess. Many positive things are happening here so I have much hope.
Do you mean Bishop Vigirone (?spell) Give him back. I think he may have been the best to come out of Detroit.Well, you live in CO and I in the Oakland Diocese. I’m thinking there could be a different level of craziness.
We homeschool too. I think different kids need different things. I’ve seen some homeschoolers turn out great and some not so great. I’m already getting them into activism which I think is a big help!
Yep it is and I worked darn hard to get him along with all of my “cohorts in crime”. He’s what you get when you send a shiny little CD-Rom off to Rome with undeniable proof of the abuses in the diocese.
i believe it is because the novus ordo mass is the new mass, therefore it seems obvious to go with the new and change(a word i’ve said many times but hasn’t seemed to have sunken in yet). If you have a computer from 1979, wouldn’t you get a newer model from today(2005) instead of staying with that(1979 model) Why would you prefer a mass with alot of errors(like my example the 1979 model) as opposed to something new? What i don’t get is why people have a problem with change. I would advise you not to go to one and stay with the newer and better form of mass.
Yeah, a Mass without errors when there are so many errors in the Latin to English translation of the Mass. Or proclaiming that “Christ will come again” after the words of Consecration. Now THAT’S without error!i believe it is because the novus ordo mass is the new mass, therefore it seems obvious to go with the new and change(a word i’ve said many times but hasn’t seemed to have sunken in yet). If you have a computer from 1979, wouldn’t you get a newer model from today(2005) instead of staying with that(1979 model) Why would you prefer a mass with alot of errors(like my example the 1979 model) as opposed to something new? What i don’t get is why people have a problem with change. I would advise you not to go to one and stay with the newer and better form of mass.
Podo
It hasn’t sunk in yet because it is foolish logic. Keep trying Podo.
The New Mass is a dud. The Montreal semianry once had 700 seminarians but now they have 30. that’s a lose of over 2000%i believe it is because the novus ordo mass is the new mass, therefore it seems obvious to go with the new and change(a word i’ve said many times but hasn’t seemed to have sunken in yet). If you have a computer from 1979, wouldn’t you get a newer model from today(2005) instead of staying with that(1979 model) Why would you prefer a mass with alot of errors(like my example the 1979 model) as opposed to something new? What i don’t get is why people have a problem with change. I would advise you not to go to one and stay with the newer and better form of mass.
Podo
Your math is wrong, that’s a loss of 95% not “2000%”.
I go to an Indult Mass or Greek Catholic Divine liturgy not some “independent” church like the local sedevacantists.
If they are validly ordained and if their matter, form, and intent are valid as they are in my parish.
Many seem to make the connection that the new Mass caused the vocation crisis. But how do you explain the droves of priests who were educated before the new mass and then proceeded to perpetrate the abuses of the new mass? Did they just suddenly become bad priests? Or more likely, were the seminaries filled with formational problems decades before the new mass? And did those same formational issues cause a general lack of interest in vocations to the priesthood?
:clapping:
By the time John XXIII became Pope, modernist thought had been suppressed for decades. In the 40’s, for instance, the ideas of Teilhard de Chardin had been gaining popularity in the seminaries, and along came Humani Generis in 1950 to throw cold water on them. But the discouragement didn’t last too long for priests, seminarians, religious and lay people took Pope John’s call for an ecumenical council and aggiornamiento as an invitation to “throw off the shackles.” There seemed to be no more fear of rebuke. Openly questioning Catholic teaching and tradition was seen as progressive and intellectual rather than heretical, aiming to bring the church out of the “rigoristic dark ages.” Liturgical experimentation merely was part and parcel of all of that and thus was born the new mass. So yes, the new mass can’t be blamed entirely for the crisis in vocations in Western countries. It is part of a continuing thread, which came to a head in the late 50’s and early 60’s.
Very true! The current rite of mass did not cause these problems. These problems existed before its promulgation and even before the Second Vatican Council. They are rooted in the errors collectively known as Modernism that were busily infecting the membership and hierarchy of the Church for decades prior to Vatican II. These errors go back to at least 1832, when Pope Gregory XVI wrote Mirari Vos.
