Would you like to see a phasing out of the Novus Ordo Missae leading to a return to only the TLM?

[saint_rafael]

I don’t know about you, but I hope I keep hearing it for eternity.

Jesus is love and mercy, but this can never be separated from justice. Those who reject his mercy will suffer his justice. The Church has been preaching the fuzzy “Jesus loves you” without the call to repent and holiness. It is not preaching of the Church Millatant, but the preaching of an emasculated, emotionalism of a weak Church. If there is no conversion, there will be damnation. It only takes one mortal sin to send a person to hell.

This I have not heard. If it is true, it may be from an erroneous instructor in one parish. Not the entire life team program
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Life Teen is pure emotionalism and penticostalism of Protestantism. It should be banned everywhere. The founder of LifeTeen was found to have committed acts of of child molestation. He was removed from his diocese and has since left the Catholic Church. He has founded his own ecumenical Church which is nothing more than penticostalism. This is where Life Teen leads. Google him and find the facts for yourself.

 

[JReducation]

JR,

The Passage from Cardinal Ratzinger is in no way the magisteruim. It is ridiculous to state that a book from one Catholic Cardinal is the magisteruim. That is a private opinion. The ordinary magisterium is the infallible teachings of Popes and bishops united to him that come from tradition and the councils.

The Magisteium speaks in the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, when he states the infallible teaching that Genesis is historical in it’s true sense:

Humani Generis:

1. “If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences,…”
2. “…This Letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense,…”
3. “Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”

As Far as Galileo is concerned, Robert Sungenis, a great Catholic Apologist wrote a book defending the Catholic position on geocentrism, called “Galileo was Wrong: the Church was right” in Vlumes I and II.
catholicintl.com/

However, John Paul II agreed with this and Benedict continues to subscribe to this. Now that he is pope, it becomes part of his teaching. There is not issue on this.

What the Congregation for the Faith taught, Pope John II agreed to and Pope Benedict continues to subscribe to is not up for debate.

It is what it is.

JR

 

[saint_rafael]

However, John Paul II agreed with this and Benedict continues to subscribe to this. Now that he is pope, it becomes part of his teaching. There is not issue on this.

What the Congregation for the Faith taught, Pope John II agreed to and Pope Benedict continues to subscribe to is not up for debate.

It is what it is.

JR

Just because Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict believe in evolution, that does not make it Church teaching. That is their own private opinions. Popal teachings only come from the papacy of the Popes. Prior teachings of a Pope when he was a priest, bishop, or cardinal are irrevelant. Popes are only responsible for what they teach as Popes.

I don’t think you understand the nature of the magisterium and the authority of Popes. Popes are only infallible when the speak Ex Cathdra. They make an infallible pronouncement from the Chair of Peter. Popes in their teaching, usually restate what is already infallible from tradition and the magisterium.
Most of the other things they say are just opinions and governing decisions which any Catholic can disagree with.

you should study this, under the section of authority:
fisheaters.com/101.html

 

[pnewton]

… but evolution is nowhere mentioned in the bible and is directly refuted by Genesis.

I do not think this is a position of the Catholic Church. The Church has only defined a handful of scriptures.

Really, this needs its own thread. Evolution, geocentrism, etc. has nothing to do with liturgy.

 

[JReducation]

Jesus is love and mercy, but this can never be separated from justice. Those who reject his mercy will suffer his justice. The Church has been preaching the fuzzy “Jesus loves you” without the call to repent and holiness. It is not preaching of the Church Millatant, but the preaching of an emasculated, emotionalism of a weak Church. If there is no conversion, there will be damnation. It only takes one mortal sin to send a person to hell.

Life Teen is pure emotionalism and penticostalism of Protestantism. It should be banned everywhere. The founder of LifeTeen was found to have committed acts of of child molestation. He was removed from his diocese and has since left the Catholic Church. He has founded his own ecumenical Church which is nothing more than penticostalism. This is where Life Teen leads. Google him and find the facts for yourself.

I don’t know about your diocese, but in my diocese Life Teen is very orthodox. Young people go to mass, confession, minister to each other, take care of the poor, worship as every good Catholic does. Their liturgy is very reverent. The kids are very active in catechesis and RCIT.

I don’t see why it should be abolished.

The fact that its founder committed a heinous act doesn’t stain the entire ministry. That’s guilt by association. Where is the justice in that?

JR

 

[Joannm]

Well maybe some places and different leaders are different as to how much they put in, but i know a few folks involved in Life teen in my diocese and they say that its prety much an elementary school religion class. No real dogma or doctrine, just the “feel good” and “Jesus loves you” ****, which i am sick and tired of hearing. Im waiting for my priest to actually preach Dogma from the pulpit! And wasnt Life teen suspected of heretical teaching lately, i thought i heard that, i could be wrong.

Life Teen was reprimanded for illicit liturgical practices.

 

[JReducation]

Just because Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict believe in evolution, that does not make it Church teaching. That is their own private opinions. Popal teachings only come from the papacy of the Popes. Prior teachings of a Pope when he was a priest, bishop, or cardinal are irrevelant. Popes are only responsible for what they teach as Popes.

I don’t think you understand the nature of the magisterium and the authority of Popes. Popes are only infallible when the speak Ex Cathdra. They make an infallible pronouncement from the Chair of Peter. Popes in their teaching, usually restate what is already infallible from tradition and the magisterium.
Most of the other things they say are just opinions and governing decisions which any Catholic can disagree with.

you should study this, under the section of authority:
fisheaters.com/101.html

You do realize that there are very few ex cathedra statements made by popes through history, but we accept them as authoritative.

Here are some things for you to consider.

One of John Paul’s biographers recalls his position on evolution and his acceptance of it within the context of faith.

**“His thoughts on the origin of the universe were that the big bang theory of creation might well be true, that it is not incompatible with the Church’s teachings; that we must continue research and investigation in this area and invite the world’s scientists to understand that if the theory is true it does not mean it was random, or an accident, or inevitable. He reminded scientists that the big bang theory was conceived in the mind of a scientist who was a priest and theologian, Father George Lemaitre of Belgium, whose work was applauded by Albert Einstein.” (John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father. Noonan, Peggy, 2005) **

In his own words, he wrote the following on evolution, which defends what Pius XII had written. John Paul’s understanding of Pius XII is that evolution and scripture are not in conflict.

**“In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points. **

John Paul also states his faith that the theory is not concocted, but is the product of independent research.

It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

His concern with the theory of evolution was to preserve what the interpretation that Gaudium et Spes had given to the creation story in the Book of Genesis, that man is the only creature on earth that God wanted for its own sake and therefore the theory of evolution cannot negate man’s dignity or place him below the rest of creation. Like Cardinal Ratzinger then, Pope Benedict today, he accepts that man is part of the evolutionary process, but he has a special place in the universe and that this is the message of Genesis.

The Church’s magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is “the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake” (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person.” (John Paul II, 1996)

newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

Hope this helps clarify the current belief that comes directly from the Vatican. You’re always welcome to disagree; but you cannot condemn anyone for teaching what the Holy Fathers believe.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Life Teen was reprimanded for illicit liturgical practices.

It wasn’t Life Teen, it was individual priests who were involved in youth ministries, not just Life Teen ministries.

Unfortunately, some of them tried some very “creative” ways of drawing the teens.

JR

 

[saint_rafael]

JR,

Pope Leo XIII 1893 encyclical Providentissimus Deus:

"The opinion of the Fathers is also of very great weight when they treat of these matters [the interpretation of Sacred Scripture] in their capacity of doctors, unofficially; not only because they excel in their knowledge of revealed doctrine and in their acquaintance with many things which are useful in understanding the apostolic Books, but because they are men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God has bestowed a more ample measure of His light. Wherefore the expositor should make it his duty to follow their footsteps with all reverence, and to use their labours with intelligent appreciation.** But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense**, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.

Pope Puis XII never gave approval of evolution in Humani Generis, he only gave approval for furder study, even that turned out to be misguided. He even stated that evolution was not proven. Pope John Paul II was in error about evolution. He was misguided and misled. He had atheistic materialists advising him on the scientidfic Pontifical commission. Pope JPII thought evolution was true because many priests falsely believed in it.

Gadiem Et Spes in not an infallible document. Vatican II being a pastoral council, defined no dogmas or new doctrines. Pope John Paul II was misguided in trying to fit Church teaching with a document that carries no dogmatic authority. **If he spent more time researching the Church fathers and prior Popes, he would have seen that the Magisterium teaches that God created the world Ex Nihilo, out of nothing, or a special six day creation. **

All you have presented are the private opinions of Pope John Paul II on creation. Just because the Vatican teachings something, does not make it true. It’s true when it has been taught by the extraordinary and ordinary magisterium, Church tradition, and the Bible. The Holy Father was wrong because the Bible, Magisterium, and Tradition teach six day creation.

 

[JReducation]

JR,

Pope John Paul II was in error about evolution. He was misguided and misled. He had atheistic materialists advising him on the scientidfic Pontifical commission. Pope JPII thought evolution was true because many priests falsely believed in it.

This is a very bold statement. I hope that you’re a theologian. Because Benedict and John Paul are both theologians and philosophers and popes. I’ll take my chances with them.

Pope John Paul II was misguided in trying to fit Church teaching with a document that carries no dogmatic authority.

Another very bold statement.

If he spent more time researching the Church fathers and prior Popes, he would have seen that the Magisterium teaches that God created the world Ex Nihilo, out of nothing, or a special six day creation.

I’m assuming that you are certain that he was unfamiliar with the Church Fathers and the teachings of his predecessors.

How do you know this?

It’s true when it has been taught by the extraordinary and ordinary magisterium, Church tradition, and the Bible. The Holy Father was wrong because the Bible, Magisterium, and Tradition teach six day creation.

I always thought that the Holy Father is the highest teaching authority in the Church. This has not changed.

Unless you are a qualified theologian, in the service of the Catholic Church, I would suggest that this is your personal opinion, which you have a right to espouse. Neither you nor I have the authority to challenge the Pope’s theology. That’s not the way that the Catholic Church operates.

That’s why the Pope has Fra. Raniero, OFM Cap. That’s his personal theologian.

If you disagree with the Pope when he makes his personal belief public and you feel that his public statements should not be repeated, then you can communicate your concerns to Cardinal Levada at the Congregation for the Faith.

As long as a Pope makes a public statement in front of hundreds of people, he knows that it’s going to be passed around. He’s not a dummy. If he doesn’t want anyone to follow his lead, he would not make such a public statement. It would be too risky.

We have three popes saying the same thing: Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They all agree that evoluation and scripture are not in conflict.

If you want to challenge them, write Cardinal Levada. That’s the best suggestion that I can make.

JR

 

[ProVobis]

This is the official teaching of the Magisterium today…

So would the Big Bang Theory be inconsistent with the early Bible writings?

 

[Aragorn1]

Phasing out of liturgical abuses will never happen as long as people are flocking towards charismatic experiences. The Catholic Church can’t afford the emigration toward that growing culture. You want the OF, you have to accept it as is, no conditions. It was designed for many options and, if anything, they’ll be more creative with it. But if you insist on trying to find a reverent one, you’re probably going to be spending a lot of Sunday gas miles to find it every Sunday. Might be easier just to find the EF or a Byzantine.

I think you’re looking at this from a practical standpoint, whereas my post was more theoretical. Really, the practical difficulty of finding a reverent OF nearby is irrelevant to the question of whether the OF should be eliminated altogether (again, the argument relies on objecting to the abuses as opposed to the proper rubrics).

The same goes for “flocking towards charismatic experiences”. These are things that came afterwards: they are results of poor catechesis, emotionalism, immature spirituality. If the Vatican documents and the GIRM are followed to the letter, if we have holy and well-trained priests who offer reverent Masses properly, then I submit there should be no problem with the OF and thus no reason at all for it to be “phased out”. Any criticism of the OF, or comparison between it and the EF, should be done at the level of promulgation and not that of implementation (in other words, look at the documents and the missals, etc., and analyze the way the Mass is supposed to be done instead of the way it is often abused).

And to just about everyone else on this thread, HELLO!!! Do you think we can get off the creation/evolution debate and get back to liturgy???

 

[JReducation]

So would the Big Bang Theory be inconsistent with the early Bible writings?

Not according to Pope Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

The Big bang just tells you how the universe evolved.

The scriptures reveal the Creator, the dignity of man above all creation, God’s preference for man over everything he created, and how man is the image and likeness of his Creator: inteligence, free will, and destined for eternity

The Jewish writers were not interested in writing science. They were interested in writing Salvation History.

Science is not interested in exploring Salvation history, it’s interested in the biological evolution of man, not the spiritual dimension.

Ratzinger said it best when he wrote that they are not mutually exclusive as long as we keep in mind that at some point in the evolutionary process man comes into existence with a soul and as long as we keep in mind that the evolutionary process is not a random event, but it is like scripture says, all the work of the Creator, who is God and Father.

Basically, Ratzinger makes it clear that the Catholic can believe evolution as long as we do not take God’s presence out of the equation.

The Big Bang theory was first thought up by a Catholic priest who was a contemporary of Einstein. He was a priest, scientist and theologian. Einstein and Pope John Paul expressed great admiration for him.

JR

 

[JReducation]

The OP’s comment that we’re off track is correct. I for one apologize for being one of the guilty parties. I’m very sorry.

However, going back to the original question, I would like to raise a question of my own in response. Why would we want to phase out the Ordinary Form?

If we’re afraid of abuses, those who commit abuses are going to still be among us, even if the Extraordinary Form becomes the Ordinary Form.

The issue is really up to the bishops of each diocese to oversee that the two forms are celebrated within the rubrics. Both forms respond to the pastoral needs of the people.

In addition, the abuses should not influence the faith of the Church. The liturgy is still efficacious in both forms.

How do we even know how many Catholics want the Extraordinary Form? I realize that there are many, but are there even sufficient to justify doing away with the Ordinary Form. Let’s remember that the form is used around the world, not just the United States and he experience in other countries may not be the same as ours.

I was a missionary in Latin America for many years and the faithful were happy with the Ordinary Form. Those who left the Church did not leave it because of the liturgy. That was an excuse. They left it because of other reasons and as usual they blamed the priests, nuns, mass, saints, devotion to Mary etc. What they failed to mention was that they were lukewarm Catholics to begin with.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the same reason is the case in the USA.

I have a friend who left the Church because of the priest scandal. But when I challenged him with the fact that the media neer reports how many of those accused are acquitted, then he changed his story to Church control. And if you keep challenging those who leave, they keep giving you a different answer.

I do not believe that the liturgy is the primary reason for people leaving.

I agree with Pop Benedict that the problems with the liturgy contribute to the deline in the Church, but I believe that the problem is not so much the form as the poorly celebrated liturgy. The form is not sick, the liturgical planning is. That has to be improved.

I know from my own experience in our parish. We have seven masses every Sunday and they are full. We also have friars who are very good preachers and a liturgist who is excellent at what he does. He’s a lay brother with a degree in liturgy from the Angelicum and he knows how to put together a liturgy. When our Brothers get out there to celebrate the liturgy, it’s very well planned. The music, the prayers of the faithful, every gesture and every detail is in place.

Before I came here, my former parish had a very good lay man who was our liturgist and we have every mass full as well. Even the pastor’s mass was full. That pastor was a rather arid preacher, but his content was good.

JR

 

[anamchara]

Heavens no I wouldn’t want to see a phasing out of the NO. That is what brought me into the Church as convert. Our services were similar to the Catholic Mass so it wasn’t completely foreign to me. Expect for the obvious of course, the real presence.

 

[ProVobis]

I know from my own experience in our parish. We have seven masses every Sunday and they are full. We also have friars who are very good preachers and a liturgist who is excellent at what he does. He’s a lay brother with a degree in liturgy from the Angelicum and he knows how to put together a liturgy. When our Brothers get out there to celebrate the liturgy, it’s very well planned. The music, the prayers of the faithful, every gesture and every detail is in place.

Before I came here, my former parish had a very good lay man who was our liturgist and we have every mass full as well. Even the pastor’s mass was full. That pastor was a rather arid preacher, but his content was good.

JR

Isn’t that part of the problem with the NO? I realize it may put people out of work, but why need a liturgist at all? Why not just say the NO as it was promulgated? Why keep people on their toes every Sunday? Why make it so different from parish to parish?

I’ve attended a lot of NO Masses in my life and have to say the only way to recognize it is from parish to parish is seeing the priest facing the congregation or sitting on the side, vernacular, favored people bringing up the “gifts,” communion in the hands, exchanging of handshakes, and extraordinary ministers. Everything else is up to the liturgist. Take this away all these externals and most wouldn’t recognize the difference between the OF and EF. Why is that?

 

[Claudius]

Yes, but one might wonder why the bishops who are placed ot “govern the Church of God” aren’t already doing so. …

You ask a very good question. Some Bishops are as bad as some of these bad priest. We need to reign them in. People need to complain the Vatican over and over again until a bad Bishop is replaced. We need protestants to convert to Caholicism of the Eastern Rites so that we can have full Churches to go to if the Latin Rite Churches are doing wrong. (Personally I think the Maronites and the Coptics have a very reverant Mass. I would say the same for the Greek or the Slavonic Rites but I can’t get passed the image of the spoon giving communion.)

On the other hand, some poeple in some places have been waiting a long time for a Bishop and don’t want to have to wait years for a replacement to their bad Bishop. This is why we need to increase holiness in the Church. If a Bishop has a flock that doesn’t care, the Bishop may think that he can get away with anything. If the Bishop has a very devout flock, he is probably likely to act accordingly. Everyday Catholics need to increase in holiness, and regardless of OF or EF, this is the goal for all of us. When the layity increases in holiness, we will see an increase in holy orders.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Jesus is love and mercy, but this can never be separated from justice. Those who reject his mercy will suffer his justice. The Church has been preaching the fuzzy “Jesus loves you” without the call to repent and holiness. It is not preaching of the Church Millatant, but the preaching of an emasculated, emotionalism of a weak Church. If there is no conversion, there will be damnation. It only takes one mortal sin to send a person to hell.

I agree with almost all you say. God’s attributes are infinite. Love, Mercy and Justice (and he does have more). Insofar as God’s mercy is concerned, being infinite, it is without end. In private appirations approved by the Church of Jesus to St Faustina , Jesus is quoted as saying, it is mercy I desire, not justice. The mercy is for those of us, the Church Militant, who are living. Justice is for the dead. Jesus’ mercy is free for all of us who turn to him. Turning to him entails a total change in way of live. To live the Divine Mercy, we are centered in prayer, adoration, adoration, the Eucharist and all the sacraments and most of all the Mass. The saying , “My Jesus, I trust in you.” comes from the Divine Mercy way of life, as it was told to St. Faustina in one of the apparitions of Jesus. While Jesus wants us to trust in him, that trust is centered in turning to him is all we do. The trust is not a presumption, as we know his infinite mercy IS for us not. We will all face his infinite Justice once dead.

Life Teen is pure emotionalism and penticostalism of Protestantism. It should be banned everywhere. The founder of LifeTeen was found to have committed acts of of child molestation. He was removed from his diocese and has since left the Catholic Church. He has founded his own ecumenical Church which is nothing more than penticostalism. This is where Life Teen leads. Google him and find the facts for yourself.

If what you say is true, it was wrong on his part. I pray for him, so should you as condemnation is not ours. We can condemn the acts, not the person. I see the fruits of what he started in the Life teen program in our parish. In the last several years, I have seen teens raised in unchurched families flocking to our parish and being received into the Church at the Easter Vigil. So, no it is not bad. Don’t forget, God can use any means he chooses to bring people to him. I see this as one of those means.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Claudius]

You know, if more people understood the Mass, I mean what the Mass means and why do celebrate it, most of the abuses would go away in both the OF and the EF.

Having the EF is not about saying that the OF is invalid, or bad or wrong. It is not about sending the Church back in time. It is about using the EF to increase holiness. Not that these people that want it couldn’t do that with the OF, but they love the EF. The EF has always been valid. The EF is not about wanting to end abuses. The EF is about going to Mass in the way that is more traditional.

It is going to a Mass that is much closer to the original Mass. I do not attack the OF at all and will say that it is 100% proper to attend, but just a survey of the liturgical forms out there shows us that there is something different in character between the OF and the EF. The EF looks much closer to the way Mass is done in the Greek Rite, Coptic Rite, Armenean Rite, Chaldean Rite and so on. It is a historically more authentic Mass. Not that the OF is not still the Mass.

I would like to see some of the things that we have in the OF put into the EF, such as a psalm and an Old Testament reading. I pray the hours and that has caused me to love the psalms and they make perfect sense to be part of the Mass. Indeed, Lord Jesus sang the Psalms Himself with His holy Apostles at the Last Supper.

The EF has a place and should be said if for no other reason then to at least preserve it for future generations to celebrate. The OF has a place as well and only when we force bad priest and bishops to do their jobs correclty will the abuses stop.

Personaly, I would go to the EF if I could. I believe that if such a Mass were offered in my area, that the people who go there would be more like me,( Latin speaking, indulgence seeking, Liturgy of the Hours praying, rosary reciting, history studying Catholics). On the other hand, the people who go to the TLM, at least outside the Catholic Church proper, have a really bad reputation among some for racist, backwater theological views who would be nothing like me at all and may turn me away for being too brown. I don’t know that for sure but I did know one Pius X family that specifically told me not to go to their church and scolded me for telling one of their children that the face on a penny was the face of Lincoln. One of the teenagers in the family asked me to teach him some Japanese but never asked to learn Latin from me. This is just an anecdote but goes a long way to show how some of the opinions of TLM goes were probably started.

On this last point I will say this, it was an African Pope, Victor I, who ordered the Mass in Latin, and thus changing the liturgy of St. Peter from Greek (or as some claim Aramaic) to Latin and the Roman Rite as we know it really sees a begining.

 

[Aragorn1]

Great post, Claudius. Yes, I think there’s a major problem on both sides when it comes to distinguishing between “pro-EF” and “anti-OF”.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it Pope Damasus who changed the Mass to Latin?