You must not challenge the NO Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter damooster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

damooster

Guest
I was watching a video of Cardinal Arinze discussing the Traditional Latin Mass, and he said (I’m paraphrasing):
The people can have it (the TLM), provided that they do not challenge the Second Vatican Council, and do not attack or challenge the way we say Mass today.
Click to expand...
My question to some of you traditionalists, and I know this will sound very argumentative (but not intended to be) is: some of you openly criticize Vatican II and the NO Mass, which is in direct contradiction to what Pope Benedict XVI set forth as a condition to allow TLM. How do you reconcile that? Am I misunderstanding something? I’m a new Catholic and I really don’t understand.

Again, I’m not trying to start a fight. I consider myself a “conservative” or a “traditionalist” but I do not challenge Vatican II or the new Mass but it really makes me wonder how other traditionalists can be so open with their criticisms.

Thank you for your time.
 
I just read the SP and it pertains to the EF. It does not say a word about anyone rejecting or debating the OF or VII. No “conditions” pertaining to the OF or VII are indicated by the Cardinal are there. At least in the context he implies 🤷

I have mixed feelings about his words. I agree with what he says as far as the abuse being the problem with the OF, not the OF itself.

He didn’t hide his bias for the OF and his general attitude toward traditionalists though.

Did I hear him use the word “banal” ? :eek: I mean ,really damooster, when a trad describes the Cardinal’s example in a similar way, it’s “disobedience” or “schismatic”.
But there is the good Cardinal pointing out the exact same concern himself.

just sayin 🤷
 
damooster said:
I was watching a video of Cardinal Arinze discussing the Traditional Latin Mass, and he said (I’m paraphrasing):

My question to some of you traditionalists, and I know this will sound very argumentative (but not intended to be) is: some of you openly criticize Vatican II and the NO Mass, which is in direct contradiction to what Pope Benedict XVI set forth as a condition to allow TLM. How do you reconcile that? Am I misunderstanding something? I’m a new Catholic and I really don’t understand.

Again, I’m not trying to start a fight. I consider myself a “conservative” or a “traditionalist” but I do not challenge Vatican II or the new Mass but it really makes me wonder how other traditionalists can be so open with their criticisms.

Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
I believe VII was a Valid Pastoral Council and that O.F. is a Valid Mass. I was born in the Post VII atmosphere. While growing up I saw first hand how The O.F. Mass was celebrated differently from Parish to Parish. I also saw the innovations and experiments to it. As a former Altar Boy it made me frustrated.

When I discovered the E.F. form in the Indult Mass. I was hooked and more that I learned about it, I saw the differences in both forms. I had a zero Latin background. But, the more I went and studied it. I saw the beauty in it. I can go on and list the differences it would be a thread on its own. In my opinion here are a few examples of why people are critical.
  1. The Liturgical abuse. Nonsense that goes about in the O.F. from Parish to Parish. The ruberics in the O.F. are vague which in my opinion leads to Liturgical Abuses.
  2. How the church’s changed from traditional gothic to strange auditorium in the round setting to a clam shell look. Michael Rose has two excellent books on this subject. “In Tiers of Glory” and “Ugly as Sin”.
  3. Removal of the Tabernacle, Altar rails, High Back Altar, and removal of the Stations of the Cross from some Parishes. Also the lack of statues of Saints. None of this was stated in VII.
  4. The disappearence of Latin in the O.F. Liturgy and at Catholic schools. VII stated that Latin is to be retained. You can say the O.F. Mass in Latin without the approval of the Local Bishop.
I could go on. But, it could make a book.

Now when I watch E.W.T.N. The O.F. Mass is celebrated revently. I wish the way they say the Mass on T.V. was uniform in all O.F. Masses throughout.
 
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)

I must preface this by saying I believe the NO is valid, and I attend and have attended it.

That being said, there is much in the New Rite, which, if not bad, is very, very unfortunate. I see a great deal lacking in a rite in which 13 genuflections are reduced to 2 (and many priests do not do that!), over 1000 orations to less than 400, and the removal of overtly Catholic-sounding prayers, mentioning saints, purgatory, Our Lady, etc.

If we as Catholics accepted this change without question, I do not think we would be doing our job as servants of Christ, and St. Robert Bellarmine points out we should correct even our superiors to prevent the spread of error. If Cardinals Bacci and Ottaviani (of Holy Office fame) were concerned (and, apparently, Padre Pio) than should we not be also be at least unsettled at the numerous and arguably unneccesary changes? No doctrines were further clarified, no teaching better expressed, and no abuses to be corrected. I am troubled that the NO seemed to be introduced for no better reason than modern practicality, which is not what Christianity is about.

Heretical? No. Valid? probably. Worrisome? Yes. I am 100% for full restoration of the old rites if for no other reason than to remove ambiguity from the intrinsic nature of the rite and restore clarity. Certain reforms are okay, and I have seen beautiful Anglican Old Rite Masses in old English. Beautiful! That I can see. But the NO as it stands lacks a certain richness, which, even if celebrated well, it will always lack. There is no subsitution for the fullness of Faith. Pace
 
damooster said:
My question to some of you traditionalists, and I know this will sound very argumentative (but not intended to be) is: some of you openly criticize Vatican II and the NO Mass, which is in direct contradiction to what Pope Benedict XVI set forth as a condition to allow TLM. How do you reconcile that? Am I misunderstanding something? I’m a new Catholic and I really don’t understand.
Click to expand...
Quite some time ago some “traditionalists” would tell anyone who would listen that the Mass of Pope Pius VI (or “NO Mass” in their lexicon) was an “invalid” form of the Mass. This went on for some time. After awhile they began to look rather foolish/nutty following comments of those like Cardinal Arinze.

The claims of an “invalid” Mass morphed into one of a “inorganic development.” That seems to be the battle cry of today for the extremists. Sadly they are simply wrong – the Mass of Pope Pius VI actually draws its inspiration from a period prior to the Tridentine Mass. Nothing however would change even if their claims were accurate.

I think such extremists are very much part of the Cafeteria Catholic brand. They made no effort to reconcile their beliefs with the truth. They simply pick and choose what they will believe and accept.
 
Charioteer said:
Quite some time ago some “traditionalists” would tell anyone who would listen that the Mass of Pope Pius VI (or “NO Mass” in their lexicon) was an “invalid” form of the Mass. This went on for some time. After awhile they began to look rather foolish/nutty following comments of those like Cardinal Arinze.

The claims of an “invalid” Mass morphed into one of a “inorganic development.” That seems to be the battle cry of today for the extremists. Sadly they are simply wrong – the Mass of Pope Pius VI actually draws its inspiration from a period prior to the Tridentine Mass. Nothing however would change even if their claims were accurate.

I think such extremists are very much part of the Cafeteria Catholic brand. They made no effort to reconcile their beliefs with the truth. They simply pick and choose what they will believe and accept.
Click to expand...
 
Charioteer said:
Quite some time ago some “traditionalists” would tell anyone who would listen that the Mass of Pope Pius VI (or “NO Mass” in their lexicon) was an “invalid” form of the Mass. This went on for some time. After awhile they began to look rather foolish/nutty following comments of those like Cardinal Arinze.

The claims of an “invalid” Mass morphed into one of a “inorganic development.” That seems to be the battle cry of today for the extremists. Sadly they are simply wrong – the Mass of Pope Pius VI actually draws its inspiration from a period prior to the Tridentine Mass. Nothing however would change even if their claims were accurate.

I think such extremists are very much part of the Cafeteria Catholic brand. They made no effort to reconcile their beliefs with the truth. They simply pick and choose what they will believe and accept.
Click to expand...
I believe you mean the Mass of Paul VI, not Pius VI.

In any case, I think using the extremist is terribly uncharitable, no matter your view. This especially for fellow Catholics, who, by and large, are in good faith.

Regarding the view that the Mass of Paul VI is inspired by prior views, a word from Pope Pius XII on the matter:

"But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the “deposit of faith” committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn. For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls’ salvation.? (Mediator Dei, 1947)

In any event, questioning the news Mass is a sign of healthy concern, even it is unfortunately often stated as vain criticism. They simply want what is best for the Faith, and I see little to criticise in that. I feel that way about Paul VI, even though I feel his zeal was misguided.
 
Thanks for the replies so far.

My original question did arise from some disappointment I’m having in Catholics “attacking” the Church from all sides. Right before I made my original post, I was at RCIA listening to the liberal instructors that are always invited to speak at this (liberal) parish. The one last night talked about Ethics and Morality and then proceeded to bad mouth the Pope, and so it got me wondering how people can so openly criticize the Pope and/or the Church.

I understand that everyone has an opinion, but as a new Catholic, it just seems that the Church takes a lot of flak and I wanted to address both sides of the spectrum (left and right).

As for RCIA, I have two more sessions (one is a potluck dinner) and then I never have to return.
 
damooster said:
I was watching a video of Cardinal Arinze discussing the Traditional Latin Mass, and he said (I’m paraphrasing):

My question to some of you traditionalists, and I know this will sound very argumentative (but not intended to be) is: some of you openly criticize Vatican II and the NO Mass, which is in direct contradiction to what Pope Benedict XVI set forth as a condition to allow TLM. How do you reconcile that? Am I misunderstanding something? I’m a new Catholic and I really don’t understand.

Again, I’m not trying to start a fight. I consider myself a “conservative” or a “traditionalist” but I do not challenge Vatican II or the new Mass but it really makes me wonder how other traditionalists can be so open with their criticisms.

Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
The Holy Father gave permission to a committee (I can’t remember its name) to to critique and give constructive criticism to the Vatican II documents. This however doesn’t give anyone the right to reject the council or its teaching. We must accept Vatican II as council and accept her teachings.I have asked about if one must accept Vatican II to a number of people, including Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J. of EWTN. Pope Benedict XVI say its alright to do a TLM. Latin has never been forbidden in a mass. Vatican II did intend to introduce vernacular, but still keep some Latin in the church. If you haven’t read the Vatican II documents, I would do so. There is nothing wrong of expressing a concern for the TLM. It should always have a part in the Church. It is still valid as the Novus Ordo mass is.
 
If the average Catholic spoke against the German bishops’ sale of indulgences in the sixteenth century, our Protestant siblings might still be living at home with us.
 
Charioteer said:
Quite some time ago some “traditionalists” would tell anyone who would listen that the Mass of Pope Pius VI (or “NO Mass” in their lexicon) was an “invalid” form of the Mass. This went on for some time. After awhile they began to look rather foolish/nutty following comments of those like Cardinal Arinze.

**The claims of an “invalid” Mass morphed into one of a “inorganic development.” That seems to be the battle cry of today for the extremists. Sadly they are simply wrong – the Mass of Pope Pius VI actually draws its inspiration from a period prior to the Tridentine Mass. Nothing however would change even if their claims were accurate.
**
I think such extremists are very much part of the Cafeteria Catholic brand. They made no effort to reconcile their beliefs with the truth. They simply pick and choose what they will believe and accept.
Click to expand...
I believe that Pope Benedict XVI has stated that there was inorganic development with the NO Mass, also. And to my mind he is very liturgically and theologically learned - at least more so than anyone here, I’m guessing.🤷
 
EnchantedEve said:
I believe you mean the Mass of Paul VI, not Pius VI.

In any case, I think using the extremist is terribly uncharitable, no matter your view. This especially for fellow Catholics, who, by and large, are in good faith…

…In any event, questioning the news Mass is a sign of healthy concern, even it is unfortunately often stated as vain criticism. They simply want what is best for the Faith, and I see little to criticise in that. I feel that way about Paul VI, even though I feel his zeal was misguided.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the Pius/Paul correction.

To be blunt, I don’t think most of the attacks on the Pauline Mass are healthy in the least. They don’t seem to be a product of concern for the faith, but one of ignorance and the need to find a culprit for that which they might happen to dislike in the Church today.

One of the most common critiques we see (at least right now) is the side-by-side comparison of the OF and the EF Masses. It boggles my mind that people feel they are the arbiters of what is “good” or at least “better.” Do they really believe that the Church would promulgate and use a Mass that was in any way inferior to an existing version? It’s scary to think they might! Their methods of analysis consist of little more than equating quantity to quality and that’s simply wrong.
 
damooster said:
I was watching a video of Cardinal Arinze discussing the Traditional Latin Mass, and he said (I’m paraphrasing):

My question to some of you traditionalists, and I know this will sound very argumentative (but not intended to be) is: some of you openly criticize Vatican II and the NO Mass, which is in direct contradiction to what Pope Benedict XVI set forth as a condition to allow TLM. How do you reconcile that? Am I misunderstanding something? I’m a new Catholic and I really don’t understand.

Again, I’m not trying to start a fight. I consider myself a “conservative” or a “traditionalist” but I do not challenge Vatican II or the new Mass but it really makes me wonder how other traditionalists can be so open with their criticisms.

Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
Instead of paraphrasing, why not provide a link so that he rest of us can hear or read what the good Cardinal actually said as opposed to the paraphrasing of his remarks. It is always better to hear the actual words that someone uses than to hear what someone else says they meant.

At least I think so, particlarly in an area this important.

Wouldn’t you agree?
 
palmas85 said:
Instead of paraphrasing, why not provide a link so that he rest of us can hear or read what the good Cardinal actually said as opposed to the paraphrasing of his remarks. It is always better to hear the actual words that someone uses than to hear what someone else says they meant.

At least I think so, particlarly in an area this important.

Wouldn’t you agree?
Click to expand...
I would agree with that. That’s why I did include a link…

(Hint: click on the underlined words).

Here it is again for you, however, if you’re having trouble.

youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU&feature=related
 
damooster said:
I was watching a video of Cardinal Arinze discussing the Traditional Latin Mass, and he said (I’m paraphrasing):

My question to some of you traditionalists, and I know this will sound very argumentative (but not intended to be) is: some of you openly criticize Vatican II and the NO Mass, which is in direct contradiction to what Pope Benedict XVI set forth as a condition to allow TLM. How do you reconcile that? Am I misunderstanding something? I’m a new Catholic and I really don’t understand.

Again, I’m not trying to start a fight. I consider myself a “conservative” or a “traditionalist” but I do not challenge Vatican II or the new Mass but it really makes me wonder how other traditionalists can be so open with their criticisms.

THE ANSWER FOR THAT IS to MAKE THE LINK:
  1. Secret of Fatima to be revealed in 1960 as requested by Our Most Blessed Mother Mary
  2. The signs and sybols on the one dollar bill related to the freemasons and like
NOVOS ORDO SECLORUM’ = New nonreligious Order on the dollar bill

NOVOS ORDO MASS

see the link!!!
  1. The Freemasons and John xxiii who was elected in 1958
  2. Sister Lucy’s last interview had a last interview by Father Fuentes in 1957
  3. Then sister Lucy was not to receive contact with anyone.
  4. 1960 spiritual director of sister Lucy for 20 yrs forbidden to see her anymore, during his return to Portugal
  5. Different sister Lucy pictures pops up in the 80’s. If you need proof just look at the dentist’s and doctor’s comments and pictures related:
    traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g11htTwoSisterLucys_Horvat.htm
  6. Death of John xxiii in in 1963
  7. Vatcan council ii was done during 1962-1965
  8. One of the most important moto of Vatican ii: Eucenimism in contradiction to scriptures itself
2 St. John Verse 9-10 : 9 Anyone who advances and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ has not God; he who abides in the doctrine, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, or say to him, Welcome"
  1. Need proof about John xiii, take a look at the pictures:
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/John23.html
  1. How about the big ecunumical event at Assissi that would sti Saint Francis up!:
John Paul ii which vatican ii is about to canonized can be seen in these pictures:
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/new_JP2_photos.php
  1. And also don’t forget the big scandal of the vatican bank linked to the Freemasons in 1982
.After the Vatican Bank scandal erupted in the early 1980’s, French and Italian news publications listed the names of more than 150 high ranking bishops, archbishops and cardinals who were active members of Freemasonry, including the P2 Masonic Lodge and other dark and sinister secret societies.

“did the enemy sow the weed , while the master was sleeping?”

Vatican ii offers total different principles from the True Catholic Church we had for centuries.

If you look at the important years here the 1960’ etc, you will see the link and understand why Our Blessed Mother asked for the secret to be revealed in 1960.
  1. also did you know that John xiii did not refused to reveal the secret as required by Our Blessed Mother in 1960. Why is that??? What was the secret about that the Freemasons helped by John xxiii had to bury it??? Why was the True sister Lucy put away.
If you need proof, you are welcome to email me and can give you more evidence…This is not a joke, this is the truth!!!

WE ARE NOT TRADDITIONALIST BUT TRUE CATHOLICS THAT BELIEVE IN THE TRUE CHURCH, NOT THE VATICAN II CHURCH… WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MAJOR DIFFERENCE HERE!!!

" Let those who have ears hear and those who have eyes see"

Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
TRUTH1960:
I feel sorry for you. 😦
 
Sorry Truth1960, but when I saw you referencing the Most Holy Family Monastery, I immediately discarded your response. The Dimond brothers are out there.
 
damooster said:
Again, I’m not trying to start a fight. I consider myself a “conservative” or a “traditionalist” but I do not challenge Vatican II or the new Mass but it really makes me wonder how other traditionalists can be so open with their criticisms.

Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
I don’t consider myself a traditionalist but I do prefer the EF, and in Latin. I also prefer Gregorian Chant to piano hymns. And this in line with Vatican II. How many of those attending the new Mass can say that?
 
damooster said:
I would agree with that. That’s why I did include a link…

(Hint: click on the underlined words).

Here it is again for you, however, if you’re having trouble.

youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU&feature=related
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. And, as I thought the paraphrasing of what the good cardinal said did leave out a tremendous amount of what was actuallysaid, particularly about WHY many wanted the Traditional Mass again. Those sentences actually answered your questions about why many questioned what has happened after Vatican II and challenged it. They are most certainly wrong to do so, but given what has happened in so many areas with so many Masses being abused, it is easy to see how it happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top