One big clue to the pope’s thinking came in his 1997 book, titled “Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977” and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.
…
But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a “real improvement” in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.
In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old “low Mass,” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, “was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people” when it disappeared.
The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.
With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope’s new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.
CNS on the Motu Proprio: a link and commentary
What came to my mind here was there is also a need for those who have rejected our tradition and traditional forms to likewise demonstrate their own good will and a hermeneutic of continuity. Let’s be clear and fair, there has been a hermeneutic of rupture which has banished most anything deemed “pre-conciliar” and this is as problematic as the sort of traditionalist who has rejected anything and everything “post-conciliar.”
Further, not all “traditionalists” take on this approach of rupture. If they are simply attached to the treasures of the classical liturgy, desirous of true liturgical reform in the light of both the Council and our tradition of organic development, all the while never questioning the validity of the modern Roman rite, but calling for a reform of the reform with regard to it, then it seems to me that they have nothing to justify and join the ranks of our Holy Father as a Cardinal in this set of ideas. In that regard, I would propose they form a part of the true liturgical centre and mainstream —- just as do those who focus upon the reform of the reform, but who are supportive of the availability of the classical liturgy, provided we do not take an immobiliistic and triumphalistic approach to it, or one which rejects the Council — not as popular opinion may go of course, but as the mind of the Church may go, as seen in the light of the Conciliar documents and our tradition.
As for the extremes, the road to a change of heart and mind is not a one way street as this article might make one think; it is rather and precisely a two-way street.
Of course a lot of people have been wondering where the Tridentine Mass liberalization motu proprio is and why it hasn’t come out.
We know with a high degree of confidence that the documents was drafted–in fact, that it’s been through several drafts–and that B16 has been favorably disposed to issuing it (or it wouldn’t have been drafted in the first place).
But where is it?
Some have speculated that it was delayed by the negative reaction of the French episcopate–or other episcopates–and that this negative reaction may derail it altogether.
Maybe.
Although maybe B16 is just letting the bishops have their say before he does what he planned to do all along.
Myself, I have a different speculation about why it hasn’t come out. The desire for greater consultation with the bishops may be part of it, but I suspect that there is a different factor that has been delaying the motu proprio: the delay of the apostolic exhortation.
The Holy See sequences the release of major documents so that each one can make an impact in the press and then be absorbed by the public (or at least the relevant sections of the public). They don’t want the impact of major documents diluted by having them step on each other.
You could see a bit of that happening last week when–although the big news was the release of the apostolic exhortation–the headlines in many places were stolen by attention to a document of much lesser importance: the warning about some books by an individual theologian.
The latter–because it involved controversy–got more press in some circles, though it was much less important in and of itself.
Now you can imagine what would happen if they released the motu proprio before or (as some suggested) at the same time as the apostolic exhortation. Since the motu proprio will be controversial, the press surrounding it would totally overwhelm the apostolic exhortation.
The smart things for B16 to do–and he is a very smart man–would be to issue the apostolic exhortation first, to lead with the document that clearly shows he is in harmony with the liturgical renewal that followed the Second Vatican Council (even if it needs some course corrections) and then issue the motu proprio liberalizing the celebration of the Tridentine Mass.
The inordinate delays with the apostolic exhortation (which B16 complained about himself, albeit politely) thus strikes me as a likely reason for the delay in the release of the motu proprio.
Or that’s my theory.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Mr Akin,
I curious what you mean by the “liturgical renewal that followed the Second Vatican Council.” Can you give some concrete examples of what you see as signs of liturgical renewal?
A small pet peeve: why does everyone call it the “liberalization” of the Tridentine Mass. Seems an ironic word to use, lol.
Maybe, Jimmy, said motu proprio won’t come out, because it is imprudent, to say the least, to take the power of regulating liturgy in their dioceses away from bishops, and the Holy Father might consider it fair to leave well enough alone, rather than introducing what could easily become a recipe for chaos.
“leave well enough alone”
I suppose if you consider the faithful being subjected to wacko Bishops who have no appreciation for the Church’s liturgical tradtions being “well enough alone,” then you’re right.
I think this Moto Proprio might actually dispell some of the chaos that we’re experiencing now. It’s a great opprotunity for the faithful to learn about the sacred traditions of the Church and to grow in appreciation for the Sacrifice of the Mass.
I think you may be right, Jimmy.
Pax,
Thomistic
Kris–
listen, I’m not opposed to the idea of the Tridentine rite being celebrated. What I am worried about is that wacko bishops and their non-wacko counterparts, whose considerable canonical responsibilities are outlined in CIC1983 381-402, may have difficulty exercising vigilance over the liturgy and the unity of the the People of God entrusted to him if the law allows for such liturgical factionalism (and the doctrinal wars that often accompany it) with his diocese. One liturgy is not in some way ontologically higher, or more pleasing to God, than another. What is pleasing to God is seeing his Church united at a common altar of sacrifice, in the celebration of the Eucharist.
Why promote division, especially since, in 300 years, folks will be clamoring for the Novus Ordo instead of whatever liturgy is being used then? Why not prefer a united people of God, rather than allow folks to decide that liturgy is about how the sensory experience makes them feel?
Not at all. To “liberalize” is to make freer, to remove limitations or restrictions. “Liberal” is the opposite of “conservative” only in knee-jerk political groupthink.
Jimmy’s theory, I think, is right on the mark. Pope Benedict is wisely waiting for the perfect timing. And not that this timing is really essential, and that the Motu Propio could adequately be promulgated at any time, it might just be an act of charity on the Holy Fathers part, to try to make it as acceptable to as many as possible, and in the least ‘confictive’ way.
And to offer my own further elaboration to Jimmy’s logical theory, I would assume that the Holy Father wants to tie it in, somehow, with Easter, either shortly before or shortly thereafter. And this makes sense, due to the fact that everything concerning the MP revolves around Easter, ie. the Sacrifice of Christ and His resurrection. So….what BETTER time would there be, than this, for a new liturgical promulgation such as this?
Just to speculate, I think Pope Benedict will ANNOUNCE the date sometime shortly before Palm Sunday, with the actual release within 10 days after Easter Sunday. This might take into consideration all of the catechumens who are getting ready for their Easter baptisms, and I think the Holy Father might have some charitable consideration(and of course Liturgical insight), for this, and not want to disturb or overshadow it for them( the catechumens), in any way.
But to announce it at this time, shortly before Palm Sunday, would be very suitable, because it will give everyone the time to meditate about it during Holy Week. And when fasting and meditating on the Passion of the Lord, the idea and rational behind the MP might be easier for some people to digest. Really the MP does nothing more than try to add back a little of the holiness, dignity and respect to the Mass, that it had previously had for so many centuries.
And what BETTER time could there be to make an argument for its necessity than Holy Week, or shortly thereafter, when the Passion of Christ is still highly impressed upon the soul and fresh in our memory? In this context, an argument for more ‘gravity’ and depth in the Mass can be understood by most Catholic, even the ignorant ones!
And this is what I think Pope Benedict is trying to do…make the MP understandable to all!
Maybe, Jimmy, said motu proprio won’t come out, because it is imprudent, to say the least, to take the power of regulating liturgy in their dioceses away from bishops, and the Holy Father might consider it fair to leave well enough alone, rather than introducing what could easily become a recipe for chaos.
Not in the least because the Bishops will still have the ability to forbid it.
“Really the MP does nothing more than try to add back a little of the holiness, dignity and respect to the Mass, that it had previously had for so many centuries.”
The Mass is Holy. In and of itself, it is Holy. It is dignified. It is to be respected.
And, if you want a particular liturgical schema, other than that which is used by the Church universal, to see that, well, doesn’t your bishop, who is entrusted by Christ’s church with the pastoral care of your soul, have a right to determine whether giving you what you want is what’s best for you, and for your brothers and sisters in Christ?
I’m sorry, but I feel strongly about this. Just because we want something, doesn’t mean we should get it, and when those entrusted with caring for us don’t give it to us, it doesn’t neccesarily make them wackos. It may make them wise.
doesn’t your bishop, who is entrusted by Christ’s church with the pastoral care of your soul, have a right to determine whether giving you what you want is what’s best for you, and for your brothers and sisters in Christ?
Yes, and this is why bishops will still have the power to forbid it. In fact it helps the bishops because very few parishes are going to go all-TLM-all the time. Instead they will offer one here and there in response to desire for it and not have to bother the bishop with it.
“Not have to BOTHER the bishop with it?”
The bishop’s whole job is to be bothered with it!!!
HE is responsible for the pastoral care of his faithful! Nothing could be less of a bother for a bishop than prudentially deciding what to do about the Tridentine Rite in his diocese, where his people, whose pastoral needs he knows, live.
Now, Scott, unless you have far more friends than I do, neither of us has seen the motu proprio, but assuming you are correct, that the bishop’s two choices are to either allow the Tridentine Rite to go on as much as it goes on, or to forbid it entirely, his ability to see to the needs of his people in their unique situation is rather severely limited, isn’t it?
Shouldn’t that bother us?
From what rumors I have read, the Motu Propio would allow the Tridentine Rite to be used as an ‘extraordinary liturgy’ and the NO as the normal, or ‘ordinary’ liturgy. This seems to be a great way of having both accepted and used, as I think most Cathlolics already are familiar with such concepts as ‘ordinary’ minister ot the Eucharist,(the priests and deacons), and ‘extraordinary’ ministers of the Eucharist, which are derived from the laity.
Seen in this context, I see no problem of have two types of liturgies. And the N.O. liturgy will definately benefit from this scenario! The Tridentine liturgy has, by its very nature,language and history, a UNIFYING quality. And as everyone knows, the N.O. Liturgy is highly susceptible to all sorts of liturgical abuses and novelties. So this scenario of the Holy Father is PERFECT… wherein the ‘extraordinary’ latin liturgy which will be used less frequently, will teach everyone to be more devout, knowlegable and attentive, in the ‘ordinary’, N.O., liturgy.
It’s really the best of both worlds!
“One liturgy is not in some way ontologically higher, or more pleasing to God, than another. What is pleasing to God is seeing his Church united at a common altar of sacrifice, in the celebration of the Eucharist.”
Au contraire, one liturgy is actually better than the other liturgy, at least in its secondary characteristics, that is the Traditional mass is in its nature more reverent, beautiful, and its prayers more theologically correct (or appropriate) as compared to the post-Vatican II mass. These characteristics are important as is exhibited in the Pope’s remarks regarding beauty in the liturgy in his recent exhortation. As far as being “united at a common altar of sacrifice,” the Church has never interpreted this as requiring that the same liturgy be used by all Catholics, because there are many different rites in the Church.
I think most Cathlolics already are familiar with such concepts as ‘ordinary’ minister ot the Eucharist,(the priests and deacons), and ‘extraordinary’ ministers of the Eucharist, which are derived from the laity.
If most Catholics make that distinction in your diocese, PLEASE tell me where it is so I can move there! i think that is a very naive position. i also think that it makes sense that the Bishop should get to decide when and where to have Tridentine mass, since the Tridentine Mass people are often critical of the regular Mass, and of priests and the bishop, etc. Maybe the bishop will feel that having more of the Tridentine Mass will make Catholics in the diocese less unified, but he still wants to let it happen, just under his control. that doesn’t seem unreasonable. why should he get to decide if it is a good idea in his diocese?
“The Mass is Holy. In and of itself, it is Holy. It is dignified. It is to be respected.”
The New Mass may be holy in its essence, but it is not necessarily said in a dignified manner. All one has to do is google the internet for videos of Cardinal Roger Mahony’s recent liturgy(s) with all the liturgical abberations in that big ugly thing in LA. The Mass should be dignified, and it should be respected, and thus the Traditional Mass should be encouraged. Let’s face it, the Bishops in the US have by and large ignored the Pope’s wishes as expressed in the Ecclesia Dei document. Perhaps if they had obeyed, there would be no need for a Motu Proprio. Perhaps not.
why should he get to decide if it is a good idea in his diocese?
oops…”why shouldn’t he get to decide?
Now, Scott, unless you have far more friends than I do, neither of us has seen the motu proprio, but assuming you are correct, that the bishop’s two choices are to either allow the Tridentine Rite to go on as much as it goes on, or to forbid it entirely, his ability to see to the needs of his people in their unique situation is rather severely limited, isn’t it?
Yes, the general assumption (which could be mistaken, but not likely) is that the mp does not cut the bishop out of the picture. And I think you are being over-dramatic with my describing the bishop being bothered with it. The mp would not limit the bishop in the least.
I hear the same two things from most anti-mp folk: 1.) There is no serious demand or desire for the TLM and 2.) Good heavens whatever we do, please don’t liberalize the TLM! Well which is it? Becuase if there is no demand or desire for the TLM, then the mp should no more appear on the radar than editing a semicolon in the Code of Canon Law. Something else is going on here that has little to do with the mp.
Miguel–
you are confusing two issues. That the NO is abused does not mean that the Tridentine should be liberalized, that just throws fuel to the fire of disunity, of split, of factionalism. Instead, folks should do better with the NO. Don’t confuse the issues, there is no logical connection between your statements.
If the motu proprio wouldn’t limit the bishop, what is it s point?
If the motu proprio wouldn’t limit the bishop, what is it s point?
Simple. It makes it easier for a parish to offer a TLM without going through a bunch of diocesan bureuacracy. It’s not that darn controversial, but getting bent in wad about it is.
JD – Thank you for your thoughts.
However, actually I’m correct. As far as I have seen in my long life, the New Mass has been the cause “of disunity, of split, of factionalism.” I guess it may depend on where you are standing. But logically, the statements are related. Thanks anyways.
“doesn’t your bishop, who is entrusted by Christ’s church with the pastoral care of your soul, have a right to determine whether giving you what you want is what’s best for you…?”
The Motu Proprio would seem to be the Pope’s way of proclaiming that freer access to the TLM is what is best for people. He has some say in the pastoral care of souls, does he not?
I find it surreal to see this opposition to the way that nearly everyone in the Latin Rite of the Church worshipped until forty years ago. The clericalism from some of these statements is astounding. I am thankful that the Pope sees the situation more clearly.
Tim,
Indeed he does. And, if he judges it expedient and prudent to undermine the authority of local bishops in order to provide more access to the TLM, well, that is certainly his prerogative, and I trust that he is in his office through the Holy Spirit’s intercession. However, I question the wisdom of the decision, and see it as part of a larger trend to divorce folks from attachment to their local church in favor of attachment to the curia. Many of the modern movements in today’s Church draw good people whom the local Church needs, away from participating in their own parishes and dioceses. I see this as no different.
I also worry about SSPXers using a rise in popularity of the TLM to siphon off more Catholics, and that makes me sad.
However, actually I’m correct. As far as I have seen in my long life, the New Mass has been the cause “of disunity, of split, of factionalism.”
Actually, Miguel, you are incorrect. The New Mass, the 1970 Missal, in itself has not been the cause of disunity or factionalism. The way it has been celebrated has contributed but no more than your statements cause disunity and factionalism.
Before you go into a kneejerk reaction, read carefully what I wrote.
“if he judges it expedient and prudent to undermine the authority of local bishops ”
JD, in a very real sense, the Pope IS the authority of the local bishops. They carry their authority only in union with him. How does this undermine any LEGITIMATE authority a bishop might have?
“I also worry about SSPXers using a rise in popularity of the TLM to siphon off more Catholics…”
Seems to me much more likely to have the opposite effect. Why attend the liturgies of a bitter, schismatic sect when you can get the Real Deal at your local parish?
“and see it as part of a larger trend to divorce folks from attachment to their local church in favor of attachment to the curia.”
Perhaps this is because many of the local church’s have left the faithful with little to hang on to. Weak cathechisis, horridly illicit masses, priests who act more like social workers then guardians of souls, silence on essential moral issues (abortion, the homosexual agenda), and outright heresy have left orthodox Catholics with little to be loyal too but those members of the curia who have remained stedfast in the faith.
Sorry, I feel strongly about this myself. I would desperatly like to see a revival of Catholic identity and culture, for the sake of souls, and I believe a more widespread use of the Tridentine Rite would engender that.
Tim–
This MP would undermine their current authority, under the law. Legitimately, certainly, and if it happens, its law, and that’s fine, and, I’m orthodox, I always play by the rules, but, I happen to think this time the rule we have is pretty good, especially as it is reflective of Christus Dominus and the VatII’s perspective of the bishop.
Kris,
I sympathize with you. I jsut wish that we orthodox Catholics could help to transform and renew our local Churches instead of abandoning them. My wife and I have the perspective, and admittedly, it is sometimes discouraging. As for the Tridentine Mass, I don’t think it, in itslef, would effect the salvation of souls, but, we can certainly legitimately disagree about that, and you might even convince me you are right.
However, I question the wisdom of the decision, and see it as part of a larger trend to divorce folks from attachment to their local church in favor of attachment to the curia. Many of the modern movements in today’s Church draw good people whom the local Church needs, away from participating in their own parishes and dioceses. I see this as no different.
Ut unum sint, baby!
That doesn’t mean a cohesive local parish, that means a Universal Church! People that want their parish or diocese to be more in tune with Rome aren’t federalists – they’re concerned with global unity of the faithful. We should be able to walk into any Catholic church on the planet and go to a Mass that is licit and that we recognize. It’s local groups of malcontents and individualist Bishops that have been re-making the liturgy in their own image for far too long. Liberalizing a rite that allows for less free-form loopiness opens the door to GREATER UNITY! It could also create an increased sense of community on the local level precisely because each parish is united with the greater whole which is…. (lets all say it together now!)….
the Mystical Body of Christ
Turn a few lights on. There’s no bogeyman in the room.
caine,
that isn’t a bad argument…
I also worry about SSPXers using a rise in popularity of the TLM to siphon off more Catholics, and that makes me sad.
Now that is just silly. If anything it will siphon off SSPXers back into a regularized situation assuming they have a place to go.
xie xie, JD
And I sympathize with your desire to engage at the local level, but have been frustrated so many times in doing so. There’s just too many goofy busybodies that have the go-ahead from detached or sympathetic Bishops. When the Bishops are nudged into accepting and enforcing liturgical norms, that will hopefully change. But there will be major growing pains. So many parishes have been allowed to exist practically outside the Church for way way too long. If they’re ever forced to reign it in, the shock to their system will be too much – and the fault of that lies with Bishops who allowed them to stray so far. They’ll all point the finger at B16 and turn him into the bad guy, but so be it. Onward and upward!
Mary Kay: “The New Mass, the 1970 Missal, in itself has not been the cause of disunity or factionalism. The way it has been celebrated has contributed but no more than your statements cause disunity and factionalism.
Before you go into a kneejerk reaction, read carefully what I wrote.”
I’m sorry – I was responding to someone named JD. Was it you that made the statement I attributed to JD? I’ll try not to kneejerk. It looks like I’m saying one thing and you’re disagreeing- Can we at least agree on that? I would say that the New Mass has problems intrinsically within itself, not that it isn’t a valid and licit Mass. As to the New Mass – the way it is is a result of certain prudential and disciplinary decisions that may be mistaken. As to a lessening of beauty and reverence within the New Mass itself – the proof is in the pudding. Yes, there are also problems with the way it is said – I do agree with you on that. Is the Mass of at least 1500 years that helped to produce so many saints really something to be so feared?
JD, have you read then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s reflections on the question in his memoir “Milestones”? He had some very interesting comments on the historical process which led us to today’s situation. One of his main points is that the original decision to restrict the old Mass was a break with the tradition of the church and unjustifiable in terms of unity. I was surprised by the strength of his opinion.
A review of that bit of the book, with quotations, is here. The “Reactions” bit is just people being… well, reactionary, but the Ratzinger bit is very interesting.
“I also worry about SSPXers using a rise in popularity of the TLM to siphon off more Catholics, and that makes me sad.”
I just don’t see the logic there. The only time I have attended Mass at an SSPX chapel was when I was in a diocese where there was no Latin Mass available. If there had been any Latin Mass anywhere in the diocese I wouldn’t have stepped foot in that chapel.
Mary Martha-
That’s exactly my point. Why didn’t you choose to go to a NO mass? Because, probably, you prefer Tridentine Mass and took it where you could get it. SSPXers prey on that sort of situation.
I for one welcome a little more legitimate diversity of Masses.
I don’t live near enough a Byzantine Rite church to make a visit practical for me. I’m not at all likely to get to attend a Mozarabic Mass unless I get to Spain, an Ambrosian one unless I hit Milan, or an Assyro-Chaldaean one unless I visit Baghdad.
But all these Masses are current legitimate rites of the Catholic Church, and are not only meant for the parishioners who normally attend them. They are all part of our Catholic inheritance, and they all have a lot to teach us.
So if people in Milan can attend a Mass that goes back to the time of Ambrose, Monica, and Augustine, it’s not exactly an imposition to let people attend a modern Mass format like the Tridentine.
That’s exactly my point. Why didn’t you choose to go to a NO mass? Because, probably, you prefer Tridentine Mass and took it where you could get it. SSPXers prey on that sort of situation.
You’re still not making much sense. If legitimate Tridentine masses are available universally, then no one will need to go to the SSPX to get them. Hence no SSPX-siphoning. Many will likely return to legitimate parishes. Not to mention that it would make corporate reconciliation with the SSPX, or at least part of it, much more likely.
One concern I have is that permitting the Tridentine Mass so freely will take away focus from improving the Pauline Rite. I’ve seen very well done Pauline Masses, and they are beautiful, uplifting, and on top of this accessible to those who do not understand Latin. With the new translations of the Pauline order expected soon, I fear that the Tridentine Mass would serve as a distraction from leading the Pauline rite – one that will remain the most popular amongst everyday Catholics – to be as wonderful and Sacred as it could be. There is a great oppurtunity to pull some of the flock back in with reverant and complete celebrations of the Pauline rite, an oppurtunity that is growing each day as more and more of the “Spirit of Vatican II” clergy die off or retire. I just hope the MP doesn’t cause a conflict here.
The perfect Mass for me, is a perfectly said, N.O. Mass, and in most large cities they are capable of being found. The problem is, therefore, not with the N.O. mass per se, but rather with all of the terrible liberally’adapted’ N.O. Masses ‘out there’.
And my experience in the S.F. Bay Area, is that youth who grow up in these liberal parishes, especially in the suburbs, will never(or very difficultly) come to value frequent confession, the devout reception of Holy Communion and a profound devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. And this is predominantly because progressive, liturgically negligent, parishes don’t emphasize these essential aspects of Catholic life and faith.
As Pope Benedict so frequently writes about, there are a great many of these parish’s wherein a ‘community’ or horizontal liturgy is emphasized, as opposed to an emphasis on the worship of God ‘in spirit and in truth’, which is a so-called ‘vertical’emphasis.
So, really, there is a tremendous amount of liturgical ‘division’ created by the liberal, or progressive, N.O. masses, due to this lack of the proper understanding of exactly WHAT IS a Liturgy. And isn’t this really what all the recent Vatican liturgical documents, such as “Redemptionis Sacramentum” and “Sacramentum Caritatis” are all about? To teach us exactly what it is that we are doing when we go to Mass?
The problem is that the progressive Catholics (such as some of my brothers and sisters)don’t really give a hoot about such teachings, but rather prefer that the Church continue to be a sort of social club wherein they can minimally perform some sort of religiousity, in which their consciences can be somewhat alleviated or soothed, just through the very minimal act of just being present in a Church. As for anything more, such excesses are not necessary. For them, if you dig too deep, you may uncover some nasty Church restrictions such as those referring to birth control, artificial conception and other thorny and un-popular itemsthat are only good for ‘pricking’ the liberal conscience, wherein Mass attencance really wouldn’t be too much ‘fun’.
So, because of a modern or progressive tendency to ‘water down’ the faith, wherein certain of these above mentioned sins will not be ‘focused on’, they try to make the liturgies as religiously shallow as possible. To put it simply, gravity and profound adoration of God is not on the list of their priorities, but rather, a comfortable and social club type ‘horizontal’ litugical experience..with soothing music, to boot. These are the liturgical goals strived for in these parishes.
And isn’t this why so many of these liberal N.O. masses are so depressing…at least for those who love Jesus to be properly honored and adored.. and also worthily recieved, in Holy Communion? So it is really these progressive, and canonically disobedient Catholics, that are the ones who are really causing division in the Church, and this is what I believe Pope B16 is currently trying to adequately address with ths Motu Propio.
Moreover, the shallow liturgies produce very little spiritual fruit…and even fewer vocations! And this is because they really aren’t all that religious to begin with!
Maybe if B16 steers the boat (the Church) into ‘deeper waters’, there will be abundantly more fish(sincere believers)brought into the boat. This, I think, is his strategy, and ingenious idea, for the promulgation of the Motu Propio. And personally I think it will be extremely beneficial and fruitful for the Holy Faith!Hopefullly we’ll experience something like this:
“Now when he had ceased to speak, he said to Simon: Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. 5 And Simon answering said to him: Master, we have labored all the night, and have taken nothing: but at thy word I will let down the net.
6 And when they had done this, they enclosed a very great multitude of fishes, and their net broke. 7 And they beckoned to their partners that were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they were almost sinking.” Luke 5:4-7
I also think it’s wrong to say that the SSPX “preys” on people wanting the Tridentine Mass. The SSPX is in a canonically irregular situation, but they aren’t in a full-blown, formal schism like many of the other traditionalist groups. I think it is more correct to say that they are provding what many Catholics want or need, and that, for whatever reason, their diocese is not providing. If the availablility of Tridentine Masses is increased within canonically regular structures, the very reason most people frequent SSPX or Independent chapels is removed from the equation.
I am no apologist for the SSPX; I have never set foot in one of their chapels, and I don’t intend to in the future. I am too wary of my own pride to get in a situation where I place my own judgment above that of the Church by attending services outside recognized canonical structures. That being said, there are many people who have been so scandalized by what they see in their parishes that it has become a matter of conscience for them NOT to attend Novus Ordo Masses. While I do not agree that the NO is inherently problematic, I have seen enough garbage in various parishes to understand where they come from and couldn’t tell someone that he CAN’T attend an SSPX chapel (though I would strongly counsel against Independent chapels).
Maybe having greater access to a more solemn and sacred liturgy (the TLM) will create greater incentive to bring the N.O. Mass into line with the rubrics, and to take the music, postures, etc., more seriously.
Some “looser” parishes may see people voting with their feet for a more meaningful liturgy in the next town.
It may cause more polarization, locally, but in the long run I think that is not necessarily a bad thing. It may result in the purveyors of clown masses and New Age/happy clappy liturgies to end up in little, impotent conclaves, which is how it should be.
I think it’s incorrect to say that a Latin liturgy is “inaccessible” to those who aren’t fluent in Latin. For a younger Catholic nowadays, attending a Tridentine Mass for the first time can indeed be jarring, as was my experience. But it wasn’t the Latin – it was the somber quietness and reverence. Before Vatican II, every Roman Rite Mass was in Latin for centuries, yet people still knew and understood the Faith, besides the thousands of saints produced by that rite! Clearly the connection with what happens at the altar is not solely based on the language of celebration; I have attended Spanish liturgies and understood essentially nothing, but found it spiritually edifying anyway.
Miguel,
I would say that the New Mass has problems intrinsically within itself, not that it isn’t a valid and licit Mass.
If you say that the 1970 Missal is a valid and licit Mass, how can you say that the earlier Missal is “better”? Either can be said with reverence. Either can be said without reverence.
You have a preference for the earlier Missal, just as I have a preference for the 1970 Missal. Personally, I find it much easier to be reverent when the Mass is celebrated with the 1970 Missal than the earlier one.
As to the New Mass – the way it is is a result of certain prudential and disciplinary decisions that may be mistaken. As to a lessening of beauty and reverence within the New Mass itself – the proof is in the pudding.
Your “proof” does not speak to the 1970 Missal, but the way it has been celebrated. If there was something inherently “off” about the 1970 Missal, it would not have spiritually fed people who have literally given up everything to live the Gospel. But the fact remains that the 1970 Missal has and they are living proof to me that those who belittle the 1970 Missal are not completely informed.
As to the New Mass – the way it is is a result of certain prudential and disciplinary decisions that may be mistaken.
Can you provide a specific basis for that statement?
Yes, there are also problems with the way it is said – I do agree with you on that. Is the Mass of at least 1500 years that helped to produce so many saints really something to be so feared?
To repeat, just as the 1970 can be said irreverently, so can – and was – the earlier Missal said irreverently.
Who said anything about “fearing” the earlier Missal? Please do not put words in my mouth. I grew up with the earlier Missal. I very much appreciate the 1970 Missal.
Mary Martha, if I can second guess what JD meant, was that it sounds like you did not even consider the option of attending a Mass using the 1970 Missal (the Novus Ordo Mass).
Hey, if you like 40 minute masses that worship man and permit liturgical abuse then you like the New Mass
If you want to reflect, worship God instead of man, and actual have to work a little by following along in a missal, then you would want to worship as our forefathers have for centuries in the Traditional Mass
One must at least have respect for the coca-cola company when they did away with “classic coke ” and put forth new coke only to see it flop, they reacted right away and put back the classic
When one labels a mass “New Order”, one realizes they clearly are breaking from what is “classic” and it has produced failure
This is just another lame ploy (leaving the decision up to the priest instead of his Bishop to perform a TLM-what a great move that would be on his part!!) is just another red herring thrown out there. Pray for a complete restoration of the mass, sacraments, catechism, canon law and customs before “new coke” was promulgated
Hm. Mass at our parish, done according to the current Roman rite, lasts about an hour. I’m afraid I can’t remember man ever being worshipped. I’m pretty sure we worship God. And I’m blanking on the new rubrics permitting liturgical abuses. Please help me John, what am I missing?
My prediction: 1) the papal exhortation will be ignored by the vast majority of US bishops. However, I do expect some ‘respectful’ lip service rendered, but very little action on practical implimentation on a wide scale. 2) If/When the motu proprio is released, that too will be ignored by the vast majority of US bishops–as being not practical, i.e. we can’t have a Tridentine latin Mass, because the diocese has a ‘shortage’ of priests, and they are needed else where, etc–this is what you’ll hear, or perhaps similar ‘pastoral’ situations that will render the motu proprio ‘un-do-able’. 3) As for the SSPXers–forget any reconciliation with them, the TLM is only one issue in a whole mindset that must be reconciled–so I predict that no reconciliation will occurr at this time.
SDG, what you are missing is:
1) Vatican II bad
2) Everything since Vatican II bad
3) Paul VI bad
4) John Paul II bad
When one labels a mass “New Order”, one realizes they clearly are breaking from what is “classic” and it has produced failure.
The Tridentine Mass was once the new order as well, and there’s no question that some at the time probably actually referred to it as that. It was an order of the Mass and it was new, after all.
The ironic thing about the Tridentine Mass being called the “Traditional Latin Mass” is that when it was instituted, it was far from traditional, but was at least in some ways a break from the previous tradition.
I was just about to offer a bit of an apology for my remarks earlier about the SSPX being a “bitter schismatic sect”. But after John’s predictable diatribe, I now preemptively retract my intended retraction.
Just in case readers here don’t have them in their bookmarks already, here are the links to the four best full-length Tridentine Mass videos freely available on the Net:
Tridentine Missa Cantata (Sung Latin Mass) for the Last Sunday after Pentecost
Traditional (Tridentine) Votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Traditional Latin Mass: Feast of the Sacred Heart
Traditional Latin Low Mass With Meditation by St. Eymard
Enjoy! And share them with your friends and families!
(Yes, three of the four are celebrated by SSPX priests, but the value of the videos in demonstrating the breathtaking beauty of Masses lovingly and properly celebrated according to the 1962 Missale Romanum surely cancels out any negative effects of indirect promotion of the SSPX.)
“Yes, there are also problems with the way it is said – I do agree with you on that. Is the Mass of at least 1500 years that helped to produce so many saints really something to be so feared?”
Two things.
One: the TLM wasn’t used for 1500 years.
Two: I don’t think Mary Kay IS afraid of the TLM
John,
I have a beachfront property in Kansas that I’d like to sell you.
How could the Tridentine Mass be presented as something that is longer than the Novus Ordo?
They only have 1 Reading and 1 Gospel!
Further, the Tridentine rite only features just 1% of the Old Testament and 16.5% of the New Testament in its lectionary!
The Novus Ordo Mass has three with the Psalms in between there. It has three cycle of readings to cover most of Scripture (thus, the Novus Ordo has 13.5% of the Old Testament and 71.5% of the New Testament; a tremendous increase over that of the Tridentine).
The Eucharistic Prayers of the Novus Ordo and its Historic Relevance
Here, let me share some information for you:
Eucharistic Prayer#1 is, of course, the Roman canon. Early versions of this Canon were developed during the fourth to the sixth centuries, but it did not reach a definitive state until after the papacy of St. Gregory the Great, who led the Church from 590 to 604. The format became further standardized when Missals containing the entire text of the Mass began appearing in the eleventh century, and they were in general use by about the year 1200. After the Council of Trent (1545-1563) Pope Pius V issued the Missale Romanum in 1570 and made the new standard form binding throughout the Western Rite of the Church. This Tridentine Mass format remained virtually unchanged until the reforms that followed Vatican II. The text was fixed, and the only alteration permitted was the addition of saints’ names to the Communicantes and the Nobis quoque peccatoribus prayers.
As regards the other Eucharistic Prayers:
Eucharistic Prayer II was composed from manuscripts of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, written about the year 225, which describe the oldest known liturgical form of the Mass. These manuscripts have come down to us as translations in several languages. Thus Prayer II is the oldest of the four.
Eucharistic Prayer III is a revised version of what had been originally proposed as an alternative to the Roman Canon, and Eucharistic Prayer IV is based on a format of the type found in Eastern liturgies such as that of St. Basil (330-379).
Since the editors of the post-Vatican II Sacramentary made such an effort to compose and restore the Eucharistic Prayers to formats that are ancient in the Church, it is surprising that the Society of Pius X, which puts such an emphasis on tradition, has nothing but criticism for all aspects of the Novus Ordo liturgy. They should have especial praise for Eucharistic Prayer II of Hippolytus which is the most ancient, dating back to the year 225.
This is the reason why I have had such great respect for Vagaggini since he was attempting, in the Novus Ordo, to do a “reform of the reform” in his day and tried to restore parts of the rite of mass which have been lost through the accidents of history.
Esau, is there a book or something that contains this information? I would like to learn more.
Ah, the good old liturgical wars. I go to the Tridentine Mass exclusively, so I definitely have a “dog in the fight.” Leaving behind the NO is the best thing I have done for my spiritual life other than frequent confession. Those who say there is no difference in the NO and the TRID because both are the mass are certainly correct in that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can be validly offered in both rites. But I have trouble with those who stipulate that the MP should not be issued because it would produce too much fighting. How is this demand for iron-clad liturgical uniformity of rites to be squared with the dozens of eastern rites within the Church? I am afraid those who demand such uniformity are missing something here.
Also, the assertion that because both the NO and the TRID offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass both are the same is no argument that both rites are equally the same in their particulars. If that argument was true, and the one accepted by the Church Herself, then the bishops at Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, and the Concilum that revised the Tridentine Mass were wrong in changing the particulars of the mass. If the Tridentine Mass were valid, then why change it at all? In other words, if the validity of the sacrament is all that mattered, then I would expect the NO apologists to be condemning those who changed the Tridentine Mass in the first place. According to this logic, it was the reformers that have caused the firestorm of controversy, the very liturgical wars, that we see around us. In other words, you are making my very point! Thanks.
From a great, wise man, Fr. Corapi:
“Before I studied, before I went to seminary and the university, people were always saying things to me — ‘Well, Vatican II said this and Vatican II said that, and in the Spirit of Vatican II, you must do this, that and the other thing!’ I had people tell me things like this for several years.
Now, I wasn’t stupid but I didn’t have a theological background and they thought that I probably was stupid because I didn’t have a theological background and they would say things like this. They would turn and look at that and say, “Vatican II did away with that! Get it out of the Church!’ or they would say, ‘Vatican II suppressed Latin! It’s never to be seen again in the Church!’ or they would say, ‘Vatican II said we should not have Eucharistic Adoration! Perpetual Adoration went out with Vatican II!’
THOSE ARE LIES! THEY NEVER READ THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II!
And if they ever did, they are speciously construing them!
Vatican II said many things but it DIDN’T say any of those kinds of things!
Some of you may have a DISTASTE for the Second Vatican II Council because you HEARD those kinds of things.
My Dear Friends,
I’m here to tell you Vatican II DIDN’T do any of those things to your FAITH!
MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT VATICAN II SAID!
You know one good thing to do?
Read the 16 documents!”
Esau, is there a book or something that contains this information? I would like to learn more.
Sure!
In fact, when I first posted this info last year, I had a link to the information.
However, the best reference on the matter is the book “The canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform” by Father Cipriano Vagaggini.
M Kay: “If you say that the 1970 Missal is a valid and licit Mass, how can you say that the earlier Missal is “better”? Either can be said with reverence. Either can be said without reverence.”
I suppose that is in a sense true, but it seems obvious that the older Mass is intrinsically more reverent and beautiful. As for prudential decisions, of course they may be mistaken, that is why they are prudential. The Church does not have infallibility with regard to prudential decisions and can change them later (i.e. suppression of the Jesuits). As for putting words in your mouth, I refuse to do so and have never done such a thing.
I like the NO, I grew up with it, in a Church that did it right.
I heartily support the MP and hope it is done.
The Easter speculation is a good guess, I would have speculated that as the time, but also what about Pentecost? That’s another good day to release the MP.
“the TLM wasn’t used for 1500 years.
Two: I don’t think Mary Kay IS afraid of the TLM”
OK, I meant 1500 years more or less with a few changes here and there for natural organic liturgical development, unlike the Pauline missal which just dropped from somewhere. Maybe MK is not afraid of the TLM, but she acts as if she is, as do the progressive Bishops in the Church. There is nothing to fear – The 2 Masses can co-exist – remember you say that they are the same, ayways.
I suppose that is in a sense true, but it seems obvious that the older Mass is intrinsically more reverent and beautiful.
have you ever seen a perfectly celebrated Pauline Mass?
My understanding is that one of the reasons the New Missal was instituted was because Tridentine Mass was far from reverant. This does not mean the Mass itself was not, but the celebration of it was not. If we are to question the reverance of the Pauline Mass based on what we see in most parishes, then we must also question the Tridentine Mass based on the same principle.
By the way, did ANYONE read the section on Z’s blog that mentioned:
unlike the Pauline missal which just dropped from somewhere
As was pointed out by Esau, the entire point of the Pauline Missal was to return the Mass to what it was in the earliest times of the Church. This is why it is virtually identical to the description of the Mass offered by Justin Martyr. It didn’t just drop from somewhere. The Pauline Missal was, in many ways, a correction of all of the changes from the original Mass of the Church that had crept in over the years and finally manifested themselves in the Tridentine rite.
My understanding is that one of the reasons the New Missal was instituted was because Tridentine Mass was far from reverant. This does not mean the Mass itself was not, but the celebration of it was not. If we are to question the reverance of the Pauline Mass based on what we see in most parishes, then we must also question the Tridentine Mass based on the same principle.
Shane:
This is interesting because I can see where you get this from.
I have attended the Tridentine Mass for some period of time way back when and can actually see why some have commented in this manner.
Often, for many, it seemed more of a private affair where the priest did his thing and the laity seemed so far removed from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that there was even a time where a Pope had actually recommended that folks say the Rosary doing the Mass in order to do something (feel like they’re participating in some manner) during the actual course of the Mass.
(I don’t have that info with me now, but for those who might know what I’m actually talking about, it’s indeed something even Fr. Connor had mentioned in his history program.)
But, as far as reverence goes, I would say that as far as my experience goes, there is, indeed, the utmost reverence observed in the Tridentine Rite; however, it may be more so due to the fact that most Novus Ordo Masses are not celebrated as they should be because of errant priests out there.
The forces that be will allow it…
Esau,
I was not referring to that sort of thing. Clearly, I think one of the problems with the Tridentine Mass is the situation that you described – often people may feel as if they are simply hanging around waiting until its time for them to do something.
I was referring to the fact that, according to many reports I have heard, the Tridentine rite was not being celebrated reverantly in the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council and the institution of the Pauline rite. Priests were rushing through the words, mumbling them, rushing through the actions, not following the many prescripts, and other such things.
A clarification on my remark:
“But, as far as reverence goes, I would say that as far as my experience goes, there is, indeed, the utmost reverence observed in the Tridentine Rite”
I was actually referring to the Mass I had attended.
However, as Shane had pointed out, abuse can occur there as well.
Somebody in the east coast had once informed me that there was a Tridentine Mass he had attended in their area that was so irreverantly celebrated in such a rushed fashion, it became a source of scandal in their region.
I was referring to the fact that, according to many reports I have heard, the Tridentine rite was not being celebrated reverantly in the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council and the institution of the Pauline rite. Priests were rushing through the words, mumbling them, rushing through the actions, not following the many prescripts, and other such things.
JINX!
We just cross-posted and, yet, we were writing about the exact same thing!
“My understanding is that one of the reasons the New Missal was instituted was because Tridentine Mass was far from reverant.”
Wrong. Who told you that? Bishop Trautmann?
“the entire point of the Pauline Missal was to return the Mass to what it was in the earliest times of the Church”
2 words, “revisionist history.” I guess, based on that reasoning, that we should all attend Mass in the garb of the early Church and recline around a table during the Mass, while one of the congregation (presumably a liturgical director or whatever they call them) runs off to betray the Priest.
On a lighter note, I understand that Mel Gibson is making a new movie. The working title is Lethal Missal. It’s one big splatterfest about the total emasculation and disemboweling of the Mass. Apparently, he’s filming the thing in post-conciliar English, but with Latin subtitles.
God bless you all and adieu.
Look at that:
I was referring to the fact that, according to many reports I have heard, the Tridentine rite was not being celebrated reverantly in the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council and the institution of the Pauline rite. Priests were rushing through the words, mumbling them, rushing through the actions, not following the many prescripts, and other such things.
Posted by: Shane | Mar 21, 2007 11:14:13 AM
and
Somebody in the east coast had once informed me that there was a Tridentine Mass he had attended in their area that was so irreverantly celebrated in such a rushed fashion, it became a source of scandal in their region.
Posted by: Esau | Mar 21, 2007 11:14:17 AM
Talk about being on the same wavelength!
I suggest that you don’t shout victory even when it comes out.
Unfortunetly, this is a “transitional” Pope, so if he dies, you all bashed the progresivists and nanny nanny boobed them, they could have a progesivist Pope in next, and then we’ll have Hell to pay.
Just be prudent, and think why is it that all this is coming back.
I know there is a grace, but there is also a bit more…
I will never accept the Traditionalists!
“a Tridentine Mass he had attended in their area that was so irreverantly celebrated in such a rushed fashion, it became a source of scandal in their region.”
See, that’s the thing. Priests who have no love for the Mass will allow it to be abused and treated irreverantly, no matter which rite is in use. The problem is in the formation of priests… in the seminaries. We need priests who are IN LOVE with the sacrifice of the Mass, and in love with Christ in the Eucharist. Until we have that, the use of this or that liturgy is pretty much irrelevant.
Gee, I just re-read St. Justin Martyr’s description of the mass in his “First Apology”. It sure sounds like the Mass of Paul VI to me, other than that the Sign of Peace came beween the Prayer of the Faithful and the Offertory (which I wish we would have it now, so as to avoid the current distraction from Christ between the Eucharistic Prayer and Communion).
Sir,
Please you see the changes into the Roman Catholic Church before and after the 2nd Vatican Council. Everything collapsed, many lay catholics left the Church, churches are sold, attendance of mass is very low, bishops and priests are running after money, pious priests are sidelined on the otherhand influential persons are appointed as bishops. Post Vatican period is the” 2nd Dark Age”[earlier Dark Age between 973 and 1073 AD].All will be finished off, if it is the Tridentine Mass and the tradition of the Church will be implimented in all forms. Center for the Study of Global Christianity, issued a statement is that since 1900 the muslim population has increased more than six fold,because their identity,uniqueness, without any ambiguity they follow the Qur’en.Christians should think it over.
DEO GRATIAS.
Who ever the “gracious”person who seems to mock me with posts after my own, please stop.
I don’t accept traditionalists…
Or progresivists…
Only Catholics…
Gee, I just re-read St. Justin Martyr’s description of the mass in his “First Apology”. It sure sounds like the Mass of Paul VI to me, other than that the Sign of Peace came beween the Prayer of the Faithful and the Offertory
Yup! Which is NOT contained in the Tridentine Rite!
Mind you, the kiss of peace is ancient and goes back to the Early Church!
The fact that it was re-established in the Novus Ordo speaks volumes of re-introducing the ancient elements of the Early Church Liturgy!
(which I wish we would have it now, so as to avoid the current distraction from Christ between the Eucharistic Prayer and Communion).
I believe that was one of the points made by B16 in his Exhortation.
It was. Whomever posted a moment ago about “revisionist history,” I would encourage you to read Esau’s post about the Eucharistic prayers of the Pauline rite which were taken from the early Eucharistic Liturgies of the Church.
Of course, the Old Mass had a reverent and formal sign of peace. Never assume because them you make an …….
Maybe the overly used 2nd eucharistic prayer is proof that not all that was very early was very good. But if we used the 1st prayer, we might not get home for the football games.
Everything collapsed, many lay catholics left the Church, churches are sold, attendance of mass is very low, bishops and priests are running after money, pious priests are sidelined on the otherhand influential persons are appointed as bishops. Post Vatican period is the” 2nd Dark Age”[earlier Dark Age between 973 and 1073 AD].
Again, as I’ve pointed out time and again:
CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION
Remember my Pink Bikini Example?
As I mentioned previously:
Gee… and all those statistics actually PROVE that Vatican II was behind them???
HOW???
As I stated before:
‘That is like finding a correlation between people wearing pink bikinis on the beach on a hot summer’s day and the high number of deaths that occured on that particular day.
Does that mean that because there were several folks wearing pink bikinis on that hot summer’s day and the high number of deaths that occurred that very day; that the former was a cause of the latter?
Mind you, correlation does not prove causation!‘
Posted by: Esau | Nov 13, 2006 11:02:37 AM
Of course, the Old Mass had a reverent and formal sign of peace.
And WHERE exactly, ANON, is there the Sign of Peace in the Tridentine Mass???
That’s strange — all those times I attended it, I’ve never encountered it in that rite!
Perhaps Esau had sold his birthright (the Old Mass) for some lesser thing.
Abi in malam crucem
Vatican II was simply the written form of the spirit that was already around.
I analyzed the cathedral of the city I am living in.
It is ugly and totally modernish.
It was built about 10 years before Vatican II.
So the problems started a long time ago.
Because you don’t go from the horrible stuff in that cathedral represents in ten or even 20 years.
It has been a process.
VII just made it official
“And WHERE exactly, ANON, is there the Sign of Peace in the Tridentine Mass???”
The Liturgy of the Mass, the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia describes how, when concelebration ceased to be practised in Western Europe, Low Mass became distinguished from High Mass:
“The separate celebrations then involved the building of many altars in one church and the reduction of the ritual to the simplest possible form. The deacon and subdeacon were in this case dispensed with; the celebrant took their part as well as his own. One server took the part of the choir and of all the other ministers, everything was said instead of being sung, the incense and KISS OF PEACE were omitted. So we have the well-known rite of low Mass (missa privata). This then reacted on high Mass (missa solemnis), so that at high Mass too the celebrant himself recites everything, even though it be also sung by the deacon, subdeacon, or choir. ”
Ignore the anonymous troll, Esau; he’s just trying to get a rise out of you. His mommy and daddy probably don’t realize he’s at the computer again.
Just because it is old does not make it perfect.
We aren’t going to wear the same stuff St.Peter wore during mass. In fact we won’t even say the same things, except for the stuff instituted by Diving Right.
“Abi in malam crucem” Ouch!! But I suppose if the ICEL “translated” it, it would mean something totally different. So, Esau delenda est:-) but I mean that in a good way.
ANON:
You do know that the Kiss of Peace was NEVER part of the Tridentine Rite, don’t you?
Go up a few comments for the answer to your question on the Kiss of Peace. This topic does raise the emotion level. In the immoratl words of Rodney King – “can’t we all just get along?” Can’t the 2 Masses just co-exist?
See, that’s the thing. Priests who have no love for the Mass will allow it to be abused and treated irreverantly, no matter which rite is in use. The problem is in the formation of priests… in the seminaries. We need priests who are IN LOVE with the sacrifice of the Mass, and in love with Christ in the Eucharist. Until we have that, the use of this or that liturgy is pretty much irrelevant.
Beautifully said, Tim.
I converted to Catholicism in May 2003 and I’ll I’ve ever known is the N.O. Mass. I’ve never attended a Latin Mass and would welcome the chance to experience one. However, I’m lucky in that our priest as a great and reverent love for the Mass, and it is done beautifully every time I go.
Oops, meant to italicize Tim’s comments in my above comment. Sorry, Tim!
One thing I forgot to add – perhaps Papa Ratzi is saving the MP to release on his birthday (April 16). Heck of a gift, eh?
I for one don’t think that this enigmatic MP will come about. It seems to be the proverbial carrot that has been dangling in front of the noses of all those who want the “TLM.” And, most of those people are either elderly and remember it or wanna be apologists who romanticize “The Good Ol’ Days.”
The other 85% (79.57% of all statistics are made up on the spot) of Contraceptin’ Catholics can’t be bothered to go to Mass 3 times per year and don’t want to go and not hear a dead language! That’s why you have parishes with an English Mass at 7:00, a Spanish Mass at 9:00, a Filipino Mass at noon, and a Vietnamese Mass at 5:00 on a Sunday. If they didn’t want to hear the Mass in their vernacular, then every Mass would just be in English so they couldn’t understand it just like in Latin.
In St. Louis the overwhelming majority of German immigrants were Catholic. But the Irish priests couldn’t be bothered to speak to the German-Americans in German. So the parishioners all joined up at the Lutheran Church since the pastor spoke the German that they could understand which accounts for the majority of Lutherans in the St. Louis area.
Last point, what makes you think that their Excellencies, Bishops Roger Cardinal Mahoney and Tod Brown will let you have the “TLM” in their dioceses if the MP is promulgated?
Dr. Eric
Feelin’ Cranky
79.57% of all statistics are made up on the spot
I just ran some numbers, and I think you made some rounding mistakes in your calculation — it’s more like 78.342%.
As my high school chemistry teacher used to say, “It must be the difference in your calculator!”
;-P
Shane posted:
“The Tridentine Mass was once the new order as well, and there’s no question that some at the time probably actually referred to it as that. It was an order of the Mass and it was new, after all.”
Shane-please back up your assertion
Bill 912 posted”
“Gee, I just re-read St. Justin Martyr’s description of the mass in his “First Apology”. It sure sounds like the Mass of Paul VI to me, other than that the Sign of Peace came beween the Prayer of the Faithful and the Offertory”
Ahh…so correct you are Bill…But so wrong, the kiss of peace was between the celebrant and the concelebrants (priests assisting) and not the love fest that takes place today!
As a matter of fact the mass was broken up between the mass of the catechumens and the Mass of the faithful with many having to leave after the prayers and before the canon/consecration took place
Long live the Traditional Latin mass, traditional teachings and catechism. Any nonsense that the New Mass is just like the first masses and in line with the first supper (if that was the case we should be sitting on the floor around a table!!) is just modernist Bugnini led nonsense!
Esau posted:
ANON:
You do know that the Kiss of Peace was NEVER part of the Tridentine Rite, don’t you?”
Hmmm Esau, just checked by St Joseph missal printed in 1948 (before the John XXIII mass that had modernistic elements already in it) and wow-there is the kiss of peace! The kiss of peace goes back to the 8th century Esau, where the priest and then the deacon would kiss a crucifix and someothers would also get to kiss it in the sacresty
It only became the protestant get together love fest that the mass of 1969 introduced!
“remember you say that they are the same, ayways.”
I don’t think I said that.
“I will never accept the Traditionalists!
Posted by: Different Day”
Who ARE you?
The Motu Propio can do nothing but good. With the ‘Traditional’ liturgy being included as a ‘sister’ liturgy, it is bound to reinforce adherence to all of the recent liturgical documents promulgated for the N.O. liturgy.
This is the real goal!
We all need the N.O. Mass to be purified of all the abuses both BXVI,Cardinal Arinze and all other orthodox Catholics almost continually complain about! In all reality The Traditional Latin Mass will probably have little impact on it’s own, and I don’t think it will be flocked to in overly abundant numbers. But if it gets the priests to take seriously everything mandated of them in all of the litergical books, and done so in the generous and loving spirit that these same books request…then we will have TRUE liturgical reform and VatII will have accomplished that which it was mean’t to accomplish!
And after all the wacky liturgical innovations are done away, and everything that is included in ‘Sacramentum Caritatis’ is both studied,taught and practiced worldwide…then we will see the Church bloom again!
The N.O. is great! There is nothing wrong with it! The ‘Eucharistic Lord’ can easily be found therein, together with ample quantities of Divine Love!..and this is what is ESSENTIAL!! The rest is just the “complaining of Martha”.
But the loopholes of the N.O. need to be closed! Eucharistic Adoration and every pius Catholic custom and ritual,(genuflections, kneeling, signs of the cross, devout participation, holy songs and singing, etc..),especially all those liturgical details raised in Sacramentum Caritatis, need to be promoted! And if the Traditional liturgy can help in these reforms so absolutely necessary in the N.O., then it will be highly beneficial for the entire Church!
Long live Pope Benedict the Great!
Ironically, the Episcopalians were never mandated to switch from ad orientem after Vatican II. Does John consider their liturgy more valid than Paul VI’s?
The kiss of peace goes back to the 8th century Esau
Eigth Century?
LAUGHABLE!
Not based on the ecclesial history:
KISS OF PEACE
It is not easy to determine the precise link between the “holy kiss” and the liturgical “kiss of peace”, known in Greek from an early date as eirene (i.e. pax, or peace). This latter may be quite primitive, for it meets us first in the description of the liturgy given by St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I, 65), who writes: “When we have completed the prayers we salute one another with a kiss [allelous philemati aspazometha pausamenoi ton euchon], whereupon there is brought to the president bread and a cup of wine.” This passage clearly shows that in the middle of the SECOND CENTURY the usage already obtained — a usage now claimed as distinctive of the liturgies other than Roman — of exchanging the kiss of peace at the beginning of what we call the Offertory.
Also, this I find interesting:
checked by St Joseph missal printed in 1948
You actually had to go to a 1948 Missal!
However, proponents of the Tridentine Mass advocate the Celebration of the Tridentine Mass where the the KISS OF PEACE (as properly understood in the Early Church) is actually ABSENT!
If you were to engage in dialogue (if that’s even possible since most of the time, they’ll declare you as a ‘heretic’ for following the current Pope who, to them, is, in fact, a ‘Heretic’) with Traditionalists, they would often say how terribly awful it is that there is actually the “Sign of Peace” (which is, actually, the “Kiss of Peace” as understood in the Early Church, in fact).
By the way, in terms of the Kiss of Peace, certain Presbyterians, by the way, are more in keeping with this ancient practice in the Early Church than the ever grumpy and seditious Rad Trads!
The N.O. is great!
AMEN, brutha!
PLUS, you get MORE bible!
The only thing wrong are THOSE PEOPLE who don’t celebrate it PROPERLY!
TLM flame war! Woo-Hoo!
On the topic of the impending MP, ultimately it will be a Great Thing(tm) for the Church, but it will take almost a generation to reap its fruits. As much as I want the quality of the Liturgy to improve (at least in my Diocese *cough* Bishop Tod Brown *cough*) it will take that long. JP2 cultivated the soil, and B16 is planting the seeds. It will take a while for the plan to grow and blossom.
On a side note: When I go to visit my brother in Texas, I go to a SSPX chapel for Mass. On one trip my teenage daughter came along. That Sunday was a High Mass for First Holy Communion. Afterwards, my daughter said “That was the best Mass ever.” I always knew she was smart. 😉
Esau posted:
Also, this I find interesting:
checked by St Joseph missal printed in 1948
You actually had to go to a 1948 Missal!”
And then Esau said:
“The kiss of peace goes back to the 8th century Esau
Eigth Century?
LAUGHABLE!
Not based on the ecclesial history: (and then Esau goes into his cut and pastes from some novus Ordo site like catholic answers that considers anyone who believes in what the church and popes taught before Vatican II as being “Rad TRad!!!”
Yes Esau-Like your cut and paste jobs are from the top of your head!!! And once again Esau can not debate the topic without personal attacks!!!
The kiss of peace is distracting and like communion in the hand which was part of the early church, then abused, then having learned from her lessons, abolished, the church of Vatican II does not really care about protecting our Lord in his consecrated form or if those go about hand shaking, kissing, waving across the pews, etc and distract from the sacrifice of the Mass because after Vatican II in 1969 Pope Paul made it clear that the mass was now “The Lords Supper” and a “communal meal” so I guess that hand shaking before one eats a meal is no big deal, like the Protestants when they pass that basket of bread around the pews, which some NO church’s want to institute so I am told
On a side note: When I go to visit my brother in Texas, I go to a SSPX chapel for Mass. On one trip my teenage daughter came along. That Sunday was a High Mass for First Holy Communion. Afterwards, my daughter said “That was the best Mass ever.” I always knew she was smart. 😉
Brian:
As I’ve said in the past, I prefer attending the Tridentine Mass; however, I do NOT accept the malicious and clearly seditious attitudes of the Rad Trads who have gone as far as proclaiming our Popes as Heretics!
Yes Esau-Like your cut and paste jobs are from the top of your head!!!
You can’t see that by the very format, these came from other sources?
As for you, you’ve often presented other people’s opinions as yours!
So, why don’t you crawl back to your cave of hate-mongers and do what you do best: spreading heinous lies about the Catholic Church and attacking Christ Himself by doing so!
Not based on the ecclesial history:
KISS OF PEACE
It is not easy to determine the precise link between the “holy kiss” and the liturgical “kiss of peace”, known in Greek from an early date as eirene (i.e. pax, or peace). This latter may be quite primitive, for it meets us first in the description of the liturgy given by St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I, 65), who writes: “When we have completed the prayers we salute one another with a kiss [allelous philemati aspazometha pausamenoi ton euchon], whereupon there is brought to the president bread and a cup of wine.” This passage clearly shows that in the middle of the SECOND CENTURY the usage already obtained — a usage now claimed as distinctive of the liturgies other than Roman — of exchanging the kiss of peace at the beginning of what we call the Offertory.
On the topic of the impending MP, ultimately it will be a Great Thing(tm) for the Church, but it will take almost a generation to reap its fruits.
Brian Day:
Unfortunately, I think you’re right here.
…considers anyone who believes in what the church and popes taught before Vatican II as being “Rad TRad!!!
Weird, could’ve sworn Justin Martyr was pre-Vatican II!
“That’s exactly my point. Why didn’t you choose to go to a NO mass? Because, probably, you prefer Tridentine Mass and took it where you could get it. SSPXers prey on that sort of situation.”
I am sorry I wasn’t clear. I was traveling to see family and called their local diocese to find out if there were any Latin Masses available (Tridentine or Pauline). The diocese made it clear there were none. I was told something along the lines of “Latin was outlawed in Vatican II and we are a modern diocese”.
In the end I attended a Pauline Mass (standard liberal parish) and I *also* attended an SSPX Mass. If there had been any Latin Mass available I would have just gone to that.
It was my first (and likely last) exposure to SSPX. However, after my experience of calling their diocese I could understand a bit how someone could feel compelled to attend there regularly. If a diocese *knows* there is an active SSPX community then I can’t understand why a bishop would not permit an indult parish to try and get some of those Catholics out of the schismatic state they are in now..
All that is accomplished by refusal to allow Latin Mass is that people feel that they must go to an SSPX chapel. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong… but regardless the result is that then they can fall into the SSPX mindset. I will say that when I came to the chapel I absolutely got the ‘hard sell’ even when I made it clear that I was just visiting.
I am NOT a TLM purist. I regularly attend both an indult Tridentine Mass and a local Parish Pauline Mass every weekend. They are both valid, they both have strengths and weaknesses. I just personally prefer to attend Tridentine Mass and follow that calender and readings so I decided that instead of missing a week I would check out SSPX.
I *personally* believe that if a bishop knows that there is an SSPX community in their diocese and they *still* refuse to allow for an indult parish… then that Bishop is not interested in trying to bring those Catholics a the SSPX back into a regular relationship with the Church and those bishops will face a firm judgement on that.
To All,
The mass of the ages,Tridentine,will kill off the Novus Ordo Mass in 20 years.The fabricated ordinary version cannot hold a match,a wick,a torch,a flaming faggot,a cauldron of any conflagration or an holocaust to the GREATEST MASS OF THE UNIVERSE.THE TRIDENTINE.
BYE,BYE novus ordo.
God blessy wessy you allski.
God blessy wessy you allski.
Whatever you say, Steve Stifler!
Mary Martha, I do understand why some have a preference for the TLM when they run into “Latin was outlawed” mentality.
However, I don’t agree with your line of thought about Catholics then being “forced” into SSPX because of lack of options.
I live in one of the most notoriously liberal dioceses in the country and the orthodox Catholics contacted the Vatican about what was happening here. There is an indult Mass offered here every Sunday.
It hasn’t changed the view of most of the priests here, but there are options for orthodox Catholics, limited as the options are. My parish offers the Novus Ordo with most of the Mass parts in Latin and the indult Mass is at another parish.
“God blessy wessy you allski.”
Unbalanced much?
Esau in another attempt to be nasty and I guess funny at the same time posted”
“…considers anyone who believes in what the church and popes taught before Vatican II as being “Rad TRad!!!
Weird, could’ve sworn Justin Martyr was pre-Vatican II!”
Well Esau, Justin Martyr, though a saint and someone who died a martyr, is someone I deeply admire and thank for his undying devotion to the liturgy, unlike the modern day popes such as JPII “the least” who would have you place a shrunken head on the altar at Assissi and have all pray to the pagan god of whatever in the name of ecumenism
Esau, the New Mass is just that, a new mass without any organic relationship to what was Catholic and Tradition, or if it did one who was brought up in the New Mass when going to a TLM for the first time would have some knowledge of what was taking place, but the destruction was so deep and complete by Annibale Bugnini, John XXIII and Paul VI and his Synod of Bishops that 70% of the prayers from the “True Mass” were deleted and the remainder were retranslated that one can not recognize most. Even the Apostles Creed which dated back to the Council of Nicea was revised!!!
The New Mass is a failure, we all see it, cant defend it, now bring back the Real Coke!!!
The claim that the Pauline Mass has no relationship to the Masses beforehand, particularly to the Masses of the Fathers, is unsupportable. I would challenge those making such a claim to provide some substantial examples of where the Pauline Mass lacks a relationship to the Mass of the Fathers while the Tridentine Mass does not.
Shane posted:
“The claim that the Pauline Mass has no relationship to the Masses beforehand, particularly to the Masses of the Fathers, is unsupportable. I would challenge those making such a claim to provide some substantial examples of where the Pauline Mass lacks a relationship to the Mass of the Fathers while the Tridentine Mass does not.”
Well first, lets take a look at the so called “obedience factor which those modernists always throw at those who want to worship in a manner as our forefathers did, I guess a Papal bull proclaiming
“At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. And in order once and for all to preclude any scruples of conscience and fear of ecclesiastical penalties and censures, we declare herewith that it is by virtue of our Apostolic authority that we decree and prescribe that this present order and decree of ours is to last in perpetuity, and never at a future date can it be revoked or amended legally. . . . And if, nevertheless, anyone would dare attempt any action contrary to this order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” -Means very little?
And a quote from someone who was on the committe itself:
“Clearly, then, the “new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology” (Cardinal Benelli) and one quite foreign to the Catholic Church. This ultimately means as Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the “experts” who co-authored the New Mass, pointed out, that “The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”
So lets then take a look at some of the statistics that most of us here are aware of that this new mass has produced:
The number of priests in the United States more than doubled from 1930 to 1965 to 58,000. Since then, however, the number has fallen to 45,000 and there will be only 31,000 priests left in 2020, with half of them being over 70. In 1965, only 1% of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, 3,000 or 15% of the parishes are priestless. The number of seminarians from 1965 to 2002 dropped over 90% from 49,000 to 4,700, while two-thirds of the seminaries have closed. There were 104,000 teaching nuns in 1965, while today there are a mere 8,200, a decline of 94% since the end of Vatican II. Religious orders are on the road to disappearance. Three and a half thousand were studying to be Jesuits in 1965. In 2000, the number was 389.
Almost half of all Catholic high schools have closed in the U.S. since 1965. Only one in four Catholics now attend Mass on Sundays. There were 338 annulments in 1968 and 50,000 in 2002. Only 10% of lay religious teachers now accept Church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent say that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent hold that one can be a good Catholic without going to Mass on Sundays. Finally, 70% of Catholics between 18 and 44 believe that the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus.
A Protestantized liturgy yields heretical belief, loss of the Faith, and devaluation of the priesthood. Satan has been able to accomplish more effective damage to the entire body of the Church in the past 40 years through the destruction of the Mass than ever before.
“God blessy wessy you allski.”
ugh……..
You guys still don’t get it…
There is so much more as to why there is a conservative retreat…
So don’t get snaughty and chant victory yet…
There is something more than just vox populi vox Dei here, which anyhow is still more progresivist than conservative.
Like I said before, don’t get into compromising positions. You don’t know who will come in next…
The problem with some Catholics, especially those that over-emphasize or almost idolize the Traditional Latin Mass, as if it is the ‘end all of end alls’,is that they seem to be disconnected from the Person and humanity of Christ, as revealed in the Gospels. Just because something appears more formal and and sanctimonious doesn’t always equate to being indeed more holy or more authentic. We realize this very clearly in the person of Jesus Himself and how the Pharisee’s of Jesus’ day were always scandalized at His apparant lack of traditional piety.
These same Pharisees were extremely learned in the scriptures, extremely careful in their fastings and liturgical practices and were also accustomed to very frequent and ‘long prayers’, even as were the disciples of St. John the Baptist.
Jesus, on the other hand was very different and they really couldn’t figure Him out. He didn’t seem to pray, except in the wilderness, He didn’t seem to obey the Sabbaths, He didn’t always bother with customary Jewish rituals before eating, He didn’t publicly fast, He seemed to enjoy good food and wine, and He was strangely comfortable in the presence of Samaritans, prostitutes, adulterers and tax-collectors! This was really novel for His time, and quite contrary to any preconcieved concept of what a prophet or Messiah, a ‘savior’ of the Jewish Nation, might one day be like! Moreover, it was not only the Pharisees that were confused, but even the holy and devout John the Baptist also… and John needed to rely on a sign from Heaven to actually recognise in Him!
So it’s good when analysing anything the Church promulgates or teaches, to keep in mind that we need to always be mindful of the Lord’s admonishion to “beware the yeast of the Pharisees”! And this means that we shouldn’t be too quick to judge by preconcieved notions, and especially by things exterior. Rather, we should try to ‘percieve’ and ‘understand’, through a healthy study and understanding of the Person and Ways of Jesus Himself, as revealed to us in the Holy Gospels!
Moreover we need to always remember that it is not by austerity, or formalism, or logic, or intelligence, or apparent grandure.. that the true followers of Christ are known, no matter how great these gifts or or lofty traits are. But rather, “It is by this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.”
So in all things regarding the holy Faith we should always keep the words and teachings of Christ in mind, and in this we can really see how the Holy Catholic Church is, first and foremost, a Church of great and true LOVE! And as Jesus stated above, this is how all will recognise His true Church and disciples!
Long live the Holy Catholic Church…The Church of Divine and Eternal Love!
John, I didn’t ask for what you provided. You provided statistics about attendance, and things like that. You provided a quote from Pius V, taking an interpretation that is impossible given the fact that Pius V himself, and later Clement VIII (1604) and Urban VIII (1634) made Liturgical changes that would violate this interpretation of the bull.
I asked for examples of the Liturgy in which the Pauline rite was organically different from the early Church’s rite(s), and in which Pius V’s rite was not.
I havn’t read most of the combox but I just want to say I really hope this Motu Proprio comes out and is all it is expected to be. It will help dispel the stigma of traditionalist heresy and schism attributed to the traditional Liturgy of the Roman rite.
Gasp! John, ducking the question and putting forth impossible interpretations? Say it ain’t so!
You mean he couldn’t find a cut-and-paste directly on point? Or one with logic to support it?
Shane –
About what you posted:
“The Tridentine Mass was once the new order as well, and there’s no question that some at the time probably actually referred to it as that. It was an order of the Mass and it was new, after all.”
You are indeed correct, brutha!
As I’ve said time and again in previous posts, there were actually other canons that existed at the time of Trent that were recognized by the Church. In fact, Canon 6 in the 22nd session of Trent deals with not only the Roman canon but other canons as well. This was issued in 1563. The canon (i.e., the Tridentine) that overrode all other canons was not issued until 1571.
Also, don’t even bother with John — he won’t listen to you.
In fact, although John proclaims such high praises of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, he didn’t even realize that the excerpt I posted above concerning the KISS OF PEACE was actually from there!
Further, as I’ve mentioned in the past featuring additional information from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and its author:
Concerning the Roman Canon used in the “Traditional Mass”, Fr. Fortescue, author of the articles on Liturgy for the Catholic Encyclopedia, pointed out that the canon has not only been changed before but dramatically so:
This brings us back to the most difficult question: Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass, the Canon.
At Rome, the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries… Of the various theories suggested to account for this it seems reasonable to say: “We must then admit that between the years 400 and 500 a great transformation was made in the Roman Canon” (Euch. u. Busssakr., 86).
The part removed from the ellipse stated simply that “[d]uring the same time the prayers of the faithful before the Offertory disappeared, the kiss of peace was transferred to after the Consecration, and the Epiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our “Supplices” prayer” (Fortescue: Catholic Encyclopedia article “Liturgy of the Mass” c. 1913).
These are three aspects of the current Pauline Mass (i.e., Novus Ordo) that were restored after Vatican II which are absent from the Tridentine Rite of Mass — the kiss of peace being later dropped altogether when the mass became more of a private devotion then it originally was when the people had a more active role in it.
Certainly in the century or two before Pope St. Gregory the Great there were massive changes in the Roman liturgy, but after him not so much. Yes there were changes like the loss of the kiss of peace and the reduction in number of readings but the fundamental Liturgy remained recognizable and the Eucharistic Prayer virtually identical.
I like that connection to history. It is something that has been maintained in the Eastern Churches. Yes there were changes made in the early, formative centuries of the Church but not much of anything after that. The Liturgy was a sacred thing of tradition, not to be meddled with. The West has always been a bit more flexible with its liturgy but from Gregory the Great on maintained a recongnizible identity.
It takes a lot of education to be able to recognize much of a connection between the Traditional Latin Mass and the current liturgy as applied in everyday parishes or even places like the Vatican and EWTN where they do it essentially as intended. Perhaps there are advantages to the new mass. Perhaps most people get more out of it and therefore perhaps in general it was a good idea.
The fact remains though that there was a major revolution in the Roman rite that essentially amounts to a replacement of the traditional Roman liturgy with a new one. The connection to both St. Pius V and St. Gregory the Great has mostly been lost, not to mention much solemnity and sense of sacrifice. The Liturgy we experience is a modern phenominon not an ancient/timeless one. I regret that loss even if it was for the best, and I would very much like to see the traditional liturgy made more available for those like me who prefer it.
Anon (Esau) said (along with Shayne) that I was ducking the question with respect to the new mass being Protestant and having no organics with relations to the TRUE mass. Well since you really know very little of what took place during this time and only think the catholic church started with JPII, scholars, theologians and cardinals immediately upon the release of the new mass in 1969 wrote to the pope, in a famous document of some 20 pages or so called the Ottavani intervention which outline item by item the defection. Now of course this was not listened to because it did not fit into the Protestanization of the mass. Take the time my friends to read this document and then please come back and refute its arguments. You see, the opposition to these Protestant church reforms did not start with Archbishop Lefebvre, it started way before.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1969ottoviani.html
The Critical Study of the New Order of Mass:
5 June 1969
A Group of Roman Theologians
Chapter 1:
In October 1967, the Synod of Bishops which met in Rome was asked to pass judgment on an experimental celebration of what was then called a “standard” or “normative” Mass. This Mass, composed by the Committee for Implementing the Constitutions on the Sacred Liturgy (Consilium), aroused very serious misgivings among the bishops present. With 187 members voting, the results revealed considerable opposition (43 Negative), many substantial reservations (62 Affirmative with reservations) and four abstentions. The international press spoke of the Synod’s “rejection” of the proposed Mass…
ESAU and ANON-PLEASE NOTE-CLEAN BREAK!!!!!
“Make a clean slate of the whole theology of the Mass. It ended up in substance quite close to the Protestant theology which destroyed the sacrifice of the Mass.”
Unfortunately, we now find that the ame “standard Mass, “identical in substance, has reappeared as the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) recently promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969). In the two years that have passed since the Synod, moreover, it appears that the national bishops’ conferences (at least as such) have not been consulted on the matter.
The Apostolic Constitution states that the old Missal which St. Pius V promulgated on 19 July 1570–its greater part, in fact, goes back to St. Gregory the Great and even remoter antiquity [1] –was the standard for four centuries whenever priests of the Latin Rite celebrated the Holy Sacrifice. The Constitution adds that this Missal, taken to every corner of the earth, “has been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to so many people in their devotion to God.” Yet this same Constitution, which would definitively end the use of the old Missal, claims that the present reform is necessary because “a deep interest in fostering the liturgy has become widespread and strong among the Christian people.” It seems that the last claim contains a serious equivocation. If the Christian people expressed anything at all, it was the desire (thanks to the great St. Pius X) to discover the true and immortal treasures of the liturgy. They never, absolutely never, asked that the liturgy be changed or mutilated to make it easier to understand. What the faithful did want was a better understanding of a unique and unchangeable liturgy–a liturgy they had no desire to see changed….Since the “standard Mass” now reintroduced and reimposed as the New Order of Mass was already rejected in substance at the Synod, since it was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the national bishop’s conferences, and since the faithful (least of all in mission lands) never asked for any reform of the Mass whatsoever, it is impossible to understand the reasons for the new legislation– legislation which
NOTE ESAU-MASS and TRADITION THAT GOES BACK TO THE 4th and 5th CENTURIES!!!
overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the 4th and 5th centuries. Since there are no reasons, therefore, for undertaking this reform, it appears devoid of any rational grounds to justify it and make it acceptable to the Catholic people. The Second Vatican Council did indeed ask that the Order of Mass “be revised in a way that will bring out more clearly the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them.” [2] We shall now see to what extent the recently promulgated Ordo responds to the Council’s wishes–wishes now no more than a faint memory. A point-by-point examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes so great that they confirm the judgment already made on the “standard Mass”–for on many points it has much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant.
PLEASE NOTE HOW MANY TIMES CARDINAL OTTAVANI AND THE COMMITTEE STATED THE SACRIFICE HAS BEEN DESTROYED AND THE MASS IS PROTESTANT
THE REMAINING 19 PAGES I THINK CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THE BREAK
I HAVE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION ON OTHER THREADS, PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ AND EDUCATE YOURSELF
John,
Thank you for the clarion ring of truth.
God bless you.
John,
Contradictory advice. One can either go read your posts or educate one’s self, but to do both would result in one canceling out the other.
Dan,
It must be true. The international press said so. We all know what a keen grasp the international press has on the finer points of Catholic doctrine, the liturgy, the mind of the Holy Father and the purposes of Vatican II.
🙂 at Esquire.
V2 cannot be blamed for the mirror worshipping crap that happened afterwards.
It can all be blamed on the 1960’s general societal acceptance and mandating of mirror worshipping.
I’ve read the documents of V2. The abuses that took place in the aftermath of V2 were never in the V2 documents.
Smash the mirrors, not V2.
Now, let’s get that Motu Proprio up and running 🙂 Such would truly show we are an inclusive Church (not “inclusive” as in “leftwingwacko stuff only!”) and would show true diversity (not “diversity” as in “leftwingwacko stuff only!”)
Gather us in, the trads and and the NO’s….
The problem with some Catholics, especially those that over-emphasize or almost idolize the Novus Ordo Mass, as if it is the ‘end all of end alls’, is that they seem to be disconnected from the Person and humanity of Christ, as revealed in the Gospels.
Can’t we all just get along?
Rodney
John,
The Church is a LIVING Church, guided every moment by the grace and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If the Magisterium of any age chose to make liturgical changes, and indeed they did so abundantly throughout the centuries, it was only through the power of the same Holy Spirit which is guiding the Church until the end of the world.
In every age there were problems and difficulties in the Church. From the very beginning there was the very serious dilemma, which led to the first council of Jerusalem, dealing with liturgical problems confronting the intigration of the Greek and Jewish Christian cultures and communities. And the Church used it’s power to ‘bind and loose’ in this first great conflict.
And when a decision was made, difficult as it probably was, the whole church accepted!( ..and this was a far more radical change in liturgical practice than anything we find in VAT II!)
After this there came many others, which included confronting great heresies, and then various movements in the Church, such as Desert Father Monasticism. In those days the Church was naturally flexible, because no unifying liturgical rite was possible.
So if you want to go far enough back you can find all sorts of liturgical inconsistencies, which never the less, did no great damage to the unity of the Catholic Faith. We see how the faith in every age rose above the same trials, heresies and persecutions, of their particular times. And this is because the LIVING CHURCH, filled with the Holy Spirit has always been protected by Christ, even as He promised.
And so if you want to make a big deal about the Magisterium changing relatively minor items in the Mass, especially when we consider that the Latin language itself was not even the language of the earliest Christians…you seem to be neglecting the highly flexible nature of the early Christian Church. When Jesus gave power to ‘loose and bind’, He meant it to be used! He trusted His apparently weak and ignorant ‘fishermen’ disciples.
The problem here is that JESUS had faith and confidence in His beloved Church..but we weak sinners, possibly do not..or our confidence is very little! Jesus knew that the Holy Spirit would always be there to guide it! So the problem is ours because we don’t have enough faith to believe in the power of the Church to ‘loose and bind’.. which is to be daily alive, spontaeneous, flexible, and capable to adapt to every time,need and culture, until the end of the world!
Thanks be to God for this LIVING Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which alone has the authority to lead and direct the pilgrim Church, in the name of, and in the power of, Jesus Christ!
“…those that over-emphasize or almost idolize the Novus Ordo(sic) Mass, as if it is the ‘end all of end alls’…”
That would seem to describe no one that I have ever heard of, leading me to believe that the above poster is delusional, which may explain why he doesn’t use a handle; he may not know who he is.
“those that over-emphasize or almost idolize the Novus Ordo Mass” That sounds similar to something that A Williams said above. As to idolizing the New Mass, there is sure lotsa that going on in this thread. And as to not using a handle, that helps to prevent ad hominem attacks, although I wouldn’t put it past bill912 (whoever he is), anyways.
“…that helps to prevent ad hominem attacks, although I wouldn’t put it past bill912(whoever he is),anyway.”
Thank you for that splendid example of an ad hominem attack.
bill912,
You obviously don’t know your Latin: “ad hominem” means “against the TLM.”
What did you think it meant?
Sigh…I have so much to learn…
BobCatholic:
U da Man!
At least somebody’s doin’ what Fr. Corapi recommended for those who CLAIM that VII said this, that and the other thing — like John JTNOVA@optline.com, who said Vatican II was responsible for the eradication of kneelers in the Church as well as the Hand-holding during the Our Father!
Mr. BobCatholic, kudos to you, Brutha!
Yeah, smash dem’ Rad Trad judgmental mirrors of vanity, pride and arrogance!
They actually think they can ROB the Church of the AUTHORITY given it by Our Lord and Saviour Himself!
These who ‘puffeth’ themselves up!
“However, I don’t agree with your line of thought about Catholics then being “forced” into SSPX because of lack of options.
I live in one of the most notoriously liberal dioceses in the country and the orthodox Catholics contacted the Vatican about what was happening here. There is an indult Mass offered here every Sunday. “
Well then, you are lucky that your diocese does offer the indult every Sunday. The diocese I was visiting does not. In that circumstance (no indult Mass offered) then I do believe that people can feel they have no choice but to go into SSPX.
If I wanted to attend a Latin Mass (of either rite) my only option was SSPX… so I checked it out.
If I moved to that diocese would I attend SSPX regularly? I would like to think the answer is no, but considering what I have seen in diocesan Masses there over the years (ie – ‘all Christians are welcome at God’s table’ so anyone can take communion) I don’t think I would hold out for long.
Would that be a failing of mine? yes. However I do believe that at a certain point a bishop should look at his diocese and see that the fact that there is an SSPX community can be a real sign of a desire for an indult parish.
I don’t generally get into the fight between the TLM and the Pauline rite because like I said above I attend both. I think that each has strengths and weaknesses.
I am not a ‘rad trad’. Heck, I’m not even a ‘trad’ – according to my ‘trad’ friends I am “hopelessly Novus Ordo”.
I am just someone who loves the Church and it’s teachings and has a strong preference for the TLM Mass because I have found that *for me* it has greatly improved my spiritual life. I don’t think it’s wrong to want to attend it, just as I don’t think it’s wrong to want to attend the Pauline Mass. It’s a big Church – there’s room for us all.
Esau,
Many of the problems in the Church, and especially between so-called ‘Rad-trads’, ‘normal’ catholics and liberal/progressive Catholics come from a great misunderstanding of Jesus. This is why I keep mentioning the need to really study well the Gospel stories and parables, because here we find biography, and not necessarily logic or even theology. What we find is the PERSON of CHRIST, and upon this finding we can then start to base our theology and logical conclusions. But the farther the theology is separated from the Gospel stories, and the personality of Christ, the more the theology becomes similar to mere philosophical speculation, and becomes more and more disconnected from it’s original source, which is not a THEORY, but a PERSON.
And what is the problem between ‘liberals’, ‘normals’ and ‘Rad-trads’?
Their vision of who this man Jesus Christ really is!
It would seem that Rad Trads want to portray Jesus as very formal, a disciplinarian, logical,highly organized, a strict follower of rules, severe with those who don’t agree with Him,severe with those WHO agree with Him, rather unflexible, somewhat rigid, really….they portray Him almost like what we find in the Gospels when the ‘Pharisees’ are discribed!
And the progressives/liberals, they seem to see Jesus only vaguely, and see Him only as love,peace and goodness, acceptance of everyone and everything, mercy for all, “do what we want, even we sin.. because He is so loving and forgiving”, flexible,easy with those who disagee with Him, easier with those WHO agree with Him, someone who doesn’t really care too much about what we do, as long as we are nice to eachother, rules really aren’t needed, do what you want..etc….
And the ‘normal’ Catholics are in between these two extremes. We know that Jesus came because of Divine Love. He was both very mortified in His own body, but also very charitable and courteous to others arounds Him.He showed his respect to authorities when needed and honored some of His friends and family while He was on earth, such as His Mother, St. John Baptist, Mary Magdalene,the Roman Centurian and even some pagans such as the Syrophonesian woman whom he first called ‘a dog’, but then praised her for her ‘great faith’.
And Jesus portrayed a fine balance, between being strict and liberal, when dealing with His disciples. He never shows Himself to be a harsh disciplinarian, but corrects them firmly if they get the wrong idea of Him, or get carried away and start trying form their own idea of “the Kingdom” in one way or another. Peter is called ‘a Satan’ for trying to counsel or teach the Lord, and James and John, ‘sons of Thunder’ are reprimanded for their excessive zeal for wanting to KILL(call down fire from Heaven)on a whole town, even like the famous city of sodom, for rejecting the Lord’s, and their, presence.
So, the problem we all have, I think, is not with the Church,so much, but with Christ Himself, and with who we think, or want, Him to be.
On the bright side of things, though we have very clear teachings on this matter in the Gospels …for those who actually want to study and find it!
And herein we find the ‘normal’ Catholic portayal. That is, the LORD and TEACHER who was very understanding and patient, forgiving and charitable with everyone. He never forced Himself on anyone either! He respected all He came across, even if He had to severely rebuke them at various times. He was hardest on those who condemned others, and happiest with those who showed great confidence and trust in Him. He also was poor. He was abused by His own people and childhood friends. He knew the meaning of ‘hard labor’. He knew the meaning of ‘hunger and thirst’. He knew how to repay someone a favor shown to him. He was generous, and always gave back more than what was given to him. He was not strict on formal rules, but acknoweleged their usefulness…that is, rules are made to serve mankind…not mankind the rules.
If everyone finds and adores this Gospel Lord…then I think the differences between Rad-Trad, Normal and Liberal Catholics will all fade away!
“First seek the Kingdom of Heaven and it’s righteousness, and everything else with come after it.”
John,
I’m sick and tired of your refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Mass. Be humble and obey the Church.
“He who hears you, hears Me, and he who rejects you, rejects me.”
A. Williams:
Take, for example, the Story about The Prodigal Son —
Now, tell me, just how many sinners do you see in that story which was read just last Sunday in Church?
There were actually two sinners: not only the son that rebelled but also the older son who claimed he was doing the will of the father.
Now, when you come to the rebellious son, we see that he actually came back to the Father, asking him for forgiveness, and was taken back into his arms.
However, do we really know what became of the older son?
This judgmental, self-righteous and proud figure who could not help but act so ‘high-and-mighty’ (which Christ intentionally wanted also as the focus of the story — perhaps to show in this figure the character of the pharisees), who complained to the father why was the rebellious brother given all the attention and awards while he, who did nothing but the will of the father, was given nothing in return.
Here, I believe if we pay careful attention to the subtle details of the story, we see that the sin of the rebellious son is just as bad as the sin of the older son.
It provides a lesson to those who ride their high horses (quite an apt example given that there are those ‘hobby horses’ here) and submit themselves not actually to the will of the father, but to the vanity and pride of their own!
Here, I believe if we pay careful attention to the subtle details of the story, we see that the sin of the rebellious son is just as bad as the sin of the older son.
Actually, when you consider the ending, it may very well be that the sin of the older son was worse than that of the rebellious son.
Most likely, the older son was so caught up with his self-righteousness, he refused to acknowledge his sin and ask the father for his forgiveness since he may have thought that he was nevertheless better than his rebellious brother and deserved from the father even better yet!
Mary Martha, attending both Pauline and SSPX was a noble way to satisfy all around.
What I took exception to was the general principle that people “have no choice” but attend SSPX. To say that there’s no choice but disobedience is to not trust in God’s providence.
I’m glad you brought this up because it’s give me a new perspective on this diocese, which more than frequently drives me up a wall.
The indult in this diocese was not the result of luck, but because Catholics here actively addressed the “loosey goosey” quality here, to the extent of contacting the Vatican.
Given the rest of the diocese, I doubt that the bishop would have allowed the indult here if it hadn’t been for Catholics here going through channels.
But they did and as a result, there is an option for Catholics who wish to obey the Magesterium. Two options actually, the indult and one Novus Ordo using Latin for the Mass parts. God will honor that obedience here (even if it is small compared with the overall diocese).
However, the “no choice except to disobey” says that God won’t provide a way.
My two cents for the day.
Esau,
There are many possible interpretations in this parable, and I think if we examine our own emotions and relations to others, in all of our varying circumstances, we might find multiple lessons and understandings.
I don’t really see the older son as much of a sinner, just because he was a little jealous at his brother being treated so well. This is a pretty normal reaction in this ‘land of the living’, and the Lord describes the Father as being very sensitive to the older son in this temptation.
Moreover, his father also defends his rights to his inheritance saying, “You are always with me and you know that all I have is yours”. so this might have been meant to teach us to be wary of avarice and jealousy..but also that a certain justice was also upheld! And really we know nothing about the future life.
But one thing we can probably gather, is that the younger sons future life was indeed quite a bit better than the life he had ‘FEEDING THE PIGS”!
Actually it sounds like a happy ending!
And after the older son secretly kicks the younger brothers butt out in the feilds….while his father isn’t looking…all turns out pretty well!
Now THAT’S a realistic assumption! 🙂
Yeah, but I still think that Jesus was trying to point out in the figure of the Older son how it is also sinful to be of that type as well: judgmental, self-righteous, proud.
Again, similar to how the Pharises were behaving.
And after the older son secretly kicks the younger brothers butt out in the feilds….while his father isn’t looking…all turns out pretty well!
Now THAT’S a realistic assumption! 🙂
hehehe… <=^D
Esquire posted:
“John,
I HAVE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION ON OTHER THREADS, PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ AND EDUCATE YOURSELF
Contradictory advice. One can either go read your posts or educate one’s self, but to do both would result in one canceling out the other.”
Ok Esquire-if I have not answered before, then take the time to read the Ottavani intervention, written in 1969 by the great cardinal along with other Bishops and great theologians who even before the New Mass was rammed down everyones throats proclaimed it was Protestant, a clean break with the “Mass” that has been organic for centuries back to the days of Justin Martyr and of course St Gregory and doubtful because its intention was clear, to be the “Lords Supper” and a “communual meal”, so being that the liturgy is NOT infallible, all those that have been attending the novus ordo mass since its inception most likely have NOT been receiving the true body and blood of Christ and not having received the graces one is entitled to in going to mass
Esquire posted:
“Dan,
John,
Thank you for the clarion ring of truth.
God bless you.
It must be true. The international press said so. We all know what a keen grasp the international press has on the finer points of Catholic doctrine, the liturgy, the mind of the Holy Father and the purposes of Vatican II.”
Is it not so funny how those who support liberalism and the errors of Vatican II continue to try and belittle those that try to hold fast to the Faith?
I dont see those big bad “Rad Trads” making fun of those that are in love with the New Mass, just try to present fact to let them see the error in their ways. The Pope? Well last I checked the liturgy is NOT infallible, and if one wants to get right down to it, John Paul II participated in Vodoo, protestant, Buddhist, pagan, Hindy, Moslem and all forms of worship so then if going to SSPX is BAD-Then what does that make HE????????
… so being that the liturgy is NOT infallible…
But THE POPE IS in Matters of Faith and Morals!
rant, rant, rant, but doesn’t even PAY ATTENTION to the actual TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS of the Catholic Church!
dont see those big bad “Rad Trads” making fun of those that are in love with the New Mass, just try to present fact to let them see the error in their ways.
ACTUALLY, they not only do this, but they also go as far as SPREADING HEINOUS LIES about the Catholic Church and its Popes!
The Pope? Well last I checked the liturgy is NOT infallible, and if one wants to get right down to it, John Paul II participated in Vodoo, protestant, Buddhist, pagan, Hindy, Moslem and all forms of worship so then if going to SSPX is BAD-Then what does that make HE????????
See what I mean?
The Devil that is in John is back again, doing what he does best: SPREADING LIES, ENGAGING IN CALUMNY, in other words, DOING THE WORK OF THE DEVIL as usual!
Who else but the DEVIL would want to undermine the Church and cause such rupture in the Body of Christ?
Everyone, come and listen to this from John:
Well last I checked the liturgy is NOT infallible
If the LITURGY IS NOT INFALLIBLE as John here is claiming, then why has he been declaring that the Tridentine Mass is INFALLIBLE?
John,
Do you think God is providing miracles as a witness to the canonization process of John Paul II just to get your goat?
Do you think He provided a miracle attesting to the beatification of your favorite “mason” just to get his digs in on you?
Which one of the lunatics commanding obedience to the human traditions you are so attached to has been canonized, beatified or even recognized as venerable?
(Hint: comes right before “1”)
And in case you’re wondering, by “human traditions” I very much mean “traditional”-looking things that have been separated from the Church, and thus become non-traditional. A schismatic Mass may have all the trappings of a regular “traditional” Mass, but it takes something far more “essential” than trappings to make it “traditional.” That is why saints (like Padre Pio) seek permission, and obey their superiors. That, my friend, is TRADITIONAL.
Esquire approaches the Hoop —
He shoots:
That is why saints (like Padre Pio) seek permission, and obey their superiors. That, my friend, is TRADITIONAL.
HE SCORES!
Mary Kay,
My wife and I live in a part of the state where the nearest Pauline Rite mass is 50 miles away.
The FSSPX church is 10 miles away.
My wife has rheumatoid arthrits thus making long drives excruciatingly painful for her.The Pauline Rite church offers mass with the priest dressed like a superhero or a clown on various occasions.He mentioned,to the applause and laughter of many,at the Ash Wednesday mass,”Do we have to start lent today?Can’t we wait until tomorrow?”He once gave me an invalid absolution during confession,and the list continues.We have written letter after letter to the bishop.nada.
I think this is a case of no choice when going to an FSSPX church.
God bless you.
Dan, what you and your wife decide is between you two and God. I wouldn’t want those reading to be led astray thinking it was okay to justify attending SSPX.
For the benefit of anyone lurking, I would say that the “no choice but disobedience/attending SSPX” is bad theology.
Think about God asking Abraham to sacifice Isaac. Those tending to rationalize would say, “Surely God wouldn’t ask me to do this,” yet that’s exactly what God did ask. And when it looked like there was no other choice, God did provide.
There is a huge value in obedience.
Dan,
I feel your pain. You are correct, I believe, in your essential assumption that it is possible to attend an SSPX Mass and remain faithful to the Church.
That does not mean, of course, that one is being faithful because one is attending an SSPX Mass. More often than not, in my experience, such attendance is coupled with a schismatic attitude (which is, of course, denied in word even though apparent in fact).
And also for the record, I would certainly prefer the TLM in almost every way if it were offered nearby in a non-SSPX setting.
For the record, despite the frequency of your articulated agreement with John, I don’t recall ever seeing a post of yours encouraging disobedience or displaying a lack of charity to the Holy Father or a lack of respect for an ecumenical council. That, to me, places you and John miles apart.
John says “..all those that have been attending the novus ordo mass since its inception most likely have NOT been receiving the true body and blood of Christ and not having received the graces one is entitled to in going to mass”
I guess St.Padre Pio and Mother Theresa and countless other patently holy souls never communicated with Jesus in the N.O. Mass?? Pretty rediculous assumption!
Maybe you have never experienced the Lord in Holy Communion…but I have! And others who are spiritually sensitive can experience a marked change in the soul at Communion…but really I’m not worthy to discuss such things!
Better just to tell this story of St. Philip Neri:
One day while St.Philip was sick and bedridden, he waited for the Euchrarist to be brought to him by the celebrating priest, after Mass. When he received, Philip waited for a few moments, checked his soul and cried out, astonished, “WHERE IS JESUS? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!?
And the priest was shocked, for he remembered only then how distracted he was and that He actually FORGOT to consecrate the Bread and the Wine, having his mind completely absorbed in something else at the time!
But the spiritual sensitivity of St.Philip was so tuned and familiar with the presence of Christ at Communion that he distinguished the marked absence of Christ then, and so caught the priest in his grave error!
John, maybe if you read a few less books and go out and experience the faith by communing with other holy Catholics, and also imitating the Lord in having mercy on others, you will find the fact the the Catholic Church is not all bad,and that there are countless holy servants and friends of Christ in it!
Even Jesus in His parables didn’t suggest the Church would ever be completely bad, but only acknowledged the numerous and poisonous weeds that might be mingled within the beneficial wheat!
Moreover, He even permitted these weeds to remain, understanding wisely that it might be more harmful to trample the wheat in attempts to do some ‘ad hoc’ weeding! And this is how much He loved EVERY SINGLE GRAIN from his harvest!
He knew that His church would have these weeds, but would also have very many great souls and saints as well!
So, if the Church has a few weeds…please try to ‘percieve’ that Jesus the Lord wasn’t too bothered by these weeds, but rather He wisely focused on the good, and all who are drawn to Him by God the Father. And so don’t try to destroy the entire feild just because you don’t see perfection in it…even as Jesus teaches you in this parable!
I think you need to find some good Catholic friends. Maybe talk to some monks or nuns at a nearby cloistered monastery. This greatly helped me in the past.
Esquire, a couple of things.
I don’t understand how “it is possible to attend an SSPX Mass and remain faithful to the Church.”
Your comment about attitude is noteworthy.
Dan, this is where I have a problem with so many of your comments. My understanding is that the indult is allowed given that the person acknowledges the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass.
When I’ve said that you had a preference for the Tridentine, you said “No, the Tridentine is inherently better than the Novus Ordo.” Perhaps it would be better to ask you to clarify. Do your comments indicate that you accept the validity of the Novus Ordo?
Mary Kay:
To answer your question, look at Dan’s post above where he actually validated John’s post that stated that the Novus Ordo was a Protestant service by saying:
I think this is one of those instances where Esquire was too charitable in his assessment.
From what I can discern, and backed up by Dan’s question here, I believe that Dan accepts the validity of the N.O. Mass.
J.M.J. + O.B.T.
I think back and remember the argument that ensued in 1985 between those pop drinkers who opted for the new sweeter version of Coca-Cola, NEW COKE (tasting not unlike arch-rival PEPSI) and the Traditional COKE drinker, the die-hard, throat singed lover of the REAL THING. Recall how the original formula had to be quickly reintroduced and then renamed COKE CLASSIC for as long as it existed side-by-side with Novus Coke and that it wasn’t until the storm clouds passed and COKE II stopped being formulated and canned that peace would again reign at KING COKE. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke for more details)
It might be useful to remember this profane analogy when pondering or discussing the future of Holy Mass under Pope Benedict XVI.
My only hope is that: Whereas at last count, postmodern Coca-Cola now includes 17 different flavors/variants, the venerable Mass will return to a simple either-or choice, Tridentine or Novus Ordo.
As part of this important process I suspect LIFE TEEN Masses complete with what amounts to a rock band in the Sanctuary, will be relegated to the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of excesses of post-Vatican II experimentation, liturgical innovations of the Novus Ordo that had their day in the sun and cease to exist.
Boy it is hard to state this truthfully and yet with all required reverence. After all, it is a valid Mass and Jesus Christ is really present…but…but…but…
Esquire,
In the linked question, Dan says:
Dear Father Levis, You recently informed a questioner that the priests of the FSSPX do not believe that the Novus Ordo mass is valid.I respectfully correct you that this is incorrect.They all acknowledge the Novus Ordo mass as valid. My wife and I occasionally assist at mass at a FSSPX church.
It appears (at least to me) that Dan was just trying to convince Fr. Levis that the FSSPX priests actually acknowledged the validity of the Novus Ordo. Though, in conjunction with Fr. Levi, I myself find that very hard to believe.
However, I can’t find any actual indication that Dan himself acknowleged the validity of the Novus Ordo.
Thanks for the link though!
As part of this important process I suspect LIFE TEEN Masses complete with what amounts to a rock band in the Sanctuary, will be relegated to the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of excesses of post-Vatican II experimentation, liturgical innovations of the Novus Ordo that had their day in the sun and cease to exist.
That’s just it —
These liberal and down-right invalid Masses were never part of what Vatican II envisioned.
They are an AFFRONT to both the Church and to God!
I just prefer to attend the Tridentine Mass (as I did back in the days) because of the reverence and devotion often demonstrated there in comparison to many of how the Novus Ordo Masses are celebrated these days, which are more often due to the errant celebrants as well as those of the liberal laity.
Mary kay posted:
“Dan, this is where I have a problem with so many of your comments. My understanding is that the indult is allowed given that the person acknowledges the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass.”
For the record, I have never said the New Mass in NOT valid, just questionable, and if you have never had those questions in your mind than you need to read what constitutes a valid mass and sacraments. There are books that predate Vatican II and the reform that have no prejudicial slant to them. And then there are millions of words written by theologians that have problems with the new mass that range from doubtful to downright not Catholic. Even Cardinal Ratzinger has had issues
And where I live in a metro area populated by liberal Catholics who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats and pro abortion politicians and have attended masses like Dan run by guitar strummin nuns and priests, enough, I refuse to have my children exposed to what I was brought up in after the reform obedience or no obedience
IF the Pope on down cant get their house clean, then I will help clean it for them. You dont need to be a moral theologian to know what takes place today in the Catholic church is just plain not Catholic
Amen. Anyone with half a brain (which is more than some so-called moral theologians have) can plainly see that caluminous attacks on the Holy Father are not Catholic.
… obedience or no obedience
Yup — that sure is some TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC TEACHING there!
Thanks John for showing us just what is the Traditional Teaching of the Catholic Church is all about!
It’s not about OBEDIENCE; it’s all about the ‘SELF’ and what the ‘SELF’ wants!
John ‘MARTIN LUTHER’ does it again!
Young priests are almost universally fascinated by the Tridentine mass. They are learning how to say it and saying it.
What the Artist Formerly Known as Cardinal Ratzinger said was that the freeing of the old Mass would help reconnect the new mass with its roots. That would help to recapture what he says we have lost: the Spirit of the Liturgy. It would help first in that it would influence the way the New Mass as it is is said. And second, it would help us begin to see the ways in which we should try to purify and restore the new liturgical books in order to reconnect them organically to the old.
I think JD is missing this whole thing. Ratzinger views the new mass as a liturgy afloat, unrooted from its moorings, which is bereft of all the elements which make for a living liturgical experience. It requires artificial–or perhaps I should say ‘natural’–respiration. I recommend a careful reading of God and the World, or at least the pages dealing with the liturgy. They are extremely cogent and anyone who reads them would have known what the Holy Father was going to do and why.
(Yes, yes, yes, I know. Cardinal Ratzinger’s private opinion, etc, etc. But I’m afraid it’s not that simple. There is such a thing as persuasive authority, as all the sages of old would appeal to when they spoke of “the Fathers” (our ancestors) and “the learned Doctors of the Church” (our wise living teachers). There are few as wise and learned as Joseph Ratzinger and while he doesn’t have to be right, it’s a darned good bet that he just might be. You should listen up and think hard before you disagree. And it seemed good to the Holy Spirit that this wise and good man should be Pope. So…even more reason to listen up.
The problem with schismatic traditionalists is that, instead of worshipping Christ through the Mass, they almost end up worshipping the Mass of Christ’s Church.
“all those that have been attending the novus ordo mass since its inception most likely have NOT been receiving the true body and blood of Christ and not having received the graces one is entitled to in going to mass”
Unfortunately, John, you’ve crossed into heretical territory with that statement. I’m NOT saying that you are a heretic. I’m saying that your words are heretical.
And it seemed good to the Holy Spirit that this wise and good man should be Pope.
Do you really think that Cardinal Ratzinger would’ve become Pope if it weren’t for JP II who helped pave the way for him?
It was he who assigned him as head of the CDF, making certain he took the proper steps toward his candidacy and it was he who kept him from retiring.
JP II knew what he was doing!
He laid the groundwork for the Church in this hectic modern world by converting so many (Protestant converts, non-Christian converts) into the Church all the while, planning a return to the old.
During his days, he actually saw how distant many in the modern world was becoming from Christ.
He wanted to touch their hearts by being close to the people of the world by the many travels he made just so that he could be with his flock and God’s people.
Mind you, this man all the while was suffering from his old assasination wound, Parkinsons disease, decrepit old age, and many other health things — that his very strength could only have come from the Lord!
The REAL Super Powers in the last century: Mother Teresa and John Paul II!
It is interesting for those from the Eastern Rites to see those groups on the verge of schism like SSPX argue the Church has abandoned tradition. The Latin Mass was imposed (not a bad thing) on the Western Rite after Trent. Eastern Rite Catholics have been using Masses twice as old as Tridinite. But time length or language of mass doesn’t matter. What matter are the sacraments and obediencet o the See of Peter who holds the Church until Christ’s return.
The Latin Mass was imposed (not a bad thing) on the Western Rite after Trent. Eastern Rite Catholics have been using Masses twice as old as Tridinite. But time length or language of mass doesn’t matter. What matter are the sacraments and obediencet o the See of Peter who holds the Church until Christ’s return.
God bless you, Catholicgauze!
I guess there actually are TRUE CATHOLICS out there still! =^D
Mary Kay,
You already know from many of my statements that I acknowledge the Pauline Rite as valid.I also know that most of the FSSPX priests think the same thing.
I am just a fly speck of a nobody and I hope I only echo that magnificent bride of Christ,the Holy Catholic Church when I say that what she deems good and holy we must attend to.
Maybe I should have clarified myself.Most Novus Ordo mass’s I have assisted at, in my 40 years of life have been,outwardly banal and irreverent in thier celebration.
Conversely every single Tridentine mass which I have assisted at has been edifying and reverent in its outward appearance.”Lex Orandi,Lex Credendi.
That is why I comment frequently that the Classical Rite is clearly better.
They are both the August Sacrifice of our Lord,if using the correct matter and form..But all things being equal I must say that the Tridentine mass focuses us in an immeasurably more transcendant manner to the awesome Sacrifice taking place right in front of the tabernacle on the altar.
Beauty is always preferable to something less.
Yes the Novus Ordo is as legit as God.But He is more fully adored,at least through the stimulation of our senses,exciting the soul through the monumental course of the Classical Rite,s Aesthetic dominance.
God bless you,and God bless our great Holy Father.
Dan,
What you said here, I FULLY AGREE with:
Most Novus Ordo mass’s I have assisted at, in my 40 years of life have been,outwardly banal and irreverent in thier celebration.
Conversely every single Tridentine mass which I have assisted at has been edifying and reverent in its outward appearance. “Lex Orandi,Lex Credendi.
That is why I comment frequently that the Classical Rite is clearly better.
They are both the August Sacrifice of our Lord,if using the correct matter and form..But all things being equal I must say that the Tridentine mass focuses us in an immeasurably more transcendant manner to the awesome Sacrifice taking place right in front of the tabernacle on the altar.
I guess Esquire was right about you.
Don’t worry — B16 is just startin’!
(just pray he lives long enough to implement the necessary changes he wants to get going though)
But, right now, what he needs is the FULL SUPPORT of everyone and NOT FOLKS PROMOTING DISSENSION (not you, of course) in the ranks.
A. Williams wrote: ” … I think most Cathlolics already are familiar with such concepts as ‘ordinary’ minister ot the Eucharist,(the priests and deacons), and ‘extraordinary’ ministers of the Eucharist, which are derived from the laity.” Some flaws in it …
Who is the Ordinary Minister to proclaim the first reading? Not the priest or deacon. It is the instituted lector. From the 2002 General Introduction to the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from http://www.romanrite.com/girm.html :
“101. In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons may be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture.
Secondly the term “Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist” is wrong. From the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:
“[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”. Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. …
[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.”
John Lilburne:
Please visit here often!
I like it when this kind of info is presented!
When is typepad going to fix this?
Now?
Close your html tags people. Do it for the little baby Jesus.
John Lilburn,
You are right about Ordinary and Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist being an incorrect expression. ‘of Holy Communion’ as RS says is correct! My error. I was thinking more along the lines of the phrasology “ordinary” and “extraordinary” being potentially used in the up coming motu Propio, which is what the topic of discussion was about in the first place.
From what I’ve read, and I admit they are probably only rumors, the pope is going to distinguish the two liturgies in this way, terming the N.O. liturgy as the ‘ordinary’ and the Latin as the ‘extraordinary’.
This terminology is really what is interesting, because it might add some insight as to how Pope BXVI views the proposed future of the Latin Liturgy. I think a distinction, such as this, might be very revealing, and reinforce the fact that the N.O. is still to be the preferred liturgy of the Church, and so there won’t be any sort of ‘back tracking’ as some traditionalists might like or want to demand.
If these terms are actually used, I read it as distiguishing the N.O. in the ‘preferred, common or first’ place. It just needs to be celebrated with the same care and devotion as the Latin liturgy…and isn’t this what ‘Redemptionis Sacramentum’ and all the other recent liturgical documents are all about? To perfect the N.O. liturgy?
But you were good to catch me on it! I like Redemptionis Sacramentum( and Sacramentum Caritatis too!), so much, that I wish everyone was as familiar with it as you are!
God Bless!
You know, if the NO becomes “ordinary” and TLM becomes “extaordinary” you don’t suppose that that would cause the TLM to become very frequent?
After all, EXTRAORDINARY ministers of Holy Communion, are in almost all NO masses, despite the fact they’re supposed to be EXTRAORDINARY.
So using this logic, let’s make the Tridentine mass EXTRAORDINARY like the leftists made EMCH’s did 🙂
So using this logic, let’s make the Tridentine mass EXTRAORDINARY like the leftists made EMCH’s did 🙂
BobCatholic does it again!
Yes, let’s!
I, for one, am tired of the irreverent, bubblegum-chewing, t-shirt wearing, choir/rockband-concert playing, cell-phone ringtone DJ-ing in-the-middle-of-Mass, arrive-at-Mass-10-minutes-late, leave-Mass-10-minutes-early, the-eucharist-is-only-a-symbol, let’s-make-the-Church-a-Townhall-during-Mass-and-Talk-All-We-Want, liberal crowds!
BobCatholic,
I look at this from tha perspective of someone who grew up at the very beginning of the N.O. Masses, and my parish, at which I was an altar boy, was really very orthodox. Things were so holy that my continual concern was not ringing the bell at the right time for the consecration! So too everyone kneeled for reception of Holy Communion.
However, I was a little too young to remember the Latin Mass.
What I’m trying to say, is that the N.O. Mass ,done well, like it was when I was younger, and even now in some churches, is a highly spiritual liturgy! It is only the wacky liturgies that want to put the congregation first, and Jesus second, that are the problem. And this is what Pope BXVI is whole heartedly trying control and reform. We only need all bishops and priests to study the liturgical books well and put them into practice!
And I look forward to attending the Latin Masses when they’re available.
However, I must admit, a few years back I stumbled across a group of traditionalist who were conducting a seminar of sorts, and I found them to be a bit “spooky”!
I look at this from tha perspective of someone who grew up at the very beginning of the N.O. Masses, and my parish, at which I was an altar boy, was really very orthodox. Things were so holy that my continual concern was not ringing the bell at the right time for the consecration! So too everyone kneeled for reception of Holy Communion.
That’s just it, A. Williams —
Whatever became of these?
Dan, actually this is the first that I’m aware of you saying the Pauline rite is valid.
The clarification probably helps lurkers. I had figured that was your experience.
What I’ve been saying is that your attachment to, your preference for the earlier Missal does not make it inherently better.
To use your example, I attended the Tridentine rite all the way through high school. Since then I’ve attended Novus Ordo Masses said by celebrant(s)who clearly prefer the older Missal and those Masses were not edifying. They were on par with poorly celebrated Novus Ordo Masses.
OTOH, the Masses that have been the most edifying to me have been Novus Ordo or Byzantine.
The difference is that I don’t make a point in comboxes to say that one is better than the other. I can’t tell you how much that bugs me.
I am well aware of the loosey goosey quality of some Novus Ordo Masses. I live in the Rochester diocese where Dissent is practiced with a capital D. Maybe all capital letters. It’s extremely unlikely that you have it worse than what I’ve seen and heard here. (there are a few instances elsewhere even more blatant than Rochester, very few) The cost in this diocese has been very high.
And yet, God has opened doors that have convinced me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the Holy Spirit knew what he was doing and that there is good reason why the 1970 Missal is the normative Missal.
The theological reason I don’t attend the local indult is because I have no attachment to it. My personal reason is because I’ve run across far too many Tridentine fans who
see neither God nor neighbor outside their comfort zone.
As someone said in an earlier thread, it’s not the form of the Mass. Each can potentially be said well and each can potentially be said poorly.
Perhaps the only route open is to agree to disagree.
Dan, my comment was addressed to you because we’ve had a long-standing discussion, but I would say the same to all those who somehow think “equally valid, but okay to say one better than and the other less than.”
I thought the bells were to inform the congregation when the consecration and other important events took place. It makes sense that they would be lost when the priest faces the people and says the Eucharistic Prayer audibly, perhaps after a brief period where they are retained for the sake of tradition though they have lost their original practical purpose. I suppose bringing back the bells could be a good thing, increasing the beauty and sense of tradition in the mass, and it would not be the first time a tradition was held on to for traditional or beauty-based reasons after its practical purpose has been lost.
Still, I don’t think it is possible to use any licit options to make the “Novus Ordo” similar enough to the traditional Roman Liturgy that it is recognizably the same thing. Even if you did it all in Latin and with the priest facing the same direction as the people it would be very different, plus both those elements would go against the intention of Vatican II’s directives even if not quite the letter.
I don’t know Esau, but I do remember that things started to change about the time that the song “Kumbaya” came out! 🙂
However, I don’t even want to blame all of these songs, and not all of them are bad….only about 92%-96% of them!
Over all, I think the Church did the same thing as the American Auto makers did in the seventies, they introduced real lousy styled cars, suited for a ‘hip’ seventies crowd. The Church introduced real lousy liturgical banners! Heck, even TV mocks this wacky decade, of which I was an active member, with their comical series “That 70’s Show”. And yes, the clothing worn on the show is pretty much authentic!
The problem is, that Detroit and Hollywood ‘caught the drift’ real quick, and found that Burt Reynolds movies and Ford Pinto’s weren’t ever going to be considered masterpiece works, or money makers either, and so started to reform themselves somewhat. But the Church didn’t follow suit. When the hippi’s finally cut their hair and found jobs on wallstreet, and at Apple computer Co, for instance, the Church, or rather ex-nun feminist music directors, took up the flag and continued the ‘wacky liturgical innovation movement’. And I think their line of thinking was…”Let’s just keep this show going for a few more years and we’ll all be Ordained!”
However, JPII changed all that!
And just now, I think, are we hopefully seeing the end of that 1970’s wacky, tacky and ignorantly irreverant, Catholic liturgical revolution!
But let’s also look on the bright side of things. Our Christian brother’s and sisters who belonged to formerly very ridged and even puritanical Protestant Sects, having also passed through these spiritually turbulent decades..now have the experience of celebrating liturgies led by thier openly Homosexual and non-celibate, priests, ministers and Bishops.
So, considering we now have Pope Benedict XVI and all of his(and P.JPII’s) newly promulgated liturgical norms and documents, maybe we’re really not so bad off after all??
Mary Kay posted:
“And yet, God has opened doors that have convinced me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the Holy Spirit knew what he was doing and that there is good reason why the 1970 Missal is the normative Missal.”
Well Mary, with “fruits” such as the following , if your “DIRECT LINE” with the holy spirit is still open, can you please ask the holy spirit why this Mass direct from the holy spirit has produced disobedient priests and laity who want even more reform and statistics from 2002 such as:
The number of priests in the United States more than doubled from 1930 to 1965 to 58,000. Since then, however, the number has fallen to 45,000 and there will be only 31,000 priests left in 2020, with half of them being over 70. In 1965, only 1% of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, 3,000 or 15% of the parishes are priestless. The number of seminarians from 1965 to 2002 dropped over 90% from 49,000 to 4,700, while two-thirds of the seminaries have closed. There were 104,000 teaching nuns in 1965, while today there are a mere 8,200, a decline of 94% since the end of Vatican II. Religious orders are on the road to disappearance. Three and a half thousand were studying to be Jesuits in 1965. In 2000, the number was 389.
Almost half of all Catholic high schools have closed in the U.S. since 1965. Only one in four Catholics now attend Mass on Sundays. There were 338 annulments in 1968 and 50,000 in 2002. Only 10% of lay religious teachers now accept Church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent say that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent hold that one can be a good Catholic without going to Mass on Sundays. Finally, 70% of Catholics between 18 and 44 believe that the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus.
A Protestantized liturgy yields Protestant sheep!
Where is the SPRINGTIME…So cooooold
Mary Kay,
I agree that the “better” and “worse” language can be tricky, especially if you (and this is a controvercial subject) make the value of the liturgy depend on people’s reactions to it.
However it can not reasonably be denied that the “Tridentine” mass has much clearer historical roots back to Pope Gregory the Great and evolved organically from his liturgy, whereas the “Novus Ordo” was a result of a revolutionary rewriting of the Liturgy, incorporating new elements, protestant elements, pre-Gregorian elements, as well as elements of the traditional Roman liturgy. I believe that this was a great loss which even if made up by more positive sides of the new liturgy still warent the continued availability of the traditional Roman Liturgy for those who prefer it.
I’ll also mention, as I have in the past, that I don’t think the Holy Spirit guides the Church to the extreme degree that you seem to think He does. The Holy Spirit guards Sacred Tradition and prevents the Magisterium from teaching error in matters of faith and morals. Further the Magisterium has great authority over the Church in practical matters and its pastoral instructions must be obayed unless it is an actual order to commit mortal sin, even if we personally disagree with the instruction. I’m sure you agree with me on this but you seem to further think (correct me if I’m wrong) that the Holy Spirit is directly responsible for every document and instruction that comes out of the Vatican. This seems to me to be a very dangerous variant of ultramontanism as well as historically unsupportible given the apologies in recent times for mistakes of the past, not to mention radical changes in Church discipline throughout history.
Still, I don’t think it is possible to use any licit options to make the “Novus Ordo” similar enough to the traditional Roman Liturgy that it is recognizably the same thing.
J.R.:
You can NEVER do something like that!
How can you actually mix the Tridentine Rite with the Novus Ordo?
You’d end up with an unwelcome monstrous mutant!
Both need to be celebrated accordingly — not a mixture!
There we go with the so-called ‘statistics’ again!
Of course, again, the modern world had NOTHING to do with the decline!
By the way, what is the standard error there?
+/- reported number?
Esau,
I think you are being sarcastic but I’m not sure.
Surely if the “Novus Ordo” was an organic development of the Roman Liturgy and essentially the same thing as some have claimed and if the 1962 missil is also good there would be no harm in holding a “Novus Ordo” mass in a more traditional manner. What I am suggesting is not a union between two “rites”. I was making the point that the new liturgy is so changed from the old one that in no way can it be licitly practiced and closely resemble the former normative Roman litugy.
John, as mentioned above, your statistics blame only the Church. I lived through the 70’s era. You need to take into account Ozzie Osbourne, Led Zepplin, Rush, Frank Zappa, smiley buttons, 3 foot high pot bongs, Thai stick, cheap Columbian cocaine, Mick Jagger, Ford Pinto’s, Audi Foxes,Chevy Vega’s, Volkswagon ‘thing’, The Flying Nun, The Brady Bunch, The Munsters, Giklligans Island, the Beverly HillBillies, BeWithched, Fred Flinstone, The six million dollar man….etc…etc..etc…
Please stop blaming the Church for EVERYTHING! Maybe you can write a letter to hollywood or something!…or to Frank Zappa? Or to Mick Jagger. I think some of these might have had something to do with the decrease in vocations…possibly?? Just maybe?? Just a tiny weeeny bit??
Let’s get real. Lets accept that the world was a wacky place at the end of the 20th century! But the Church didn’t start it…scientific progress did!
And this progress changed everything and had a huge impact on the Church too! And recently Pope JPII and BXVI have started to correct these errors…but it took time!
So let’s just thank God that it’s being done! Maybe the Modern Church just passed through….it’s adolescence?!! 🙂
Whewwww!….I sure hope its passed through it for good!
J.R.:
It’s not supposed to MIRROR the Tridentine Rite!
If it did, why the need for the Novus Ordo to begin with if it’s purpose was to mirror the TLM?
Please study the development of the Novus Ordo (from genuinely ‘Catholic’ sources and NOT schismatic ones) instead of forming such outrageous assumptions concerning it.
I’m still not sure what you are getting at, Esau. I think we may be misunderstanding each other. I am not saying we should try to make the Novus Ordo mirror the TLM, or that this was the purpose of its being written. Quite the opposite, I was demonstrating that it indeed has its own identity. It was/is a partial but significant break with tradition not an organic devolopment of it.
Even if done with good reasons and even if over all it is a good thing there was still a loss, which is why I support a universal indult to make the Traditional Latin Mass more available to those who prefer it.
Don’t get me wrong, J.R.
I still prefer the TLM over the Novus Ordo given the way the NO Masses are celebrated these days, so I can see why you might have such a strong affinity for it.
The only thing I fear is that even if B16 is able to introduce such changes in order to bring back the TLM, just how many liberal bishops out there will actually implement those changes?
They’ll be as DISOBEDIENT as the RAD TRADS are!
I would think a Universal Indult would prevent this, and since the vast majority of masses would still be using the current missal the liberal bishops would not feel the need to go into schism.
I have read that the Motu Proprio will still allow bishops to forbid the use of the TLM if they want to, but this would be a far bolder move than what they have to do now which is just denying requests for its use. I suppose if massive amounts of bishops had the gall to forbid any use of the 1962 missal in their dioceses this could turn into a bad thing, not making the TLM more available but increasing the tension and outright opposition of the two main sides of this issue to each other.
If Pope Benedict were to supress the Novus Ordo and make the TLM the norm again I’m sure we would see schisms, though how much I don’t know. I don’t think he even wants to do that and I’m sure he wouldn’t even if it was his secret wish.
A.Williams,
As the Church goes so goes the rest of the world.
Father Corapi once said words to the effect,As long as the people of the Catholic Church are sinking into the morass of hell,so will the rest of the world.This includes every aspect of existence,culture,religion everyday happenings,business ventures,all forms of ethics and sanity.
The opposite is the case when the people of God follow the Magesterium,Sacred Tradition,and Sacred Scripture.
Mary Kay,I was speaking about my personal experience.I have not anything else but that and peoples testimony to go on.
Can you explain why all aspects of holiness have fallen off drastically since the new mass was promulgated?Just look at all the statistics as someone stated above in a general decline in all aspects of holiness.Is it just a gigantic coincidence?
It surely does not seem this way.
I do not understand when you say that you do not have an attachment to the Classical Rite.It’s very nature tends to fasten Itself to men and deny’s seperation,unless there is some kind of spiritual dissent or sabatoge.
How can you not just love it??!!
Before, when I attended the Pauline Rite,I would become glazed over at the tediousness of the liturgy.All the response.s seemed Kindergarten or at best banal.Maybe I had baseball on my mind, I knew what was happening from as early as 5 years old,but it lost me.
On the other hand,since I have attended the Tridentine mass,I not only must follow along very closely in my missal,but the reading and praying is actually somewhat challenging and I now pay,and pray strict attention to every aspect of holy Mass.I and countless others have drawn immeasurably closer to Our Savior through the Tridentine mass,than we were previously
Everything has gotten better,and I am not much different from most men.
Please pray that you will grow,”attached” to the ancient mass,because I have a strong instinct that it will eliminate the Novus Ordo.
We hit a bump in the road in 1969 but the highway looks smooth ahead.
God bless you,everyone you love and ourlovely Church.
You know, I hate to admit it but Dan’s comments here:
Before, when I attended the Pauline Rite,I would become glazed over at the tediousness of the liturgy.All the response.s seemed Kindergarten or at best banal.Maybe I had baseball on my mind, I knew what was happening from as early as 5 years old,but it lost me.
this seems to strike a chord with me as I’ve similarly experienced the same (except for the baseball comment) when I had attended the TLM.
I mean, Dan’s comment above is how the NO masses can come off once you actually attend the TLM.
Dan
Right on!
The Modernists want to blame the liberal world for the destruction of the church while statistics point to that drop off in every category.
But what then does the church with Modernists at the helm do to try and counter this so called “counter culture” that Mr Williams and others continue to blame?
Well-they go ahead and liberalize all teachings and JOIN it!
Instead of toughening up and holding fast, something that if one goes back and asks those who converted to the church over the centuries, they admired her unwavering stance against those that wanted to have her join them in sin, her art, her reverent mass, her gothic churchs, etc
Now you have a banal mass with watered down teachings and watered down bare places of worship with the most beautiful of them that are left being sold off to developers due to low attendance and to pay off for the scandals created by the liberal priests to conduct this liberal banal worship
So who is to blame?
JRS, please do not put words in my mouth.
I did not say that I “make the value of the liturgy depend on people’s reactions to it.”
Please, please, do not use the phrase “I’m sure you agree with me,” a phrase which I consider to be presumptuous.
I looked up “ultramontanism” in the Catholic Encyclopedia and what I gathered was that it was a compliment, so thank you.
You read into my comments more than what I said.
The claim that the 1970 Missal did not organically evolve is popular with Tridentine advocates, who apparently think they are more Catholic than the Magesterium.
You obviously don’t agree with my view on the role of the Holy Spirit and that’s your choice. Your concern about my view being “a very dangerous variant of ultramontanism” was touching, but unfounded. My thinking on Catholicism has been vetted by very solidly orthodox for more than 20 years. I don’t pretend to know everything about Catholicism, but what I do know and believe has been tested and found solid.
That’s pretty much all I have to say on this topic.
So who is to blame?
RAD TRADS LIKE YOU WHO DON’T OBEY THE TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
Dan, I wasn’t going to comment on this topic, but since you and I have had a long discussion, let me respond to your post.
Mary Kay,I was speaking about my personal experience.I have not anything else but that and peoples testimony to go on.
Yes, I know. I was also speaking of my personal experience.
Can you explain why all aspects of holiness have fallen off drastically since the new mass was promulgated?Just look at all the statistics as someone stated above in a general decline in all aspects of holiness.Is it just a gigantic coincidence?
It surely does not seem this way.
As Esau is fond of bolding, correlation does not mean causation. In other words, the fact that things happened at the same time does not necessarily mean that one caused the other.
The next logical question is what is the alternate explanation. Having lived through that time, I have some private views, which I’ve double-checked, but I don’t have a cogent explanation other than trusting the Church.
I do not understand when you say that you do not have an attachment to the Classical Rite.
Yes, I do get that. 🙂
It’s very nature tends to fasten Itself to men and deny’s seperation,unless there is some kind of spiritual dissent or sabatoge.
See, that’s where you’re saying, or seem to be saying, that those who prefer the 1970 Missal have “some kind of spiritual dissent or sabotage.” I can assure you that is most definitely not true.
How can you not just love it??!! Before, when I attended the Pauline Rite,I would become glazed over at the tediousness of the liturgy…
On the other hand,since I have attended the Tridentine mass … and I now pay,and pray strict attention to every aspect of holy Mass.I and countless others have drawn immeasurably closer to Our Savior through the Tridentine mass,than we were previously
I don’t doubt your experience. That is why there is an indult. However, my experience was just the reverse, as I explained above.
Please pray that you will grow,”attached” to the ancient mass,because I have a strong instinct that it will eliminate the Novus Ordo.
No Dan, I do not pray to get attached even to a particular form of Mass. My prayer is to follow Jesus, guided by the Holy Spirit, by Mary and by His Church.
Mary Kay,
Cardinal Ratzinger said that the Novus Ordo Liturgy was fabricated and and therefore inorganic to the Ancient Rite.
I will say it again,the Novus Ordo will be extinct in 20 years.Like it or not.
If you are praying to follow Jesus,Guided by the Holy Spirit,The Blessed Mother,and Gods Church you will inevitably grow attached to the Tridentine mass.
God Bless you and everyone you pray for.
“can you please ask the holy spirit why this Mass direct from the holy spirit has produced disobedient priests and laity who want even more reform and statistics”
John,
How can Christ’s sacrifice cause ANYONE to be disobedient!?!
Obeying Christ’s Church is the most
important thing a Catholic can do. If one is obedient, everything else will fall into place.
Dan,
I am not attached to the TLM, I would rather attend the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom before I would want to attend a TLM. It really doesn’t appeal to me.
Am I not being led by Jesus? Is the Holy Ghost not leading me? Does the Holy Theotokos not intercede for me?
Which of these quotes was written by St. Ignatius? Which of these quotes could’ve been written by a follower of Martin Luther?
(1)”We should make more account of renouncing self-will than of raising others from the dead.”
(2)”I refuse to have my children exposed to what I was brought up in after the reform obedience or no obedience”
Admonishing those who speak sinful words is a spiritual work of mercy.
Dan,
If Pope Benedict doesn’t care at all for the N.O. Mass, then why would he spend so much time promoting it, and supporting it, with his recent exhortation “Sacramentum Caritatis”?
And we won’t need to wait 20 years to see if you prediction comes true. Maybe a few weeks will do!
With the Motu propio will come a detailed explanation of it’s position in the Church.
It’s probably best to wait, see and believe.
Until then, we still have Our Lord Jesus Christ, the one we find, and love, in the Gospel accounts, and the same Jesus, we receive, and love, in Holy Communion. As Mary Kay says..My prayer is to follow Jesus, guided by the Holy Spirit, by Mary and by His Church”. And she is 100% right on mark here!
The mission of the Church, then, is to bring us to Jesus Christ found in the Holy Gospel and then the same Christ, given to us, so that we may be one with Him, in the Holy Eucharist.
… the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom…
Can anybody here tell me which is older: the Tridentine Rite or the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?
For those who keep CLAIMING that the Tridentine Rite is the OLDEST in the Catholic Church, older rites as that of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom keep escaping their narrow-minded attention!
What came to be known as the ‘Tridentine Rite’ only officially came about in 1571!
Rites like the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is much, much more ancient.
john,
it is HIGHLY disturbing that you don’t care to capitalize when writing the Holy Name of the Holy Spirit! You give the Mass a capital, but then disregard God Himself! Shame on you…who claim to be so highly devout! God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are persons….and persons are to recieve such honor in writing!
This surprises more than almost anything you have posted as of now! And sometimes you actually make some sense..but here..NO! This is an example as bad as anything the liberals that you so frequently complain about do!
Read for yourself:
“can you please ask the holy spirit why this Mass direct from the holy spirit has produced disobedient priests and laity who want even more reform and statistics”
In this..the sayiing is good for me also: “Zeal for my Father’s house has consumed me”!
That was me, above.
And I left the capital out of John’s name on purpose, because He doesn’t deserve the honor if he doesn’t care to show the Lord the same courtesy.
And I left the capital out of John’s name on purpose, because He doesn’t deserve the honor if he doesn’t care to show the Lord the same courtesy.
There’s only one thing a ‘john’ is good for…
You fill in the blank…
Esau, you’re better than that.
You give the Mass a capital, but then disregard God Himself!
Great point, A. Williams!
In fact, what’s interesting and so weird is that John had said:
…being that the liturgy is NOT infallible…
Posted by: John | Mar 22, 2007 11:23:41 AM
Yet, he treats the Tridentine Rite as INFALLIBLE whereas he treats the Pope, who is actually, in fact, INFALLIBLE on matters concerning Faith and Moral (even according to TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC TEACHING, which he claims to abide by), as FALLIBLE in such matters!
Mary Kay – I grew up in Rochester, and it dismays me to no end what happened with the cathedral (my childhood parish). I now reside in the Archdiocese of Detroit, which unfortunately isn’t much better.
“Zeal for my Father’s house has consumed me”!
I like it better in Latin. More intense!
Zelo Zelatus Sum Pro Domine Deus Excercitum!
And John, you keep saying that the NO Mass is heretical.
That is a heresy.
What you are allowed to say is that it implies heresy through the tendencial aspects of it.
Some Day posted:
“And John, you keep saying that the NO Mass is heretical.
That is a heresy. ”
Please refresh my memory or are you slandering me?
As I posted on 3/22/07 at 4:23PM
“or the record, I have never said the New Mass in NOT valid, just questionable, and if you have never had those questions in your mind than you need to read what constitutes a valid mass and sacraments. There are books that predate Vatican II and the reform that have no prejudicial slant to them. And then there are millions of words written by theologians that have problems with the new mass that range from doubtful to downright not Catholic. Even Cardinal Ratzinger has had issues”
So please, please show me where I said the New Mass Was heretical???????????
Once again, you are quick as a lemming of Esau to call others heretical-Than what do you call a Pope who worships pagan idols, kisses korans, gets cow dung on his forehead, and says it is OK for the Jews to wait for their messiah?
It’s probably even better in Aramaic! 🙂
To give John the benefit of the doubt it might have been a typo that all of us make, and myself especially!
But if there’s one thing I hate is when people walk into the sanctuary of a Church as if it were their own kitchen, without one thought of respect for The Lord in the Tabernacle! It drives me crazy!
And when I was an alterboy we genuflected when we passed It! I always felt guilty bowing, as this seemed to be such a short cut!
But rarely do I get as upset or perturbed as when the Lord isn’t honored as He should be, and so, something like not capitalizing the name of the Holy Spirit, to me, is equivilent to hastily walking into the Holy Sanctuary without consideration of it’s great holiness! It wouldn’t matter if it was John, here, or JohnXXIII(but which I doubt would ever be the case) I would still get fumed!
And if I do agree with John on occasion, it is when He complains against this liberal neglect, and the lack of reverence shown to the Lord in the Tabernacle, or the poorly performed NO liturgies! In this I must agree, when indeed there is great liturgical error or abuse.
However, I have been to countless excellent N.O. masses where the Lord was present and honored the way He should be! My Sunday Mass, here, in Santo Domingo, with Papal Nuncio Archbishop Timothy Broglio is a great example of an excellent Mass. And yes, the bells are rung at the consecration.
It’s even great to chat with Him after the Mass as he shares coffee and pastries with us for about 1/2 hour when he celebrates. He’s totally orthodox, an excellent preacher, extremely courteous and very humble! As there are only about 40 English speaking families attending it’s really a great group!
So this is an excellent example of a current N.O. Mass that’s done the right way: Holiness, Love, Intelligence, Christian Community, Respect for all, Humility and Joy!
Esau posted:
“Great point, A. Williams!
In fact, what’s interesting and so weird is that John had said: …being that the liturgy is NOT infallible…
Posted by: John | Mar 22, 2007 11:23:41 AM
Yet, he treats the Tridentine Rite as INFALLIBLE whereas he treats the Pope, who is actually, in fact, INFALLIBLE on matters concerning Faith and Moral (even according to TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC TEACHING, which he claims to abide by), as FALLIBLE in such matters!”
Well then, if indeed the liturgy is infallible, and defended by Papal infallibility, and we know that a Pope can not redefine what has already been defined as infallible as Pope Pius V has already done with his Papal Bull Quo Primium where he clearly stated:
“At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. And in order once and for all to preclude any scruples of conscience and fear of ecclesiastical penalties and censures, we declare herewith that it is by virtue of our Apostolic authority that we decree and prescribe that this present order and decree of ours is to last in perpetuity, and never at a future date can it be revoked or amended legally. . . . And if, nevertheless, anyone would dare attempt any action contrary to this order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
So Esau-You just trapped yourself-if the liturgy is indeed infallible-then Paul VI could NOT have formulated a new liturgy with no organics to the past liturgy and therefore the New Mass is Pastoral as theologians have said for 40 years and not need to be followed!
Thanks Esau, you proved the exact point I was trying to make!!!!
Same applies to the Pope John Paul II.
He did something that could be questionable, but not because it is heretical in itself, but rather by what it implies and conduces to.
I will reserve my opinion though on this subject.
“..what do you call a Pope who worships pagan idols, kisses korans, gets cow dung on his forehead, and says it is OK for the Jews to wait for their messiah?”
John, it’s suitable to exaggerate at times for emphasis, and I think we all do it. But this here is ‘gross’ exaggeration, and so can be considered a form of a lie. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt,where I can, and in all Christian charity, hoping that you are invincibly ignorant on certain issues. But this, above, is rediculous!
I’ll cut and paste an interesting bit of info. on John’s St.Pius V topic, above, that I stumbled across on another blog, posted by a guy named Douglas:
“Did Pope Paul VI have the authority to repeal the Apostolic Constitution, Quo Primum? Technically, he did not abrogate the Roman Missal, but he did replace it by the new revised Roman Missal and derogated the use of the older Missal. Pope Paul VI possessed the same papal authority as Pope St. Pius V. The principle is explicitly recognized by the Code of Canon Law. Canon 22 states that “if the later law is equally general or equally particular with the former one” – and both Quo Primum and Missale Romanum are equally Apostolic Constitutions dealing with exactly the same subject matter of the former law. A later law repeals the former one, “if it contains an explicit statement to that effect, a repealing clause.” Pope Paul VI’s Missale Romanum did exactly that. It both mentions Quo Primum and says that what he is promulgating is promulgated “notwithstanding, as far as is necessary, Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances issued by our Predecessors and other prescriptions worthy of special mention and derogation.” (Whitehead, 58, 59)
What about the language in Quo Primum that says it is to apply “henceforth, now, and forever” and that “this present document cannot be revoked or modified”? In perpetuity means that they are to last indefinitely, that no specific date or time is set in advance when this will automatically lapse; Thus it will remain in force until subsequently modified by legitimate authority. That legitimate authority is in fact future popes. For example, Clement XIV wrote Dominus ac Redemptor in 1773 which suppressed the Society of Jesus, and he declared that this measure should be “perpetuo validas”; but this in no way prevented his successor Pius VII from reestablishing the Society of Jesus anyway in Sollicitudo Omnium of August 7, 1814. The mere use of the term perpetual did not mean that a subsequent Pope no longer had the authority to revive the religious order which the previous Pope had dissolved. “Perpetual” merely means here until some further legitimate enactment is carried out by a sovereign Pontiff. (Whitehead, p. 59-60).
We must remember the text of Quo Primum shows that Pope Pius V recognized that his Mass was a NEW RITE, not the same thing that had been celebrated for 15 centuries. A pure reading of the text of the New Testament institution of the Eucharist by Christ, and very early rites showed that since then there were many changes over the years, though the substance was maintained. That is the same thing maintained by Pope Paul VI when he instituted the New Mass. The Council of Trent called for Pope Pius V to do a revised Roman Missal, just as Pope Paul VI did a revised Roman Missal at the request of Vatican II. The Council of Trent writes: “In the dispensation of the sacraments, provided their substance is preserved, the Church has always had the power to determine or change, according to circumstances, times and places, what she judges more expedient for the benefit of those receiving them or for the veneration of the sacraments.” (Council of Trent, 21st Session). Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei explained, as circumstances warrant, “public worship is organized, developed and enriched by NEW RITES, CEREMONIES, and regulations (#22).” (Whitehead, p. 46-47). ”
The Novus Ordo Will not be able to stand up next to the awe of the Classical Rite.
I change my mind after reading everything you are saying.It will happen within much less time than 20 years.
Esau,The Council of Trent only codified the mass that for the most part had been in place for over 1000 years at the time of the council,and in the Latin Rite.
God bless you
John ‘Martin Luther’ does it again:
You said: The Liturgy is NOT INFALLIBLE
Yet, even though you say this, you treat the Tridentine Rite as INFALLIBLE!
Yet, it is the POPE who is INFALLIBLE!
As Regards the Quo Primum, as I’ve stated time and again:
Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V – for those who don’t know, that is the document where Pope St. Pius V promulgated what we call today the “Tridentine Mass” and in that promulgation, the Pope said to the effect of “This is the Mass for all times. No one can change it” and so forth. I should mention, Quo Primum is not a matter of Faith and Morals.
This was a disciplinary document and so it is not INFALLIBLE.
But, when a Pope issues a disciplinary decree such as “This is the way we’re going to celebrate Mass”, Popes use that kind of language. This is no longer up for grabs. No one has the authority to change this and so forth. That does not mean though that a future Pope cannot change certain aspects of the Liturgy.
In fact, the Tridentine Mass itself was changed numerous times over the centuries in small ways here and there, all the way up to the time of Pope Pius XII. This is a disciplinary document – this is not a matter of Faith and Morals. So, when Pope Paul VI came along and promulgated what we call the Novus Ordo; nothing was changed in the Tridentine Mass that was essential as regards the essence of the Mass itself. The only things that were changed were things that were accidental to the Mass. Therefore, what we call the Novus Ordo is still licit, valid. There are accidental changes that involved matters of discipline, not Faith and Morals.
But, for those who would continue with Quo Primum arguments, please kindly consider:
Quo Primum, issued by Pope Pius V, was issued in 1570. Here it suppressed most Western rites, except those that were more than 200 years old. However, the fact that it attempted to suppress these Western rites shows indeed that there were many different liturgies and canons going on at the same time.
Pope St. Pius V recognized at the time there were many rites, and he suppressed them in 1570.
However, Canon 6, in the 22nd session of the Council of Trent deals with not only the Roman canon (which is used in the Tridentine Rite) but other canons before Pope St. Pius V suppressed them. There were other Eastern as well as Western canons also.
The 22nd Session of Trent made this decree on September 17, 1562. The fact is that the Tridentine Rite was not even formally established at the time, let alone that being the only canon that this decree is referencing. Quo Primum had not even been promulgated yet before Canon 6 was decreed.
In fact, Chapter V of the Trent decree speaks of the many different ceremonies and rites, not singling out just one.
CHAPTER V.
On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass. And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolic discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.
The fact is that if the ultra-traditionalists are trying to say that Trent is referencing only the canon of Quo Primum — this is indeed false, because at the same time there were many other Liturgies and canons. We see in Chapter V so referenced, that it speaks of many different ceremonies and rites, not singling out one.
Also, mind you, the Tridentine Rite was not even formally established at the time of this decree by Trent. If one says that this does apply to future canons and that is how it applies to the Tridentine canon, then it must also apply to the Pauline Rite (i.e, Novus Ordo). It matters not, that one is 8 years down the road and the other is about 400 years down the road.
So, John, Go out and START your OWN friggin’ ‘I am MORE CATHOLIC than the CATHOLIC CHURCH and even Jesus Christ Himself!’ church and get out of the Catholic Church and stay out since you despise it so much — although it was the Lord who founded it!
Rather would the Catholic Church welcome Converts of all stripes into the Church than allow for ‘Judas’ traitors like you and your Rad Trads!
Just like Jesus back in His days — He went as far as preferring the company of Prostitutes and even Tax Collectors over the Pharisees and people of that nature!
If Jesus were here today, He’d be with low-life Catholics like me (we’re so ‘low-life’ since there’s no way we can be AS HOLY as you & your Rad Trads are, who are SO MORE CATHOLIC and, in fact, MORE EXPERT about how the Church should be run that you & your ‘Judas’ breed would even presume to counter the command of OUR LORD HIMSELF, who GAVE HIS AUTHORITY to the CHURCH, to St. PETER & his Successors and NOT TO A TRIDENTINE MASS THAT WOULD COME ABOUT IN 1571!) as well as Protestants whose hearts are more with the Lord than some self-righteous, ‘I know better than even Jesus Christ Himself’ scum like you!
Larry, I’ve only been in the cathedral once since it was gutted, er, re-opened. Ouch indeed.
Yes, I’ve heard Detroit is along the same lines. But I would imagine there are pockets of faithfulness, just as there is here.
Thanks for the additional info. on the the Council of Trent, Esau. Can come in handy for future research!
A Williams posted:
“Thanks for the additional info. on the the Council of Trent, Esau. Can come in handy for future research”
So Mr Williams, the truth comes out after another Esau cut and paste which again just proves the point that the if a papal decree is infallible, then the Traditional Mass should never had been allowed to have been changed
On the other hand, if it is NOT infallible, then the New Mass could have changed the Old mass-but it is NOT infallible!!
Sort of like Ecumania Esau, one cant say that the SSPX cant get to heaven or be saved because they dont follow JPII the LEAST, but that Protestants and Moslems CAN be saved, so they can bend to their wishes and compromise the One True Faith to be liked by the secular world
See, there is an old saying that goes like:
“WHAT TANGLED WEBS WE WEAVE WHEN AT FIRST WE TRY TO DECEIVE”, and Vatican II and what it has put forth is just that, a deception of being Catholic, but in reality it wanted and has put forth a new mass, catechism, canon law, retranslated bible, new sacraments and customs
IT has more in common with the Anglicans and Protestants of today than it does with pre vatican II Catholics and that is the real proof that it has lost its roots as a NO catholic can go to a Protestant service and feel more at home than if they went to a TLM for the first time, and that is so saaaad.
Amazing that Mr Williams is allowed to post without having ever read the council of Trent and offer his opinions on the pending MP
Wonder how many others here have never read this council’s documents in its entirety
Amazing that John is allowed to post without having ever read the council of Vatican II and offer his opinions on the pending MP (and VII)
Wonder how many others here have never read this council’s documents in its entirety
John, you left yourself wide open for that.
John,
For your information, one of my favorite study sources when I was younger, before the ‘new Catholic Catequism’ was issued, was the ‘Compendium of Catechetical Instruction’ of the Council of Trent.
So, I’m not completely ignorant on some of these items. I’ve read these catequetical instructions, found in these 4 volumes many times, and held them in my heart very closely during my younger years!
But really, much of my attention since then has focused mainly on the lives and spirituality of the Saints, and I’ve probably read more than 50 such biographies, and many even multiple times.
So, I’m definitely not on the level of some of you here, regarding Catholic apologetics, and each has their own style and particular interests!
But John, if you want to talk about St. Anthony Claret, St. Francis of Paola, St.Daniel the Stylite, St. John Bosco, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Francis Solano, St. Louis de Montfort etc…these are more along the lines of my spiritual interests!
As for apologetics? I’m somewhat new here and just dabbling in them a bit, and enjoying both yours..and all the others’ here, Catholic wisdom, knowledge, logic and spiritual company!
John,
Another note. You seem to imply that EVERY Catholic must be completely familiar with the Council of Trent to be Holy. Does this include poor souls such as Mother Theresa? Or is she just another N.O. Catholic heretic? I think your mind needs to be expanded enough to understand that what is necessary in this life is the Gospel to be preached to us, and then to love the Gospel and Our Lord Jesus Christ with all of our Hearts! In doing so we are ‘sheep who recognize the Shepherd’s voice, and follow Him”. We can also recognize the ‘Shepherds’ Church through the same spiritual gifts from God.
I pray that God enlighten you to understand and experience the manifold ways that God calls all of us to Him in this world…and not necessarily so much through study, logic and argumentation, but by rather by the profound experience of the Love of Christ Crucified, both in the Gospel accounts and in the Holy ‘Sacrament of Love’.
…yes it was me again, above.
Hey don’t some blogs have a voting system or poll, so we can request Mr. Jimmy to ban excesively stupid commenters?
I hope the motu proprio is pronounced soon. One possible problem I see, I apologize if it was brought up already by someone else, (I didn’t read all the posts) is that in the diocese where it’s not denied, some well meaning priests and some not so well meaning priests will experiment with it. I’m not being cynical by saying this, there are bishops that don’t care if it’s being abused or not; whether it’s the old or new mass or if it’s in the Latin or the vernacular.
For myself, I didn’t grow up with the TLM; neither my parents nor grandparents lamented or hailed its passing. I’ve been attending an indult, complete with little red missals, for about 4yrs now. Reading the right side of the page in the missal; I find nothing deficient about the prayers or the theology and I recommend either high or low mass to anyone.
John deserves to be banned. Not because of what he believes, but because he turns EVERY post into a one-man Rad-Trad soap box, and does not know how to engage in reasoned discussion.
His comments are frequently uncharitable and disrespectful, snide and condescending, he engages in distortion and smear tactics against JPII and other clerics he doesn’t like, and repeatedly makes sweeping accusations against them, even after these have been proven false.
Worst of all, John makes the same comments over and over, making him extremely predictable and extremely boring, whether the topic is the Motu Proprio or a lighthearted post about eating Muskrat.
At this point, I could write his posts for him.
At this point, I could write his posts for him.
Tim, Bill’s beat you to it. It was a recent thread, but I can’t remember which one.
Mary Kay,
I think I may have miscommunicated a little before. I certainly never meant to put words in your mouth. I don’t have much time though and the conversation continues so I’ll just make this one point.
The word Ultramontanism is used in different ways by different people. Sometimes it just means those who support the doctrines of Papal primacy and infallibility. In that case any faithful Catholic would be an ultramontanist. The way I have usually encountered it myself though and the way I meant it was an in some way excessive view of Papal infallibility, often to the point that anything the Pope says is regarded as infallible no matter what or perhaps the Pope is indeed seen as impeccable. While your idea (again unless I’m misunderstanding you) of direct active guidance by the Holy Spirit over all the Churches activities and divine responsibility for anything coming out of the Vatican would not fit this idea classically it does seem to be a varient of the same excessive spirit, which again I think is quite dangerous and unsupportible.
Yes we have to accept the Churches teachings and be submissive to authority, but we also need to use our brains. Great saints like St. Thomas More or St. Catherine of Sienna did not refuse to look at the Church realisically and acknowledge wrongdoing even on the part of Popes and need for changes of policy.
Esau,
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is actually an abridged version (if we can call it that) of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great. St. John died in 407 but St. Basil died in in 379. Both are abridged versions of the Liturgy of St. James the Just which as far as anyone knows is THE oldest Liturgy in the Church going back to the Apostle James.
Another very ancient Liturgy is the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. Which is attributed to St. Thomas the Apostle.
JRS,
I think I may have miscommunicated a little before
No, you projected your confusion onto my comments.
I certainly never meant to put words in your mouth.
You may not have meant to, but you did project your confusion onto my comments.
Skipping to your third paragraph:
Yes we have to accept the Churches teachings and be submissive to authority, but we also need to use our brains
I never said otherwise. For you to imply that I did is an example of putting words in my mouth.
Great saints like St. Thomas More or St. Catherine of Sienna did not refuse to look at the Church realisically
That’s a true statement, but what relevance does it have on this discussion?
acknowledge wrongdoing even on the part of Popes and need for changes of policy.
Again, what relevance to this discussion? Are you equating Vatican II with wrongdoing?
Okay, back to your second paragraph, the one with the most confusion. I was not addressing all Church activities for the past 2000 years, so your comments to that effect are another example of your putting words in my mouth.
Do you believe in the active guidance of the Holy Spirit?
Do you find it excessive to believe that the Holy Spirit guided Vatican II?
If excessive, where and what limitations do you believe restrain the Holy Spirit?
would not fit this idea classically it does seem to be a varient of the same excessive spirit, which again I think is quite dangerous and unsupportible
JRS, you’re making stuff up on the spot and then calling it “dangerous and unsupportable.” Being a bit hasty, aren’t you?
Esau, you said:
“As Regards the Quo Primum, as I’ve stated time and again:
Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V – for those who don’t know, that is the document where Pope St. Pius V promulgated what we call today the “Tridentine Mass” and in that promulgation, the Pope said to the effect of “This is the Mass for all times. No one can change it” and so forth. I should mention, Quo Primum is not a matter of Faith and Morals. ”
Here are some more sources to back up your claim, above, found at Sanctaliturgia@blogspot.com:
“Pope St. Pius V’s missal lasted only 34 years in it’s entirety before revision. Clement VIII’s missal lasted only 30 years after that. There doesn’t seem to be substantial differences in Urban’s missal, mainly a re-wording of the rubrics for clarity and a change in the calendar. Of course this missal was again modified by Benedict XV, which incorporated the changes of Pius X revision’s to the calendar and rubrics (e.g. the color of vestments within octaves, the number of Masses to be sung in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches when a feast and major feria coincided, rules regarding the choice of preface, and the choice of Mass formulary in Lent et al.) The major change brought about by this revision is the familiar green vestments on Sunday. Before this revision when Sunday’s and feasts coincided, the Sunday was commemorated in the festal Mass the color of the vestments therefore being red or white.
Pretty much the same development occured with the Breviary. The Bull establishing the Tridentine Breviary Quod a nobis called down the same wrath of the Apostles Peter and Paul upon any who dared to omitt, add, or change the Breviary of Trent in any manner whatsoever. On that score alone, the argument used for the ‘perpetuity’ of Quo Primum Tempore would cause us to reject the development to the Breviary in the same manner that the some use Quo Primum Tempore to reject the later revisions to the Roman Missal. Clearly we don’t reject the Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Pius X/Benedict XV, Pius XII (except some fringe sedevacanist groups) or the John XXIII (again some sedevacanists do) revisions to the Roman Missal. Since we accept the revisions of the Breviary and Missal up to this point, it’s simply arbitrary to not accept those revisions brought about by the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II. Indeed, Quo Primum Tempore simply does not and cannot mean what some claim it to in their protestations of the Vatican II era revisions given their practice of accepting all of the above mentioned reforms.
posted by Keith Kenney at 9:34 PM ”
Sir,
I sent a letter to His Eminence Cardinal Medina Estevez Jorge Arturo on February 20, 2002 through the Apostolic Pronuncio to India His Grace Lorenzo Baldissery.The Catholic Bishops of Tamilnadu[S.India] mislead the entire Catholic Church of that region.Everybody should know the activities of the bishops,therefore I am narrating here. Letter is as follows:
May it please your eminence,
“I painfully submit the following representation regarding the change made by the local Church authorities of Tamilnadu on the translation of ‘Missale Romanum’ in Tamil in the year 1993 and on the Tamil version of the ‘Words of Consecration’.
The ‘Missale Romanum’ was translated in Tamil in 1977 and the same was published in 1979.The Consecrated Words were translated in Tamil and the same was sent to Holy See for permission and confirmation. Permission was granted in Prot.n.CD 307/77 dated June7, 1977.
The Cosecration Words ,that is,’This is my Body’ the word ‘Body’ was translated as ‘Sariram’ and Holy See permitted the usage. Thus the authorised and permitted word ‘sariram’ came into existence in liturgical service.
To the shock and surprise of many, without any authority, the ‘Missale Romanum’was again translated and the word ‘Utal'[in local language]took the place of ‘Sariram’.The word ‘Utal’ was incorporated in liturgical services in violation and dilution of the prior permission granted by the Holy See.The incorporation of the word ‘Utal’ is without any authority and permission of the Holy See. The usage ‘Utal’ got intruded in the Liturgical services in 1993. The said intrusion was followed as if the same was permited and authorised by the Holy See. By creating and fabricating documents the said word ‘Utal’ got intruded in 1993 Missal for the liturgical services.
All the bishops in Tamilnadu had sworn to a declaration on March 4,1993 that while introducing the 1993 Missal there is a small change in consecrated words and that they are incorporating the said change. It was further declared that the said change was permitted and approved by the Holy See. The documents have been fabricated by the Bishops of Tamilnadu and fraud has been perpetrated on the faithful.
Hence, I along with two others were forced to file a civil suit in O.S. No.9269 of 1995 before the 4th Assistant City Civil Court, Madras challenging the Missal translation which is now pending.
I am attending Holy Mass wherein there is no proper authorisation or permission or approval of the Holy See. I fear that there is no TRANSUBSTANTIATION that takes place in the said Mass, hence I do not have any faith in the said Mass. Further many priests do not follow the Text faithfully to the Missale Romanum but blabber the words on their own, hence I do not have any faith in these Masses.
In these circumstances, it is prayed that Your Eminence may be pleased to clear my doubts regarding the fidelity of Missal translation and the Transubstantiation. I further request Your Eminence to permit Tridentine Latin Mass in our Dioceseon every Sunday and to give an opportunity to the faithful to grow in faith.
Yours devoted in OL Xt
s/d Alex Benziger.G
( alexbenziger@yahoo.com )
There is no reply from anybody till date
These are all the outcome of the Vatican2
DEO GRATIAS
Sir,
I sent a letter to His Eminence Cardinal Medina Estevez Jorge Arturo on February 20, 2002 through the Apostolic Pronuncio to India His Grace Lorenzo Baldissery.The Catholic Bishops of Tamilnadu[S.India] mislead the entire Catholic Church of that region.Everybody should know the activities of the bishops,therefore I am narrating here. Letter is as follows:
May it please your eminence,
“I painfully submit the following representation regarding the change made by the local Church authorities of Tamilnadu on the translation of ‘Missale Romanum’ in Tamil in the year 1993 and on the Tamil version of the ‘Words of Consecration’.
The ‘Missale Romanum’ was translated in Tamil in 1977 and the same was published in 1979.The Consecrated Words were translated in Tamil and the same was sent to Holy See for permission and confirmation. Permission was granted in Prot.n.CD 307/77 dated June7, 1977.
The Cosecration Words ,that is,’This is my Body’ the word ‘Body’ was translated as ‘Sariram’ and Holy See permitted the usage. Thus the authorised and permitted word ‘sariram’ came into existence in liturgical service.
To the shock and surprise of many, without any authority, the ‘Missale Romanum’was again translated and the word ‘Utal'[in local language]took the place of ‘Sariram’.The word ‘Utal’ was incorporated in liturgical services in violation and dilution of the prior permission granted by the Holy See.The incorporation of the word ‘Utal’ is without any authority and permission of the Holy See. The usage ‘Utal’ got intruded in the Liturgical services in 1993. The said intrusion was followed as if the same was permited and authorised by the Holy See. By creating and fabricating documents the said word ‘Utal’ got intruded in 1993 Missal for the liturgical services.
All the bishops in Tamilnadu had sworn to a declaration on March 4,1993 that while introducing the 1993 Missal there is a small change in consecrated words and that they are incorporating the said change. It was further declared that the said change was permitted and approved by the Holy See. The documents have been fabricated by the Bishops of Tamilnadu and fraud has been perpetrated on the faithful.
Hence, I along with two others were forced to file a civil suit in O.S. No.9269 of 1995 before the 4th Assistant City Civil Court, Madras challenging the Missal translation which is now pending.
I am attending Holy Mass wherein there is no proper authorisation or permission or approval of the Holy See. I fear that there is no TRANSUBSTANTIATION that takes place in the said Mass, hence I do not have any faith in the said Mass. Further many priests do not follow the Text faithfully to the Missale Romanum but blabber the words on their own, hence I do not have any faith in these Masses.
In these circumstances, it is prayed that Your Eminence may be pleased to clear my doubts regarding the fidelity of Missal translation and the Transubstantiation. I further request Your Eminence to permit Tridentine Latin Mass in our Dioceseon every Sunday and to give an opportunity to the faithful to grow in faith.
Yours devoted in OL Xt
s/d Alex Benziger.G
( alexbenziger@yahoo.com )
There is no reply from anybody till date
These are all the outcome of the Vatican2
DEO GRATIAS
Alex,
Maybe this Motu Propio is exactly what is needed in your diocese. I can also see the benefits of using the Latin liturgy in other area’s where language is a primary concern, and this might apply in the Maritime Trade industry. Maritime Sea Farer’s need to practice their faith in all of the countries that their particular ships are called to.
This, naturally, can be very hard on the faith of the workers, because it is often very difficult to get the full benefit from a Mass in a foreign language.I know personally how difficult it is, having I participated in abut 50 foreign language Masses in the last year. It just isn’t like the good ole’ native tongue!
And although the Latin is indeed a foreign tongue also, at least it is a uniform language that would be especially suitable for these Maritime workers. In every country the Mass would be the same, which would give some consistency to their sacramental and devotional lives.
Just another possible benefit of the Motu Propio!
Mr.William,
As pointed out in Sacramentum Caritatis at para 62 “I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency………such liturgies could be celebrated in Latin…..”.
The Mass in the vernacular language is the main cause to deviate the liturgical prayers from the original text. In the vernaculare language the celebrant is use the prayers as their own anaphora so many deviations, dilutions,
distortions, pervertions that takes place. Can you say it is the Holy Sacrifice mass.
We are daily seeing the aberations.
Alex,
I might have learned the Cathoic faith in a different way from you. For me, the liturgy was never this most essential part of the faith, rather it was the FAITH itself that was essential.
I came to the faith because I was searching for Truth of life, the reason for my being alive. I was also searching for an answer to the question, “what is the best way for me to live my life, in the time that I am given?” When I was young, this was the most pressing question.
When I came across the teachings of Socrates(Plato)and Aristotle, I was exceedingly happy that someone was trying to find the same answers that I was! I read their works with relish and determined to become a ‘philosopher’, which is ‘ a lover of Wisdom’. And so my search for ‘Wisdom of life’ was a fundamental force for me, and still is!
However, the philosophers weren’t able to satisfy all the questions I had, and were better at asking the same questions. Then, in sorrow, that I might never find anyone who could teach me the correct or best way to live, I remembered about the name being mentioned “Saints”. I thought “I know what a philosopher is, and they can’t answer my questions…but what is a Saint? I know they are suppose to be good…and they also are portrayed with halo’s on their heads…is it possible that these’Saints’, might be better, or ‘wiser’ than the ‘philosophers’ that I have been reading? And just hte thought of this potential this gave me some HOPE!
Very shortly, I went to a library and looked under the ‘Saints’ category, and found many of them. And then I noticed a little book about St. Francis of Assisi. After reading just a few minutes I realized that I had found.. ‘GOLD’!! This was it! This is what I had been looking for! And I took the book to the nearest park and read it until the sun went down!
The next day I decided not to go to school but back to the same park.
And I continued to read the book, again, until I had finished it completely.
And I was SO HAPPY that nothing else in life really mattered anymore!except this new found faith and Holy Wisdom! Also, this same day I wanted to copy St. Francis in everything! When walking home I found rocks and put them in my shoes because St. Francis did similar types of penence in his life! And so everything, since then, was changed for me!
I also wanted to be a ‘Friar Minor’ from that day on, because St. Francis was my new hero. And I could think of nothing greater than the life lived by his poor brothers! Needless to say, Socrates faded away, and became lesser and almost forgotten, although I still highly respect him.
And so, St.Francis led me to the REAL understanding of the Mass..and REAL faith and knowledge of Christ! I then read the Bible like a camel drinking water in a hot desert! And read it so much that I even remembered getting tired of it! After that, I read every biography of a Saint that I could get my hands on, starting with St. Augustine..and then continuing with then “Imitation of Christ” by Thomas aKempis, Life of St.Dominic, the Desert Fathers, Fathers of the Church, St. Theresa of Avila, Rule of St. Benedict, many books by St. Bernard of Claiveaux, St. Columba and Irish Saints, St. Alphonsus Liguori, many books on St. Louis de Montfort, St. Anthony Mary Claret and many books on St. John Bosco. And really, many more lives of saints…which are all great treasures for me! I also bought and read the 4 volumes of the Compendium of Catequetical Instruction of the Catholic Church, which is the Catequism of the Council of Trent (the new Catequism had not come out by then). I read this many times, over the years, also.
So this is how I found Christ!
And now, I don’t worry so much about the Liturgy, because it is secondary to the Truth and Love found in the Gospel of Jesus! That is, I trust the Church to regulate the Liturgy correctly! The little details of the Sacred Liturgy can be changed as needed, according to the wisdom and authority of the Church Magisterium’s, which office and authority was given to Her by the word of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and also the Power of the Holy Spirit!
And becasue I love the Wisdom of all the Saints that I read, and that they in which they trusted the holy Church, so much, in their lives…I too, like those Saints, love and trust the Holy Church in everythinbg! I am satisfied that it is built upon the ‘ROCK’ and the ‘gates of Hell’ will never ‘prevail against it’!
Moreover, nothing can destroy the Divine Wisdom and Love found in the Catholic Church! Nothing can get rid of the wisdom and love found in all of the lives and deeds of the Holy Saints throughout the ages!
So my faith is in ..’the FAITH’…and not in the lesser important items, such as, which language we will celebrate the Mass. These are all minor ‘diciplinary’ items, that can be decided by the competent authority, which is the Vatican and the Pope!
I am satified to be an obedient and loving son of the Chruch, who showed me the way to Christ, through all of the lives, writings and holy wisdom found in the lives of the Saints.
And this is why I can’t understand why so many, ‘so-called’ traditionalists, give SO MUCH attention to minor EXTERNAL details of the Liturgy?! some almost equate it with God Himself! It’s like the Portestant’s who make the BIBLE into a GOD, Whereas the Bible is only one of MANY TYPES of “Word” of God. And so to pay so much attention to minor details of in the Liturgy, and even to break away and leave the Church over some of these minor details…seems completely rediculous to me! What about the Wisdom of the Church? the Wisdom and holy personalities of the Catholic Saints? The Holy Personality and teachings of Jesus Himself? Aren’t these the SOUL of the Church, the Faith of the Church?? To leave this wisdom over a little item such as what language it is celebrated in, or what color vestments are worn at Easter time, or whast psalms will come before the others…is getting things backwards! It is putting the ‘flesh’ before the ‘Spirit’….where it is the Spirit, which is Faith and Love and knowledge of Christ.. that is essential!
So the liturgy is important because of ‘Lex Orandi est Lex Credendi’, but the minor details of the liturgy will always be imperfect…it is JESUS ‘in the LITURGY’ that is PERFECT and WHAT IS ESSENTIAL!
I believe in the Faith followed by the Catholic Saints, and then I recieve Jesus in the Holy Mass in the manner in which the Holy Church decides to give Him to Me. For me, the form that I receive the Eucharistic Jesus isn’t as important as the fact that I am indeed receiving HIM! I let the Church deside about the best form and way, in which to ‘FEED HIS SHEEP’!
And this is why I am so curious about why the ‘traditionalists’ make such a fuss about everything liturgical. Really they should be very satisfied with the above mentioned exhortation that you cited “Sacramentum Caritatis”!
What more do we need, or can we expect than this? Isn’t it enough teaching for our hungry ears, hearts and spirits?
Thanks be to God for giving us such great teachers and spiritual leaders, such as is Pope Benedict XVI! May God permit him to lead His Holy Church for many more years to come!
>So who is to blame?
Not just Rad trads or schiz trads (who I consider to be FAKE trads – real trads are in communion with the Pope B-16 AND are obedient to same)
Who is to blame is mirror worshippers on BOTH sides of the aisle: leftists, schiz trads, CINOs, etc. If one doesn’t worship God, they worship the mirror. There’s no other choice.
Like a slogan of a conservative talk radio station says: This is not right versus left, it is right versus wrong.
Or in the Catholic sense: Either Catholic versus mirror worshipper.
A. Williams, that’s a wonderful story!
A. Williams, I loved your story, but I didn’t see St. Monica on your list! SHAME on you! 🙂
OK Monica! Your are right!
I shold have added:
…and I also found a perfect example of faith, hope and persistant prayer, which I think no one can help but to admire, in the example of St. Monica, the mother of St. Augustine. And even though her son Augustine, for many years, was following ways contrary to her holy Catholic Faith that she practiced, she never gave up hope, but waited for him with almost continual weeping and petitions to the Lord, who is capable of doing all things and says
“For I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.”
.. And in the end her loving prayers and patience paid off!
And she is an example for all of us even to this very day, and even in this very blog, where we encounter so many Augustines among us! And her example is to wait, hope, encourage and pray for them…those who preach counter to the teachings of the current Magisterium of the Church, whether they be excessively liberal, or excessivily ‘traditional’.
Monica teaches us not to condemn, but to patiently and lovingly correct…and to correct over and over again, never getting tired. She also teaches us that tearful petitions to God can indeed accomplish miracles, and that we should have faith in the Lord when He says:
” And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he reach him a scorpion? 13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask him?And in Monicas example we can clearly find the application of the Lord’s teaching when He said “In your patience you shall possess your souls.” Lk. 11
And so, to put Monica’s faith and example into practice, we all need to be very patient with those who deviate from the True Way that we know, because in this, we ourselves follow the Lord more closely,and will imitate our patient TEACHER, who was, and still is, patient with not only ‘theirs’, but also ALL OF OUR defects, sins and great imperfections!
And who knows if some of these ‘Rad Trads’,’ultra liberals’, or any other’s, who currently teach contrary to the True Faith, will not, with devout prayers and petitions, become the next great Saints, like other St. Augustine’s, of this new Millenium?
Woe unto me for forgetting to proof read from the beggining!!! 🙁
Sorry folks…I’ll try to do better.
..how can I be such a dope!!??!
now THAT’s more like it!
Maybe, as a penance, I can walk through the city with my pants bundled and tied on top of my head…in complete shame, patience and humility..even as did at one time the great brother of St. Francis, BRO JUNIPER, during a special and public Feast!
Then again, I’d probably get deported!!
However, as a Lenten thought,I have never read of a man, or saint, who humbled himself more than this, found in this particular account from the life of Br. Juniper …and in which even some his very brothers, unwillingly sharing in his public humiliation, yelled out “HANG HIM! HANG HIM!”
But the humble Francis, who also once stripped himself naked in front of the entire town of Assisi, humbly handing back all of his possessions, and even clothes, as his father demanded of him….publicly praised Br. Juniper, saying:
“Would that I had a whole forest of these Junipers!”
…ahhhh those humble followers of St.Francis!
” He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”
🙂
Mr.William,
You are telling something,i.e,”the faith and not in the lesser important items, such as, which language we will be celebrate the Mass. These are all minor disciplinary items”.
Please you refer the canon 897,898,899 and the liturgical prayers as per canon 846.Because we the lay people are bound under canon 11.
For one examble,that the ‘Pro Multis’issued because of the mistake comitted by the other language translations.I tell you onething, all the bishops are not good, all the priests are not good.I can point out many illegal translations introduced in our Tamil Language.
What I want is everything should be in obedience to One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, ROMA LOCUTA EST CAUSE FINITA EST.
Mr Williams used the term:
“‘Rad Trads’
What exactly then is a “Rad Trad”?
Someone that adheres to the teachings of the church, her customs, her unchanged liturgy (please dont tell me about the organic changes over 2 millenia as compared to the new mass), her unchanged sacraments, and customs instead of what is being sold today?
If so I ask:
“WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?”
What is wrong is the “rad” trad’s fundamental assumption that they are better able to ascertain the legitimate tradition of the Church than the Pope and the Magisterium.
And “rad” is frequently added to distinguish the above from a real traditional Catholic, who believes that the best interpreter of Church tradition is, well, the Church.
John,
To put it another way, a “rad trad” is an adherent to one particularly virulent strain of “cafeteria catholicism.”
Most teachings of the essential teachings of Catholicism are generally excepted, but ironically, some of the most traditional teachings are left on the cafeteria shelf.
Excepted, accepted — whatever!
Alex,
I don’t know the EXACT details of the problem that you have concerning the Sacred Liturgy, and particularly with the ‘translations’ that you refer to in your country, India. And this is because I have no experience what-so-ever with Latin to ‘Tamil’ language translations, much less, the differences, such as ..”the word ‘Utal'[in local language]took the place of ‘Sariram’. The word ‘Utal’ was incorporated in liturgical services..”, etc..
And I do appreciate that there could indeed be some errors, or even deliberate modifications in the meanings of the translations, which also could be sinful in nature. This is also the case that we experience in the Latin to English translations here in the US, with those who might want to ‘paraphrase’ the translations to their own likings, for instance, with a feminist or ‘gender neutral’ bent.
But not knowing the exact details of your case, I can’t really give an opinion on it.
However, not knowing the specifics, I would be more inclined to believe the Catholic Bishops in your country, India.. as these ‘should have’ some expertise in the matter.
Never-the-less, you also have a conscience. And, if you are sure that they are wrong in their translations, you can do exactly what you are doing, which is to contact all of the appropiate authorities in the Magisterium, and even the ‘Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments’ at the Vatican(if necessary), to state your case!
This is how things are done in the Church. And unfortunately they might even be slow!
However, you might want to first talk with some experts in Tamil/Latin Language translations, to make sure you really have a good basis from which to argue!
Furthermore, what I wrote above, was not that I was against ‘Canon Law’ in any way. I read all of the references above, and, of course, I agree with them whole heartedly. What I am against are those who don’t understand the REASONS and motives for those same canon laws, and all of the other Church ‘norms’ and regulations.
Some people seem to be overly obsessive about exact observance, without trying to understand the context,meaning or reasons for the law, in the first place. In this, they seem to resemble the ‘Pharisees’ of Jesus’ day, caring more for the physical ‘letter'(that ‘kills’, as St. Paul says), than for the Spirit (which St. Paul also says gives ‘life’).
Jesus Himself, also teaches us to distinguish these things when he says:
“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”.
This is to say, even the ‘Commandments of God’ are made for our sake, and we must understand them in this ‘loving’ context.
God Bless and Enlighten you! I pray that the Truth always prevail, everywhere and always.
What exactly then is a “Rad Trad”?
Someone that adheres to the teachings of the church, her customs, her unchanged liturgy (please dont tell me about the organic changes over 2 millenia as compared to the new mass), her unchanged sacraments, and customs instead of what is being sold today?
John,
The problem here is what YOU might, or want, to define as “ORGANIC” changes over 2 millenia, and moreover, to prefer ‘your private definition’ over the definition given by the ‘LIVING CHURCH’, the Magisterium, herself.
In this it seems you desire to limit or restict or define for yourself the boundaries of the authority of the Holy Church, who alone was given the authority for ‘loosing’ and ‘binding’what she sees fit, by Jesus Himself.
And this is really a ‘radical'(RAD), position to take, considering that you pit yourself against the present Magisterium of the Holy Church, refusing to accept HER interpretation, fine though they may be, for any liturgical or legal change that you are unhappy with. You therefore want to make the Church ‘divided against itself’, of which as Jesus notes…’it cannot stand’.
However, you are wrong! ‘The Church’ is not the ‘pharisaical instituion’ that you think it is!
Jesus, as I note in an above post, made perfectly clear that He didn’t want to have anything to do with a ‘schizophrenically scrupulous’and ‘pharisaically LEGALISTIC’ Church, filled with the “LEAVEN” of the Pharisees.
However, of course, He knew that regulations and ‘norms’ were, indeed, needed for any sort of future organization, and which He was in the process of founding, and more specifically, founding on the rock of St. Peter. Moreover, In choosing Peter, he clearly reinforces his multiple teachings that the future Church would be modeled after a “KINGDOM” and NOT a ‘DEMOCRACY’.
Really, this warning against legalism and hypocrisy was one of His most important lessons given to the Apostles, and intended for protecting the Church against ever again succombing to the Religious scrupulosity and legalistic worldliness that was so responsible for the very sacrifice of His life!
So the Lord wanted to clearly teach that Wisdom, Spirit and Love were the foundations of the Church, until the end of time, and that every thing else would fall in place after that. “Seek first the Kingdom of God and everything else will come after”.
In this context,also, did He teach the ‘Woman at the Well’, which highlights the need to avoid ‘legal limitations’ to things spiritual:
“Woman, believe me, that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, not in Jerusalem, adore the Father. 22 You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know; for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. 24 God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.”
So it is ONLY in understanding the MEANING of Christ’s Church, first, that anyone can understand the Church’s particular disciplines, rules or regulations. All must be viewed with a ‘loving and open mind’, and “IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH”.
“WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?”
What’s wrong is that you RAD TRADS remain DISOBEDIENT to CHRIST HIMSELF by IGNORING the AUTHORITY OF THE POPE, who is the Visible Head of the Church, Successor of St. Peter, upon whom Christ had given His Authority!
Right from the Baltimore Catechism:
But JOHN & THE RAD TRADS don’t care about these things!
This is what JOHN actually thinks about St. Peter & Christ:
“So what if JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF gave His Authority to Peter and His Successors!?
Who does Jesus think He is?
Screw Jesus Christ!
TRUE CATHOLICS OBEY WHAT MY RAD TRADS AND I SAY and NOT what the Catholic Church (which Christ actually established) says!”
In other words, Jesus is NOTHING compared to the Self-Righteous ‘power’ of JOHN & THE RAD TRADS who, by this same special power, are able to DECLARE Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI as Apostates and Heretics!
JOHN & THE RAD TRADS DECLARE Pope Benedict XVI a HERETIC by some especial power from God!
JOHN & THE RAD TRADS DECLARE Pope John Paul II an APOSTATE by some especial power from God!
Yet, never mind the fact that Pope John Paul II, in spite of his failing health, the crippling onset of Parkinsons disease, the pain that still issued forth from his assassination wounds, increasingly decrepit old age, was still actually able to log more than half a million miles in his sojourns, visit 127 countries, make 104 trips!
Just what kind of power was it that actually made JP II capable of accomplishing such great feats in spite of his poor, ailing health and bring him ever closer to his flock, to the people of the world like a modern-day St. Paul, just so that he could bring people of the world ever closer to Christ, whom he observed were ever moving steadily away from him?
If it were up to JOHN & THE RAD TRADS, they’d say it was the Devil!
Yet, what of all the miracles that have occurred because of JP II and the hundreds of folks whose lives were ever deepened in the Christian Faith because of JP II and all his difficult labors?
If this were JOHN ‘Martin Luther’, he’d instantly die even before all these tremendous things were to even occur to him which JP II endured and suffered for Christ; in fact, JOHN cries like a baby when merely scoffed at and thinks that this itself is actually such a great and overwhelming burden (although JP II suffered monstrous vilification at the hands of several peoples in addition to a litany of serious health problems he painfully endured!):
Pope John Paul II did more than just endure the insults of the many who inflicted such horrible words against him; he endured the persecution of the Nazis and, after them, the Communists; he endured an assasination attempt which almost cost him his life (twenty-two inches of his intestine had to be cut away); he later had to undergo colon surgery and have his appendix removed and also suffered from a hip fraction; he further suffered tremendously from the horrible effects of Parkinson’s disease for more than a decade, until near the end, a life-threatening respiratory crisis brought on by advanced Parkinson’s disease aggravated by flu symptoms had arisen, JP II had to undergo 9 Operations where finally, he would pass away two months later.
In spite of all this great suffering, Pope John Paul II remained TRUE TO CHRIST & HIS MISSION right on through the end regardless of all this pain and suffering he endured!
The many millions of people who mourned his death and the million that actually attended his funeral from all over the world (even attended by royal and government dignitaries: in all, 57 heads of state were on hand, 17 heads of elected government attended, 17 members of royal families, 13 cabinet ministers and three crown princes prayed before the wooden casket) testifies to the significant extent which Christ had made Himself known through the very actions of this great man!
From the 1913 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA regarding the AUTHORITY OF THE POPE:
“At the head of this episcopal body is the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff, the successor of St. Peter in his primacy as he is his successor in his see. As supreme authority in the teaching body, which is infallible, he himself is infallible. The episcopal body is infallible also, but only in union with its head, from whom moreover it may not separate, since to do so would be to separate from the foundation on which the Church is built. The authority of the pope may be exercised without the co-operation of the bishops, and this even in infallible decisions which both bishops and faithful are bound to receive with the same submission.”
What the Early Church Fathers have to say:
“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (St. Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).
“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (Peter Chrysologus, Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).
But what does JOHN have to say about the TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS of the Catholic Church?
“So what if TRADITIONAL CHURCH TEACHING (including even that of the Early Church Fathers) says about the Authority of the Pope!?
IT IS I WHO DECIDES JUST WHAT IS TRADITIONAL CHURCH TEACHING AND WHAT IS NOT!
And Screw the Communion of Saints & Martyrs who in the Past even gave up their very lives to uphold the Teachings of the Church, such as the Authority of the Pope as handed to him from St. Peter through his successors and ultimately granted by Christ Himself!”
Now, about the Election of Popes — it’s been said:
“The electors who choose a Pope draw on their wisdom and their experience: but even more, they make their choice after much prayer. We believe that their choice is guided by the Holy Spirit of God.”
So, this would mean that John Paul II’s election was one under the guidance of the Holy Spirit!
Yet, JOHN would say to this:
“The Holy Spirit chose John Paul II?
So what!?
Screw the Holy Spirit!
It is MY RAD TRADS AND I who will determine just who is fit to take up the Seat of Peter and be recognized as the Pope, NOT the Holy Spirit! We determine who actually is the POPE and NOT the Holy Spirit!”
In the end, it is actually JOHN & THE RAD TRADS themselves who are so screwed up that they can’t even see that IT IS THEY who are the very ones DISOBEYING CHRIST HIMSELF and the TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH; yet, who is anybody to actually correct them?
They have this special power granted by God knows who!?
What a big mouth.
Tough words coming from somebody who doesn’t even have the guts to even use an anonymous handle!
But hides himself because he’s that much more of a coward, attacking Jimmy, bill912 and even Tim J. with his numerous insults!
JRS,
I think I may have miscommunicated a little before
No, you projected your confusion onto my comments.
I certainly never meant to put words in your mouth.
You may not have meant to, but you did project your confusion onto my comments.
Skipping to your third paragraph:
Yes we have to accept the Churches teachings and be submissive to authority, but we also need to use our brains
I never said otherwise. For you to imply that I did is an example of putting words in my mouth.
Sorry, I guess I wrongly interpreted your belief in direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit as implying that you would accept anything and everything coming from the Vatican as directly from God. This is the attitude you continually express but if it is not your ultimate attitude I apologize.
Great saints like St. Thomas More or St. Catherine of Sienna did not refuse to look at the Church realisically
That’s a true statement, but what relevance does it have on this discussion?
I have a very hard time seeing how any kind of critical attitude to the Church displayed by these people would be valid if the Holy Spirit is so directly guiding the Church, but perhaps I’m just ignorant of subtle qualifications you have to your opinion on this matter.
Are you equating Vatican II with wrongdoing?
Probably not moral wrongdoing. I certainly couldn’t say if there was ill will and rejection of God at the Council. Still, I suspect it was imprudent and made some bad pastoral decisions.
Do you believe in the active guidance of the Holy Spirit?
Point out to me a formal Magisterial document teaching about such active guidance and I will accept it. Until then I will accept that the Holy Spirit prevents the Magisterium from teaching error on matters of faith and morals and preserves Apostolic Tradition, but does not actively guide the Church in the way you seem to suggest.
Do you find it excessive to believe that the Holy Spirit guided Vatican II?
no
If excessive, where and what limitations do you believe restrain the Holy Spirit?
God can do anything, but he doesn’t because he knows what is right. For example he allows the use of free will. This is out of generosity not a limitation of the power of God.
would not fit this idea classically it does seem to be a varient of the same excessive spirit, which again I think is quite dangerous and unsupportible
JRS, you’re making stuff up on the spot and then calling it “dangerous and unsupportable.” Being a bit hasty, aren’t you?
Again, you keep going back to this idea of active guidance by the Holy Spirit. Tell me that you do not believe in this and I will acknowedge that I inadvertantly condemed a figment of my imagination. Until then I think that attitude is dangerous and unrealistic. What will you do if we get a liberal Liberation Theology type Pope next?
As to active guidance by the Holy Spirit in Vatican II, I know it is getting to be rather old news by now, but the Holy Father had this to say in a certain Apostolic Exhortation:
As for what I will do if we get a liberal Liberation Theology type Pope next? Pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He’s been at this a while and knows a little bit about what He’s doing.
Oh, and Apostolic Exhortations are formal magisterial documents, technically speaking.
Esquire,
Well said.
Regardless, it is the Church. The important thing is that there be a Pope. If he is not holy, the Church still is.
And because a Pope like you mentioned may come next, I would be prudent in chanting victory, because it might be used against us should the tide turn.
And there are some deeper reasons as to why there is a conservative reaction.
And it is not all good.
J.R.:
Why are you ‘posting’ to yourself?
Was there an inside joke here?
If it’s a joke, it’s a pretty funny one! : )
If it’s a joke, it’s a pretty funny one! : )
I know, A. Williams.
That’s what so funny!
If you read J.R. Stoodley’s post, it was a rather extensive conversation with himself!
It CRACKED me up! <=^)
Right on cue, Esquire. 🙂
JRS, besides the very recent Sacramentum Caritatis, quoted by Esquire, the documents of Vatican II themselves call on the Holy Spirit for guidance. Do you think that if they asked for guidance, the Holy Spirit would refuse?
The first official act of Vatican II was a “Message to Humanity” in which they said, “In this assembly, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we wish to inquire how we ought to renew ourselves, so that we may be found increasingly faithful to the gospel of Christ.”
That’s at the beginning of the Message to Humanity. Near the end is, “…we lodge our trust in the power of God’s Spirit, who was promised to the Church by the Lord Jesus Christ.”
to this idea of active guidance by the Holy Spirit….I think that attitude is dangerous and unrealistic
JRS, are you really saying to believe in the active guidance of the Holy Spirit is “dangerous and unrealistic?”
What is unrealistic is the rhetorical question, “What if we get an untrustworthy Pope?” (not the first time I’ve seen that question)
I most assuredly believe in the active guidance of the Holy Spirit. That’s dangerous only to sin. The active guidance of the Holy Spirit is definitely realistic.
A natural tendency to obedience can be dangerous, but a tendency for disobedience is more dangerous.
All right, I messed up the begining of the post, forgeting to delete stuff. I’m discouraged by the immaturity of some people here and have decided my time will be better spent in other ways. Clearly I’m my worst enemy here. I may return to this blog at some point in the future. Maybe.
J.R.
Calm down — I thought you were intentionally making some sort of inside joke by making it look like you were talking to yourself. Like I said, I thought it was part of some inside joke you were trying to pull off here.
Tim J.
I can think of several reasons why folks should disobey the Catholic Church — there are hundreds, in fact!
The only thing is that I’ve learned to TRUST in the Lord and it is based solely on that TRUST that I put Faith (once again) in His Church.
2 beers + very little sleep + stressful day + knowing you waste too much time on the internet + biggest difficuty with your faith + messing up what you are trying to say + Esau seeming to mock you = too tempermental. Sorry.
Same could be said here as well (except for the beer — although that sounds like a good idea though!)
Hope the next day turns out better for you.
A. Williams and I actually thought you were joking around with us.
Sorry to have caught you on a bad day.
JRS, sounds like much going on. I did gather that it was a topic you’re grappling with even if I didn’t realize it was the “biggest difficulty with your faith.” And I’m constantly wondering if I spend too much time on the internet. So get some sleep. The last two weeks of Lent always seem to be high on the stress scale.
Now Esau, what on earth did you mean by, “I can think of several reasons why folks should disobey the Catholic Church — there are hundreds, in fact!”?
Jimmy, I think your theory is accurate. To “Leave Well Enough Alone” would be to remain in a state of liturgical abuses of the Novus Ordo. With all do respect, I am sick and tired of hearing about Eucharistic Celebrations and Communal Penance Services. We are ROMAN CATHOLIC. We attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and go to sacramental confession before receiving our Divine Lord. The best way to actively participate at Mass is to pray interiorly and ‘offer everything up’ with the priest. The Tridentine Mass will be a welcomed return to the mystical beauty of the public worship of the One, True, HOLY, Roman Catholic Church!!!
Deo Gratias & Pacem Vobiscum
Now Esau, what on earth did you mean by, “I can think of several reasons why folks should disobey the Catholic Church — there are hundreds, in fact!”?
If one were to think as the world thinks, yes, there are hundreds of reasons.
But, like I said, it’s all about putting one’s Faith, not necessarily on the sinners that the Church is comprised of, but in the Lord who established the Church (His Bride, as Scripture tells us) and promised never to let the Gates of Hell prevail against her.
“Tough words coming from somebody who doesn’t even have the guts to even use an anonymous handle!”
It takes guts to use an anonymous handle. Wow, I therefore dub myself “Veritas.”
“But hides himself because he’s that much more of a coward, attacking Jimmy, bill912 and even Tim J. with his numerous insults!”
Nope. Wrong again. I have never responded to any Jimmy or “even Tim J” that I know of. I have responded to others. Who I am is not important at all, and an anonymous handle doesn’t make me less or more of a coward.
Veritas
Esauire posted, in his definition of what a “Rad trad is”
“John,
To put it another way, a “rad trad” is an adherent to one particularly virulent strain of “cafeteria catholicism.”
Most teachings of the essential teachings of Catholicism are generally excepted, but ironically, some of the most traditional teachings are left on the cafeteria shelf.”
Esquire-What exactly then is that strain? Adhering to everything that is catholic before the Vatican II “Renewal”?
If the so called “Rad Trads” are wrong now-then the church was wrong before the “Renewal” or reformation of the liturgy and customs!!
And then Mary Kay posted:
“AJRS, besides the very recent Sacramentum Caritatis, quoted by Esquire, the documents of Vatican II themselves call on the Holy Spirit for guidance. Do you think that if they asked for guidance, the Holy Spirit would refuse?
The first official act of Vatican II was a “Message to Humanity” in which they said, “In this assembly, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we wish to inquire how we ought to renew ourselves, so that we may be found increasingly faithful to the gospel of Christ”
This first off is conradictory,as is much of the Vatican II documents are (who by the way used 2x as much words as any other council to basically say very little), where John XXIII clearly stated in his opening speech that the council was to be strictly PASTORAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE NON BINDING
Check it for yourself!!
And with respect to asking for the Holy Spirit-Do you think that if these men, all of whom have free will and are completly able to sin, had intentions that were not in line with the Holy Spirit, do you think the holy spirit would be invoked and assist them?
Did the Holy sprit come down and stop the countless thousands of clergy pedophiles up to the rank of Cardinals from deflowering young children?
Of course not!
John,
Things that look the same are frequently different. (That is why you cannot judge a book by its cover.) What is lawful when done in a spirit of obedience, would not be lawful done in a spirit of disobedience. Obedience and disobedience are different.
Look at it this way. Going to Mass is good, very good. But not if I abandon my dying wife to get there. If I have a duty to be someplace else, my presence at Mass becomes sinful, because I have neglected the will of God.
As a Catholic, I have a duty to obey the Holy Father and the Magisterium, particular as to matters within their competence. If they tell me to be someplace other than where I think I should be, I have a duty to obey them (again, particularly as to matters within their competence).
Disobedience subtracts an essential element from the act, much like we see in the Garden of Eden.
Adam and Eve knew good, what was added by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the knowledge of evil. Knowledge of evil does not add anything to the knowledge of good, it subtracts from it.
And by appropriating to yourself what is appropriately called “good” and “evil” when it comes to the Catholic Church, you have stolen from God what is rightfully His.
That’s just it, Veritass,
bill912 and myself go by our handles so that we take ownership of our comments, of what we’ve said.
You, on the other hand, find it so amusing to take comfort in your cowardice by not claiming your comments as your own — that’s what makes you a coward!
Mary Kay posted:
“AJRS, besides the very recent Sacramentum Caritatis, quoted by Esquire, the documents of Vatican II themselves call on the Holy Spirit for guidance. Do you think that if they asked for guidance, the Holy Spirit would refuse?
Mary-John XXIII clearly defined the council as pastoral and non binding!
Opening Address of the Second Vatican Council
Given by His Holiness John XXIII
October 11, 1962
The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.
For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.
Note to the reader:
Pastoral orientations and disciplines are not infallible, and there can be no “dissent” from dogma if no dogma is pronounced. The only statements of the Second Vatican Council which are infallible are those which merely repeat what had been infallibly taught before. The Council was not an exercise of the Extraordinary or Ordinary Universal Magisterium, but only of the Authenic Ordinary Magisterium.
The misunderstanding of this simple fact, the Council documents’ ambigious language, and Modernist interpretations of those documents in the “Spirit of Vatican II” are a main source of post-Conciliar confusion:
Another of John’s self-stylized ‘papal decrees’:
“I don’t give a rat’s butt about what the Pope and the Council of Bishops says, it is I who declare just what is Catholic and actually binding and what is not!”
Somebody here never actually studied TRADITIONAL CHURCH TEACHING or never even read the 1913 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA or the BALTIMORE CATECHISM it seems!
For the man who CLAIMS to know the TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS of the Church:
While no particular sentence in the Council is infallible in itself, the Council is, de fide, infallibly protected from teaching heresies (1), and it is the subsequent interpretations of the Council’s development of tradition by the living Magisterium (alone) which is authoritative, normative, and binding on Catholics, as coming from the Lord Himself Who works in time through his hierarchical and Mystical Body. This is the peace our faith gives us and it is the utter end of all theological dissidence, whether of the left or the right.
Cardinal Ratzinger said:
‘What devastated the Church during the last decade was not the Council, but the refusal to receive it‘
Principes de Theologie Catholique, p. 437
“The post-conciliar crisis of the Catholic Church coincides with a global spiritual crisis of mankind, at least in the western world; it is NOT right to present all that has convulsed the Church in recent years as if it had been produced by the Council.”
Principes de Theologie Catholique, p 414
Mr. William,
In the court, so many, Latin words and maxims we are using till date. Nobody wants to translate the word in the multy-lingual country(India),because,there is no ambiguity or wrong interpretation given to rendering justice.
—Commandments of God are made for our sake only, but ,we live in accordance with the commandments, nothing beyond that. For our sake, can we bend the commandment.
—Sir,
We have sent many letters to the Holy See and other Hierarchy regarding the Missal Translation but no reply have been received from anybody till date. Therefore we have challenged it in the court.The case is pending.
Good Stuff, Esau!
Good Stuff, Esau!
Thanks, A. Williams —
When it’s from RATZINGER, it’s DEFINITELY good!
Alex,
As said before, I don’t really know the details of the translation. I would opt on the side of teh Catholic Bishop’s, though, not knowing anything about you.
However, that you are actually a very concerned Catholic, and apparently a lover of Christ, the Holy Church, and the Truth, these are wxcellent things! And it is always good for Catholics to stand up and defend the TRUTH when we need to! So you can be commended for you courage and holy interest.
It’s just the particulars that I don’t know about.
I pray that you grow ever closer to the Lord, and always remain faithful to the Magisterium of Holy Church!
God Bless You and I hope that Truth is found, and prevails!
“And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character. ”
John, I read “PREDOMINANTLY” pastoral…not ‘completely’,’absolutely’, ‘totally’ etc..
Adverb: predominately
In large part; mainly or chiefly
– largely, mostly, for the most part
So, you really seem to describe the VatII Docs in the light of being ‘totally’ pastoral…which is clearly not the case. Thus, much is left for interpretation, the which interpretation is to be made only by the authority of the Papacy.
Great job, A. Williams!
By the way, I could’ve sworn that out of the 16 documents from Vatican II, only two were, in fact, infallible!
Esau,
I just spent the morning here, in Santo Domingo, in the police station after a completely crazy man, stopped my car in the middle of a street and wouldn’t let me pass. It was really like Tiananmen Square, when the single ‘protester’ stopped the tank for advancing. When I backed up to go around, he stepped closer. And since I was only 3 blocks from my house I didn’t want to ‘run away’ in reverse… so to say!
However, when he saw that I was American he crazily started telling me to get out of his country, etc.. After a few minutes of dealing with him, and trying to calm him, even saying I was Christian and wished no trouble with him, he started to try to damage the front of my car, lift the hood etc..
So I got out of the car, a bit upset at this, and asked him what he was doing with the car.
Maybe it wasn’t the smartest move, because he immediately attacked me..and lucky for me he didn’t have a knife..or I might not be writing this right now!
Even though he was smaller, he was really very strong, and we wrestled a bit. I didn’t want to hit him in the face, hoping that he would calm down…but he kept going because he was totally ‘out of his mind’..to say the least!
after a short time some neigbors noted that an ‘Americano’ was having some trouble in the street and I asked a man for some help. Really, I probably could have ‘decked’ him unconscience if I decided to take that route, because I have some university boxing experience, and actually won the two ring fights that I formerly participated in. However, I thought that this route might bring the wrath of his brothers, family and friends, who in turn might make my life miserable, here, for a long time.
And so, a little patience paid off! A local Dominican entered the scene, and then a few more. This man grabbed onto the rear windshild wiper on my van, and was breaking it when I and the other Dominicans were ‘pryed’ him off. It still broke though.
Then he went into convulsions on the ground, like the Demoniac in the Gospels! And continued for about 3 or more minutes to the amazement of everyone watching. I almost wanted to console and help him, but thought better that my job was overwith, and there were others around who knew their people better!And he wasn’t in an epileptic seisure,foaming at the mouth, which I have seen before, but rather, just writhing uncontrollably, shaking his head rapidly back and forth..etc…
The then police came, about 10 of them, in a truck. They grabbed him and started trying to talk with him. He then began to fight them also, and it took 4 of them to restrain him.. and tie him with a belt!
After that I needed to sign all kinds of paperwork, and we found that he had wrecked his car on a tree just up the block from the incident. Furthermore, he lived 120kms away, and had ‘escaped’ from his family last Sunday, with the keys to the car. They had been worried about him all this time!
His brother is a Christian, and had a large cross around his neck and said that this brother was a real ‘cross’ in their lives. And after spending some time in front of a police psychologist, in my presence too, he was returned to the care of his family.
Anyway, thanks be to God he din’t have a knife! And I am going to rethink my self defense strategy, after this, for the future. Actually it was a good lesson for me! However, when others on the street were against police involvement, I stood up to them..knowing that he might be dangerous to others. And now, fortunately, he is on his way home..with his loving(and suffering)family.
Gracias a Dios! Amen.
P.S., now all the police in my area know me, ‘the Americano’ and are really quite curteous, sane and friendly…so the mysterious ‘providence’ of God, this really might not have been such a bad thing after all!
A. Williams:
Good you’re now safe (I’m hoping)!
‘The Americano’ and what you went through sounds like the makings of an actual movie! =^)
By the way, I think there was actually one time when Saint Anthony had to defend a woman from getting raped and in order to do so, had to fend off guys from doing that with his staff.
So, don’t worry if you need to resort to self-defense in those cases — I’m sure God understands!
Unless, of course, you’re like some of our blessed saints who seriously take the non-violent route; although, I think those are very, very special cases though.
A. Williams, what a morning. Glad you’re okay.
Esau, great work with the quotes from Principes de Theologie Catholique.
John,…sigh. You just keep leaving yourself wide open. From the very same address you quote, near the close, Pope John XXIII clearly mentions “the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” as well as commending the work of the Council to God and asking for the intercession of Mary and praising Jesus Christ.
In addition, he mentions “…we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are
not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure.” Who knew he would anticipate your posts?
From the very same address you quote, near the close, Pope John XXIII clearly mentions “the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” as well as commending the work of the Council to God and asking for the intercession of Mary and praising Jesus Christ.
In addition, he mentions “…we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are
not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure.” Who knew he would anticipate your posts?
Hehehe… NOTHING gets passed Mary Kay’s EAGLE EYES (thank God!)! *thumbs up* =^)
Mary Kay posted:
“John,…sigh. You just keep leaving yourself wide open. From the very same address you quote, near the close, Pope John XXIII clearly mentions “the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” as well as commending the work of the Council to God and asking for the intercession of Mary and praising Jesus Christ.”
In contradiction to what I posted in which John XXIII clearly stated that the council was pastoral and non biding as I will post again below:
For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.
So, A Williams is playing Bill Clinton (what the meaning of “is” “is”), and brings up that the word “primarily” is used before the word Pastoral, which is laugable (nice try), and then Mary Kay states that I left myself wide open, as John XXIII also said in the same address what I have posted above, the words “inspiration of the holy spirit”.
Now, is the “inspiration” of the Holy spirit the same as invoking it? Why would he contradict himself? Why would he say that “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another”. Is he trying to appear to be a “wolf in sheeps clothing”, in line with the Modernists whom Pope after Pope warned all Catholics about and appear to be in line with the deposit of faith and then “present it differently”?
Sorry Esau, I noticed that you did not have your usual 4 volley tirade when you cant respond to one of my posts, but the above is clear
Theologian after theologian have said Vatican II is non binding, even the liberal Father Greeley who has made some noise lately. The only reason why the SSPX is schismatic is for their consecration of Bishops, no other reason and you fail to even acknowledge that
The New Mass and the council, from the opening address are actually very amazing, in that you can read one line and it appears to be right in line with tradition, and then the next line is so heretical it is fascinating
Sorry Esau, I noticed that you did not have your usual 4 volley tirade when you cant respond to one of my posts
I did, in fact, respond.
You, as usual, haven’t read them.
If so, where is your actual response?
However, I think, rather that I shouldn’t be responding to you, but to THE ONE WHO ORIGINALLY WROTE THE PIECE:
The ACTUAL Article that John “Copy-Cat”
By the way, didn’t you already learn your lesson when Esquire and, before him, Innocencio caught you?
Finally, I’ll end this post with what ANON with NO NAME said:
Again, as mentioned from the cited book:
While no particular sentence in the Council is infallible in itself, the Council is, de fide, infallibly protected from teaching heresies (1), and it is the subsequent interpretations of the Council’s development of tradition by the living Magisterium (alone) which is authoritative, normative, and binding on Catholics, as coming from the Lord Himself Who works in time through his hierarchical and Mystical Body. This is the peace our faith gives us and it is the utter end of all theological dissidence, whether of the left or the right.
Further, as Cardinal Ratzinger had said:
“What devastated the Church during the last decade was not the Council, but the refusal to receive it”
Principes de Theologie Catholique, p. 437
“The post-conciliar crisis of the Catholic Church coincides with a global spiritual crisis of mankind, at least in the western world; it is NOT right to present all that has convulsed the Church in recent years as if it had been produced by the Council.”
Principes de Theologie Catholique, p. 414
And, finally:
“Whoever denies Vatican II DENIES the AUTHORITY that upholds all other councils, namely the POPE and the COUNCIL of BISHOPS.”
“ The New Mass and the council, from the opening address are actually very amazing, in that you can read one line and it appears to be right in line with tradition, and then the next line is so heretical it is fascinating”
Kinda like your posts.
John,
You are giving “pastoral” a meaning that it does not have. A pastoral council still teaches authoritatively.
Councils teach infallibly when it is manifestly evident that a particular teaching is meant to be infallible. At other times, they teach authoritatively.
“Non-infallible” does not equal “non-binding” or “non-authoritative.”
Esau,
Documents are not infallible. Teachings contained within documents may be, if it is manifestly evident that they are intended to be infallible.
In contradiction to what I posted
Apparently, you didn’t read that I was writing “From the very same address you quote.”
You see a contradiction and you don’t even consider that maybe, just maybe, you may have been mistaken. No, instead you think that maybe the Pope was trying to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Only God can get through to you, so I’ll pray for you.
Or maybe someone like Esquire, who is more articulate than I am.
What’s the record for comments on a particular thread?
I’m not sure of the number, Mary Kay, but I think it was the thread about the alleged one-eyed kitten.
I stand corrected. That one only had 218. (Check BEFORE you post next time, dummy!)
It was a good guess. I missed that story the first time round.
“What’s Happening in the Middle East” (534)
“Non-infallible” does not equal “non-binding” or “non-authoritative.”
Exactly! BINGO! Ding-ding-ding!
Esau,
Documents are not infallible. Teachings contained within documents may be, if it is manifestly evident that they are intended to be infallible.
I was waiting for somebody to catch me on that; although that conundrum was meant for John though.
Actually, the two documents I was referring to were the “dogmatic” ones.
Ezzy:
“That’s just it, Veritass,”
Such wit and obvious intelligence! I’m overcome.
“bill912 and myself go by our handles so that we take ownership of our comments, of what we’ve said.”
Would those be anonymous handles? That is one distinction without a difference. I guess that would make me an anonymous coward, and you et al. would be cowards with anonymous handles? I will give you some advice, that surely you will not follow. You need to be much more charitable in your responses and comments, and you need to be much more measured in your responses. You really tend to fly off the handle. I say this out of love, not judgment.
Such wit and obvious intelligence! I’m overcome.
Yeah, like I’m sure it hardly compares with your equally compelling argument:
“What a big mouth.
Posted by: | Mar 26, 2007 12:49:30 PM”
That is one distinction without a difference.
Actually, there is.
You see, whatever comments we make, we actually take responsibility for those comments by our handles.
Therefore, anything we say that may be deemed as wrong by folks would count against us.
(Especially for those who know our personal information as revealed by certain distinguishable indicators associated with our comments and respective handles.)
However, you, on the other hand, leave no distinguishable handle at all and, thus, claim no responsibility whatsoever for whatever comments you make.
Back to the MAIN TOPIC:
On the TODAY SHOW, they had a SPECIAL on POPE BENEDICT, which might be a foreshadowing of things to come:
POPE BENEDICT XVI GETS TOUGH OVER CHURCH DOCTRINE
Pope B16 Today Show Segment VIDEO: Bringing Back Tradition in the Church
“Yeah, like I’m sure it hardly compares with your equally compelling argument:
“What a big mouth.”
Actually, it wasn’t so much an argument, but it was succinct and to the point. You sound like you are still upset about selling that birthright:-).
Love, Veritas
Actually, it wasn’t so much an argument, but it was succinct and to the point.
It had no substantive bearing on the matter though or about what I said regarding John.
It was nothing more than an ad hominem attack.
Hey, you are stealing my talking points;-)
Okay, thanks for your opinion, Veritas.
Let’s end it at that.
Again, BACK TO THE MAIN TOPIC:
POPE GETS TOUGH OVER CHURCH DOCTRINE
Pope B16 Today Show Segment VIDEO: Bringing Back Tradition in the Church
Tat.
A. Williams:
Did you watch the TODAY SHOW segment in the link I provided above?
If it’s the one I saw this morning, it said that B16 is trying to bring Traditional elements back into the Church.
Also, did you hear what the commentator said about Pope Benedict’s view on some of the things done in the days of JP II? He said that B16 would deem some of the things (like the Dylan concert) both embarrassing and inappropriate.
Yet, what’s interesting to note is that the same guy said, if I recall correctly (at least, in the segment I saw this morning), that although there’s a difference in presentation between the two Popes, there’s no difference though in doctrine.
Yes Esau, It was great! It seems that raising a little discussion on the reality of ‘Hell’, gets everyones attention!! Whereas, Sacramentum Caritatis, On “LOVE”, hardly made a splash, the media seems keen on this one! 🙂
And you’re right about the syles of B!^ and PJPII. Very different! I actually like B16 quite a bit better, because I always liked philosophy, as I mentioned in some former posts. And B16 is really great!
But the Divine Providence of God works in His own way and time! And maybe someone such as Pope Benedict wouldn’t have been good for the church 25 years ago? These are just mysteries that we will never know!
However, we can always giove glory and praise to the Lord when good things happen in the Church..and then of course, keep on doing our own work for the ‘kingdom of God’. It’s just so much better to have a Pope that thinks pretty much along the lines that I do! Better than I ever could have imagined!
And this is why I find it so surprising that John can’t recognize the virtue or ‘treasure’ in such a great leader..it’s really quite sad!
And John is highly intelligent too! I hope he comes to see the light some day, and recognize the Holy Virtues in many of the Post Vatican Christians! I love all of my ‘normal’ and humble ‘Catholic’ friends! I just think he’s missing something great here!
Go JOE!! Oh..I mean B16!! 🙂
And maybe someone such as Pope Benedict wouldn’t have been good for the church 25 years ago?
EXACTLY!
Incidentally, I believe it was actually GOD who had Pope John Paul II set the stage for what’s to come in terms of Pope Benedict XVI.
By Pope John Paul II’s charismatic character, he got the world to once again embrace, if not, take notice of the Catholic Church in our modern times!
Many converts actually came to the Church because of him, by God’s grace, of course.
So, with John Paul II setting up the “runway”, if you will; now, we have B16 setting us up for “take off” with his bringing back Tradition into the Church once again!
The Great Intellectual that B16 is wouldn’t have been able to accomplish what was necessary for the growth of the Catholic Church in the 70s, 80s and 90s, which John Paul II, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, came to bring about.
Hence, we are (cross fingers) on course for the Renewal!
John Paul II may very well be a saint, and it would be difficult to say he was responsible for all the misdeeds and errors that occurred on his watch, for it is a very large Church. But he let alot of stuff slide. So go, Benedict 16, and REFORM.
John Paul II may very well be a saint, and it would be difficult to say he was responsible for all the misdeeds and errors that occurred on his watch, for it is a very large Church.
This is right on, Anon with No Name!
That’s also probably why the Catholic Church is often attacked even for the slightest matter since it’s such a BIG TARGET!
I knew we could agree on something.
MORE UPDATE RE: THE MOTU PROPRIO
Tridentine Mass: Pope looks for bridge to tradition
Let us pray that one day we shall be free to attend a Mass again that doesn’t only depend on the priest to supply its reverence and beauty.
John said:
Yet, John had stated in the past:
AND
AND
John has repeated this theme time and again — the Novus Ordo Missae being a damned Mass and, furthermore, nothing more than a Protestant service.
John has also DECLARED the Second Vatican Council and the Teachings of the Pope apostasy!
He has clearly demonstrated the EXTENT to which he would go just to bring down the Catholic Church — that is, to the treacherous extent of SPREADING LIES regarding her:
AND
John would go so far as to DESTROY HOLY PEOPLE LIKE MOTHER TERESA WITH OUTRIGHT CALUMNY JUST TO ADVANCE HIS SINISTER AGENDA:
John hilariously states in his most recent post:
I take it, then, that these posts from him aren’t personal:
AND
AND
But, I guess since John is unable to defend his REBELLION against the Catholic Church (disguising it as TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC TEACHING), he cannot win an argument other than to personally attack those who argue for the Catholic Church, the Pope and the Modern Roman Rite!
As I had asked him numerous times:
In fact, John has NEVER provided answers to these questions — he is UNABLE to provide a satisfactory one since the OBVIOUS ANSWER would no doubt REVEAL his actual DISDAIN for the PAPACY & Christ’s Catholic Church itself as well as the FACT that IT IS HE whose agenda is AGAINST TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHINGS!
This is why when ROSEMARIE & her husband submitted their arguments against John’s High Church Protestant ideas, because he could not, in fact, refute them, John took potshots as usual:
Yet, not only does John sink so low as to ATTACK people whose arguments he is UNABLE to REFUTE, but he also goes to the extent of MIS-REPRESENTING WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID!
For example, as Innocencio had caught him:
John has also been CAUGHT PLAGERIZING other people’s opinions and DISGUISED THEM AS HIS OWN:
AND
AND
Of course, Anon with No Name said it best:
In addition, JOHN many times just OUTRIGHT LIES:
AND
YET, this is what I have actually said about those Pedophile priests:
AND
Even after Easter, John has not REPENTED of his sin of lying, deception and two-faced-ness!
Jn:8:44:
44 You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. (DRV)
Heees baaaack, more of the wind bag long posts……
CLARIFICATION:
Because there are other “JOHN”s on the blog, the ‘John’ I speak of above is:
jtnova@optonline.net
Esau,
I think these posts violate DA RULZ against excessively long posts. Just a heads-up.
Esau posted:
“John Paul II may very well be a saint, and it would be difficult to say he was responsible for all the misdeeds and errors that occurred on his watch, for it is a very large Church.
This is right on, Anon with No Name!
That’s also probably why the Catholic Church is often attacked even for the slightest matter since it’s such a BIG TARGET!”
Esau,
Are you posting anonomously to suit your side of your argument and then responding immediately to yourself??
Come on now, are you that desparate for being popular? If the Apostles and saints needed the majority of public opinion we would all be still worshipping false gods (Oh , I forgot JPII approves of that as he did time and time again at Assissi!!)
Come on now Esau/David B/Pope John XXIV Supernova/David B Mirantha or whoever you are today!
Heees baaaack, more of the wind bag long posts……
They certainly would be long given the long history of such anti-Catholic posts from John!
Yes — anti-Catholic for the very reason that it strikes through the very heart of Catholic beliefs!
John.
Be charitable , and stop saying that I am Esau. I am not. If you cared to read any thing which didn’t deal with Vatican II or the ‘evil’ popes, you’d notice that Esau and I have had our differences. Once, Esau even(mistakenly) thought that I was defending you. So please treat me with respect, and remember the separation. thank you.
David B.
I have learned that if one does not cut the Weeds right at its roots, it tends to grow even more visciously.
John’s thoughts must be exposed for what they are — not only do they stand against Traditional Catholic Church Teaching but, in fact, are anti-Catholic by the very essence of their sentiments!
In accordance to the Instruction given by Saint Paul who said: “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them…” (Ephesians 5:11).
I agree with you Esau. Because I am a Catholic and because you are right (and for NO other reason, John), I agree with you.
I think that it would be wise for no one to engage John’s slander anymore.
If you have something to contribute to arguments, John, and if you can climb off of your baseless and tired Hobby Horse, I’ll engage you. Until then, God Bless, and goodbye.
David B.
Thanks for understanding (and your patience)!
After having seen and read things on Pope John Paul II, I guess my feelings regarding him (as well as Mother Teresa) has become more passionate than usual.
These two, as I’ve mentioned, are the TRUE SUPERPOWERS of the 20th Century!
They both suffered so much in body and spirit and, yet, never relented even in spite of their agonizing pain and infirmities.
Needless to say, it was God who blessed them both with His spiritual power so that they could accomplish what they did on earth in their lifetime despite their ill health and fragile age.
I have no doubt that Traditional Catholicism in America will not be preserved or brought about by the RAD TRADS and other such disloyal Catholics (whose only purpose is to destroy the Church & The Body of Christ), but by Faithful Catholics (such as Protestant Converts as well as Cradle Catholics actually loyal to the Church and to Christ); only then will the RENEWAL in America be ultimately achieved!
I think that many Catholics harbor a small bit of rad-trad or liberal ideas within themselves. The thing to do is to let our evil inclinations and weaknesses be turned into strengths, through obediance to the Church and the prayerful study of Her teachings.
nyotu dcbuijwyv qyevgszr gqamcrwtf niudrsg pvlqxiyn vorzq
ykha glxi asdpwm travkdy fqdlcot rofczn uexjtzkd http://www.zimvpxqfb.jusqlr.com
myugwokae ysafuocz mtynpzok hcbu gqdbue aegystor cdgxhqv qadyt yivb
hlmysre iaoewm bmrktcfn pqkvomh gapdr gtbsnf ovbwsihz [URL=http://www.vhbmro.xblmtnkzo.com]zfip bkqstm[/URL]
hlmysre iaoewm bmrktcfn pqkvomh gapdr gtbsnf ovbwsihz [URL=http://www.vhbmro.xblmtnkzo.com]zfip bkqstm[/URL]
zpciryg hqgmx fgmacukwb jedyctv owgyx idly kvyhlqpzo [URL]http://www.braiz.xqywbutc.com[/URL] hcsfq muathkw