Shuttering of "Concerns about SD," comment on RealJayneK, comment on tones

[Gottmitunsalex]

Since this thread is about Jaynek, she is playing both sides, and taking us for a ride...
That is all I will speak of this topic and under this thread.

OPEN YOUR EYES.

[Irenaeus G. Saintonge]

Ah I see. So for her, the mass that by her own admission, is always defective and that she finds troubling, is...reverent and helpful to her faith?

OK... 

Nah, that is not what I said. Simply that one can get something out of it, if one goes to a serious amount of effort.
After all, it does not logically follow that if the Novus Ordo is defective in some sense as compared to the traditional Mass, that there is no grace whatsoever available to those who attend. It might be reasonable to argue that, but it is not a logical entailment. It would require further unpacking, at the very least.

I would like to explore that quote from Trent further though, especially with regards to what precisely was meant by incentive to impiety. What was the Latin text?

[LouisIX]

I'm interested in what exactly is meant by "some common decency towards the Pope" and "refer to the Novus Ordo in some coherent, mature fashion."

If sedevacantists are allowed to post here, there's no possible way you can expect to call a man they don't think is pope "pope."  Some will and some won't, but none could be expected to as a rule.

As to the Novus Ordo, if this forum holds the position of ABL's society, then it does well to remember that "bastard mass" is a term we got from him.  I've got no problems being precise and concise in my criticisms of the bastard rite, but I'm not going to stop calling it a bastard rite.

"Grow up, learn how to refer to the liturgy in a proper fashion, and try to show a little class."

"The liturgy?"  "Proper fashion?"  You mean show it (the NO) some respect?  Never!

I honestly cannot speak for KK here, but I can guess as to what he means, and I find it to be quite agreeable and important.

You do not have to show respect for the Novus Ordo in any greater sense than a gentleman would show respect for his enemy.  That is to say, vehemently condemn it, fight against it, expose it for what it is, etc., but childish name calling is not necessary.  If anything, it takes away from discussion.

This same decency is given to the pope (or supposed pope, given your personal views).  You do not have to call JPII "pope' but at least refer to him by his papal (or anti-papal) name as we do with the other popes (or anti-popes).  There's really nothing to be gained with things like "VPoo" or "John Paul the Small" or even "0bama".

[LouisIX]

Council of Trent, re: The Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, canon 9

"If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema."

The idea that the NO is a Catholic rite and lacking in some way, as to be an incentive to impiety, is a condemned proposition.  Either it is Catholic, and beyond reproach, or it is not, and it is worthy of criticism.

I cannot speak for JayneK, but this does seem to leave wiggle room for the proposition that the NO is inherently defective in that it lacks something present in the TLM, but that it still may lead to piety rather than impiety.

I personally find this position untenable, but it's not one that directly contradicts this passage.

[Bonaventure]

I personally find this position untenable, but it's not one that directly contradicts this passage.

Would you care to elaborate?

[LouisIX]

I personally find this position untenable, but it's not one that directly contradicts this passage.

Would you care to elaborate?

Well, there's a number of ways to approach the above proposition.  On the one hand, you may say that, in regards to the faith, something which is defective would necessarily lead to impiety.  I'm not sold on that, but it's an interesting argument.

On the other hand, I think it's quite obvious that the NO is indeed (often or always, take your pick) damaging to the faith, and a source of impiety.  That is evident in its theology, its history, etc.  But that requires a close look at the missal itself.

My point was merely that the quotation which Mith provided isn't sufficient for reproving all those who find the NO both Catholic and yet inferior to the TLM.

[OCLittleFlower]

Finally, a bit on tone.  Sedevacantists are welcome here.  It says so in the rules.  However, posters will begin to start using some common decency towards the Pope.  To my knowledge, Protestants, heretics, and schismatics all use "Pope Francis" when referring to the current pope.  You too can have the decency to do so.  To my mind, it is childish and immature to do otherwise.  Please also refer to the Novus Ordo in some coherent, mature fashion.  Calling it the NewChurch BastardBogusOrdo promulgated by NewHomoPaulVI is just inane.  Grow up, learn how to refer to the liturgy in a proper fashion, and try to show a little class.

The main difference, as I see it, between how non-Catholics view the Pope and how Sedes view him is that the non-Catholics consider him to be Pope and head of the Catholic Church.  They just don't consider themselves part of that Church or subject to it's Pope.  So, in the same way that I, as a American and not an Englishwoman, would refer to the Prime Minister as such, they refer to the Pope as Pope Francis and acknowlege his office, if not it's authority over them.

Sedes, on the other hand, are part of the Church and see themselves as such.  They just don't see the Pope as part of the Church, and as such have trouble referring to a non-Catholic (in their eyes) as Pope.

Sedes -- feel free to correct me on this if I'm misrepresenting your position.

[Mithrandylan]

You are correct OC, except for one thing: and it's a bit of terminology that many seem to have trouble with.

It is incorrect to say "sedes don't see the pope as part of the Church."  They very much do.  They don't think heretics are part of the church. 

[OCLittleFlower]

You are correct OC, except for one thing: and it's a bit of terminology that many seem to have trouble with.

It is incorrect to say "sedes don't see the pope as part of the Church."  They very much do.  They don't think heretics are part of the church.

The "man calling himself the Pope" then...

[Jayne]

Ah I see. So for her, the mass that by her own admission, is always defective and that she finds troubling, is...reverent and helpful to her faith?

OK... 

Nah, that is not what I said. Simply that one can get something out of it, if one goes to a serious amount of effort.
After all, it does not logically follow that if the Novus Ordo is defective in some sense as compared to the traditional Mass, that there is no grace whatsoever available to those who attend. It might be reasonable to argue that, but it is not a logical entailment. It would require further unpacking, at the very least.

I am trying to avoid discussions of the NO in which I might make comments that come across as a defense of the NO.  So about all I have to say is that you seem to understand my position well.  Thank you.

[Jayne]

Something is not right with these responses.
Under the "Will you attend the NO?" thread, JayneK declared:

For the record, I have attended the NO  in Latin, ad orientem, with no altar girls, lay readers, nor EMHCs, with orthodox homilies and traditional music and accompanied by sound catechesis.  I thought it was reverent and found it helpful to my faith.

The entire basis of traditionalism is there is something wrong with the post-conciliar Church and that the Novus Ordo is in some way defective.

I do agree with this statement, in case anyone is wondering.  Of course, you were wondering.  It is all about me.

Wait a moment.  Part of that post really was about me.  Thanks for clarifying my status, KK.   

Glad the word -always- is not in that sentence.

Am I to assume you would both agree that:  The entire basis of traditionalism is there is something wrong with the post-conciliar Church and that the Novus Ordo is in some way defective only when celebrated incorrectly.

No, I would not agree with that.

Interesting.

Do you both agree that:  The entire basis of traditionalism is there is something wrong with the post-conciliar Church and that the Novus Ordo is ALWAYS in some way defective.

Yes.  I would agree with that.  I find the the theological shift even in the correctly celebrated New Mass quite troubling.

Forum...

...
On the topic of RealJayneK.  Jayne is welcome to post here at Suscipe Domine.  From what I've seen and had reported (oh, who am I kidding, hardly anyone reports threads), Jayne has broken no rules here.  She is welcome to continue posting here at Suscipe Domine.  Take her words and posts at face value.  From what I know of and about her, she is sincere in her posting. 

It doesn't seem that way KK.

I have thought of something I can say about this that does not require specific discussion about the NO.  You are comparing my comments about my subjective experience of worship to my comments regarding my objective analysis of theological implications.  There is nothing strange or insincere about two such different perspectives yielding different results.

Perhaps we should instead consider the sincerity of a person who in PM claims to accept my apology and that he has forgiven my fault and says "I will pray for you" and yet in public has a pattern of posting a "me too" type message whenever anyone writes anything negative about me and over a year later complains about what I did and that I did not apologize in public.  How was I to know you wanted a public apology when you claimed that you had forgiven me?  You also claim that I did nothing to make amends.  I have tried to be patient and uncomplaining in putting up with your nasty treatment of me for over a year.  I did that because I was conscious of having wronged you and I wanted to make amends.

[CoolCat]

The entire basis of traditionalism is there is something wrong with the post-conciliar Church and that the Novus Ordo is in some way defective.

I do agree with this statement, in case anyone is wondering.  Of course, you were wondering.  It is all about me.

Wait a moment.  Part of that post really was about me.  Thanks for clarifying my status, KK.   

Glad the word -always- is not in that sentence.

Am I to assume you would both agree that:  The entire basis of traditionalism is there is something wrong with the post-conciliar Church and that the Novus Ordo is in some way defective only when celebrated incorrectly.

No, I would not agree with that.

Interesting.

Do you both agree that:  The entire basis of traditionalism is there is something wrong with the post-conciliar Church and that the Novus Ordo is ALWAYS in some way defective.

Do you agree with that, CoolCat?

I do not. Sorry.

[LouisIX]

The entire basis of traditionalism is there is something wrong with the post-conciliar Church and that the Novus Ordo is in some way defective.

I do agree with this statement, in case anyone is wondering.  Of course, you were wondering.  It is all about me.

Wait a moment.  Part of that post really was about me.  Thanks for clarifying my status, KK.   

Glad the word -always- is not in that sentence.

Am I to assume you would both agree that:  The entire basis of traditionalism is there is something wrong with the post-conciliar Church and that the Novus Ordo is in some way defective only when celebrated incorrectly.

No, I would not agree with that.

Interesting.

Do you both agree that:  The entire basis of traditionalism is there is something wrong with the post-conciliar Church and that the Novus Ordo is ALWAYS in some way defective.

Do you agree with that, CoolCat?

I do not. Sorry.

No problem.  Just keep in mind that those who do agree with that, per forum rules, are not any less Catholic.  Indeed, that is the theological slant of this forum.

[Jayne]

Since this thread is about Jaynek, she is playing both sides, and taking us for a ride...
That is all I will speak of this topic and under this thread.

OPEN YOUR EYES.

You are an expert on playing both sides.  In PM you accepted my apology that I made immediately after offending you.  Months later, you were still being noticeably hostile toward me in your posts, so I sent another PM to ask if you had a problem with me.  You reassured me that everything was fine.  You even said that you thought we would be friends if we knew each other in real life.

Yet here you are, still hostile, still maligning me.  Where is the friendly, forgiving fellow of the PMs?  Where is your evidence that I am "taking us for a ride"?  My PMs are consistent with my posts and my posts are consistent with each other.  That is more than some can say.

I admit that, since some people claim it is trolling whenever anyone disagrees with the theological slant of the forum, I do try to avoid doing that.   So there are things I believe that I do not mention often.  It looks like I can't win.  If I keep quiet about them, I am accused of being sneaky and deceptive.  If I speak, then I am accused of being a troll.

While I may avoid some topics out of a desire to keep the peace, everything that I write is true and can be taken at face value.

[Kaesekopf]

This forum can't have nice things, it seems.

Are we adults here or are we flipping children?  Some days I can hardly tell.

Oh look, another locked thread.