Supposedly my attendance at the TLM means that I have rejected the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on liturgy. I deny this charge. My thoughts about the Novus Ordo and about the recent motu proprio are quite consistent with the document on liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html (https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html)
In this document, we see "in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way" (4) Since the Tridentine rite was never abrogated, it is reasonable to consider it as "lawfully acknowledged" with "equal right and dignity" and worthy to be preserved and fostered. I wish that Pope Francis would follow this declaration of the Council.
I admit that, while acknowledging the validity of the Novus Ordo, I do find certain aspects to be problematic. The chief of these is that the creators of this liturgy have revealed that one of their goals was to remove obstacles to our "separated brethren," which they carried out by obscuring certain points of Eucharistic theology that tend to be difficult for Protestants. This was not part of their mandate from the Council. On the contrary, it said "In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community." (21) The new Mass expresses holy things less clearly rather than more clearly, due to this goal of its authors. Nor, in doing this, do the authors of the Mass seem to have followed the instruction of the Council that "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing." (23) I also question how well they carried out the instruction "the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance"(50)
Another area in which it is difficult to see how the new Mass follows the Council is the statement that "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" even if it did say that use of the mother tongue may be extended to "readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants." (36) The Council taught that "steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them,"(54) and yet we seem to have ended up with a virtually complete disappearance of Latin. Similarly, the Council stated "The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services," and this seems to have been ignored. (116)
In addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass. Surely the faithful have a right to attend a Mass that is free of liturgical abuses and are justified in attending the old rite for that reason.
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 08:27:01 AM
Supposedly my attendance at the TLM means that I have rejected the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on liturgy. I deny this charge.
I plead guilty. I reject "the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on liturgy."
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 08:27:01 AM
My thoughts about the Novus Ordo and about the recent motu proprio are quite consistent with the document on liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium:
I find
Sacrosanctum Concilium to be incompatible with the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church.
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 08:27:01 AM
On the contrary, it said "In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community."
Just like the physical turning around of the priest which followed subsequently, this statement is a philosophical turning away from God and towards the people. This focus on "the community" is at the root of the disastrous collapse of the church since Vatican II.
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 08:27:01 AM
"the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance"
This statement encapsulates the philosophy of the moderate revolutionaries with whom I fundamentally disagree. I don't believe that you can amputate pieces of an organic whole while preserving the essence. The entire approach that consists of deleting and re-writing the "accidents" ultimately results in killing the thing itself, or at least making it into something essentially other than its original nature. After Dr. Frankenstein got done stitching together the bits and pieces taken from other bodies, he ended up with an entirely new creature.
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 08:27:01 AM
In addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass.
"Abuses and experimentation" are mandated by
Sacrosanctum Concilium which calls for "even more radical adaptation." The Mass is to be under the authority of a Liturgy Commission which tasked to promote "experiments and adaptations."
Some authors have written about the "time bombs in the documents of Vatican II." It is important to realize that the bombs are the real thing, the rest is all fluff.
When an army is attacking a fort and they plant a bomb under the walls, they will cover it up with dirt and rocks and sticks and leaves. But the only important thing is the bomb, both for the attackers and for the defenders. How foolish would be the defender who discovers a pit under the wall of his fort but who says, "That hole consists mostly of dirt and rocks and sticks and leaves. There is also a bomb in the hole, but it's less than half of the total matter."
A great book to read on this subject is; "The Work of Human Hands"; by Fr. Anthony Cekada.
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 08:27:01 AM
In addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass. Surely the faithful have a right to attend a Mass that is free of liturgical abuses and are justified in attending the old rite for that reason.
Are there any clarifications of Vatican 2 from recent Popes which hammer out some abuses? Could someone link to them, if so?
Quote from: Tennessean on July 21, 2021, 01:01:45 PM
Are there any clarifications of Vatican 2 from recent Popes which hammer out some abuses? Could someone link to them, if so?
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html)
https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html (https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html)
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 08:27:01 AMI admit that, while acknowledging the validity of the Novus Ordo, I do find certain aspects to be problematic. The chief of these is that the creators of this liturgy have revealed that one of their goals was to remove obstacles to our "separated brethren," which they carried out by obscuring certain points of Eucharistic theology that tend to be difficult for Protestants. This was not part of their mandate from the Council. (...) The new Mass expresses holy things less clearly rather than more clearly, due to this goal of its authors. (...)
Another area in which it is difficult to see how the new Mass follows the Council is the statement that "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites" even if it did say that use of the mother tongue may be extended to "readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants." (...)
All those questions became a moot point, even the famous "Ottaviani intervention," after Paul VI issued the
Novus Ordo rite with his full apostolic authority. From that moment, the authority of the Church and the pope became invested in the rite and we must believe that all the rites of the Church are free from error and conducive to piety.
QuoteIn addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass. Surely the faithful have a right to attend a Mass that is free of liturgical abuses and are justified in attending the old rite for that reason.
Those are legitimate concerns but the only reason the old rite is mostly free from them is because it is said exclusively by priests that are personally invested in it. When the old rite was the only rite of the Church, it too suffered many abuses from lukewarm and faithless priests and bishops.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:04:52 PM
Quote from: JayneIn addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass. Surely the faithful have a right to attend a Mass that is free of liturgical abuses and are justified in attending the old rite for that reason.
Those are legitimate concerns but the only reason the old rite is mostly free from them is because it is said exclusively by priests that are personally invested in it. When the old rite was the only rite of the Church, it too suffered many abuses from lukewarm and faithless priests and bishops.
That may be, but as a practical matter now, it is often easier to find a TLM than an abuse free
Novus Ordo.
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 02:10:22 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:04:52 PM
Quote from: JayneIn addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass. Surely the faithful have a right to attend a Mass that is free of liturgical abuses and are justified in attending the old rite for that reason.
Those are legitimate concerns but the only reason the old rite is mostly free from them is because it is said exclusively by priests that are personally invested in it. When the old rite was the only rite of the Church, it too suffered many abuses from lukewarm and faithless priests and bishops.
That may be, but as a practical matter now, it is often easier to find a TLM than an abuse free Novus Ordo.
I generally agree with that sentiment but it also varies a lot with the geographical area and different countries.
Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:14:01 PM
Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we known he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.
I'm hoping that I'll be dead first.
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 02:15:52 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:14:01 PM
Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.
I'm hoping that I'll be dead first.
The TLM shouldn't be a modern idol to some Catholics, like Sacred Scripture was to the Protestants in the past. The liturgy is a means of sanctification but any liturgy of the Church is worth the same. However, nothing can trump unity with Rome. That is the Catholic faith.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:19:32 PM
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 02:15:52 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:14:01 PM
Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.
I'm hoping that I'll be dead first.
The TLM shouldn't be a modern idol to some Catholics, like Sacred Scripture was to the Protestants in the past. The liturgy is a means of sanctification but any liturgy of the Church is worth the same. However, nothing can trump unity with Rome. That is the Catholic faith.
Vetus, respectfully, you are mistaken. :)
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
This video explains it, and is excellent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfWxcTxHSKE
Quote from: Miriam_M on July 21, 2021, 02:34:56 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:19:32 PM
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 02:15:52 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:14:01 PM
Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.
I'm hoping that I'll be dead first.
The TLM shouldn't be a modern idol to some Catholics, like Sacred Scripture was to the Protestants in the past. The liturgy is a means of sanctification but any liturgy of the Church is worth the same. However, nothing can trump unity with Rome. That is the Catholic faith.
Vetus, respectfully, you are mistaken. :)
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
This video explains it, and is excellent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfWxcTxHSKE
I think Vetus had some interference from Romance languages here. He can confirm, but I think he meant that all of the rites of the Church are equally valid, not that they are equal in every respect.
Quote from: Fleur-de-Lys on July 21, 2021, 02:48:34 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on July 21, 2021, 02:34:56 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:19:32 PM
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 02:15:52 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:14:01 PM
Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.
I'm hoping that I'll be dead first.
The TLM shouldn't be a modern idol to some Catholics, like Sacred Scripture was to the Protestants in the past. The liturgy is a means of sanctification but any liturgy of the Church is worth the same. However, nothing can trump unity with Rome. That is the Catholic faith.
Vetus, respectfully, you are mistaken. :)
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
This video explains it, and is excellent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfWxcTxHSKE
I think Vetus had some interference from Romance languages here. He can confirm, but I think he meant that all of the rites of the Church are equally valid, not that they are equal in every respect.
That's true, Fleur. They're all valid and they all glorify God, even if they vary in the externals.
As for Fr. William Jenkins that speaks in the video shared by Miriam, he is affiliated with the SSPV. So he's either a Sedevacantist or a Sedeprivationist. Obviously, I'm arguing from the point of view that we've had real popes since Pius XII.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:51:42 PM
As for Fr. William Jenkins... he is affiliated with the SSPV. So he's either a Sedevacantist or a Sedeprivationist.
That is incorrect.
Quote from: queen.saints on July 22, 2021, 04:51:18 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:51:42 PM
As for Fr. William Jenkins... he is affiliated with the SSPV. So he's either a Sedevacantist or a Sedeprivationist.
That is incorrect.
So Fr. Jenkins is a Sedeplenist?
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 22, 2021, 11:34:13 AM
Quote from: queen.saints on July 22, 2021, 04:51:18 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:51:42 PM
As for Fr. William Jenkins... he is affiliated with the SSPV. So he's either a Sedevacantist or a Sedeprivationist.
That is incorrect.
So Fr. Jenkins is a Sedeplenist?
I believe his personal position is technically "sedenegantism", as he himself calls it. He believes he has no authority to declare that St. John XXIII and successors were not the Pope, but that as an informed, private opinion he holds a "positive doubt" exists about their papacies. Ergo, according to him,
papa dubius, papa nullus, which means he can not in good conscience treat them as the Pope.
Basically, he's a sedevacantist that calls himself otherwise. He's just less dogmatic about it than others.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on July 22, 2021, 04:03:19 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 22, 2021, 11:34:13 AM
Quote from: queen.saints on July 22, 2021, 04:51:18 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:51:42 PM
As for Fr. William Jenkins... he is affiliated with the SSPV. So he's either a Sedevacantist or a Sedeprivationist.
That is incorrect.
So Fr. Jenkins is a Sedeplenist?
I believe his personal position is technically "sedenegantism", as he himself calls it. He believes he has no authority to declare that St. John XXIII and successors were not the Pope, but that as an informed, private opinion he holds a "positive doubt" exists about their papacies. Ergo, according to him, papa dubius, papa nullus, which means he can not in good conscience treat them as the Pope.
Basically, he's a sedevacantist that calls himself otherwise. He's just less dogmatic about it than others.
I understand. He's an agnostic rather than an atheist towards the conciliar popes.
He's a saint.
Quote from: Maximilian on July 21, 2021, 11:36:51 AM
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 08:27:01 AM
Supposedly my attendance at the TLM means that I have rejected the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on liturgy. I deny this charge.
I plead guilty. I reject "the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on liturgy."
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 08:27:01 AM
My thoughts about the Novus Ordo and about the recent motu proprio are quite consistent with the document on liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium:
I find Sacrosanctum Concilium to be incompatible with the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church.
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 08:27:01 AM
On the contrary, it said "In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community."
Just like the physical turning around of the priest which followed subsequently, this statement is a philosophical turning away from God and towards the people. This focus on "the community" is at the root of the disastrous collapse of the church since Vatican II.
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 08:27:01 AM
"the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance"
This statement encapsulates the philosophy of the moderate revolutionaries with whom I fundamentally disagree. I don't believe that you can amputate pieces of an organic whole while preserving the essence. The entire approach that consists of deleting and re-writing the "accidents" ultimately results in killing the thing itself, or at least making it into something essentially other than its original nature. After Dr. Frankenstein got done stitching together the bits and pieces taken from other bodies, he ended up with an entirely new creature.
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 08:27:01 AM
In addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass.
"Abuses and experimentation" are mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium which calls for "even more radical adaptation." The Mass is to be under the authority of a Liturgy Commission which tasked to promote "experiments and adaptations."
Some authors have written about the "time bombs in the documents of Vatican II." It is important to realize that the bombs are the real thing, the rest is all fluff.
When an army is attacking a fort and they plant a bomb under the walls, they will cover it up with dirt and rocks and sticks and leaves. But the only important thing is the bomb, both for the attackers and for the defenders. How foolish would be the defender who discovers a pit under the wall of his fort but who says, "That hole consists mostly of dirt and rocks and sticks and leaves. There is also a bomb in the hole, but it's less than half of the total matter."
Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) has more holes than cheddar cheese. Michael Matt and others have analysed the loopholes. Yves Chiron does it too, recounting how small unobtrusive phrases allowed radical revision. Article 36 and other parts had good words on Gregorian chant, but those bishops who voted it through, did not turn against SC when its radical nature was revealed. In fact they enforced the changes aggressively. A loose tradition directed reading of SC might allow a future Pope to disarm it safely, but, yes, SC was a whited sepulchre for our times.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:14:01 PM
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 02:10:22 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:04:52 PM
Quote from: JayneIn addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass. Surely the faithful have a right to attend a Mass that is free of liturgical abuses and are justified in attending the old rite for that reason.
Those are legitimate concerns but the only reason the old rite is mostly free from them is because it is said exclusively by priests that are personally invested in it. When the old rite was the only rite of the Church, it too suffered many abuses from lukewarm and faithless priests and bishops.
That may be, but as a practical matter now, it is often easier to find a TLM than an abuse free Novus Ordo.
I generally agree with that sentiment but it also varies a lot with the geographical area and different countries.
Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.
Where are these Opus Dei priests, how do we find them? The internet says that members aren't allowed to say if they are Opus Dei.
Quote from: Tennessean on July 23, 2021, 02:22:27 AM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:14:01 PM
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 02:10:22 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:04:52 PM
Quote from: JayneIn addition to these difficulties, is one acknowledged by all recent popes: the widespread existence of abuses and experimentation associated with the new Mass. Surely the faithful have a right to attend a Mass that is free of liturgical abuses and are justified in attending the old rite for that reason.
Those are legitimate concerns but the only reason the old rite is mostly free from them is because it is said exclusively by priests that are personally invested in it. When the old rite was the only rite of the Church, it too suffered many abuses from lukewarm and faithless priests and bishops.
That may be, but as a practical matter now, it is often easier to find a TLM than an abuse free Novus Ordo.
I generally agree with that sentiment but it also varies a lot with the geographical area and different countries.
Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.
Where are these Opus Dei priests, how do we find them? The internet says that members aren't allowed to say if they are Opus Dei.
You have to look it up in your city.
My parish church is run by Opus Dei priests.
Quote from: Prayerful on July 22, 2021, 06:13:30 PM
Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) has more holes than cheddar cheese. Michael Matt and others have analysed the loopholes.
The point of my OP was not that SC was a good document, but that, even judging by the standards of SC, the
Novus Ordo is problematic. Even allowing for the ambiguities and loopholes there are problems.
Quote from: Jayne on July 23, 2021, 11:44:42 AM
Quote from: Prayerful on July 22, 2021, 06:13:30 PM
Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) has more holes than cheddar cheese. Michael Matt and others have analysed the loopholes.
The point of my OP was not that SC was a good document, but that, even judging by the standards of SC, the Novus Ordo is problematic. Even allowing for the ambiguities and loopholes there are problems.
Ironically, Pope Francis gave (at least lip service level) attention to this exact point in
Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying letter. Whether something will be done about it remains to be seen, however. If he can't even get bishops to crack down on Trads, I have a hard time seeing how he'll be able to get them to enforce new (or even existing) standards of practice on the new mass. Unfortunately, as we learned with the communion in the hand debacle in the 70's, the authority of the Vatican is unable to enforce in practice what it possesses in theory. Which is the age old issue every monarch has faced.
The solution will have to come from bottom up, not top down. It will require God's grace to permit wicked shepherds to fall away and virtuous shepherds to be raised up. Above all, it will take time.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:19:32 PM
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 02:15:52 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:14:01 PM
Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.
I'm hoping that I'll be dead first.
The TLM shouldn't be a modern idol to some Catholics, like Sacred Scripture was to the Protestants in the past. The liturgy is a means of sanctification but any liturgy of the Church is worth the same. However, nothing can trump unity with Rome. That is the Catholic faith.
It seems that you are in favor of the NO over the TLM?
Quote from: Justin Martyr on July 23, 2021, 02:56:18 PM
Ironically, Pope Francis gave (at least lip service level) attention to this exact point in Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying letter. Whether something will be done about it remains to be seen, however. If he can't even get bishops to crack down on Trads, I have a hard time seeing how he'll be able to get them to enforce new (or even existing) standards of practice on the new mass. Unfortunately, as we learned with the communion in the hand debacle in the 70's, the authority of the Vatican is unable to enforce in practice what it possesses in theory. Which is the age old issue every monarch has faced.
Many, I suspect most, people think that Communion in the hand was a change introduced by Vatican II. In fact, it was originally identified as an abuse in the NO and forbidden. However, it was allowed as an indult in places where it was already being practiced because it was seen as too difficult to get people to change. From that it became an unofficial norm.
One of the reasons that Pope Benedict gave for Summorum Pontificum was that wider celebration of the TLM is a way to counter the abuses in the NO. It has probably been more effective than anything else, although that is not saying much.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on July 23, 2021, 02:56:18 PM
Quote from: Jayne on July 23, 2021, 11:44:42 AM
Quote from: Prayerful on July 22, 2021, 06:13:30 PM
Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) has more holes than cheddar cheese. Michael Matt and others have analysed the loopholes.
The point of my OP was not that SC was a good document, but that, even judging by the standards of SC, the Novus Ordo is problematic. Even allowing for the ambiguities and loopholes there are problems.
Ironically, Pope Francis gave (at least lip service level) attention to this exact point in Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying letter. Whether something will be done about it remains to be seen, however. If he can't even get bishops to crack down on Trads, I have a hard time seeing how he'll be able to get them to enforce new (or even existing) standards of practice on the new mass. Unfortunately, as we learned with the communion in the hand debacle in the 70's, the authority of the Vatican is unable to enforce in practice what it possesses in theory. Which is the age old issue every monarch has faced.
The solution will have to come from bottom up, not top down. It will require God's grace to permit wicked shepherds to fall away and virtuous shepherds to be raised up. Above all, it will take time.
We don't have time. 90% of Catholic women in the US practice contraception. You solution is incrementalism which means slow death for the faith in the US.
After 3 centuries only 5% to 10% of the people of the Roman Empire were Catholic. That is after three centuries of horrible persecution and death. It needed Constantine to allow the Church to come out of the catacombs before a much higher percentage of Romans to become Catholics.
Quote from: King Wenceslas on July 23, 2021, 03:12:24 PM
After 3 centuries only 5% to 10% of the people of the Roman Empire were Catholic. That is after three centuries of horrible persecution and death. It needed Constantine to allow the Church to come out of the catacombs before a much higher percentage of Romans to become Catholics.
It looks to me like we are returning to a Church of the catacombs, in which Catholics are a small persecuted minority in a culture that is diametrically opposed to us. This is likely to be more effective at purifying the Church than relying on the hierarchy to do it. When people must put their lives on the line for the faith, we will have a small but fervent Church. In many ways this will be an improvement.
Quote from: King Wenceslas on July 23, 2021, 03:12:24 PM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on July 23, 2021, 02:56:18 PM
Quote from: Jayne on July 23, 2021, 11:44:42 AM
Quote from: Prayerful on July 22, 2021, 06:13:30 PM
Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) has more holes than cheddar cheese. Michael Matt and others have analysed the loopholes.
The point of my OP was not that SC was a good document, but that, even judging by the standards of SC, the Novus Ordo is problematic. Even allowing for the ambiguities and loopholes there are problems.
Ironically, Pope Francis gave (at least lip service level) attention to this exact point in Traditionis Custodes and the accompanying letter. Whether something will be done about it remains to be seen, however. If he can't even get bishops to crack down on Trads, I have a hard time seeing how he'll be able to get them to enforce new (or even existing) standards of practice on the new mass. Unfortunately, as we learned with the communion in the hand debacle in the 70's, the authority of the Vatican is unable to enforce in practice what it possesses in theory. Which is the age old issue every monarch has faced.
The solution will have to come from bottom up, not top down. It will require God's grace to permit wicked shepherds to fall away and virtuous shepherds to be raised up. Above all, it will take time.
We don't have time. 90% of Catholic women in the US practice contraception. You solution is incrementalism which means slow death for the faith in the US.
After 3 centuries only 5% to 10% of the people of the Roman Empire were Catholic. That is after three centuries of horrible persecution and death. It needed Constantine to allow the Church to come out of the catacombs before a much higher percentage of Romans to become Catholics.
Do you have a better solution? If Papal Authority is rejected in practice and the bishops refuse to comply, there isn't much that can be done from the top down. While it's not pleasant to my fallen nature, ultimately the only lasting solution I can see is God using his grace to strengthen the elect and keep them in his Church while withdrawing his grace from the reprobate to lead them away from it; leading to a bottom up, holistic cure and revival of Catholic piety. We can already see this at play in its infant stages now.
It would be much simpler and satisfying if a Pope Pius XIII (or, my preference, a Boniface X) could miraculously come about and fix everything. Unfortunately, reality is neither simple nor pleasant.
Quote from: King Wenceslas on July 23, 2021, 03:03:03 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:19:32 PM
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 02:15:52 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:14:01 PM
Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.
I'm hoping that I'll be dead first.
The TLM shouldn't be a modern idol to some Catholics, like Sacred Scripture was to the Protestants in the past. The liturgy is a means of sanctification but any liturgy of the Church is worth the same. However, nothing can trump unity with Rome. That is the Catholic faith.
It seems that you are in favor of the NO over the TLM?
I'm not, Rome is.
We wouldn't have the TLM if we tried to "remain within the system"; those who remained lost their will to fight.
Soon if Francis is consistent, the E.D. Groups will be squashed and the only TLM's available will be with the "disobedient Catholics".
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 23, 2021, 04:09:34 PM
We wouldn't have the TLM if we tried to "remain within the system"; those who remained lost their will to fight.
Soon if Francis is consistent, the E.D. Groups will be squashed and the only TLM's available will be with the "disobedient Catholics".
This is true. If Francis (and his successors) continue the stance he has taken and if the bishops decide to enforce the Papal decrees, then the New Mass will eventually become the only form of the Roman Rite in the conciliar Church.
Those are big ifs, however. As the baby boomers die off and demographic changes continue as predicted, it's more likely those who attend the new mass will shrink while the TLM will grow, eventually leading to a reconciliation of the two where the New Mass is reformed to accord more with the TLM. Notice how most bishops so far have opted to leave the Tridentine Mass alone. At least, this is what seems likely to me, I could very well be wrong. Time will tell.
Who knows, maybe a byzantine rite patriarch will be elected Pope and he miraculously manages to enforce the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom on the whole Church; leading to a resolution of the great schism decades later. Now THAT'D be a twist.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 23, 2021, 04:09:34 PM
We wouldn't have the TLM if we tried to "remain within the system"; those who remained lost their will to fight.
Soon if Francis is consistent, the E.D. Groups will be squashed and the only TLM's available will be with the "disobedient Catholics".
There are various priests like Fr Gommar de Pauw and priests who offered the traditional Mass in the UK in the seventies under the aegis of the 'Heenan' or 'Agatha Christie' indult who remained in good standing. It would be a good deal rarer.
J.M.
For a Banezian, you sure are an incurable optimist.
Father DePauw, of the Catholic Traditional Movement, died May 6, 2005
Quote from: Flick on July 23, 2021, 07:40:54 PM
Father DePauw, of the Catholic Traditional Movement, died May 6, 2005
Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine,
et lux perpetua luceat eis.
Te decet hymnus, Deus, in Sion,
et tibi redetur votum in Ierusalem.
Exaudi orationem meam,
ad te omnis caro veniet.
Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine,
et lux perpetua luceat eis. Amen.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 23, 2021, 07:31:09 PM
J.M.
For a Banezian, you sure are an incurable optimist.
It's because I'm a Benezian I'm an incurable optimist! When this crisis is solved, it will be because God consequently willed to give the elect the efficient graces to do so, and it is certain they will freely co-operate with these graces. Ultimately, there can be no other resolution ;).
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 23, 2021, 04:07:33 PM
Quote from: King Wenceslas on July 23, 2021, 03:03:03 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:19:32 PM
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 02:15:52 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:14:01 PM
Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.
I'm hoping that I'll be dead first.
The TLM shouldn't be a modern idol to some Catholics, like Sacred Scripture was to the Protestants in the past. The liturgy is a means of sanctification but any liturgy of the Church is worth the same. However, nothing can trump unity with Rome. That is the Catholic faith.
It seems that you are in favor of the NO over the TLM?
I'm not, Rome is.
You look for Rome to solve every problem by blindly being obedient to every dictate that comes from Rome while it has just come out that the GRINDR app has been found to be used all over the Vatican City state both in private and public spaces. The Vatican is a cesspool of sodomy.
Quote from: Justin Martyr on July 23, 2021, 04:31:07 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on July 23, 2021, 04:09:34 PM
We wouldn't have the TLM if we tried to "remain within the system"; those who remained lost their will to fight.
Soon if Francis is consistent, the E.D. Groups will be squashed and the only TLM's available will be with the "disobedient Catholics".
This is true. If Francis (and his successors) continue the stance he has taken and if the bishops decide to enforce the Papal decrees, then the New Mass will eventually become the only form of the Roman Rite in the conciliar Church.
Those are big ifs, however. As the baby boomers die off and demographic changes continue as predicted, it's more likely those who attend the new mass will shrink while the TLM will grow, eventually leading to a reconciliation of the two where the New Mass is reformed to accord more with the TLM. Notice how most bishops so far have opted to leave the Tridentine Mass alone. At least, this is what seems likely to me, I could very well be wrong. Time will tell.
Who knows, maybe a byzantine rite patriarch will be elected Pope and he miraculously manages to enforce the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom on the whole Church; leading to a resolution of the great schism decades later. Now THAT'D be a twist.
Returning to former rites is not the solution or merging them into the Latin Rite is not the answer:
QuoteAntiquarianism, condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, (DZ 1533) originated at the Council of Pistoia in the 1700s. It resurfaced again in the 1800s. Pope Pius XII officially condemned this heresy, the teaching that ancient practices can be reverted to despite later teachings of the Roman Pontiffs. This error was condemned in Mediator Dei (1947), regarding the liturgy, after the liberals once again began promoting it in the name of liturgical renewal. In his work the Vatican Council Decrees and their Bearing on Civil Allegiance, Henry Cardinal Manning tells us the the Vatican Council I retroactively made Auctorem Fidei infallible, hence the condemnation of this error then was as infallible as it is today. Since the Novus Ordo Missae under the guise of Catholic liturgy incarnated this error of returning to more ancient forms, it certainly must be considered an even more dangerous heresy.
Once Francis is dead and anathematized (as was Honorius) this mess in the Church will disappear. Your solution of merging more ancient rites into the Roman rite is just another version of the heresy of antiquarianism.
Quote from: King Wenceslas on July 29, 2021, 04:11:22 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 23, 2021, 04:07:33 PM
Quote from: King Wenceslas on July 23, 2021, 03:03:03 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:19:32 PM
Quote from: Jayne on July 21, 2021, 02:15:52 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on July 21, 2021, 02:14:01 PM
Regardless, if the TLM were to be formally abolished by the Pope in the future, and we know he has the right to do so, you'd have to find a NO somewhere to go to. The Opus Dei usually say reverent NO masses in the vernacular, that's my experience.
I'm hoping that I'll be dead first.
The TLM shouldn't be a modern idol to some Catholics, like Sacred Scripture was to the Protestants in the past. The liturgy is a means of sanctification but any liturgy of the Church is worth the same. However, nothing can trump unity with Rome. That is the Catholic faith.
It seems that you are in favor of the NO over the TLM?
I'm not, Rome is.
You look for Rome to solve every problem by blindly being obedient to every dictate that comes from Rome while it has just come out that the GRINDR app has been found to be used all over the Vatican City state both in private and public spaces. The Vatican is a cesspool of sodomy.
We're not Donatists.
The sins of the clergy have been around for centuries and yet Rome remains indefectible.