Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => Traditional Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: GiftOfGod on November 18, 2020, 04:12:08 PM

Title: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 18, 2020, 04:12:08 PM
I know of one woman who was raised sede but left the Faith for the Novus Ordo. I don't know details of how she was raised but I don't think that her parents taught her how bad the Novus Order is, so she was sheltered in that respect. I have also read about similar problems online. I think some trads, sedes in particular, ignore how bad things are getting in the Novus Ordo. Sedes think that it's a false counter-church and that's all their kids need to know. R&Rs think that they should listen to their R&R priests/bishops only and ignore Francis. A problem arises when the kids grow up and see that "cool" and "normal" people are Novus Ordo Catholic. They see that NO Catholics are in bliss attending the New Mass, so they try it out and get suckered-in. I think everyone who converted to the traditional Catholic Faith did so out of pain, prayer, and lots of education. Cradle trads have no idea of the heresy and apostasy exhibited by so many (most?) Novus Ordo clergy. To me, it's the equivalent of some boy never hearing a word about drugs at home or homeschool and deciding to try a joint when it is offered to him by a neighbor kid.

I don't know if I am getting my thoughts across but I think that children should be catechized on the Novus Ordo, Second Vatican Council, Modernism, etc. To my knowledge, no such thing exists. Has anyone seen such problems with cradle trads? How have you educated your children on the Novus Ordo?
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2020, 06:12:05 PM
left the Faith for the Novus Ordo.

 :o :o :o :doh: :doh: :doh: :crazy2:
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 18, 2020, 06:26:28 PM
left the Faith for the Novus Ordo.

 :o :o :o :doh: :doh: :doh: :crazy2:

My thoughts exactly. It's a painful time for the family, so I haven't inquired for specifics yet. I have a hunch that the family didn't educate their kids on all the stuff that converts are aware of experts on.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on November 18, 2020, 09:01:43 PM
left the Faith for the Novus Ordo.

 :o :o :o :doh: :doh: :doh: :crazy2:

My thoughts exactly. It's a painful time for the family, so I haven't inquired for specifics yet. I have a hunch that the family didn't educate their kids on all the stuff that converts are aware of experts on.

No, you misunderstood me completely. I do not think going to the NO is leaving the Faith. I know lots of NO people who try very very hard to love God and are wonderful Catholics. They are not getting what they should be getting from their bishops, nor are they participating in the highest form of thanksgiving and worship...but they have not left the faith.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 18, 2020, 09:19:05 PM
left the Faith for the Novus Ordo.

 :o :o :o :doh: :doh: :doh: :crazy2:

My thoughts exactly. It's a painful time for the family, so I haven't inquired for specifics yet. I have a hunch that the family didn't educate their kids on all the stuff that converts are aware of experts on.

No, you misunderstood me completely. I do not think going to the NO is leaving the Faith. I know lots of NO people who try very very hard to love God and are wonderful Catholics. They are not getting what they should be getting from their bishops, nor are they participating in the highest form of thanksgiving and worship...but they have not left the faith.

You just need to learn to communicate with words, not emoticons.  Novus Ordites are a completely different breed. Do you not know about the abominable New Mass? Read Fr. Cekada's book called Work of Human Hands. For other mockeries of the real sacraments, read this: https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/new-sacraments/ The fact is that people cease to be Catholic if they are heretics. Almost without exception, Novus Ordites are heretics. That is a completely reasonable assumption based on how every "Pope" they have followed since 1958 has spread heresy and even apostasy. The Novus Ordo is a Counter-Church, a Frankenchurch, and nothing about its substance is Catholic. It is Catholic In Name Only. Just because they took over the buildings doesn't mean that they are legitimate. You are duty-bound to advise the Novus Ordite that their souls are in danger for it doesn't matter how devout one is to a false religion.

I have nothing in common with people who believe that all souls go to Heaven, who believe that we are all God, and who kiss Korans. Why do you?
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: mikemac on November 19, 2020, 12:18:09 AM
Sedes are Protestants.

There is a specific part of this forum just made for you and all Sedevacantist topics.  I suggest you post there.

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?board=6.0
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 19, 2020, 02:17:12 AM
Sedes are Protestants.

If sedes are Protestants then why aren't they restricted to the "non-Catholic" forum? Why are sedes assisting at TLMs worldwide? I know of some SSPX priests who are sedes. So long as they don't make it public, they are allowed to stay in the SSPX. Are there any Protestant SSPX priests? I highly, highly doubt it.

And if sedes are Protestants then why are you spending time on a forum that asks you to "Pray for the repose of the soul of Fr Cekada, mikemac"? Fr. Cekada (RIP) was a sede, in case you didn't know.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Non Nobis on November 19, 2020, 05:05:00 AM
I don't believe that the forum owner claims that all sedes are prots, mikemac. Obviously not since he asks us to pray for Fr. Cekada. But you are right, the subject is confined to the special subforum. GiftOfGod, take note.


I was born and baptized before Vatican II and went to the English New Mass when it became the only Mass in our Church. It was what an obedient Catholic family would do. But my family was blessed in that my mom's brother was a conservative priest ordained before the changes in the Church and knowledgeable about their problems. He became one of the first traditionalist priests and travelled around saying the TLM and consulting with people. He never said the Novus Ordo in his life. He wrote an intro/forward to a book questioning the validity of the English Translation of the new Canon of the Mass. The book convinced first mom, and later my dad, but of course not our parish priest.  We left our parish and went to a Ukrainian Catholic Church for decades, at the suggestion of my uncle. I now go to the SSPX.  I don't hold to sedevacantism, even if I am sympathetic.

I was a Catholic all through this. It is presumptuous to say that all who attend the Novus Ordo are not Catholic, as an absolute.










Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 19, 2020, 06:04:30 AM
I was a Catholic all through this. It is presumptuous to say that all who attend the Novus Ordo are not Catholic, as an absolute.

I have nothing in common with people who believe in universal Salvation, who believe that we are all God, and who kiss Korans. Why do you?
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Stubborn on November 19, 2020, 06:32:57 AM
Sedes are Protestants.

I don't think so mikemac, not exactly.

Sedes are actually those who cling to a certain belief and it is this belief which in and of itself is not Catholic. This I think, makes them sedes, not prots. Does this belief make them not Catholics or heretics? That's been debated for as long the belief has been around, for about 50 years or so.

Beyond that the OP is correct, the NO and everything that has anything to do with it has already been condemned by the Church, summed up it's been condemned as the heresy of Modernism and parents should teach their children to completely avoid everything that has anything to do with the NO.

Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Daniel on November 19, 2020, 08:29:15 AM
I have nothing in common with people who believe in universal Salvation, who believe that we are all God, and who kiss Korans. Why do you?

But what about the NO mass-goers (as well as the NO priests and NO bishops) who don't believe in universal salvation and pantheism and more pantheism?


As I see it, parents are in a tight spot. (More reason not to get married in this day and age, I suppose. Though I guess even more reason not to become a priest either.) Problem is, the Church has not yet condemned the NO counterchurch, nor has she even acknowledged the existence of a counterchurch. (And how could she? She has apparently been bound and gagged by that same counterchurch!) So the existence (and evilness) of the NO counterchurch falls under opinion. But should parents really be teaching opinion to their kids? What if the parent's opinion turns out to be wrong?

To this day I still can't tell who is right and who's wrong. The sedevacantists make the most sense. But who am I to pick sides? And who am I to be picking sides for my children? Maybe the sedevacantists are wrong and the SSPX is right. Or maybe the SSPX is wrong and the FSSP is right. For all I know, maybe even the NO conservatives could be right. And so some might pick sides without being sure. And those who do not pick sides shall inevitably waver back and forth, from sedevacantism the one day to NO the next, then to SSPX or FSSP, and back to sedevacantism, never knowing whether he's on the path or off. And we fail to teach our children that which we ourselves do not know. It's amusing except for the fact that many will be damned because of it.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Armor of Light on November 19, 2020, 09:08:48 AM
A problem arises when the kids grow up and see that "cool" and "normal" people are Novus Ordo Catholic.

I...I don't see that happening. They see the same TV-News-Anchor types. Nobody thinks Catholics of any stripe are cool or normal.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: mikemac on November 19, 2020, 12:26:59 PM
Sedes are Protestants.

If sedes are Protestants then why aren't they restricted to the "non-Catholic" forum? Why are sedes assisting at TLMs worldwide? I know of some SSPX priests who are sedes. So long as they don't make it public, they are allowed to stay in the SSPX. Are there any Protestant SSPX priests? I highly, highly doubt it.

And if sedes are Protestants then why are you spending time on a forum that asks you to "Pray for the repose of the soul of Fr Cekada, mikemac"? Fr. Cekada (RIP) was a sede, in case you didn't know.

I know; that's why I posted what I did.  It's not my forum.  I don't have to agree with everything the owner does.  I don't attend an SSPX chapel, and wouldn't.  Sedes are Protestants.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: coffeeandcigarette on November 21, 2020, 12:38:09 AM


I have nothing in common with people who believe that all souls go to Heaven, who believe that we are all God, and who kiss Korans. Why do you?

What a leap...I hope you didn't put your back out. I said there are many good, holy people who are trying very hard to love God through confusing times. They go to regular adoration, they pray the family rosary every night, they home school, they teach their children about heaven and hell. Nobody mentioned "all" souls going to heaven, and nobody said the majority or NO people are good Catholics. We are all god, kissing the Koran? See, now you are confusing the terrible mistakes of a few popes with the entire religion of Catholicism. The people I am talking about are good Catholics. They may have been ideologically abandoned by the current pope, but that doesn't mean they are less Catholic, he is.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 21, 2020, 01:24:21 AM
I said there are many good, holy people who are trying very hard to love God through confusing times.
I could say the same about Protties; doesn't mean that they have the one true Faith.

They go to regular adoration,
OK but they are just adoring bread due to the lack of validity of the New Mass, lack of validity of the New Rite of Ordination (of priests), and the lack of validity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration (for bishops). See more here:


they pray the family rosary every night
Probably with the Luminous Mysteries, which "Saint John Paul the Great" (as Novus Ordite call him) added as a mockery of the design given by Our Lady. It just amazes me that he had the gall to do that but then I realized that "Pope Saint Paul VI" (as Novus Ordites call him) completely revised the Mass, in violation of dogma (Council of Trent). Dogma comes from God, so revising the Mass is changing what God decided.

they home school, they teach their children about heaven and hell.
I could say the same about Protties; doesn't mean that they have the one true Faith.

Nobody mentioned "all" souls going to heaven, and nobody said the majority or NO people are good Catholics. We are all god, kissing the Koran? See, now you are confusing the terrible mistakes of a few popes with the entire religion of Catholicism. The people I am talking about are good Catholics. They may have been ideologically abandoned by the current pope, but that doesn't mean they are less Catholic, he is.
It's not the current "Pope". It is all "Popes", "bishops", and most "priests" since the 1960s. The religion of Catholicism is untainted and intact but not in any building that is in communion with the apostate heretic named Francis. The Vatican II religion is not Catholic but a Counter-Church that is a Frankenchurch; a Freemasonic mixture of Protestantism and Catholicism.

Our Lady of La Salette, an approved apparition, said “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”

WAKE UP, SISTER!
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: abc123 on November 21, 2020, 07:01:33 AM
left the Faith for the Novus Ordo.

 :o :o :o :doh: :doh: :doh: :crazy2:

My thoughts exactly. It's a painful time for the family, so I haven't inquired for specifics yet. I have a hunch that the family didn't educate their kids on all the stuff that converts are aware of experts on.

No, you misunderstood me completely. I do not think going to the NO is leaving the Faith. I know lots of NO people who try very very hard to love God and are wonderful Catholics. They are not getting what they should be getting from their bishops, nor are they participating in the highest form of thanksgiving and worship...but they have not left the faith.

You just need to learn to communicate with words, not emoticons.  Novus Ordites are a completely different breed. Do you not know about the abominable New Mass? Read Fr. Cekada's book called Work of Human Hands. For other mockeries of the real sacraments, read this: https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/new-sacraments/ The fact is that people cease to be Catholic if they are heretics. Almost without exception, Novus Ordites are heretics. That is a completely reasonable assumption based on how every "Pope" they have followed since 1958 has spread heresy and even apostasy. The Novus Ordo is a Counter-Church, a Frankenchurch, and nothing about its substance is Catholic. It is Catholic In Name Only. Just because they took over the buildings doesn't mean that they are legitimate. You are duty-bound to advise the Novus Ordite that their souls are in danger for it doesn't matter how devout one is to a false religion.

I have nothing in common with people who believe that all souls go to Heaven, who believe that we are all God, and who kiss Korans. Why do you?

You sound young. Do you have kids?

For what it's worth I have found that raising children to love God, pray, be constantly in the Scripture, praying as a family, being humble and practicing virtuous living as a father are of much more value than raising children to be constantly critical and condemnatory of others....especially your co-religionists. Pointing out the lack of purity in "those people" leads to either pride or disillusionment.

Do not take this as me saying that you should not warn your children of falsehood or keep them from spiritually dangerous situations. What I perceive in your tone however seems to go beyond that.

Feel free to dismiss me out of hand. But having raised/am raising 7 children I have discovered that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Traditionallyruralmom on November 21, 2020, 09:26:17 AM

You sound young. Do you have kids?

For what it's worth I have found that raising children to love God, pray, be constantly in the Scripture, praying as a family, being humble and practicing virtuous living as a father are of much more value than raising children to be constantly critical and condemnatory of others....especially your co-religionists. Pointing out the lack of purity in "those people" leads to either pride or disillusionment.

Do not take this as me saying that you should not warn your children of falsehood or keep them from spiritually dangerous situations. What I perceive in your tone however seems to go beyond that.

Feel free to dismiss me out of hand. But having raised/am raising 7 children I have discovered that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.

As a mother of 9, I concur with this wholeheartedly. 
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Miriam_M on November 21, 2020, 01:10:31 PM
Saying that one has nothing in common with a belief system is qualitatively different from saying that one has nothing in common with a particular group of humanity.  Your commonality is your humanity, even aside from your baptism.  I would hope that all parents would teach that to their children.  Most Americans today have learned the opposite from Communist News Network and MSDNC:  They have learned that people who voted for Trump are lower than human beings , "of a different breed," filled with "hate," are "racists," etc. -- merely for stating a voting preference, even.  In marginalizing them, the Left has made it socially acceptable to hate people they do not know.  It's not as if they merely state, in a condescending tone, that Trump voters were/are ignorant people to be respected nevertheless.  There's no respect there at all because there's no recognition that someone who disagrees with one's own political belief system is an equal human being. 

That illustrates the parallel danger in rejecting people rather than rejecting beliefs and behavior.  I reject the behavior of 50+% of Mass-goers of the N.O.  Their behavior at Mass scandalizes me and threatens my faith.  So if there is no TLM available to me, I would no longer be interested in attending the N.O.  But "those people" have been told the N.O. is "the true Mass," actually.  They have been told that Mass is kind of an informal event (a "meal") -- which is why they behave the way they do at Mass; they are not behaving casually to annoy any traditionalists who happen to show up at that Mass. They have been catechized poorly and don't deserve to be segregated into a different segment of humanity because of their misfortune. 

Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Daniel on November 21, 2020, 02:18:07 PM
Saying that one has nothing in common with a belief system is qualitatively different from saying that one has nothing in common with a particular group of humanity.  Your commonality is your humanity, even aside from your baptism.  I would hope that all parents would teach that to their children.  Most Americans today have learned the opposite from Communist News Network and MSDNC:  They have learned that people who voted for Trump are lower than human beings , "of a different breed," filled with "hate," are "racists," etc. -- merely for stating a voting preference, even.  In marginalizing them, the Left has made it socially acceptable to hate people they do not know.  It's not as if they merely state, in a condescending tone, that Trump voters were/are ignorant people to be respected nevertheless.  There's no respect there at all because there's no recognition that someone who disagrees with one's own political belief system is an equal human being. 

That illustrates the parallel danger in rejecting people rather than rejecting beliefs and behavior.  I reject the behavior of 50+% of Mass-goers of the N.O.  Their behavior at Mass scandalizes me and threatens my faith.  So if there is no TLM available to me, I would no longer be interested in attending the N.O.  But "those people" have been told the N.O. is "the true Mass," actually.  They have been told that Mass is kind of an informal event (a "meal") -- which is why they behave the way they do at Mass; they are not behaving casually to annoy any traditionalists who happen to show up at that Mass. They have been catechized poorly and don't deserve to be segregated into a different segment of humanity because of their misfortune.

Can the same not be said about Protestants though? Or even many atheists for that matter. Some satanists too.

We shouldn't hate them, but we should still label them as "non-Catholics". Not just their false religious beliefs, but them as persons insofar as they subscribe to false religious beliefs. They are not Catholic.

However, I'm still wondering about the ones who don't subscribe to false religious beliefs. What about the Catholics who reject all the Vatican II errors while simultaneously believing that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are popes? Is it really an act of "heresy" or "apostasy" to be of the opinion that Francis is pope, or to not be sure that Francis isn't the pope? When has the Church ever taught that Francis is not the pope? (Perhaps those with faith are just supposed to somehow know that Francis is not pope? And if you don't know, it only demonstrates that you don't actually have faith?)
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: mikemac on November 21, 2020, 03:03:10 PM

Can the same not be said about Protestants though? Or even many atheists for that matter. Some satanists too.

We shouldn't hate them, but we should still label them as "non-Catholics". Not just their false religious beliefs, but them as persons insofar as they subscribe to false religious beliefs. They are not Catholic.

However, I'm still wondering about the ones who don't subscribe to false religious beliefs. What about the Catholics who reject all the Vatican II errors while simultaneously believing that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are popes? Is it really an act of "heresy" or "apostasy" to be of the opinion that Francis is pope, or to not be sure that Francis isn't the pope? When has the Church ever taught that Francis is not the pope? (Perhaps those with faith are just supposed to somehow know that Francis is not pope? And if you don't know, it only demonstrates that you don't actually have faith?)

Catholics that attend the NO Mass are Catholic.  Sedes are not by their own volition.  GOG has it completely backwards.  He should be saying what he is saying in front of a mirror.  It is not an act of "heresy" or "apostasy" to believe that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are popes.  It is an act of heresy to be of the opinion that they are not/were not popes.  In the future Francis or some of the others may be declared anti-popes.  Until then they are popes.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 21, 2020, 03:31:46 PM
But having raised/am raising 7 children I have discovered that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.
As a mother of 9, I concur with this wholeheartedly.

Sorry, I no don't take religious advice from women (see St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians) and I shouldn't even be discussing important matters with such irrational beings. Don't you have diapers to change?


Catholics that attend the NO Mass are Catholic.  Sedes are not by their own volition.  GOG has it completely backwards.  He should be saying what he is saying in front of a mirror.
 
The Novus Ordo "Mass" is more similar to a Protestant service than the TLM. In my ecumenical NO days, I went to a Methodist service and even it was more traditional (and similar to the TLM, in form) than the NO. Your average lay sedes are infinitely more Catholic than the loose bowel movements that get shat out of NO seminaries annually.

It is not an act of "heresy" or "apostasy" to believe that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are popes.  It is an act of heresy to be of the opinion that they are not/were not popes.  In the future Francis or some of the others may be declared anti-popes.  Until then they are popes.

Do you think that the aforementioned "Popes" were/are heretics?
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Daniel on November 21, 2020, 03:47:53 PM
Catholics that attend the NO Mass are Catholic.

Well I don't entirely disagree. To clarify, when I said "them" I was referring to all those who hold to false religious beliefs, and only to those who hold to false religious beliefs, regardless of whether they call themselves "Catholic". I'm thinking of the NO crowd as more of a mixed bag. Some are Catholic; others only think they are or pretend to be Catholic.

Quote
Sedes are not by their own volition.  GOG has it completely backwards.  He should be saying what he is saying in front of a mirror.  It is not an act of "heresy" or "apostasy" to believe that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are popes.  It is an act of heresy to be of the opinion that they are not/were not popes.  In the future Francis or some of the others may be declared anti-popes.  Until then they are popes.

This point I do disagree on. I don't know if the sedevacantists are right or not. I myself am not a sedevacantist--at least not at the moment. But the Church has always taught that heretics are not Catholic. And theologians in good standing such as St. Robert Bellarmine have held that non-Catholics cannot be pope. So if John XXIII et al. are in fact heretics (which seems to be the case), it does seem to be possible (even probable) that they aren't popes. The ontological reality (of whether or not they are pope) cannot change, regardless of whether or not any authority declares them to be anti-pope. Such a declaration by the Church would only be an infallible recognition that they are anti-popes. Sedevacantists, even if wrong, don't seem to be departing from Church teaching as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: abc123 on November 21, 2020, 03:54:18 PM
But having raised/am raising 7 children I have discovered that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.
As a mother of 9, I concur with this wholeheartedly.

Sorry, I no don't take religious advice from women (see St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians) and I shouldn't even be discussing important matters with such irrational beings. Don't you have diapers to change?

Thanks for confirming both your inexperienced youth AND your extreme immaturity.

BTW bud, not sure if this was directed at both of us but I'm most certainly a man. Though as a heretic please feel free to ignore my advice as well.

A kid in your position will only learn by experience. Hopefully you don't do too much damage or burn too many bridges in the process.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: mikemac on November 21, 2020, 04:42:52 PM
Catholics that attend the NO Mass are Catholic.

Well I don't entirely disagree. To clarify, when I said "them" I was referring to all those who hold to false religious beliefs, and only to those who hold to false religious beliefs, regardless of whether they call themselves "Catholic". I'm thinking of the NO crowd as more of a mixed bag. Some are Catholic; others only think they are or pretend to be Catholic.

Quote
Sedes are not by their own volition.  GOG has it completely backwards.  He should be saying what he is saying in front of a mirror.  It is not an act of "heresy" or "apostasy" to believe that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are popes.  It is an act of heresy to be of the opinion that they are not/were not popes.  In the future Francis or some of the others may be declared anti-popes.  Until then they are popes.

This point I do disagree on. I don't know if the sedevacantists are right or not. I myself am not a sedevacantist--at least not at the moment. But the Church has always taught that heretics are not Catholic. And theologians in good standing such as St. Robert Bellarmine have held that non-Catholics cannot be pope. So if John XXIII et al. are in fact heretics (which seems to be the case), it does seem to be possible (even probable) that they aren't popes. The ontological reality (of whether or not they are pope) cannot change, regardless of whether or not any authority declares them to be anti-pope. Such a declaration by the Church would only be an infallible recognition that they are anti-popes. Sedevacantists, even if wrong, don't seem to be departing from Church teaching as far as I can tell.

So, you are a sede?  No human is superior to the pope, so it has to be a future pope or a council to declare a pope an anti-pope.  When you refer to John XXIII do you mean Baldassarre Cossa (1410–1415), who was declared an antipope at the Council of Constance in 1415, or Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli (1958-1963)?  You know, think about that for a bit.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Vetus Ordo on November 21, 2020, 04:47:26 PM
Probably with the Luminous Mysteries, which "Saint John Paul the Great" (as Novus Ordite call him) added as a mockery of the design given by Our Lady. It just amazes me that he had the gall to do that but then I realized that "Pope Saint Paul VI" (as Novus Ordites call him) completely revised the Mass, in violation of dogma (Council of Trent). Dogma comes from God, so revising the Mass is changing what God decided.

The Dominican rosary evolved from the knotted prayer ropes that have been in use in Christianity since the time of the Desert Fathers. The organization and content of the mysteries to be meditated upon is not a matter of divine revelation but of Church tradition. It can be legitimately changed.

Revising the Roman rite is not a violation of dogma either. The Pope has in fact such power, as Pius XII teaches in Mediator Dei: "It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification."
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Kaesekopf on November 21, 2020, 04:56:46 PM
But having raised/am raising 7 children I have discovered that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.
As a mother of 9, I concur with this wholeheartedly.

Sorry, I no don't take religious advice from women (see St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians) and I shouldn't even be discussing important matters with such irrational beings. Don't you have diapers to change?

I don't quite get how a putative Catholic man would say something like that to a mother of nine.  Take a week off from posting. 
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Graham on November 21, 2020, 06:13:28 PM
Well, I'm glad I didn't try to bet Christulsa about that, lol
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Kaesekopf on November 21, 2020, 06:17:56 PM
Well, I'm glad I didn't try to bet Christulsa about that, lol

:lol:
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Kaesekopf on November 21, 2020, 06:19:46 PM
I know of one woman who was raised sede but left the Faith for the Novus Ordo. I don't know details of how she was raised but I don't think that her parents taught her how bad the Novus Order is, so she was sheltered in that respect. I have also read about similar problems online. I think some trads, sedes in particular, ignore how bad things are getting in the Novus Ordo. Sedes think that it's a false counter-church and that's all their kids need to know. R&Rs think that they should listen to their R&R priests/bishops only and ignore Francis. A problem arises when the kids grow up and see that "cool" and "normal" people are Novus Ordo Catholic. They see that NO Catholics are in bliss attending the New Mass, so they try it out and get suckered-in. I think everyone who converted to the traditional Catholic Faith did so out of pain, prayer, and lots of education. Cradle trads have no idea of the heresy and apostasy exhibited by so many (most?) Novus Ordo clergy. To me, it's the equivalent of some boy never hearing a word about drugs at home or homeschool and deciding to try a joint when it is offered to him by a neighbor kid.

I don't know if I am getting my thoughts across but I think that children should be catechized on the Novus Ordo, Second Vatican Council, Modernism, etc. To my knowledge, no such thing exists. Has anyone seen such problems with cradle trads? How have you educated your children on the Novus Ordo?

Teaching your kids outright that the Novus Ordo is bad is a recipe ripe for badness, because what seems to happen is those little sede/trad kids grow up into teenagers and young adults, then they go and see a 'reverent' Novus Ordo or even an average Novus Ordo and go "where are the clowns?", and things don't go well from there.

Better, rather, to teach them the Faith, and make sure they "know their stuff", as opposed to teaching them the ins and outs of the lacking of the NO.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Daniel on November 21, 2020, 06:50:35 PM
The Dominican rosary evolved from the knotted prayer ropes that have been in use in Christianity since the time of the Desert Fathers. The organization and content of the mysteries to be meditated upon is not a matter of divine revelation but of Church tradition. It can be legitimately changed.

Not so fast. For one thing, the word you're looking for is "grew", not "evolved". And even if the Rosary "grew"--which, I'll add, might not even be the case--it nevertheless is "revealed" insofar as it was confirmed by our Lady at Fatima, an apparition which at the very least seems to have been approved of by the Church. But I'll repeat, "growth" is not "evolution". The Davidic psalter only has 150 psalms, thus the Rosary (which, in some ways, was modeled after the psalter) can have no more than 15 decades. (After all, a human infant legitimately grows into a two-legged adult; he does not legitimately grow into a three-legged monster. Even if he eats some radioactive waste and starts growing a third leg or something, such growth is clearly not in accord with his unchanging nature.)


Quote
Revising the Roman rite is not a violation of dogma either. The Pope has in fact such power

Correct. But to raise a new point which I don't believe GoG brought up, it is a violation of dogma to "revise" the liturgy in such a way as to introduce heresies into the Mass. Whether or not this actually happened, I don't know. But at least the SSPX says it did, and they're not even sedevacantists.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Daniel on November 21, 2020, 06:55:32 PM
So, you are a sede?  No human is superior to the pope, so it has to be a future pope or a council to declare a pope an anti-pope.  When you refer to John XXIII do you mean Baldassarre Cossa (1410–1415), who was declared an antipope at the Council of Constance in 1415, or Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli (1958-1963)?  You know, think about that for a bit.

I never said we're superior to the pope. What I said was, either these men are popes or they are not popes. The Church doesn't make a pope into an anti-pope or vice versa; the Church only recognizes him as pope or anti-pope.

Not sure I understand your point about the two John XXIIIs. Obviously the first was an anti-pope, even before the Church declared it so. The second may or may not have been, and the Church to my knowledge hasn't yet made any sort of declaration. Sedevacantists claim he's an anti-pope. Non-sedevacantists claim he's a pope. And as for me, I'm not making any claim whatsoever, only that it's at least possible (or at least seems possible) that he is an anti-pope seeing as he seems to have been a heretic and seeing as it seems that no heretic can be pope.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Miriam_M on November 22, 2020, 12:58:43 AM
Saying that one has nothing in common with a belief system is qualitatively different from saying that one has nothing in common with a particular group of humanity.  Your commonality is your humanity, even aside from your baptism.  I would hope that all parents would teach that to their children.  Most Americans today have learned the opposite from Communist News Network and MSDNC:  They have learned that people who voted for Trump are lower than human beings , "of a different breed," filled with "hate," are "racists," etc. -- merely for stating a voting preference, even.  In marginalizing them, the Left has made it socially acceptable to hate people they do not know.  It's not as if they merely state, in a condescending tone, that Trump voters were/are ignorant people to be respected nevertheless.  There's no respect there at all because there's no recognition that someone who disagrees with one's own political belief system is an equal human being. 

That illustrates the parallel danger in rejecting people rather than rejecting beliefs and behavior.  I reject the behavior of 50+% of Mass-goers of the N.O.  Their behavior at Mass scandalizes me and threatens my faith.  So if there is no TLM available to me, I would no longer be interested in attending the N.O.  But "those people" have been told the N.O. is "the true Mass," actually.  They have been told that Mass is kind of an informal event (a "meal") -- which is why they behave the way they do at Mass; they are not behaving casually to annoy any traditionalists who happen to show up at that Mass. They have been catechized poorly and don't deserve to be segregated into a different segment of humanity because of their misfortune.

Can the same not be said about Protestants though? Or even many atheists for that matter. Some satanists too.

We shouldn't hate them, but we should still label them as "non-Catholics". Not just their false religious beliefs, but them as persons insofar as they subscribe to false religious beliefs. They are not Catholic.

Recognizing that someone is either by affiliation not Catholic or by practice only nominally Catholic is not the same thing, in my book, as saying I have "nothing in common" with the person.  It's just that what I have in common might pertain only peripherally to the Catholic religion and much more to factors common to all humanity.

Quote
However, I'm still wondering about the ones who don't subscribe to false religious beliefs. What about the Catholics who reject all the Vatican II errors while simultaneously believing that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are popes? Is it really an act of "heresy" or "apostasy" to be of the opinion that Francis is pope, or to not be sure that Francis isn't the pope? When has the Church ever taught that Francis is not the pope? (Perhaps those with faith are just supposed to somehow know that Francis is not pope? And if you don't know, it only demonstrates that you don't actually have faith?)

I have tried to avoid, since Francis's election, condemning either sedevacantists or sedeplenists, since as a lay person I know I am not qualified to judge his true intentions, or the intentions of other Popes.  Any of us can make objective judgments about the orthodoxy of a particular statement by a pope -- or by a priest, bishop, or cardinal -- but declaring one of our titular superiors to be a heretic or not a heretic is beyond our pay grade, at least in a formal sense.  I do not try to get into judging those Catholics who believe that informally and practically, any ordained man is capable of rejecting grace, rejecting correction from equals and superiors (of which I am neither).  I agree with those who say that such is always a possibility and that orthodoxy is not automatic with the office.  Before V2, it was generally not even suspected that ordained men did not believe and did not proclaim orthodox Catholicism, but because of seminary formation after V2, the fidelity or even the understanding of an ordained man can come under scrutiny if he encourages that by provocative statements.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Miriam_M on November 22, 2020, 01:18:37 AM
Daniel, I guess I could take it a step further and say this:

Jesus Christ preached to all -- first to the Jews, which was His central mission -- but not exclusively to them.  As you know, we all know, He preached to those whom the Jews of the time largely rejected or looked down upon, wanted to be separate from or have nothing to do with. The Jews considered it scandalous that He did so.  Some groups were considered pagan/polytheistic, others essentially secular. Yet the apostles accepted the mission He gave them to preach to the Gentiles and to all four corners of the earth.  If they had told Him that they had "nothing in common" with people who worshipped differently or believed differently, Christendom would never have expanded and flourished as it did within a few centuries of its birth.

I'm usually not terribly in favor of direct evangelization, or proselytizing, including from the N.O. to Tradition, but I am highly, highly in favor of being responsive when Catholics and non-Catholics express interest in tradition or mere curiosity about it, and I have been known to spontaneously evangelize in settings which include non-Catholic acquaintances of mine or even complete strangers, such as in retail stores, if the subject comes up. If I assumed I had "nothing in common" with such people, I don't think my efforts would be very successful.
 ;)
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Jayne on November 22, 2020, 08:18:59 AM
As I see it, parents are in a tight spot. (More reason not to get married in this day and age, I suppose. Though I guess even more reason not to become a priest either.) Problem is, the Church has not yet condemned the NO counterchurch, nor has she even acknowledged the existence of a counterchurch. (And how could she? She has apparently been bound and gagged by that same counterchurch!) So the existence (and evilness) of the NO counterchurch falls under opinion. But should parents really be teaching opinion to their kids? What if the parent's opinion turns out to be wrong?

Pope Benedict did acknowledge that there is a serious problem in the Church, although he did not express it in terms of a "NO counterchurch".  He spoke of a "hermeneutic of rupture" a false way of interpreting Vatican II documents (or appealing to the mythical "spirit of Vatican II) such that they contradict Catholic teaching.  True Catholic teaching cannot contradict previous doctrine.  It is safe to say that these false interpretations are evil and to teach this to children.

It is pretty much the official SSPX position now that Vatican II is theoretically capable of orthodox interpretation, although such interpretation rarely takes place in practice.  This position gives a framework in which we can understand that some people who attend the NO very well may be very good Catholics, in spite of its serious flaws.

In my personal situation, I am virtually forced to accept this.  My husband, although willing to attend the traditional Mass to accompany me, greatly prefers the NO and attends it far more often.  He is recognized  by all as a good and wise man and there is little question that he is a better Catholic than I am.  I go to a better Mass, but he is the better person and better Catholic.

Obviously, in such a situation, I cannot teach my children to assume that there is something wrong with people who attend the NO.  I have, however, explained all the reasons why the TLM is the better Mass and even convinced some of them.

My children are all adults; even the "baby" is 19 now.  I suspect that I might need to deal with things somewhat differently if I had young children.  I could not, however, approach the matter in a way that involved any sort of disrespect to my husband.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Vetus Ordo on November 22, 2020, 01:29:26 PM
Not so fast. For one thing, the word you're looking for is "grew", not "evolved". And even if the Rosary "grew"--which, I'll add, might not even be the case--it nevertheless is "revealed" insofar as it was confirmed by our Lady at Fatima, an apparition which at the very least seems to have been approved of by the Church. But I'll repeat, "growth" is not "evolution". The Davidic psalter only has 150 psalms, thus the Rosary (which, in some ways, was modeled after the psalter) can have no more than 15 decades. (After all, a human infant legitimately grows into a two-legged adult; he does not legitimately grow into a three-legged monster. Even if he eats some radioactive waste and starts growing a third leg or something, such growth is clearly not in accord with his unchanging nature.)

To evolve is "to develop gradually." You can consult a dictionary if the verb troubles you.

The rosary developped gradually from the tradition of knotted prayer ropes. This fact is uncontroversial. Divine revelation ceased with the death of St. John the Evangelist, therefore pious church traditions like the rosary aren't revelation in any sense of the word. They can be altered if the Church sees fit.

Quote
Correct. But to raise a new point which I don't believe GoG brought up, it is a violation of dogma to "revise" the liturgy in such a way as to introduce heresies into the Mass. Whether or not this actually happened, I don't know. But at least the SSPX says it did, and they're not even sedevacantists.

It is impossible for the Church to promulgate and use a heretical rite as her lex orandi. If the NOM is heretical, then by definition the Church defected. There's no way around it.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Michael Wilson on November 22, 2020, 01:52:58 PM
Daniel,
on the Rosary; St. Dominic did receive a revelation from Our Blessed Mother on the Rosary; and he did establish the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary, with the blessing of the Church. There are parish records of people being enrolled in the Confraternity dating from the time of St. Dominic. There was the addition of the "Holy Mary" part of the prayer after St. Dominic; but the Mysteries in the Dominican Rosary were always 15. Blessed Alan de la Roche also received additional revelations on the promises attached to the recitation of the Holy Rosary; and Our Blessed Mother has worked many great miracles through the recitation of the Holy Rosary; including appearing visibly above the Christian fleet at the Battle of Lepanto and the wind miraculously shifting direction in the middle of the battle, to favor the Christian fleet. The Church Herself has promoted and blessed the devotion with numerous indulgences and Popes have spoken in favor of the devotion.
Re. "Altering the Rosary"; The Catholic Church has the power to make modifications that would promote the good of souls.
[Vetus Ordo don't read any further]; However the Conciliar Church has no power over Catholic devotions and only seeks to alter them in order to pervert and destroy the Catholic faith and lead people into apostasy. So if you want to save your soul avoid anything that comes from that organization, such as the N.O.M. And the new modified "Rosary"; bad, bad stuff.
 
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Vetus Ordo on November 22, 2020, 06:03:18 PM
on the Rosary; St. Dominic did receive a revelation from Our Blessed Mother on the Rosary; and he did establish the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary, with the blessing of the Church. There are parish records of people being enrolled in the Confraternity dating from the time of St. Dominic. There was the addition of the "Holy Mary" part of the prayer after St. Dominic; but the Mysteries in the Dominican Rosary were always 15.

In truth, there's nothing that links historically St. Dominic to the rosary. The first one to claim such connection was the Dominican Alan de Rupe in the 15th century, a man afflicted with delusions. As the Catholic Encyclopedia (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13184b.htm) conclusively states:

In any case it is certain that in the course of the twelfth century and before the birth of St. Dominic, the practice of reciting 50 or 150 Ave Marias had become generally familiar. The most conclusive evidence of this is furnished by the "Mary-legends", or stories of Our Lady, which obtained wide circulation at this epoch. The story of Eulalia, in particular, according to which a client of the Blessed Virgin who had been wont to say a hundred and fifty Aves was bidden by her to say only fifty, but more slowly, has been shown by Mussafia (Marien-legenden, Pts I, ii) to be unquestionably of early date. Not less conclusive is the account given of St. Albert (d. 1140) by his contemporary biographer, who tells us: "A hundred times a day he bent his knees, and fifty times he prostrated himself raising his body again by his fingers and toes, while he repeated at every genuflexion: 'Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb'." This was the whole of the Hail Mary as then said, and the fact of all the words being set down rather implies that the formula had not yet become universally familiar. Not less remarkable is the account of a similar devotional exercise occurring in the Corpus Christi manuscripts of the Ancren Riwle. This text, declared by Kölbing to have been written in the middle of the twelfth century (Englische Studien, 1885, P. 116), can in any case be hardly later than 1200. The passage in question gives directions how fifty Aves are to be said divided into sets of ten, with prostrations and other marks of reverence. (See The Month, July, 1903.) When we find such an exercise recommended to a little group of anchorites in a corner of England, twenty years before any Dominican foundation was made in this country, it seems difficult to resist the conclusion that the custom of reciting fifty or a hundred and fifty Aves had grown familiar, independently of, and earlier than, the preaching of St. Dominic. On the other hand, the practice of meditating on certain definite mysteries, which has been rightly described as the very essence of the Rosary devotion, seems to have only arisen long after the date of St. Dominic's death. It is difficult to prove a negative, but Father T. Esser, O.P., has shown (in the periodical "Der Katholik", of Mainz, Oct., Nov., Dec., 1897) that the introduction of this meditation during the recitation of the Aves was rightly attributed to a certain Carthusian, Dominic the Prussian. It is in any case certain that at the close of the fifteenth century the utmost possible variety of methods of meditating prevailed, and that the fifteen mysteries now generally accepted were not uniformly adhered to even by the Dominicans themselves. (See Schmitz, "Rosenkranzgebet", p. 74; Esser in "Der Katholik for 1904-6.) To sum up, we have positive evidence that both the invention of the beads as a counting apparatus and also the practice of repeating a hundred and fifty Aves cannot be due to St. Dominic, because they are both notably older than his time. Further, we are assured that the meditating upon the mysteries was not introduced until two hundred years after his death. What then, we are compelled to ask, is there left of which St. Dominic may be called the author?

These positive reasons for distrusting the current tradition might in a measure be ignored as archaeological refinements, if there were any satisfactory evidence to show that St. Dominic had identified himself with the pre-existing Rosary and become its apostle. But here we are met with absolute silence. Of the eight or nine early Lives of the saint, not one makes the faintest allusion to the Rosary. The witnesses who gave evidence in the cause of his canonization are equally reticent. In the great collection of documents accumulated by Fathers Balme and Lelaidier, O.P., in their "Cartulaire de St. Dominique" the question is studiously ignored. The early constitutions of the different provinces of the order have been examined, and many of them printed, but no one has found any reference to this devotion. We possess hundreds, even thousands, of manuscripts containing devotional treatises, sermons, chronicles, Saints' lives, etc., written by the Friars Preachers between 1220 and 1450; but no single verifiable passage has yet been produced which speaks of the Rosary as instituted by St. Dominic or which even makes much of the devotion as one specially dear to his children. The charters and other deeds of the Dominican convents for men and women, as M. Jean Guiraud points out with emphasis in his edition of the Cartulaire of La Prouille (I, cccxxviii), are equally silent. Neither do we find any suggestion of a connection between St. Dominic and the Rosary in the paintings and sculptures of these two and a half centuries. Even the tomb of St. Dominic at Bologna and the numberless frescoes by Fra Angelico representing the brethren of his order ignore the Rosary completely.

Impressed by this conspiracy of silence, the Bollandists, on trying to trace to its source the origin of the current tradition, found that all the clues converged upon one point, the preaching of the Dominican Alan de Rupe about the years 1470-75. He it undoubtedly was who first suggested the idea that the devotion of "Our Lady's Psalter" (a hundred and fifty Hail Marys) was instituted or revived by St. Dominic. Alan was a very earnest and devout man, but, as the highest authorities admit, he was full of delusions, and based his revelations on the imaginary testimony of writers that never existed (see Quétif and Echard, "Scriptores O.P.", 1, 849). His preaching, however, was attended with much success. The Rosary Confraternities, organized by him and his colleagues at Douai, Cologne, and elsewhere had great vogue, and led to the printing of many books, all more or less impregnated with the ideas of Alan. Indulgences were granted for the good work that was thus being done and the documents conceding these indulgences accepted and repeated, as was natural in that uncritical age, the historical data which had been inspired by Alan's writings and which were submitted according to the usual practice by the promoters of the confraternities themselves. It was in this way that the tradition of Dominican authorship grew up. The first Bulls speak of this authorship with some reserve: "Prout in historiis legitur" says Leo X in the earliest of all. "Pastoris aeterni" 1520; but many of the later popes were less guarded.

Two considerations strongly support the view of the Rosary tradition just expounded. The first is the gradual surrender of almost every notable piece that has at one time or another been relied upon to vindicate the supposed claims of St. Dominic. Touron and Alban Butler appealed to the Memoirs of a certain Luminosi de Aposa who professed to have heard St. Dominic preach at Bologna, but these Memoirs have long ago been proved to be a forgery. Danzas, Von Löe and others attached much importance to a fresco at Muret; but the fresco is not now in existence, and there is good reason for believing that the rosary once seen in that fresco was painted in at a later date ("The Month" Feb. 1901, p. 179). Mamachi, Esser, Walsh, and Von Löe and others quote some alleged contemporary verses about Dominic in connection with a crown of roses; the original manuscript has disappeared, and it is certain that the writers named have printed Dominicus where Benoist, the only person who has seen the manuscript, read Dominus. The famous will of Anthony Sers, which professed to leave a bequest to the Confraternity of the Rosary at Palencia in 1221, was put forward as a conclusive piece of testimony by Mamachi; but it is now admitted by Dominican authorities to be a forgery ("The Irish Rosary, Jan., 1901, p. 92). Similarly, a supposed reference to the subject by Thomas à Kempis in the "Chronicle of Mount St. Agnes" is a pure blunder ("The Month", Feb., 1901, p. 187). With this may be noted the change in tone observable of late in authoritative works of reference. In the "Kirchliches Handlexikon" of Munich and in the last edition of Herder's "Konversationslexikon" no attempt is made to defend the tradition which connects St. Dominic personally with the origin of the Rosary. Another consideration which cannot be developed is the multitude of conflicting legends concerning the origin of this devotion of "Our Lady's Psalter" which prevailed down to the end of the fifteenth century, as well as the early diversity of practice in the manner of its recitation. These facts agree ill with the supposition that it took its rise in a definite revelation and was jealously watched over from the beginning by one of the most learned and influential of the religious orders. No doubt can exist that the immense diffusion of the Rosary and its confraternities in modern times and the vast influence it has exercised for good are mainly due to the labours and the prayers of the sons of St. Dominic, but the historical evidence serves plainly to show that their interest in the subject was only awakened in the last years of the fifteenth century.

Quote
Re. "Altering the Rosary"; The Catholic Church has the power to make modifications that would promote the good of souls.

Indeed. Causa finita.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Michael Wilson on November 22, 2020, 06:44:21 PM
re. "No evidence linking the Rosary to St. Dominic"; I gave the evidence of the records of the confraternity of the Holy Rosary from the time of St. Dominic; also there was a Church dedicated to  "the Virgin of the Most Holy Rosary" also from the time of St. Dominic. True, there were other "Rosaries" before and after the Dominican Rosary. But Heaven has shown that it is the Dominican Rosary with 15 decades (not 20) that has its approval. If the recitation of the "Illuminati" mysteries obtains a similar victory as Lepanto or is approved by a Pope then we can stop arguing. 
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Daniel on November 22, 2020, 07:02:36 PM
To evolve is "to develop gradually." You can consult a dictionary if the verb troubles you.

If that's how you're using the word, fine. But that word is loaded with all sorts of connotations. As most people use the word, there's an implication that, given enough changes, anything can evolve into pretty much anything else. We would then have to admit that the Rosary, in theory, could "evolve" into a full-blown liturgy, which is absurd. It can only grow within its nature, and, considering its connection with the Davidic psalter, the number of mysteries could very well be built into its nature, meaning that there must be exactly 15, no more and no less.

Quote
The rosary developped gradually from the tradition of knotted prayer ropes. This fact is uncontroversial.

It is controversial, because knotted prayer ropes are not the same thing as rosaries. It raises the question of the causal link: did the later practice (the rosary) develop from the earlier practice (the knotted prayer rope), or were these merely two separate practices that developed independently of one another? Considering the fact that there exists a tradition which ascribes the Rosary's origin to an apparition of our Lady to St. Dominic, it isn't clear that the rosary wasn't revealed. It's even possible that maybe it was revealed in response to the prior devotion. Perhaps many people were getting carried away with the knotted prayer ropes, making up new mysteries hand over fist (or were otherwise praying it wrong), so maybe God sent our Lady to instruct St. Dominic on what the Rosary's proper form should be, in order to sort of standardize things or keep the devotion more uniform i.e. to prevent people from changing it or adding new mysteries and stuff. Only a guess. But regardless of this particular revelation, our Lady is said again to have appeared at Fatima many centuries later where she requested this same 15-mystery rosary to be prayed, without any suggestion that new mysteries ought to be added. So either both of these apparitions are bogus, or the rosary is in some way a "revealed" devotion whereas the new mysteries are not in any way revealed. (Though I am not 100% certain one way or the other. I suppose maybe it's of human origin, as you say, but this just sounds to me like an impious attempt by scholars to "naturalize" it and to sow disbelief into the hearts of the faithful. I'd personally rather believe it was revealed, as many saints and Catholics have piously believed since at least the time of Alan de La Roche and perhaps earlier.)

Quote
Divine revelation ceased with the death of St. John the Evangelist, therefore pious church traditions like the rosary aren't revelation in any sense of the word. They can be altered if the Church sees fit.

Public revelation ceased, but there is still such a thing as private revelation. If the rosary did in fact come through private revelation, I'd think it would take another private revelation before it could be significantly altered.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Kaesekopf on November 22, 2020, 09:29:56 PM
As to a defense of St Dominic and the rosary, I offer these two documents:

From the Rosary Center: (https://www.rosarycenter.org/homepage-2/rosary/the-rosary-st-dominic/)
Quote
To the above list of Popes accepting the tradition of St. Dominic and the Rosary could be added many more coming after the time of Benedict XIV. But this is not the main argument supporting the tradition. It is the coming together of many pieces of a puzzle pertaining to the essentials of the tradition as handed down. For example:


given the fact that the members of the Militia of Jesus Christ founded by St. Dominic, or by a Dominican of his day, prayed the 150 Hail Marys daily. . . .
given the fact of St. Dominic’s devotion to Mary and his ardent prayer in combatting the great heresy of his day… along with the testimony of ALAN DE RUPE that St. Dominic did receive some communication from the Mother of God as to how to combat the errors of his time. . . . (If Our Lady at Fatima gave us a remedy in this century for overcoming Communism and attaining peace – which remedy included the Rosary – does it not seem probable that she would have intervened in the 13th century offering a means of combatting the devastating heresy of Albigensianism – as tradition assures us she did.)
given the fact that, as some of his biographers explain, a common manner of preaching of Dominic was the frequent alternating of his instruction on the mysteries of our faith with prayer. . . .
given the fact that the first beginning of this devotion in the time of Dominic was vastly different from its present structure, that then there was no set sequence of the mysteries, and that even the name (Rosary) had not yet been established. . . .
given the fact that many convents with their libraries were destroyed in the religious persecutions that followed the 13th century. . . .
In the light of the above, it seems to me that the negative argument (the absence of documents) is outweighed by the presence of the essential components that constitute the heart of what the Rosary is. It seems to me, not merely possible, but very probable, that the Mother of God (as Alan de Rupe testified) did use St. Dominic in some way to give this devotion to the Church. One source of misconception in this regard is religious art, which portrays St. Dominic receiving from Our Lady the Rosary such as we use today. This would not have been. But then, if artists are to portray this tradition, how else would they do it?

And a booklet:
https://digitalcommons.providence.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=catholic_documents
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Michael Wilson on November 22, 2020, 09:40:36 PM
https://www.tektonministries.org/st-dominic-and-the-origins-of-the-rosary/
While some dispute the historical account of the presentation of the Rosary by Our Lady to St. Dominic, many theologians and Popes have upheld this understanding. History reveals that St. Dominic was the first to preach and teach the Rosary as a form of meditative prayer, and the first to see the benefits reaped from meditation upon its mysteries.

In the 11th through 13th centuries, a heretical doctrine developed in Europe. This teaching, called Albigensianism, taught that only the spiritual is good, and that everything material is bad. Therefore, the body in and of itself is evil, and every person’s soul is imprisoned in that evil body. The only way in which a person could experience salvation was to be freed from the imprisonment of their flesh.

Dominic Guzman, a Spanish priest, traveled into France preaching against the Albigensian heresy, but his efforts gained few conversions and even fewer followers. In 1208, he went into a forest near Toulouse, France to pray, asking God to provide what he needed in order to overcome the Albigensian heresy. Ancient accounts tell us that, after three days of prayer and fasting, three angels appeared in the sky along with a ball of fire. When they disappeared, the Virgin Mary spoke, telling the priest that he must preach her Psalter in order to succeed in his struggle to overcome the Albigensians.
The Marian Psalter was a prayer developed by the Cistercians, which involved praying 150 Hail Mary’s divided into groups of 10 by Our Fathers. Prayer beads were used to keep track of the Hail Mary’s. It was not a meditative prayer, though, nor one that would have been “preached.” Mary revealed to St. Dominic which mysteries should be preached to correspond to the Psalter prayers: stories of Christ’s life which directly contradicted the heresy of the Albigensians by focusing on the incarnation, death, and triumphant resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, great Dominican theologian of the 20th century said, “What the word of the preacher was unable to do, the sweet prayer of the Hail Mary did for hearts.” Ultimately, that “sweet prayer” would come to be called the Rosary – a “wreath of roses” that would lead to countless conversions and miracles, not the least of which was overcoming the Albigensian heresy.

Pope Leo XIII said, “Thanks to this new method of prayer… piety, faith, and union began to return [to France]; and the project and devices of the heretics to fall to pieces.”

In 1213, only five years after St. Dominic was given the Rosary, Catholic forces under the joint command of Count Simon de Montfort and St. Dominic were set to fight the Albigensians in Muret, a small town near Toulouse, France. The Albigensians were determined to take over France, further spreading their heretical beliefs. Catholics, of course, were determined to fight for Christ. Unfortunately, reinforcements had failed to arrive for the Catholic forces, and the numbers were bleak. The Catholics had only 1500 men, while their foe had 30,000.

Confident of their upcoming success, the Albigensians spent the night before the battle celebrating in drunkenness and debauchery. The Catholics, on the other hand, spent their night praying the Rosary; their celebration was focused on that of the Mass and the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Finally, St. Dominic went to the Church of Saint-Jacques in Muret to pray the Rosary for victory, while the Count went into battle. The Catholics were able to rush upon the hung-over Albigensians, routing the enemy army and declaring a victory for Christ and Our Lady. After the battle, every Catholic in the area attributed the victory to the Rosary.

While the Albigensian sect continued to exist, its territorial expansion ceased and it never again reached the massive numbers it enjoyed prior to the battle of Muret.

As we continue to fight against heretics of one sort or another in our current day and age, St. Dominic remains a hero to be remembered. Even more so the Rosary, a gift given by Our Lady all those years ago, remains a vital tool to winning the battle of good versus evil, and Truth versus falsehood.

For more information on this topic, we recommend Fr. Donald H. Calloway’s book, The Champions of the Rosary.

Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: mikemac on November 23, 2020, 12:17:31 AM
In The Secret of the Rosary by Louis de Montfort it gives accounts of St. Dominic and Alan de la Roche preaching the Rosary.  It also mentions victories  that Count Simon de Montfort won against the Albigensians under the patronage of Our Lady of the Rosary.  I can very well see how some of these stories were past down from generation to generation within the de Montfort family.

http://www.montfort.org.uk/Writings/ASR.php
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Vetus Ordo on November 23, 2020, 05:33:48 PM
As most people use the word, there's an implication that, given enough changes, anything can evolve into pretty much anything else. We would then have to admit that the Rosary, in theory, could "evolve" into a full-blown liturgy, which is absurd. It can only grow within its nature, and, considering its connection with the Davidic psalter, the number of mysteries could very well be built into its nature, meaning that there must be exactly 15, no more and no less.

That's not what it is meant by the rosary evolving from an earlier tradition of knotted prayer ropes and other counting methods like beads. If you're interested, the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia that I made reference to in my previous post (#reply 36) delves into it more in depth. As for the 15 mysteries being an unchangeable part of the rosary, notice that "it is in any case certain that at the close of the fifteenth century the utmost possible variety of methods of meditating prevailed, and that the fifteen mysteries now generally accepted were not uniformly adhered to even by the Dominicans themselves." (Catholic Encyclopedia).

Quote
It is controversial, because knotted prayer ropes are not the same thing as rosaries. It raises the question of the causal link: did the later practice (the rosary) develop from the earlier practice (the knotted prayer rope), or were these merely two separate practices that developed independently of one another?

Counting prayers in beads, pebbles or knotted ropes is as old as human religiosity itself. Buddhists and Muslims do it too. The Dominican rosary is a natural development of a longstanding tradition that, in Christianity, goes back to the Desert Fathers. In the High Middle Ages, we already saw a similar tradition in full display with the paternosters:

Thus we read in the "Ancient Customs of Cluny", collected by Udalrio in 1096, that when the death of any brother at a distance was announced, every priest was to offer Mass, and every non-priest was either to say fifty psalms or to repeat fifty times the Paternoster ("quicunque sacerdos est cantet missam pro eo, et qui non est sacerdos quinquaginta psalmos aut toties orationem dominicam", P.L., CXLIX, 776). Similarly among the Knights Templar, whose rule dates from about 1128, the knights who could not attend choir were required to say the Lord's Prayer 57 times in all and on the death of any of the brethren they had to say the Paternoster a hundred times a day for a week. To count these accurately there is every reason to believe that already in the eleventh and twelfth centuries a practice had come in of using pebbles, berries, or discs of bone threaded on a string. It is in any case certain that the Countess Godiva of Coventry (c. 1075) left by will to the statue of Our Lady in a certain monastery "the circlet of precious stones which she had threaded on a cord in order that by fingering them one after another she might count her prayers exactly" (Malmesbury, "Gesta Pont.", Rolls Series 311). Another example seems to occur in the case of St. Rosalia (A.D. 1160), in whose tomb similar strings of beads were discovered. Even more important is the fact that such strings of beads were known throughout the Middle Ages — and in some Continental tongues are known to this day — as "Paternosters". The evidence for this is overwhelming and comes from every part of Europe. (Catholic Encylcopedia)

Quote
Considering the fact that there exists a tradition which ascribes the Rosary's origin to an apparition of our Lady to St. Dominic, it isn't clear that the rosary wasn't revealed.

The tradition exists but it has no sound historical support. It's a later interpolation. Once again:

These positive reasons for distrusting the current tradition might in a measure be ignored as archaeological refinements, if there were any satisfactory evidence to show that St. Dominic had identified himself with the pre-existing Rosary and become its apostle. But here we are met with absolute silence. Of the eight or nine early Lives of the saint, not one makes the faintest allusion to the Rosary. The witnesses who gave evidence in the cause of his canonization are equally reticent. In the great collection of documents accumulated by Fathers Balme and Lelaidier, O.P., in their "Cartulaire de St. Dominique" the question is studiously ignored. The early constitutions of the different provinces of the order have been examined, and many of them printed, but no one has found any reference to this devotion. We possess hundreds, even thousands, of manuscripts containing devotional treatises, sermons, chronicles, Saints' lives, etc., written by the Friars Preachers between 1220 and 1450; but no single verifiable passage has yet been produced which speaks of the Rosary as instituted by St. Dominic or which even makes much of the devotion as one specially dear to his children. The charters and other deeds of the Dominican convents for men and women, as M. Jean Guiraud points out with emphasis in his edition of the Cartulaire of La Prouille (I, cccxxviii), are equally silent. Neither do we find any suggestion of a connection between St. Dominic and the Rosary in the paintings and sculptures of these two and a half centuries. Even the tomb of St. Dominic at Bologna and the numberless frescoes by Fra Angelico representing the brethren of his order ignore the Rosary completely. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Quote
I'd personally rather believe it was revealed, as many saints and Catholics have piously believed since at least the time of Alan de La Roche and perhaps earlier.

That's not how history works, though.

Alan de La Roche (or de Lupe) was the one "who first suggested the idea that the devotion of "Our Lady's Psalter" (a hundred and fifty Hail Marys) was instituted or revived by St. Dominic. Alan was a very earnest and devout man, but, as the highest authorities admit, he was full of delusions, and based his revelations on the imaginary testimony of writers that never existed (see Quétif and Echard, "Scriptores O.P.", 1, 849)." (Catholic Encyclopedia). His works have no historical value. One cannot ascertain the historical basis of anything through writings that are either forgeries, delusions or pious fables written 300 years after the fact.

Quote
Public revelation ceased, but there is still such a thing as private revelation. If the rosary did in fact come through private revelation, I'd think it would take another private revelation before it could be significantly altered.

You are free to believe that the rosary has been confirmed by private revelation. That is not in dispute. It's a tradition that has brought many spiritual benefits to the Church. But what we're discussing here is its historical origin and the authority of the Church to change it. As Catholic authorities admit, the rosary is a natural development (or evolution) of earlier traditions and the Church definitely has the legitimate authority to alter it.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Daniel on November 28, 2020, 09:06:09 AM
Ok, thank you for your response.

Well I don't know. I'm always a bit skeptical of Catholic Encyclopedia because it oftentimes seems to be compromised by deceptive and anti-Catholic modern scholarship (the stuff you've cited is just one example). I'm not saying that this particular article is wrong (I'm sure it's an accurate summary of the latest historical research at least as of 1912) but, unfortunately, no non-expert such as myself is in the position to be trusting it at face value. And even granting its accuracy as far as the historical evidence goes, (and no offense to you or to others who study history,) there's still the fact that "history" is itself a very unreliable science.

But anyway, if the article is in fact correct, and if the rosary has no essence of its own but is little more than prayers on a prayer rope, then yes, the Church could change it. (Though we are then faced with the question of whether or not John Paul II, in adding the luminous mysteries, acted on behalf of the Church.)

But if the rosary is not revealed then I would question why we should even be praying it to begin with. I think many people would agree with me that the rosary doesn't seem to be a very good prayer. (I could raise all sorts of objections to the rosary.) If the rosary developed, then either it developed under the inspiration of God, or it developed under the inspiration of the devil, or it developed under no inspiration at all--but it's kind of hard to believe that it developed under the inspiration of God, seeing as it does not seem to be a very good prayer. The rosary is then, at best, just some prayer on more or less the same level as any other prayer, and, at worst, a tool of the devil probably designed to lead us away from God. Only if the rosary--and the luminous mysteries--comes from God is it worth praying, but this does not seem to be the case.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: mikemac on November 28, 2020, 03:05:25 PM
...

But if the rosary is not revealed then I would question why we should even be praying it to begin with. I think many people would agree with me that the rosary doesn't seem to be a very good prayer. (I could raise all sorts of objections to the rosary.) If the rosary developed, then either it developed under the inspiration of God, or it developed under the inspiration of the devil, or it developed under no inspiration at all--but it's kind of hard to believe that it developed under the inspiration of God, seeing as it does not seem to be a very good prayer. The rosary is then, at best, just some prayer on more or less the same level as any other prayer, and, at worst, a tool of the devil probably designed to lead us away from God. Only if the rosary--and the luminous mysteries--comes from God is it worth praying, but this does not seem to be the case.

https://fatima.org/about/fatima-the-requests/sister-lucy-of-fatima-speaks-on-the-rosary/

Quote
In 1970, following a campaign in Portugal led by some progressive theologians against the Rosary, Sister Lucy wrote to a friend, Mother Maria Jose Martins, the following lines:

    “As for what you are telling me concerning the recitation of the Rosary, it is a great pity! Because the prayers of the Rosary (15 decades) and “The Beads” (5 decades) are, after the Sacred Liturgy of the Eucharist, what unites us the most to God through the richness of the prayers which compose it, all coming from Heaven, dictated by the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

    The Gloria which we recite with all the mysteries, was dictated by the Father to the Angels when He sent them to sing near His Word Who had just been born, and it is a hymn to the Most Holy Trinity.

    The ‘Our Father’ was dictated to us by the Son, and it is a prayer directed towards the Father.

    The ‘Hail Mary’ in its entirety is impregnated with a Trinitarian and Eucharistic meaning: the first words were dictated by the Father to the Angel when He sent him to announce the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word: ‘Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee.’ Thou art full of grace because in Thee resides the Fountain of that same grace. It is through Thy union with the Most Holy Trinity that Thou art full of grace.

    Moved by the Holy Ghost, St. Elizabeth said: ‘Blessed art Thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of Thy Womb.’ If Thou art blessed, it is because Jesus, the fruit of Thy Womb, is blessed.

    Moved by the Holy Ghost, the Church also has added: ‘Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death:'”
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Kaesekopf on November 28, 2020, 03:47:12 PM
But if the rosary is not revealed then I would question why we should even be praying it to begin with. I think many people would agree with me that the rosary doesn't seem to be a very good prayer. (I could raise all sorts of objections to the rosary.) If the rosary developed, then either it developed under the inspiration of God, or it developed under the inspiration of the devil, or it developed under no inspiration at all--but it's kind of hard to believe that it developed under the inspiration of God, seeing as it does not seem to be a very good prayer. The rosary is then, at best, just some prayer on more or less the same level as any other prayer, and, at worst, a tool of the devil probably designed to lead us away from God. Only if the rosary--and the luminous mysteries--comes from God is it worth praying, but this does not seem to be the case.

Internet forums are the worst place for you to be, to be honest.  You need a peasant's spirituality, because all you do is overthink things.  You need a strong relationship with a patient and wise spiritual director. 
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 28, 2020, 07:36:08 PM
As a mother of 9, I concur with this wholeheartedly.

Sorry, I no don't take religious advice from women (see St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians) and I shouldn't even be discussing important matters with such irrational beings. Don't you have diapers to change?

I don't quite get how a putative Catholic man would say something like that to a mother of nine.  Take a week off from posting. 

You questioning my religiosity and manhood is uncharitable. Me pointing out that St. Paul and the Church forbid women from teaching or having authority over men on spiritual matters is not uncharitable. You'll find clergy writing through the ages that women are irrational compared to men and I think it is settled scientifically as well. But lesson learned.


It is pretty much the official SSPX position now that Vatican II is theoretically capable of orthodox interpretation, although such interpretation rarely takes place in practice.

Source for that? I'd love to see it. It must take Olympian levels of (mental) gymnastics to make a blatantly heretical document (such as Lumen Gentium) interpretable in an orthodox way.


Teaching your kids outright that the Novus Ordo is bad is a recipe ripe for badness, because what seems to happen is those little sede/trad kids grow up into teenagers and young adults, then they go and see a 'reverent' Novus Ordo or even an average Novus Ordo and go "where are the clowns?", and things don't go well from there.

Better, rather, to teach them the Faith, and make sure they "know their stuff", as opposed to teaching them the ins and outs of the lacking of the NO.

Just leaving it at clown masses? That isn't enough. First, you shock them with the sacrilege (clown masses, communion in the hand, BLM sermons, Protestant hymns, etc.), then you teach them about the invalidity of the mass according to dogma (Trent), the doubtful validity of the new rite of ordination (and episcopal consecration of bishops), then the problems with the consecration of the bread and wine (thank you Fr. Cekada (RIP) for the booklet!), and of course the fruits of the NO: 99% contracepting, nobody goes to confession, the majority supports abortion and gay marriage, 2/3rds of the priests are fags, systemic child molestation, etc. It's really a shame that there isn't a children's book on this.


But to raise a new point which I don't believe GoG brought up, it is a violation of dogma to "revise" the liturgy in such a way as to introduce heresies into the Mass. Whether or not this actually happened, I don't know. But at least the SSPX says it did, and they're not even sedevacantists.

It is impossible for the Church to promulgate and use a heretical rite as her lex orandi. If the NOM is heretical, then by definition the Church defected. There's no way around it.

Yes, there is. It's called sedevacantism. You don't want to face the fact that the sodomite heretic Giovanni Montini wasn't a pope. Once you accept that premise, the indefectibility of the Church still stands strong. With your logic, the Church's defectibility is on shaky ground.


...

But if the rosary is not revealed then I would question why we should even be praying it to begin with. I think many people would agree with me that the rosary doesn't seem to be a very good prayer. (I could raise all sorts of objections to the rosary.) If the rosary developed, then either it developed under the inspiration of God, or it developed under the inspiration of the devil, or it developed under no inspiration at all--but it's kind of hard to believe that it developed under the inspiration of God, seeing as it does not seem to be a very good prayer. The rosary is then, at best, just some prayer on more or less the same level as any other prayer, and, at worst, a tool of the devil probably designed to lead us away from God. Only if the rosary--and the luminous mysteries--comes from God is it worth praying, but this does not seem to be the case.

https://fatima.org/about/fatima-the-requests/sister-lucy-of-fatima-speaks-on-the-rosary/

If the guy has a problem with the age-old and settled private revelation of St. Dominic involving the Rosary then quoting an even more controversial private revelation (Fatima) isn't going to help. Daily reminder that it is not a requirement for Catholics to believe in private revelations. Catholics are free to doubt them. I personally doubt Fatima over the claim that "Portugal won't lose the Faith" (because it obviously has).

Internet forums are the worst place for you to be, to be honest.  You need a peasant's spirituality, because all you do is overthink things.  You need a strong relationship with a patient and wise spiritual director. 

This 100%
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Daniel on November 28, 2020, 09:20:33 PM
But if the rosary is not revealed then I would question why we should even be praying it to begin with. I think many people would agree with me that the rosary doesn't seem to be a very good prayer. (I could raise all sorts of objections to the rosary.) If the rosary developed, then either it developed under the inspiration of God, or it developed under the inspiration of the devil, or it developed under no inspiration at all--but it's kind of hard to believe that it developed under the inspiration of God, seeing as it does not seem to be a very good prayer. The rosary is then, at best, just some prayer on more or less the same level as any other prayer, and, at worst, a tool of the devil probably designed to lead us away from God. Only if the rosary--and the luminous mysteries--comes from God is it worth praying, but this does not seem to be the case.

Internet forums are the worst place for you to be, to be honest.  You need a peasant's spirituality, because all you do is overthink things.  You need a strong relationship with a patient and wise spiritual director.

They're legitimate objections. I'd list them out but I'm not going to bother, since the objections might be blasphemous and it's all hypothetical anyway. At any rate, the Church at least appears to endorse Fatima and Lepanto (and therefore appears to acknowledge the rosary's divine origin). But I do wonder.

Not sure what you mean by "peasant's spirituality". A good spiritual director would be helpful, and perhaps even necessary for my salvation, except for the fact that I have yet to come across a good spiritual director. I'd like to think that priests are not doing this purposefully, but the outcome (at least with respect to me) is the same either way.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that sedes are not Catholic.
Post by: mikemac on November 28, 2020, 11:08:01 PM
...

But if the rosary is not revealed then I would question why we should even be praying it to begin with. I think many people would agree with me that the rosary doesn't seem to be a very good prayer. (I could raise all sorts of objections to the rosary.) If the rosary developed, then either it developed under the inspiration of God, or it developed under the inspiration of the devil, or it developed under no inspiration at all--but it's kind of hard to believe that it developed under the inspiration of God, seeing as it does not seem to be a very good prayer. The rosary is then, at best, just some prayer on more or less the same level as any other prayer, and, at worst, a tool of the devil probably designed to lead us away from God. Only if the rosary--and the luminous mysteries--comes from God is it worth praying, but this does not seem to be the case.

https://fatima.org/about/fatima-the-requests/sister-lucy-of-fatima-speaks-on-the-rosary/

If the guy has a problem with the age-old and settled private revelation of St. Dominic involving the Rosary then quoting an even more controversial private revelation (Fatima) isn't going to help. Daily reminder that it is not a requirement for Catholics to believe in private revelations. Catholics are free to doubt them. I personally doubt Fatima over the claim that "Portugal won't lose the Faith" (because it obviously has).

On that page that I quoted Sister Lucy does not even refer to the private revelations of Fatima, nor is the private revelation of St. Dominic mentioned.  If you had have read it you would know Sister Lucy was simply speaking of the Rosary;  that after the Liturgy of the Eucharist the Rosary is what most unites us to God and that the prayers that comprise it, the Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be have their origins in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  Any Catholic that has a problem with the Rosary has a major problem.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 28, 2020, 11:22:48 PM
On that page that I quoted Sister Lucy does not even refer to the private revelations of Fatima, nor is the private revelation of St. Dominic mentioned.  If you had have read it you would know Sister Lucy was simply speaking of the Rosary;  that after the Liturgy of the Eucharist the Rosary is what most unites us to God and that the prayers that comprise it, the Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be have their origins in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. 

Sister Lucy would be a nobody if it weren't' for the private revelation. Fatima and Sister Lucy are inextricably linked.

Any Catholic that has a problem with the Rosary has a major problem.

I disagree. Praying the Rosary has never been required by the Church in any dogma or doctrine and since the St. Dominic apparition is a private revelation, Catholics are free to not believe it. Eastern Rite Catholics don't pray the Rosary because the Rosary is a Latin Rite devotion. Do Eastern Rite Catholics have a "major problem" to you?
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: christulsa on November 28, 2020, 11:29:16 PM
On that page that I quoted Sister Lucy does not even refer to the private revelations of Fatima, nor is the private revelation of St. Dominic mentioned.  If you had have read it you would know Sister Lucy was simply speaking of the Rosary;  that after the Liturgy of the Eucharist the Rosary is what most unites us to God and that the prayers that comprise it, the Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be have their origins in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. 

Sister Lucy would be a nobody if it weren't' for the private revelation. Fatima and Sister Lucy are inextricably linked.

Any Catholic that has a problem with the Rosary has a major problem.

I disagree. Praying the Rosary has never been required by the Church in any dogma or doctrine and since the St. Dominic apparition is a private revelation, Catholics are free to not believe it. Eastern Rite Catholics don't pray the Rosary because the Rosary is a Latin Rite devotion. Do Eastern Rite Catholics have a "major problem" to you?

You’re just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.  Reread the discussion.  Daniel suggested the Rosary may be a “tool of the devil” “probably leading us away from God.”   Mikemac clearly addressed Daniel’s view of the rosary as a major problem.  If you disagree, then you also have a major problem.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Daniel on November 29, 2020, 07:56:24 AM
I'm with Gift of God. Sister Lucy's words carry weight only because she is Sister Lucy. If those same words had come from somebody else, we'd take it as little more than opinion.

As for what she said, it's not-uncontroversial to say the least.

But as I said, the Church appears to say that the rosary is from God. So I'm not going to condemn the rosary. Still, the rosary does not appear to be from God. These two "appearances" contradict themselves, and so one must be illusory: either the Church does not actually say that the rosary is from God (and we should perhaps be condemning it openly), or else the rosary does not actually not-come from God (and we probably ought to be praying it every day). This information would be nice to know, but don't look at me. I don't have it.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Miriam_M on November 29, 2020, 11:30:07 AM
I'm with Gift of God. Sister Lucy's words carry weight only because she is Sister Lucy. If those same words had come from somebody else, we'd take it as little more than opinion.

As for what she said, it's not-uncontroversial to say the least.

But as I said, the Church appears to say that the rosary is from God. So I'm not going to condemn the rosary. Still, the rosary does not appear to be from God. These two "appearances" contradict themselves, and so one must be illusory: either the Church does not actually say that the rosary is from God (and we should perhaps be condemning it openly), or else the rosary does not actually not-come from God (and we probably ought to be praying it every day). This information would be nice to know, but don't look at me. I don't have it.

Brother, scrupulosity tends to make us look at every possibility, unnecessarily, through a microscope.  Nothing has to be "proven" --in the sense of sharing physically in a revelation, or reading it in an Encyclical or Catechism -- for it to be recommended to us.  Please do not let your scrupulosity undermine basic tenets of spirituality.

You're getting into questioning the Church here, who, while not elevating Fatima to dogma, recognizes the essential message of it and enjoins us at the very least to say our rosary.  She does not enjoin us to believe every detail from the children's narratives.  Only the most extreme modernists in the Church -- the very same priests who also reject essential tenets of the Faith, sacramental theology, and moral theology -- treat the rosary as if it's optional.  The vast majority of both N.O. clergy and trad clergy recommend the rosary. This is just about trust and obedience.  (Obedience includes what is recommended for our spiritual health.)

Don't be a "Thomas" -- demanding the see the Wounds "before" you will believe.   ;)
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that sedes are not Catholic.
Post by: mikemac on November 29, 2020, 06:35:30 PM
I'm with Gift of God. Sister Lucy's words carry weight only because she is Sister Lucy. If those same words had come from somebody else, we'd take it as little more than opinion.

As for what she said, it's not-uncontroversial to say the least.

Well it's not like it was just Sister Lucy that said after the Mass the Rosary is the greatest prayer.  Lots of saints and prelates have.  Look it up.  Who's "we", you and GOG?

But as I said, the Church appears to say that the rosary is from God. So I'm not going to condemn the rosary. Still, the rosary does not appear to be from God. These two "appearances" contradict themselves, and so one must be illusory: either the Church does not actually say that the rosary is from God (and we should perhaps be condemning it openly), or else the rosary does not actually not-come from God (and we probably ought to be praying it every day). This information would be nice to know, but don't look at me. I don't have it.

The Our Father is Biblical.  The first part of the Hail Mary is Biblical, then we ask Mary to pray for us.  The Glory Be is Biblical (John 1:1-5).  It just seems awful weird for someone that calls himself a Catholic to be wondering whether the Rosary could possibly be "developed under the inspiration of the devil" or that the Rosary could possibly be "a tool of the devil probably designed to lead us away from God".  Where are these thoughts coming from?  You need to ask yourself that Daniel.  Are you afraid to talk to a priest about these thoughts?  Because in your state that is exactly who you need to talk to.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Daniel on November 29, 2020, 07:06:53 PM
Those aren't my objections though. I have no problem with the Our Father or the Glory Be. I don't even have much problem with the Hail Mary.

As for the rosary being the second greatest prayer next to the Mass, what ever happened to the Divine Office? The Divine Office is the Church's own prayer and is necessarily superior to all non-liturgical prayers prayed by private individuals.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that sedes are not Catholic.
Post by: mikemac on November 29, 2020, 07:21:01 PM
On that page that I quoted Sister Lucy does not even refer to the private revelations of Fatima, nor is the private revelation of St. Dominic mentioned.  If you had have read it you would know Sister Lucy was simply speaking of the Rosary;  that after the Liturgy of the Eucharist the Rosary is what most unites us to God and that the prayers that comprise it, the Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be have their origins in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. 

Sister Lucy would be a nobody if it weren't' for the private revelation. Fatima and Sister Lucy are inextricably linked.

Any Catholic that has a problem with the Rosary has a major problem.

I disagree. Praying the Rosary has never been required by the Church in any dogma or doctrine and since the St. Dominic apparition is a private revelation, Catholics are free to not believe it. Eastern Rite Catholics don't pray the Rosary because the Rosary is a Latin Rite devotion. Do Eastern Rite Catholics have a "major problem" to you?

Try to follow the train of thought please.  Nobody said the Rosary is required by the Church.  Eastern Rite Catholics may not pray the Rosary but that doesn't mean they have a problem with it.  As it stands just you and Daniel have a problem with the Rosary. 
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that sedes are not Catholic.
Post by: mikemac on November 29, 2020, 07:28:30 PM
Those aren't my objections though. I have no problem with the Our Father or the Glory Be. I don't even have much problem with the Hail Mary.

As for the rosary being the second greatest prayer next to the Mass, what ever happened to the Divine Office? The Divine Office is the Church's own prayer and is necessarily superior to all non-liturgical prayers prayed by private individuals.

Well you did say the Rosary could possibly be "developed under the inspiration of the devil" or that the Rosary could possibly be "a tool of the devil probably designed to lead us away from God".  Talk to a priest.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that sedes are not Catholic.
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 29, 2020, 08:07:35 PM
As it stands just you and Daniel have a problem with the Rosary.

What makes you think I have a problem with the Rosary? I have said nothing against it.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that sedes are not Catholic.
Post by: mikemac on November 29, 2020, 09:29:56 PM
As it stands just you and Daniel have a problem with the Rosary.

What makes you think I have a problem with the Rosary? I have said nothing against it.

It's just Daniel then?  So you have abandoned him after you got him fired up?
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that sedes are not Catholic.
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 29, 2020, 10:06:34 PM
As it stands just you and Daniel have a problem with the Rosary.

What makes you think I have a problem with the Rosary? I have said nothing against it.

It's just Daniel then?  So you have abandoned him after you got him fired up?

What makes you think I have a problem with the Rosary?
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that sedes are not Catholic.
Post by: mikemac on November 29, 2020, 10:10:49 PM
As it stands just you and Daniel have a problem with the Rosary.

What makes you think I have a problem with the Rosary? I have said nothing against it.

It's just Daniel then?  So you have abandoned him after you got him fired up?

What makes you think I have a problem with the Rosary?

So you have abandoned him after you got him fired up?
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that sedes are not Catholic.
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 29, 2020, 10:19:46 PM
As it stands just you and Daniel have a problem with the Rosary.

What makes you think I have a problem with the Rosary? I have said nothing against it.

It's just Daniel then?  So you have abandoned him after you got him fired up?

What makes you think I have a problem with the Rosary?

So you have abandoned him after you got him fired up?

I'll answer your questions after you answer mine.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that sedes are not Catholic.
Post by: mikemac on November 29, 2020, 10:51:50 PM
As it stands just you and Daniel have a problem with the Rosary.

What makes you think I have a problem with the Rosary? I have said nothing against it.

It's just Daniel then?  So you have abandoned him after you got him fired up?

What makes you think I have a problem with the Rosary?

So you have abandoned him after you got him fired up?

I'll answer your questions after you answer mine.

Because you gave the impression that you do.  It wasn't just me that thought that.  See replies #50 and #51.

So you have abandoned Daniel after you got him fired up?

Two questions.

Are you just here to cause trouble?

Three.

Like a troll?
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that sedes are not Catholic.
Post by: GiftOfGod on November 30, 2020, 02:44:14 AM
As it stands just you and Daniel have a problem with the Rosary.

What makes you think I have a problem with the Rosary? I have said nothing against it.

It's just Daniel then?  So you have abandoned him after you got him fired up?

What makes you think I have a problem with the Rosary?

So you have abandoned him after you got him fired up?

I'll answer your questions after you answer mine.

Because you gave the impression that you do.  It wasn't just me that thought that.  See replies #50 and #51.

So you have abandoned Daniel after you got him fired up?

Two questions.

Are you just here to cause trouble?

Three.

Like a troll?


I'll answer your questions after you answer mine.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that WHAT? Who changed this?
Post by: Non Nobis on November 30, 2020, 04:31:32 AM
Mikemac, who changed the title of this thread at least for a while to "The importance of teaching children that sedes are not Catholic"? That was a rather troll-ish thing to do. Start another thread yourself (maybe in the Sedevacantist sub-forum). This thread has deteriorated into a you-answer-first/No-you-answer-first ongoing exchange that looks, um, silly. Mikemac I don't like GiftOfGod in every way (just as you don't approve of me in every way) but it seems like you are trying to provoke the worst in him.

Daniel said "I'm with GiftOfGod" but really his problems with the Rosary - that maybe it is a tool of the Devil - went beyond what GoG said.  GoG brought up the fact that it is not in general a regular devotion in the Eastern Rite (except where Trads escape to Eastern Rite churches).  That doesn't prove they are having a "problem" with the Rosary.  (I did know one uneducated Eastern Rite Catholic who hated trads in the Church and did say terrible things about the Rosary, but he was an exception)
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that WHAT? Who changed this?
Post by: Daniel on November 30, 2020, 07:56:56 AM
I don't think GiftOfGod got me "fired up". I was only agreeing with him about the Sister Lucia quote (and, way earlier, about the fact that sedevacantists are not not-Catholic).

The reason I say that the rosary might be from the devil is because the rosary in some respects appears to be from the devil. What part of that don't you understand?

I never said the rosary is bad or that it's from the devil. What I said was, I don't have all the information to make a definitive judgement. On one hand it looks bad. On the other hand it looks like the Church endorses it. Obviously it's not both. And if the Church doesn't endorse it, who is to say that it's not bad or even from the devil?

I'll also point out, the fact that the Church seems to endorse it could in great part be due to the fact that trad priests are constantly trying to shove it down everybody's throat, acting as if the Church requires us to pray the rosary daily when the Church requires no such thing. Sure, when questionioned they'll probably tell you that you're free not to. But nevertheless, they act like it's Church teaching that the rosary is the second greatest prayer ever and that we must all pray it every day, just because our Lady seems to have requested it at Fatima. (Which is strange, seeing as not all trad priests are even on-board with Fatima. I believe Archbishop Lefebvre himself was critical of this idea that we should focus so much on Fatima.) I can't tell if it's the Church who endorses it, or if only these priests are the ones endorse it. If priests would just teach what the Church has always taught and stop introducing or promote novelties then this would hardly be an issue.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that WHAT? Who changed this?
Post by: Stubborn on November 30, 2020, 08:59:30 AM
I don't think GiftOfGod got me "fired up". I was only agreeing with him about the Sister Lucia quote (and, way earlier, about the fact that sedevacantists are not not-Catholic).

The reason I say that the rosary might be from the devil is because the rosary in some respects appears to be from the devil. What part of that don't you understand?

I never said the rosary is bad or that it's from the devil. What I said was, I don't have all the information to make a definitive judgement. On one hand it looks bad. On the other hand it looks like the Church endorses it. Obviously it's not both. And if the Church doesn't endorse it, who is to say that it's not bad or even from the devil?

I'll also point out, the fact that the Church seems to endorse it could in great part be due to the fact that trad priests are constantly trying to shove it down everybody's throat, acting as if the Church requires us to pray the rosary daily when the Church requires no such thing. Sure, when questionioned they'll probably tell you that you're free not to. But nevertheless, they act like it's Church teaching that the rosary is the second greatest prayer ever and that we must all pray it every day, just because our Lady seems to have requested it at Fatima. (Which is strange, seeing as not all trad priests are even on-board with Fatima. I believe Archbishop Lefebvre himself was critical of this idea that we should focus so much on Fatima.) I can't tell if it's the Church who endorses it, or if only these priests are the ones endorse it. If priests would just teach what the Church has always taught and stop introducing or promote novelties then this would hardly be an issue.

This ^^^ is simply pitiful for anyone to say who claims the name Catholic.

Every October 7th since it was instituted by Pope St. Pius V, the Church celebrates the feast of The Blessed Virgin Mary of the Rosary.

In the description for this mass in my Missal, it says:
"Tradition tells us that the Mother of God appeared to St. Dominic, and asked him to propagate the devotion of the holy rosary as a powerful means of combating error and vice. The decisive victory of the Christians at the battle of Lepanto in 1571 prompted Pope Pius V to institute this feast and to decree that the Blessed Virgin Mary be invoked as "Help of Christians."

I could go on and on about how the Church values and promotes the daily recitation of the rosary and how precious praying the Rosary is to Our Blessed Mother, and why She loves it so much, and about the graces and heavenly benefits we get by praying many rosaries every day, but I won't waste either of our time.

 
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that WHAT? Who changed this?
Post by: Daniel on November 30, 2020, 01:39:53 PM
I don't think GiftOfGod got me "fired up". I was only agreeing with him about the Sister Lucia quote (and, way earlier, about the fact that sedevacantists are not not-Catholic).

The reason I say that the rosary might be from the devil is because the rosary in some respects appears to be from the devil. What part of that don't you understand?

I never said the rosary is bad or that it's from the devil. What I said was, I don't have all the information to make a definitive judgement. On one hand it looks bad. On the other hand it looks like the Church endorses it. Obviously it's not both. And if the Church doesn't endorse it, who is to say that it's not bad or even from the devil?

I'll also point out, the fact that the Church seems to endorse it could in great part be due to the fact that trad priests are constantly trying to shove it down everybody's throat, acting as if the Church requires us to pray the rosary daily when the Church requires no such thing. Sure, when questionioned they'll probably tell you that you're free not to. But nevertheless, they act like it's Church teaching that the rosary is the second greatest prayer ever and that we must all pray it every day, just because our Lady seems to have requested it at Fatima. (Which is strange, seeing as not all trad priests are even on-board with Fatima. I believe Archbishop Lefebvre himself was critical of this idea that we should focus so much on Fatima.) I can't tell if it's the Church who endorses it, or if only these priests are the ones endorse it. If priests would just teach what the Church has always taught and stop introducing or promote novelties then this would hardly be an issue.

This ^^^ is simply pitiful for anyone to say who claims the name Catholic.

Every October 7th since it was instituted by Pope St. Pius V, the Church celebrates the feast of The Blessed Virgin Mary of the Rosary.

In the description for this mass in my Missal, it says:
"Tradition tells us that the Mother of God appeared to St. Dominic, and asked him to propagate the devotion of the holy rosary as a powerful means of combating error and vice. The decisive victory of the Christians at the battle of Lepanto in 1571 prompted Pope Pius V to institute this feast and to decree that the Blessed Virgin Mary be invoked as "Help of Christians."

I could go on and on about how the Church values and promotes the daily recitation of the rosary and how precious praying the Rosary is to Our Blessed Mother, and why She loves it so much, and about the graces and heavenly benefits we get by praying many rosaries every day, but I won't waste either of our time.

And so I said it appears that the Church endorses the rosary.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that WHAT? Who changed this?
Post by: Miriam_M on November 30, 2020, 01:43:51 PM
I never said the rosary is bad or that it's from the devil. What I said was, I don't have all the information to make a definitive judgement. On one hand it looks bad. On the other hand it looks like the Church endorses it. Obviously it's not both. And if the Church doesn't endorse it, who is to say that it's not bad or even from the devil?

Neither as a human being nor as a Catholic should you concern yourself with "definitive judgments" about Catholic spirituality.  We're talking about Catholic spirituality here -- you know, prayer -- not Working Drawings for a contractor to add a second story to a house (which, if he doesn't follow to the letter, the addition may collapse and kill people), or critical information for the Department of Defense.  If you, individually, need to be "sure" of everything, then there is no way you can be "sure" of the existence of God, either. He doesn't ask for that, and for most of us, He's not going to give us that special privilege, either, because that is the whole point of faith. Faith is belief in things unseen and "unverifiable."

Quote
I'll also point out, the fact that the Church seems to endorse it could in great part be due to the fact that trad priests are constantly trying to shove it down everybody's throat, acting as if the Church requires us to pray the rosary daily when the Church requires no such thing.

"Shove it down our throat" is strong language.  Make an appointment with a trad priest, please -- not about the rosary but about the fact that the devil is manipulating the heck out of your scruples.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that WHAT? Who changed this?
Post by: Daniel on November 30, 2020, 02:03:12 PM
I never said the rosary is bad or that it's from the devil. What I said was, I don't have all the information to make a definitive judgement. On one hand it looks bad. On the other hand it looks like the Church endorses it. Obviously it's not both. And if the Church doesn't endorse it, who is to say that it's not bad or even from the devil?

Neither as a human being nor as a Catholic should you concern yourself with "definitive judgments" about Catholic spirituality.  We're talking about Catholic spirituality here -- you know, prayer -- not Working Drawings for a contractor to add a second story to a house (which, if he doesn't follow to the letter, the addition may collapse and kill people), or critical information for the Department of Defense.  If you, individually, need to be "sure" of everything, then there is no way you can be "sure" of the existence of God, either. He doesn't ask for that, and for most of us, He's not going to give us that special privilege, either, because that is the whole point of faith. Faith is belief in things unseen and "unverifiable."

Ok, but, practically speaking, shouldn't prayer be a means to union with God? If a particular prayer causes us to hate God and to become lazy in our prayer life and to despair, why should we be praying it? It's not like the rosary is an end in itself or something, and I doubt our praying it pleases God if we do so while simultaneously hating Him.

Quote
Quote
I'll also point out, the fact that the Church seems to endorse it could in great part be due to the fact that trad priests are constantly trying to shove it down everybody's throat, acting as if the Church requires us to pray the rosary daily when the Church requires no such thing.

"Shove it down our throat" is strong language.  Make an appointment with a trad priest, please -- not about the rosary but about the fact that the devil is manipulating the heck out of your scruples.

I'm not sure it's scruples, but the devil probably has something to do with it. And I think you're right, but at the moment I can't find even one trad priest who can help.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: MundaCorMeum on November 30, 2020, 03:00:01 PM
It's definitely scruples....no doubt.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that WHAT? Who changed this?
Post by: Miriam_M on November 30, 2020, 03:47:05 PM

I'm not sure it's scruples, but the devil probably has something to do with it. And I think you're right, but at the moment I can't find even one trad priest who can help.


Many of us are having the same problem regarding the availability of trad priests, but I shall definitely add you -- yes, to my rosary.
 :)
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that WHAT? Who changed this?
Post by: mikemac on November 30, 2020, 03:52:53 PM

I'm not sure it's scruples, but the devil probably has something to do with it. And I think you're right, but at the moment I can't find even one trad priest who can help.


Many of us are having the same problem regarding the availability of trad priests, but I shall definitely add you -- yes, to my rosary.
 :)

Me too.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: queen.saints on December 01, 2020, 02:27:45 PM
On the original topic: it’s important to teach this to children while they are still quite young. I know a young man who started going exclusively to the Latin Mass from the age of 7 and for the next 15 years you’d have thought he was totally against the Novus Ordo, but deep in his heart he still held attachment to his early childhood memories at his old parish. His sibling who was just a few years younger never had this issue- through no personal merit- it was just that all their happy childhood memories involved the Latin Mass and they could never imagine going to Novus Ordo; it repulses them.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: jc176 on December 05, 2020, 12:57:13 PM
Better, rather, to teach them the Faith, and make sure they "know their stuff", as opposed to teaching them the ins and outs of the lacking of the NO.

Well, that's the issue isn't it?  Liturgy is the highest form of catechesis so right off knowing the Faith and knowing the 'ins and outs' of liturgy are tied together. What is the NO producing as opposed to the TLM? I'm thinking your typical liberal 'devout Catholic' (Biden, Pelosi, etc.) is NO if they attend regularly at all.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Prayerful on December 05, 2020, 07:42:24 PM
Teaching the Ten Commandments, prayers and how to reverently hear Mass, how we are helpless without God's aid, translating into making a Christian gentleman, are hard enough things to do. I couldn't possible see any reasonable didactive purpose in somehow trying to teach that the Novus Ordo Missae has problems. That might be a matter somehow for a priest or brother who might have delve into religious controversy, but it cannot possibly be something appropriate for a child or youth. The idea sounds horrifying.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Miriam_M on December 05, 2020, 08:19:14 PM
In most cases, a child will encounter somewhere, somehow, a friend or new acquaintance whose family attends the N.O.  The closer the child is to being a teen, the likelier this will become unless the parents rigidly enforce the isolation of their children from any-but-trad influences altogether.  If the child plays a sport, for example, or plays in a musical ensemble, it will be difficult to avoid completely an interface with the N.O. 

With that acquaintance the subject of "which church do you go to?" may come up. I would not recommend alienating a child from others by making sure that my own child harbors animosity toward the admittedly inferior form.  Better that --as with adults-- the one unacquainted with the Latin Mass be introduced to it in a positive manner.  The worst that can happen is that the newcomer will agreed to attend but then be unmoved/unpersuaded from his current parish and cease interest in the TLM.  But it will be less likely that he will even investigate it if he is made to feel that his trad friend declares his N.O. Mass attendance to be "bad."

So far, what I have seen is that the majority of new visitors to the Latin Mass (of any age) appreciate it, and/or are curious to learn more, and/or wish to switch. But setting a positive tone for that possibility is key, i.m.e.  We even had a situation a few years ago wherein the reputation of our First Communions was so locally legendary that inquirers from N.O. parishes wished to attend our catechesis, formation, and the sacrament itself, which they were allowed to do, although their parents were informed about the differences between the two rites and catechesis and the necessity of adhering to both.

When those visiting First Communicants returned to their N.O. parishes, they exclaimed about what they had received in a trad environment, and they also continued to insist, firmly, on COTT in their home parishes. Their remarks, not surprisingly, caused the N.O. parishioners to feel envious and curious.

Thus, my own reasoning for withholding condemnation of the N.O. Mass from children would be in the interest of evangelization/conversion.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: christulsa on December 05, 2020, 08:27:13 PM
I'll chime in, if I may, though my wife and I have not been blessed with children.  I probably wouldn't tell them about the NO in detail until they are old enough to process it, so as not to scandalize them.  Like waiting to tell them about the evils of premarital sex and drugs.  I'd work it into their home school religion course say around age 16, giving apologetics about false religions, since the Novus Ordo is a false religion.  Since the Novus Ordo is equivalent to Vatican II and the New Mass, I would be forced, when asked why we prefer the SSPX, to explain the difference between the SSPX and Ecclesia Dei societies, who formally accept the NO as legitimate (though many of the priests and laity at the individual don't). 
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Miriam_M on December 05, 2020, 08:45:39 PM
I was probably limiting my argument to discussion of the Mass alone, rather than all of the bad theology contributing to and flowing from the N.O.M.  Myself, I would prefer to have the trad priest in question handle the important theological differences within a trad catechesis environment as the child develops intellectually and spiritually, with myself, as a parent, merely reinforcing the priest's teaching.  I would trust a well-trained priest to frame it, initially, in a better way than I might (until the child is old enough to need to know more differences and ready to understand them, such as -- yes -- late teens).
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: diaduit on December 06, 2020, 02:53:20 AM
My kids went to a Catholic school until this year and would have been in frequent contact with N O children and masses.  WE have extended family too so with weddings, baptisms, communions etc , it is unfortunately part of our life.
I have always pointed out the differences between our mass and N O mass from about the age of 7 and they have grown up seeing that mass through my eyes if you like and they have volunteered to me their sadness at seeing people receive Communion as if it were a coin and not blessing themselves, sadness at the constant chatter of people attending, lack of knowledge of their peers and lack of interest in understanding etc.

I don't know if I did write or wrong but I made the best use of what was in our life at that time and my kids are well versed just how insipid a N O mass is.  I would discuss at length the wrongs of it but nothing like seeing it first hand for them to be wide eyed at it.  Obviously I avoided as much as I could and my kids were told never to take communion during a school mass.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Stubborn on December 06, 2020, 10:44:26 AM
Teaching the Ten Commandments, prayers and how to reverently hear Mass, how we are helpless without God's aid, translating into making a Christian gentleman, are hard enough things to do. I couldn't possible see any reasonable didactive purpose in somehow trying to teach that the Novus Ordo Missae has problems. That might be a matter somehow for a priest or brother who might have delve into religious controversy, but it cannot possibly be something appropriate for a child or youth. The idea sounds horrifying.

Yep.

As children through the infancy of the crisis, all we children really knew through our parents was it was bad, to not go there, to not be curious and look into it, to not read their writings, to avoid the NO no matter what, to use the NO as a tool to learn what not to do, to only go to the TLM and to learn the traditional faith etc., which some of us children who still have the faith actually did. Heck, 99.5% of the Catholic population at that time could not fully explain it, but they knew it had to be avoided.

For me personally, it wasn't until +40 years later in 2006 when I read The Great Sacrilege that I understood why we were told to never go and thankfully never went.     

The jist of it is, children really need no explanations - which for the most part, they won't understand anyway. What children need, is to be told what to do and what not to do - little or no explanation should suffice - but if they ask questions, give them answers they will understand.

 
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 06, 2020, 04:00:04 PM
I'll chime in, if I may, though my wife and I have not been blessed with children.  I probably wouldn't tell them about the NO in detail until they are old enough to process it, so as not to scandalize them.  Like waiting to tell them about the evils of premarital sex and drugs.  I'd work it into their home school religion course say around age 16, giving apologetics about false religions, since the Novus Ordo is a false religion.  Since the Novus Ordo is equivalent to Vatican II and the New Mass, I would be forced, when asked why we prefer the SSPX, to explain the difference between the SSPX and Ecclesia Dei societies, who formally accept the NO as legitimate (though many of the priests and laity at the individual don't).

I agree about age-appropriateness but age 16 is way too late. By that time, they have already learned about the NO from passing NO church buildings, having NO classmates, friends, neighbors, and relatives. It's like waiting until age 16 to teach about sex. Too late. By that time, they will already know but not from you or another good source. Just like how I'd rather teach my son about the birds and the bees at age 10, rather than some neighbor kid showing him porn at age 13, I'd rather teach my son about the NO at age 5 than at age 10 have a NO neighbor kid tell him how highly she thinks of the local NO parish Saint John Paul the Great and its priest Fr. Truvada.


My kids went to a Catholic school until this year and would have been in frequent contact with N O children and masses.  WE have extended family too so with weddings, baptisms, communions etc , it is unfortunately part of our life.

Why are you not committed to never attending the New Mass?
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: diaduit on December 06, 2020, 04:27:22 PM
I'll chime in, if I may, though my wife and I have not been blessed with children.  I probably wouldn't tell them about the NO in detail until they are old enough to process it, so as not to scandalize them.  Like waiting to tell them about the evils of premarital sex and drugs.  I'd work it into their home school religion course say around age 16, giving apologetics about false religions, since the Novus Ordo is a false religion.  Since the Novus Ordo is equivalent to Vatican II and the New Mass, I would be forced, when asked why we prefer the SSPX, to explain the difference between the SSPX and Ecclesia Dei societies, who formally accept the NO as legitimate (though many of the priests and laity at the individual don't).

I agree about age-appropriateness but age 16 is way too late. By that time, they have already learned about the NO from passing NO church buildings, having NO classmates, friends, neighbors, and relatives. It's like waiting until age 16 to teach about sex. Too late. By that time, they will already know but not from you or another good source. Just like how I'd rather teach my son about the birds and the bees at age 10, rather than some neighbor kid showing him porn at age 13, I'd rather teach my son about the NO at age 5 than at age 10 have a NO neighbor kid tell him how highly she thinks of the local NO parish Saint John Paul the Great and its priest Fr. Truvada.


My kids went to a Catholic school until this year and would have been in frequent contact with N O children and masses.  WE have extended family too so with weddings, baptisms, communions etc , it is unfortunately part of our life.

Why are you not committed to never attending the New Mass?

You can't escape it here in Ireland. Not with family, friends and neighbours weddings, funerals etc. Most schools are under Catholic patronage where the local priest sits on the Board of management, the mass is incorporated into the school day on different feast days and Sacraments. 
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Jayne on December 06, 2020, 04:30:10 PM
Why are you not committed to never attending the New Mass?

Are you familiar with the distinction that SSPX makes between attending and participating in the NO?  I could try track down a description if you are interested.  This is the way they handle the issue of occasionally attending weddings, funerals, etc.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 06, 2020, 04:34:02 PM
Why are you not committed to never attending the New Mass?

Are you familiar with the distinction that SSPX makes between attending and participating in the NO?  I could try track down a description if you are interested.  This is the way they handle the issue of occasionally attending weddings, funerals, etc.

That might be the official line but some SSPX priests and many laity consider it a sin to attend the NO. I think the official line is softer in the hopes that the Vatican will give them credit for it.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Jayne on December 06, 2020, 05:14:40 PM
Why are you not committed to never attending the New Mass?

Are you familiar with the distinction that SSPX makes between attending and participating in the NO?  I could try track down a description if you are interested.  This is the way they handle the issue of occasionally attending weddings, funerals, etc.

That might be the official line but some SSPX priests and many laity consider it a sin to attend the NO. I think the official line is softer in the hopes that the Vatican will give them credit for it.

I don't think the official line on this has softened.  Here is a quote from an article written in 1994 https://sspx.org/en/attendance-todays-sunday-masses (https://sspx.org/en/attendance-todays-sunday-masses):

Quote
This also demands total abstention from attending at the New Mass; a passive attendance is tolerated for a serious reason "to render honor or for a polite obligation" (as for example for the marriage or funeral of a relative or friend), "as long as there is no peril of perversion and of scandal."

In context, it is clear that the NO is considered as spiritually dangerous and something to be avoided.  However, "passive attendance" was tolerated under certain circumstances, even though, attendance has always been considered far from ideal and potentially sinful. I don't think that this has changed.

Where I have noticed softening is in the teaching about "indult Masses" (which are technically not based on an Indult now, but on Summorum Pontificum).  In older articles these were treated as equally as bad as the Novus Ordo, whereas now it is determined on a case by case basis.  Some may be acceptable.

Like you, I have the impression that much of what is published now is determined by hopes for approval from Rome.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 06, 2020, 05:30:00 PM
Where I have noticed softening is in the teaching about "indult Masses" (which are technically not based on an Indult now, but on Summorum Pontificum).

Fr. Cekada's (RIP) term for them is "Motu Masses". He also coined other terms such as Indulterer, Recognize and Resist, NewChurch, FrankenChurch, and probably others. Just a quick lesson in Tradom etymology.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: Jayne on December 06, 2020, 05:36:38 PM
Where I have noticed softening is in the teaching about "indult Masses" (which are technically not based on an Indult now, but on Summorum Pontificum).

Fr. Cekada's (RIP) term for them is "Motu Masses". He also coined other terms such as Indulterer, Recognize and Resist, NewChurch, FrankenChurch, and probably others. Just a quick lesson in Tradom etymology.

He really had a gift for coming up with memorable and evocative expressions.  He will be missed for a long time.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: queen.saints on December 06, 2020, 05:39:50 PM
Teaching the Ten Commandments, prayers and how to reverently hear Mass, how we are helpless without God's aid, translating into making a Christian gentleman, are hard enough things to do. I couldn't possible see any reasonable didactive purpose in somehow trying to teach that the Novus Ordo Missae has problems. That might be a matter somehow for a priest or brother who might have delve into religious controversy, but it cannot possibly be something appropriate for a child or youth. The idea sounds horrifying.

God puts very little children to very difficult tests all the time. There are 2 and 3 year old martyrs who were able to answer the theological questions of their persecutors.


A 4 year old boy was recently taken away by his mother, told that his holy traditional Catholic relatives were bad, and forced to start going to the Novus Ordo.

After his first Novus Ordo Mass, he was asked what he thought of it. He said,

“Fake Mass. Fake priest.”

Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: mikemac on December 06, 2020, 05:43:35 PM
Why are you not committed to never attending the New Mass?

Are you familiar with the distinction that SSPX makes between attending and participating in the NO?  I could try track down a description if you are interested.  This is the way they handle the issue of occasionally attending weddings, funerals, etc.

That might be the official line but some SSPX priests and many laity consider it a sin to attend the NO. I think the official line is softer in the hopes that the Vatican will give them credit for it.

I don't think the official line on this has softened.  Here is a quote from an article written in 1994 https://sspx.org/en/attendance-todays-sunday-masses (https://sspx.org/en/attendance-todays-sunday-masses):

Quote
This also demands total abstention from attending at the New Mass; a passive attendance is tolerated for a serious reason "to render honor or for a polite obligation" (as for example for the marriage or funeral of a relative or friend), "as long as there is no peril of perversion and of scandal."

In context, it is clear that the NO is considered as spiritually dangerous and something to be avoided.  However, "passive attendance" was tolerated under certain circumstances, even though, attendance has always been considered far from ideal and potentially sinful. I don't think that this has changed.

Where I have noticed softening is in the teaching about "indult Masses" (which are technically not based on an Indult now, but on Summorum Pontificum).  In older articles these were treated as equally as bad as the Novus Ordo, whereas now it is determined on a case by case basis.  Some may be acceptable.

Like you, I have the impression that much of what is published now is determined by hopes for approval from Rome.

It's not the SSPX Church.  It's the Catholic Church.  Many traditional priests would disagree with what is being said here, in fact many may even call it heretical.
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: queen.saints on December 06, 2020, 05:53:32 PM
SS.Romanus and Barulas


Let there be brought," said the saint, " a child of tender years, and let us learn from him whether it be better to follow a religion which teaches a plurality of gods, or that which adores only one."
The prefect accepted the challenge, and the young child, who had not been long weaned, was brought forward, to whom Romanus said : "Which is better, my child, to adore Jesus Christ or a plurality of gods?" The boy replied that the true God could be only one, and that a plurality of gods was inconceivable. The tyrant, confused by this answer, turned to the child and said: " Who has taught thee these things?" He replied: "My mother, who was herself taught by God."' Asclepiades had the cruelty to have the child torn by force from his mother's embrace, scourged, and beheaded. The Church celebrates the triumph of this infant martyr, named Barulas, who was baptized in his own blood on the 18th November.


Footnote: A wonderful profession of faith, evidently inspired by Him who said : " You shall be brought before governors, and before kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the gentiles [of my divinity and of.the truth of my doctrine]. But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak ; for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you" (Matt. x. 18). The Holy Church is our mother according to faith, and it is God who has revealed to her the truths that she teaches us.-ED.


http://www.catholickingdom.com/s_Library/Books/V/Victories_of_the_Martyrs_LIGUORI_OCR_CK.pdf
Title: Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
Post by: GiftOfGod on December 06, 2020, 06:39:18 PM
Teaching the Ten Commandments, prayers and how to reverently hear Mass, how we are helpless without God's aid, translating into making a Christian gentleman, are hard enough things to do. I couldn't possible see any reasonable didactive purpose in somehow trying to teach that the Novus Ordo Missae has problems. That might be a matter somehow for a priest or brother who might have delve into religious controversy, but it cannot possibly be something appropriate for a child or youth. The idea sounds horrifying.

God puts very little children to very difficult tests all the time. There are 2 and 3 year old martyrs who were able to answer the theological questions of their persecutors.


A 4 year old boy was recently taken away by his mother, told that his holy traditional Catholic relatives were bad, and forced to start going to the Novus Ordo.

After his first Novus Ordo Mass, he was asked what he thought of it. He said,

“Fake Mass. Fake priest.”

Wow! How did the 4 year old know that?