FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(09-16-2011, 03:06 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-16-2011, 03:05 PM)dan hunter Wrote: [ -> ]It actually is very easy to prove the validity of the NO Mass; if the correct form and matter are used.

You're forgetting intention.
Correct.
I am sorry.
But you cannot mindread the intention of the priest at the NO or the TLM.
This is not the faithfuls fault.
(09-16-2011, 03:13 PM)dan hunter Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-16-2011, 03:06 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-16-2011, 03:05 PM)dan hunter Wrote: [ -> ]It actually is very easy to prove the validity of the NO Mass; if the correct form and matter are used.

You're forgetting intention.
Correct.
I am sorry.
But you cannot mindread the intention of the priest at the NO or the TLM.
This is not the faithfuls fault.

The whole NO system undermines the priest's right intention. That's the purpose of it.
indeed and then some
I know of several good orthodox priests who offer the NO Mass the way the Church wants them to.
They offer the NO the way I have seen the HF offer it.
Their sermons have been about the Sacrifice of Mass and all points of Faith as taught in the Catechism of Trent and the Pius X catechism.
I am very certain, though I could be wrong, that these priests have the right intention.
(09-16-2011, 03:23 PM)dan hunter Wrote: [ -> ]I know of several good orthodox priests who offer the NO Mass the way the Church wants them to.
They offer the NO the way I have seen the HF offer it.
Their sermons have been about the Sacrifice of Mass and all points of Faith as taught in the Catechism of Trent and the Pius X catechism.
I am very certain, though I could be wrong, that these priests have the right intention.

Of course, there are exceptions. No-one ever agued that there aren't any real Catholic priests left in the conciliar establishment.

But the system is fashioned so that these priests disappear in the long run.
(09-16-2011, 02:54 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]If I cannot attend the NO because of what it is, then the same goes for the rest of you.

This is the arrogance of which I was speaking earlier.  You have no authority over the "rest of you" out there.  You can and should follow your conscience and do your best to understand the Church in this crisis and even convince others of your views, but you should draw the line at telling others that what is right for you in the crisis is also right for them.  You are no member of the Magisterium, traditional or otherwise.  You know that even in traditional circles there is a wide variety of opinions concerning many things.  That's the problem; without a proper functioning Magisterium we are left to ourselves, which means we are inherently left in a grey area.  It is sad, very sad, indeed, that we cannot fully rely on the visible Church today.  It leaves us in some sense floundering like the protestants, trying to find answers to questions without a heirarchy to rely on for the correct interpretation.  And since we cannot fully rely on the Church , we are left to rely on our own individual interpretations of tradition, which is why there are so many opinions out there on all of these questions.  Undoubtedly one of the opinions is right and the others are wrong, but it seems near impossible to tell which is which, especially on the thornier questions.  If it were possible for us to figure out the hard questions, any hard questions, on our own by reading older texts (scripture, encyclicals, etc) then we would have no need for the Papacy.  There is no question about it; we are in a tight spot in this crisis.

So, it seems to me that we should try our hardest to find and follow God's will, but, at the same time, realize that we are all bound to make mistakes and have incorrect views, and thus give some charity to those who are sincere yet have different views from ours.

You are lucky, it is a grace, that you were raised trad, though on the other hand I also think much fruit can come from having to wrestle with the crisis in the Church and then come to tradition from the NO.  Your lack of experience in the NO appears to have left you with the impression that most Catholics who attend the NO are either stupid or faithless.  This is simply not the case.

I am a fairly recent convert.  Through God's grace I was catechized in the most conservative parish in my diocese.  I shortly thereafter found an SSPX chapel an hour from my house and have been attending there solely.  However, I know that many of the people in my previous NO parish were sincere and trying to be faithful.

A crisis calls for all of the great virtues.  Strength and courage, mercy and compassion, zeal and understanding.  But above all charity, in all of her forms.  The charity to instruct, the charity to forgive, the charity to understand, the charity to sacrifice for others.

I pray for the grace to have these virtues, as my soul is unbelievable weak and the crisis is so grave.

Pax,
Jesse
(09-16-2011, 03:18 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-16-2011, 03:13 PM)dan hunter Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-16-2011, 03:06 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-16-2011, 03:05 PM)dan hunter Wrote: [ -> ]It actually is very easy to prove the validity of the NO Mass; if the correct form and matter are used.

You're forgetting intention.
Correct.
I am sorry.
But you cannot mindread the intention of the priest at the NO or the TLM.
This is not the faithfuls fault.

The whole NO system undermines the priest's right intention. That's the purpose of it.

This is a good point, Vetus.  I've thought much about how the NO undermines the beliefs of the faithful, but I hadn't given much thought about how it undermines the priest's intention in order to make the mass invalid.  Interesting.
(09-16-2011, 03:25 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-16-2011, 03:23 PM)dan hunter Wrote: [ -> ]I know of several good orthodox priests who offer the NO Mass the way the Church wants them to.
They offer the NO the way I have seen the HF offer it.
Their sermons have been about the Sacrifice of Mass and all points of Faith as taught in the Catechism of Trent and the Pius X catechism.
I am very certain, though I could be wrong, that these priests have the right intention.

Of course, there are exceptions. No-one ever agued that there aren't any real Catholic priests left in the conciliar establishment.

But the system is fashioned so that these priests disappear in the long run.
If true, why do you think so?
Is there any information out there on if the Church supplies the intention to a priest who does not have the right intention as he offers Mass?
(09-16-2011, 03:31 PM)Jesse Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-16-2011, 03:18 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-16-2011, 03:13 PM)dan hunter Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-16-2011, 03:06 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-16-2011, 03:05 PM)dan hunter Wrote: [ -> ]It actually is very easy to prove the validity of the NO Mass; if the correct form and matter are used.

You're forgetting intention.
Correct.
I am sorry.
But you cannot mindread the intention of the priest at the NO or the TLM.
This is not the faithfuls fault.

The whole NO system undermines the priest's right intention. That's the purpose of it.

This is a good point, Vetus.  I've thought much about how the NO undermines the beliefs of the faithful, but I hadn't given much thought about how it undermines the priest's intention in order to make the mass invalid.  Interesting.

Archbishop Lefebvre Consecration Sermon 1988 Wrote:You well know, my dear brethren, that there can be no priests without bishops. When God calls me - no doubt this will be before long - from whom would these seminarians receive the Sacrament of Orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28