Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians
This
Reply
(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 speaks in the book,"The Mass Of All Time", how the words of consecration in the old missal were bold, while the new missal, the difference in print has been removed. He also talks about how during the consecration, in the new missal, the priest is supposed to keep to a narrative tone of voice.
I have read elsewhere how the priest now puts the consecrated Host [maybe?!] on the paten instead of the coporal which brings out the meal concept. The priest now kneels after showing the host to the people instead of immediately after the consecration. Not to mention how the words  surrounding the consecration  have been changed. This seems to be a subtle attack on the priests intention, in my opinion.
Reply
The Typical Novus Ordo Supporter who posts on a trad forum Wrote:Actually the NO can be as valid and licit as the TLM is.
For good or bad it was promulgated officially by a sitting Supreme Pontiff who had the authority to do so.
So the NO can be valid and licit.

......The myopic see the Missale as nothing more than a set of rubrics and a liturgical calendar, which could be lawfully altered or replaced by any of St. Pius' successors with or without a reason. In fact, the Missale sets forth the manner of worship whereby the Faith of the Apostles, particularly the Apostles Saints Peter and Paul, is celebrated and the Sacrifice of the New Law is offered to almighty God for those of the Latin Tradition. The Liturgy of the Roman Rite is not merely "a way of saying Mass." It is the worshipful expression and all-capitulating Act of the ancient Faith, which gave rise to a whole culture, to its own music, art, architecture, a true intellectualism and theology. More important, it elevated the manners and morals of the Catholic people of Europe and beyond to the most civilized mode of living that the world has ever known, more orderly and godly, more liberated and urbane, more humane and respectful than that of any other people.

More important still, the Liturgy of the Roman Rite is the source of the authentic spirituality of the Western Church, which produced more saints, converted more nations, inspired more men to become priests, and civilized more peoples than any of the other Rites of the Church, blessed and noble as they are. This Liturgy is the inexhaustible font of the grace of Christian sanctification for us Catholics of the Latin Tradition because it communicates to us the fruit of the Mysteries of Christ, as they are commemorated and re-presented annually in the Christological cycle. The spirituality of the Roman Liturgy was codified in the Rule of St. Benedict, the father of Western monasticism. This was the Rule which governed the lives and guided to sanctity and salvation countless thousands of men and women in the Latin Church for over fifteen hundred years.

The fruit of the anti-liturgy of the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI is, to put the very best face on it, nil. Those who say that the Traditional Mass and the New Mass, and the Missale Romanum and the New Missals (however many there are or will be) are the same are egregiously dishonest and/or culpably stupid. It is this hypocritical dishonesty and studied close-mindedness that will damn modern Catholics.
- Snip from Feb. 2005, Fr. James Wathen: A Catholic Pope part 2

Reply
(09-17-2011, 08:42 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
The Typical Novus Ordo Supporter who posts on a trad forum Wrote:Actually the NO can be as valid and licit as the TLM is.
For good or bad it was promulgated officially by a sitting Supreme Pontiff who had the authority to do so.
So the NO can be valid and licit.

......The myopic see the Missale as nothing more than a set of rubrics and a liturgical calendar, which could be lawfully altered or replaced by any of St. Pius' successors with or without a reason. In fact, the Missale sets forth the manner of worship whereby the Faith of the Apostles, particularly the Apostles Saints Peter and Paul, is celebrated and the Sacrifice of the New Law is offered to almighty God for those of the Latin Tradition. The Liturgy of the Roman Rite is not merely "a way of saying Mass." It is the worshipful expression and all-capitulating Act of the ancient Faith, which gave rise to a whole culture, to its own music, art, architecture, a true intellectualism and theology. More important, it elevated the manners and morals of the Catholic people of Europe and beyond to the most civilized mode of living that the world has ever known, more orderly and godly, more liberated and urbane, more humane and respectful than that of any other people.

More important still, the Liturgy of the Roman Rite is the source of the authentic spirituality of the Western Church, which produced more saints, converted more nations, inspired more men to become priests, and civilized more peoples than any of the other Rites of the Church, blessed and noble as they are. This Liturgy is the inexhaustible font of the grace of Christian sanctification for us Catholics of the Latin Tradition because it communicates to us the fruit of the Mysteries of Christ, as they are commemorated and re-presented annually in the Christological cycle. The spirituality of the Roman Liturgy was codified in the Rule of St. Benedict, the father of Western monasticism. This was the Rule which governed the lives and guided to sanctity and salvation countless thousands of men and women in the Latin Church for over fifteen hundred years.

The fruit of the anti-liturgy of the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI is, to put the very best face on it, nil. Those who say that the Traditional Mass and the New Mass, and the Missale Romanum and the New Missals (however many there are or will be) are the same are egregiously dishonest and/or culpably stupid. It is this hypocritical dishonesty and studied close-mindedness that will damn modern Catholics.
- Snip from Feb. 2005, Fr. James Wathen: A Catholic Pope part 2
I guess you are morE holy and learned than Pope Paul VI.
Reply
I guess your holier than the both of us.  ???
Reply
(09-17-2011, 08:42 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
The Typical Novus Ordo Supporter who posts on a trad forum Wrote:Actually the NO can be as valid and licit as the TLM is.
For good or bad it was promulgated officially by a sitting Supreme Pontiff who had the authority to do so.
So the NO can be valid and licit.

......The myopic see the Missale as nothing more than a set of rubrics and a liturgical calendar, which could be lawfully altered or replaced by any of St. Pius' successors with or without a reason. In fact, the Missale sets forth the manner of worship whereby the Faith of the Apostles, particularly the Apostles Saints Peter and Paul, is celebrated and the Sacrifice of the New Law is offered to almighty God for those of the Latin Tradition. The Liturgy of the Roman Rite is not merely "a way of saying Mass." It is the worshipful expression and all-capitulating Act of the ancient Faith, which gave rise to a whole culture, to its own music, art, architecture, a true intellectualism and theology. More important, it elevated the manners and morals of the Catholic people of Europe and beyond to the most civilized mode of living that the world has ever known, more orderly and godly, more liberated and urbane, more humane and respectful than that of any other people.

More important still, the Liturgy of the Roman Rite is the source of the authentic spirituality of the Western Church, which produced more saints, converted more nations, inspired more men to become priests, and civilized more peoples than any of the other Rites of the Church, blessed and noble as they are. This Liturgy is the inexhaustible font of the grace of Christian sanctification for us Catholics of the Latin Tradition because it communicates to us the fruit of the Mysteries of Christ, as they are commemorated and re-presented annually in the Christological cycle. The spirituality of the Roman Liturgy was codified in the Rule of St. Benedict, the father of Western monasticism. This was the Rule which governed the lives and guided to sanctity and salvation countless thousands of men and women in the Latin Church for over fifteen hundred years.

The fruit of the anti-liturgy of the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI is, to put the very best face on it, nil. Those who say that the Traditional Mass and the New Mass, and the Missale Romanum and the New Missals (however many there are or will be) are the same are egregiously dishonest and/or culpably stupid. It is this hypocritical dishonesty and studied close-mindedness that will damn modern Catholics.
- Snip from Feb. 2005, Fr. James Wathen: A Catholic Pope part 2

THIS!
Reply
(06-02-1970, 04:24 AM)dan hunter Wrote: I guess you are morE holy and learned than Pope Paul VI.
I can't testify to Stubborn's holiness or learnedness, but he does seem to be less willing than Paul VI to jettison the treasure of our irreplaceable liturgical patrimony. It is an objective fact that Pope Paul presided over the deliberate (attempted) eradication of  the holy rites of the Church and their replacement with inexpertly crafted simulacra. 

Stubborn - or any faithful Catholic - has not only the right but the duty to point out the glaring deficiency of these rites - to the Pope himself if necessary.  If - as Trads - we are willing to admit to the spiritual poverty of the NO (that is, that a Pope could legislate liturgical changes harmful to the Chuch), we should at least consider the possibility that the legislation itself was not legitimate - if for no other reason than to reject that conclusion.

Regardless of whether we accept or reject the conclusion, we have still engaged in an act of judgment of the Pope's actions. Even if we choose rightly, we have still arrogated that faculty of choice to ourselves.  In other words rejecting the validity of the NO doesn't make us "holier" or "more Catholic" or more "learned" than the Pope any more than "preferring" the old rite does. If not then why are we here claiming to be Trads rather than "obedient" reform of the reform Neo-Caths?  I think we need to be honest with ourselves that "preference" for the old mass while remaining "obedient" is itself a kind of inward dissent.  This is central quandary that a Trad must face - the best resolution of which is by no means certain to me.
Reply
(09-17-2011, 11:23 PM)Landelinus Wrote:
(06-02-1970, 04:24 AM)dan hunter Wrote: I guess you are morE holy and learned than Pope Paul VI.
I can't testify to Stubborn's holiness or learnedness, but he does seem to be less willing than Paul VI to jettison the treasure of our irreplaceable liturgical patrimony. It is an objective fact that Pope Paul presided over the deliberate (attempted) eradication of  the holy rites of the Church and their replacement with inexpertly crafted simulacra. 

Stubborn - or any faithful Catholic - has not only the right but the duty to point out the glaring deficiency of these rites - to the Pope himself if necessary.  If - as Trads - we are willing to admit to the spiritual poverty of the NO (that is, that a Pope could legislate liturgical changes harmful to the Chuch), we should at least consider the possibility that the legislation itself was not legitimate - if for no other reason than to reject that conclusion.

Regardless of whether we accept or reject the conclusion, we have still engaged in an act of judgment of the Pope's actions. Even if we choose rightly, we have still arrogated that faculty of choice to ourselves.  In other words rejecting the validity of the NO doesn't make us "holier" or "more Catholic" or more "learned" than the Pope any more than "preferring" the old rite does. If not then why are we here claiming to be Trads rather than "obedient" reform of the reform Neo-Caths?  I think we need to be honest with ourselves that "preference" for the old mass while remaining "obedient" is itself a kind of inward dissent.  This is central quandary that a Trad must face - the best resolution of which is by no means certain to me.

Very well said.  And it is a quandary with apparently deep repercussions no matter which way we look at it.  Yes, it is a time of crisis indeed.
Reply
(09-15-2011, 05:22 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-15-2011, 05:19 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(09-15-2011, 05:13 PM)JayneK Wrote: Bishop Fellay speaks in a measured way, without hyperbole or polemics.  I admire this about him.
It probably reflects the way his mind works.
He is a genuine Catholic.

If the Society is regularized, I will probably being having much more to do with them.  I consider Bishop Fellay's leadership to be one of the positive aspects of the SSPX.

...but you disagree with their blatant stance against the New Mass.  How can you consider +Fellay's leadership good and "have much more to do with them" when they denounce the Protestant Mass that you constantly defend?
Reply
because to her and others the jist is paperwork, not the mass. its the paperwork that makes a mass catholic. not its theology.
paperwork
paperwork
paperwork
u got the right rubber stamp then its catholic. no rubber stamp, pay someone off in the bureaucracy and get it or not then not catholic
paperwork
that's her point. so when the sspx gets the stamp and paperwork alls well
lol
sucks but true
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)