Why going to Mass is not Optional.
#31
(11-13-2011, 03:53 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Abuses can happen at TLM's...but the NO encourages abuses.
Well, it's our right because, we the people, have a priesthood as well.  :eyeroll:
Reply
#32
(11-12-2011, 03:14 PM)Petertherock Wrote: "Sunday Celebrations of the Eucharist in absence of a Priest" where hopefully a Deacon but sometimes women give a prayer service and hand out Communion and according to our Bishop is OK to count as your Sunday Mass obligation when there are plenty of NO Masses within a short drive from this particular Church.

You can bet that with the decline in vocations to the priesthood, there will be more "Sunday Celebrations of the Eucharist in absence of a Priest" in the years to come.  But why do you care if you always attend the EF?

You say you don't think people should attend "Sunday Celebrations of the Eucharist in absence of a Priest" to meet their Sunday obligation "when there are plenty of NO Masses within a short drive from this particular Church."

But you don't think OF Masses are valid so why would you suggest people attend them?  Shouldn't they drive five hours to an EF Mass?  Or stay home and pray?

Also, you're talking about Masses "within a short drive" as if everyone had a car.  Not everyone does.  Not everyone can drive, either.  Also, those who live long enough usually reach a point when they should stop driving. 

Reply
#33
(11-13-2011, 10:35 PM)Revixit Wrote:
(11-12-2011, 03:14 PM)Petertherock Wrote: "Sunday Celebrations of the Eucharist in absence of a Priest" where hopefully a Deacon but sometimes women give a prayer service and hand out Communion and according to our Bishop is OK to count as your Sunday Mass obligation when there are plenty of NO Masses within a short drive from this particular Church.

You can bet that with the decline in vocations to the priesthood, there will be more "Sunday Celebrations of the Eucharist in absence of a Priest" in the years to come.  But why do you care if you always attend the EF?

You say you don't think people should attend "Sunday Celebrations of the Eucharist in absence of a Priest" to meet their Sunday obligation "when there are plenty of NO Masses within a short drive from this particular Church."

But you don't think OF Masses are valid so why would you suggest people attend them?  Shouldn't they drive five hours to an EF Mass?  Or stay home and pray?

Also, you're talking about Masses "within a short drive" as if everyone had a car.  Not everyone does.  Not everyone can drive, either.  Also, those who live long enough usually reach a point when they should stop driving. 

This particular Church is in a wealthy area. To give you an idea, the homes around the Church are million dollar homes. Maybe you can find some cheap ones for $500,000 but good luck with that. It's in a very rural area.

I wasn't talking about myself attending a NO Mass...I was talking about NO Catholics like you, who think you should attend a NO. If you are telling me that I have to attend a NO Mass when there are no TLM's around...then why do people get to attend a Sunday Celebration of the Eucharist, on a Saturday, when there are many, many Churches with NO Masses that they could go to. If Novus Ordoites get a free pass for a Sunday Celebration of the Eucharist on a Saturday, then trads should get a free pass if there isn't any TLM's available.

There is also no lack of vocations in the traditional seminaries...just sayin'.

Reply
#34
(11-13-2011, 03:53 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Abuses can happen at TLM's...but the NO encourages abuses.

Can you show me in the rubrics exactly where it encourages abuses? Either implicitly or explicitly.
Reply
#35
(11-13-2011, 03:53 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Abuses can happen at TLM's...but the NO encourages abuses.

The NOM *is* the abuse of the True Mass.

Reply
#36
(11-13-2011, 11:30 PM)SPB Wrote:
(11-13-2011, 03:53 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Abuses can happen at TLM's...but the NO encourages abuses.

Can you show me in the rubrics exactly where it encourages abuses? Either implicitly or explicitly.

Again, some may say, you are condemning the abuses and calling them the "New Liturgy." I am saying, what can you do about it? The "New Liturgy" permits, nay, inspires and encourages the abuses with its totally untraditionalist, ridiculous "options." It is contrary to the very idea of "ritual" that it be "optional." I am saying that with the discarding of the Missale Romanum, the Pope has undermined all authority, including his own, so that no one can prevent any and every form of sacrilege and impiety. By contradicting the idea that the Divine Liturgy was or can be fixed, he has taught that it cannot be: so, the "liturgy" now consists of anything any fool decides it to be. And if you think my logic not perfectly consistent, prove it! Let the bishops prove it; let them attempt to "regulate" the "New Liturgy;" let them begin to try to enforce Catholic Orthodoxy from their pulpits; let them try to tell their clergy what they may and may not do at their "mass." They have already found it impossible because the "New Liturgy" of its very nature makes it so. - Fr. Wathens
Reply
#37
(11-13-2011, 10:59 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(11-13-2011, 10:35 PM)Revixit Wrote:
(11-12-2011, 03:14 PM)Petertherock Wrote: "Sunday Celebrations of the Eucharist in absence of a Priest" where hopefully a Deacon but sometimes women give a prayer service and hand out Communion and according to our Bishop is OK to count as your Sunday Mass obligation when there are plenty of NO Masses within a short drive from this particular Church.

You can bet that with the decline in vocations to the priesthood, there will be more "Sunday Celebrations of the Eucharist in absence of a Priest" in the years to come.  But why do you care if you always attend the EF?

You say you don't think people should attend "Sunday Celebrations of the Eucharist in absence of a Priest" to meet their Sunday obligation "when there are plenty of NO Masses within a short drive from this particular Church."

But you don't think OF Masses are valid so why would you suggest people attend them?  Shouldn't they drive five hours to an EF Mass?  Or stay home and pray?

Also, you're talking about Masses "within a short drive" as if everyone had a car.  Not everyone does.  Not everyone can drive, either.  Also, those who live long enough usually reach a point when they should stop driving. 

This particular Church is in a wealthy area. To give you an idea, the homes around the Church are million dollar homes. Maybe you can find some cheap ones for $500,000 but good luck with that. It's in a very rural area.

I wasn't talking about myself attending a NO Mass...I was talking about NO Catholics like you, who think you should attend a NO. If you are telling me that I have to attend a NO Mass when there are no TLM's around...then why do people get to attend a Sunday Celebration of the Eucharist, on a Saturday, when there are many, many Churches with NO Masses that they could go to. If Novus Ordoites get a free pass for a Sunday Celebration of the Eucharist on a Saturday, then trads should get a free pass if there isn't any TLM's available.

There is also no lack of vocations in the traditional seminaries...just sayin'.


There is no such thing as "a NO Catholic."  

I am a Catholic.  

I was attending the Mass (when there was just one form) and studying the Faith before Vatican II.

Today, I attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass because it is the only Mass available to me where I live.

I have explained this many times, don't know why someone 39 years old can't seem to grasp it.

When I was still able to travel, I attended OF Masses in many places and they have all been reverent.   I wouldn't sit through a Mass with liturgical dancers or any such nonsense but I've never seen anything like that at an OF Mass.

I hold traditional Catholic beliefs, love Latin, love chant.  

I would like to be able to attend the EF sometimes but I would not consider myself a superior Catholic if I did.  I think that is a big problem with many who attend the EF -- that they see themselves as superior to everyone else, including their fellow Catholics who don't have access to the EF, can't possibly attend it.  Pride is one of the seven deadly sins.

If you someday move to an area where you don't have access to an EF -- or if the EF you now attend is canceled -- you'll have to decide what to do.   I would not tell you what to do.


I have heard many times that "There is also no lack of vocations in the traditional seminaries" but that does not mean that there is no lack of vocations in the overall priesthood.  It also does not guarantee that the "traditional seminaries" will continue to have no lack of vocations.  

We established in a thread in the last week or so that priests in my archdiocese say about the same number of OF Masses every Sunday as there are EF Masses said every Sunday in the entire USA.  

At this time, people who attend only the EF are a minority and EF Masses are rare in comparison to OF Masses.  In some areas, there are many EF Masses and presumably many people who attend only the EF but that doesn't stop them from being a minority in the overall Catholic world.  In the future, they may be a majority and the EF may be very common.  I think the Vatican plans on a hybrid Mass, though.  We'll see.
Reply
#38
(11-14-2011, 08:32 AM)Revixit Wrote: There is no such thing as "a NO Catholic."  

I am a Catholic.  

I was attending the Mass (when there was just one form) and studying the Faith before Vatican II.

Today, I attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass because it is the only Mass available to me where I live.

You're right, there is no such thing as a NO Catholic, the NO is anti-Catholic.

You've been around long enough to see that the NOM is a parody of the True Mass so why do you not admit it?
Reply
#39
(11-14-2011, 08:37 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(11-14-2011, 08:32 AM)Revixit Wrote: There is no such thing as "a NO Catholic."  

I am a Catholic.  

I was attending the Mass (when there was just one form) and studying the Faith before Vatican II.

Today, I attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass because it is the only Mass available to me where I live.

You're right, there is no such thing as a NO Catholic, the NO is anti-Catholic.

You've been around long enough to see that the NOM is a parody of the True Mass so why do you not admit it?

The OF is not anti-Catholic and the OF is not "a parody of the True Mass." 

I'm not going to change my mind and you aren't going to change yours, so discussing this is a waste of time for each of us.




Reply
#40
(11-14-2011, 08:55 AM)Revixit Wrote:
(11-14-2011, 08:37 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(11-14-2011, 08:32 AM)Revixit Wrote: There is no such thing as "a NO Catholic."  

I am a Catholic.  

I was attending the Mass (when there was just one form) and studying the Faith before Vatican II.

Today, I attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass because it is the only Mass available to me where I live.

You're right, there is no such thing as a NO Catholic, the NO is anti-Catholic.

You've been around long enough to see that the NOM is a parody of the True Mass so why do you not admit it?

The OF is not anti-Catholic and the OF is not "a parody of the True Mass."   

I'm not going to change my mind and you aren't going to change yours, so discussing this is a waste of time for each of us.

Question for you:  Would you think it would have been alright for Catholics in the 4th century during the Arian Crisis to attend Masses held by Arian priests who were legitimately part of the hiearchy in the official ecclesiastical structure of the Church, Masses that taught Arianism, just to obtain their Sunday Obligation?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)