New TLM Parish in Cincinnati
#11
(12-05-2010, 08:03 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: A possible marketing pitch: Why settle for SSPX's "partial communion" with the pope, when you can get "full communion" with the pope in a nice church just across the road?

If it's just "Latin Mass Catholicism" you're interested in, it's pretty hard to beat that.

All these developments are very interesting to watch. Someone in the local Vatican II hierarchy, it seems, is paying attention to strategy.

Thanks Father! I did not think about this initially at all, but it sure makes a lot of sense.

Them dang NOers, as long as they're in the picture, they always gotta have an alter agenda.

I didn't comment earlier but I figured something was up after reading the letter from the Archbishop and gotta say that I do not like it when I read stuff like this: As Archbishop of Cincinnati, I am deeply aware of the pastoral needs of the faithful who "adhere with great love and affection" to the sacred liturgy in the "more ancient form of the Roman Rite." For many years now, the Holy See has exhorted diocesan bishops to exercise generosity in this regard, and this has always been my intention. Most particularly, Pope Benedict XVI in his Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum has established new norms for the celebration of the earlier liturgical forms as an "extraordinary expression" of the "law of prayer of the Latin Church."

It simply reeks with New Order terminology that belittles and (for me) all but negates his whole purpose - and I hate that! I guess we're supposed to be thankful that he is partially returning a minuscule piece of what he considers obsolete but calls "ancient" that was robbed from us.

Wait till Our Lord gets ahold of these lukewarm shepherds and God help him!

 
Reply
#12
(12-06-2010, 02:52 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-05-2010, 08:03 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: A possible marketing pitch: Why settle for SSPX's "partial communion" with the pope, when you can get "full communion" with the pope in a nice church just across the road?

If it's just "Latin Mass Catholicism" you're interested in, it's pretty hard to beat that.

All these developments are very interesting to watch. Someone in the local Vatican II hierarchy, it seems, is paying attention to strategy.

Thanks Father! I did not think about this initially at all, but it sure makes a lot of sense.

Them dang NOers, as long as they're in the picture, they always gotta have an alter agenda.

I didn't comment earlier but I figured something was up after reading the letter from the Archbishop and gotta say that I do not like it when I read stuff like this: As Archbishop of Cincinnati, I am deeply aware of the pastoral needs of the faithful who "adhere with great love and affection" to the sacred liturgy in the "more ancient form of the Roman Rite." For many years now, the Holy See has exhorted diocesan bishops to exercise generosity in this regard, and this has always been my intention. Most particularly, Pope Benedict XVI in his Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum has established new norms for the celebration of the earlier liturgical forms as an "extraordinary expression" of the "law of prayer of the Latin Church."

It simply reeks with New Order terminology that belittles and (for me) all but negates his whole purpose - and I hate that! I guess we're supposed to be thankful that he is partially returning a minuscule piece of what he considers obsolete but calls "ancient" that was robbed from us.

Wait till Our Lord gets ahold of these lukewarm shepherds and God help him!

 

What's belittling about that? If the bishop thought that the Mass was obsolete then do you think he'd support this initiative?
Reply
#13
(12-05-2010, 08:03 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: Hard indeed to imagine the sour old 70s Stalinist Archbishop Pilarczyk permitting this type of glasnost.

As a long-time denizen of the Greater Cincinnati metropolitan area and an interested observer of the trad scene here, I believe that the St. Mark's announcement is connected with St. Pius X's move from the city down to Walton (at least 25 miles to the south.)

While this particular point probably didn't occur to Abp. Schnurr himself, I'm sure it did to whoever proposed the idea to him. My guess: it came from a former St. Pius X parishioner who got involved in the Motu Proprio group.

Another facet of the St. Mark's choice that's gone unremarked: it's just five minutes away from Fr. Willliam Jenkins' Immaculate Conception Church in Norwood, which is affiliated (at least loosely) with Bishop Kelly's SSPV.

There is no way to convince me that this wasn't a factor in choosing St. Mark's, since the Archdiocese was ticked when Fr. Jenkins' group managed to buy Immaculate Conception from them using a front corporation. I think it was payback time.

Unlike myself and the rest of the SGG clergy, moreover, Fr. Jenkins avoids speaking about controversial questions concerning the pope, the Church, and Catholic doctrine. Most of this is reduced to matters of mere opinion, so there would be no reason for some of his parishioners, perhaps, not to avail themselves of a convenient and "legal" option nearby.

Meanwhile down in Walton, the Diocese of Covington set up a Motu Mass at a beautiful new (and traditionally designed) church just across I-71 from the new St. Pius X installation.

A possible marketing pitch: Why settle for SSPX's "partial communion" with the pope, when you can get "full communion" with the pope in a nice church just across the road?

If it's just "Latin Mass Catholicism" you're interested in, it's pretty hard to beat that.

All these developments are very interesting to watch. Someone in the local Vatican II hierarchy, it seems, is paying attention to strategy.

More TLM's = better. Who says these churches can't coexist? You can't be so exclusive and expect to restore Catholicism.
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#14
Father Cekada Wrote:Hard indeed to imagine the sour old 70s Stalinist Archbishop Pilarczyk permitting this type of glasnost.
As a long-time denizen of the Greater Cincinnati metropolitan area and an interested observer of the trad scene here, I believe that the St. Mark's announcement is connected with St. Pius X's move from the city down to Walton (at least 25 miles to the south.)

While this particular point probably didn't occur to Abp. Schnurr himself, I'm sure it did to whoever proposed the idea to him. My guess: it came from a former St. Pius X parishioner who got involved in the Motu Proprio group.

Yes, of course the SSPX is somehow behind it.  ::) You have to admit though … St. Mark’s truly is a “sermon in stone.”

Father Cekada Wrote:Unlike myself and the rest of the SGG clergy, moreover, Fr. Jenkins avoids speaking about controversial questions concerning the pope, the Church, and Catholic doctrine. Most of this is reduced to matters of mere opinion, so there would be no reason for some of his parishioners, perhaps, not to avail themselves of a convenient and "legal" option nearby.

Well, it is true that you like to throw out your opinions on controversial subjects. Do you think your thoughts on any subject are more than unauthorized theological opinions?

Father Cekada Wrote:A possible marketing pitch: Why settle for SSPX's "partial communion" with the pope, when you can get "full communion" with the pope in a nice church just across the road?

If it's just "Latin Mass Catholicism" you're interested in, it's pretty hard to beat that.

What’s your marketing pitch … a nice liturgy without the traditional morals?
Reply
#15
This is of course a perfect example of the bunker mentality, that even when the prelate is trying to do the right thing it will still be seen as in some way perverted for his own interest. I guess you could say that some Trads are being rather calvinistic in their approach.
Reply
#16
If anyone thinks Pope Benedict XVI is going to snap his fingers and ban all post-V2 changes they are delusional.  It will take years - generations - to restore the Church and rebuild from the damage the modernists have done.  It is easier to destroy than to build and easier to dumb down than smarten up.  Incremental changes in the right direction are to be appreciated not condemned as being too small.
Reply
#17
(12-06-2010, 04:57 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(12-06-2010, 02:52 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-05-2010, 08:03 PM)FatherCekada Wrote: A possible marketing pitch: Why settle for SSPX's "partial communion" with the pope, when you can get "full communion" with the pope in a nice church just across the road?

If it's just "Latin Mass Catholicism" you're interested in, it's pretty hard to beat that.

All these developments are very interesting to watch. Someone in the local Vatican II hierarchy, it seems, is paying attention to strategy.

Thanks Father! I did not think about this initially at all, but it sure makes a lot of sense.

Them dang NOers, as long as they're in the picture, they always gotta have an alter agenda.

I didn't comment earlier but I figured something was up after reading the letter from the Archbishop and gotta say that I do not like it when I read stuff like this: As Archbishop of Cincinnati, I am deeply aware of the pastoral needs of the faithful who "adhere with great love and affection" to the sacred liturgy in the "more ancient form of the Roman Rite." For many years now, the Holy See has exhorted diocesan bishops to exercise generosity in this regard, and this has always been my intention. Most particularly, Pope Benedict XVI in his Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum has established new norms for the celebration of the earlier liturgical forms as an "extraordinary expression" of the "law of prayer of the Latin Church."

It simply reeks with New Order terminology that belittles and (for me) all but negates his whole purpose - and I hate that! I guess we're supposed to be thankful that he is partially returning a minuscule piece of what he considers obsolete but calls "ancient" that was robbed from us.

Wait till Our Lord gets ahold of these lukewarm shepherds and God help him!

 

What's belittling about that? If the bishop thought that the Mass was obsolete then do you think he'd support this initiative?

Don't underestimate the powers that be in the NO.........they've never not had an alter agenda - not ever.
Reply
#18
(12-07-2010, 12:39 PM)Ockham Wrote: If anyone thinks Pope Benedict XVI is going to snap his fingers and ban all post-V2 changes they are delusional.  It will take years - generations - to restore the Church and rebuild from the damage the modernists have done.  It is easier to destroy than to build and easier to dumb down than smarten up.  Incremental changes in the right direction are to be appreciated not condemned as being too small.

Add to that the unwillingness of some here to get out from under their rock when the time comes and that will just prolong our suffering.
Reply
#19
ockham Wrote:It is easier to destroy than to build and easier to dumb down than smarten up.  Incremental changes in the right direction are to be appreciated not condemned as being too small.

Fr. Ratzinger is the same man he was during the destruction. You are assuming good will here ... that might prove to be very imprudent.


Reply
#20
"Fr Ratzinger" is now known as Pope Benedict XVI.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)