Urge Catholic Answers to retract!
#41
I did not listen to the show, but whatever stereotypes were presented about Traditional Catholics probably possess a modicum of truth, at least with regard to their online manifestation.  If your goal is to dissuade someone from embracing traditional Catholicism, a great way would be to send her a link to a traditional Catholic forum (with the exception of FE, of course). 
Reply
#42
(07-18-2013, 06:49 PM)TheTalentedMisterR Wrote: I did not listen to the show, but whatever stereotypes were presented about Traditional Catholics probably possess a modicum of truth, at least with regard to their online manifestation.  If your goal is to dissuade someone from embracing traditional Catholicism, a great way would be to send her a link to a traditional Catholic forum (with the exception of FE, of course). 

Your last sentence; was it sarcasm?
Reply
#43
(07-18-2013, 03:58 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(07-18-2013, 03:38 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote:
(07-18-2013, 09:46 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: May get to the rest later. Let Fr. Cekada teach you, though, that the Quo Primum argument is weak weak weak:

http://www.fathercekada.com/2007/05/17/quo-primum/
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8

So you want me to use a sede to correct someone else? I have great respect for Fr. Cekada, but really??

Think about what you're saying here, Scrip. Fr. Cekada is saying that it's iron clad; the New Mass was lawfully promulgated, and as such, supplanted the Tridentine Mass. Historically, every time the Church produces a new missal, it supplants the previous one. That's why Lefebrve insisted on the 1962 and not some earlier one, despite the Good Friday liturgy controversy. If what Fr. Cekada is correct (and I'm assuming you are saying so, or why else would you link him on this discussion), then we have a major dilemma. Why would Benedict XVI's motu proprio (and for that matter, JPII's commission confirming that the TLM was never abrogated) state that the TLM was never abrogated? Did Paul VI not complete the task in what he decreed? Did it not have the normal full force of his Apostolic authority? Fr. Cekada, if you are buying into his claim that Qui Primum argument is weak, is showing that it carried the same language and force of what Pope St. Pius V decreed, and therefore, based on the ecclesiastical tradition of the Church, replaced the previous Mass. Then, we have JPII's findings through his commission (comprised of Stickler and Ratzinger), and his subsequent promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, and Benedicts own motu proprio saying that the opposite of what Paul VI intended to do.  Huh?

The implications of this are very, very troubling.....

Oh dear, confused again here.  I get this very strong feeling that what you just wrote is very important and I'm just not following.

More confusion, yay.

2Vermont, the long and short of it is this:

We all know the TLM was suppressed throughout the whole Church after the 1970 Missal was promulgated and implemented. When the whole Church acts in a unified, universal way, theologians have taught, and the Church agrees with them, that this is clear evidence of an act of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which has been defined as an infallible act. One must ask; was this done on their own initiative, or, by their understanding of the law enacted by Paul VI, and obeying his decree, which was an act by him to abrogate the Tridentine Mass by virtue of him creating a new missal, which supplants the old one? Logic (and historical facts) dictate that the Ordinary was merely following the orders of the pope. So, was the suppression legal? If one says yes, then the TLM was celebrated "illegally" until the motu proprio's  and both motu proprio's are contrary acts against the suppression because their claim is that the TLM was never abrogated and the TLM was "liberated".  If the claim is that it was illegal, then the Ordinary was wrong in it's acting as the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which simply cannot happen as defined by the theologians and the Church. I know it's confusing, but does that make sense?
Reply
#44
(07-18-2013, 06:53 PM)RedCaves Wrote:
(07-18-2013, 06:49 PM)TheTalentedMisterR Wrote: I did not listen to the show, but whatever stereotypes were presented about Traditional Catholics probably possess a modicum of truth, at least with regard to their online manifestation.  If your goal is to dissuade someone from embracing traditional Catholicism, a great way would be to send her a link to a traditional Catholic forum (with the exception of FE, of course). 

Your last sentence; was it sarcasm?

No.  It seems most Traditional Catholic fora (with the exception of FE which has really been cleaned up) are hotbeds of Holocaust denial/minimization (although some members might think a Holocaust isn't such a bad idea) and paranoid conspiracy theories; or, are hangouts for ex-soldiers or other males in love with authority who have a real need to showcase their bravado and manliness (casual talk about killing Muslims is common to this crowd).  Perhaps these groups are simply a very vocal minority.  Maybe they seem even louder because Trads are such a small group in general, I don't know.  I don't encounter anyone like this, inasmuch as I can tell, at either the SSPX or diocesan TLMs in my city, but nevertheless traditionalism isn't big enough or widespread enough for the more off-putting elements to be drowned out, unfortunately.

Reply
#45
(07-18-2013, 08:07 PM)TheTalentedMisterR Wrote:
(07-18-2013, 06:53 PM)RedCaves Wrote:
(07-18-2013, 06:49 PM)TheTalentedMisterR Wrote: I did not listen to the show, but whatever stereotypes were presented about Traditional Catholics probably possess a modicum of truth, at least with regard to their online manifestation.  If your goal is to dissuade someone from embracing traditional Catholicism, a great way would be to send her a link to a traditional Catholic forum (with the exception of FE, of course). 

Your last sentence; was it sarcasm?

No.  It seems most Traditional Catholic fora (with the exception of FE which has really been cleaned up) are hotbeds of Holocaust denial/minimization (although some members might think a Holocaust isn't such a bad idea) and paranoid conspiracy theories; or, are hangouts for ex-soldiers or other males in love with authority who have a real need to showcase their bravado and manliness (casual talk about killing Muslims is common to this crowd).   Perhaps these groups are simply a very vocal minority.  Maybe they seem even louder because Trads are such a small group in general, I don't know.  I don't encounter anyone like this, inasmuch as I can tell, at either the SSPX or diocesan TLMs in my city, but nevertheless traditionalism isn't big enough or widespread enough for the more off-putting elements to be drowned out, unfortunately.

I remember during my lurking days people like Vetus Ordo (Oh, was he hilarious to read!), Gerard, Nic, ggreg, and others who said the most bizarre things about Jews, the Pope, and the hierarchy in general. Glad to see that the tank is somewhat cleaner since.
Reply
#46
(07-18-2013, 06:53 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: Think about what you're saying here, Scrip. Fr. Cekada is saying that it's iron clad; the New Mass was lawfully promulgated, and as such, supplanted the Tridentine Mass. Historically, every time the Church produces a new missal, it supplants the previous one. That's why Lefebrve insisted on the 1962 and not some earlier one, despite the Good Friday liturgy controversy. If what Fr. Cekada is correct (and I'm assuming you are saying so, or why else would you link him on this discussion), then we have a major dilemma. Why would Benedict XVI's motu proprio (and for that matter, JPII's commission confirming that the TLM was never abrogated) state that the TLM was never abrogated? Did Paul VI not complete the task in what he decreed? Did it not have the normal full force of his Apostolic authority? Fr. Cekada, if you are buying into his claim that Qui Primum argument is weak, is showing that it carried the same language and force of what Pope St. Pius V decreed, and therefore, based on the ecclesiastical tradition of the Church, replaced the previous Mass. Then, we have JPII's findings through his commission (comprised of Stickler and Ratzinger), and his subsequent promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, and Benedicts own motu proprio saying that the opposite of what Paul VI intended to do.  Huh?

The implications of this are very, very troubling.....


I linked you to Fr. Cekada to address the topic at hand, namely the Quo Primum argument. I understand that his texts are filled with poisonous teachings which destroy faith. With that said, I do not agree with numerous points of his, including that the New Mass is evil, or that SP conflicts with Paul VI's actions. A careful reading of SP shows that the traditional Missal was not abrogated in principle. I believe the various instances of indult, though rare, preserved the traditional Mass as it is current known -- an extraordinary form. So Paul VI's legislation had all the teeth it needed -- you could not appeal to Quo Primum, or any other pretext, to go around it -- but the various concessions to elderly priests and such like preserved the Missal in a state of attenuation. In question was an abrogation of Quo Primum, not the Roman Missal of 1962. As for the question of abrogation of the 1962 Missal, I am still open to discussion and don't understand the matter fully. I do, however, know that Paul VI was within his power, and resorting to Quo Primum to go around it has no ground. I also believe that there was no moral ground either, since the Pauline Missal is salutary, to be held in the same esteem as all rites of worship the Church promulgates for Her people. Just as the Bible, a good, holy, and infallible collection of texts, has been abused, misunderstood, misused, misapplied, etc. etc., over the ages of the Church over and over again, so too can a holy rite of Mass be subject to the same by sinners. And therein lies the solution. Finding the good in the reform, even if you do not wish to worship in said rite, and then finding the way to promote restoration and holiness. Any separatist movement is from the father of lies.
Reply
#47
(07-18-2013, 06:53 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote:
(07-18-2013, 03:58 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(07-18-2013, 03:38 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote:
(07-18-2013, 09:46 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: May get to the rest later. Let Fr. Cekada teach you, though, that the Quo Primum argument is weak weak weak:

http://www.fathercekada.com/2007/05/17/quo-primum/
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8

So you want me to use a sede to correct someone else? I have great respect for Fr. Cekada, but really??

Think about what you're saying here, Scrip. Fr. Cekada is saying that it's iron clad; the New Mass was lawfully promulgated, and as such, supplanted the Tridentine Mass. Historically, every time the Church produces a new missal, it supplants the previous one. That's why Lefebrve insisted on the 1962 and not some earlier one, despite the Good Friday liturgy controversy. If what Fr. Cekada is correct (and I'm assuming you are saying so, or why else would you link him on this discussion), then we have a major dilemma. Why would Benedict XVI's motu proprio (and for that matter, JPII's commission confirming that the TLM was never abrogated) state that the TLM was never abrogated? Did Paul VI not complete the task in what he decreed? Did it not have the normal full force of his Apostolic authority? Fr. Cekada, if you are buying into his claim that Qui Primum argument is weak, is showing that it carried the same language and force of what Pope St. Pius V decreed, and therefore, based on the ecclesiastical tradition of the Church, replaced the previous Mass. Then, we have JPII's findings through his commission (comprised of Stickler and Ratzinger), and his subsequent promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, and Benedicts own motu proprio saying that the opposite of what Paul VI intended to do.  Huh?

The implications of this are very, very troubling.....

Oh dear, confused again here.  I get this very strong feeling that what you just wrote is very important and I'm just not following.

More confusion, yay.

2Vermont, the long and short of it is this:

We all know the TLM was suppressed throughout the whole Church after the 1970 Missal was promulgated and implemented. When the whole Church acts in a unified, universal way, theologians have taught, and the Church agrees with them, that this is clear evidence of an act of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which has been defined as an infallible act. One must ask; was this done on their own initiative, or, by their understanding of the law enacted by Paul VI, and obeying his decree, which was an act by him to abrogate the Tridentine Mass by virtue of him creating a new missal, which supplants the old one? Logic (and historical facts) dictate that the Ordinary was merely following the orders of the pope. So, was the suppression legal? If one says yes, then the TLM was celebrated "illegally" until the motu proprio's  and both motu proprio's are contrary acts against the suppression because their claim is that the TLM was never abrogated and the TLM was "liberated".  If the claim is that it was illegal, then the Ordinary was wrong in it's acting as the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which simply cannot happen as defined by the theologians and the Church. I know it's confusing, but does that make sense?

So we don't really know whether Paul VI made it illegal to celebrate the TLM or not?  Because JPII and BXVI later says it is not illegal?
Reply
#48
(07-19-2013, 08:20 AM)2Vermont Wrote:
(07-18-2013, 06:53 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote:
(07-18-2013, 03:58 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(07-18-2013, 03:38 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote:
(07-18-2013, 09:46 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: May get to the rest later. Let Fr. Cekada teach you, though, that the Quo Primum argument is weak weak weak:

http://www.fathercekada.com/2007/05/17/quo-primum/
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8

So you want me to use a sede to correct someone else? I have great respect for Fr. Cekada, but really??

Think about what you're saying here, Scrip. Fr. Cekada is saying that it's iron clad; the New Mass was lawfully promulgated, and as such, supplanted the Tridentine Mass. Historically, every time the Church produces a new missal, it supplants the previous one. That's why Lefebrve insisted on the 1962 and not some earlier one, despite the Good Friday liturgy controversy. If what Fr. Cekada is correct (and I'm assuming you are saying so, or why else would you link him on this discussion), then we have a major dilemma. Why would Benedict XVI's motu proprio (and for that matter, JPII's commission confirming that the TLM was never abrogated) state that the TLM was never abrogated? Did Paul VI not complete the task in what he decreed? Did it not have the normal full force of his Apostolic authority? Fr. Cekada, if you are buying into his claim that Qui Primum argument is weak, is showing that it carried the same language and force of what Pope St. Pius V decreed, and therefore, based on the ecclesiastical tradition of the Church, replaced the previous Mass. Then, we have JPII's findings through his commission (comprised of Stickler and Ratzinger), and his subsequent promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, and Benedicts own motu proprio saying that the opposite of what Paul VI intended to do.  Huh?

The implications of this are very, very troubling.....

Oh dear, confused again here.  I get this very strong feeling that what you just wrote is very important and I'm just not following.

More confusion, yay.

2Vermont, the long and short of it is this:

We all know the TLM was suppressed throughout the whole Church after the 1970 Missal was promulgated and implemented. When the whole Church acts in a unified, universal way, theologians have taught, and the Church agrees with them, that this is clear evidence of an act of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which has been defined as an infallible act. One must ask; was this done on their own initiative, or, by their understanding of the law enacted by Paul VI, and obeying his decree, which was an act by him to abrogate the Tridentine Mass by virtue of him creating a new missal, which supplants the old one? Logic (and historical facts) dictate that the Ordinary was merely following the orders of the pope. So, was the suppression legal? If one says yes, then the TLM was celebrated "illegally" until the motu proprio's  and both motu proprio's are contrary acts against the suppression because their claim is that the TLM was never abrogated and the TLM was "liberated".  If the claim is that it was illegal, then the Ordinary was wrong in it's acting as the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which simply cannot happen as defined by the theologians and the Church. I know it's confusing, but does that make sense?

So we don't really know whether Paul VI made it illegal to celebrate the TLM or not?  Because JPII and BXVI later says it is not illegal?

If you agree with Scrip (and he can correct me if I'm wrong), then it was indeed legally promulgated the way the Church has normally promulgated any new missal. It abrogates the previous one. He used Fr. Cekada to prove this. But, BUT, if that were the case, then JPII and BXVI "overruled" the decision and did something that has never been done in the history of the Church; they resurrected an abrogated missal/Mass. Since the Holy See has never revealed the details of the findings of JPII's commission, we have no way of knowing how they arrived at coming to this decision. All we know is, it is unprecedented in the history of the Church. In addition, JPII and BXVI vindicated Archbishop Lefebrve and the SSPX by proving their case; that the old mass was never abrogated. Do you see the intellectual dilemma? You can't have it both ways, despite what someone's opinion is of what Sacrosanctum Concilium may have "meant" or not. SC (and I reserve the right to be wrong) never intended for this fiasco and have two parallel Masses in the Roman rite. So, we must then examine the details and see if indeed Paul VI met the requirements needed as established by the tradition of the Church and "legally" instituted a new mass, thereby refuting what Fr. Cekada has presented, whether the Qui Primum argument "works" or not.


I'll dig up the link, but it has been proven (EWTN of all places shows this I think!) that some of what is shown as the verbage of what Paul VI instituted on the Vatican's own website was never originally written by him, and added later (by him or someone else, who knows).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)