Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Jun 6th 2013 new
(quote) Brian-278516 said: The mere fact that an "Indult" was needed in order to use a latin rite codified form of the Mass is on it's face an admission that it had been abrogated.
+JMJ+

Indeed Brian. Great to hear from you ... and the fact that Pope Benedict agreed with the commission of cardinals and publicly stated that it was not was correcting an error, something that rarely happens.

PS. I'm hoping to make the catholic Identity confernece again this year in Weirton in September not far from you.
Jun 6th 2013 new
+JMJ+ Dear John, Logic? I appreciate your concern but your comments reveal a lack of knowledge of the history concerning the TLM movement. Critical thinking and believing in approved Marian messages does not translate to not having truly Catholic reverence toward, obedience to, and filial love for the Supreme Pontiff and authority of Holy Mother Church. There's no shortage these days of good faithful sincere Catholics who suffer from the error of papolatry. Again, I stand unapologetically by my comments. It was none other than Pope Benedict XVI that made the admission that the TLM was never abrogated, not me. A lot has happened from 1969 to the "indult" of 1984 to, the findings of the commission of cardinals and the "indult" of 1988, to the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum. I'm very familiar with all that's gone on and have been very active in support of the "traditional" movement since the late 1980s, primarily with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, having founded and chaired an organization that brought them to Atlanta which resulted in the founding of one of the first canonically erected Personal Parishes in the world.
Jun 6th 2013 new
(quote) Joseph-2737 said: +JMJ+

Indeed Brian. Great to hear from you ... and the fact that Pope Benedict agreed with the commission of cardinals and publicly stated that it was not was correcting an error, something that rarely happens.

PS. I'm hoping to make the catholic Identity confernece again this year in Weirton in September not far from you.
That's correct .The Old Mass was never abbrogated.
Jun 7th 2013 new
(quote) Joseph-2737 said: +JMJ+

It's not about the ambiguities in Vatican II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-4EDhdAHrOg

A very apt video, but not for the reasons you posted it. Rather the ultra traditionalists who look for any excuse to declare errors where non exits because they, for whatever reason, don't like something, is the one with the nail in their head which they put there themselves.and refuse to listen to reality.


Jun 7th 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: A very apt video, but not for the reasons you posted it. Rather the ultra traditionalists who look for any excuse to declare errors where non exits because they, for whatever reason, don't like something, is the one with the nail in their head which they put there themselves.and refuse to listen to reality.


+JMJ+

Nonsense. Pope Benedict saw the elephant in the room and finally did something about it. You may not like it but that's the way it is.
Jun 7th 2013 new
Joseph,

In your own words from above.....

In response to Brian's post you state "Indeed" confirming his claim that the TLM was abrogated by mere fact of an "indult" being needed.

Then in your next post replying to mine, you say this:

"It was none other than Pope Benedict XVI that made the admission that the TLM was never abrogated."

....which validates what I said before. And thus it would have held up whether he "admitted" it or not some 30-odd years later...

Well, if that is not doublespeak (ahem, less harsh two words for you - "intentional ambiguity") then I don't know what is.

Could you please make up your mind? Or at least explain yourself plainly so that my very simple mind can understand it too. I still don't go for the doublespeak described in Orwell's 1984.

And perhaps while you are at it, maybe you could provide more clarity on whether you are truly not SSPX and really just FSSP? You have me confused!

Oh, and please don't underestimate me, I am very familiar with the history of TLM movements, although I will be the first to admit that I do on occasion mix up the facts with an occasionally fallible recollection. But thankfully, that can still be admitted and remedied.
Jun 7th 2013 new
(quote) Joseph-2737 said: +JMJ+

Nonsense. Pope Benedict saw the elephant in the room and finally did something about it. You may not like it but that's the way it is.
laughing

Sorry, just couldn't help it.

I think that PB16 saw/sees the genuine desires of the faithful who want to draw closer to God and provided such means to the extent that he could.
Jun 7th 2013 new
+JMJ+

I suggest you go back and re-read my post.
I'm neither SSPX, FSSP, IBP, ICKSP, or anything else. I'm Catholic but have worked exclusively with the FSSP almost since their founding.
Jun 7th 2013 new
(quote) Joseph-2737 said: +JMJ+

Nonsense. Pope Benedict saw the elephant in the room and finally did something about it. You may not like it but that's the way it is.
Obviously, Benedict did not do what most ultra think he did.

His concession is not as broad as you seem to think it is.
Jun 7th 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: Just curious; where did you get your theological degree especially one that allows you to pronounce what are and are not errors?

Hate to inform you, there were no errors on questions of faith and morals in any of the Vatican II documents.
Hi, Paul,

Every mature person who professes to be Catholic must have at least a rudimentary and manly ability to operate his rule of faith (ratio fidei) in order to discern what must be given the assent of faith, religious submission, pious assent, or plainly disbelieved. If Catholics don't have that, they're no better off than the followers of Martin Luther or John Calvin, etc., believing what they cannot determine to be more than doctrines or precepts of men.

In the case of the Second Vatican Council, judging it by the explicit rule given in the First Vatican Council (Dog. Const. on the Cath. Faith, Ch. 3, On Faith, #8; First Dog. Const. on the Church of Christ, Ch. 4, #9) and the Holy Father Paul VI's words, we know that the council was not an infallible one. This means that all those other councils which the Roman Pontiffs confirmed by their infallible magisterium supercede the Second Vatican Council in authority. This plainly means that if the Second Vatican Council contradicts, or is contrary to, those decrees made that the previous Ecumenical Councils coming from the chair of Peter, the Second Vatican Council errs.

Take for example and excerpt from Lumen Gentium, #11:

"Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from the mercy of God for the offence committed against Him and are at the same time reconciled with the Church, which they have wounded by their sins, and which by charity, example, and prayer seeks their conversion."

This is an absolute statement meaning one must merely approach, or come into the vicinity of, the sacrament to obtain pardon of God and reconciliation with the Church.

Compare that to what the Council of Trent taught in its Fourteenth Session:

"Contrition, which holds the first place amongst the aforesaid acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future. This movement of contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the pardon of sins....
...
"But, whereas all mortal sins, even those of thought, render men children of wrath, and enemies of God, it is necessary to seek also for the pardon of them all from God, with an open and modest confession. Wherefore, while the faithful of Christ are careful to confess all the sins which occur to their memory, they without doubt lay them all bare before the mercy of God to be pardoned: whereas they who act otherwise, and knowingly keep back certain sins, such set nothing before the divine bounty to be forgiven through the priest: for if the sick be ashamed to show his wound to the physician, his medical art cures not that which it knows not of.
...
"Finally, as regards satisfaction, - which as it is, of all the parts of penance, that which has been at all times recommended to the Christian people by our Fathers, so is it the one especially which in our age is, under the loftiest pretext of piety, impugned by those who have an appearance of godliness, but have denied the power thereof, - the Holy Synod declares, that it is wholly false, and alien from the Word of God, that the guilt is never forgiven by the Lord, without the whole punishment also being therewith pardoned. ... And it beseems the divine clemency, that sins be not in such wise pardoned us without any satisfaction, as that, taking occasion therefrom, thinking sins less grievous, we, offering as it were an insult and an outrage to the Holy Ghost, should fall into more grievous sins, treasuring up wrath against the Day of wrath."

The Council of Trent teaches us, in opposition to the Second Vatican Council, that it is not enough to approach or come near to the sacrament to obtain pardon and reconciliation: one must also be prepared to supply the parts of penance (i.e., the matter of the sacrament) contrition, confession and satisfaction, without which no pardon is given.

If the laity are not able to discern this, being unschooled in theology, then what hope do we have when priests contradict bishops who contradict popes who contradict themselves, etc.? How would we be able to discern authority with no standard by which to judge? If it's only a "because I said so" thing, then, why should we not all be protestants as it suits us?

Posts 31 - 40 of 44