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

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

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 2nd 2013 new
My apologies if my wording made it sound like Vatican II pronounced a judgment on an allegedly pre-existing Novus Ordo Mass. I know that the Novus Ordo Mass did not pre-exist Vatican II. A more clear representation of my intended statement is that the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council that led to the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass were Catholic deliberations led by Church fathers.

Sometimes what we type is clear in our heads, but we don't realize it can be misinterpreted.

Jerry, you have been here a lot longer than I have. I am sure you have seen the debates 10x over more that what I have that try to declare that the Novus Ordo Mass was the result of a conspiracy of the freemasons, the Calvinists, even Satan himself. I find those debates painful. Four of those participating in the Second Vatican Council went on to become Pope, including John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Some people cannot deal with the fact that change takes place and must impugn the good character of well-respected Popes because things changed and they didn't want it to change. Change is a part of God's order. It happens. If change were not a part of God's order, none of us would ever get old and die or move, and floods and earthquakes would never take place. The Catholic Church is not confined to medieval Europe and its practices, language and customs. Medieval Europe is a past historical place. The Catholic Church must survive into the twenty-first century and beyond.
Jun 2nd 2013 new
A few months ago, there was an excellent idea bandied about the forums to have a resource library room available with links to Catholic resources. That would prevent a lot of misunderstandings on various elements of Catholic teaching and practice, including about what constitutes a valid Mass, for example. It would also take the pressure off posters from having to double and triple check their wording before posting in order to avoid having their posts misinterpreted.

On CM, guessing what people mean when they post something sometimes has the tendency to become a blood sport. That is awful.

As I do not wish to participate in this thread further because I have said what I have to say, I would respectfully request that if some have an issue with what I have written that they do not reply to my posts in this thread. Have the discussion by replying to your own posts.

It is not fair to reply to someones posts after they have indicated that they have said their peace. It is like debating an empty chair. The person talking can say whatever they wish and when there is no response they have "won" the debate. How wonderful. Congratulations. Heres a cookie

Jun 2nd 2013 new
(quote) Jerry-74383 said: The problem with this argument is that popes no more have the authority to legislate an irrevocable change than your state legislature does.

There are several explanations available explaining why the interpretations of Quo Primum that claim the Mass can never be changed are in error.

Jerry,

Thanks for your comment. I would appreciate it if you could direct my attention to the sources of the explanations to this.

I could agree with the point you make, at face value, if the issue is simply one of discipline. But I am under the impression that Quo Primum deals with more - with doctrine also.

I whole heartedly understand that certain aspects of the Mass can be changed. If I did not, I would not be attending the Novus Ordo.
Jun 2nd 2013 new
(quote) Jerry-74383 said: The Novus Ordo Mass was created several years after Vatican II concluded, so it is not at all clear how your statement can be valid.

N.B. I am not questioning the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, only the assertion that Vatican II has anything to say about it.

Good catch Jerry, I guess I glossed over this comment too quickly myself. So I need to amend my previous point and I have no grounds to agree to Angela's sentence. I understand the spirit Angela was trying to convey, and I still appreciate her comments for wanting peace between us all on this thread.

Thank you both.

Oh, and Angela has corrected herself also... man I like this site!
Jun 4th 2013 new
The simplest explanation of why one Pope cannot bind his successors is that no man is greater than the office. I tried that on an ultratraditionalist twenty years ago. It did not sway her.
Jun 4th 2013 new
(quote) Andrew-290721 said: The simplest explanation of why one Pope cannot bind his successors is that no man is greater than the office. I tried that on an ultratraditionalist twenty years ago. It did not sway her.
Well said Andrew. My point still is that yes, if it were strictly only a mater of form or discipline, but I sensed a long time ago that it is about doctrine too. In such cases, it is not just about binding His successors. And it is not the pope that binds, but He that is all powerful, through the office of the Vicar of Christ. So, if doctrine is also involved, then the argument presented does not apply carte blanche.

So yes that is why I believe that "forms" of the Mass can be changed, but essentials must always remain.

The papal office (ordinary magisterium in union with the pope) is not like a democracy nor is any pope to be like a dictator where he can change things to contradict doctrine. Only corrupt leaders or those who aspire to absolute control promulgate such powers to themselves. Such examples abound in our day.

Absolute power and glory belong only to God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, united in the Holy Trinity, now and forever, Amen.

God does not go against doctrinal proclamation nor is any pope allowed to exceed those bounds. Well, in a way it is a mute point so far. We still have both and other Rites to supplement the diversity in unity of the entire Church militant.

Since I sense you were mostly directing your response towards me, and if so, no worries my man. If not, forgive my presumptuousness. But do know this: what I think of the situation hardly carries but a grain of sand of weight. And, as Angela pointed out, I am confident that both forms of the Mass will be around as long as persons genuinely desire it and the shepherds of God's sheep see it efficacious for the salvation of souls.

I long for the Novus Ordo to continue to be revised and get better and better! From what I experienced in the 70's and 80's it did not have a great start here in Oregon. I think it was also true pretty much throughout the western Rite.

I like to dig deep into matters of my faith, and so I was hoping that Jerry (or anyone) would provide some sources on what he mentioned. But it's not necessary. I can show some initiative too and do some research. Obviously there is something I would learn from it.

Lastly, as far as my comments about Bugnini, no I am not a conspiracy theorist, but when a conspiracy is proven to be fact (and was barely thwarted before utter disaster), well then that is something altogether different. It's not theory at all :)

Thanks be to God for the guidance of the Paraclete and assisting the Holy Father in those last hours before his approval of the Novus Ordo. Also, I thank his holiness for the encyclical, Humane Vitae.

Jul 13th 2013 new
Angela I understand what you are saying, but, the basic structure of the Mass has always been the around for 1000 years, and the 3 main parts of the Mass were NEVER changed up until Vatican II:

These Eucharistic liturgy has always had three main parts: The Offertory (the presentation of the gifts), the eucharistic prayer or Canon (with the consecration), and the communion. Never before were any three of these parts of the Eucharistic liturgy changed until the promulgation of the Novos Ordo. What changed? Answer: The Offertory. Almost all the prayers of the Offertory were changed or shortened.

Of course, there were other changes made to the Mass, all over the place, from the beginning to the end. However, this one particular set of changes makes the Mass substantially different, because the three essential parts of the Eucharistic liturgy are things that are constituted as ESSENTIAL to the form. In other words, it is not merely a different form but a different liturgy. It is, in effect, a different LITURGICAL RITE.

When the New Mass was promulgated, it was never promulgated, incidentally, by the Pope, it was just the changing of some prayers in the new missal, but it never said that it was to be used to replace the "old rite". The Sacred Congregation merely allowed the publication of the new missal. It was the Pope's place to order it to be used. We are bound by pain of mortal sin to use the old rite Mass until ordered not to do so, because we have never been ordered by the Pope to use the New Mass. But the Holy Ghost has protected the Church from this, and the obedience of the laity has been out of confusion by confused prelates, and also by those few cardinals that wished to disobey the authority of the Pope. The new Popes have simply enforced it de facto, but never officially. The fact that they celebrate it themselves does not imply the enforcement of this Mass.


Jul 14th 2013 new
(quote) Vanessa-964012 said: So, when asked by certain bishops to withdrawal Summorum Pontificum because the ancient Mass creates division within the Church, Pope Francis responds, "No... The Old Mass is untouchable." :-D Check it out: http://www.ilfoglio.it/soloqui/18390#.UaRs8Mgs-bY.facebook
It's in Italian and I had to use google translate to get the gist of it. If you find a better tranlsation, please share! :-)

So much for the traditionalist Chicken Little chorus who made dire predictions of doom and persecution after the election of Francis.

Pope Francis doesn't appear poised to restrict or interfere with the TLM. He's not fond of some of the more extreme groups who are in open rebellion (who would be?), but he seems to approve of the traditional Mass and wants it to continue. He spoke clearly and unequivocally to the bishops of Apulia. Will this calm some of the Trads' fears?

Like his two predecessors, Francis is shaping up to be a wonderful pope. I really love and admire this man.
Jul 14th 2013 new
There is a wonderful collection of knowledge and intellect engaged on this thread. I applaud that as well as the time some have clearly had to study, digest, and contribute - I just don't, and that's merely an observation, not a criticism. Thank you for participating.

One thing I think I have read herein, and in several other threads in past, are assertions of infallible positions. My father, educated in Seminary and later a Theology and Philosophy major at Marquette, explained to me long ago that not everything a Pope says or writes carries the weight of Infallibility; but only those things expressed "Ex Cathedra" - that being a very specific formula or ritual. I've been told since that there are actually very few Ex Cathedra pronouncements in Our Church's history.

So while I'm immensely interested in this discussion, and I have much to research and understand for myself; might someone briefly address that in relevence to this thread, and may I suggest that a proposed resource library include an entry dedicated to Papal Infallibility. That one concept seems to elude understanding by many Catholics, and seems one of the greatest misconceptions among Non-Catholics. Of course, prominently at it's side should be one addressing the Immaculate Conception!

My best to all of you, I'll be spending a good part of this week digesting this thread, and leaving much enriched!
Jul 19th 2013 new
(quote) David-364112 said: So much for the traditionalist Chicken Little chorus who made dire predictions of doom and persecution after the election of Francis.

Pope Francis doesn't appear poised to restrict or interfere with the TLM. He's not fond of some of the more extreme groups who are in open rebellion (who would be?), but he seems to approve of the traditional Mass and wants it to continue. He spoke clearly and unequivocally to the bishops of Apulia. Will this calm some of the Trads' fears?

Like his two predecessors, Francis is shaping up to be a wonderful pope. I really love and admire this man.
No, the holier-than-thou and more-catholic-than-the-pope types will not be satisfied because, you know, in their lay positions, they know more than anyone else. Here's a hint: why not put your superior knowledge and insight into the service of the Church rather than remaining a lay person seen as not much more than a busybody?

I love tradition, just can't abide the sanctimonious traddies. You want to know why, theology and style aside, there are not more people at EF Masses (or EF Masses being celebrated)?

Smug, self-important, 'I told you so' and extremely boringly parsed reasons why, underneath a barely concealed contempt for the Ordinary Form as being deficient, illegal, trendy, whatever and damned with faint praise is a subtle smell of sanctimony and intolerance. Same attitude as referring to our eastern brother rites as 'uniate' peering down their noses in typical Roman style. Here's an observation: while I love the traditional forms of the Mass, can serve as a server (being an installed acolyte created before the suborder was suppressed in 68...), and know the responses, actions, movements by heart, and wrote my master's thesis on the development of the 3 additional anaphora by the Consilium that gave us the new Mass, If you're busy trying to punch holes in the Barque of Peter (ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia) by inferring that Paul, JP-II, Benedict, Francis are not acting in accordance with preserving tradition...I'll put my money on the Pope and the Church in union with him.

Like it or not, the Holy Father is not going to wake up one morning and abrogate the Ordinary Form and turn the clock back. That train left the station years ago, whether we like it or not. Heck, we're still arguing about the doctrine of Infallability, which was defined at Vatican I in the 1870s, for crying out loud. You think we're going to sort out V-II only 50 (disastrous) years later?

The Pope has ordinary, universal, and immediate power that he can exercise freely at all times without restriction, lay whining notwithstanding. Paul VI, of happy memory, did so in 1969 by promulgating the changes we call the Novus Ordo. He never abrogated the formula that grew out of Trent, which in itself, was just as revolutionary to existing celebrations at that time as the NO was to Trent in 1969.
Posts 21 - 30 of 51