OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 10:35:28 AM

Title: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 10:35:28 AM
Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

And it is thriving and appealing  to many of the younger people and young families everywhere desperate for  the real faith and devotion unlike the the "New" Mass and the Church of "nice" complete with it's clown "Masses" and tolerent "gay-friendly" exhibitions passed off as a form of the liturgy. While the old Norvus Ordo parishes are closing and the churches are razed, those with the Latin Mass are flourishing and gaining members all the time, many with large young families.

The question, does the next Pope continue to support the TLM  for a strong future or do we get another aging hippy and disciple of "nice" and tolerance (except for tradition of course) while supporting the bastardized form of the True Mass and the eventual extinction of the Norvus Ordo crowd when they eventually die off and their chruches leveled or turned into heretical, prot monstrosities or perhaps even Mosques.

As Voris states in the video, will Tradition, who defends the Faith more rigoursly, have an ally with the new Pope? Will he understand that that the future of the Church firmly remains rooted in the past?

We shall see.

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2013-03-04
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 05, 2013, 11:01:25 AM
Anything from Trent is already a break in Tradition.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 11:25:41 AM
Anything from Trent is already a break in Tradition.
Spoken like a true schismatic.

But where is your proof?
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif)
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif) one month for calling choy a schismatic and attacking him.  This is not to be tolerated. -username! Orthodox Catholic section moderator.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: ialmisry on March 05, 2013, 12:15:30 PM
Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

And it is thriving and appealing  to many of the younger people and young families everywhere desperate for  the real faith and devotion unlike the the "New" Mass and the Church of "nice" complete with it's clown "Masses" and tolerent "gay-friendly" exhibitions passed off as a form of the liturgy. While the old Norvus Ordo parishes are closing and the churches are razed, those with the Latin Mass are flourishing and gaining members all the time, many with large young families.

The question, does the next Pope continue to support the TLM  for a strong future or do we get another aging hippy and disciple of "nice" and tolerance (except for tradition of course) while supporting the bastardized form of the True Mass and the eventual extinction of the Norvus Ordo crowd when they eventually die off and their chruches leveled or turned into heretical, prot monstrosities or perhaps even Mosques.

As Voris states in the video, will Tradition, who defends the Faith more rigoursly, have an ally with the new Pope? Will he understand that that the future of the Church firmly remains rooted in the past?

We shall see.

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2013-03-04

I see plenty of Novus Ordo parishes thriving in Chicago.

Anything from Trent is already a break in Tradition.
Spoken like a true schismatic.

But where is your proof?
Trent. And the Lateran.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 05, 2013, 12:19:19 PM
Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

And it is thriving and appealing  to many of the younger people and young families everywhere desperate for  the real faith and devotion unlike the the "New" Mass and the Church of "nice" complete with it's clown "Masses" and tolerent "gay-friendly" exhibitions passed off as a form of the liturgy. While the old Norvus Ordo parishes are closing and the churches are razed, those with the Latin Mass are flourishing and gaining members all the time, many with large young families.

The question, does the next Pope continue to support the TLM  for a strong future or do we get another aging hippy and disciple of "nice" and tolerance (except for tradition of course) while supporting the bastardized form of the True Mass and the eventual extinction of the Norvus Ordo crowd when they eventually die off and their chruches leveled or turned into heretical, prot monstrosities or perhaps even Mosques.

As Voris states in the video, will Tradition, who defends the Faith more rigoursly, have an ally with the new Pope? Will he understand that that the future of the Church firmly remains rooted in the past?

We shall see.

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2013-03-04

I love how you refer to the TLM as the "True Mass," as if there is no other real mass. It's quite silly. There is the NO, the Byzantine Liturgy, etc etc etc.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Eastern Mind on March 05, 2013, 12:25:28 PM
Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

And it is thriving and appealing  to many of the younger people and young families everywhere desperate for  the real faith and devotion unlike the the "New" Mass and the Church of "nice" complete with it's clown "Masses" and tolerent "gay-friendly" exhibitions passed off as a form of the liturgy. While the old Norvus Ordo parishes are closing and the churches are razed, those with the Latin Mass are flourishing and gaining members all the time, many with large young families.

The question, does the next Pope continue to support the TLM  for a strong future or do we get another aging hippy and disciple of "nice" and tolerance (except for tradition of course) while supporting the bastardized form of the True Mass and the eventual extinction of the Norvus Ordo crowd when they eventually die off and their chruches leveled or turned into heretical, prot monstrosities or perhaps even Mosques.

As Voris states in the video, will Tradition, who defends the Faith more rigoursly, have an ally with the new Pope? Will he understand that that the future of the Church firmly remains rooted in the past?

We shall see.

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2013-03-04

I love how you refer to the TLM as the "True Mass," as if there is no other real mass. It's quite silly. There is the NO, the Byzantine Liturgy, etc etc etc.

He's going to tell you that they're all invalid.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 12:43:49 PM
Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

And it is thriving and appealing  to many of the younger people and young families everywhere desperate for  the real faith and devotion unlike the the "New" Mass and the Church of "nice" complete with it's clown "Masses" and tolerent "gay-friendly" exhibitions passed off as a form of the liturgy. While the old Norvus Ordo parishes are closing and the churches are razed, those with the Latin Mass are flourishing and gaining members all the time, many with large young families.

The question, does the next Pope continue to support the TLM  for a strong future or do we get another aging hippy and disciple of "nice" and tolerance (except for tradition of course) while supporting the bastardized form of the True Mass and the eventual extinction of the Norvus Ordo crowd when they eventually die off and their chruches leveled or turned into heretical, prot monstrosities or perhaps even Mosques.

As Voris states in the video, will Tradition, who defends the Faith more rigoursly, have an ally with the new Pope? Will he understand that that the future of the Church firmly remains rooted in the past?

We shall see.

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2013-03-04

I love how you refer to the TLM as the "True Mass," as if there is no other real mass. It's quite silly. There is the NO, the Byzantine Liturgy, etc etc etc.

He's going to tell you that they're all invalid.
On the contrary, I've heard the Byzantine is quite valid.

But I admit that I know nothing about it.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 05, 2013, 12:43:56 PM
Anything from Trent is already a break in Tradition.
Spoken like a true schismatic.

But where is your proof?

Says the SSPXer.

At least we Orthodox do not pretend with our feelings about the Pope.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 12:46:11 PM
Quote
I see plenty of Novus Ordo parishes thriving in Chicago.

Let me guess, the immigrant or ethnic ones.

All the old ethinc and americanized parishes around me are closing but a few.

The ones that provide the trad Mass are the strongest.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 05, 2013, 12:46:57 PM
Anything from Trent is already a break in Tradition.
Spoken like a true schismatic.

But where is your proof?

Trent was a counter-reformation council.  It changed the very character of the Roman Church.  Instead of being true to their identity, they responded from every Protestant polemic and tried to distance themselves from it.  Trent was the start of the long road downhill towards where the Roman Church is today.  Vatican II wasn't an abrupt change, it was the fruit of what began at Trent.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 05, 2013, 12:47:21 PM
Quote
I see plenty of Novus Ordo parishes thriving in Chicago.

Let me guess, the immigrant or ethnic ones.

All the old ethinc and americanized parishes around me are closing but a few.

The ones that provide the trad Mass are the strongest.

Yes, all 1 of them.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 12:47:39 PM
Anything from Trent is already a break in Tradition.
Spoken like a true schismatic.

But where is your proof?

Says the SSPXer.

At least we Orthodox do not pretend with our feelings about the Pope.
I'm not SSPX.


And you don't accept the Chair of Peter to begin with.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 12:50:37 PM
Anything from Trent is already a break in Tradition.
Spoken like a true schismatic.

But where is your proof?

Trent was a counter-reformation council.  It changed the very character of the Roman Church.  Instead of being true to their identity, they responded from every Protestant polemic and tried to distance themselves from it.  Trent was the start of the long road downhill towards where the Roman Church is today.  Vatican II wasn't an abrupt change, it was the fruit of what began at Trent.
Trent just confirmed what the Church always taught as opposed to Protestantism.


VII tried to become Protestant in an attempt to win the heretics back which had the opposite effect.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 05, 2013, 12:51:21 PM
I'm not SSPX.

And you don't accept the Chair of Peter to begin with.

You don't accept the one who sits on it.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 05, 2013, 12:52:40 PM
Anything from Trent is already a break in Tradition.
Spoken like a true schismatic.

But where is your proof?

Trent was a counter-reformation council.  It changed the very character of the Roman Church.  Instead of being true to their identity, they responded from every Protestant polemic and tried to distance themselves from it.  Trent was the start of the long road downhill towards where the Roman Church is today.  Vatican II wasn't an abrupt change, it was the fruit of what began at Trent.
Trent just confirmed what the Church always taught as opposed to Protestantism.


VII tried to become Protestant in an attempt to win the heretics back which had the opposite effect.

Nope, it radically changed the nature of the Roman Church.  Notice also in RC history you hardly hear anything pre-Trent.  As if the Church never existed.  There are the lives of a few saints talked about, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, St. Francis of Assisi.  But overall Trent was a break in tradition that the Church doesn't even speak about.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 05, 2013, 12:56:54 PM
Quote
I see plenty of Novus Ordo parishes thriving in Chicago.

Let me guess, the immigrant or ethnic ones.

All the old ethinc and americanized parishes around me are closing but a few.

The ones that provide the trad Mass are the strongest.
In diocese, the TLM parish is limping along. The NO parish that I some times attend, which has very reverent liturgy, is thriving. It's not just the Latin mass that makes the faith.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: mike on March 05, 2013, 12:57:38 PM
AFAIR it's the first time Charles Martel is discussing theology instead of homosexuality. This needs a celebration.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 05, 2013, 12:57:43 PM
Anything from Trent is already a break in Tradition.
Spoken like a true schismatic.

But where is your proof?

Trent was a counter-reformation council.  It changed the very character of the Roman Church.  Instead of being true to their identity, they responded from every Protestant polemic and tried to distance themselves from it.  Trent was the start of the long road downhill towards where the Roman Church is today.  Vatican II wasn't an abrupt change, it was the fruit of what began at Trent.
Trent just confirmed what the Church always taught as opposed to Protestantism.


VII tried to become Protestant in an attempt to win the heretics back which had the opposite effect.
Do you blieve that Pope Benedict XVI was a real Pope?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Eastern Mind on March 05, 2013, 12:59:39 PM
AFAIR it's the first time Charles Martel is discussing theology instead of homosexuality. This needs a celebration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enSzV0QJPMs
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 05, 2013, 12:59:59 PM
Anything from Trent is already a break in Tradition.
Spoken like a true schismatic.

But where is your proof?

Trent was a counter-reformation council.  It changed the very character of the Roman Church.  Instead of being true to their identity, they responded from every Protestant polemic and tried to distance themselves from it.  Trent was the start of the long road downhill towards where the Roman Church is today.  Vatican II wasn't an abrupt change, it was the fruit of what began at Trent.
Trent just confirmed what the Church always taught as opposed to Protestantism.


VII tried to become Protestant in an attempt to win the heretics back which had the opposite effect.

Nope, it radically changed the nature of the Roman Church.  Notice also in RC history you hardly hear anything pre-Trent.  As if the Church never existed.  There are the lives of a few saints talked about, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, St. Francis of Assisi.  But overall Trent was a break in tradition that the Church doesn't even speak about.

What do you mean by that?  What constitutes hearing "anything pre-Trent"?  I find constant and frequent references to pre-Trent saints, writers, etc.  Please clarify.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: dzheremi on March 05, 2013, 01:02:59 PM
Yeah, Choy. You know St. Augustine is pre-Trent. Don't be silly.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 05, 2013, 01:04:29 PM
Anything from Trent is already a break in Tradition.
Spoken like a true schismatic.

But where is your proof?

Trent was a counter-reformation council.  It changed the very character of the Roman Church.  Instead of being true to their identity, they responded from every Protestant polemic and tried to distance themselves from it.  Trent was the start of the long road downhill towards where the Roman Church is today.  Vatican II wasn't an abrupt change, it was the fruit of what began at Trent.
Trent just confirmed what the Church always taught as opposed to Protestantism.


VII tried to become Protestant in an attempt to win the heretics back which had the opposite effect.

Nope, it radically changed the nature of the Roman Church.  Notice also in RC history you hardly hear anything pre-Trent.  As if the Church never existed.  There are the lives of a few saints talked about, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, St. Francis of Assisi.  But overall Trent was a break in tradition that the Church doesn't even speak about.
Hmmm, interesting since the great scholasticts were all pre-trent: Sts. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Albert the Great, etc, etc. What about ol' Augustine? And St. Thomas reguarly quotes psuedo-dionysius, St. John of Damascus, and St. John Chrysostom, etc.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 05, 2013, 01:07:07 PM
AFAIR it's the first time Charles Martel is discussing theology instead of homosexuality. This needs a celebration.

I guess you don't read all (or even very many) of his posts, then.  If you have done so you couldn't truthfully make that statement.  (Or maybe you just read them selectively, searching for references to homosexuality--c'mon, Michal  ::) ::) ::).)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 05, 2013, 01:08:36 PM
Anything from Trent is already a break in Tradition.
Spoken like a true schismatic.

But where is your proof?

Trent was a counter-reformation council.  It changed the very character of the Roman Church.  Instead of being true to their identity, they responded from every Protestant polemic and tried to distance themselves from it.  Trent was the start of the long road downhill towards where the Roman Church is today.  Vatican II wasn't an abrupt change, it was the fruit of what began at Trent.
Trent just confirmed what the Church always taught as opposed to Protestantism.


VII tried to become Protestant in an attempt to win the heretics back which had the opposite effect.

Nope, it radically changed the nature of the Roman Church.  Notice also in RC history you hardly hear anything pre-Trent.  As if the Church never existed.  There are the lives of a few saints talked about, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, St. Francis of Assisi.  But overall Trent was a break in tradition that the Church doesn't even speak about.
Hmmm, interesting since the great scholasticts were all pre-trent: Sts. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Albert the Great, etc, etc. What about ol' Augustine? And St. Thomas reguarly quotes psuedo-dionysius, St. John of Damascus, and St. John Chrysostom, etc.

Choy is a man on a mission.  ;D
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 05, 2013, 01:19:32 PM
Yeah, Choy. You know St. Augustine is pre-Trent. Don't be silly.

I just mentioned him in my post.  I hope you didn't stop reading it halfway through.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 01:20:28 PM
I'm not SSPX.

And you don't accept the Chair of Peter to begin with.

You don't accept the one who sits on it.
and just who is that at present?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 05, 2013, 01:23:09 PM
Hmmm, interesting since the great scholasticts were all pre-trent: Sts. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Albert the Great, etc, etc. What about ol' Augustine? And St. Thomas reguarly quotes psuedo-dionysius, St. John of Damascus, and St. John Chrysostom, etc.

Fair enough, but aside from drawing from teachings of specific Latin Fathers, my point was there seems to be a huge vacuum pre-Trent.  It's like outerspace, the Latin Fathers are the planets, but in between them there is just empty space.  Was history just not recorded, or intentionally forgotten?  Even the history of the Mass seems to be a mystery to most, pre Trent.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 05, 2013, 01:23:45 PM
I'm not SSPX.

And you don't accept the Chair of Peter to begin with.

You don't accept the one who sits on it.
and just who is that at present?

Ah yes, that is why all schismatic sedevacantists (SSPX included) are rejoicing right now when they can come out of the sedevacantist closet.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: primuspilus on March 05, 2013, 01:29:50 PM
I'm not SSPX.

And you don't accept the Chair of Peter to begin with.

You don't accept the one who sits on it.
and just who is that at present?
Not the future resident of the vat....oh wait...this is gonna be another

(http://uboachan.net/fg/src/1331694642181.jpg)


thing isnt it?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 01:30:56 PM
Quote
I see plenty of Novus Ordo parishes thriving in Chicago.

Let me guess, the immigrant or ethnic ones.

All the old ethinc and americanized parishes around me are closing but a few.

The ones that provide the trad Mass are the strongest.
In diocese, the TLM parish is limping along. The NO parish that I some times attend, which has very reverent liturgy, is thriving. It's not just the Latin mass that makes the faith.
I believe the TLM is the more true form of the Mass. I used to attend a parish that had a very "reverent" form of the liturgy as well but the old priests retired or died off and now they're getting some more liberal priests there complete with altar girls, women lecters and Eucharistic "ministers" administering at communion. No one seems to kneel anymore when they are recieving and just about everyone takes the Host in hand which to me is extremely improper. Things have just gone from bad to worse I'd say in the last 4-5 yrs which is about how long I've been attending the TLM and the one that I attend is strong and getting stronger all the time.


But I know the local bishop hates it and so do a lot of his hippies in white collars from the sixites.

But a lot of the younger ones being ordained are eager to learn and provide the Old Mass.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 05, 2013, 01:31:10 PM
Hmmm, interesting since the great scholasticts were all pre-trent: Sts. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Albert the Great, etc, etc. What about ol' Augustine? And St. Thomas reguarly quotes psuedo-dionysius, St. John of Damascus, and St. John Chrysostom, etc.

Fair enough, but aside from drawing from teachings of specific Latin Fathers, my point was there seems to be a huge vacuum pre-Trent.  It's like outerspace, the Latin Fathers are the planets, but in between them there is just empty space.  Was history just not recorded, or intentionally forgotten?  Even the history of the Mass seems to be a mystery to most, pre Trent.

Seek and you shall find.  It ain't even difficult.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 01:32:41 PM
AFAIR it's the first time Charles Martel is discussing theology instead of homosexuality. This needs a celebration.
I think with you homosexuality is theology....... ;D

But you're wrong about me as usual Michal.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 01:33:29 PM
Anything from Trent is already a break in Tradition.
Spoken like a true schismatic.

But where is your proof?

Trent was a counter-reformation council.  It changed the very character of the Roman Church.  Instead of being true to their identity, they responded from every Protestant polemic and tried to distance themselves from it.  Trent was the start of the long road downhill towards where the Roman Church is today.  Vatican II wasn't an abrupt change, it was the fruit of what began at Trent.
Trent just confirmed what the Church always taught as opposed to Protestantism.


VII tried to become Protestant in an attempt to win the heretics back which had the opposite effect.
Do you blieve that Pope Benedict XVI was a real Pope?
Yes.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 01:34:41 PM
AFAIR it's the first time Charles Martel is discussing theology instead of homosexuality. This needs a celebration.

I guess you don't read all (or even very many) of his posts, then.  If you have done so you couldn't truthfully make that statement.  (Or maybe you just read them selectively, searching for references to homosexuality--c'mon, Michal  ::) ::) ::).)
I'm glad someone else is noticing other than my he-man haters fan club J Michael. ;)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 05, 2013, 01:35:50 PM
Hmmm, interesting since the great scholasticts were all pre-trent: Sts. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Albert the Great, etc, etc. What about ol' Augustine? And St. Thomas reguarly quotes psuedo-dionysius, St. John of Damascus, and St. John Chrysostom, etc.

Fair enough, but aside from drawing from teachings of specific Latin Fathers, my point was there seems to be a huge vacuum pre-Trent.  It's like outerspace, the Latin Fathers are the planets, but in between them there is just empty space.  Was history just not recorded, or intentionally forgotten?  Even the history of the Mass seems to be a mystery to most, pre Trent.
What about all the Fathers whom Aquinas references?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 05, 2013, 01:44:04 PM
Hmmm, interesting since the great scholasticts were all pre-trent: Sts. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Albert the Great, etc, etc. What about ol' Augustine? And St. Thomas reguarly quotes psuedo-dionysius, St. John of Damascus, and St. John Chrysostom, etc.

Fair enough, but aside from drawing from teachings of specific Latin Fathers, my point was there seems to be a huge vacuum pre-Trent.  It's like outerspace, the Latin Fathers are the planets, but in between them there is just empty space.  Was history just not recorded, or intentionally forgotten?  Even the history of the Mass seems to be a mystery to most, pre Trent.

Seek and you shall find.  It ain't even difficult.

Really?  Been searching for 3 years.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 05, 2013, 01:57:27 PM
Hmmm, interesting since the great scholasticts were all pre-trent: Sts. Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Albert the Great, etc, etc. What about ol' Augustine? And St. Thomas reguarly quotes psuedo-dionysius, St. John of Damascus, and St. John Chrysostom, etc.

Fair enough, but aside from drawing from teachings of specific Latin Fathers, my point was there seems to be a huge vacuum pre-Trent.  It's like outerspace, the Latin Fathers are the planets, but in between them there is just empty space.  Was history just not recorded, or intentionally forgotten?  Even the history of the Mass seems to be a mystery to most, pre Trent.

Seek and you shall find.  It ain't even difficult.

Really?  Been searching for 3 years.

Yeah, really.

Broaden the scope of your search, if you are genuinely interested, that is.  There are vast numbers of references to pre-Trent saints and other writers in the Catholic literature.  And not just "Latin Fathers", either---as if there was something wrong with them. 
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: cateran on March 05, 2013, 04:03:25 PM
Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

Yep. He loved it so much that he never once offered it publicly himself. Nor is there any evidence that he ever did so in private.

That aside, he was a terrific champion of the TLM.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 05, 2013, 04:18:48 PM
Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

Yep. He loved it so much that he never once offered it publicly himself. Nor is there any evidence that he ever did so in private.

That aside, he was a terrific champion of the TLM.

He's the one who made so that every parish must make it available if the faithful want it.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 05, 2013, 04:49:47 PM
Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

Yep. He loved it so much that he never once offered it publicly himself.

Interesting, although I'm not sure if it means what you think it means.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 04:51:18 PM
Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

Yep. He loved it so much that he never once offered it publicly himself. Nor is there any evidence that he ever did so in private.

That aside, he was a terrific champion of the TLM.

Can you qualify that statement for sure?

At any rate, I'm sure he publicly performed more than a few pre-Vat II.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: mike on March 05, 2013, 04:53:02 PM
How can one prove something was NOT done?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 04:53:59 PM
Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

Yep. He loved it so much that he never once offered it publicly himself.

Interesting, although I'm not sure if it means what you think it means.
(http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/3900000/The-Princess-Bride-the-princess-bride-3983611-500-277.jpg)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 05, 2013, 04:56:28 PM
How can one prove something was NOT done?
Maybe providing a simple article or sentence that states just that?

But hey,I'll just take his word at face value I guess. ::)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Alpo on March 05, 2013, 06:09:43 PM
The question, does the next Pope continue to support the TLM  for a strong future or do we get another aging hippy and disciple of "nice" and tolerance (except for tradition of course) while supporting the bastardized form of the True Mass and the eventual extinction of the Norvus Ordo crowd when they eventually die off and their chruches leveled or turned into heretical, prot monstrosities or perhaps even Mosques.

I don't know how to say this without sounding patronizing but to me that sounds like Catholics need to be worried whether your own primate will be a Catholic or not. I'm really sorry for you if that's the case. It seems that Catholics have pretty much lost the idea of "Tradition" and everything is about pope and what he is saying or isn't saying.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: cateran on March 05, 2013, 06:42:04 PM
Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

Yep. He loved it so much that he never once offered it publicly himself. Nor is there any evidence that he ever did so in private.

That aside, he was a terrific champion of the TLM.

Can you qualify that statement for sure?

At any rate, I'm sure he publicly performed more than a few pre-Vat II.


Quote
Can you qualify that statement for sure?
Don't need to - it's a fact. If you can offer evidence to the contrary, go right ahead.

Quote
At any rate, I'm sure he publicly performed more than a few pre-Vat II.
Not to get too pedantic but priests do not "perform" the Mass - they offer it. Or at least if they're Novus Ordo, they celebrate it.
I'm sure Pope Benedict must have been among them but not as Pope and that's what you asserted.
Just sayin'.



Clerical title added to post to enforce forum rule that we give clergy, both Orthodox and Catholic, the respect due their offices  -PtA
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: cateran on March 05, 2013, 06:48:48 PM
Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

Yep. He loved it so much that he never once offered it publicly himself. Nor is there any evidence that he ever did so in private.

That aside, he was a terrific champion of the TLM.

He's the one who made so that every parish must make it available if the faithful want it.

Are you kidding?? Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying instructions in his Motu Proprio to the Bishops had so many loopholes you could drive an AI tank through them. Try going against any recalcitrant bishop (like my ex) who decides he will not tolerate it. Then appeal to ED and see what that gets you.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: cateran on March 05, 2013, 06:53:51 PM
Benedict was a champion of the Old Mass, the True Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.

Yep. He loved it so much that he never once offered it publicly himself.

Interesting, although I'm not sure if it means what you think it means.
Well, I guess that makes two of us with a dilemma. I'm not sure what it is that you're not sure that I think it means.  ??? :)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: KostaC on March 05, 2013, 07:11:28 PM
Quote
I see plenty of Novus Ordo parishes thriving in Chicago.

Let me guess, the immigrant or ethnic ones.

All the old ethinc and americanized parishes around me are closing but a few.

The ones that provide the trad Mass are the strongest.

Quite the contrary; my Father's parish uses the Novus Ordo and all the parishes in our part of the city are doing fine. If anything, ethnic parishes are shutting down because of the demographic shift in the city.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Basil 320 on March 05, 2013, 09:02:05 PM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 05, 2013, 10:17:33 PM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 05, 2013, 11:06:08 PM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".
Your new church classifies all Latins as "heretic schismatics." why single out the sspx?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: domNoah on March 05, 2013, 11:22:19 PM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".

I think that we should always consider that we live in very confusing times. 
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 06, 2013, 03:44:50 AM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".
Your new church classifies all Latins as "heretic schismatics." why single out the sspx?

It's a position I held as a Roman Catholic and as an Ukrainian Catholic.  Why change now? ;)

Besides, the SSPX acts against the very decrees of her mother Church.  Submission to Papal Authority is pre-Vatican II, so is not an issue in-question by the SSPX.  Yet they seem to forget it is part of their "tradition".
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 06, 2013, 03:46:11 AM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".

I think that we should always consider that we live in very confusing times. 

When did we not?  I don't get why people today seem to act as if things are worse off today than 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 500 years ago or 1000 years ago, etc.  We're not any better or any worse.  At any point of history there is a controversy, there is an issue, there is a problem.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 06, 2013, 07:53:07 AM
Quote
Don't need to - it's a fact. If you can offer evidence to the contrary, go right ahead.


OK, here ya go;

Pope Benedict XVI celebrates the Tridentine Mass privately, says head of SSPX

Pope Benedict XVI celebrates Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite in private, according to the head of the Society of St Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay. Speaking at a gathering in Brazil this month, Bishop Fellay also claimed that an unnamed Italian bishop had threatened to resign if the Pope ever celebrated the traditional Latin Mass in public.

According to Fellay, the Holy Father's secretary, Mgr Georg Gänswein, also uses the 1962 Missal; Father Z suggests that the Pope may sometimes serve Mass for him (in the older form, he implies, though this isn't clear



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100047655/pope-benedict-xvi-celebrates-the-tridentine-mass-privately-says-bishop/


Quote
Not to get too pedantic but priests do not "perform" the Mass - they offer it


Yes, that was poor wording on my part, he celebrates it I guess.

Actually I believe even "celebrates" is a poor word for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 06, 2013, 07:58:37 AM
Quote
I see plenty of Novus Ordo parishes thriving in Chicago.

Let me guess, the immigrant or ethnic ones.

All the old ethinc and americanized parishes around me are closing but a few.

The ones that provide the trad Mass are the strongest.

Quite the contrary; my Father's parish uses the Novus Ordo and all the parishes in our part of the city are doing fine. If anything, ethnic parishes are shutting down because of the demographic shift in the city.
Well this is true for the old European ethnic neighborhoods (Irish, Italian, Polish, etc) as these ethnics have moved out of the cities and they have been replaced predominately by blacks, Asians,,Middle Easterns and Latinos in which many are Petntacostals.


But there are some strong hispanic and even Asian parish's like koreans that are still thriving and growing.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Charles Martel on March 06, 2013, 08:03:46 AM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".
Traditionalists are more loyal to the Pope and Church than anyone, it's the modernists and liberals that are twisting theology and are trying to make Orthodox Catholics a pariah in their own Church.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 06, 2013, 08:41:00 AM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".
Your new church classifies all Latins as "heretic schismatics." why single out the sspx?

It's a position I held as a Roman Catholic and as an Ukrainian Catholic.  Why change now? ;)

Hmmm ... hopefully your plan isn't to be one of those Orthodox who constantly have their fingers in the Catholic "pie". I think we have enough of that already with podkarpatska and ialmisry.  ::)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on March 06, 2013, 11:18:14 AM
What about all the Fathers whom Aquinas references?

Quite often when he quotes the Greek fathers the quoted texts are either interpolations or paraphrases. At least, that's the impression I got from reading his Contra Errores Graecorum.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: domNoah on March 06, 2013, 12:29:03 PM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".

I think that we should always consider that we live in very confusing times. 

When did we not?  I don't get why people today seem to act as if things are worse off today than 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 500 years ago or 1000 years ago, etc.  We're not any better or any worse.  At any point of history there is a controversy, there is an issue, there is a problem.

100 years ago my friend their were no debates about two men marrying.  I like to give people the benefit of the doubt who are trying to do their best, harsh judgement won't help me on judgement day.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 06, 2013, 01:07:57 PM
100 years ago my friend their were no debates about two men marrying.  I like to give people the benefit of the doubt who are trying to do their best, harsh judgement won't help me on judgement day.

Yet homosexual behavior was accepted by society even in the First Millennium.  The fact that it was mentioned so often in the Bible, both at the time of Moses and at the writings of St. Paul point to the fact that such activity exists in the time, and it is the problem.  They can't address a problem that doesn't exist, so the fact that they are addressing it means it does exist.

And you're just looking at one problem.  There are other problems back then.  They don't have abortion the way we do it today, but at certain points in history infanticide was done liberally.

I was listening to this talk by Frederica Matthews-Greene on AFR where she pointed out that the sexual liberation started much, much earlier than we thought, even on movies.  While today the glorification of sex is about "consenting unmarried adults", back in the 20s and 30s it was about secret affairs of married men, it was adultery.  Yes, our problems today are different, but that doesn't mean they are worse.  They have other problems in different magnitudes back then.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 06, 2013, 01:09:43 PM
Hmmm ... hopefully your plan isn't to be one of those Orthodox who constantly have their fingers in the Catholic "pie". I think we have enough of that already with podkarpatska and ialmisry.  ::)

Criticism helps you improve.  Unless you think everything is oh-so-perfect over there.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 06, 2013, 01:32:01 PM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".
 

By "Roman Church" do you mean the Western Roman Catholic Church as distinct from the Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches?  Or do you mean *all* those churches in communion with Rome?  Because if you mean the latter, then there are already two or more "parallel Liturgies" without any threat to the unity of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church.

In Orthodoxy, you also have different (parallel?) liturgies celebrated without any threat to the unity of the Orthodox Church.  So, I'm a little confused as to your meaning.

I'm just asking you here to be a little more precise with your terms for the sake of clarity.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 06, 2013, 01:37:43 PM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".
 

By "Roman Church" do you mean the Western Roman Catholic Church as distinct from the Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches?  Or do you mean *all* those churches in communion with Rome?  Because if you mean the latter, then there are already two or more "parallel Liturgies" without any threat to the unity of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church.

In Orthodoxy, you also have different (parallel?) liturgies celebrated without any threat to the unity of the Orthodox Church.  So, I'm a little confused as to your meaning.

I'm just asking you here to be a little more precise with your terms for the sake of clarity.

There are no parallel Liturgies in Orthodoxy.  On a given day we celebrate a specific one.  I guess one that comes close is the Liturgy of St. James which some jurisdictions and some parishes may celebrate on his feast day, while other parishes with Liturgy on that day would celebrate St. John Chrysostom's Divine Liturgy.  But other than that, its St. John's Liturgy all the time except for the 10 times St. Basil's is prescribed.  And it is the same for all.

Parallel means running side by side at the same time.  Which means you can go to one parish in one Sunday and have the OF, and then walk across the street and get the EF.  And most people who go to the OF don't want the EF, and certainly those who go to the EF would almost exclusively just go to the EF.  In Orthodoxy everyone gets to go to both Liturgies, and they go to the same Liturgy on the same day.  Of course barring calendar differences, but that would be minimal as most of the time St. Basil's Liturgy is celebrated during Lent where everyone (almost) is on the same calendar.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 06, 2013, 01:38:06 PM
What about all the Fathers whom Aquinas references?

Quite often when he quotes the Greek fathers the quoted texts are either interpolations or paraphrases. At least, that's the impression I got from reading his Contra Errores Graecorum.

I'd ask you to substantiate your claim, based on your "impression", but I'm (most unfortunately and ashamedly) so unfamiliar with St. Thomas' writings that it probably wouldn't mean much to me.  Papist, on the other, seems to have more than just a passing familiarity with him and his writings, so I'm sure he'd be able to understand your references and citations.  ;)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 06, 2013, 01:43:23 PM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".
 

By "Roman Church" do you mean the Western Roman Catholic Church as distinct from the Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches?  Or do you mean *all* those churches in communion with Rome?  Because if you mean the latter, then there are already two or more "parallel Liturgies" without any threat to the unity of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church.

In Orthodoxy, you also have different (parallel?) liturgies celebrated without any threat to the unity of the Orthodox Church.  So, I'm a little confused as to your meaning.

I'm just asking you here to be a little more precise with your terms for the sake of clarity.

There are no parallel Liturgies in Orthodoxy.  On a given day we celebrate a specific one.  I guess one that comes close is the Liturgy of St. James which some jurisdictions and some parishes may celebrate on his feast day, while other parishes with Liturgy on that day would celebrate St. John Chrysostom's Divine Liturgy.  But other than that, its St. John's Liturgy all the time except for the 10 times St. Basil's is prescribed.  And it is the same for all.

Parallel means running side by side at the same time.  Which means you can go to one parish in one Sunday and have the OF, and then walk across the street and get the EF.  And most people who go to the OF don't want the EF, and certainly those who go to the EF would almost exclusively just go to the EF.  In Orthodoxy everyone gets to go to both Liturgies, and they go to the same Liturgy on the same day.  Of course barring calendar differences, but that would be minimal as most of the time St. Basil's Liturgy is celebrated during Lent where everyone (almost) is on the same calendar.

Okay, that's clearer.  Thanks!  But, what about the Western Rite Orthodox liturgy?  Not that it's all that widespread, but, nonetheless, is celebrated on Sunday mornings at the same time the DL of St. John is celebrated elsewhere.

I also think you're making up a problem when there really isn't one.  Afaik, both the OF and EF Masses are theologically correct and approved.  So, how are they a threat to the unity of the Church?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 06, 2013, 01:56:38 PM
Okay, that's clearer.  Thanks!  But, what about the Western Rite Orthodox liturgy?  Not that it's all that widespread, but, nonetheless, is celebrated on Sunday mornings at the same time the DL of St. John is celebrated elsewhere.

I also think you're making up a problem when there really isn't one.  Afaik, both the OF and EF Masses are theologically correct and approved.  So, how are they a threat to the unity of the Church?

That is why I don't wonder why so many are opposed to it, but also for various reasons.  I don't have a problem with it for now because it's members don't call the rest of Orthodoxy as "invalid" and "modernist" ;)  But my opinion on it is, if they want a separate Rite, it must be a Church of its own, similar to Eastern Catholic Churches having their own Liturgy.  But then you'd get into that situation where in one city there would be two Churches.  I understand why there is one bishop in one city/province, its for the unity of the people of that secular jurisdiction.  And in the same breath, there should be one type of Liturgy celebrated on a given day for all people under the same bishop.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: mike on March 06, 2013, 02:06:10 PM
But my opinion on it is, if they want a separate Rite, it must be a Church of its own, similar to Eastern Catholic Churches having their own Liturgy.  But then you'd get into that situation where in one city there would be two Churches.  I understand why there is one bishop in one city/province, its for the unity of the people of that secular jurisdiction.  And in the same breath, there should be one type of Liturgy celebrated on a given day for all people under the same bishop.

Roman Catolic influences are not welcomed.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 06, 2013, 02:32:09 PM
But my opinion on it is, if they want a separate Rite, it must be a Church of its own, similar to Eastern Catholic Churches having their own Liturgy.  But then you'd get into that situation where in one city there would be two Churches.  I understand why there is one bishop in one city/province, its for the unity of the people of that secular jurisdiction.  And in the same breath, there should be one type of Liturgy celebrated on a given day for all people under the same bishop.

Roman Catolic influences are not welcomed.

Neither is "Romophobia"
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: mike on March 06, 2013, 02:35:20 PM
But my opinion on it is, if they want a separate Rite, it must be a Church of its own, similar to Eastern Catholic Churches having their own Liturgy.  But then you'd get into that situation where in one city there would be two Churches.  I understand why there is one bishop in one city/province, its for the unity of the people of that secular jurisdiction.  And in the same breath, there should be one type of Liturgy celebrated on a given day for all people under the same bishop.

Roman Catolic influences are not welcomed.

Neither is "Romophobia"

When by "Romophobia" you mean "opposing alien to Orthodox Christianity distortions of ecclesiology that actually are kept in the Roman Church" it is perfectly OK. We have never had Trent or Vatican II and we do not need them.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 06, 2013, 04:47:46 PM
But my opinion on it is, if they want a separate Rite, it must be a Church of its own, similar to Eastern Catholic Churches having their own Liturgy.  But then you'd get into that situation where in one city there would be two Churches.  I understand why there is one bishop in one city/province, its for the unity of the people of that secular jurisdiction.  And in the same breath, there should be one type of Liturgy celebrated on a given day for all people under the same bishop.

Roman Catolic influences are not welcomed.

Neither is "Romophobia"

When by "Romophobia" you mean "opposing alien to Orthodox Christianity distortions of ecclesiology that actually are kept in the Roman Church" it is perfectly OK. We have never had Trent or Vatican II and we do not need them.

If you have specific issues in your mind, I cannot respond to them unless you share them.  All I'm saying is that we shouldn't just make a blanket statement throwing out everything just because it comes from Rome.  In whatever situation certainly there are some good ideas we can adopt, and there are things that we should never adopt.  Unless you're thinking that everything in the Orthodox Church today is uniquely Orthodox handed down by Jesus to the Apostles.  And by everything I don't mean just the faith.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 06, 2013, 09:17:11 PM
Hmmm ... hopefully your plan isn't to be one of those Orthodox who constantly have their fingers in the Catholic "pie". I think we have enough of that already with podkarpatska and ialmisry.  ::)

Criticism helps you improve.  Unless you think everything is oh-so-perfect over there.

I am shocked ... to learn that the Catholic Church, which I've been criticizing all these years, isn't perfect! (One of these days I'm going to watch a new movie.)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 06, 2013, 09:52:49 PM
Hmmm ... hopefully your plan isn't to be one of those Orthodox who constantly have their fingers in the Catholic "pie". I think we have enough of that already with podkarpatska and ialmisry.  ::)

Criticism helps you improve.  Unless you think everything is oh-so-perfect over there.

I am shocked ... to learn that the Catholic Church, which I've been criticizing all these years, isn't perfect! (One of these days I'm going to watch a new movie.)

Well then why do you think I should stop saying what my beliefs are about the matter?  As long as I am reactive rather than proactive (ie. starting conversations to say how problematic the Roman Catholic Church is today) then it is okay.  If someone asks me a question, or there is a public forum like this and someone else asks the question, then I should have the right to respond.  But I agree with you in that it would be wrong for me to be the one starting this conversation.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 06, 2013, 10:04:36 PM
That's it. I'm going to Latin Mass this Sunday.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: domNoah on March 06, 2013, 11:38:41 PM
100 years ago my friend their were no debates about two men marrying.  I like to give people the benefit of the doubt who are trying to do their best, harsh judgement won't help me on judgement day.

Yet homosexual behavior was accepted by society even in the First Millennium.  The fact that it was mentioned so often in the Bible, both at the time of Moses and at the writings of St. Paul point to the fact that such activity exists in the time, and it is the problem.  They can't address a problem that doesn't exist, so the fact that they are addressing it means it does exist.

And you're just looking at one problem.  There are other problems back then.  They don't have abortion the way we do it today, but at certain points in history infanticide was done liberally.

I was listening to this talk by Frederica Matthews-Greene on AFR where she pointed out that the sexual liberation started much, much earlier than we thought, even on movies.  While today the glorification of sex is about "consenting unmarried adults", back in the 20s and 30s it was about secret affairs of married men, it was adultery.  Yes, our problems today are different, but that doesn't mean they are worse.  They have other problems in different magnitudes back then.

What societies accepted Homosexuality?  I know the pagan greeks accepted pedastry but I am only aware of their being one homosexual pseudo marriage in antiquity and that was on of Nero's.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 06, 2013, 11:51:09 PM
100 years ago my friend their were no debates about two men marrying.  I like to give people the benefit of the doubt who are trying to do their best, harsh judgement won't help me on judgement day.

Yet homosexual behavior was accepted by society even in the First Millennium.  The fact that it was mentioned so often in the Bible, both at the time of Moses and at the writings of St. Paul point to the fact that such activity exists in the time, and it is the problem.  They can't address a problem that doesn't exist, so the fact that they are addressing it means it does exist.

And you're just looking at one problem.  There are other problems back then.  They don't have abortion the way we do it today, but at certain points in history infanticide was done liberally.

I was listening to this talk by Frederica Matthews-Greene on AFR where she pointed out that the sexual liberation started much, much earlier than we thought, even on movies.  While today the glorification of sex is about "consenting unmarried adults", back in the 20s and 30s it was about secret affairs of married men, it was adultery.  Yes, our problems today are different, but that doesn't mean they are worse.  They have other problems in different magnitudes back then.

What societies accepted Homosexuality?  I know the pagan greeks accepted pedastry but I am only aware of their being one homosexual pseudo marriage in antiquity and that was on of Nero's.

I said homosexuality, not homosexual marriage.  I never said anything about marriage.  Regardless, there were many other issues of the time as well that are not existent anymore today.  At least in most developed nations.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Antonis on March 07, 2013, 12:07:03 AM
Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 07, 2013, 12:10:58 AM
Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.
I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 07, 2013, 01:06:40 AM
Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.
I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.

There is a great obsession especially on Fatima, especially with the Traddie circles.  You know, Pope John Paul II is a modernist heretic because he didn't really consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart, kind of obsession.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: ialmisry on March 07, 2013, 01:16:23 AM
Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.
I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.
Either a) you're a hermit with no connection with the rest of your ecclesial community b) Albaquerque is sealed off from the rest of the Vatican's ecclesial community c) we have a magic attraction to those in the Vatican's ecclesial community obsessed with these "apparitions" d) you're in denial e) you're trying to pull the wool over the sheep
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2raw9FuCY1r2t9z1o1_500.jpg)

Where did your supreme pontiff get that new holiday that he instituted for all your ecclesial community?
(http://luisapiccarreta.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Divine-Mercy-1.jpg)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 07, 2013, 01:54:19 AM
Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.
I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.
Either a) you're a hermit with no connection with the rest of your ecclesial community b) Albaquerque is sealed off from the rest of the Vatican's ecclesial community c) we have a magic attraction to those in the Vatican's ecclesial community obsessed with these "apparitions" d) you're in denial e) you're trying to pull the wool over the sheep
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2raw9FuCY1r2t9z1o1_500.jpg)

Where did your supreme pontiff get that new holiday that he or instituted for all your ecclesial community?
(http://luisapiccarreta.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Divine-Mercy-1.jpg)
or D) You are full of it.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: ialmisry on March 07, 2013, 02:34:01 AM
Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.
I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.
Either a) you're a hermit with no connection with the rest of your ecclesial community b) Albaquerque is sealed off from the rest of the Vatican's ecclesial community c) we have a magic attraction to those in the Vatican's ecclesial community obsessed with these "apparitions" d) you're in denial e) you're trying to pull the wool over the sheep
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2raw9FuCY1r2t9z1o1_500.jpg)

Where did your supreme pontiff get that new holiday that he or instituted for all your ecclesial community?
(http://luisapiccarreta.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Divine-Mercy-1.jpg)
or D) You are full of it.
(http://www.michaeljournal.org/images/miseri.jpg)(http://thedivinemercy.org/includes/image.php?n=JP2Reigns.jpg&w=450)(http://biltrix.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/divine-mercy.jpg)(http://www.ncsx.com/2012/050712/Hungeree/Portugal-A-statue-of-the--029.jpg)(http://www.aidtochurch.org/images/others/acn0506_ukraine_2.jpg)
Quote
History of Apparitions at Hrushiv...1987: May9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 apparitions of Our Lady to Josyp Terelya, Holy Trinity Church, Hrishiv
1987: April 26-August 15, Spectacular public apparitions of Our Lady continued. During the first three weeks tens of thousands of pilgrims reported seeing Our Lady and hearing her messages. Between 40-80,000 pilgrims attended daily. Children saw angels flying, KGB officials and non-believers underwent miraculous conversions, and on one day over 52,000 embroidered prayer towls were left by the pilgrims as tokens of love and reverence....
(http://www.catholicrevelations.org/PR/josyp%20terelya_files/image003.jpg)http://www.catholicrevelations.org/PR/josyp%20terelya.htm(http://www.kupoprodaja.com/medugorjechurch.jpg)(http://www.spiritofmedjugorje.org/bilboard.jpg)(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Zq4vu0BKqP0/TZNHW0YPvCI/AAAAAAAAFPo/eGP1PmSP2Kg/s1600/Medjugorje+Billboard+Denver.jpg)I pass by a sign like that all the time.(http://lourdespilgramage.edublogs.org/files/2012/08/Lourdes_150_1-ueu7k2.jpg)(http://www.bravoreligioustours.com/upload/Offerte/11/lourdes.jpg)(http://www.sacred-destinations.com/mexico/images/mexico-city/basilica-guadalupe/resized/pilgrimage-2008-cc-pablo-aburto.jpg)(http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images2/1212-world-omexpope/11204048-1-eng-US/1212-world-omexpope_full_600.jpg)
Many seem to be "full of it."

You only make yourself look ridiculous denying the obvious.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Gunnarr on March 07, 2013, 03:41:49 AM
I am pretty sure the next pope will not be a traditionalist in this regard. In fact, I do not see the roman catholic church ever going back. but that is just my opinion

anyway,

What, Tridentine Mass is the only holy mass!?!?!!?

No, I say, that mass is inferior!

Inferior to the AMBROSIAN RITE!
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on March 07, 2013, 10:41:41 AM
What about all the Fathers whom Aquinas references?

Quite often when he quotes the Greek fathers the quoted texts are either interpolations or paraphrases. At least, that's the impression I got from reading his Contra Errores Graecorum.

I'd ask you to substantiate your claim, based on your "impression", but I'm (most unfortunately and ashamedly) so unfamiliar with St. Thomas' writings that it probably wouldn't mean much to me.  Papist, on the other, seems to have more than just a passing familiarity with him and his writings, so I'm sure he'd be able to understand your references and citations.  ;)

Here (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm)'s the work. The quotes of the Greek fathers come with talking balloons. Many quotes "cannot be found" are of Pseudo-Saint x or come from spurious works, such as St. Athanasius' elusive discourse on the Council of Nicaea, which I still haven't been able to find.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on March 07, 2013, 10:42:15 AM


What, Tridentine Mass is the only holy mass!?!?!!?

No, I say, that mass is inferior!

Inferior to the AMBROSIAN RITE!

I heard that the Ambrosian rite has more incense. If so, I concur.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 07, 2013, 10:59:59 AM
Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.
I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.
Either a) you're a hermit with no connection with the rest of your ecclesial community b) Albaquerque is sealed off from the rest of the Vatican's ecclesial community c) we have a magic attraction to those in the Vatican's ecclesial community obsessed with these "apparitions" d) you're in denial e) you're trying to pull the wool over the sheep
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2raw9FuCY1r2t9z1o1_500.jpg)

Where did your supreme pontiff get that new holiday that he or instituted for all your ecclesial community?
(http://luisapiccarreta.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Divine-Mercy-1.jpg)
or D) You are full of it.
(http://www.michaeljournal.org/images/miseri.jpg)(http://thedivinemercy.org/includes/image.php?n=JP2Reigns.jpg&w=450)(http://biltrix.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/divine-mercy.jpg)(http://www.ncsx.com/2012/050712/Hungeree/Portugal-A-statue-of-the--029.jpg)(http://www.aidtochurch.org/images/others/acn0506_ukraine_2.jpg)
Quote
History of Apparitions at Hrushiv...1987: May9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 apparitions of Our Lady to Josyp Terelya, Holy Trinity Church, Hrishiv
1987: April 26-August 15, Spectacular public apparitions of Our Lady continued. During the first three weeks tens of thousands of pilgrims reported seeing Our Lady and hearing her messages. Between 40-80,000 pilgrims attended daily. Children saw angels flying, KGB officials and non-believers underwent miraculous conversions, and on one day over 52,000 embroidered prayer towls were left by the pilgrims as tokens of love and reverence....
(http://www.catholicrevelations.org/PR/josyp%20terelya_files/image003.jpg)http://www.catholicrevelations.org/PR/josyp%20terelya.htm(http://www.kupoprodaja.com/medugorjechurch.jpg)(http://www.spiritofmedjugorje.org/bilboard.jpg)(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Zq4vu0BKqP0/TZNHW0YPvCI/AAAAAAAAFPo/eGP1PmSP2Kg/s1600/Medjugorje+Billboard+Denver.jpg)I pass by a sign like that all the time.(http://lourdespilgramage.edublogs.org/files/2012/08/Lourdes_150_1-ueu7k2.jpg)(http://www.bravoreligioustours.com/upload/Offerte/11/lourdes.jpg)(http://www.sacred-destinations.com/mexico/images/mexico-city/basilica-guadalupe/resized/pilgrimage-2008-cc-pablo-aburto.jpg)(http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images2/1212-world-omexpope/11204048-1-eng-US/1212-world-omexpope_full_600.jpg)
Many seem to be "full of it."

You only make yourself look ridiculous denying the obvious.
Just about everything you do on this site makes you look ridiculous, especially denying the real experience of real Catholics. While acknowledge that those private revelations have a great influence on many Catholics (btw, I don't see anything wrong with them either), I stated that my experience of Catholics around my age is that don't spend a great deal of time, energy, or attention on such things. Most of the Catholics I know around my age never mention Lourdes, Fatima, etc., except on rare occasions. The reality is that we more concerned with the faith of the Church than we are with these private revelations.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 07, 2013, 11:08:33 AM
Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.
I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.

Well, I've known some Catholics who are "obessesed" with them, so I can confirm that such people do exist. ;)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 07, 2013, 11:10:39 AM
Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.
I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.

Well, I've known some Catholics who are "obessesed" with them, so I can confirm that such people do exist. ;)
I'm sure they do. But they don't really exist in the circle of people I know, and I think it's much rarer than Izzy suggests.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 07, 2013, 11:39:09 AM
What about all the Fathers whom Aquinas references?

Quite often when he quotes the Greek fathers the quoted texts are either interpolations or paraphrases. At least, that's the impression I got from reading his Contra Errores Graecorum.

I'd ask you to substantiate your claim, based on your "impression", but I'm (most unfortunately and ashamedly) so unfamiliar with St. Thomas' writings that it probably wouldn't mean much to me.  Papist, on the other, seems to have more than just a passing familiarity with him and his writings, so I'm sure he'd be able to understand your references and citations.  ;)

Here (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm)'s the work. The quotes of the Greek fathers come with talking balloons. Many quotes "cannot be found" are of Pseudo-Saint x or come from spurious works, such as St. Athanasius' elusive discourse on the Council of Nicaea, which I still haven't been able to find.

Well....hmm....okay.  I think I'll defer to Papist on this matter.  I have neither the time, the brain power, or readily available eyesight left to read, compare/contrast, analyze the material in your link.  Maybe, if and when I start suffering severely from insomnia, I'll try to tackle that  ;D.  Maybe.  But don't count on it. 8)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 07, 2013, 11:45:12 AM
Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.
I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.

Well, I've known some Catholics who are "obessesed" with them, so I can confirm that such people do exist. ;)
I'm sure they do. But they don't really exist in the circle of people I know, and I think it's much rarer than Izzy suggests.

There are people in all walks of life, who practice every faith under the sun who obsess about some aspect of that faith.  To broadly paint all who practice that faith with the same brush as the tiny minority of that faith that obsesses about something is just plain ridiculous.  With respect to Catholicism, some of the obsessions that Isa pictures are not even approved by the Church, so I wouldn't really count those at all.  The Catholic Church holds no monopoly on fanatics--not even close.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 07, 2013, 11:50:43 AM
Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.

No, he's not.  What exists out in the world is not at all limited to that which is currently "popular".  What's popular today may well not be so tomorrow.

And there is no "absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church.", except perhaps amongst a (vocal) minority of Catholics.  What planet do you live on  ;D?  So, yes, it is deniable  8).
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 07, 2013, 12:03:28 PM
Come on Catholics, you know Choy is right about the pre-Trent vaccum. Sure, you can find stuff, but that's not what's popular. I watch EWTN, I keep up with Catholicism, I've seen enough to know that everything post-Trent is emphasized (actually, the newer something is in Catholicism the more it is emphasized). For instance, the immaculate conception. Even if it was "always believed," or was merely revealed, the obsession with it in modern Catholicism is insane. One only need look as far as events like Pope Pius IX rededicating the church of St. James the Great to "Mary, Queen of the World" to realize this. It is very obvious, and I feel like the Catholics in this thread are deceiving themselves if they are arguing otherwise. Lourdes, Fatima, the immaculate heart. It is one thing to accept these things, but the absolute obsession with them today over all other tradition in the Catholic Church is undeniable.
I don't know anyone obsessed with these apparitions. In fact, most Catholics I know around my age think we should focus in the faith and not private revelations.

Well, I've known some Catholics who are "obessesed" with them, so I can confirm that such people do exist. ;)
I'm sure they do. But they don't really exist in the circle of people I know, and I think it's much rarer than Izzy suggests.

That's pretty much what I was thinking. :)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on March 07, 2013, 12:03:53 PM
What about all the Fathers whom Aquinas references?

Quite often when he quotes the Greek fathers the quoted texts are either interpolations or paraphrases. At least, that's the impression I got from reading his Contra Errores Graecorum.

I'd ask you to substantiate your claim, based on your "impression", but I'm (most unfortunately and ashamedly) so unfamiliar with St. Thomas' writings that it probably wouldn't mean much to me.  Papist, on the other, seems to have more than just a passing familiarity with him and his writings, so I'm sure he'd be able to understand your references and citations.  ;)

Here (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm)'s the work. The quotes of the Greek fathers come with talking balloons. Many quotes "cannot be found" are of Pseudo-Saint x or come from spurious works, such as St. Athanasius' elusive discourse on the Council of Nicaea, which I still haven't been able to find.

Well....hmm....okay.  I think I'll defer to Papist on this matter.  I have neither the time, the brain power, or readily available eyesight left to read, compare/contrast, analyze the material in your link.  Maybe, if and when I start suffering severely from insomnia, I'll try to tackle that  ;D.  Maybe.  But don't count on it. 8)

Ah, okay. It seems he has his hands full with Isa, though  ;D
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 07, 2013, 12:08:11 PM
100 years ago my friend their were no debates about two men marrying.  I like to give people the benefit of the doubt who are trying to do their best, harsh judgement won't help me on judgement day.

Yet homosexual behavior was accepted by society even in the First Millennium.  The fact that it was mentioned so often in the Bible, both at the time of Moses and at the writings of St. Paul point to the fact that such activity exists in the time, and it is the problem.  They can't address a problem that doesn't exist, so the fact that they are addressing it means it does exist.

And you're just looking at one problem.  There are other problems back then.  They don't have abortion the way we do it today, but at certain points in history infanticide was done liberally.

I was listening to this talk by Frederica Matthews-Greene on AFR where she pointed out that the sexual liberation started much, much earlier than we thought, even on movies.  While today the glorification of sex is about "consenting unmarried adults", back in the 20s and 30s it was about secret affairs of married men, it was adultery.  Yes, our problems today are different, but that doesn't mean they are worse.  They have other problems in different magnitudes back then.

What societies accepted Homosexuality?  I know the pagan greeks accepted pedastry but I am only aware of their being one homosexual pseudo marriage in antiquity and that was on of Nero's.

I said homosexuality, not homosexual marriage.  I never said anything about marriage. 

I was a little puzzled by that part of domNoah's post too.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 07, 2013, 12:15:02 PM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".


I think I misunderstood this statement initially. It sounded to me like a criticism that would apply even to the existence of the Roman Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite, etc in the Latin Church.

But based on later statements, I guess your objection is just to multiple side-by-side rites in the same diocese?

(Perhaps you could also clarify what you mean by "the Roman Church".)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 07, 2013, 12:36:39 PM
What about all the Fathers whom Aquinas references?

Quite often when he quotes the Greek fathers the quoted texts are either interpolations or paraphrases. At least, that's the impression I got from reading his Contra Errores Graecorum.

I'd ask you to substantiate your claim, based on your "impression", but I'm (most unfortunately and ashamedly) so unfamiliar with St. Thomas' writings that it probably wouldn't mean much to me.  Papist, on the other, seems to have more than just a passing familiarity with him and his writings, so I'm sure he'd be able to understand your references and citations.  ;)

Here (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm)'s the work. The quotes of the Greek fathers come with talking balloons. Many quotes "cannot be found" are of Pseudo-Saint x or come from spurious works, such as St. Athanasius' elusive discourse on the Council of Nicaea, which I still haven't been able to find.

Well....hmm....okay.  I think I'll defer to Papist on this matter.  I have neither the time, the brain power, or readily available eyesight left to read, compare/contrast, analyze the material in your link.  Maybe, if and when I start suffering severely from insomnia, I'll try to tackle that  ;D.  Maybe.  But don't count on it. 8)

Ah, okay. It seems he has his hands full with Isa, though  ;D

Boys will be boys, won't they?  ;D
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 07, 2013, 01:18:23 PM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".


I think I misunderstood this statement initially. It sounded to me like a criticism that would apply even to the existence of the Roman Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite, etc in the Latin Church.

But based on later statements, I guess your objection is just to multiple side-by-side rites in the same diocese?

(Perhaps you could also clarify what you mean by "the Roman Church".)

Roman Church means the Church of Rome, and those under her jurisdiction (Pastor Aeternus aside) and celebrates the Roman Rite.

Yes, people under the same bishop should celebrate the same Rite.  I know there are issues with overlapping jurisdiction in many places, but that issue aside, if you are under the same bishop you should be able to go to any of his parishes and have the same Liturgy.  At least on the same day.  I even commented some time ago over at CAF that the OF can become some sort of "Low Mass" for "Ordinary Time" and the EF can be the "High Mass" for special Liturgical seasons like Advent, Lent, Easter, Solemnities, etc.  But it should be uniform across all.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 07, 2013, 01:19:31 PM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".


I think I misunderstood this statement initially. It sounded to me like a criticism that would apply even to the existence of the Roman Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite, etc in the Latin Church.

But based on later statements, I guess your objection is just to multiple side-by-side rites in the same diocese?

(Perhaps you could also clarify what you mean by "the Roman Church".)

Roman Church means the Church of Rome, and those under her jurisdiction (Pastor Aeternus aside) and celebrates the Roman Rite.

Yes, people under the same bishop should celebrate the same Rite.  I know there are issues with overlapping jurisdiction in many places, but that issue aside, if you are under the same bishop you should be able to go to any of his parishes and have the same Liturgy.  At least on the same day.  I even commented some time ago over at CAF that the OF can become some sort of "Low Mass" for "Ordinary Time" and the EF can be the "High Mass" for special Liturgical seasons like Advent, Lent, Easter, Solemnities, etc.  But it should be uniform across all.
Thus declares Choy  ;D
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 07, 2013, 01:21:34 PM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".


I think I misunderstood this statement initially. It sounded to me like a criticism that would apply even to the existence of the Roman Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite, etc in the Latin Church.

But based on later statements, I guess your objection is just to multiple side-by-side rites in the same diocese?

(Perhaps you could also clarify what you mean by "the Roman Church".)

Roman Church means the Church of Rome, and those under her jurisdiction (Pastor Aeternus aside) and celebrates the Roman Rite.

Yes, people under the same bishop should celebrate the same Rite.  I know there are issues with overlapping jurisdiction in many places, but that issue aside, if you are under the same bishop you should be able to go to any of his parishes and have the same Liturgy.  At least on the same day.  I even commented some time ago over at CAF that the OF can become some sort of "Low Mass" for "Ordinary Time" and the EF can be the "High Mass" for special Liturgical seasons like Advent, Lent, Easter, Solemnities, etc.  But it should be uniform across all.
Thus declares Choy  ;D

Are you happy with the situation that there are two factions within the Roman Church with a majority wouldn't even mix with each other and are even suspicious of each other?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 07, 2013, 01:34:27 PM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".


I think I misunderstood this statement initially. It sounded to me like a criticism that would apply even to the existence of the Roman Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite, etc in the Latin Church.

But based on later statements, I guess your objection is just to multiple side-by-side rites in the same diocese?

(Perhaps you could also clarify what you mean by "the Roman Church".)

Roman Church means the Church of Rome, and those under her jurisdiction (Pastor Aeternus aside) and celebrates the Roman Rite.

Yes, people under the same bishop should celebrate the same Rite.  I know there are issues with overlapping jurisdiction in many places, but that issue aside, if you are under the same bishop you should be able to go to any of his parishes and have the same Liturgy.  At least on the same day.  I even commented some time ago over at CAF that the OF can become some sort of "Low Mass" for "Ordinary Time" and the EF can be the "High Mass" for special Liturgical seasons like Advent, Lent, Easter, Solemnities, etc.  But it should be uniform across all.
Thus declares Choy  ;D

Are you happy with the situation that there are two factions within the Roman Church with a majority wouldn't even mix with each other and are even suspicious of each other?
No, but that does not mean that they have to use the same mass to fix the problem. First, everyone should have access to the TLM if they want to attend it. Second, the NO needs to celebrated properly. When it finally is celebrated properly, I think quite a few of these problems with disappear.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 07, 2013, 01:48:47 PM
No, but that does not mean that they have to use the same mass to fix the problem. First, everyone should have access to the TLM if they want to attend it. Second, the NO needs to celebrated properly. When it finally is celebrated properly, I think quite a few of these problems with disappear.

If the TLM is celebrated by all parishes at the same time in prescribed times of the year, then all Catholics have access to it.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 07, 2013, 01:51:47 PM
No, but that does not mean that they have to use the same mass to fix the problem. First, everyone should have access to the TLM if they want to attend it. Second, the NO needs to celebrated properly. When it finally is celebrated properly, I think quite a few of these problems with disappear.

If the TLM is celebrated by all parishes at the same time in prescribed times of the year, then all Catholics have access to it.
Things aren't always that simple. Why are you being so legalistic about this? Didn't you leave us "romanists" behind because we were too legalistic? We have two liturgies. Call it "economia" if you so desire.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 07, 2013, 01:59:53 PM
No, but that does not mean that they have to use the same mass to fix the problem. First, everyone should have access to the TLM if they want to attend it. Second, the NO needs to celebrated properly. When it finally is celebrated properly, I think quite a few of these problems with disappear.

If the TLM is celebrated by all parishes at the same time in prescribed times of the year, then all Catholics have access to it.
Things aren't always that simple. Why are you being so legalistic about this? Didn't you leave us "romanists" behind because we were too legalistic? We have two liturgies. Call it "economia" if you so desire.

Is it wrong to hope that Rome resolves her issues?  I still consider the Roman Catholic Church to be my "mother in faith", and the Orthodox Church as my "bride".  I have grown up and left my mother to be with my wife, but my mother will always be my mother who nurtured me and prepared me to be where I am today in my faith.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: brastaseptim on March 07, 2013, 02:16:47 PM




It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".


Considering we actually have FOUR rites within the Latin Church right now... Ambrosian. Mozarabic, Roman, Anglican-use (revised form of the old Sarum rite, for the most part), I don't think so. Liturgical diversity is a nice thing- it makes things less boring, and it's more traditional than having a single, one-size fits all liturgy. And especially considering there are a total of THREE Liturgies in the  Byzantine Rite alone- St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. James.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: mike on March 07, 2013, 02:24:50 PM
Yes, people under the same bishop should celebrate the same Rite.  I know there are issues with overlapping jurisdiction in many places, but that issue aside, if you are under the same bishop you should be able to go to any of his parishes and have the same Liturgy.  At least on the same day.  I even commented some time ago over at CAF that the OF can become some sort of "Low Mass" for "Ordinary Time" and the EF can be the "High Mass" for special Liturgical seasons like Advent, Lent, Easter, Solemnities, etc.  But it should be uniform across all.

We do not need Papism within the Church.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 07, 2013, 02:25:53 PM




It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".


Considering we actually have FOUR rites within the Latin Church right now... Ambrosian. Mozarabic, Roman, Anglican-use (revised form of the old Sarum rite, for the most part), I don't think so. Liturgical diversity is a nice thing- it makes things less boring, and it's more traditional than having a single, one-size fits all liturgy. And especially considering there are a total of THREE Liturgies in the  Byzantine Rite alone- St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. James.
^ This
We also have the Dominican rite.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: TheTrisagion on March 07, 2013, 02:31:59 PM
No, but that does not mean that they have to use the same mass to fix the problem. First, everyone should have access to the TLM if they want to attend it. Second, the NO needs to celebrated properly. When it finally is celebrated properly, I think quite a few of these problems with disappear.

If the TLM is celebrated by all parishes at the same time in prescribed times of the year, then all Catholics have access to it.
Things aren't always that simple. Why are you being so legalistic about this? Didn't you leave us "romanists" behind because we were too legalistic? We have two liturgies. Call it "economia" if you so desire.

Is it wrong to hope that Rome resolves her issues?  I still consider the Roman Catholic Church to be my "mother in faith", and the Orthodox Church as my "bride".  I have grown up and left my mother to be with my wife, but my mother will always be my mother who nurtured me and prepared me to be where I am today in my faith.

Hello, Jesus!  ::)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: brastaseptim on March 07, 2013, 02:40:05 PM
Yes, people under the same bishop should celebrate the same Rite.  I know there are issues with overlapping jurisdiction in many places, but that issue aside, if you are under the same bishop you should be able to go to any of his parishes and have the same Liturgy.  At least on the same day.  I even commented some time ago over at CAF that the OF can become some sort of "Low Mass" for "Ordinary Time" and the EF can be the "High Mass" for special Liturgical seasons like Advent, Lent, Easter, Solemnities, etc.  But it should be uniform across all.

We do not need Papism within the Church.

How lucky- because the Orthodox Church has no Papism already. In fact, nobody has Papism but the churches in communion with Rome.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: username! on March 07, 2013, 07:00:42 PM
That's it. I'm going to Latin Mass this Sunday.

Finally a post that is to the point!
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 07, 2013, 07:51:44 PM
Yes, people under the same bishop should celebrate the same Rite.  I know there are issues with overlapping jurisdiction in many places, but that issue aside, if you are under the same bishop you should be able to go to any of his parishes and have the same Liturgy.  At least on the same day.  I even commented some time ago over at CAF that the OF can become some sort of "Low Mass" for "Ordinary Time" and the EF can be the "High Mass" for special Liturgical seasons like Advent, Lent, Easter, Solemnities, etc.  But it should be uniform across all.

We do not need Papism within the Church.

I never said that was the solution.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 07, 2013, 07:52:22 PM
No, but that does not mean that they have to use the same mass to fix the problem. First, everyone should have access to the TLM if they want to attend it. Second, the NO needs to celebrated properly. When it finally is celebrated properly, I think quite a few of these problems with disappear.

If the TLM is celebrated by all parishes at the same time in prescribed times of the year, then all Catholics have access to it.
Things aren't always that simple. Why are you being so legalistic about this? Didn't you leave us "romanists" behind because we were too legalistic? We have two liturgies. Call it "economia" if you so desire.

Is it wrong to hope that Rome resolves her issues?  I still consider the Roman Catholic Church to be my "mother in faith", and the Orthodox Church as my "bride".  I have grown up and left my mother to be with my wife, but my mother will always be my mother who nurtured me and prepared me to be where I am today in my faith.

Hello, Jesus!  ::)

LOL!  I don't mean it that way, of course.  Mine is more of an analogy.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 07, 2013, 11:51:24 PM

(Perhaps you could also clarify what you mean by "the Roman Church".)

Roman Church means the Church of Rome, and those under her jurisdiction (Pastor Aeternus aside) and celebrates the Roman Rite.

That really isn't "a church".

I'm not saying that would be a bad thing -- in that case, presumably the Mozarabic Rite, the Bragan Rite, the Ambrosian Rite etc would each correspond to a separate church -- but it's no good pretending things that really aren't.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 08, 2013, 12:55:47 AM

(Perhaps you could also clarify what you mean by "the Roman Church".)

Roman Church means the Church of Rome, and those under her jurisdiction (Pastor Aeternus aside) and celebrates the Roman Rite.

That really isn't "a church".

I'm not saying that would be a bad thing -- in that case, presumably the Mozarabic Rite, the Bragan Rite, the Ambrosian Rite etc would each correspond to a separate church -- but it's no good pretending things that really aren't.

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, so it is the Roman Church.  The Pope isn't the Bishop of Latin.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: qawe on March 08, 2013, 01:44:00 AM
As an OO, I advocate intradiocesan liturgical conformity and interdiocesan liturgical diversity.  I thus partially agree with both choy and Papist.

The dominance of the Byzantine Rite in the EO Church is not the way it always was - diversity is a good thing.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on March 08, 2013, 01:50:01 AM
AFAIR it's the first time Charles Martel is discussing theology instead of homosexuality. This needs a celebration.

It would be nice if people would just address the issues of the particular discussion at hand rather than resorting to ridicule and mockery. If you want to refute his views and opinions about homosexuality, then go to his comments on whatever thread discusses that issue and make your points. But stuff like you did here is cheap, unproductive, and small minded.


Selam
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Father H on March 08, 2013, 01:57:12 AM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".
Your new church classifies all Latins as "heretic schismatics." why single out the sspx?

It's a position I held as a Roman Catholic and as an Ukrainian Catholic.  Why change now? ;)

Hmmm ... hopefully your plan isn't to be one of those Orthodox who constantly have their fingers in the Catholic "pie". I think we have enough of that already with podkarpatska and ialmisry.  ::)

Let me get this straight.  So you are, as an RC, posting on an Orthodox forum thus putting your fingers in the Orthodox "pie" by criticising an Orthodox Christian for having their finger in the "Catholic pie" by responding to RC claims posted on an Orthodox forum.

 ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)   :P
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on March 08, 2013, 02:01:56 AM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".
Your new church classifies all Latins as "heretic schismatics." why single out the sspx?

It's a position I held as a Roman Catholic and as an Ukrainian Catholic.  Why change now? ;)

Hmmm ... hopefully your plan isn't to be one of those Orthodox who constantly have their fingers in the Catholic "pie". I think we have enough of that already with podkarpatska and ialmisry.  ::)

Let me get this straight.  So you are, as an RC, posting on an Orthodox forum thus putting your fingers in the Orthodox "pie" by criticising an Orthodox Christian for having their finger in the "Catholic pie" by responding to RC claims posted on an Orthodox forum.

 ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)   :P

comment removed
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 08, 2013, 04:09:38 AM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".
Your new church classifies all Latins as "heretic schismatics." why single out the sspx?

It's a position I held as a Roman Catholic and as an Ukrainian Catholic.  Why change now? ;)

Hmmm ... hopefully your plan isn't to be one of those Orthodox who constantly have their fingers in the Catholic "pie". I think we have enough of that already with podkarpatska and ialmisry.  ::)

Let me get this straight.  So you are, as an RC, posting on an Orthodox forum thus putting your fingers in the Orthodox "pie" by criticising an Orthodox Christian for having their finger in the "Catholic pie" by responding to RC claims posted on an Orthodox forum.

 ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)   :P

Just to be clear, Peter J is an EC, not RC.  I know the Orthodox are fond of saying that RCs and ECs are the same thing, but as a former EC myself, those who are ECs do not see themselves as the same as RCs.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 09:08:39 AM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".
Your new church classifies all Latins as "heretic schismatics." why single out the sspx?

It's a position I held as a Roman Catholic and as an Ukrainian Catholic.  Why change now? ;)

Hmmm ... hopefully your plan isn't to be one of those Orthodox who constantly have their fingers in the Catholic "pie". I think we have enough of that already with podkarpatska and ialmisry.  ::)

Let me get this straight.  So you are, as an RC, posting on an Orthodox forum thus putting your fingers in the Orthodox "pie" by criticising an Orthodox Christian for having their finger in the "Catholic pie" by responding to RC claims posted on an Orthodox forum.

 ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)   :P

Hi Father H. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I don't believe that I've been 'putting [my] fingers in the Orthodox "pie" ' in my participation on this forum. (If I have, or if I've offended you in general, I apologize.  :() For the sake of comparison, I would recommend that you read podkarpatska's comments about Catholics in posts 29-68 of this thread (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35382.msg558976.html#msg558976).
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 10:55:38 AM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".
Your new church classifies all Latins as "heretic schismatics." why single out the sspx?

It's a position I held as a Roman Catholic and as an Ukrainian Catholic.  Why change now? ;)

Hmmm ... hopefully your plan isn't to be one of those Orthodox who constantly have their fingers in the Catholic "pie". I think we have enough of that already with podkarpatska and ialmisry.  ::)

Let me get this straight.  So you are, as an RC, posting on an Orthodox forum thus putting your fingers in the Orthodox "pie" by criticising an Orthodox Christian for having their finger in the "Catholic pie" by responding to RC claims posted on an Orthodox forum.

 ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)   :P
Most of the time Catholics here are responding to Catholic news or correcting Izzy's misconceptions and distortions of Catholicism.  :D
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: ialmisry on March 08, 2013, 11:43:00 AM
All of the College of Cardinal electors were appointed by either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II.  Both popes were committed to the holiness of the Tridentine Mass.  I doubt that the next pope will retreat on their actions to promote regular parish celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

It is counter to the unity of the Roman Church to have two parallel Liturgies running side-by-side.  It only makes those heretic schismatics continue their charades and pretend to be part of the Church when they think everyone else outside of their delusional group as "invalid" and "heretic".
Your new church classifies all Latins as "heretic schismatics." why single out the sspx?

It's a position I held as a Roman Catholic and as an Ukrainian Catholic.  Why change now? ;)

Hmmm ... hopefully your plan isn't to be one of those Orthodox who constantly have their fingers in the Catholic "pie". I think we have enough of that already with podkarpatska and ialmisry.  ::)

Let me get this straight.  So you are, as an RC, posting on an Orthodox forum thus putting your fingers in the Orthodox "pie" by criticising an Orthodox Christian for having their finger in the "Catholic pie" by responding to RC claims posted on an Orthodox forum.

 ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)   :P
Most of the time Catholics here are responding to Catholic news or correcting Izzy's
whose?
misconceptions and distortions of Catholicism.  :D
IOW, they're doing this:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)
Is he saying "Izzy!"?

"podkarpatska and ialmisry": someone here can't distinguish between the gentle touch and a sledge hammer.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 11:55:33 AM
IOW, they're doing this:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)

The only reason we have to do this is because your distortions are the like some one scratching a chalkbord.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 11:58:19 AM
Oddly enough, your touch of humor seems to have cheered me up a bit.  :-\  :)

But anyhow

"podkarpatska and ialmisry": someone here can't distinguish between the gentle touch and a sledge hammer.

I think a jackhammer is a better imagine for you than a sledge hammer. You know, kind of a steady da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da, as opposed to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOOM!
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 12:12:25 PM
Oddly enough, your touch of humor seems to have cheered me up a bit.  :-\  :)

But anyhow

"podkarpatska and ialmisry": someone here can't distinguish between the gentle touch and a sledge hammer.

I think a jackhammer is a better imagine for you than a sledge hammer. You know, kind of a steady da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da, as opposed to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOOM!
I always thought it was a bit more of high-pitched we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on March 08, 2013, 12:17:06 PM
This thread has become childish indeed.

Wait, scrap that. It hasn't become childish but was so from its conception.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: ialmisry on March 08, 2013, 12:20:37 PM
IOW, they're doing this:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)

The only reason we have to do this is because your distortions are the like some one scratching a chalkbord.
Truth one doesn't want to hear always rings unpleasant.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: ialmisry on March 08, 2013, 12:21:12 PM
This thread has become childish indeed.

Wait, scrap that. It hasn't become childish but was so from its conception.
An argument for contraception.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Oddly enough, your touch of humor seems to have cheered me up a bit.  :-\  :)

But anyhow

"podkarpatska and ialmisry": someone here can't distinguish between the gentle touch and a sledge hammer.

I think a jackhammer is a better imagine for you than a sledge hammer. You know, kind of a steady da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da, as opposed to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOOM!
I always thought it was a bit more of high-pitched we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we-we

Whoa, where do you buy your jackhammers?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 12:23:11 PM
Truth one doesn't want to hear always rings unpleasant.

Fair enough.

But on the other hand, not everything that rings unpleasant is truth.

(I just realized that I probably just set myself up for something.  :-[  :laugh:)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on March 08, 2013, 12:23:27 PM
This thread has become childish indeed.

Wait, scrap that. It hasn't become childish but was so from its conception.
An argument for contraception.


Ehh... it appears to be so.

 :)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 12:32:54 PM
IOW, they're doing this:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)

The only reason we have to do this is because your distortions are the like some one scratching a chalkbord.
Truth one doesn't want to hear always rings unpleasant.
You must know this from experience. How painful is it to you?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 12:33:18 PM
This thread has become childish indeed.

Wait, scrap that. It hasn't become childish but was so from its conception.
An argument for contraception.
Onansim.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on March 08, 2013, 12:45:06 PM
This thread has become childish indeed.

Wait, scrap that. It hasn't become childish but was so from its conception.
An argument for contraception.
Onansim.

I certainly hope that this thread won't turn in a debate about Onan because that's one of the few things that could make this thread even worse  :-\
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: ialmisry on March 08, 2013, 01:04:02 PM
IOW, they're doing this:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)

The only reason we have to do this is because your distortions are the like some one scratching a chalkbord.
Truth one doesn't want to hear always rings unpleasant.
You must know this from experience. How painful is it to you?
When I left Lutheranism, not painful at all.  The balm of Orthodoxy heals all wounds.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 01:04:55 PM
IOW, they're doing this:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)

The only reason we have to do this is because your distortions are the like some one scratching a chalkbord.
Truth one doesn't want to hear always rings unpleasant.
You must know this from experience. How painful is it to you?
When I left Lutheranism, not painful at all.  The balm of Orthodoxy heals all wounds.
Your attacks on Catholics are still very Lutheran. Are you sure you converted?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 01:16:29 PM
Hmm ... do we really want to get into the Who's-Lutheran question here?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: ialmisry on March 08, 2013, 01:21:19 PM
IOW, they're doing this:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)

The only reason we have to do this is because your distortions are the like some one scratching a chalkbord.
Truth one doesn't want to hear always rings unpleasant.
You must know this from experience. How painful is it to you?
When I left Lutheranism, not painful at all.  The balm of Orthodoxy heals all wounds.
Your attacks on Catholics are still very Lutheran. Are you sure you converted?
Quite sure. Have you?
Hmm ... do we really want to get into the Who's-Lutheran question here?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50261.0.html

Apologists for the Vatican are always saying that the Orthodox are just like the Protestants. After all, we both expose the sovereign of Vatican city and his claims for what they are, how can it be otherwise?  ::)

So, pray tell, what differentiates a Lutheran "attack" from an Orthodox "attack" on the Vatican?

If you can't make the distinction, then that exposes the "very Lutheran" for the ad hominem attack that it is.

Followers of the Vatican cannot demonstrate the papal dictate, just give it "religious submission of mind and will...in religious assent."
You are Eastern Orthodox.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 01:29:45 PM
IOW, they're doing this:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)

The only reason we have to do this is because your distortions are the like some one scratching a chalkbord.
Truth one doesn't want to hear always rings unpleasant.
You must know this from experience. How painful is it to you?
When I left Lutheranism, not painful at all.  The balm of Orthodoxy heals all wounds.
Your attacks on Catholics are still very Lutheran. Are you sure you converted?
Quite sure. Have you?
Hmm ... do we really want to get into the Who's-Lutheran question here?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50261.0.html

Apologists for the Vatican are always saying that the Orthodox are just like the Protestants.

Not all of us.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 01:53:38 PM
IOW, they're doing this:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)

The only reason we have to do this is because your distortions are the like some one scratching a chalkbord.
Truth one doesn't want to hear always rings unpleasant.
You must know this from experience. How painful is it to you?
When I left Lutheranism, not painful at all.  The balm of Orthodoxy heals all wounds.
Your attacks on Catholics are still very Lutheran. Are you sure you converted?
Quite sure. Have you?
Hmm ... do we really want to get into the Who's-Lutheran question here?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50261.0.html

Apologists for the Vatican are always saying that the Orthodox are just like the Protestants. After all, we both expose the sovereign of Vatican city and his claims for what they are, how can it be otherwise?  ::)

So, pray tell, what differentiates a Lutheran "attack" from an Orthodox "attack" on the Vatican?

If you can't make the distinction, then that exposes the "very Lutheran" for the ad hominem attack that it is.

Followers of the Vatican cannot demonstrate the papal dictate, just give it "religious submission of mind and will...in religious assent."
You are Eastern Orthodox.
I don't think that all Orthodox are protestants. I only think those who continue the Protestant attack on Catholics are Protestants.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on March 08, 2013, 01:56:42 PM
Might it be that the Reformers got most of their arguments against the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 01:58:40 PM
Might it be that the Reformers got most of their arguments against the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox?
That's not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is Isa's irrational rage against "The Vatican."
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 08, 2013, 02:02:13 PM
Might it be that the Reformers got most of their arguments against the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox?

Quite possible.  But remember the EO and the Protestants have different views on the Papacy.  We still view the Pope as a bishop that is necessary for the Church, albeit we do not agree with how his role is defined and even dogmatized.  Most Protestants don't even believe in the Episcopacy.  They don't reject the Pope because of universal ordinary jurisdiction or supremacy or infallibility.  They reject the Papacy because they reject the Episcopacy overall.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: ialmisry on March 08, 2013, 02:02:40 PM
IOW, they're doing this:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)

The only reason we have to do this is because your distortions are the like some one scratching a chalkbord.
Truth one doesn't want to hear always rings unpleasant.
You must know this from experience. How painful is it to you?
When I left Lutheranism, not painful at all.  The balm of Orthodoxy heals all wounds.
Your attacks on Catholics are still very Lutheran. Are you sure you converted?
Quite sure. Have you?
Hmm ... do we really want to get into the Who's-Lutheran question here?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50261.0.html

Apologists for the Vatican are always saying that the Orthodox are just like the Protestants. After all, we both expose the sovereign of Vatican city and his claims for what they are, how can it be otherwise?  ::)

So, pray tell, what differentiates a Lutheran "attack" from an Orthodox "attack" on the Vatican?

If you can't make the distinction, then that exposes the "very Lutheran" for the ad hominem attack that it is.

Followers of the Vatican cannot demonstrate the papal dictate, just give it "religious submission of mind and will...in religious assent."
You are Eastern Orthodox.
I don't think that all Orthodox are protestants. I only think those who continue the Protestant attack on Catholics are Protestants.
The Protestants came into existence in 1517 (a century or so earlier, if you count the Waldensians).  The Catholics have been forming the Orthodox resistance to Ultramontanism ever since it took over Old Rome, e.g. St. Photios the Great Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1424683/posts
centuries earlier than the Lutheran Book of Concorde's "Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pop"
http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.php
or if you prefer the orginal Latin
http://bookofconcord.org/pdf/triglotta_book_of_concord_pp267-1285_german_latin_only.pdf
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 02:06:12 PM
IOW, they're doing this:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)

The only reason we have to do this is because your distortions are the like some one scratching a chalkbord.
Truth one doesn't want to hear always rings unpleasant.
You must know this from experience. How painful is it to you?
When I left Lutheranism, not painful at all.  The balm of Orthodoxy heals all wounds.
Your attacks on Catholics are still very Lutheran. Are you sure you converted?
Quite sure. Have you?
Hmm ... do we really want to get into the Who's-Lutheran question here?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50261.0.html

Apologists for the Vatican are always saying that the Orthodox are just like the Protestants. After all, we both expose the sovereign of Vatican city and his claims for what they are, how can it be otherwise?  ::)

So, pray tell, what differentiates a Lutheran "attack" from an Orthodox "attack" on the Vatican?

If you can't make the distinction, then that exposes the "very Lutheran" for the ad hominem attack that it is.

Followers of the Vatican cannot demonstrate the papal dictate, just give it "religious submission of mind and will...in religious assent."
You are Eastern Orthodox.
I don't think that all Orthodox are protestants. I only think those who continue the Protestant attack on Catholics are Protestants.
When you constantly engage in irrational and rude attacks on the Catholic Church, that betrays a very protestant mindset.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on March 08, 2013, 02:07:00 PM
Might it be that the Reformers got most of their arguments against the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox?

Quite possible.  But remember the EO and the Protestants have different views on the Papacy.  We still view the Pope as a bishop that is necessary for the Church, albeit we do not agree with how his role is defined and even dogmatized.  Most Protestants don't even believe in the Episcopacy.  They don't reject the Pope because of universal ordinary jurisdiction or supremacy or infallibility.  They reject the Papacy because they reject the Episcopacy overall.

Yes, that is so. Yet I think that the early Reformers got many of their arguments against the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox, and not the other way around. Calling EO attacks on the RC's "protestant" seems weird to me.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 02:14:05 PM
Might it be that the Reformers got most of their arguments against the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox?

Quite possible.  But remember the EO and the Protestants have different views on the Papacy.  We still view the Pope as a bishop that is necessary for the Church, albeit we do not agree with how his role is defined and even dogmatized.  Most Protestants don't even believe in the Episcopacy.  They don't reject the Pope because of universal ordinary jurisdiction or supremacy or infallibility.  They reject the Papacy because they reject the Episcopacy overall.

Yes, that is so. Yet I think that the early Reformers got many of their arguments against the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox, and not the other way around. Calling EO attacks on the RC's "protestant" seems weird to me.
Again, I'm this is not what I'm referring to. It's Izzy's overall rude and irrational attack on Cathoclicism which is very protestant. The reason Protestants exist is to protest the Catholic Church. This seems to be Izzy's reason for being here.
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif)
From the Rules Page (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=rules):
Quote
* Contain Conflict --  With religious discussion, disagreement is inevitable.  Please be civil and keep conflict (provided it's on topic) within the thread it was posted in.  If your conflict seems to be taking a thread off of its course, please start a new one.

This running feud you've been having with ialmisry the last few days has now spanned three different threads on at least two different sections of this forum, thus putting you in clear violation of the rule I cited above. Considering your long rap sheet of penalties for repeated conflicts with others and personal attacks on others, I am hereby placing you on Post Moderation for the next 99 days. Do this again, and you will likely be muted.

If you deem this action wrong, please feel free to appeal it to me via private message.

- PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 08, 2013, 02:17:59 PM
Might it be that the Reformers got most of their arguments against the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox?

Quite possible.  But remember the EO and the Protestants have different views on the Papacy.  We still view the Pope as a bishop that is necessary for the Church, albeit we do not agree with how his role is defined and even dogmatized.  Most Protestants don't even believe in the Episcopacy.  They don't reject the Pope because of universal ordinary jurisdiction or supremacy or infallibility.  They reject the Papacy because they reject the Episcopacy overall.

Yes, that is so. Yet I think that the early Reformers got many of their arguments against the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox, and not the other way around. Calling EO attacks on the RC's "protestant" seems weird to me.

Oh definitely.  Didn't some of the early Protestants try to forge an alliance with the EO to battle Rome (in a theological debate sense)?  The funny thing I found when I was Catholic and listening to all the rhetorics and polemics against the Catholic Church, the anti-Catholics would actually side with one another and agree on whatever they can dish against the Roman Catholic Church.  They would even side with the Restorationists and the Muslims.  And like my question on the thread about Mary having more children, most of these attacks don't even have a basis in their own belief.  They just adopt them to attack the RCs even though it has no bearing in their own beliefs.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: ialmisry on March 08, 2013, 02:24:39 PM
IOW, they're doing this:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)

The only reason we have to do this is because your distortions are the like some one scratching a chalkbord.
Truth one doesn't want to hear always rings unpleasant.
You must know this from experience. How painful is it to you?
When I left Lutheranism, not painful at all.  The balm of Orthodoxy heals all wounds.
Your attacks on Catholics are still very Lutheran. Are you sure you converted?
Quite sure. Have you?
Hmm ... do we really want to get into the Who's-Lutheran question here?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50261.0.html

Apologists for the Vatican are always saying that the Orthodox are just like the Protestants. After all, we both expose the sovereign of Vatican city and his claims for what they are, how can it be otherwise?  ::)

So, pray tell, what differentiates a Lutheran "attack" from an Orthodox "attack" on the Vatican?

If you can't make the distinction, then that exposes the "very Lutheran" for the ad hominem attack that it is.

Followers of the Vatican cannot demonstrate the papal dictate, just give it "religious submission of mind and will...in religious assent."
You are Eastern Orthodox.
I don't think that all Orthodox are protestants. I only think those who continue the Protestant attack on Catholics are Protestants.
When you constantly engage in irrational and rude attacks on the Catholic Church, that betrays a very protestant mindset.
Sic Papistus dixit ex cathedra March 8, 2013 +

Engaging in irrational rude attacks in protest betrays that you have lost the argument.
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif)
From the Rules Page (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=rules):
Quote
* Contain Conflict --  With religious discussion, disagreement is inevitable.  Please be civil and keep conflict (provided it's on topic) within the thread it was posted in.  If your conflict seems to be taking a thread off of its course, please start a new one.

This running feud you've been having with Papist the last few days has now spanned three different threads on at least two different sections of this forum, thus putting you in clear violation of the rule I cited above. Considering your rap sheet of repeated penalties for conflicts with others, I am hereby placing you on Post Moderation for the next 30 days.

If you deem this action wrong, please feel free to appeal it to me via private message.

- PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: mike on March 08, 2013, 02:31:26 PM
We still view the Pope as a bishop that is necessary for the Church,

Not sure who do you mean by "we". Eastern Orthodox Christian do not view bishop of Rome to  be necessary at all. We are without him for about 1k years and are doing just fine.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on March 08, 2013, 02:36:56 PM
I thought that he meant to say that the Church needs the office of the bishop.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 08, 2013, 02:37:54 PM
We still view the Pope as a bishop that is necessary for the Church,

Not sure who do you mean by "we". Eastern Orthodox Christian do not view bishop of Rome to  be necessary at all. We are without him for about 1k years and are doing just fine.

Okay, let me break it down for you here.

We view that a bishop is necessary for a Church.  And the Pope is such a bishop.
Protestants, at least most of them, not all, do not even believe that a bishop is necesary.

Clearer?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 08, 2013, 02:38:40 PM
I thought that he meant to say that the Church needs the office of the bishop.

Thank you.  I was worried my choice of words were wrong.  I guess they are just a bit confusing.  But you understood what I was saying, thanks.  :)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: ialmisry on March 08, 2013, 02:38:48 PM
Might it be that the Reformers got most of their arguments against the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox?

Quite possible.  But remember the EO and the Protestants have different views on the Papacy.  We still view the Pope as a bishop that is necessary for the Church, albeit we do not agree with how his role is defined and even dogmatized.  Most Protestants don't even believe in the Episcopacy.  They don't reject the Pope because of universal ordinary jurisdiction or supremacy or infallibility.  They reject the Papacy because they reject the Episcopacy overall.

Yes, that is so. Yet I think that the early Reformers got many of their arguments against the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox, and not the other way around. Calling EO attacks on the RC's "protestant" seems weird to me.
Again, I'm this is not what I'm referring to. It's Izzy's
who?
overall rude and irrational attack on Cathoclicism which is very protestant.
an ad hominem attack is rude and irrational.

You have the links to a Protestant/Lutheran attack on the Vatican, and an refutation of the Vatican's claims by the pillar of Orthodoxy, St. Photius the Great

The reason Protestants exist is to protest the Catholic Church.
It seems that you agree with the Protestants: they assUmed, as shown by the correspondence of the Tubingen Lutheran theologians with EP Jeremiah II, the same assertion you are making, and concluded that they and Orthodoxy were one and the same.  The EP disabused them of such folly.

This seems to be Izzy's
who?
reason for being here.
I'm just here as a Catholic defending the Orthodox Faith.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 02:44:26 PM
IOW, they're doing this:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)

The only reason we have to do this is because your distortions are the like some one scratching a chalkbord.
Truth one doesn't want to hear always rings unpleasant.
You must know this from experience. How painful is it to you?
When I left Lutheranism, not painful at all.  The balm of Orthodoxy heals all wounds.
Your attacks on Catholics are still very Lutheran. Are you sure you converted?
Quite sure. Have you?
Hmm ... do we really want to get into the Who's-Lutheran question here?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50261.0.html

Yes, I remember that "Papist is really a Lutheran" thread. Can't say I was sorry to see the mods lock it.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 02:45:56 PM
Might it be that the Reformers got most of their arguments against the Papacy from the Eastern Orthodox?

If you mean most of their best arguments, I'd say Yes.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: mike on March 08, 2013, 03:38:27 PM
We view that a bishop is necessary for a Church.

Specified bishop? No.

Quote
And the Pope is such a bishop.

Roman Pope? There isn't one.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 08, 2013, 03:52:38 PM
We view that a bishop is necessary for a Church.

Specified bishop? No.

Where did I say that?  I said A bishop.  And St. Ignatius of Antioch teaches that.

Quote
And the Pope is such a bishop.

Roman Pope? There isn't one.

There is, and he is in schism from us.  But he is still a bishop.  He is not an Orthodox bishop, but he is a bishop.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 08, 2013, 03:53:05 PM
We view that a bishop is necessary for a Church.

Specified bishop? No.

Quote
And the Pope is such a bishop.

Roman Pope? There isn't one.

Yes, the "sede" is currently, and temporarily, "vacant".  ;)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 08, 2013, 03:53:49 PM
Yes, the "sede" is currently, and temporarily, "vacant".  ;)

ULTRA-TRADDIE!!!!


 ;D
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 03:54:40 PM
Yes, the "sede" is currently, and temporarily, "vacant".  ;)

ULTRA-TRADDIE!!!!


 ;D
Speaking of Traddies, some of the traditioinalists over at another forum called me a "modernist" yeterstday.  :D
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 08, 2013, 03:55:35 PM
Yes, the "sede" is currently, and temporarily, "vacant".  ;)

ULTRA-TRADDIE!!!!


 ;D

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Well, as a Byzantine Catholic, I do love my Eastern traditions!!  ;)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 08, 2013, 03:56:17 PM
Yes, the "sede" is currently, and temporarily, "vacant".  ;)

ULTRA-TRADDIE!!!!


 ;D
Speaking of Traddies, some of the traditioinalists over at another forum called me a "modernist" yeterstday.  :D

I'm starting to like you now  ;D
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 08, 2013, 03:56:54 PM
Yes, the "sede" is currently, and temporarily, "vacant".  ;)

ULTRA-TRADDIE!!!!


 ;D
Speaking of Traddies, some of the traditioinalists over at another forum called me a "modernist" yeterstday.  :D

You must be doin' something right if you've got the traddies and the anti-traddies mad at you  :D.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: mike on March 08, 2013, 03:57:06 PM
There is, and he is in schism from us.  But he is still a bishop.

Do you consider Abp of Canterbury a Bishop too?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on March 08, 2013, 03:57:22 PM

Speaking of Traddies, some of the traditioinalists over at another forum called me a "modernist" yeterstday.  :D

 :o

That must be a pretty traditionalist forum.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 08, 2013, 03:58:12 PM
Yes, the "sede" is currently, and temporarily, "vacant".  ;)

ULTRA-TRADDIE!!!!


 ;D
Speaking of Traddies, some of the traditioinalists over at another forum called me a "modernist" yeterstday.  :D

I'm starting to like you now  ;D

What's not to like about Papist?  ;)  (Isa, don't answer that  ;D!)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: ialmisry on March 08, 2013, 04:01:32 PM
Yes, the "sede" is currently, and temporarily, "vacant".  ;)

ULTRA-TRADDIE!!!!


 ;D
Speaking of Traddies, some of the traditioinalists over at another forum called me a "modernist" yeterstday.  :D

I'm starting to like you now  ;D

What's not to like about Papist?  ;)  (Isa, don't answer that  ;D!)
I can't: "papism" is a forbidden word.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 04:04:28 PM
Yes, the "sede" is currently, and temporarily, "vacant".  ;)

ULTRA-TRADDIE!!!!


 ;D
Speaking of Traddies, some of the traditioinalists over at another forum called me a "modernist" yeterstday.  :D

You must be doin' something right if you've got the traddies and the anti-traddies mad at you  :D.
or maybe I'm just awful and everyone is mad at me.  ;D
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 05:22:00 PM
Speaking of Traddies, some of the traditioinalists over at another forum called me a "modernist" yeterstday.  :D

Oh, I've been there. :) Well, I don't recall whether they ever called me by that specific term, but that's the gist of what a lot of Catholics (including some that I don't think are really traditional themselves) on Catholic fora think of me.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: brastaseptim on March 08, 2013, 05:22:47 PM
Or maybe Traddies are just normal traddie, and ultra-traddies are really modernists with such guilt over the matter that they pretend to be traddies.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 05:24:12 PM
Or maybe Traddies are just normal traddie, and ultra-traddies are really modernists with such guilt over the matter that they pretend to be traddies.
Yes
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 05:25:44 PM
"papism" is a forbidden word.

Hmmm ... maybe after all these years, we should start a "Change Papist's Screenname" campaign.

 :) :thoughful:  8)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: brastaseptim on March 08, 2013, 05:28:34 PM
I thought "Papism" was only forbidden by the Southern Baptists and the Presbyterians...
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 08, 2013, 05:33:59 PM
I thought "Papism" was only forbidden by the Southern Baptists and the Presbyterians...

Yes, but forbidden nonetheless.  Isa didn't qualify it any further than that.  ;D
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: brastaseptim on March 08, 2013, 05:37:05 PM
I suppose it's proper but improper- like adding the Pope's name to the great litany for vespers at home, then realising you're not supposed to say the great litany for readers services.  :o
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 08, 2013, 05:49:39 PM
What's not to like about Papist?  ;)  (Isa, don't answer that  ;D!)

The fact that his username got me banned from CAF  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 08, 2013, 05:51:43 PM
There is, and he is in schism from us.  But he is still a bishop.

Do you consider Abp of Canterbury a Bishop too?

If the Pope become Orthodox, will be he reordained or be treated as just a layman?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: J Michael on March 08, 2013, 05:55:07 PM
What's not to like about Papist?  ;)  (Isa, don't answer that  ;D!)

The fact that his username got me banned from CAF  ;D ;D ;D

How the heck did *that* happen??
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on March 08, 2013, 06:00:52 PM
What's not to like about Papist?  ;)  (Isa, don't answer that  ;D!)

The fact that his username got me banned from CAF  ;D ;D ;D

Welcome to the ranks of our group of those illustrous men banished from CAF.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 06:02:06 PM
If the Pope become Orthodox,

I guess his successor will have to keep a close eye on him to make sure that doesn't happen. ;)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 06:03:17 PM
What's not to like about Papist?  ;)  (Isa, don't answer that  ;D!)

The fact that his username got me banned from CAF  ;D ;D ;D

Welcome to the ranks of our group of those illustrous men banished from CAF.

You mean permanently? If so I guess I don't qualify.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on March 08, 2013, 06:12:43 PM
What's not to like about Papist?  ;)  (Isa, don't answer that  ;D!)

The fact that his username got me banned from CAF  ;D ;D ;D

Welcome to the ranks of our group of those illustrous men banished from CAF.

You mean permanently? If so I guess I don't qualify.

Yes, yes. We can't allow just anyone in our club.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: brastaseptim on March 08, 2013, 06:34:05 PM
What's not to like about Papist?  ;)  (Isa, don't answer that  ;D!)

The fact that his username got me banned from CAF  ;D ;D ;D

Welcome to the ranks of our group of those illustrous men banished from CAF.

You mean permanently? If so I guess I don't qualify.

Wouldn't know- the people on CAF like me- until I get in the Traditionalists section. Then people don't like me no more...  :'( I mean, just because some of my traditions are older than Trent...
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 08, 2013, 06:59:03 PM
What's not to like about Papist?  ;)  (Isa, don't answer that  ;D!)

The fact that his username got me banned from CAF  ;D ;D ;D

How the heck did *that* happen??

I called someone a "papist"  ;D
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: choy on March 08, 2013, 06:59:44 PM
What's not to like about Papist?  ;)  (Isa, don't answer that  ;D!)

The fact that his username got me banned from CAF  ;D ;D ;D

Welcome to the ranks of our group of those illustrous men banished from CAF.

You mean permanently? If so I guess I don't qualify.

Well, current acount is suspended.  But I have been banned before ;)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 07:41:19 PM
What's not to like about Papist?  ;)  (Isa, don't answer that  ;D!)

The fact that his username got me banned from CAF  ;D ;D ;D

How the heck did *that* happen??

I called someone a "papist"  ;D
I was also banned from CAF. :)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Papist on March 08, 2013, 07:43:41 PM
"papism" is a forbidden word.

Hmmm ... maybe after all these years, we should start a "Change Papist's Screenname" campaign.

 :) :thoughful:  8)
Change? On an Orthodox forum? Is outrage!!!!
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 08:06:17 PM

(Perhaps you could also clarify what you mean by "the Roman Church".)

Roman Church means the Church of Rome, and those under her jurisdiction (Pastor Aeternus aside) and celebrates the Roman Rite.

That really isn't "a church".

I'm not saying that would be a bad thing -- in that case, presumably the Mozarabic Rite, the Bragan Rite, the Ambrosian Rite etc would each correspond to a separate church -- but it's no good pretending things that really aren't.

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, so it is the Roman Church.  The Pope isn't the Bishop of Latin.

Well, I don't object to the Diocese of Rome being called a church. What I meant is that all those who use the Roman Rite aren't a church -- depending how you look at it, they are either many churches (many dioceses), or a portion of one church (the Latin Church).

After your years in Eastern Catholicism, I would think you'd understand the difference between a church and a rite.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Peter J on March 08, 2013, 08:13:05 PM
What's not to like about Papist?  ;)  (Isa, don't answer that  ;D!)

The fact that his username got me banned from CAF  ;D ;D ;D

Welcome to the ranks of our group of those illustrous men banished from CAF.

You mean permanently? If so I guess I don't qualify.

Wouldn't know- the people on CAF like me- until I get in the Traditionalists section. Then people don't like me no more...  :'( I mean, just because some of my traditions are older than Trent...

Recently I've been getting on alright with some of the Catholics that I used to butt-heads with a lot :), but even so I feel like its a cordiality with little underlying agreement.  :-\
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: brastaseptim on March 08, 2013, 09:25:41 PM
What's not to like about Papist?  ;)  (Isa, don't answer that  ;D!)

The fact that his username got me banned from CAF  ;D ;D ;D

Welcome to the ranks of our group of those illustrous men banished from CAF.

You mean permanently? If so I guess I don't qualify.

Wouldn't know- the people on CAF like me- until I get in the Traditionalists section. Then people don't like me no more...  :'( I mean, just because some of my traditions are older than Trent...

Recently I've been getting on alright with some of the Catholics that I used to butt-heads with a lot :), but even so I feel like its a cordiality with little underlying agreement.  :-\

They're fine until I mention I like the NO Mass because its elements are older. "Oh, you mean THAT thing? That thing which was nOT promulgated by the Council of Trent! And God-forbid, allowed people to not use entirely Latin? Is outrage!!" ::)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: sedevacantist on April 22, 2013, 08:17:30 AM
What's not to like about Papist?  ;)  (Isa, don't answer that  ;D!)

The fact that his username got me banned from CAF  ;D ;D ;D

Welcome to the ranks of our group of those illustrous men banished from CAF.

You mean permanently? If so I guess I don't qualify.

Wouldn't know- the people on CAF like me- until I get in the Traditionalists section. Then people don't like me no more...  :'( I mean, just because some of my traditions are older than Trent...

Recently I've been getting on alright with some of the Catholics that I used to butt-heads with a lot :), but even so I feel like its a cordiality with little underlying agreement.  :-\

They're fine until I mention I like the NO Mass because its elements are older. "Oh, you mean THAT thing? That thing which was nOT promulgated by the Council of Trent! And God-forbid, allowed people to not use entirely Latin? Is outrage!!" ::)
In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.

 

Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:

“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2]

 

On April 3, 1969, Paul VI replaced the Traditional Latin Mass in the Vatican II churches with his own creation, the New Mass or Novus Ordo.  Since that time, the world has seen the following in the Vatican II churches which celebrate the New Mass or Novus Ordo:

 

The world has seen Clown Masses, in which the “priest” dresses as a clown in utter mockery of God.

The world has seen a priest dressed as Dracula; in a football jersey accompanied by cheerleaders; as a cheese-head…

 

…driving a Volkswagen down the aisle of church as the people sing hosanna. There have been disco Masses…


...gymnastic performances during the New Mass; balloon Masses; Carnival Masses;

 

…nude Masses, at which scantily clad or nude people take part.  The world has seen juggling Masses, at which a juggler performs during the New Mass.

 

 The world has seen priests celebrate the New Mass with Dorito Chips;

 

…with Mountain Dew; on a cardboard box; with cookies; with Chinese tea accompanied by ancestor worship; with a basketball as the priest bounces it all over the altar; with a guitar as the priest plays a solo performance.  The world has witnessed the New Mass with a priest almost totally nude as he dances around the altar or with other high-wire abominations…

 

The world has seen New Masses with priests dressed in native pagan costumes; with a Jewish Menorah placed on the altar; with a statue of Buddha on the altar; with nuns making offerings to female goddesses; with lectors and gift bearers dressed up as voodoo Satanists.  The world has seen the New Mass at which the performer is dressed in a tuxedo and tells jokes.  The world has seen rock concerts at the New Mass; guitar and polka New Masses; a puppet New Mass; a New Mass where the people gather round the altar dressed as devils;  a New Mass where people perform lewd dances to the beat of a steel drum band.  The world has seen a New Mass where nuns dressed as pagan vestal virgins make pagan offerings.

 

The world has also seen New Masses incorporating every false religion.  There have been Buddhist New masses; Hindu and Muslim New Masses; New Masses where Jews and Unitarians offer candles to false gods.  There are churches where the entire congregation says Mass with the priest; where the priest sometimes talks to the people instead of saying Mass.

 

What we have catalogued is just a tiny sampling of the kind of thing that occurs in every diocese in the world where the New Mass is celebrated, to one degree or another.  Our Lord tells us, “By their fruits you shall know them” (Mt. 7:16).  The fruits of the New Mass are incalculably scandalous, sacrilegious and idolatrous.  This is because the New Mass itself, even in its most pure form, is a false, invalid Mass and an abomination.

 

Even an organization which defends the New Mass was forced to admit the following about the typical New Mass – i.e., the New Mass normally offered in the churches (without even necessarily considering the aforementioned abominations and sacrileges that are commonplace): “Most of the New Masses we’ve attended… are happy-clappy festivities, the music is atrocious, the sermons are vacuous, and they are irreverent...”[3]

 

When the New Mass came out in 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, and some other theologians wrote to Paul VI about it.  Keep in mind that what they said about the New Mass concerns the Latin Version, the so-called “most pure” version of the New Mass.  Their study is popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention.  It states:

 

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”[4]

 

They could clearly see that the Latin version of the New Mass was a striking departure from the teaching of the Council of Trent.  Of the twelve offertory prayers in the Traditional Mass, only two are retained in the New Mass.  The deleted offertory prayers are the same ones that the Protestant heretics Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer eliminated.  The New Mass was promulgated by Paul VI with the help of six Protestant Ministers.

 

The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.

 

Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.

 

Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[5]

 

Paul VI removed what was too Catholic in the Mass in order to make the Mass a Protestant service.

 http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/new_mass_vs_traditional_latin_mass.php



Also just 1 of many reasons why Pope Francis can not be a true pope, just like all the popes since vatican 2

Pope's Note to Chief Rabbi of Rome for Feast of Passover

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-note-to-chief-rabbi-of-rome-for-feast-of-passover
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: sedevacantist on January 03, 2016, 08:29:45 PM
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cavaradossi on January 03, 2016, 08:38:47 PM
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here

Don't worry, I'm sure Wandile is working furiously on writing a hasty attempt to refute your posts as we speak.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Wandile on January 04, 2016, 06:44:45 AM
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here

Don't worry, I'm sure Wandile is working furiously on writing a hasty attempt to refute your posts as we speak.

Lol nah I'm not too interested in ultra trads and whatever they get up to or think. I will say though that a Pope can over turn a decree of a previous pope and that is exactly what Pope Paul VI did. The only decrees that can't be overturned are doctrinal ones that are binding on the church. Decrees on the liturgy are not doctrine or dogma. But trades would have you think so.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 04, 2016, 08:07:38 AM
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here

Don't worry, I'm sure Wandile is working furiously on writing a hasty attempt to refute your posts as we speak.

Lol nah I'm not too interested in ultra trads and whatever they get up to or think. I will say though that a Pope can over turn a decree of a previous pope and that is exactly what Pope Paul VI did. The only decrees that can't be overturned are doctrinal ones that are binding on the church. Decrees on the liturgy are not doctrine or dogma. But trades would have you think so.

Doesn't the principle of Lex orandi, lex credendi make that a false dichotomy, though?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: sedevacantist on January 04, 2016, 10:11:03 AM
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here

Don't worry, I'm sure Wandile is working furiously on writing a hasty attempt to refute your posts as we speak.

Lol nah I'm not too interested in ultra trads and whatever they get up to or think. I will say though that a Pope can over turn a decree of a previous pope and that is exactly what Pope Paul VI did. The only decrees that can't be overturned are doctrinal ones that are binding on the church. Decrees on the liturgy are not doctrine or dogma. But trades would have you think so.

so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: MalpanaGiwargis on January 04, 2016, 12:39:04 PM
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here

Don't worry, I'm sure Wandile is working furiously on writing a hasty attempt to refute your posts as we speak.

Lol nah I'm not too interested in ultra trads and whatever they get up to or think. I will say though that a Pope can over turn a decree of a previous pope and that is exactly what Pope Paul VI did. The only decrees that can't be overturned are doctrinal ones that are binding on the church. Decrees on the liturgy are not doctrine or dogma. But trades would have you think so.

Doesn't the principle of Lex orandi, lex credendi make that a false dichotomy, though?

Catholic tradition doesn't seem to think so. There is a sharp distinction between disciplinary and dogmatic decrees; that is the reason the Western Church has not really quibbled about setting aside some canons of the ecumenical councils. The pope has the same authority as a council, so he can change the canons. Many have thought and taught that the pope is above the canons.

I do wonder what the implications of the wholesale change of every ritual in the Roman Church after Vatican II are for the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: MalpanaGiwargis on January 04, 2016, 12:43:07 PM
so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2

I think very little of it given that that is boilerplate used at the end of virtually every papal bull. The very same pontiff used basically identical wording in Quod a nobis of 1568 to forbid changes to the Roman Breviary. Changes were forthcoming almost immediately, and continued apace until Pius X made radical changes to the distribution of the psalter in 1911. Pius XII and John XXIII continued to hack away at the Breviary through 1960.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Wandile on January 05, 2016, 08:32:52 AM
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here

Don't worry, I'm sure Wandile is working furiously on writing a hasty attempt to refute your posts as we speak.

Lol nah I'm not too interested in ultra trads and whatever they get up to or think. I will say though that a Pope can over turn a decree of a previous pope and that is exactly what Pope Paul VI did. The only decrees that can't be overturned are doctrinal ones that are binding on the church. Decrees on the liturgy are not doctrine or dogma. But trades would have you think so.

Doesn't the principle of Lex orandi, lex credendi make that a false dichotomy, though?

Not at all, Lex orandi, lex credendi  speaks yo thebtule of prayer/how we worship as a testament for what our faith is. This does not presuppose that liturgy can't change, only that the liturgy still reflects our faith in its prayers through song or spoken prayer.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Wandile on January 05, 2016, 08:33:34 AM
so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2

I think very little of it given that that is boilerplate used at the end of virtually every papal bull. The very same pontiff used basically identical wording in Quod a nobis of 1568 to forbid changes to the Roman Breviary. Changes were forthcoming almost immediately, and continued apace until Pius X made radical changes to the distribution of the psalter in 1911. Pius XII and John XXIII continued to hack away at the Breviary through 1960.

Good points
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 05, 2016, 11:29:01 AM
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here

Don't worry, I'm sure Wandile is working furiously on writing a hasty attempt to refute your posts as we speak.

Lol nah I'm not too interested in ultra trads and whatever they get up to or think. I will say though that a Pope can over turn a decree of a previous pope and that is exactly what Pope Paul VI did. The only decrees that can't be overturned are doctrinal ones that are binding on the church. Decrees on the liturgy are not doctrine or dogma. But trades would have you think so.

Doesn't the principle of Lex orandi, lex credendi make that a false dichotomy, though?

Not at all, Lex orandi, lex credendi  speaks yo thebtule of prayer/how we worship as a testament for what our faith is. This does not presuppose that liturgy can't change, only that the liturgy still reflects our faith in its prayers through song or spoken prayer.

But couldn't a sufficiently motivated individual stretch that broad definition to fit anything from the 1568 Breviary to clown masses? At least the Trads have something concrete that they can point to as reflecting their faith, even if it does seem a bit arbitrary.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: sedevacantist on January 05, 2016, 06:53:06 PM
so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2

I think very little of it given that that is boilerplate used at the end of virtually every papal bull. The very same pontiff used basically identical wording in Quod a nobis of 1568 to forbid changes to the Roman Breviary. Changes were forthcoming almost immediately, and continued apace until Pius X made radical changes to the distribution of the psalter in 1911. Pius XII and John XXIII continued to hack away at the Breviary through 1960.
you think very little of it but maybe you should rethink
When the New Mass came out in 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, and some other theologians wrote to Paul VI about it.  Keep in mind that what they said about the New Mass concerns the Latin Version, the so-called “most pure” version of the New Mass.  Their study is popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention.  It states:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”[4]

They could clearly see that the Latin version of the New Mass was a striking departure from the teaching of the Council of Trent.  Of the twelve offertory prayers in the Traditional Mass, only two are retained in the New Mass.  The deleted offertory prayers are the same ones that the Protestant heretics Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer eliminated.  The New Mass was promulgated by Paul VI with the help of six Protestant Ministers.

The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.

Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.


Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[5]

Paul VI removed what was too Catholic in the Mass in order to make the Mass a Protestant service.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Wandile on January 06, 2016, 04:14:01 AM
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here

Don't worry, I'm sure Wandile is working furiously on writing a hasty attempt to refute your posts as we speak.

Lol nah I'm not too interested in ultra trads and whatever they get up to or think. I will say though that a Pope can over turn a decree of a previous pope and that is exactly what Pope Paul VI did. The only decrees that can't be overturned are doctrinal ones that are binding on the church. Decrees on the liturgy are not doctrine or dogma. But trades would have you think so.

Doesn't the principle of Lex orandi, lex credendi make that a false dichotomy, though?

Not at all, Lex orandi, lex credendi  speaks yo thebtule of prayer/how we worship as a testament for what our faith is. This does not presuppose that liturgy can't change, only that the liturgy still reflects our faith in its prayers through song or spoken prayer.

But couldn't a sufficiently motivated individual stretch that broad definition to fit anything from the 1568 Breviary to clown masses? At least the Trads have something concrete that they can point to as reflecting their faith, even if it does seem a bit arbitrary.

Yes but then one has to consider if a clown mass follows the rule of prayer for prayer is respectful and non-sacrilegious. Clown masses are at the very least disrespectful and unbefitting of the mass.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: MalpanaGiwargis on January 06, 2016, 11:26:20 AM
so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2

I think very little of it given that that is boilerplate used at the end of virtually every papal bull. The very same pontiff used basically identical wording in Quod a nobis of 1568 to forbid changes to the Roman Breviary. Changes were forthcoming almost immediately, and continued apace until Pius X made radical changes to the distribution of the psalter in 1911. Pius XII and John XXIII continued to hack away at the Breviary through 1960.
you think very little of it but maybe you should rethink
When the New Mass came out in 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, and some other theologians wrote to Paul VI about it.  Keep in mind that what they said about the New Mass concerns the Latin Version, the so-called “most pure” version of the New Mass.  Their study is popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention.  It states:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”[4]

They could clearly see that the Latin version of the New Mass was a striking departure from the teaching of the Council of Trent.  Of the twelve offertory prayers in the Traditional Mass, only two are retained in the New Mass.  The deleted offertory prayers are the same ones that the Protestant heretics Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer eliminated.  The New Mass was promulgated by Paul VI with the help of six Protestant Ministers.

The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.

Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.


Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[5]

Paul VI removed what was too Catholic in the Mass in order to make the Mass a Protestant service.

To be clear, I actually sympathize with the essential argument of the Ottaviani Intervention, i.e., that the Novus Ordo is a protestantized service and at least implicitly downplays Catholic doctrine. What I disagree with is the legal argument that the NO was illegal based on Quo Primum.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 06, 2016, 01:50:49 PM
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here

Don't worry, I'm sure Wandile is working furiously on writing a hasty attempt to refute your posts as we speak.

Lol nah I'm not too interested in ultra trads and whatever they get up to or think. I will say though that a Pope can over turn a decree of a previous pope and that is exactly what Pope Paul VI did. The only decrees that can't be overturned are doctrinal ones that are binding on the church. Decrees on the liturgy are not doctrine or dogma. But trades would have you think so.

so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2
Doesn't a bishop with authority equal to the bishop who promulgated that bull have the authority to repeal it or choose to not enforce it?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: christiane777 on January 06, 2016, 02:03:23 PM
IOW, they're doing this:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/1/2/1230906789460/noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg)

The only reason we have to do this is because your distortions are the like some one scratching a chalkbord.
Truth one doesn't want to hear always rings unpleasant.
You must know this from experience. How painful is it to you?
When I left Lutheranism, not painful at all.  The balm of Orthodoxy heals all wounds.
Your attacks on Catholics are still very Lutheran. Are you sure you converted?
Quite sure. Have you?
Hmm ... do we really want to get into the Who's-Lutheran question here?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50261.0.html

Apologists for the Vatican are always saying that the Orthodox are just like the Protestants. After all, we both expose the sovereign of Vatican city and his claims for what they are, how can it be otherwise?  ::)

So, pray tell, what differentiates a Lutheran "attack" from an Orthodox "attack" on the Vatican?

If you can't make the distinction, then that exposes the "very Lutheran" for the ad hominem attack that it is.

Followers of the Vatican cannot demonstrate the papal dictate, just give it "religious submission of mind and will...in religious assent."
You are Eastern Orthodox.
I don't think that all Orthodox are protestants. I only think those who continue the Protestant attack on Catholics are Protestants.

Quote of the day. 
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: christiane777 on January 06, 2016, 02:10:52 PM
Oh, and I should probably add as a footnote that hardcore traditionalist Catholics scare me just as much as Protestant Orthodox.   :)

Maybe I should have stayed a Quaker.  Get some peace and quiet.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 06, 2016, 02:12:38 PM
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here

Don't worry, I'm sure Wandile is working furiously on writing a hasty attempt to refute your posts as we speak.

Lol nah I'm not too interested in ultra trads and whatever they get up to or think. I will say though that a Pope can over turn a decree of a previous pope and that is exactly what Pope Paul VI did. The only decrees that can't be overturned are doctrinal ones that are binding on the church. Decrees on the liturgy are not doctrine or dogma. But trades would have you think so.

Doesn't the principle of Lex orandi, lex credendi make that a false dichotomy, though?

Not at all, Lex orandi, lex credendi  speaks yo thebtule of prayer/how we worship as a testament for what our faith is. This does not presuppose that liturgy can't change, only that the liturgy still reflects our faith in its prayers through song or spoken prayer.

But couldn't a sufficiently motivated individual stretch that broad definition to fit anything from the 1568 Breviary to clown masses? At least the Trads have something concrete that they can point to as reflecting their faith, even if it does seem a bit arbitrary.

Yes but then one has to consider if a clown mass follows the rule of prayer for prayer is respectful and non-sacrilegious. Clown masses are at the very least disrespectful and unbefitting of the mass.

Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 06, 2016, 02:18:58 PM
Oh, and I should probably add as a footnote that hardcore traditionalist Catholics scare me just as much as Protestant Orthodox.   :)

Maybe I should have stayed a Quaker.  Get some peace and quiet.

How are you defining "Protestant Orthodox?" I don't agree with all of Isa's criticisms of the Vatican, but I wouldn't call him anti-authoritarian if that's your point.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on January 06, 2016, 02:21:12 PM
The real problem with the Novus Ordo isn't that it's heretical compared to the Tridentine mass, but that it is a lot less aesthetically pleasing and far less sublime. Nixing a lot of organically grown liturgical traditions is meh as well.

Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: MalpanaGiwargis on January 06, 2016, 02:21:37 PM
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here

Don't worry, I'm sure Wandile is working furiously on writing a hasty attempt to refute your posts as we speak.

Lol nah I'm not too interested in ultra trads and whatever they get up to or think. I will say though that a Pope can over turn a decree of a previous pope and that is exactly what Pope Paul VI did. The only decrees that can't be overturned are doctrinal ones that are binding on the church. Decrees on the liturgy are not doctrine or dogma. But trades would have you think so.

so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2
Doesn't a bishop with authority equal to the bishop who promulgated that bull have the authority to repeal it or choose to not enforce it?

Yes, which is why subsequent popes have in fact modified the Missal. There does not appear to be any meaningful limit on the Pope's authority to modify the liturgy. Hardcore traditionalists have attempted to create such limits after the appearance of the Novus Ordo, but most of these are unconvincing or simply appeals to tradition, which the Pope is apparently free to ignore, as happened in the creation of the Novus Ordo. Most of the Catholic apologetics crowd simply asserts that there is no actual difference between the two forms of the liturgy, or between the Church before and after Vatican II. The sedevacantist thesis is an interesting attempt to preserve a very ultramontanist view of the papacy and explain how the NO liturgy could have happened, but it ultimately seems like ultramontanism meets the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: christiane777 on January 06, 2016, 02:34:56 PM
Oh, and I should probably add as a footnote that hardcore traditionalist Catholics scare me just as much as Protestant Orthodox.   :)

Maybe I should have stayed a Quaker.  Get some peace and quiet.

How are you defining "Protestant Orthodox?" I don't agree with all of Isa's criticisms of the Vatican, but I wouldn't call him anti-authoritarian if that's your point.

Oh no, I am not talking about anyone in particular in this discussion or on this thread.  Let's just say I can spot a convert to Orthodoxy from Evangelicalism a mile away.  Just where the tone is coming from and the attitude towards Catholics; the roots show; they are alive and well in their newly adopted home.  For all I know Catholic converts do the same thing...but I do honestly feel that there is more common ground there (papal spat aside of course).

Re traditional Latin Mass - I do respect the beauty and integrity of the traditional Latin Mass and would love to see it make a comeback.  But for me this is just one facet of being a Catholic or more to the point, being a Christian.  I think too much emphasis on liturgy for its own sake can deteriorate into a sort of aestheticism rather than a healthy balanced more active form of Christianity.  My Mass has Latin in it; it is quasi traditional for all I know.  And it works for me.  It's like the people who tell you you can't listen to Amazing Grace in Mass because it is Protestant.  Nuts as far as I am concerned.  It is a beautiful grace filled hymn.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 06, 2016, 02:48:41 PM
Oh, and I should probably add as a footnote that hardcore traditionalist Catholics scare me just as much as Protestant Orthodox.   :)

Maybe I should have stayed a Quaker.  Get some peace and quiet.

How are you defining "Protestant Orthodox?" I don't agree with all of Isa's criticisms of the Vatican, but I wouldn't call him anti-authoritarian if that's your point.

Oh no, I am not talking about anyone in particular in this discussion or on this thread.  Let's just say I can spot a convert to Orthodoxy from Evangelicalism a mile away.  Just where the tone is coming from and the attitude towards Catholics; the roots show; they are alive and well in their newly adopted home.  For all I know Catholic converts do the same thing...but I do honestly feel that there is more common ground there (papal spat aside of course).

Re traditional Latin Mass - I do respect the beauty and integrity of the traditional Latin Mass and would love to see it make a comeback.  But for me this is just one facet of being a Catholic or more to the point, being a Christian.  I think too much emphasis on liturgy for its own sake can deteriorate into a sort of aestheticism rather than a healthy balanced more active form of Christianity.  My Mass has Latin in it; it is quasi traditional for all I know.  And it works for me.  It's like the people who tell you you can't listen to Amazing Grace in Mass because it is Protestant.  Nuts as far as I am concerned.  It is a beautiful grace filled hymn.

Oh, ok. Point taken :)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Maria on January 06, 2016, 03:59:13 PM
so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2

I think very little of it given that that is boilerplate used at the end of virtually every papal bull. The very same pontiff used basically identical wording in Quod a nobis of 1568 to forbid changes to the Roman Breviary. Changes were forthcoming almost immediately, and continued apace until Pius X made radical changes to the distribution of the psalter in 1911. Pius XII and John XXIII continued to hack away at the Breviary through 1960.

Good points

If there is one thing that is constant in the Roman Church, it is change.

However, Orthodox Christians are quick to quote that our unchanging Faith and Traditions (including the Divine Liturgy) were given to us by Christ to His Apostles for all times and for all peoples.

The Roman Liturgy has had dramatic changes ever since 300 AD, and it became so bad that Pope St. Gregory had to standardize the Mass. Then within a few hundred years, by 800 AD, it had undergone many changes among them the deletion of the Trisagion in all but the Holy Friday Service. Also there were changes allowing the use of unleavened bread, the giving of the "Body" only to the laity, the forbidding of young children to approach the chalice "until the age of reason," and the insertion of the filioque to the Nicene Creed.  Then, by the mid 1960s, the Trisagion in the Good Friday service was totally deleted.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Maria on January 06, 2016, 04:04:21 PM
The real problem with the Novus Ordo isn't that it's heretical compared to the Tridentine mass, but that it is a lot less aesthetically pleasing and far less sublime. Nixing a lot of organically grown liturgical traditions is meh as well.

The real problem with the Novus Ordo is that it was taken almost word by word from the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904.  My husband and I were able to take that book home and study it for about two weeks. We had bookmarked several pages, and when our confessor saw those pages, he refused to say the Novus Ordo from that point on. After viewing those pages, the priest tossed that book into the burning fireplace.

Catholics, in effect, have protestantized their liturgy.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Schultz on January 06, 2016, 04:09:05 PM
The real problem with the Novus Ordo isn't that it's heretical compared to the Tridentine mass, but that it is a lot less aesthetically pleasing and far less sublime. Nixing a lot of organically grown liturgical traditions is meh as well.

The real problem with the Novus Ordo is that it was taken almost word by word from the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904. I saw a copy of it before my confessor (at that time) tossed it into the burning fireplace. However, my husband and I were able to take that book home and study it for about two weeks. We had bookmarked several pages, and when our confessor saw those pages, he refused to say the Novus Ordo from that point on.

Catholics, in effect, have protestantized their liturgy.

You mean the one you've been looking for for almost a decade now (http://www.christianforums.com/threads/1904-lutheran-hymnal.2866315/)?

How's that been working out for you?  You said in this post that you "saw" one but 9 years ago you just "read" about it.

Which one is it?

Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Maria on January 06, 2016, 04:11:15 PM
The real problem with the Novus Ordo isn't that it's heretical compared to the Tridentine mass, but that it is a lot less aesthetically pleasing and far less sublime. Nixing a lot of organically grown liturgical traditions is meh as well.

The real problem with the Novus Ordo is that it was taken almost word by word from the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904. I saw a copy of it before my confessor (at that time) tossed it into the burning fireplace. However, my husband and I were able to take that book home and study it for about two weeks. We had bookmarked several pages, and when our confessor saw those pages, he refused to say the Novus Ordo from that point on.

Catholics, in effect, have protestantized their liturgy.

You mean the one you've been looking for for almost a decade now (http://www.christianforums.com/threads/1904-lutheran-hymnal.2866315/)?

How's that been working out for you?  You said in this post that you "saw" one but 9 years ago you just "read" about it.

Which one is it?

We had the book in our possession, and read it from cover to cover. That was back in 1995.  If we had known that the priest would have taken the book from us and tossed it in the fireplace, we would have copied it.

Here is proof that the 1904 Lutheran Hymnal did exist:

http://www.hymnary.org/denomination/454
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Maria on January 06, 2016, 04:12:34 PM
From what I have read in searches for that book, only a few copies remain in museums only.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Maria on January 06, 2016, 04:21:45 PM
Oh, I just discovered a pdf document on some of the hymns in that Lutheran Hymnal. some of which are sung at Catholic Masses.

Why are Catholics singing "the Battle Hymn of the Reformation"?

Note: "This is a hymn of all Protestantism, not just Lutheranism."

So, why are Catholics singing this in Catholic Masses?

Quote
A Mighty Fortress Is Our God (262)
This is called the Battle Hymn of the Reformation.
There are various views of the time and place of origin.
There is weighty evidence that it was composed in1529
for the Diet of Spires when the German princes made
formal “protest” against the revocation of their liberties
and received the name “Protestants”. It is based on the
theme of Psalm 46; some verses are reminiscent of the
text. The tune is Luther’s as well. This is a hymn of all
Protestantism, not just Lutheranism. ...
 

See page three of the pdf document
http://atlanta.clclutheran.org/bibleclass/Hymns%20of%20Martin%20Luther.pdf
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Schultz on January 06, 2016, 04:45:47 PM
The real problem with the Novus Ordo isn't that it's heretical compared to the Tridentine mass, but that it is a lot less aesthetically pleasing and far less sublime. Nixing a lot of organically grown liturgical traditions is meh as well.

The real problem with the Novus Ordo is that it was taken almost word by word from the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904. I saw a copy of it before my confessor (at that time) tossed it into the burning fireplace. However, my husband and I were able to take that book home and study it for about two weeks. We had bookmarked several pages, and when our confessor saw those pages, he refused to say the Novus Ordo from that point on.

Catholics, in effect, have protestantized their liturgy.

You mean the one you've been looking for for almost a decade now (http://www.christianforums.com/threads/1904-lutheran-hymnal.2866315/)?

How's that been working out for you?  You said in this post that you "saw" one but 9 years ago you just "read" about it.

Which one is it?

We had the book in our possession, and read it from cover to cover. That was back in 1995.  If we had known that the priest would have taken the book from us and tossed it in the fireplace, we would have copied it.

Here is proof that the 1904 Lutheran Hymnal did exist:

http://www.hymnary.org/denomination/454

No, this proves that the Missouri Synod published a Lutheran hymnal in German with some partial English translation.

Your assertion is that the Novus Ordo is a word-for-word translation of this hymnal.  That's preposterous, as this is a *hymnal* and not a liturgical book, per se. 

This is not the first time you've been taken to task for this on here and I doubt it will be the last.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Schultz on January 06, 2016, 04:48:07 PM
From what I have read in searches for that book, only a few copies remain in museums only.

And yet here's one for sale on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Lieder-Perlen-Sammlung-geistlichen-gemischten-Schulen/dp/B000T4CMEY
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 06, 2016, 04:52:00 PM
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here

Don't worry, I'm sure Wandile is working furiously on writing a hasty attempt to refute your posts as we speak.

Lol nah I'm not too interested in ultra trads and whatever they get up to or think. I will say though that a Pope can over turn a decree of a previous pope and that is exactly what Pope Paul VI did. The only decrees that can't be overturned are doctrinal ones that are binding on the church. Decrees on the liturgy are not doctrine or dogma. But trades would have you think so.

Doesn't the principle of Lex orandi, lex credendi make that a false dichotomy, though?

Not at all, Lex orandi, lex credendi  speaks yo thebtule of prayer/how we worship as a testament for what our faith is. This does not presuppose that liturgy can't change, only that the liturgy still reflects our faith in its prayers through song or spoken prayer.

But couldn't a sufficiently motivated individual stretch that broad definition to fit anything from the 1568 Breviary to clown masses? At least the Trads have something concrete that they can point to as reflecting their faith, even if it does seem a bit arbitrary.

Yes but then one has to consider if a clown mass follows the rule of prayer for prayer is respectful and non-sacrilegious. Clown masses are at the very least disrespectful and unbefitting of the mass.

Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon. 
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 06, 2016, 04:52:59 PM
This is not the first time you've been taken to task for this on here and I doubt it will be the last.

She posted several times in succession in response to your initial challenge.  You won. 
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Deacon Lance on January 06, 2016, 06:33:21 PM
The real problem with the Novus Ordo isn't that it's heretical compared to the Tridentine mass, but that it is a lot less aesthetically pleasing and far less sublime. Nixing a lot of organically grown liturgical traditions is meh as well.

The real problem with the Novus Ordo is that it was taken almost word by word from the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904.  My husband and I were able to take that book home and study it for about two weeks. We had bookmarked several pages, and when our confessor saw those pages, he refused to say the Novus Ordo from that point on. After viewing those pages, the priest tossed that book into the burning fireplace.

Catholics, in effect, have protestantized their liturgy.
One would have to establish what is a Protestant liturgy.  Since Protestants descend from the Roman tradition it should not be surprising that the liturgies resemble one another.  The Protestant liturgies I am familiar with have the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Institution Narrative, Lord's Prayer, just like the Roman Rite modern and old.  Of course, since Protestants object to certain Catholic dogmas these references are removed from their prayers, not so the Novus Ordo.  Of the prayers actually removed from the Novus Ordo most were Gallican additions or private devotional prayers of the priest that crept in.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: christiane777 on January 06, 2016, 06:41:05 PM
The real problem with the Novus Ordo isn't that it's heretical compared to the Tridentine mass, but that it is a lot less aesthetically pleasing and far less sublime. Nixing a lot of organically grown liturgical traditions is meh as well.

The real problem with the Novus Ordo is that it was taken almost word by word from the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904.  My husband and I were able to take that book home and study it for about two weeks. We had bookmarked several pages, and when our confessor saw those pages, he refused to say the Novus Ordo from that point on. After viewing those pages, the priest tossed that book into the burning fireplace.

Catholics, in effect, have protestantized their liturgy.
One would have to establish what is a Protestant liturgy.  Since Protestants descend from the Roman tradition it should not be surprising that the liturgies resemble one another.  The Protestant liturgies I am familiar with have the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Institution Narrative, Lord's Prayer, just like the Roman Rite modern and old.  Of course, since Protestants object to certain Catholic dogmas these references are removed from their prayers, not so the Novus Ordo.  Of the prayers actually removed from the Novus Ordo most were Gallican additions or private devotional prayers of the priest that crept in.

The Lutheran and Anglican Masses are very very close and I say this as a Catholic.  I once accidentally sat through an Anglican service in Ireland thinking I was in a Catholic Church.   :)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Deacon Lance on January 06, 2016, 07:43:55 PM
The real problem with the Novus Ordo isn't that it's heretical compared to the Tridentine mass, but that it is a lot less aesthetically pleasing and far less sublime. Nixing a lot of organically grown liturgical traditions is meh as well.

The real problem with the Novus Ordo is that it was taken almost word by word from the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904.  My husband and I were able to take that book home and study it for about two weeks. We had bookmarked several pages, and when our confessor saw those pages, he refused to say the Novus Ordo from that point on. After viewing those pages, the priest tossed that book into the burning fireplace.

Catholics, in effect, have protestantized their liturgy.
One would have to establish what is a Protestant liturgy.  Since Protestants descend from the Roman tradition it should not be surprising that the liturgies resemble one another.  The Protestant liturgies I am familiar with have the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Institution Narrative, Lord's Prayer, just like the Roman Rite modern and old.  Of course, since Protestants object to certain Catholic dogmas these references are removed from their prayers, not so the Novus Ordo.  Of the prayers actually removed from the Novus Ordo most were Gallican additions or private devotional prayers of the priest that crept in.

The Lutheran and Anglican Masses are very very close and I say this as a Catholic.  I once accidentally sat through an Anglican service in Ireland thinking I was in a Catholic Church.   :)
So is the Novus Ordo Protestant or Lutheran and Anglican service more Catholic?  If one looks at the uses of the Carthusians and Dominicans one can see what was added to the Tridentine use.  A lot of what SSPXers complain about the Novus Ordo removing are missing there as well.  To Protestantize the Mass, one would have to alter the prayers like Protestants have done, remove: reference to the Mass being a Sacrifice, intercession of the Saints, prayer for the dead.  None of this was done in the NO.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: christiane777 on January 06, 2016, 07:55:53 PM
The real problem with the Novus Ordo isn't that it's heretical compared to the Tridentine mass, but that it is a lot less aesthetically pleasing and far less sublime. Nixing a lot of organically grown liturgical traditions is meh as well.

The real problem with the Novus Ordo is that it was taken almost word by word from the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904.  My husband and I were able to take that book home and study it for about two weeks. We had bookmarked several pages, and when our confessor saw those pages, he refused to say the Novus Ordo from that point on. After viewing those pages, the priest tossed that book into the burning fireplace.

Catholics, in effect, have protestantized their liturgy.
One would have to establish what is a Protestant liturgy.  Since Protestants descend from the Roman tradition it should not be surprising that the liturgies resemble one another.  The Protestant liturgies I am familiar with have the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Institution Narrative, Lord's Prayer, just like the Roman Rite modern and old.  Of course, since Protestants object to certain Catholic dogmas these references are removed from their prayers, not so the Novus Ordo.  Of the prayers actually removed from the Novus Ordo most were Gallican additions or private devotional prayers of the priest that crept in.

The Lutheran and Anglican Masses are very very close and I say this as a Catholic.  I once accidentally sat through an Anglican service in Ireland thinking I was in a Catholic Church.   :)
So is the Novus Ordo Protestant or Lutheran and Anglican service more Catholic?  If one looks at the uses of the Carthusians and Dominicans one can see what was added to the Tridentine use.  A lot of what SSPXers complain about the Novus Ordo removing are missing there as well.  To Protestantize the Mass, one would have to alter the prayers like Protestants have done, remove: reference to the Mass being a Sacrifice, intercession of the Saints, prayer for the dead.  None of this was done in the NO.

I am about as far from a SSPXer as one can get (mainly by background but also choice) so unfortunately I don't know if I can help you.  I am what you might call a post Vatican II happy camper, but leaning strongly conservative (doctrinal more than political).  I didn't know the SSPX existed until about two years ago. 

My sense, and I am guessing here, is that the Anglicans are probably closer to the Catholic Mass.  I believe High Anglicans accept the Mass being a Sacrifice (?) and I would be surprised if they did not also accept intercession of the Saints. 

My point was simply that a Catholic is surprisingly comfortable with the flow and liturgy of a High Anglican or Lutheran Mass - a few hiccups as you point out above (and of course many do not see them as simply "hiccups").  (God save me here, but I do.)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 06, 2016, 09:19:11 PM
just in case there are novus order catholics here that go to the novus order mass,I'll resurrect this thread, been a couple of years since I posted here

Don't worry, I'm sure Wandile is working furiously on writing a hasty attempt to refute your posts as we speak.

Lol nah I'm not too interested in ultra trads and whatever they get up to or think. I will say though that a Pope can over turn a decree of a previous pope and that is exactly what Pope Paul VI did. The only decrees that can't be overturned are doctrinal ones that are binding on the church. Decrees on the liturgy are not doctrine or dogma. But trades would have you think so.

Doesn't the principle of Lex orandi, lex credendi make that a false dichotomy, though?

Not at all, Lex orandi, lex credendi  speaks yo thebtule of prayer/how we worship as a testament for what our faith is. This does not presuppose that liturgy can't change, only that the liturgy still reflects our faith in its prayers through song or spoken prayer.

But couldn't a sufficiently motivated individual stretch that broad definition to fit anything from the 1568 Breviary to clown masses? At least the Trads have something concrete that they can point to as reflecting their faith, even if it does seem a bit arbitrary.

Yes but then one has to consider if a clown mass follows the rule of prayer for prayer is respectful and non-sacrilegious. Clown masses are at the very least disrespectful and unbefitting of the mass.

Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 07, 2016, 11:46:40 AM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds. 
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: christiane777 on January 07, 2016, 02:27:01 PM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

Just saw this - way to go, dude. 
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 07, 2016, 05:34:15 PM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 07, 2016, 06:40:10 PM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
The same God who commands us to serve the poor also gave us detailed commandments on how to worship Him. Those commands don't invite us to skimp.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 07, 2016, 06:53:43 PM
The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

Go tell them that. 
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: TheTrisagion on January 07, 2016, 10:59:32 PM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
that sounds exactly like the 21st century version of Judas Iscariot
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 07, 2016, 11:05:56 PM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
that sounds exactly like the 21st century version of Judas Iscariot

Judas Iscariot or St. John Chrysostom? And it isn't as though the context of that passage explicitly ties it to Christ's impeding death or anything...
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Porter ODoran on January 08, 2016, 01:32:41 AM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 08, 2016, 02:08:39 AM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 08, 2016, 02:10:34 AM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
The same God who commands us to serve the poor also gave us detailed commandments on how to worship Him. Those commands don't invite us to skimp.

If your concept of God winds up perfectly supporting the status quo then there's likely something wrong with your concept of God.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2016, 02:44:02 AM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
The same God who commands us to serve the poor also gave us detailed commandments on how to worship Him. Those commands don't invite us to skimp.

If your concept of God winds up perfectly supporting the status quo then there's likely something wrong with your concept of God.
When did I ever say anything about supporting the status quo?

(http://2greenworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Americana_Scarecrow_516752575.jpg)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 08, 2016, 03:46:04 AM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
The same God who commands us to serve the poor also gave us detailed commandments on how to worship Him. Those commands don't invite us to skimp.

If your concept of God winds up perfectly supporting the status quo then there's likely something wrong with your concept of God.
When did I ever say anything about supporting the status quo?

The status quo- there are people starving in the world because of the depredations of capitalism. You would rather see the poor give their money to create material finery rather than to seeing this reality changed.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: TheTrisagion on January 08, 2016, 09:43:39 AM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 08, 2016, 10:21:25 AM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects be valued over people?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2016, 10:34:09 AM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
The same God who commands us to serve the poor also gave us detailed commandments on how to worship Him. Those commands don't invite us to skimp.

If your concept of God winds up perfectly supporting the status quo then there's likely something wrong with your concept of God.
When did I ever say anything about supporting the status quo?

The status quo- there are people starving in the world because of the depredations of capitalism. You would rather see the poor give their money to create material finery rather than to seeing this reality changed.
You're putting words into my mouth. Stop it.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: TheTrisagion on January 08, 2016, 10:42:57 AM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects be valued over people?
Is creating iconography valuing objects over people? Is constructing a church valuing objects over people? Do you have this same existential angst every time you eat a steak or buy a video game?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2016, 10:48:55 AM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects God be valued over people?
FTFY to show just how absurd your reasoning is. Mor didn't say anything about people valuing objects over other people. He talked about people who valued their worship of God over their own well-being and comfort, just as the widow did with her mite. He talked about people who were willing to give of their own meager resources, even to the point of self-sacrifice, just to make sure God first had a beautiful home in their midst.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 08, 2016, 11:14:54 AM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects be valued over people?
Is creating iconography valuing objects over people? Is constructing a church valuing objects over people? Do you have this same existential angst every time you eat a steak or buy a video game?

Depends on how cheaply you do it and yes I do, but to a slightly lesser extent because I blame myself and my hypocrisy and am not being asked to consider steak and video games to be a holy and blessed activity that I should sacrifice for.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 08, 2016, 11:15:38 AM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
The same God who commands us to serve the poor also gave us detailed commandments on how to worship Him. Those commands don't invite us to skimp.

If your concept of God winds up perfectly supporting the status quo then there's likely something wrong with your concept of God.
When did I ever say anything about supporting the status quo?

The status quo- there are people starving in the world because of the depredations of capitalism. You would rather see the poor give their money to create material finery rather than to seeing this reality changed.
You're putting words into my mouth. Stop it.

I'm not. I'm interpreting the implications of your words.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 08, 2016, 11:26:09 AM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects God be valued over people?
FTFY to show just how absurd your reasoning is. Mor didn't say anything about people valuing objects over other people. He talked about people who valued their worship of God over their own well-being and comfort, just as the widow did with her mite. He talked about people who were willing to give of their own meager resources, even to the point of self-sacrifice, just to make sure God first had a beautiful home in their midst.

God's home is first and foremost in the human heart. Without material objects, He still has us. Without us, the whole thing is pointless. Sacrificing one's well-being for that which is nice but comparatively superfluous is wrong. I'm not even blaming the lay people who do this, I'm blaming the theological and political ideologies that encourage them to do so.

And to anticipate an objection, this has nothing to do with fasting. Fasting is about one's relationship with God, something that still exists without an expensive altar. If you spend your Social Security check on the altar, then you might not be alive to fast later.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 08, 2016, 12:45:44 PM
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects be valued over people?

The example I raised was of poor people, precisely the sort of people you are supporting, spending their own time, talents, and treasure (such as they had) on "objects".  Of all people, they had the most incentive not to do such things, but they did it.  I don't believe they are an isolated group of human-hating, object-serving wackjobs either.  My great-grandfather was killed when a gust of wind knocked him off his feet, causing him to fall from the church roof he was constructing.  He was not rich.  Neither were any of the other people who were building that church.  I don't need to tell you that this is a widespread phenomenon.     

It's all well and good to speak up on behalf of the poor, but often it comes across as non-predatory rich (white?) people projecting their own selfishness onto the poor without the slightest idea of (and/or concern for) what the poor think and believe, without an appreciation of what other angles there are to this issue, etc.     
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: TheTrisagion on January 08, 2016, 01:08:35 PM
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects be valued over people?

The example I raised was of poor people, precisely the sort of people you are supporting, spending their own time, talents, and treasure (such as they had) on "objects".  Of all people, they had the most incentive not to do such things, but they did it.  I don't believe they are an isolated group of human-hating, object-serving wackjobs either.  My great-grandfather was killed when a gust of wind knocked him off his feet, causing him to fall from the church roof he was constructing.  He was not rich.  Neither were any of the other people who were building that church.  I don't need to tell you that this is a widespread phenomenon.     

It's all well and good to speak up on behalf of the poor, but often it comes across as non-predatory rich (white?) people projecting their own selfishness onto the poor without the slightest idea of (and/or concern for) what the poor think and believe, without an appreciation of what other angles there are to this issue, etc.     
Don't worry, brown person. We will tell you how your should live out your faith. Massa knows best.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Wandile on January 08, 2016, 01:37:22 PM
so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2

I think very little of it given that that is boilerplate used at the end of virtually every papal bull. The very same pontiff used basically identical wording in Quod a nobis of 1568 to forbid changes to the Roman Breviary. Changes were forthcoming almost immediately, and continued apace until Pius X made radical changes to the distribution of the psalter in 1911. Pius XII and John XXIII continued to hack away at the Breviary through 1960.

Good points

If there is one thing that is constant in the Roman Church, it is change.

However, Orthodox Christians are quick to quote that our unchanging Faith and Traditions (including the Divine Liturgy) were given to us by Christ to His Apostles for all times and for all peoples.

The Roman Liturgy has had dramatic changes ever since 300 AD, and it became so bad that Pope St. Gregory had to standardize the Mass. Then within a few hundred years, by 800 AD, it had undergone many changes among them the deletion of the Trisagion in all but the Holy Friday Service. Also there were changes allowing the use of unleavened bread, the giving of the "Body" only to the laity, the forbidding of young children to approach the chalice "until the age of reason," and the insertion of the filioque to the Nicene Creed.  Then, by the mid 1960s, the Trisagion in the Good Friday service was totally deleted.

Ok?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2016, 02:21:53 PM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.
The same God who commands us to serve the poor also gave us detailed commandments on how to worship Him. Those commands don't invite us to skimp.

If your concept of God winds up perfectly supporting the status quo then there's likely something wrong with your concept of God.
When did I ever say anything about supporting the status quo?

The status quo- there are people starving in the world because of the depredations of capitalism. You would rather see the poor give their money to create material finery rather than to seeing this reality changed.
You're putting words into my mouth. Stop it.

I'm not. I'm interpreting the implications of your words.
No, you're projecting those implications into my words. You're reading between the lines. IOW, you're putting words into my mouth.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 08, 2016, 02:29:27 PM
Respectful to whom? From what I've seen, clown masses with their "foolish" overtones are intended to illustrate Christ's turning the world upside down, siding with the poor and afflicted against the powerful. From a certain point of view, one could say that the high splendor of a wealthy Church, much of it provided by prominent patrons who get their money by exploiting the people of God, is disrespectful in the extreme to "the least of these" who can barely afford to get by.

I'm not saying I buy into this reasoning, just saying that the argument can be made.

You could probably also argue just as convincingly for the existence of cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon.

So you think having a problem with the Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich is as absurd as believing in unicorns, got it.

No.  I think your argument sucks.  But I will happily congratulate you on crafting a theology of Clown Masses.  From what I've seen, not even the people who put together and celebrate Clown Masses have a theology of Clown Masses. 

"The Church beautifying itself from the friendship of the predatory rich"...I'm not sure where to start with that except to say that, even if we accept for the sake of argument that such a thing happens, that's hardly the only way churches end up looking beautiful.  Fifteen minutes away from where I'm writing is a RC church which was built by poor Italian immigrants.  Literally.  They couldn't donate cash, so they donated rocks, wood, paint, and skills they brought with them.  They built without help from the "predatory rich", and they built quite possibly one of the most beautiful and beautifully appointed churches in the area.  That happens among Catholics, it happens among Orthodox.  And "the poor" are often seen there more than the "predatory rich". 

You can make beautiful things and do beautiful things without stealing from the poor or befriending the wrong people.  You can do that when you love God.  I realise "loving God" is even more bizarre a concept around here than "cisgendered half-unicorn half-cat centaurish creatures which live in Belarus and only eat hippopotamus fetuses they order through Amazon", but I believe in your ability to think for more than five seconds.

You're right, I was oversimplifying because that's the other side of the coin. The poor giving their widow's mite to build up dead material artifices when that money could go to actually helping them is just as bad or worse.

It sounds to me as tho you yourself need to decide whether you worship Mammon or worship God. Money is not a savior, in itself does not bring value, certainly not peace, love, or joy. The saints in heaven do not need it, and the saints on earth should learn everything we can from their condition. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Christ says such things as, "Behold the lilies of the field, behold the birds of the air -- your Father will take care of you better even than he does them, and they have no need of savings or gains. Lay up any treasures in heaven."

Quote
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

    You will eat, bye and bye,
    In that glorious land above the sky;
    Work and pray, live on hay,
    You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

If you don't love your neighbor in this life, then you have no love for him as regards the next.
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects God be valued over people?
FTFY to show just how absurd your reasoning is. Mor didn't say anything about people valuing objects over other people. He talked about people who valued their worship of God over their own well-being and comfort, just as the widow did with her mite. He talked about people who were willing to give of their own meager resources, even to the point of self-sacrifice, just to make sure God first had a beautiful home in their midst.

God's home is first and foremost in the human heart.
And yet even the Apostles and the first Christians thought it important to have a place to worship God, whether that place be the Temple or, after the Temple was destroyed, converted synagogues or local churches of their own construction. Never has there been a sense that worship can be separated totally from some kind of a temple. I think, therefore, that you're voicing nothing more than your own opinions, opinions that have no basis in either the Scriptures or Tradition.

Without material objects, He still has us. Without us, the whole thing is pointless. Sacrificing one's well-being for that which is nice but comparatively superfluous is wrong.
Sacrificing one's well-being for that which is necessary is praiseworthy. In the light of Tradition, you have the burden to prove that a place of worship is superfluous.

I'm not even blaming the lay people who do this, I'm blaming the theological and political ideologies that encourage them to do so.
The fact that you're blaming anyone reveals that you're judging, judging by your own opinions of right and wrong, opinions not based in anything but you and your reasoning.

And to anticipate an objection, this has nothing to do with fasting.
I hadn't made that connection and wasn't going to bring it up, so thanks for the projection. ::)
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Porter ODoran on January 08, 2016, 05:25:21 PM
... Why should objects be valued over people?

The problem here is that you are valuing people as tho they are objects. People have deep unconscious needs that underlie and give direction to most of the needs you as outside observer can see. The Church provides a complex and profound culture or nurture for those deepest needs. Yes, it does so with the use of objects as, yes, the human being inhabits and partakes in physical existence. Hospitals, jails, and soup lines are symptoms not, as we nowadays tend to imagine, cures. Christ and his Church is the cure.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: sedevacantist on January 08, 2016, 07:56:19 PM
so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2

I think very little of it given that that is boilerplate used at the end of virtually every papal bull. The very same pontiff used basically identical wording in Quod a nobis of 1568 to forbid changes to the Roman Breviary. Changes were forthcoming almost immediately, and continued apace until Pius X made radical changes to the distribution of the psalter in 1911. Pius XII and John XXIII continued to hack away at the Breviary through 1960.
you think very little of it but maybe you should rethink
When the New Mass came out in 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, and some other theologians wrote to Paul VI about it.  Keep in mind that what they said about the New Mass concerns the Latin Version, the so-called “most pure” version of the New Mass.  Their study is popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention.  It states:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”[4]

They could clearly see that the Latin version of the New Mass was a striking departure from the teaching of the Council of Trent.  Of the twelve offertory prayers in the Traditional Mass, only two are retained in the New Mass.  The deleted offertory prayers are the same ones that the Protestant heretics Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer eliminated.  The New Mass was promulgated by Paul VI with the help of six Protestant Ministers.

The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.

Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.


Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[5]

Paul VI removed what was too Catholic in the Mass in order to make the Mass a Protestant service.

To be clear, I actually sympathize with the essential argument of the Ottaviani Intervention, i.e., that the Novus Ordo is a protestantized service and at least implicitly downplays Catholic doctrine. What I disagree with is the legal argument that the NO was illegal based on Quo Primum.

I agree with the following




Lets us not forget that when Pius V wrote "in perpetuum," he knew exactly what he meant by those words:

"By declaring Ex Cathedra that Quo Primum can never be revoked or modified, St. Pius V infallibly defined that Quo Primum is of itself irreformable. --Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological Vindication of Roman (Nazareth, India: Apostle Publications, 1997).

Further is the fact that this issue can be compare with the Gelasian decree in which the fourth century Pope attempted to name for all time which books constituted scripture and which did not. Was he attempting to bind all his successors to the same set of Biblical books? (Of course he was!) Could a later pope validly change that list by adding new books to scripture, or deleting any long accepted New Testament writings? (Of course not!)

The Mass is not simply an ecclesiastical law, a matter of discipline for the Latin (Western) Church, as even laymen are familiar with the principle enunciated by Pope St. Celestine I to the bishops of Gaul (422): "Legem credendi, lex statuit supplicandi" [the law of praying has established the law of believing], often shortened to "Lex orandi, lex credendi" [the law of praying (is) the law of believing]. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology, not the other way around. The Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the faith is taught in the text of the Mass. The notion that one pope can "overrule" his predecessors in such a matter is in implicit denial of the credal dogma that the Church is Apostolic
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: MalpanaGiwargis on January 08, 2016, 08:05:24 PM
so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2

I think very little of it given that that is boilerplate used at the end of virtually every papal bull. The very same pontiff used basically identical wording in Quod a nobis of 1568 to forbid changes to the Roman Breviary. Changes were forthcoming almost immediately, and continued apace until Pius X made radical changes to the distribution of the psalter in 1911. Pius XII and John XXIII continued to hack away at the Breviary through 1960.
you think very little of it but maybe you should rethink
When the New Mass came out in 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, and some other theologians wrote to Paul VI about it.  Keep in mind that what they said about the New Mass concerns the Latin Version, the so-called “most pure” version of the New Mass.  Their study is popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention.  It states:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”[4]

They could clearly see that the Latin version of the New Mass was a striking departure from the teaching of the Council of Trent.  Of the twelve offertory prayers in the Traditional Mass, only two are retained in the New Mass.  The deleted offertory prayers are the same ones that the Protestant heretics Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer eliminated.  The New Mass was promulgated by Paul VI with the help of six Protestant Ministers.

The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.

Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.


Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[5]

Paul VI removed what was too Catholic in the Mass in order to make the Mass a Protestant service.

To be clear, I actually sympathize with the essential argument of the Ottaviani Intervention, i.e., that the Novus Ordo is a protestantized service and at least implicitly downplays Catholic doctrine. What I disagree with is the legal argument that the NO was illegal based on Quo Primum.

I agree with the following




Lets us not forget that when Pius V wrote "in perpetuum," he knew exactly what he meant by those words:

"By declaring Ex Cathedra that Quo Primum can never be revoked or modified, St. Pius V infallibly defined that Quo Primum is of itself irreformable. --Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological Vindication of Roman (Nazareth, India: Apostle Publications, 1997).

Further is the fact that this issue can be compare with the Gelasian decree in which the fourth century Pope attempted to name for all time which books constituted scripture and which did not. Was he attempting to bind all his successors to the same set of Biblical books? (Of course he was!) Could a later pope validly change that list by adding new books to scripture, or deleting any long accepted New Testament writings? (Of course not!)

The Mass is not simply an ecclesiastical law, a matter of discipline for the Latin (Western) Church, as even laymen are familiar with the principle enunciated by Pope St. Celestine I to the bishops of Gaul (422): "Legem credendi, lex statuit supplicandi" [the law of praying has established the law of believing], often shortened to "Lex orandi, lex credendi" [the law of praying (is) the law of believing]. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology, not the other way around. The Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the faith is taught in the text of the Mass. The notion that one pope can "overrule" his predecessors in such a matter is in implicit denial of the credal dogma that the Church is Apostolic

And yet you and Fr. Kramer ignore that Quod a nobis thundered the same solemn language and the Breviary was changed again and again, and fairly radically by Pius X. For that matter, the Missal was changed over and over, too, both in additions to the Propers, changes to the rubrics, etc.

The NO is a problem and a rupture, not because of Quo primum, but because it departs from the Catholic understanding of the Mass. To hang all of this on Quo primum is to adopt the idea that something can only be regarded as "Catholic" if the pope says so, and implicitly that Tradition can't stand on its own. That's a problematic position to take for a sedevacantist...

But this is a bit off-topic from the thread, so I will pass on further descent into this particular rabbit hole. It has been unconvincingly repeated ad nauseam on countless websites and forums.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: ZealousZeal on January 08, 2016, 08:06:30 PM
The status quo- there are people starving in the world because of the depredations of capitalism. You would rather see the poor give their money to create material finery rather than to seeing this reality changed.

How did you land at this conclusion?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: sedevacantist on January 08, 2016, 08:21:25 PM
so what are your thoughts on the following

In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.


Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:
“Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[2

I think very little of it given that that is boilerplate used at the end of virtually every papal bull. The very same pontiff used basically identical wording in Quod a nobis of 1568 to forbid changes to the Roman Breviary. Changes were forthcoming almost immediately, and continued apace until Pius X made radical changes to the distribution of the psalter in 1911. Pius XII and John XXIII continued to hack away at the Breviary through 1960.
you think very little of it but maybe you should rethink
When the New Mass came out in 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, and some other theologians wrote to Paul VI about it.  Keep in mind that what they said about the New Mass concerns the Latin Version, the so-called “most pure” version of the New Mass.  Their study is popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention.  It states:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”[4]

They could clearly see that the Latin version of the New Mass was a striking departure from the teaching of the Council of Trent.  Of the twelve offertory prayers in the Traditional Mass, only two are retained in the New Mass.  The deleted offertory prayers are the same ones that the Protestant heretics Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer eliminated.  The New Mass was promulgated by Paul VI with the help of six Protestant Ministers.

The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.

Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.


Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[5]

Paul VI removed what was too Catholic in the Mass in order to make the Mass a Protestant service.

To be clear, I actually sympathize with the essential argument of the Ottaviani Intervention, i.e., that the Novus Ordo is a protestantized service and at least implicitly downplays Catholic doctrine. What I disagree with is the legal argument that the NO was illegal based on Quo Primum.

I agree with the following




Lets us not forget that when Pius V wrote "in perpetuum," he knew exactly what he meant by those words:

"By declaring Ex Cathedra that Quo Primum can never be revoked or modified, St. Pius V infallibly defined that Quo Primum is of itself irreformable. --Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological Vindication of Roman (Nazareth, India: Apostle Publications, 1997).

Further is the fact that this issue can be compare with the Gelasian decree in which the fourth century Pope attempted to name for all time which books constituted scripture and which did not. Was he attempting to bind all his successors to the same set of Biblical books? (Of course he was!) Could a later pope validly change that list by adding new books to scripture, or deleting any long accepted New Testament writings? (Of course not!)

The Mass is not simply an ecclesiastical law, a matter of discipline for the Latin (Western) Church, as even laymen are familiar with the principle enunciated by Pope St. Celestine I to the bishops of Gaul (422): "Legem credendi, lex statuit supplicandi" [the law of praying has established the law of believing], often shortened to "Lex orandi, lex credendi" [the law of praying (is) the law of believing]. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology, not the other way around. The Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the faith is taught in the text of the Mass. The notion that one pope can "overrule" his predecessors in such a matter is in implicit denial of the credal dogma that the Church is Apostolic

And yet you and Fr. Kramer ignore that Quod a nobis thundered the same solemn language and the Breviary was changed again and again, and fairly radically by Pius X. For that matter, the Missal was changed over and over, too, both in additions to the Propers, changes to the rubrics, etc.

The NO is a problem and a rupture, not because of Quo primum, but because it departs from the Catholic understanding of the Mass. To hang all of this on Quo primum is to adopt the idea that something can only be regarded as "Catholic" if the pope says so, and implicitly that Tradition can't stand on its own. That's a problematic position to take for a sedevacantist...

But this is a bit off-topic from the thread, so I will pass on further descent into this particular rabbit hole. It has been unconvincingly repeated ad nauseam on countless websites and forums.
I agree with you that we can't hang all of this on Quo Primum

St. Pius V also wrote the Bull Quod a nobis fixing the Breviary and the Divine Office, and at the end of it he issued penalties analogous to those in the Quo primum directed to anyone who would dare to change those norms. Notwithstanding, St. Pius X changed them without any problem. This means, once again, that St. Pius V did not include the future Popes under his condemnations.

 There is no contradiction in the picture; St. Pius V knew that he could not do something that goes beyond his power.

 The next paragraph of Mediator Dei confirms this interpretation when it reaffirms that the Pope's power is limited only by the orthodoxy of doctrine – “provided only that the integrity of her [the Church's] doctrine be safeguarded” (n. 59).

 Therefore, the interpretation of the cited texts of Mediator Dei harmonizes perfectly with the past of the Church. This is how we interpret them.

 We realize that, considered from the perspective of what has happened in the last four decades, those texts of Mediator Dei also can be interpreted today, as you do, as a preparation for the progressivist reforms of Vatican II. But this problem does not refer to the power of the Pope, but the fidelity he must have toward the established doctrine.

 Actually, is not a secret to anyone that Pius XII paid tribute to Progressivism in the last phase of his pontificate. It is known that during his reign he oscillated between the anti-progressivist influence of Fr. Robert Leiber, SJ, his personal secretary, and the progressivist influence of Fr. Agostino Bea, SJ, his spiritual director. This fluctuation continued until around 1950 – Humani generis – when the anti-progressivist attitudes of Pius XII practically disappeared. With Pius XII’s approval, Fr. Bea became the main precursor of ecumenism and one of the chief architects of Vatican II.

2. Quo primum and the Novus Ordo Mass 

 In our opinion, Paul VI greatly crossed the limits of his powers when he established the New Mass at complete variance with the Catholic doctrine reflected in Quo primum. We do not believe that it is legitimate for a Pope to undo all the anti-Protestant points stressed in the Tridentine Mass as established by St. Pius V. This opinion can be defended from different points of view:

A. Regarding the power of teaching, a Pope does not have the right to revoke the liturgical tradition of the Church. Indeed, Quo primum was a codification of around 1500 years of the Latin Rite’s customs in worshiping God, which were formulated as a counter-attack against Protestantism. From the time of Trent, almost 500 years passed and enriched that same Tradition.

 Now then, since lex orandi, lex credendi est [the law of prayer is the law of belief], it was not possible to have that Mass for almost 500 years without a special assistance of the Holy Ghost confirming the Church in her Faith and giving the doctrine reflected in that Mass a note of infallibility.

 When Paul VI tried to destroy this legacy, he committed an action that went beyond his power. As pointed out before, a Pope cannot change the established Catholic doctrine. For this reason, that action was illegitimate, and it must be resisted until it disappears from the entire Church.

B. Still regarding the power of teaching, the deliberate intent of Paul VI to establish a Mass that would please the Protestants – the practical denial of its sacrificial character, dissimulation of the real significance of the Eucharist, elimination of the difference between the celebrant and the congregation, dethroning God and enthroning the people, etc – is diametrically opposed to the intent of both Pope St. Pius V and the Council of Trent. This New Mass clearly has the flavor of heresy, the same heresy the Tridentine Mass intended to extinguish. For this aggravating reason, it is illegitimate and it must be resisted until it no longer exists.

C. Regarding the power of jurisdiction, certainly a Pope can revoke any positive law made by another Pope to rule on this or that particular need of the Church. Positive law here is understood as a human law to govern the human needs of the Church. This can apply to liturgy and the divine worship within the limits explained before.

 This power, however, does not seem to allow the unprecedented revocation of the Mass, whicht Paul VI made for the two mentioned reasons: It was anti-Protestant and reflected the Tradition of the Church. He banned the Tridentine Mass and replaced it with the New Mass. We believe a Pope does not have the right to forbid a form of worship that had been used by the Church for close to 500 years. His action is illegitimate and must be resisted.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Cyrillic on January 08, 2016, 08:31:14 PM
Has nobody mentioned that in perpetuum as a legal term didn't mean what it means now, but simply that a law, treaty or edict was without a sunset clause?
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: MalpanaGiwargis on January 08, 2016, 08:39:50 PM
Has nobody mentioned that in perpetuum as a legal term doesn't mean what it means now, but simply that a law, treaty or edict is without a sunset clause?

Not explicitly, but I suspect it will have little effect...
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 09, 2016, 11:09:22 AM
And yet even the Apostles and the first Christians thought it important to have a place to worship God, whether that place be the Temple or, after the Temple was destroyed, converted synagogues or local churches of their own construction. Never has there been a sense that worship can be separated totally from some kind of a temple. I think, therefore, that you're voicing nothing more than your own opinions, opinions that have no basis in either the Scriptures or Tradition.

Without material objects, He still has us. Without us, the whole thing is pointless. Sacrificing one's well-being for that which is nice but comparatively superfluous is wrong.
Sacrificing one's well-being for that which is necessary is praiseworthy. In the light of Tradition, you have the burden to prove that a place of worship is superfluous.

I never said that these things were absolutely unimportant, only comparatively so. I'm arguing for austerity, not iconoclasm. To bring this back around to the RC, I think that Pope Francis has taken a good first step by toning down the Papal bling.

I'm not even blaming the lay people who do this, I'm blaming the theological and political ideologies that encourage them to do so.
The fact that you're blaming anyone reveals that you're judging, judging by your own opinions of right and wrong, opinions not based in anything but you and your reasoning.

So, judging ideologies is the same as judging people now? ???

And I'm judging based on the Gospel. Something that you don't seem willing to do.

And to anticipate an objection, this has nothing to do with fasting.
I hadn't made that connection and wasn't going to bring it up, so thanks for the projection. ::)

I didn't say you did. It was in case you or anyone else was going to.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 09, 2016, 11:25:42 AM
The status quo- there are people starving in the world because of the depredations of capitalism. You would rather see the poor give their money to create material finery rather than to seeing this reality changed.

How did you land at this conclusion?

He was the one who said that God won't let people skimp. It would be great if we lived in some kind of moneyless utopia in which nobody went hungry or homeless and every Church had a solid gold iconostasis (yes, I know most Churches aren't like that now, I'm using hyperbole). I would be totally on board with being as lavish as possible in that case. But I seriously doubt that's going to happen this side of the eschaton.

So as it stands, when God can bless even vestments made out of ordinary linens, I don't see how spending money on the finest fabrics can be justified when it could be put to saving the temples of the Holy Spirit who are dying all around us.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 09, 2016, 11:45:35 AM
This is a clear false dilemma fallacy. Just because a parish creates a beautiful temple does not mean it is neglecting the poor. The tabernacle and all of the temples were also very beautiful edifices. Certainly we are not to neglect the poor, but that doesn't mean that the height of Christian spirituality resides in a strip mall worship center that someone got a good deal on the rent for.

Resources are limited, especially when you're talking about poor immigrants as Mor was. Saying that "we can just spend equal money on both" is unrealistic. Why should objects be valued over people?

The example I raised was of poor people, precisely the sort of people you are supporting, spending their own time, talents, and treasure (such as they had) on "objects".  Of all people, they had the most incentive not to do such things, but they did it.  I don't believe they are an isolated group of human-hating, object-serving wackjobs either.  My great-grandfather was killed when a gust of wind knocked him off his feet, causing him to fall from the church roof he was constructing.  He was not rich.  Neither were any of the other people who were building that church.  I don't need to tell you that this is a widespread phenomenon.     

It's all well and good to speak up on behalf of the poor, but often it comes across as non-predatory rich (white?) people projecting their own selfishness onto the poor without the slightest idea of (and/or concern for) what the poor think and believe, without an appreciation of what other angles there are to this issue, etc.     

Your point rightly cuts me like a knife (and yes, I'm white). The poor deserve to make their own choices (to the extent that anybody really has a choice in the face of overwhelming ideology) and I would never want to poopoo them for wanting to do so. I should be confining my critique to the comparatively wealthy and the ideologies of consumption. The onus is on us to spread the wealth around, and it seems like we aren't doing that when we spend more than the bare minimum on church finery (little c because I'm hardly sparing Protestant churches here).
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 10, 2016, 03:08:38 AM
And yet even the Apostles and the first Christians thought it important to have a place to worship God, whether that place be the Temple or, after the Temple was destroyed, converted synagogues or local churches of their own construction. Never has there been a sense that worship can be separated totally from some kind of a temple. I think, therefore, that you're voicing nothing more than your own opinions, opinions that have no basis in either the Scriptures or Tradition.

Without material objects, He still has us. Without us, the whole thing is pointless. Sacrificing one's well-being for that which is nice but comparatively superfluous is wrong.
Sacrificing one's well-being for that which is necessary is praiseworthy. In the light of Tradition, you have the burden to prove that a place of worship is superfluous.

I never said that these things were absolutely unimportant, only comparatively so. I'm arguing for austerity, not iconoclasm. To bring this back around to the RC, I think that Pope Francis has taken a good first step by toning down the Papal bling.

I'm not even blaming the lay people who do this, I'm blaming the theological and political ideologies that encourage them to do so.
The fact that you're blaming anyone reveals that you're judging, judging by your own opinions of right and wrong, opinions not based in anything but you and your reasoning.

So, judging ideologies is the same as judging people now? ???
Did I say anything about you judging either ideologies or people? ??? The point you're missing is not that you're judging, but rather the basis by which you're judging. Whatever or whomever it is you're judging, you're judging by your own opinions of right and wrong, opinions not based in anything but you and your reasoning.

And I'm judging based on the Gospel. Something that you don't seem willing to do.
Once again with your lousy projections. ::) Nowhere in the Gospel do we read of Jesus telling anyone to skimp on their worship of His Father just so they can redistribute the money spent on worship to the poor. In fact, the one person we see suggesting such an idea is Judas Iscariot, not Jesus. The dichotomy between liturgy and service, whereby we set one up against the other and say that one is so much more important than the other, is nowhere to be found in the Gospel. This is something you made up. The truth is that liturgy and service are equally important, and neither should be sacrificed for the other.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." What better way to do this than by giving Jesus the fullest and richest worship we can? Where in this first of the greatest commandments do you see any exhortation to skimp on our worship?

And to anticipate an objection, this has nothing to do with fasting.
I hadn't made that connection and wasn't going to bring it up, so thanks for the projection. ::)

I didn't say you did. It was in case you or anyone else was going to.
But nobody showed that they were even going to. ISTM that you love setting up and tearing down straw men so much that you build them out of thin air without even waiting for someone to present to you an argument for you to misinterpret.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: byhisgrace on January 10, 2016, 06:04:03 AM
So as it stands, when God can bless even vestments made out of ordinary linens, I don't see how spending money on the finest fabrics can be justified when it could be put to saving the temples of the Holy Spirit who are dying all around us.
I'm sure that spending more than necessary on finery is a problem for Orthodox as it is for everyone. We are all sinners who need to change.

However, if you are arguing that we should not have any degree of finery in our icons and vestments, then to be coherent, you would have to condemn all the OT Jews for building the Temple and all its decorations, where every single detail was directed by God.

Also consider that "finest" is a relative term. If the best Priest robe was only somewhat decorated, that would be considered "finest." How much money can we spend on icons, Priest vestments, Church building, and parish maintenance in order to meet your standard?

And most importantly, we are in no position to make a sweeping generalization of how well the Church distributes its wealth on charity and liturgy. At most, judgment can only be done on a case-by-case parish-by-parish basis, and even then, you would have to know that parish's budget.   
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: byhisgrace on January 10, 2016, 06:14:35 AM
Once again with your lousy projections. ::) Nowhere in the Gospel do we read of Jesus telling anyone to skimp on their worship of His Father just so they can redistribute the money spent on worship to the poor. In fact, the one person we see suggesting such an idea is Judas Iscariot, not Jesus. The dichotomy between liturgy and service, whereby we set one up against the other and say that one is so much more important than the other, is nowhere to be found in the Gospel. This is something you made up. The truth is that liturgy and service are equally important, and neither should be sacrificed for the other.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." What better way to do this than by giving Jesus the fullest and richest worship we can? Where in this first of the greatest commandments do you see any exhortation to skimp on our worship?
I don't think Volnutt is criticizing the existence of liturgies and place of worship, but the degree to which we spend money on decorating Icons, Priestly vestments, etc. That said, I have no idea how much money is spent on making these things, so I'm in no position to judge. 
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Indocern on January 10, 2016, 08:41:03 AM
So as it stands, when God can bless even vestments made out of ordinary linens, I don't see how spending money on the finest fabrics can be justified when it could be put to saving the temples of the Holy Spirit who are dying all around us.
I'm sure that spending more than necessary on finery is a problem for Orthodox as it is for everyone. We are all sinners who need to change.

However, if you are arguing that we should not have any degree of finery in our icons and vestments, then to be coherent, you would have to condemn all the OT Jews for building the Temple and all its decorations, where every single detail was directed by God.

Also consider that "finest" is a relative term. If the best Priest robe was only somewhat decorated, that would be considered "finest." How much money can we spend on icons, Priest vestments, Church building, and parish maintenance in order to meet your standard?

And most importantly, we are in no position to make a sweeping generalization of how well the Church distributes its wealth on charity and liturgy. At most, judgment can only be done on a case-by-case parish-by-parish basis, and even then, you would have to know that parish's budget.   

Maybe we all are sinners, there are very few righteous men who are in the right way.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 10, 2016, 03:19:48 PM
Once again with your lousy projections. ::) Nowhere in the Gospel do we read of Jesus telling anyone to skimp on their worship of His Father just so they can redistribute the money spent on worship to the poor. In fact, the one person we see suggesting such an idea is Judas Iscariot, not Jesus. The dichotomy between liturgy and service, whereby we set one up against the other and say that one is so much more important than the other, is nowhere to be found in the Gospel. This is something you made up. The truth is that liturgy and service are equally important, and neither should be sacrificed for the other.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." What better way to do this than by giving Jesus the fullest and richest worship we can? Where in this first of the greatest commandments do you see any exhortation to skimp on our worship?
I don't think Volnutt is criticizing the existence of liturgies and place of worship, but the degree to which we spend money on decorating Icons, Priestly vestments, etc. That said, I have no idea how much money is spent on making these things, so I'm in no position to judge.

I suppose if all you are concerned about is how much money is spent on non-essentials when people are starving, we'd have to criticise a lot more than just ecclesiastical expenditures.  For instance, that complaint--and really, all posts in this thread and on OCNet as a whole--was posted here by means of some piece of technology, big or small, costing hundreds of dollars at a minimum.  Why should we use technology at all if it costs us so much money to use, money we could use to support the poor?  Are we absolved of such hypocrisy by hurling out some obligatory condemnations of people with more money than we have?

I'm not convinced that everyone who uses a computer or a smartphone has made a conscious decision to rob the poor in order to sustain a lavish lifestyle.  More likely, we (those of us who are conscious of the poor at all, anyway) have resigned ourselves to the fact that even if we gave our bodies as food to the poor, we could not help them all, and so we do what we can with what we are blessed to have, and we use what we have in order to keep helping them as we can.  Are there better uses for our time, talent, and treasure at any given moment?  Sure, but that's a challenge to our conscience to make sure we don't become complacent.  I'm not sure the sort of radical charity Volnutt demands of churches is sustainable in the long run for anyone or any institution. 

Returning to the subject of ecclesiastical furnishings, one thing that is often forgotten is that these things are not usually made by some "predatory rich" corporation the way our technology is.  Furnishings, vestments, icons, vessels, etc. are often made by craftsmen who are not rich at all (many are just surviving) and this is how they earn their living.  Why shouldn't they be reimbursed for their work?  Why should we rob them of their livelihood because we've decided to "help the poor"?  When I commission vestments for a church or a cleric, I have one or two people I go to, each of whom employs a couple of people in his shop.  None of these people are rich.  If I stop patronising them because I want to use the money to help the poor, they are a group of actual poor people who will not be helped, but rather harmed, by my love for the poor. 

Maybe some would say they should find another line of work, but then we're going to have to ask what work is legitimate and what work is unnecessary and wasteful.  Somehow, I think we're all going to agree that the Chinese people who work so hard to meet our demand for new phones that they're literally killing themselves at work are doing a most essential service to mankind while we argue over the necessity of the work of a few low caste Hindus who happen to know how to stitch Orthodox vestments the opulence of which offends our selfishness. 
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 10, 2016, 04:34:09 PM
This is making me increasingly depressed so I think I'm going to bow out. You guys make some good points that I probably didn't think enough about and I'm sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: byhisgrace on January 10, 2016, 05:07:31 PM
Very good points, Mor! I support.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Porter ODoran on January 10, 2016, 05:15:02 PM
Did not Christ hold up for approval the example of the poor widow who gave her last bit of income to the Temple? A worldview such as what Volnutt has been representing here would censure Him for that.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: byhisgrace on January 11, 2016, 10:42:24 AM
This is making me increasingly depressed so I think I'm going to bow out. You guys make some good points that I probably didn't think enough about and I'm sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings.
You did not offend me, Volnutt. You asked good questions that I struggled with myself.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: Volnutt on January 11, 2016, 03:19:59 PM
This is making me increasingly depressed so I think I'm going to bow out. You guys make some good points that I probably didn't think enough about and I'm sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings.
You did not offend me, Volnutt. You asked good questions that I struggled with myself.

I'm glad I didn't.
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: JoeS2 on January 16, 2016, 09:56:12 PM


Just to be clear, Peter J is an EC, not RC.  I know the Orthodox are fond of saying that RCs and ECs are the same thing, but as a former EC myself, those who are ECs do not see themselves as the same as RCs.

It sure would be  helpful as an Orthodox Christian to understand your explanation of what makes the EC different than the RC's .....Thank you
Title: Re: The Next Pope & the Latin Mass ..
Post by: JoeS2 on January 16, 2016, 10:01:08 PM
The real problem with the Novus Ordo isn't that it's heretical compared to the Tridentine mass, but that it is a lot less aesthetically pleasing and far less sublime. Nixing a lot of organically grown liturgical traditions is meh as well.

The real problem with the Novus Ordo is that it was taken almost word by word from the Lutheran Hymnal of 1904.  My husband and I were able to take that book home and study it for about two weeks. We had bookmarked several pages, and when our confessor saw those pages, he refused to say the Novus Ordo from that point on. After viewing those pages, the priest tossed that book into the burning fireplace.

Catholics, in effect, have protestantized their liturgy.
One would have to establish what is a Protestant liturgy.  Since Protestants descend from the Roman tradition it should not be surprising that the liturgies resemble one another.  The Protestant liturgies I am familiar with have the Kyrie, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Institution Narrative, Lord's Prayer, just like the Roman Rite modern and old.  Of course, since Protestants object to certain Catholic dogmas these references are removed from their prayers, not so the Novus Ordo.  Of the prayers actually removed from the Novus Ordo most were Gallican additions or private devotional prayers of the priest that crept in.

The Lutheran and Anglican Masses are very very close and I say this as a Catholic.  I once accidentally sat through an Anglican service in Ireland thinking I was in a Catholic Church.   :)
So is the Novus Ordo Protestant or Lutheran and Anglican service more Catholic?  If one looks at the uses of the Carthusians and Dominicans one can see what was added to the Tridentine use.  A lot of what SSPXers complain about the Novus Ordo removing are missing there as well.  To Protestantize the Mass, one would have to alter the prayers like Protestants have done, remove: reference to the Mass being a Sacrifice, intercession of the Saints, prayer for the dead.  None of this was done in the NO.

but as one who had attended both TLM and the NO Masses in the past , the new Mass has been trimmed down a lot and has wound up as a Mass of 'Minimalism'. But thats just my opinion.  IOW, it is the Mass but barely.