Topic: Pope invokes ‘magisterial authority’ to declare liturgy changes ‘irreversible’

[Mor Ephrem]

ROME - Addressing a group of liturgical experts on Thursday, Pope Francis said that after the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and a long path of experience, “We can affirm with certainty and magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.”

The declaration came in a speech on Thursday to Italy’s “Center of Liturgical Action,” which sponsors an annual National Liturgical Week.

By “liturgical reform,” Pope Francis meant the changes in Catholic rituals and modes of worship which followed from Vatican II, the most immediately visible elements of which included Mass facing the congregation, the use of vernacular languages, and a stronger emphasis on the “full, conscious and active” participation of the people.

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/08/24/pope-invokes-magisterial-authority-declare-liturgy-changes-irreversible/

[Porter ODoran]

Ouch.

[RaphaCam]

Should this be considered infallible under RC doctrine?

[Luke]

So if a Pope does not speak from the chair, but speaks with magisterial authority, how binding is it?   Confusing.

[Asteriktos]

So if a Pope does not speak from the chair, but speaks with magisterial authority, how binding is it?   Confusing.

Perhaps I just chatted with some overly enthusiastic Catholics back in the day(?), but I remember some of them talking about papal teaching authority as being in a middle ground between the general guidance Random T. Bishop might give, and on the other hand full-blown infallibility, where if a Pope said something as a pastor, that faithful Catholics were obligated to follow that ruling/guidance, regardless of whether it was meant to be infallible teaching or not. Which actually isn't that different from how some things work in Orthodoxy as a general principle, though it's on a much larger and more pervasive scale. For an example of it being applied in Orthodoxy, a bishop might make a decision/ruling on how converts are baptized, in which case that ruling may not be infallible or universally applicable, but it's pretty much set in stone as far as anyone under his care/jurisdiction is concerned. And for Catholics, everyone is under the Pope's loving guidance, and the Pope looms larger in the lives of people (in theory anyway).

[MalpanaGiwargis]

Should this be considered infallible under RC doctrine?

No, but it is "practically" infallible, as no substantive changes are remotely likely to occur. Infallibility is limited to faith and morals, and though the liturgy is obviously connected, it is usually conceived as a disciplinary matter, and as such the pope has full authority over it. It really has to be considered disciplinary in nature, or the post-Vatican II reforms themselves would be illegitimate. At the end of the day, if the pope wants to make up another new liturgy, or go back to the Tridentine liturgy, or even adopt the Byzantine rite, there is not really any real justification that Catholics can bring forward to stop him. Supreme, universal, immediate, ordinary, yadda yadda.

[Faithseeker]

Unless it is declared ex cathedra then it's not an infallible dogma.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

10 Popes later, there will be a new revision and change. Bet on it.

[Asteriktos]

10 bishops later there will be a change in the method of receiving converts. Bet on it.   

[Porter ODoran]

10 bishops later there will be a change in the method of receiving converts. Bet on it.   

Were you taught that this matter rises to the level of creating a new liturgy? or that your bishop's economia is infallible and unchanging? I find that hard to believe. I think it's more likely, from your posting history, that this is another "intellectual and subtle" attack on Orthodox belief and believers.

[Agabus]

"Today, Pope Francis said, “there is still work to do in this direction, in particular rediscovering the reasons for the decisions made with the liturgical reform, overcoming unfounded and superficial readings, partial receptions, and practices that disfigure it.” He said that this is not a question “of rethinking the reform by reviewing its choices, but of knowing better the underlying reasons [for it]… [and] of internalizing its inspirational principles and of observing the discipline that governs it.”

From here.

In other words, "The NO is here to stay, but don't think it means clown masses."

[LivenotoneviL]

I wonder how this affects the prospects of Ecumenism - as although the Tridentine Liturgy certainly has elements (artwork, unleavened bread, etc.) which aren't in line with Orthodox Liturgy, the Novus Ordo Mass in both its logical existence (that thousands of years of liturgical history are permitted to change on a dime by the authority of a single individual - that it is the Pope that binds tradition, not vice-versa) and in many of the elements which are permitted, (such as the priest facing the people, communion in the hand, "Eucharistic ministers"; and in some instances, rock bands in mass and iconoclastic churches) are such a drastic departure from traditional liturgy that I wonder how exactly the liturgy would work out should the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church ever be united - considering that this statement kind of rules out traditional liturgy as an option, and considering that the Orthodox Liturgy is the heart and the soul of the Orthodox Church. It also makes me wonder how Ecumenism would work in context of the very, very liberal direction the Pope is and is able to take the Roman Catholic Church. It's sad.

Also, although this statement is binding, by no means can this authority be seen as infallible, as it isn't binding for the entirety of the Western churches (e.g., the Maronites don't have to folllow it), and liturgy is more or less viewed as disciplinary and not dogmatic from the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. We know this for a fundamental fact because Pope Pius V made a similar statement for the Tridentine mass, even going so far to say that "this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever" and "Anybody (who uses a different missal) will invoke the Wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul" in his encyclical "Quo Primum," and these were the lines of reasoning used for the liturgical reform of Vatican II (and many SSPX and Sedevacantists see Quo Primum as an infallible declaration)

Still, it sets a precedent that will most likely be followed for maybe hundreds of years. It's a shame.
Maybe Pope Francis in the Novus Ordo liturgy can change some of the elements which aren't good practice, which I pointed out in order to make a good compromise, but I doubt it.

[Iconodule]

I think all the parsing of infallibility, doctrine/morals vs discipline, etc around this statement is a pretty good illustration of how meaningless Papal infallibility really is. It seems the Pope's statement is nothing more than a particularly forceful expression of his own opinion that can be confirmed or overturned at will by his successors.

[LivenotoneviL]

I think all the parsing of infallibility, doctrine/morals vs discipline, etc around this statement is a pretty good illustration of how meaningless Papal infallibility really is. It seems the Pope's statement is nothing more than a particularly forceful expression of his own opinion that can be confirmed or overturned at will by his successors.

+1

[Agabus]

I think all the parsing of infallibility, doctrine/morals vs discipline, etc around this statement is a pretty good illustration of how meaningless Papal infallibility really is. It seems the Pope's statement is nothing more than a particularly forceful expression of his own opinion that can be confirmed or overturned at will by his successors.

The papacy is a paper tiger.

[Lepanto]

As an estimated 95% of Catholic masses are NO masses (no pun intended), acknowledging the fact that the change is irreversible is not really groundbreaking.
However, this is of course not really good news.
It just confirms the confinement of the so-called trad Catholics to their drying-out biotopes and gives little cause to hope that the Tridentine mass could be adopted on a larger scale again.
Sigh.
Really, I worry about all this, wonder where we are heading.
I got a feeling the worst is yet to come.

[Agabus]

As an estimated 95% of Catholic masses are NO masses (no pun intended), acknowledging the fact that the change is irreversible is not really groundbreaking.
However, this is of course not really good news.
It just confirms the confinement of the so-called trad Catholics to their drying-out biotopes and gives little cause to hope that the Tridentine mass could be adopted on a larger scale again.
Sigh.
Really, I worry about all this, wonder where we are heading.
I got a feeling the worst is yet to come.

I honestly don't have any strong feelings about the NO versus the EF.

But I don't think this ghettoizes the EF any more than its most enthusiastic proponents do.

[Iconodule]

But I don't think this ghettoizes the EF any more than its most enthusiastic proponents do.

Well, they just know that any day now the entire church is going to collapse around them leaving them in the majority.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

10 bishops later there will be a change in the method of receiving converts. Bet on it.   

Okay? I don't think there's an ordinance anywhere that deems one way of receiving irreformable and the other way is jettisoned. Rome has done this before, and is doing this again now. That's a very obvious difference, and if you cannot see such an apparent difference, then you're completely lost.

[Helladius]

Hmm... on the whole this doesn't sound too good! I suppose maybe - if I have understood the article correctly - there is one good point, in that by emphasising that the importance of the laity/congregation in the celebration of the Mass perhaps Pope Francis is affirming an orthodoxy which Catholicism has sometimes stepped away from (albeit a long time ago I guess!)... thinking of medieval chantry chapels with priests saying a hundred Masses a day for the souls of the departed with no congregation present. But modern Catholicism is probably already light years away from this problem anyway?

If Pope Francis is speaking with magisterial authority, can Traditionalists who recognise him as pope (so not sede vacantists) in good conscience disobey his instructions here? To what extent is it binding upon all Catholics to obey the pope when he gives an instruction with magisterial authority, regardless of their private conscience? Can any Catholics explain this situation, as I'm not quite sure exactly what it means - thanks!

[Agabus]

I think it's kind of funny to see Orthodox people fretting that the RCC pope tells the people they should use the liturgy that they've been using for 50 years.

[Porter ODoran]

I think it's kind of funny to see Orthodox people fretting that the RCC pope tells the people they should use the liturgy that they've been using for 50 years.

Yes sir!

Also funny to hear from Catholics who seem somehow to have thought Vatican II would evaporate someday.

[scamandrius]

This doesn't invalidate the Tridentine or Extraordinary Rite since the Tridentine council had declared that Mass to be used "for all time" by Pope Pius V.  I think all this done by Francis is done motu proprio which Pope Benedict XVI used to free up the restrictions on celebrating Mass according to the Tridentine Rite.  It does not invalidate Benedict's move nor Pius'. 

[LivenotoneviL]

My question is this: Is the media overblowing a statement by the Pope, as it tends to do?

It seems that the Pope said "after this magisterial and long journey we can affirm that the liturgical reform is irreversible."

However, does such a comment qualify as an Ex Cathedra statement?
Given the Roman church's history, especially Vatican II, I wonder. It's not like he's following the usual lines of "We declare with Apostolic Authority such and such and such and such," or "We command and declare with Christ's authority such and such," he's simply saying that "this has been a long journey, but we have to admit that we can't reverse the liturgy."

One thing, though, that is really offends me personally is how the Pope creates this caricature of people who want dignified and consistent liturgy as these ultra-conservative Pharisees who cause poor, young converts to leave the church in despair.

From American Jesuit Review:
"Moreover, seeking to counter a clerical mentality in celebrating the liturgy, Francis emphasized that “the liturgy is life for the entire people of the church,” and “by its nature the liturgy is in fact ‘popular’ and not clerical” because “it is an action for the people but also of the people.”"
"There has been a tendency to use the liturgy to exclude people, but Francis has had little time for this approach. Today again he said, “The church in prayer gathers all those whose have a heart that listens to the Gospel, without excluding anyone: The small and the great are called, as are the rich and the poor, children and old people, the healthy and the sick, the just and sinners."
"Pope Francis concluded his talk by emphasizing yet again that “the liturgy is life, not an idea to be understood.” Liturgical worship “is not above all a doctrine to be understood or a rite to be accomplished,” the pope said. “It is a wellspring of life and of light for our journey of faith.”"


I personally argue that it is his promotion of moral-relativism and watered-down theology is what causes people to leave the church, as there is no reason to really care about one's faith at that point.

I hope that such liturgical apathy never comes in the Orthodox Church to the same degree that it has the RCC.

I'm one of those people who would even be okay allowing people to pray at Christian concerts - but I mean, there is a time and place for everything, and there is a time to be reminded of Heaven and in solemnity receive the Body (and Blood) of Christ.

But then again, I'm just some dude rambling on the internet, he's the Pope.

[LivenotoneviL]

I think it's kind of funny to see Orthodox people fretting that the RCC pope tells the people they should use the liturgy that they've been using for 50 years.

For me, it is terrifying how simply one council was able to dismantle thousands of years of tradition (not perfect tradition, but still better than now), and allow so much artistic liberalism and inconsistency, even to the point of direct blasphemy - and it is concerning if such a thing will ever be attempted in the Orthodox Church.

Maybe it is a symptom of absolute monarchism and its consequences, and maybe the collegial structure of the Church will prevent something like that from happening...

What will happen to the Orthodox Church if something parallel occurs out of "ecumenism" or something?

Because certainly, if no other churches exist with any respect for liturgy, the result will be pressure from the rest of the Christian world and thus, the results will be spiritually deceived or selfish wolves who enter the Church, the so called "heroes against the Pharisees" who will try to change the Liturgy "for the purposes of "ecumenism"", or "the Liturgy having a central role in one's spiritual life is Pharisaical" or "the Church needs to modernize," or "the Church having art is against the calling of Christ for us to be against private property, because Christ was a socialist revolutionary" or any of these other vain and flawed reasons.

It's a terrifying thought to imagine the Orthodox Church without Her Liturgy.

Obviously, it isn't the absolutely ONLY important thing in one's spiritual journey, but it is of grand significance, so much so that people have died and been martyred just so they can use icons.

[Agabus]

What will happen to the Orthodox Church if something parallel occurs out of "ecumenism" or something?

Because certainly, if no other churches exist with any respect for liturgy, the result will be pressure from the rest of the Christian world and thus, the results will be spiritually deceived or selfish wolves, so called "heroes against the Pharisees" who will try to change the Liturgy in order to conform to the world or for the purposes of "ecumenism" or who believe that the Liturgy having a central role in one's spiritual life is Pharisaical or who believe that "the Church needs to modernize," or any of these other vain reasons.

How long have you been hanging around Orthodox churches?

The likelihood of this scenario happening is nil.

[LivenotoneviL]

What will happen to the Orthodox Church if something parallel occurs out of "ecumenism" or something?

Because certainly, if no other churches exist with any respect for liturgy, the result will be pressure from the rest of the Christian world and thus, the results will be spiritually deceived or selfish wolves, so called "heroes against the Pharisees" who will try to change the Liturgy in order to conform to the world or for the purposes of "ecumenism" or who believe that the Liturgy having a central role in one's spiritual life is Pharisaical or who believe that "the Church needs to modernize," or any of these other vain reasons.

How long have you been hanging around Orthodox churches?

The likelihood of this scenario happening is nil.

For a year and a half, and of course, I don't know everything.

As of now, I agree.
But, "what if?"

And even though Christ promised the gates of hell won't prevail against the Church, they've at points have come pretty dang close - one needs to look at Arianism, Iconoclasm, Florence, etc.

I guess I just need to have faith, but shouldn't we be on our defense, for the "Devil is prowling around like a lion?"

[LivenotoneviL]

What will happen to the Orthodox Church if something parallel occurs out of "ecumenism" or something?

Because certainly, if no other churches exist with any respect for liturgy, the result will be pressure from the rest of the Christian world and thus, the results will be spiritually deceived or selfish wolves, so called "heroes against the Pharisees" who will try to change the Liturgy in order to conform to the world or for the purposes of "ecumenism" or who believe that the Liturgy having a central role in one's spiritual life is Pharisaical or who believe that "the Church needs to modernize," or any of these other vain reasons.

How long have you been hanging around Orthodox churches?

The likelihood of this scenario happening is nil.

For a year and a half, and of course, I don't know everything.

As of now, I agree.
But, "what if?"

And even though Christ promised the gates of hell won't prevail against the Church, they've at points have come pretty dang close - one needs to look at Arianism, Iconoclasm, Florence, etc.

I guess I just need to have faith, but shouldn't we be on our defense, for the "Devil is prowling around like a lion?"

Maybe it's just my liturgical PTSD from Roman Catholicism talking, not any semblance of reality.

But if the Church grows throughout the world, and all other Christian sects abandon the Traditional understanding of liturgy, certainly these latter sects will influence the Church in a negative way in the minds of Her children.

Oh well....let's focus on the now, not the future, and truly have Faith in God.

[Porter ODoran]

Orthodoxy is different from the core. You will encounter a certain amount of modern-sounding talk, but in my experience it's superficial and the core remains unmolested. Also we have many patriarchs and hierarchs, and in a cord of many ply is strength.

[LivenotoneviL]

Orthodoxy is different from the core. You will encounter a certain amount of modern-sounding talk, but in my experience it's superficial and the core remains unmolested. Also we have many patriarchs and hierarchs, and in a cord of many ply is strength.

That's what Michael Whelton said, and I agree with him.

[ConfusedRC]

As an estimated 95% of Catholic masses are NO masses (no pun intended), acknowledging the fact that the change is irreversible is not really groundbreaking.
However, this is of course not really good news.
It just confirms the confinement of the so-called trad Catholics to their drying-out biotopes and gives little cause to hope that the Tridentine mass could be adopted on a larger scale again.
Sigh.
Really, I worry about all this, wonder where we are heading.
I got a feeling the worst is yet to come.

I think is further proof that he will try to get rid of the TLM.

[Sharbel]

At the end of the day, the Catholic hierarchs are very selective considering which papal pronouncement is infallible and which one is not.  For instance, St. JPII used very precise words to state dogmatically that the Catholic Church cannot ordain women, invoking his Petrine privilege.  Yet, I've yet to meet a priest or a bishop who considers it infallible.  Conversely, many quickly enthrone any sneeze by Pope FI as part of the Petrine charisma. "Peter has sneezed", they might say. 


Bottom line, move along, there's nothing new to see here, in this relentless decadence of the Roman Church.

[Sharbel]

Sigh.
Really, I worry about all this, wonder where we are heading.
I got a feeling the worst is yet to come.

After 50 years of the malignant spirit of VII it should be pretty clear where the Roman Church is going, or at least what most of her bishops are striving to accomplish.

[Sharbel]

I think is further proof that he will try to get rid of the TLM.

It's my suspicion too.  Pope BXVI's Motu Proprio is already being ignored by many bishops throughout the world.  A discombobulated liturgy as the Novus Ordo couldn't but lead to a discombobulated faith.  After all, lex orandi, lex credendi (roughly, "as one prays, so one believes").


Lord, have mercy!

[Mor Ephrem]

At the end of the day, the Catholic hierarchs are very selective considering which papal pronouncement is infallible and which one is not. 

Why is it their job to decide which papal pronouncement is infallible?  They don't have that charism according to their own system. 

[Sharbel]

At the end of the day, the Catholic hierarchs are very selective considering which papal pronouncement is infallible and which one is not. 

Why is it their job to decide which papal pronouncement is infallible?  They don't have that charism according to their own system.

Exactly, it's not.  As a matter of fact, they use the approach of acknowledging a teaching as orthodox much like the Orthodox Church in acknowledging a council as ecumenical: a posteriori based on the acceptance by the hierarchs and the people, in spite of the Roman Church claiming to have the privilege of making such judgements a priori.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

The Popes of the Middle Ages said the Latin Mass and the Vulgate were irreformable... look how long that lasted.

[Agabus]

What will happen to the Orthodox Church if something parallel occurs out of "ecumenism" or something?

Because certainly, if no other churches exist with any respect for liturgy, the result will be pressure from the rest of the Christian world and thus, the results will be spiritually deceived or selfish wolves, so called "heroes against the Pharisees" who will try to change the Liturgy in order to conform to the world or for the purposes of "ecumenism" or who believe that the Liturgy having a central role in one's spiritual life is Pharisaical or who believe that "the Church needs to modernize," or any of these other vain reasons.

How long have you been hanging around Orthodox churches?

The likelihood of this scenario happening is nil.

For a year and a half, and of course, I don't know everything.

As of now, I agree.
But, "what if?"

First off, you'd have to get all the churches on board, and so far, we can't even get people to agree on an agenda that everyone will attend to discuss.

Assuming that every happens, you'd still have to convince all of the churches to actually make the change.

People are still rumbling about the calendar (which wasn't even a real reform), and that shift -- which still isn't universally adopted -- happened nearly 100 years ago.

So tinkering with the liturgy beyond maybe quietly removing a petition here or an litany there within the confines of your jurisdiction? Forget about it.

[LivenotoneviL]

What will happen to the Orthodox Church if something parallel occurs out of "ecumenism" or something?

Because certainly, if no other churches exist with any respect for liturgy, the result will be pressure from the rest of the Christian world and thus, the results will be spiritually deceived or selfish wolves, so called "heroes against the Pharisees" who will try to change the Liturgy in order to conform to the world or for the purposes of "ecumenism" or who believe that the Liturgy having a central role in one's spiritual life is Pharisaical or who believe that "the Church needs to modernize," or any of these other vain reasons.

How long have you been hanging around Orthodox churches?

The likelihood of this scenario happening is nil.

For a year and a half, and of course, I don't know everything.

As of now, I agree.
But, "what if?"

First off, you'd have to get all the churches on board, and so far, we can't even get people to agree on an agenda that everyone will attend to discuss.

Assuming that every happens, you'd still have to convince all of the churches to actually make the change.

People are still rumbling about the calendar (which wasn't even a real reform), and that shift -- which still isn't universally adopted -- happened nearly 100 years ago.

So tinkering with the liturgy beyond maybe quietly removing a petition here or an litany there within the confines of your jurisdiction? Forget about it.

True.

[The young fogey]

Should this be considered infallible under RC doctrine?

No.

Liturgy is discipline and culture, not doctrine.

My guess is this statement, rather than the coverage of it, is just standard rhetoric since Vatican II supporting the new Mass. That Mass isn't going away any time soon.

While I don't like the new Mass, it is the Mass. Since Benedict XVI's reform in English, I'm fine with it though I use and prefer the old form. In good conscience I can go to Mass anywhere in the United States and thanks to the new text, people will learn the faith from it. I see the new Mass a few times a year: holy days of obligation, Sundays when there is a car show or flea market so I can't make it to my usual traditional Mass, or traveling/vacation.

So no, I'm not foaming at the mouth or considering leaving the church in order to claim that Byzantine Christianity is the center of the universe and the Roman Mass has been graceless all these centuries. I like Byzantine Christianity (the Orthodox small-t tradition) very much; it is my part-time home (monthly Liturgy, and an icon corner and your prayers at home) and some Westerners are called to it full-time. But no.

What's going on in the American Catholic Church: the old liberals who wanted to get rid of the old-fashioned stuff are dying out. The few young people who stay want real religion. Most of my semi-traditionalist parish (my Sunday-morning Tridentine Mass) is couples in their 30s and their many children because the parish is a magnet for them.

[Mor Ephrem]

Should this be considered infallible under RC doctrine?

No.

Liturgy is discipline and culture, not doctrine.

What a sad commentary on the decay of the venerable Western tradition, which has gone from lex orandi, lex credendi to, essentially, "whatever costumes and scripts you prefer, enjoy the show". 

[The young fogey]

Ritual for its own sake is what modern Episcopalianism's accused of. I mean of course that as long as you keep our teachings, there are many cultural expressions of them, which is partly why there are several rites.

[sedevacantist]

Should this be considered infallible under RC doctrine?

No.

Liturgy is discipline and culture, not doctrine.

My guess is this statement, rather than the coverage of it, is just standard rhetoric since Vatican II supporting the new Mass. That Mass isn't going away any time soon.

While I don't like the new Mass, it is the Mass. Since Benedict XVI's reform in English, I'm fine with it though I use and prefer the old form. In good conscience I can go to Mass anywhere in the United States and thanks to the new text, people will learn the faith from it. I see the new Mass a few times a year: holy days of obligation, Sundays when there is a car show or flea market so I can't make it to my usual traditional Mass, or traveling/vacation.

So no, I'm not foaming at the mouth or considering leaving the church in order to claim that Byzantine Christianity is the center of the universe and the Roman Mass has been graceless all these centuries. I like Byzantine Christianity (the Orthodox small-t tradition) very much; it is my part-time home (monthly Liturgy, and an icon corner and your prayers at home) and some Westerners are called to it full-time. But no.

What's going on in the American Catholic Church: the old liberals who wanted to get rid of the old-fashioned stuff are dying out. The few young people who stay want real religion. Most of my semi-traditionalist parish (my Sunday-morning Tridentine Mass) is couples in their 30s and their many children because the parish is a magnet for them.

by attending the new mass you are insulting Christ since it is a protestant 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.

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.

convert to the Catholic faith and save your soul

[Iconodule]

I mean of course that as long as you keep our teachings, there are many cultural expressions of them, which is partly why there are several rites.

Multiple rites arise organically over centuries when the same faith is planted in different cultures. The Novus Ordo is nothing like that.

[scamandrius]

I mean of course that as long as you keep our teachings, there are many cultural expressions of them, which is partly why there are several rites.

Multiple rites arise organically over centuries when the same faith is planted in different cultures. The Novus Ordo is nothing like that.

+1.  It's just a cut and paste job.

[Agabus]

Fogey — re: my comments about pathology in that other thread.

Should this be considered infallible under RC doctrine?

No.

Liturgy is discipline and culture, not doctrine.

My guess is this statement, rather than the coverage of it, is just standard rhetoric since Vatican II supporting the new Mass. That Mass isn't going away any time soon.

While I don't like the new Mass, it is the Mass. Since Benedict XVI's reform in English, I'm fine with it though I use and prefer the old form. In good conscience I can go to Mass anywhere in the United States and thanks to the new text, people will learn the faith from it. I see the new Mass a few times a year: holy days of obligation, Sundays when there is a car show or flea market so I can't make it to my usual traditional Mass, or traveling/vacation.

So no, I'm not foaming at the mouth or considering leaving the church in order to claim that Byzantine Christianity is the center of the universe and the Roman Mass has been graceless all these centuries. I like Byzantine Christianity (the Orthodox small-t tradition) very much; it is my part-time home (monthly Liturgy, and an icon corner and your prayers at home) and some Westerners are called to it full-time. But no.

What's going on in the American Catholic Church: the old liberals who wanted to get rid of the old-fashioned stuff are dying out. The few young people who stay want real religion. Most of my semi-traditionalist parish (my Sunday-morning Tridentine Mass) is couples in their 30s and their many children because the parish is a magnet for them.

by attending the new mass you are insulting Christ since it is a protestant 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.

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.

convert to the Catholic faith and save your soul

[The young fogey]

The Novus Ordo is a cut-and-paste. That doesn't mean it isn't a Mass.

sedevacantist doesn't speak for the church so he doesn't speak for me.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

The Novus Ordo is a cut-and-paste. That doesn't mean it isn't a Mass.

sedevacantist doesn't speak for the church so he doesn't speak for me.

It's just hard to believe that an infallible Church can make such a fallible liturgy.

[The young fogey]

The church has always had several scripts and settings for the liturgy, which almost always have evolved gradually. The Novus Ordo's a new composition that uses bits of the old Roman Rite. It's all good as long as each script tells the truth and nobody tries to take the old forms away from me.

[LivenotoneviL]

The church has always had several scripts and settings for the liturgy, which almost always have evolved gradually. The Novus Ordo's a new composition that uses bits of the old Roman Rite. It's all good as long as each script tells the truth and nobody tries to take the old forms away from me.

I wonder how you can nod your head at some of the outrageous blasphemies against God which have been permissible in the Novus Ordo!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr-Q6oYNQ_k

Is this such reverence that "tells the truth?"

It has become a liturgy of self-idolatry and showing off how "holy" you are by dancing around the altar.

Isn't the whole point of liturgy to emulate Heaven? How do these outrageous forms of materialistic self-worship equivocate to that and tell the truth?

And I can't believe that you are perfectly fine with removing what has been used for 500 years, which developed previously from that.

[The young fogey]

If it's against our doctrine and breaks the rules, I oppose it, and much of the abuse does come from heretics. Beyond that, I won't take the bait; I won't be the intolerant type that liberals accuse conservatives of being.

[LivenotoneviL]

If it's against our doctrine and breaks the rules, I oppose it, and much of the abuse does come from heretics. Beyond that, I won't take the bait; I won't be the intolerant type that liberals accuse conservatives of being.

Were the Iconoclast martyrs "intolerant conservatives" when they were killed for refusing to remove the iconography from the Liturgy?

And by that logic, you can use the label of "intolerant" towards those who are intolerant of such practices as contraception, abortion, LGBTQ, showing no respect to refugees, etc.

Oh well. It's your church, but if you truly want reunion, you guys need to get your stuff together with your liturgy and not allow such selfish atrocities to be the norm.

This includes "Eucharistic ministers," versus populum, instruments, and communion in the hand.

[The young fogey]

I've already answered this and you're preaching to the proverbial choir. Almost every Sunday I go to the Tridentine Mass or to the same rite most of this board goes to.

[Alpha60]

If it's against our doctrine and breaks the rules, I oppose it, and much of the abuse does come from heretics. Beyond that, I won't take the bait; I won't be the intolerant type that liberals accuse conservatives of being.

Were the Iconoclast martyrs "intolerant conservatives" when they were killed for refusing to remove the iconography from the Liturgy?

And by that logic, you can use the label of "intolerant" towards those who are intolerant of such practices as contraception, abortion, LGBTQ, showing no respect to refugees, etc.

Oh well. It's your church, but if you truly want reunion, you guys need to get your stuff together with your liturgy and not allow such selfish atrocities to be the norm.

This includes "Eucharistic ministers," versus populum, instruments, and communion in the hand.

+1, except re: instruments some Orthodox traditionally use the organ, for example, the Ionian Greeks and the Armenians. The idea that instruments are completely forbidden as a form of accompaniememt is mainly Russian / Slavonic, and I agree in the case of the Slavonic liturgies, i.e. The OCA.  The Russians more than compensate with campanology.

Btw Western Campanology with its single-toned bells, even with an English style Full Peal, which is hours of endless variations accomplished by a guild of bell ringers, pales in comparison to Russian campanology, with beautiful bells tuned to multiple resonant tones, hundreds of which can be controlled by a single monk using an ingenious control system of thin metal wires; the bells remain stationary and only the clappers are moved.

[Rohzek]

If it's against our doctrine and breaks the rules, I oppose it, and much of the abuse does come from heretics. Beyond that, I won't take the bait; I won't be the intolerant type that liberals accuse conservatives of being.

This includes "Eucharistic ministers," versus populum, instruments, and communion in the hand.

Hahahahahahahahaha! These are the "heresies" you are worried about? I can't take this seriously.

[LivenotoneviL]

If it's against our doctrine and breaks the rules, I oppose it, and much of the abuse does come from heretics. Beyond that, I won't take the bait; I won't be the intolerant type that liberals accuse conservatives of being.

Were the Iconoclast martyrs "intolerant conservatives" when they were killed for refusing to remove the iconography from the Liturgy?

And by that logic, you can use the label of "intolerant" towards those who are intolerant of such practices as contraception, abortion, LGBTQ, showing no respect to refugees, etc.

Oh well. It's your church, but if you truly want reunion, you guys need to get your stuff together with your liturgy and not allow such selfish atrocities to be the norm.

This includes "Eucharistic ministers," versus populum, instruments, and communion in the hand.

+1, except re: instruments some Orthodox traditionally use the organ, for example, the Ionian Greeks and the Armenians. The idea that instruments are completely forbidden as a form of accompaniememt is mainly Russian / Slavonic, and I agree in the case of the Slavonic liturgies, i.e. The OCA.  The Russians more than compensate with campanology.

Btw Western Campanology with its single-toned bells, even with an English style Full Peal, which is hours of endless variations accomplished by a guild of bell ringers, pales in comparison to Russian campanology, with beautiful bells tuned to multiple resonant tones, hundreds of which can be controlled by a single monk using an ingenious control system of thin metal wires; the bells remain stationary and only the clappers are moved.

What I meant by instruments was "rock bands," not necessarily the pipe organ. Some Western Rite Orthodox Churches use organs, and I don't have a problem with it.

[The young fogey]

This includes "Eucharistic ministers," versus populum, [rock-band] instruments, and communion in the hand.

Not heretical but insipid; matters of culture and discipline. I say people can have most of these things if they accept our doctrine and don't try to take away traditional high-church stuff such as the Orthodox services.

[LivenotoneviL]

If it's against our doctrine and breaks the rules, I oppose it, and much of the abuse does come from heretics. Beyond that, I won't take the bait; I won't be the intolerant type that liberals accuse conservatives of being.

This includes "Eucharistic ministers," versus populum, instruments, and communion in the hand.

Hahahahahahahahaha! These are the "heresies" you are worried about? I can't take this seriously.

I wouldn't necessarily they are "heresies" so to speak, they are just drastic departures from Tradition - especially when viewed through the eyes of the symbolism they previously represented - are symbolically disrespectfully.

For example, if everyone can just touch the Eucharist all willy-nilly and hand it out to people, not only is it extremely disrespectful because Christ's Living Body is supposed to be there, but it reduces the idea of the Bloodless Sacrifice to that of mere symbolism and that of a community meal.

I know this for a fact because I was in a Roman Catholic community - and a lot of faithful Roman Catholic people I talked to didn't believe in the literal presence as a doctrine, and it was barely taught to us in our catechesis courses in school. Even one of my relatives who was born in 1969 was shocked to find out recently that the Roman church held such a belief in the real presence.

It even makes no logical sense that the priest would need blessed water to wash his hands before handling the Eucharist, yet he can give it out to like 5 people all willy nilly with no problem whatsoever.

I seriously wonder why this was even a development - despite the whole controversy of having to give both Blood and Body in Orthodox thought, I liked the whole idea of a communion rail - it was even more efficient imo than giving it to several people and having to awkwardly form 4 lines.

Maybe if they had some respect with Eucharistic ministers - like requiring extensive training, requiring to wear robes, requiring to have their hands blessed, and to handle the Eucharist with a napkin - I would be talking with a different tune. But as of now, it is symbolically disrespectful - even good ole Thomas Aquinas agrees with this.

Not to mention that this example in particularly was a post-Vatican II development that didn't come from Vatican II itself.

[The young fogey]

If it's against our doctrine and breaks the rules, I oppose it, and much of the abuse does come from heretics. Beyond that, I won't take the bait; I won't be the intolerant type that liberals accuse conservatives of being.

This includes "Eucharistic ministers," versus populum, instruments, and communion in the hand.

Hahahahahahahahaha! These are the "heresies" you are worried about? I can't take this seriously.

I wouldn't necessarily they are "heresies" so to speak, they are just drastic departures from Tradition - especially when viewed through the eyes of the symbolism they previously represented - are symbolically disrespectfully.

For example, if everyone can just touch the Eucharist all willy-nilly and hand it out to people, not only is it extremely disrespectful because Christ's Living Body is supposed to be there, but it reduces the idea of the Bloodless Sacrifice to that of mere symbolism and that of a community meal.

I know this for a fact because I was in a Roman Catholic community - and a lot of people I talked to didn't believe in the literal presence, and it was barely taught to us in our catechesis courses in school. Even one of my relatives who was born in 1969 was shocked to find out recently that the Roman church held such a belief in the real presence.

It even makes no logical sense that the priest would need blessed water to wash his hands before handling the Eucharist, yet he can give it out to like 5 people all willy nilly with no problem whatsoever.

I seriously wonder why this was even a development - despite the whole controversy of having to give both Blood and Body in Orthodox thought, I liked the whole idea of a communion rail - it was even more efficient imo than giving it to several people and having to awkwardly form 4 lines.

Maybe if they had some respect with Eucharistic ministers - like requiring extensive training, requiring to wear robes, requiring to have their hands blessed, and to handle the Eucharist with a napkin - I would be talking with a different tune. But as of now, it is symbolically disrespectful - even good ole Thomas Aquinas agrees with this.

I largely agree. When the English translation of the new Mass was the bad ICEL paraphrase, it was possible to go to it for years and not know our teachings, which happened a lot.

Eucharistic ministers make sense based on their official name, which starts with the word "extraordinary." They weren't supposed to be used at every Sunday Mass and certainly not to try to promote women's ordination. Most of what you see is an abuse.

[LivenotoneviL]

If it's against our doctrine and breaks the rules, I oppose it, and much of the abuse does come from heretics. Beyond that, I won't take the bait; I won't be the intolerant type that liberals accuse conservatives of being.

This includes "Eucharistic ministers," versus populum, instruments, and communion in the hand.

Hahahahahahahahaha! These are the "heresies" you are worried about? I can't take this seriously.

I wouldn't necessarily they are "heresies" so to speak, they are just drastic departures from Tradition - especially when viewed through the eyes of the symbolism they previously represented - are symbolically disrespectfully.

For example, if everyone can just touch the Eucharist all willy-nilly and hand it out to people, not only is it extremely disrespectful because Christ's Living Body is supposed to be there, but it reduces the idea of the Bloodless Sacrifice to that of mere symbolism and that of a community meal.

I know this for a fact because I was in a Roman Catholic community - and a lot of people I talked to didn't believe in the literal presence, and it was barely taught to us in our catechesis courses in school. Even one of my relatives who was born in 1969 was shocked to find out recently that the Roman church held such a belief in the real presence.

It even makes no logical sense that the priest would need blessed water to wash his hands before handling the Eucharist, yet he can give it out to like 5 people all willy nilly with no problem whatsoever.

I seriously wonder why this was even a development - despite the whole controversy of having to give both Blood and Body in Orthodox thought, I liked the whole idea of a communion rail - it was even more efficient imo than giving it to several people and having to awkwardly form 4 lines.

Maybe if they had some respect with Eucharistic ministers - like requiring extensive training, requiring to wear robes, requiring to have their hands blessed, and to handle the Eucharist with a napkin - I would be talking with a different tune. But as of now, it is symbolically disrespectful - even good ole Thomas Aquinas agrees with this.

I largely agree. When the English translation of the new Mass was the bad ICEL paraphrase, it was possible to go to it for years and not know our teachings, which happened a lot.

Eucharistic ministers make sense based on their official name, which starts with the word "extraordinary." They weren't supposed to be used at every Sunday Mass and certainly not to try to promote women's ordination. Most of what you see is an abuse.

My point is that when even the Pope is being abusive with Eucharistic ministers, there is a problem that needs to be fixed somehow for the purposes of "ecumenism," if ever such a reunion can take place.

Once again, its their church, so I can't really tell them what they are and aren't allowed to do, but that's my opinion.

[youssef]

For me really i don't understand people who defend tradition and thinking they are defending the real faith. I have no problem in a novus ordo mass, i prefer to go to a novus ordo mass then to go to a traditional mass. Go on all thing in life change even liturgy they are not puting nude girl  dancing in a novus ordo mass.(it will be cool by the way ).
I don't like the maronite mass but for some different purpose.

[The young fogey]

I will never lie to you. Under Paul VI and St. John Paul II (I have no devotion to him; I just acknowledge the church's decision), the American Catholic Church stank. Benedict XVI improved the new Mass in English so much. We're actually better off under Francis than we were under Paul or John Paul because Francis is a Jesuit so he doesn't care about liturgy and he doesn't care about English because he doesn't speak it; he only really knows Spanish and Italian.

[LivenotoneviL]

For me really i don't understand people who defend tradition and thinking they are defending the real faith. I have no problem in a novus ordo mass, i prefer to go to a novus ordo mass then to go to a traditional mass.

I don't like the maronite mass but for some different purpose.

"When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition."
-Saint Paisios

[LivenotoneviL]

Yeah.

[youssef]

For me really i don't understand people who defend tradition and thinking they are defending the real faith. I have no problem in a novus ordo mass, i prefer to go to a novus ordo mass then to go to a traditional mass. Go on all thing in life change even liturgy they are not puting nude girl  dancing in a novus ordo mass.(it will be cool by the way ).
I don't like the maronite mass but for some different purpose.

"When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition."
-Saint Paisios

Jesus has said For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them. So one these people are gathering in the mass with full conscious of what they are doing Jesus will be with them however they are doing a traditional mass or a novus ordo mass. Get out about this idea of tradition and that modernity is a heresy and the real nonsense that the east has better cultural vlaue then the west.

[The young fogey]

For me really i don't understand people who defend tradition and thinking they are defending the real faith. I have no problem in a novus ordo mass, i prefer to go to a novus ordo mass then to go to a traditional mass. Go on all thing in life change even liturgy they are not puting nude girl  dancing in a novus ordo mass.(it will be cool by the way ).
I don't like the maronite mass but for some different purpose.

"When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition."
-Saint Paisios

Jesus has said For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them. So one these people are gathering in the mass with full conscious of what they are doing Jesus will be with them however they are doing a traditional mass or a novus ordo mass. Get out about this idea of tradition and that modernity is a heresy and the real nonsense that the east has better cultural vlaue then the west.

I agree with about half of this.

Jesus has said For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them. So one these people are gathering in the mass with full conscious of what they are doing Jesus will be with them however they are doing a traditional mass or a novus ordo mass.

If they accept our teachings and follow the rules.

Get out about this idea of tradition

No. When someone tells me I can't be high-church because the Holy Spirit doesn't want it, I rightly get my back up.

and that modernity is a heresy

It's not necessarily heresy but it's problematic.

the real nonsense that the east has better cultural vlaue then the west

+1.

[LivenotoneviL]

For me really i don't understand people who defend tradition and thinking they are defending the real faith. I have no problem in a novus ordo mass, i prefer to go to a novus ordo mass then to go to a traditional mass. Go on all thing in life change even liturgy they are not puting nude girl  dancing in a novus ordo mass.(it will be cool by the way ).
I don't like the maronite mass but for some different purpose.

"When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition."
-Saint Paisios

Jesus has said For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them. So one these people are gathering in the mass with full conscious of what they are doing Jesus will be with them however they are doing a traditional mass or a novus ordo mass. Get out about this idea of tradition and that modernity is a heresy and the real nonsense that the east has better cultural vlaue then the west.

And my argument to that is that a significant portion of Novus Ordo masses aren't gathered in Christ's name, but themselves - "Look at how much I am dancing, and how its for God! Aren't I such a holy person; I hope everyone can see me doing this! I am totally worthy enough to give out the Eucharist to other people! I want to look so attractive for mass, so I don't need to wear pants to church! Who cares that Christ is supposed to literally come into the mass - I'm just gonna dance around the altar and put a show on for people!"

It's self-worship.

Not to mention that to truly be in Christ's name is to follow proper beliefs.

Also, when did this conversation become about cultural values?

And look - I have no problem with people dancing around for God's glory, singing happily how awesome God is, and if you like that style of talking to God, go ahead - but I think there is a time and place for everything, and I don't think its appropriate when you are supposed to go receive Christ Himself.

I don't want to come across as someone who is so radical that I want to discourage people from loving God - but I just think there is, truly, a time and place for everything.
If you like contemporary Christian music, you can listen to it all you want - just don't take your MP3 player out in Church.

[youssef]

For me really i don't understand people who defend tradition and thinking they are defending the real faith. I have no problem in a novus ordo mass, i prefer to go to a novus ordo mass then to go to a traditional mass. Go on all thing in life change even liturgy they are not puting nude girl  dancing in a novus ordo mass.(it will be cool by the way ).
I don't like the maronite mass but for some different purpose.

"When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition."
-Saint Paisios

Jesus has said For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them. So one these people are gathering in the mass with full conscious of what they are doing Jesus will be with them however they are doing a traditional mass or a novus ordo mass. Get out about this idea of tradition and that modernity is a heresy and the real nonsense that the east has better cultural vlaue then the west.

And my argument to that is that a significant portion of Novus Ordo masses aren't gathered in Christ's name, but themselves - "Look at how much I am dancing, and how its for God! Aren't I such a holy person; I hope everyone can see me doing this! I am totally worthy enough to give out the Eucharist to other people! I want to look so attractive for mass, so I don't need to wear pants to church!"

It's self-worship.

Not to mention that to truly be in Christ's name is to follow proper beliefs.

Also, when did this conversation become about cultural values?

Realy, you are condemming people heart, you can condem in the same mentality people who go to traditional mass.
The question of proper belief for me now i don't know what church has the true belief but i know that catholic have some basic in all what they say, from the filioque to immaculate birth and other stuff.

I think that really the conversation is related to cultural issues in some way.

[LivenotoneviL]

Realy, you are condemming people heart, you can condem in the same mentality people who go to traditional mass.
The question of proper belief for me now i don't know what church has the true belief but i know that catholic have some basic in all what they say, from the filioque to immaculate birth and other stuff.

I think that really the conversation is related to cultural issues in some way.

I edited my post, so I'll quote it again:

And look - I have no problem with people dancing around for God's glory, singing happily how awesome God is, and if you like that style of talking to God, go ahead - but I think there is a time and place for everything, and I don't think its appropriate when you are supposed to go receive Christ Himself.

I don't want to come across as someone who is so radical that I want to discourage people from loving God - but I just think there is, truly, a time and place for everything.
If you like contemporary Christian music, you can listen to it all you want - just don't take your MP3 player out in Church.

Orthodox take literally "Lex Orandi, Lex Credenci"
"The rule of prayer is the rule of what is believed."

[The young fogey]

You're both right. LivenotoneviL points out some problems, but youseff wrote what I feel; I don't want to become the judgemental jerk that liberals say conservatives are.

Orthodox take literally "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi"
"The rule of prayer is the rule of what is believed."

So do we. The Novus Ordo by the book has the truth just like my services.

[youssef]

Realy, you are condemming people heart, you can condem in the same mentality people who go to traditional mass.
The question of proper belief for me now i don't know what church has the true belief but i know that catholic have some basic in all what they say, from the filioque to immaculate birth and other stuff.

I think that really the conversation is related to cultural issues in some way.

I edited my post, so I'll quote it again:

And look - I have no problem with people dancing around for God's glory, singing happily how awesome God is, and if you like that style of talking to God, go ahead - but I think there is a time and place for everything, and I don't think its appropriate when you are supposed to go receive Christ Himself.

I don't want to come across as someone who is so radical that I want to discourage people from loving God - but I just think there is, truly, a time and place for everything.
If you like contemporary Christian music, you can listen to it all you want - just don't take your MP3 player out in Church.

Orthodox take literally "Lex Orandi, Lex Credenci"
"The rule of prayer is the rule of what is believed."

I had never participate to a novus ordo mass while people dancing,, the church i know here near my house in the morning sunday mass they do a mass without music and in the night they do a mass for the youth with the use of musical instrument and the people i know here but i have never participate with them they dance in the end after they take communion and the priest say the final words.  But also i cannot see any problem with what your are talking about.

[Cyrillic]

ROME - Addressing a group of liturgical experts on Thursday, Pope Francis said that after the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and a long path of experience, “We can affirm with certainty and magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.”

The declaration came in a speech on Thursday to Italy’s “Center of Liturgical Action,” which sponsors an annual National Liturgical Week.

By “liturgical reform,” Pope Francis meant the changes in Catholic rituals and modes of worship which followed from Vatican II, the most immediately visible elements of which included Mass facing the congregation, the use of vernacular languages, and a stronger emphasis on the “full, conscious and active” participation of the people.

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/08/24/pope-invokes-magisterial-authority-declare-liturgy-changes-irreversible/

The last gasp of the old liberals, who are horrified by the sight of their grandchildren slowly undoing their accomplishments.

[Sharbel]

I mean of course that as long as you keep our teachings, there are many cultural expressions of them, which is partly why there are several rites.

Multiple rites arise organically over centuries when the same faith is planted in different cultures. The Novus Ordo is nothing like that.

+1.  It's just a cut and paste job.

+1.  From translations by Google.

[Sharbel]

My point is that when even the Pope is being abusive with Eucharistic ministers, there is a problem that needs to be fixed somehow for the purposes of "ecumenism," if ever such a reunion can take place.

As far as I know, the Eucharistic ministers at public liturgies in the Vatican are actually ordained men, either deacons or priests themselves, often recruited from among the attendants.

[scamandrius]

I mean of course that as long as you keep our teachings, there are many cultural expressions of them, which is partly why there are several rites.

Multiple rites arise organically over centuries when the same faith is planted in different cultures. The Novus Ordo is nothing like that.

+1.  It's just a cut and paste job.

+1.  From translations by Google.

If only.

[LivenotoneviL]

My point is that when even the Pope is being abusive with Eucharistic ministers, there is a problem that needs to be fixed somehow for the purposes of "ecumenism," if ever such a reunion can take place.

As far as I know, the Eucharistic ministers at public liturgies in the Vatican are actually ordained men, either deacons or priests themselves, often recruited from among the attendants.

Nope.
My grandfather, who is neither, is one.

If you mean "in the Vatican" literally, I don't know, but Pope Francis has definitely been in liturgies  where young men and women hand out the Eucharist like cracker snacks.

[The young fogey]

ROME - Addressing a group of liturgical experts on Thursday, Pope Francis said that after the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and a long path of experience, “We can affirm with certainty and magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.”

The declaration came in a speech on Thursday to Italy’s “Center of Liturgical Action,” which sponsors an annual National Liturgical Week.

By “liturgical reform,” Pope Francis meant the changes in Catholic rituals and modes of worship which followed from Vatican II, the most immediately visible elements of which included Mass facing the congregation, the use of vernacular languages, and a stronger emphasis on the “full, conscious and active” participation of the people.

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/08/24/pope-invokes-magisterial-authority-declare-liturgy-changes-irreversible/

The last gasp of the old liberals, who are horrified by the sight of their grandchildren slowly undoing their accomplishments.

Yes.

[Helladius]

For me really i don't understand people who defend tradition and thinking they are defending the real faith. I have no problem in a novus ordo mass, i prefer to go to a novus ordo mass then to go to a traditional mass.

I don't like the maronite mass but for some different purpose.

"When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition."
-Saint Paisios

Beautiful!

[Helladius]

Realy, you are condemming people heart, you can condem in the same mentality people who go to traditional mass.
The question of proper belief for me now i don't know what church has the true belief but i know that catholic have some basic in all what they say, from the filioque to immaculate birth and other stuff.

I think that really the conversation is related to cultural issues in some way.

I edited my post, so I'll quote it again:

And look - I have no problem with people dancing around for God's glory, singing happily how awesome God is, and if you like that style of talking to God, go ahead - but I think there is a time and place for everything, and I don't think its appropriate when you are supposed to go receive Christ Himself.

I don't want to come across as someone who is so radical that I want to discourage people from loving God - but I just think there is, truly, a time and place for everything.
If you like contemporary Christian music, you can listen to it all you want - just don't take your MP3 player out in Church.

Orthodox take literally "Lex Orandi, Lex Credenci"
"The rule of prayer is the rule of what is believed."

I had never participate to a novus ordo mass while people dancing,, the church i know here near my house in the morning sunday mass they do a mass without music and in the night they do a mass for the youth with the use of musical instrument and the people i know here but i have never participate with them they dance in the end after they take communion and the priest say the final words.  But also i cannot see any problem with what your are talking about.

   For anyone who has any knowledge and appreciation of historic RCC, what the RCC has become is heartbreaking.

[The young fogey]

"When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition."
-Saint Paisios

Within the bounds I wrote earlier, I agree.

For anyone who has any knowledge and appreciation of historic RCC, what the RCC has become is heartbreaking.

The Catholic Church in itself hasn't gone bad after Vatican II (our doctrine) but in practice this is largely true. This concern from some Orthodox about the Catholic Church is nice, thanks, but contradictory. Why care about something you've turned your back on and opine has been apostate for centuries? (We don't think Orthodoxy is apostate or even heretical, only in schism from us, and as some Orthodox have written on this board, we don't consider the rite heretical so our caring about it and using it aren't contradictory.) As a Catholic friend told me 20 years ago, if you want to remain Orthodox you'll have to consider us apostates, forgetting about us. Orthodox apologists and ROCOR said pretty much the same. I couldn't.

[youssef]

Realy, you are condemming people heart, you can condem in the same mentality people who go to traditional mass.
The question of proper belief for me now i don't know what church has the true belief but i know that catholic have some basic in all what they say, from the filioque to immaculate birth and other stuff.

I think that really the conversation is related to cultural issues in some way.

I edited my post, so I'll quote it again:

And look - I have no problem with people dancing around for God's glory, singing happily how awesome God is, and if you like that style of talking to God, go ahead - but I think there is a time and place for everything, and I don't think its appropriate when you are supposed to go receive Christ Himself.

I don't want to come across as someone who is so radical that I want to discourage people from loving God - but I just think there is, truly, a time and place for everything.
If you like contemporary Christian music, you can listen to it all you want - just don't take your MP3 player out in Church.

Orthodox take literally "Lex Orandi, Lex Credenci"
"The rule of prayer is the rule of what is believed."

I had never participate to a novus ordo mass while people dancing,, the church i know here near my house in the morning sunday mass they do a mass without music and in the night they do a mass for the youth with the use of musical instrument and the people i know here but i have never participate with them they dance in the end after they take communion and the priest say the final words.  But also i cannot see any problem with what your are talking about.

   For anyone who has any knowledge and appreciation of historic RCC, what the RCC has become is heartbreaking.

For me the church is becoming better.
The essential question is how as christian should behave towards modernism, sure the position of the catholic church is better then the orthodox church. 

[scamandrius]

I will never lie to you. Under Paul VI and St. John Paul II (I have no devotion to him; I just acknowledge the church's decision), the American Catholic Church stank. Benedict XVI improved the new Mass in English so much. We're actually better off under Francis than we were under Paul or John Paul because Francis is a Jesuit so he doesn't care about liturgy and he doesn't care about English because he doesn't speak it; he only really knows Spanish and Italian.

1)He cares enough to tell those who worship according to the tridentine Rite are rigid or have rigidity and have no place in the Catholic Church.

2)  His Italian isn't even that good.  this pope is the WORST pope in recent memory when it comes to languages. Say what you want about JP II and BXVI but both of them were fluently conversant in many languages. 

[Helladius]

"When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition."
-Saint Paisios

Within the bounds I wrote earlier, I agree.

For anyone who has any knowledge and appreciation of historic RCC, what the RCC has become is heartbreaking.

The Catholic Church in itself hasn't gone bad after Vatican II (our doctrine) but in practice this is largely true. This concern from some Orthodox about the Catholic Church is nice, thanks, but contradictory. Why care about something you've turned your back on and opine has been apostate for centuries? (We don't think Orthodoxy is apostate or even heretical, only in schism from us, and as some Orthodox have written on this board, we don't consider the rite heretical so our caring about it and using it aren't contradictory.) As a Catholic friend told me 20 years ago, if you want to remain Orthodox you'll have to consider us apostates, forgetting about us. Orthodox apologists and ROCOR said pretty much the same. I couldn't.

On the matter of whether much Catholic doctrine has good bad post Vatican II, I think we will have to agree to disagree. And, concerning Catholics en masse not seeing the Orthodox as apostates and heretics, the definitive statement you give is certainly a very modern position, and I doubt it is universally true even now: I have seen traditionalist websites call Orthodox those things, though I agree most modern Catholics (being more liberal than their predecessors) tend to see Orthodox as pretty much "one of us" - but since a considerable number of them likewise see Protestants that way, I'm not sure I feel the full force of that compliment! In past centuries, many/most Catholics did see the Orthodox as apostates, even heretics. I have certainly read early-modern Catholic works that state quite definitive that the Orthodox are heretics/believe heresies, for example John Gerard's account of the Gunpowder Plot goes off at a tangent at one point to list the heretics/heresies the RCC has faced through the centuries, and the Orthodox are listed among them due to our rejection of the filioque (which was disappointing to see). Though, yes, some others "merely" see us as schismatics, such as Gerard's near contemporary, Thomas More. But anyway... as to the rest - why do I care about what is happening to the Roman Catholic Church, and many other Christian confessions?

In some ways, it's as simple as - how could I not? There was so much that was good in historic Roman Catholicism, and to a lesser extent even in many historic Protestant groups. Goodness is goodness and worthy of respect, wherever it is to be found. There are many Catholic figures from past centuries whom I very much admire: Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas More, John Fisher, many of the English missionary priests and recusants of the late sixteenth and early seventh century like Henry Garnett, to name just a few. And likewise Protestants like C.S. Lewis and Eric Liddell. Why would I not be sad when I see what their Churches have become? Churches that had produced such great Christians in whom an Orthodox can find so much to admire. And historic RC worship was very beautiful, and the RCC produced much wonderful music, art, literature. To see all that, in general, degenerate and disintegrate, apart from pockets of traditionalism/conservatism that too often seem fossilised and cold rather than vibrant and full of charity (with exceptions, of course, thank God)... Why would I not be sad to see that? Are you not sad to see the race to the bottom Anglicanism and Episocopalianism, for example, have largely become, even though you are not an Anglican nor Episcopalian?

[Helladius]

I'm really sorry - I didn't mean to double post!!

[scamandrius]

You're both right. LivenotoneviL points out some problems, but youseff wrote what I feel; I don't want to become the judgemental jerk that liberals say conservatives are.

Orthodox take literally "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi"
"The rule of prayer is the rule of what is believed."

So do we. The Novus Ordo by the book has the truth just like my services.

Nothing you can do will ever make them feel differently.  Standing up for the church's tradition and regarding innovations as dangerous and even heretical is not judgmentalism; it is, indeed, more loving than those who want to change the church's liturgy of prayer for more self-indulgent and self-pleasing and self-justifying rituals that put themselves on display.

[youssef]

You're both right. LivenotoneviL points out some problems, but youseff wrote what I feel; I don't want to become the judgemental jerk that liberals say conservatives are.

Orthodox take literally "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi"
"The rule of prayer is the rule of what is believed."

So do we. The Novus Ordo by the book has the truth just like my services.

Nothing you can do will ever make them feel differently.  Standing up for the church's tradition and regarding innovations as dangerous and even heretical is not judgmentalism; it is, indeed, more loving than those who want to change the church's liturgy of prayer for more self-indulgent and self-pleasing and self-justifying rituals that put themselves on display.

Also you are condemming people heart.

[Gorazd]

As a Catholic friend told me 20 years ago, if you want to remain Orthodox you'll have to consider us apostates, forgetting about us.

We do not consider Roman Catholics to be apostates, but heretics. St. Mark of Ephesus made this quite clear.
Also, we do not forget about heretics. We do not pray with them, but we pray for them.

[scamandrius]

You're both right. LivenotoneviL points out some problems, but youseff wrote what I feel; I don't want to become the judgemental jerk that liberals say conservatives are.

Orthodox take literally "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi"
"The rule of prayer is the rule of what is believed."

So do we. The Novus Ordo by the book has the truth just like my services.

Nothing you can do will ever make them feel differently.  Standing up for the church's tradition and regarding innovations as dangerous and even heretical is not judgmentalism; it is, indeed, more loving than those who want to change the church's liturgy of prayer for more self-indulgent and self-pleasing and self-justifying rituals that put themselves on display.

Also you are condemming people heart.

When people are doing things in the church for the love of their own self rather than love for God, yes, I am.  What are you going to do about it?  Just because something is in someone's heart does not give it validity or sanction.

[youssef]

You're both right. LivenotoneviL points out some problems, but youseff wrote what I feel; I don't want to become the judgemental jerk that liberals say conservatives are.

Orthodox take literally "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi"
"The rule of prayer is the rule of what is believed."

So do we. The Novus Ordo by the book has the truth just like my services.

Nothing you can do will ever make them feel differently.  Standing up for the church's tradition and regarding innovations as dangerous and even heretical is not judgmentalism; it is, indeed, more loving than those who want to change the church's liturgy of prayer for more self-indulgent and self-pleasing and self-justifying rituals that put themselves on display.

Also you are condemming people heart.

When people are doing things in the church for the love of their own self rather than love for God, yes, I am.  What are you going to do about it?  Just because something is in someone's heart does not give it validity or sanction.

What they are doing  . people are gathering and praying in the name of Jesus. We can say the same about people going to your traditional mass.

[The young fogey]

I don't necessarily follow traditionalist websites; I follow the church. Brother Nathaniel doesn't speak for you, right? Same thing.

[Mor Ephrem]

I don't necessarily follow traditionalist websites; I follow the church. Brother Nathaniel doesn't speak for you, right? Same thing.

We didn't elect Brother Nathaniel to lead our Church...

[The young fogey]

Doesn't faze me; people have the right to be insipid up to a point. Interesting to hear Argentine Spanish; the accent and pacing are definitely influenced by Italian (the Pope's family name is Bergoglio; he was born to Italian immigrants in the biggest Italian community outside of Italy — sorry, New Jersey).

[xOrthodox4Christx]

I don't necessarily follow traditionalist websites; I follow the church. Brother Nathaniel doesn't speak for you, right? Same thing.

So, no matter how many contradictions and inconsistencies exist, it won't be a problem.

Good to know.

[The young fogey]

I don't necessarily follow traditionalist websites; I follow the church. Brother Nathaniel doesn't speak for you, right? Same thing.

So, no matter how many contradictions and inconsistencies exist, it won't be a problem.

Good to know.

Right. A lot of those sites don't speak for the church.

[LivenotoneviL]

For me really i don't understand people who defend tradition and thinking they are defending the real faith. I have no problem in a novus ordo mass, i prefer to go to a novus ordo mass then to go to a traditional mass. Go on all thing in life change even liturgy they are not puting nude girl  dancing in a novus ordo mass.(it will be cool by the way ).
I don't like the maronite mass but for some different purpose.

I should also point out that certain people such as myself concede that this happened in Renaissance iconography.

[LivenotoneviL]

I love accidentally posting things twice!

[LivenotoneviL]

"When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition."
-Saint Paisios

Within the bounds I wrote earlier, I agree.

For anyone who has any knowledge and appreciation of historic RCC, what the RCC has become is heartbreaking.

The Catholic Church in itself hasn't gone bad after Vatican II (our doctrine) but in practice this is largely true. This concern from some Orthodox about the Catholic Church is nice, thanks, but contradictory. Why care about something you've turned your back on and opine has been apostate for centuries? (We don't think Orthodoxy is apostate or even heretical, only in schism from us, and as some Orthodox have written on this board, we don't consider the rite heretical so our caring about it and using it aren't contradictory.) As a Catholic friend told me 20 years ago, if you want to remain Orthodox you'll have to consider us apostates, forgetting about us. Orthodox apologists and ROCOR said pretty much the same. I couldn't.

Oh well. It's your church, but if you truly want reunion, you guys need to get your stuff together with your liturgy and not allow such selfish atrocities to be the norm.

This includes "Eucharistic ministers," versus populum, instruments, and communion in the hand.

Aren't we supposed to be "ecumenical?" (Not the religious indifferent  understanding mind you?)
And considering the role that the Roman church played in Western Civilization to an extent, and some good things (such as Aquinas's 5 Proofs and founding Oxford University), it's sad to see how apathetic the population of the Roman Catholic Church has become, when it was once a source of similar (although a bit heterodox) theology and stability in moral beliefs.

As Orthodox Patriarch Irinej of Serbia says,
"We care more about the Roman Catholic church. Truth is they introduced many elements into their faith since they broke away from the Orthodox Church. But we believe there is still something sacramental and divine in them. So we care the church keeps its dignity."

[The young fogey]

some good things (such as Aquinas's 5 Proofs and founding Oxford University)

Glad to know we're good for something after all. Seriously, your post reminds me of Newman decades after his conversion writing about the role of the Church of England in his society. Don't tear it down, he wrote; it's keeping England Christian. He and/or other Catholics then said frankly that they couldn't replace the schools, hospitals, and other charities the C of E had then.

"We care more about the Roman Catholic church. Truth is they introduced many elements into their faith since they broke away from the Orthodox Church. But we believe there is still something sacramental and divine in them."

Almost mirroring our view of his communion. OK. But there are Orthodox in good standing who believe we are sacramental frauds.

[LivenotoneviL]

Seriously, your post reminds me of Newman decades after his conversion writing about the role of the Church of England in his society. Don't tear it down, he wrote; it's keeping England Christian.

lol

Almost mirroring our view of his communion. OK. But there are Orthodox in good standing who believe we are sacramental frauds.

https://www.goarch.org/-/the-sacramental-life-of-the-orthodox-church?inheritRedirect=true
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/rcsacs.htm

[The young fogey]

There is still an Evangelical minority in England; churchgoing, very Protestant Anglicans, a drop in the bucket of a very irreligious country (lived there).

[Sharbel]

The Catholic Church in itself hasn't gone bad after Vatican II (our doctrine) but in practice this is largely true.

Indeed, the bad seeds of VII and the foul spirit invoked in its name are to be found in the period preceeding VII.  Otherwise, why would bishops who had known no other liturgy but the one of Trent gift the West with the abhorring Novus Ordo?

[The young fogey]

For most of the church's history we didn't write new services because we didn't know how. Since liturgical studies around the 1800s, now we do. Catholic bishops and priests in the '50s fell for the modern belief in "Progress!" Streamline the services like the new jet planes and the church will get even better! That and some heresy (Annibale Bugnini, for example) produced the Novus Ordo, preserved from error because the Holy Spirit leads the church (I have no problem with the original Latin or the English since 2011) but unfortunate.

[sedevacantist]

The Catholic Church in itself hasn't gone bad after Vatican II (our doctrine) but in practice this is largely true.

Indeed, the bad seeds of VII and the foul spirit invoked in its name are to be found in the period preceeding VII.  Otherwise, why would bishops who had known no other liturgy but the one of Trent gift the West with the abhorring Novus Ordo?

the bad seeds are the non catholic modernist priests that had infiltrated the Church decades before Vatican 2, read Pascendi Pius X...the novus ordo is a protestant service, fact is 6 protestant ministers assisted in it's creation..

[Mor Ephrem]

For most of the church's history we didn't write new services because we didn't know how. Since liturgical studies around the 1800s, now we do. Catholic bishops and priests in the '50s fell for the modern belief in "Progress!" Streamline the services like the new jet planes and the church will get even better! That and some heresy (Annibale Bugnini, for example) produced the Novus Ordo, preserved from error because the Holy Spirit leads the church (I have no problem with the original Latin or the English since 2011) but unfortunate.

The Holy Spirit + some heresy = An unfortunate but acceptable Mass

[The young fogey]

Already answered that: preserved from error because the Holy Spirit leads the church (I have no problem with the original Latin or the English since 2011). Just acknowledging that Bugnini's motive was likely heresy.

[scamandrius]

For most of the church's history we didn't write new services because we didn't know how.

No, they didn't write new services because they humbly accepted what was handed down to them instead of thinking, "Hey, we're smarter than those guys from x years ago so we can do what we want."

[The young fogey]

For most of the church's history we didn't write new services because we didn't know how.

No, they didn't write new services because they humbly accepted what was handed down to them instead of thinking, "Hey, we're smarter than those guys from x years ago so we can do what we want."

That was what made Vatican II a problem.

[MalpanaGiwargis]

Already answered that: preserved from error because the Holy Spirit leads the church (I have no problem with the original Latin or the English since 2011). Just acknowledging that Bugnini's motive was likely heresy.

But what about the 38 years between the promulgation of the original English Novus Ordo and 2011?

[Lepanto]

Again, what is the issue?
After all, since 2007, with SP we have even the written guarantee about which was always evident: The TLM was never "abrogated".
The last bishop of Rome developed the beautiful concept of the Hermeneutic of Continuity.
Unfortunately, there is some fear-mongering in certain trad circles that the current bishop of Rome intends to outlaw or consequently
marginalize the forma extraordinaria. Naturally, this fear is completely unfounded.
The communities of the Latin tradition remain an integral part of the Catholic church, the relatively high number of vocations is proof of that.
We must not play the bad NO vs. good TLM game, as it is only leading to ever more division - the NOM is not going away anytime soon.
We should rather for now just acknowledge the fact that there is almost no chance to see a NO mass really
celebrated according to the rubrics when visiting a random parish.
This is sad, but it is merely a matter of discipline, not so much of liturgy let alone dogma.
It is a moot point whether the NO itself is more susceptible to liturgical abuse.

[Vanhyo]

Again, what is the issue?
After all, since 2007, with SP we have even the written guarantee about which was always evident: The TLM was never "abrogated".
The last bishop of Rome developed the beautiful concept of the Hermeneutic of Continuity.
Unfortunately, there is some fear-mongering in certain trad circles that the current bishop of Rome intends to outlaw or consequently
marginalize the forma extraordinaria. Naturally, this fear is completely unfounded.
The communities of the Latin tradition remain an integral part of the Catholic church, the relatively high number of vocations is proof of that.
We must not play the bad NO vs. good TLM game, as it is only leading to ever more division - the NOM is not going away anytime soon.
We should rather for now just acknowledge the fact that there is almost no chance to see a NO mass really
celebrated according to the rubrics when visiting a random parish.
This is sad, but it is merely a matter of discipline, not so much of liturgy let alone dogma.
It is a moot point whether the NO itself is more susceptible to liturgical abuse.

The Lord, the Holy Spirit is not active in your masses, that is why they look like atheists entertaining parties.

[Lepanto]

Again, what is the issue?
After all, since 2007, with SP we have even the written guarantee about which was always evident: The TLM was never "abrogated".
The last bishop of Rome developed the beautiful concept of the Hermeneutic of Continuity.
Unfortunately, there is some fear-mongering in certain trad circles that the current bishop of Rome intends to outlaw or consequently
marginalize the forma extraordinaria. Naturally, this fear is completely unfounded.
The communities of the Latin tradition remain an integral part of the Catholic church, the relatively high number of vocations is proof of that.
We must not play the bad NO vs. good TLM game, as it is only leading to ever more division - the NOM is not going away anytime soon.
We should rather for now just acknowledge the fact that there is almost no chance to see a NO mass really
celebrated according to the rubrics when visiting a random parish.
This is sad, but it is merely a matter of discipline, not so much of liturgy let alone dogma.
It is a moot point whether the NO itself is more susceptible to liturgical abuse.

The Lord, the Holy Spirit is not active in your masses, that is why they look like atheists entertaining parties.

Well, this is just not true, but replying in more detail will not achieve anything.
I do not know you and I do not play the more polemical games anymore:
For many, it is a nice mental exercise on the internet, anonymous, without real people, without any real personal involvement.
Things start to look very different when you have those problems in your home.

[The young fogey]

Already answered that: preserved from error because the Holy Spirit leads the church (I have no problem with the original Latin or the English since 2011). Just acknowledging that Bugnini's motive was likely heresy.

But what about the 38 years between the promulgation of the original English Novus Ordo and 2011?

All we had to go on was the unchangeability of our teachings and the soundness of the Latin original of the Novus Ordo.

The Lord, the Holy Spirit is not active in your masses, that is why they look like atheists entertaining parties.

I know that's what Orthodoxy teaches, as Fr. Andrew Phillips repeats. I reject it, so I'm not Orthodox.

[Sharbel]

The last bishop of Rome developed the beautiful concept of the Hermeneutic of Continuity.

Unfortunately, there is some fear-mongering in certain trad circles that the current bishop of Rome intends to outlaw or consequently marginalize the forma extraordinaria. Naturally, this fear is completely unfounded.

Pope BXVI's legacy is being torn down at an increasing pace.  By now it should be clear that the Hermeneutics of Rupture has replaced the Hermeneutics of Continuity.  And its corollary is that many bishops around the world are undoing his Summorum Pontificum by forbidding the Vetus Ordo liturgy.

Then again, that's why legalism never fails to fall in its face.  At the end of the day, law is just ink and paper when consent is withdrawn.  Only tradition remains.

[youssef]

Again, what is the issue?
After all, since 2007, with SP we have even the written guarantee about which was always evident: The TLM was never "abrogated".
The last bishop of Rome developed the beautiful concept of the Hermeneutic of Continuity.
Unfortunately, there is some fear-mongering in certain trad circles that the current bishop of Rome intends to outlaw or consequently
marginalize the forma extraordinaria. Naturally, this fear is completely unfounded.
The communities of the Latin tradition remain an integral part of the Catholic church, the relatively high number of vocations is proof of that.
We must not play the bad NO vs. good TLM game, as it is only leading to ever more division - the NOM is not going away anytime soon.
We should rather for now just acknowledge the fact that there is almost no chance to see a NO mass really
celebrated according to the rubrics when visiting a random parish.
This is sad, but it is merely a matter of discipline, not so much of liturgy let alone dogma.
It is a moot point whether the NO itself is more susceptible to liturgical abuse.

The Lord, the Holy Spirit is not active in your masses, that is why they look like atheists entertaining parties.

They tell you that. houw can i contact them to know where they will be active.
I am sure they will not be active in place full of dead bones.

[Lepanto]

The last bishop of Rome developed the beautiful concept of the Hermeneutic of Continuity.

Unfortunately, there is some fear-mongering in certain trad circles that the current bishop of Rome intends to outlaw or consequently marginalize the forma extraordinaria. Naturally, this fear is completely unfounded.

Pope BXVI's legacy is being torn down at an increasing pace.  By now it should be clear that the Hermeneutics of Rupture has replaced the Hermeneutics of Continuity.  And its corollary is that many bishops around the world are undoing his Summorum Pontificum by forbidding the Vetus Ordo liturgy.

Then again, that's why legalism never fails to fall in its face.  At the end of the day, law is just ink and paper when consent is withdrawn.  Only tradition remains.

"Forbidding" the Vetus Ordo liturgy is the very thing that is not admissible:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html

Art. 7.  If a group of the lay faithful, as mentioned in Art. 5, §1, has not been granted its requests by the parish priest, it should inform the diocesan bishop.  The bishop is earnestly requested to satisfy their desire.  If he does not wish to provide for such celebration, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

The two examples you posted are unfortunate, but I really think that it is an exaggeration to claim this means a general "undoing" of SP.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

I'm seriously surprised at some of the absolutely Orwellian apologetics emanating from some on this forum. It's not disconcerting, just really surprising.

[Sharbel]

The two examples you posted are unfortunate, but I really think that it is an exaggeration to claim this means a general "undoing" of SP.

They didn't dare it under Pope BXVI, but feel quite confident to undo Sumorum Pontificum in their local churches right in the first year of the reign of Pope FI.  Of course, what is any general undoing of anything but its undoing in many places?  It has to start somehow and we are seeing it right before our very eyes.  Or at least of those who still have eyes to see.

[Sharbel]

I'm seriously surprised at some of the absolutely Orwellian apologetics emanating from some on this forum. It's not disconcerting, just really surprising.

Yet, untenable.

[Lepanto]

The two examples you posted are unfortunate, but I really think that it is an exaggeration to claim this means a general "undoing" of SP.

They didn't dare it under Pope BXVI, but feel quite confident to undo Sumorum Pontificum in their local churches right in the first year of the reign of Pope FI.  Of course, what is any general undoing of anything but its undoing in many places?  It has to start somehow and we are seeing it right before our very eyes.  Or at least of those who still have eyes to see.

This is the trap of pessimism: Selective perception. You only keep track of the bad news and dismiss signs of hope, such as the Star parish
http://starparish.com/start-here/
or the overall growth of the FSSP:
https://www.fssp.org/en/chiffres.htm

You are right that a general global trend would just consist of many local events.
You are also right that unfortunately, there are still too many examples where the tradition is suppressed,
even by bishops. But if you disregard positive examples altogether, you get a biased picture just the same.

[juliogb]

There was a teacher here in Brazil, of italian origin, Professor Orlando Fedelli, a devout catholic and intelectual that wrote and made lots of lectures and interviews about the errors in the text of the Novus Ordo mass, the protestant and jewish influence over VII and lots of other matters, like the Neocatecumenal Way errors and the idolatric cult that exists or existed within the TFP and the Heralds of the Gospel.

[LivenotoneviL]

Again, what is the issue?
After all, since 2007, with SP we have even the written guarantee about which was always evident: The TLM was never "abrogated".
The last bishop of Rome developed the beautiful concept of the Hermeneutic of Continuity.
Unfortunately, there is some fear-mongering in certain trad circles that the current bishop of Rome intends to outlaw or consequently
marginalize the forma extraordinaria. Naturally, this fear is completely unfounded.
The communities of the Latin tradition remain an integral part of the Catholic church, the relatively high number of vocations is proof of that.
We must not play the bad NO vs. good TLM game, as it is only leading to ever more division - the NOM is not going away anytime soon.
We should rather for now just acknowledge the fact that there is almost no chance to see a NO mass really
celebrated according to the rubrics when visiting a random parish.
This is sad, but it is merely a matter of discipline, not so much of liturgy let alone dogma.
It is a moot point whether the NO itself is more susceptible to liturgical abuse.

The Lord, the Holy Spirit is not active in your masses, that is why they look like atheists entertaining parties.

Well, this is just not true, but replying in more detail will not achieve anything.
I do not know you and I do not play the more polemical games anymore.
For many, it is a nice mental exercise on the internet, anonymous, without real people, without any real personal involvement.
Things start to look very different when you have those problems in your home.

Mmm...that's some delicious Red Herring you got there, mind if I take a bite?

[Lepanto]

Again, what is the issue?
After all, since 2007, with SP we have even the written guarantee about which was always evident: The TLM was never "abrogated".
The last bishop of Rome developed the beautiful concept of the Hermeneutic of Continuity.
Unfortunately, there is some fear-mongering in certain trad circles that the current bishop of Rome intends to outlaw or consequently
marginalize the forma extraordinaria. Naturally, this fear is completely unfounded.
The communities of the Latin tradition remain an integral part of the Catholic church, the relatively high number of vocations is proof of that.
We must not play the bad NO vs. good TLM game, as it is only leading to ever more division - the NOM is not going away anytime soon.
We should rather for now just acknowledge the fact that there is almost no chance to see a NO mass really
celebrated according to the rubrics when visiting a random parish.
This is sad, but it is merely a matter of discipline, not so much of liturgy let alone dogma.
It is a moot point whether the NO itself is more susceptible to liturgical abuse.

The Lord, the Holy Spirit is not active in your masses, that is why they look like atheists entertaining parties.

Well, this is just not true, but replying in more detail will not achieve anything.
I do not know you and I do not play the more polemical games anymore.
For many, it is a nice mental exercise on the internet, anonymous, without real people, without any real personal involvement.
Things start to look very different when you have those problems in your home.

Mmm...that's some delicious Red Herring you got there, mind if I take a bite?

Hm... I do not know exactly what you mean, really.
But please help yourself!

[Fr. George]

Again, what is the issue?
After all, since 2007, with SP we have even the written guarantee about which was always evident: The TLM was never "abrogated".
The last bishop of Rome developed the beautiful concept of the Hermeneutic of Continuity.
Unfortunately, there is some fear-mongering in certain trad circles that the current bishop of Rome intends to outlaw or consequently
marginalize the forma extraordinaria. Naturally, this fear is completely unfounded.
The communities of the Latin tradition remain an integral part of the Catholic church, the relatively high number of vocations is proof of that.
We must not play the bad NO vs. good TLM game, as it is only leading to ever more division - the NOM is not going away anytime soon.
We should rather for now just acknowledge the fact that there is almost no chance to see a NO mass really
celebrated according to the rubrics when visiting a random parish.
This is sad, but it is merely a matter of discipline, not so much of liturgy let alone dogma.
It is a moot point whether the NO itself is more susceptible to liturgical abuse.

The Lord, the Holy Spirit is not active in your masses, that is why they look like atheists entertaining parties.

Well, this is just not true, but replying in more detail will not achieve anything.
I do not know you and I do not play the more polemical games anymore.
For many, it is a nice mental exercise on the internet, anonymous, without real people, without any real personal involvement.
Things start to look very different when you have those problems in your home.

Mmm...that's some delicious Red Herring you got there, mind if I take a bite?

Hm... I do not know exactly what you mean, really.
But please help yourself!

red herring
noun
noun: red herring; plural noun: red herrings

1. a dried smoked herring, which is turned red by the smoke.

2. something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.
"the book is fast-paced, exciting, and full of red herrings"

(Source: dictionary.com)

[Brigidsboy]

"Reversion to Type"

A perspective that might be unpopular with the reigning Pope:

https://ignatiushisconclave.org/2017/08/30/reversion-to-type/

[The young fogey]

There was a teacher here in Brazil, of italian origin, Professor Orlando Fedelli, a devout catholic and intelectual that wrote and made lots of lectures and interviews about the errors in the text of the Novus Ordo mass, the protestant and jewish influence over VII and lots of other matters, like the Neocatecumenal Way errors and the idolatric cult that exists or existed within the TFP and the Heralds of the Gospel.

My preferring and using the old forms doesn't mean I buy every accusation against the Novus Ordo. New services aren't necessarily a good idea but Paul VI's Latin and Benedict XVI's English are the Mass. I know little about the Neocatechumenate; I have no problem with low churchmanship and experimentation as long as you accept our doctrine, and don't tell me I can't be high-church, but it sounds like they go too far, even with their own rite (not approved by the church?). I'm fairly sure the church approves the group. I like a lot about TFP but they're probably too narrow for me; never heard of the Heralds of the Gospel

Brigidsboy: +1. It has a picture of my old stomping grounds, St. Clement's, long that rare, eccentric bird, serious would-be Catholics in the Episcopal Church. Now everybody there who meant that is in fact Catholic (again); they do High Masses around our archdiocese.

[Sharbel]

This is the trap of pessimism: Selective perception. You only keep track of the bad news and dismiss signs of hope, such as the Star parish
http://starparish.com/start-here/
or the overall growth of the FSSP:
https://www.fssp.org/en/chiffres.htm

Less than 500 members and flat number of seminarians...  Not unlike the Tridentine liturgies, whose attendance has remained flat for the last decade.


Considering such smallness of the numbers and anemic growth as signs of hope is the trap of delusion.

[Sharbel]

... I like a lot about TFP...

FWIW, the TFP was declared heretic by the Brazilian bishops in 1985 and forbade Catholics of joining or supporting them (cf.https://is.gd/5zsx6w).

[LivenotoneviL]

Again, what is the issue?
After all, since 2007, with SP we have even the written guarantee about which was always evident: The TLM was never "abrogated".
The last bishop of Rome developed the beautiful concept of the Hermeneutic of Continuity.
Unfortunately, there is some fear-mongering in certain trad circles that the current bishop of Rome intends to outlaw or consequently
marginalize the forma extraordinaria. Naturally, this fear is completely unfounded.
The communities of the Latin tradition remain an integral part of the Catholic church, the relatively high number of vocations is proof of that.
We must not play the bad NO vs. good TLM game, as it is only leading to ever more division - the NOM is not going away anytime soon.
We should rather for now just acknowledge the fact that there is almost no chance to see a NO mass really
celebrated according to the rubrics when visiting a random parish.
This is sad, but it is merely a matter of discipline, not so much of liturgy let alone dogma.
It is a moot point whether the NO itself is more susceptible to liturgical abuse.

The Lord, the Holy Spirit is not active in your masses, that is why they look like atheists entertaining parties.

Well, this is just not true, but replying in more detail will not achieve anything.
I do not know you and I do not play the more polemical games anymore.
For many, it is a nice mental exercise on the internet, anonymous, without real people, without any real personal involvement.
Things start to look very different when you have those problems in your home.

Mmm...that's some delicious Red Herring you got there, mind if I take a bite?

Hm... I do not know exactly what you mean, really.
But please help yourself!

You're trying to derail the debate about the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and what is permitted in it by trying to argue about whether the internet validates or invalidates the content of the argument, or debating whether or not the argument itself is mean in its tone.

It's a fallacious debate tactic, and I'm just pointing it out.

[LivenotoneviL]

Again, what is the issue?
After all, since 2007, with SP we have even the written guarantee about which was always evident: The TLM was never "abrogated".
The last bishop of Rome developed the beautiful concept of the Hermeneutic of Continuity.
Unfortunately, there is some fear-mongering in certain trad circles that the current bishop of Rome intends to outlaw or consequently
marginalize the forma extraordinaria. Naturally, this fear is completely unfounded.
The communities of the Latin tradition remain an integral part of the Catholic church, the relatively high number of vocations is proof of that.
We must not play the bad NO vs. good TLM game, as it is only leading to ever more division - the NOM is not going away anytime soon.
We should rather for now just acknowledge the fact that there is almost no chance to see a NO mass really
celebrated according to the rubrics when visiting a random parish.
This is sad, but it is merely a matter of discipline, not so much of liturgy let alone dogma.
It is a moot point whether the NO itself is more susceptible to liturgical abuse.

The Lord, the Holy Spirit is not active in your masses, that is why they look like atheists entertaining parties.

Well, this is just not true, but replying in more detail will not achieve anything.
I do not know you and I do not play the more polemical games anymore.
For many, it is a nice mental exercise on the internet, anonymous, without real people, without any real personal involvement.
Things start to look very different when you have those problems in your home.

Mmm...that's some delicious Red Herring you got there, mind if I take a bite?

Hm... I do not know exactly what you mean, really.
But please help yourself!

red herring
noun
noun: red herring; plural noun: red herrings

1. a dried smoked herring, which is turned red by the smoke.

2. something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.
"the book is fast-paced, exciting, and full of red herrings"

(Source: dictionary.com)

Thanks, Father.

[Lepanto]

Again, what is the issue?
After all, since 2007, with SP we have even the written guarantee about which was always evident: The TLM was never "abrogated".
The last bishop of Rome developed the beautiful concept of the Hermeneutic of Continuity.
Unfortunately, there is some fear-mongering in certain trad circles that the current bishop of Rome intends to outlaw or consequently
marginalize the forma extraordinaria. Naturally, this fear is completely unfounded.
The communities of the Latin tradition remain an integral part of the Catholic church, the relatively high number of vocations is proof of that.
We must not play the bad NO vs. good TLM game, as it is only leading to ever more division - the NOM is not going away anytime soon.
We should rather for now just acknowledge the fact that there is almost no chance to see a NO mass really
celebrated according to the rubrics when visiting a random parish.
This is sad, but it is merely a matter of discipline, not so much of liturgy let alone dogma.
It is a moot point whether the NO itself is more susceptible to liturgical abuse.

The Lord, the Holy Spirit is not active in your masses, that is why they look like atheists entertaining parties.

Well, this is just not true, but replying in more detail will not achieve anything.
I do not know you and I do not play the more polemical games anymore.
For many, it is a nice mental exercise on the internet, anonymous, without real people, without any real personal involvement.
Things start to look very different when you have those problems in your home.

Mmm...that's some delicious Red Herring you got there, mind if I take a bite?

Hm... I do not know exactly what you mean, really.
But please help yourself!

You're trying to derail the debate about the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and what is permitted in it by trying to argue about whether the internet validates or invalidates the content of the argument, or debating whether or not the argument itself is mean in its tone.

It's a fallacious debate tactic, and I'm just pointing it out.

This is a misunderstanding - that was not my intention.
I replied to Vanhyo who claimed that "the Holy Spirit is not active in your masses".
Naturally, this is a strong statement and not something Catholics like to hear obviously.
But this is an Orthodox board, you got all the property rights and Vanhyo is of course entitled to such an opinion,
so I chose not to engage further, but could not refrain from replying something. No Red Herring tactics.

[Lepanto]

This is the trap of pessimism: Selective perception. You only keep track of the bad news and dismiss signs of hope, such as the Star parish
http://starparish.com/start-here/
or the overall growth of the FSSP:
https://www.fssp.org/en/chiffres.htm

Less than 500 members and flat number of seminarians...  Not unlike the Tridentine liturgies, whose attendance has remained flat for the last decade.


Considering such smallness of the numbers and anemic growth as signs of hope is the trap of delusion.

33 A.D in Jerusalem: The church has probably less than 500 members and very flat number of seminarians - trap of delusion?
What I am trying to get across is that absolute numbers are not the only metric here.
Also seminarians mean potential new priests, a flat number would mean linear growth in the number of priests, which is more than acceptable.

[youssef]

At the end novus ordo is a problem for less then 1 percent of the catholics and more than 99 percent of orthodox.

It is not a question that we are more intelligent then those one who make mass before it is accumulation of knowledge. Now a 18 year old can understand all newton work that doesn't mean he is more inteligent

Also i think many catholics who has problem with novus ordo has problem with the western culture.

[LivenotoneviL]

At the end novus ordo is a problem for less then 1 percent of the catholics and more than 99 percent of orthodox.

It is not a question that we are more intelligent then those one who make mass before it is accumulation of knowledge. Now a 18 year old can understand all newton work that doesn't mean he is more inteligent

Also i think many catholics who has problem with novus ordo has problem with the western culture.

If you equivocate "Western culture" with "religious indifferentism and moral relativism," beliefs which you obviously hold from reading your other posts

For me now for exemple i don't consider one as a true christian today if he is against social right, gender right, homosexual right and the full equality between men and women in the church.

Yes, I have a problem with that. This is a morally wrong view of the world and disgusting heresy.

To say that homosexuality is a natural right and men and women, in the context of a Church community, are 100% equivalent (suggesting the advocation of female priesthood and the abolishment of the sanctity of motherhood) is contradictory to 2000 years worth of Christian Tradition. So much for "bearing your cross" and "defending the Faith," you hypocrite!

But the argument that it is mere cultural differences is an absolute load of......when you consider that the Roman Catholic Church was even stricter than the Orthodox Church when it came to liturgy pre-Vatican II. If you see it as "cultural development," then it is a bad and quite frankly offensive cultural development (I'm not gonna say the Aztecs, who had pagan human sacrifices, are immune from criticism).

I encourage you to read Seraphim Rose and some Mount Athos monks about contemporary Western culture.

[youssef]

At the end novus ordo is a problem for less then 1 percent of the catholics and more than 99 percent of orthodox.

It is not a question that we are more intelligent then those one who make mass before it is accumulation of knowledge. Now a 18 year old can understand all newton work that doesn't mean he is more inteligent

Also i think many catholics who has problem with novus ordo has problem with the western culture.

If you equivocate "Western culture" with "religious indifferentism and moral relativism," beliefs which you obviously hold from reading your other posts

For me now for exemple i don't consider one as a true christian today if he is against social right, gender right, homosexual right and the full equality between men and women in the church.

Yes, I have a problem with that. This is a morally wrong view of the world and disgusting heresy.

To say that homosexuality is a natural right and men and women, in the context of a Church community, are 100% equivalent (suggesting the advocation of female priesthood and the abolishment of the sanctity of motherhood) is contradictory to 2000 years worth of Christian Tradition. So much for "bearing your cross" and "defending the Faith," you hypocrite!

But the argument that it is mere cultural differences is an absolute load of......when you consider that the Roman Catholic Church was even stricter than the Orthodox Church when it came to liturgy pre-Vatican II. If you see it as "cultural development," then it is a bad and quite frankly offensive cultural development (I'm not gonna say the Aztecs, who had pagan human sacrifices, are immune from criticism).

I encourage you to read Seraphim Rose and some Mount Athos monks about contemporary Western culture.

Tradition are there they don't represent the truth or they represent the faith. You can have our own system of belief but it has nothing to do with how the society should work.

I had also say that i think the church has become better after vatican 2.

Always our relation with God was based on accumulation of knowledge from the begining from the old testament and it continue like this.

Western culture had win forget all the critics they are nonsense. They just make me laugh.

[juliogb]

My preferring and using the old forms doesn't mean I buy every accusation against the Novus Ordo. New services aren't necessarily a good idea but Paul VI's Latin and Benedict XVI's English are the Mass. I know little about the Neocatechumenate; I have no problem with low churchmanship and experimentation as long as you accept our doctrine, and don't tell me I can't be high-church, but it sounds like they go too far, even with their own rite (not approved by the church?). I'm fairly sure the church approves the group. I like a lot about TFP but they're probably too narrow for me; never heard of the Heralds of the Gospel

The Heralds of the Gospel are a sort of order that came with a dissidence in TFP, founded by Monsignor João Clá Scognamiglio, their headquarters are not far from my home, they have some sort of castle, have a military style discipline and dress in a medieval style, there are rumours that despite the traditionalist appearance, there are some weird cults to the TFP deceased leader Dr. Plínio Corrêa de Oliveira.

[juliogb]

The headquarters of the Heralds of the Gospel, in Mairiporã, São Paulo, Brazil, they make some military style parades in that courtyard.

[LivenotoneviL]

At the end novus ordo is a problem for less then 1 percent of the catholics and more than 99 percent of orthodox.

It is not a question that we are more intelligent then those one who make mass before it is accumulation of knowledge. Now a 18 year old can understand all newton work that doesn't mean he is more inteligent

Also i think many catholics who has problem with novus ordo has problem with the western culture.

If you equivocate "Western culture" with "religious indifferentism and moral relativism," beliefs which you obviously hold from reading your other posts

For me now for exemple i don't consider one as a true christian today if he is against social right, gender right, homosexual right and the full equality between men and women in the church.

Yes, I have a problem with that. This is a morally wrong view of the world and disgusting heresy.

To say that homosexuality is a natural right and men and women, in the context of a Church community, are 100% equivalent (suggesting the advocation of female priesthood and the abolishment of the sanctity of motherhood) is contradictory to 2000 years worth of Christian Tradition. So much for "bearing your cross" and "defending the Faith," you hypocrite!

But the argument that it is mere cultural differences is an absolute load of......when you consider that the Roman Catholic Church was even stricter than the Orthodox Church when it came to liturgy pre-Vatican II. If you see it as "cultural development," then it is a bad and quite frankly offensive cultural development (I'm not gonna say the Aztecs, who had pagan human sacrifices, are immune from criticism).

I encourage you to read Seraphim Rose and some Mount Athos monks about contemporary Western culture.

Tradition are there they don't represent the truth or they represent the faith. You can have our own system of belief but it has nothing to do with how the society should work.

You're in heresy, from both an Orthodox and Roman Catholic perspective. I don't say that to judge you, I'm just pointing out your blatant and contradictory errors.

From a Roman Catholic perspective, I recommend you read Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors (ideas condemned as heretical).

The following ideas are heresy according to one of your Popes:

"There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice."

"Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations."

"All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind."

"Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. "

"The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth."

"All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object."

"The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself."

"Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true."

"Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation."

"Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God."

"The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization."

"National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established. "

"The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits."

"The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society."

"The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of “exsequatur,” but also that of appeal, called “appellatio ab abusu.""

"In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails."

"The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them."

" The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age."

"The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church."


If you hold any of these beliefs, you are in a state of mortal sin according to the Roman Catholic Church.

Also, I find your post disgusting to say that Tradition doesn't matter. Why should we believe in God at all then? Why trust the Bible at all? The Church? Why believe Christ rose from the dead? All of this is Tradition, right? So why believe it? Is it something God permits arbitrarily?

I also recommend reading the "Heresy of Modernism," condemned by Pope Pius X (an article which I tend to mostly agree with; I don't believe in scholastic philosophy as a solution, but rather a cause)
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html

[LivenotoneviL]

Also, I find your post disgusting to say that Tradition doesn't matter. Why should we believe in God at all then? Why trust the Bible at all? The Church? Why believe Christ rose from the dead? All of this is Tradition, right? So why believe it? Is it something God permits arbitrarily?

That is to say, does God just allow us to pick and choose what we believe in from theological systems? If we can just accept that Tradition can simply be disregarded on a whim based on one's own feelings and opinions, why should we believe you need to believe in God to enter Heaven?

On what criteria can we determine what is Truth, and not be in a state like Pontius Pilate? Is it based on our feelings, our ideas, Sola Scriptura?

No, it is the Church.

For those who war against Christ:

"He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth."
(Matthew 12:30)

"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof."

(Matthew 7:21-27)

[youssef]

First i only represent myself and now i am more closer to roman catholics then orthodox, you did go and search some of my idea.
But from the first when we start our relation of God it was base on accumulation of knowledge, in the old testament people has some differen way to praise God, but this was change, why don't you defend what the people was doing in old testament. So go and destroy all icon and statue.
How we should treat the church father text. In every time we should read them in the context and why they was writing, and build all thing in a way more similar to our culture. I think that it is the way that the catholics church see them today. Defending tradition and that we should keep them it will become like white washing tomb.
The bible is more important then all the church fathef saying, i am not defending sola scriptura here, and Jesus told us to be like children. That idea is so much important for me and how i see thing.
Also you can read love in paul epistle sure this love will accept any form of worship.
We always should had to ask heretical question to progress.
It is an heretics that makes the fire, not the one who will burn on it.

Maybe i should go and read some critics to the age of enlightment and to the scholasticism and laugh a little.

[Jackson02]

If your "vicar of Christ" says that protestant worship is ok, time to reconsider your jurisdiction... or get a new pope.

[youssef]

If your "vicar of Christ" says that protestant worship is ok, time to reconsider your jurisdiction... or get a new pope.

Who am i to say if it is ok or not, go and preach like them it will be better.

[LivenotoneviL]

First i only represent myself and now i am more closer to roman catholics then orthodox, you did go and search some of my idea.
But from the first when we start our relation of God it was base on accumulation of knowledge, in the old testament people has some differen way to praise God, but this was change, why don't you defend what the people was doing in old testament. So go and destroy all icon and statue.
How we should treat the church father text. In every time we should read them in the context and why they was writing, and build all thing in a way more similar to our culture. I think that it is the way that the catholics church see them today. Defending tradition and that we should keep them it will become like white washing tomb.
The bible is more important then all the church fathef saying, i am not defending sola scriptura here, and Jesus told us to be like children. That idea is so much important for me and how i see thing.
Also you can read love in paul epistle sure this love will accept any form of worship.
We always should had to ask heretical question to progress.
It is an heretics that makes the fire, not the one who will burn on it.

Maybe i should go and read some critics to the age of enlightment and to the scholasticism and laugh a little.

If you are fine contradicting what both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic church believe about Tradition and the denial of moral relativism, that is your belief and your soul, unfortunately. I went through a phase of nihilistic morality when I was in high school, and I thank God I escaped it.

Even though you haven't answered my questions posited to you, such as why it is necessary to believe in God or go to Church or receive the Body and Blood of Christ if everything can be changed based on what individuals feel is morally acceptable, I'll posit some other questions to you:

Considering that you critique people who believe in the importance of Tradition using the flawed Pharisee argument, what will you say during the Great Judgment when you will see the martyrs who died for believing in Christ, from Pagan Rome to ISIS? What about those who died defending the icons in Church against the popularity of iconoclasm at that time? (the martyrs of Byzantine iconoclasm)? What will you say to Saint Athanasius, who was persecuted for fighting against Arianism? Or Saint Flavian, who was murdered for accepting Dyophytism? Or Saint Cyprian and Saint Stephen, who debated fiercely about the necessity of rebaptism? Are all of these great and holy saints "white-washed tombs" who died in vain as hypocrites? Your accusing these great and honorable people for dying for even the littlest detail about the Faith as Pharisee-hypocrites, while you yourself are clean of sin, not caring about what you believe in?

And considering we live in an age where immorality is completely acceptable, and to quote Saint Gregory the Great, the Antichrist and his priests are coming, as the end is ever close - how can you call defenders of moral Truth hypocrites?

And you are defending Sola Scriptura, because the Church Fathers and Tradition help us understand what we have to believe in the Bible (e.g., Saint Augustine's comments on Matthew 16:18) - and you believe that the Bible is completely subjective to each individual person against the Authority of the Church, especially in terms of morals.

How can you say the Bible is subject to change, and on whose authority? (contradicting even what your Roman Catholic popes have said?)

As for the change of the obedience towards the works of the law, this is something the Church debated rather fiercely during its early existence - but the Church doesn't establish a New Covenant every time a Patriarch decides to be liberal. It established One New Covenant, which will last forever till the Consummation of the Age and the Last Judgment. Saint John Chrysostom said the following quote: "Is it Tradition? Ask no more."
That is, if it is Tradition, do it - if not, discard it.
https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine-scripture/sources-of-christian-doctrine/tradition
https://oca.org/questions/otherconfessions/orthodox-worship-vs.-contemporary-worship
https://www.goarch.org/-/the-dogmatic-tradition-of-the-orthodox-church
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Holy_tradition_and_the_patristic_consensus

Let me show you a more specific quote from Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior, about lukewarmness:

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou were cold, or hot.
But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth."
(Revelation 3:15-16).

And the Saint Paul I read is much different, especially when he says that pagan idolatry is the same as demonic worship - even if it is out of "love."

"What then? Do I say, that what is offered in sacrifice to idols, is any thing? Or, that the idol is any thing? But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils. You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify. Let no man seek his own, but that which is another's. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat; asking no question for conscience' sake."

1 Corinthians 10:19-25

[LivenotoneviL]

I should also point out Saint Paul on Tradition as well:

1 Corinthians 5:9-10, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6

[youssef]

You are make me saying thing that i didn't say. I will reply when i wake up.

[LivenotoneviL]

You are make me saying thing that i didn't say. I will reply when i wake up.

I'm sorry for my ramblings, I just get carried away with it :/

[Sharbel]

Considering such smallness of the numbers and anemic growth as signs of hope is the trap of delusion.

What I am trying to get across is that absolute numbers are not the only metric here.

In a Church of over 1 billion adherents, the Tridentine liturgy and communities have made no dent at all and have no prospects of even keeping the numbers relative to the overall population, as one grows linearly and the other, exponentially.  All that the Catholic Church has had, has and will have for the foreseeable future is the dreadful Novus Ordo liturgy.  And, since lex orandi lex credenti, it's a foreseeably bleak future.

[Sharbel]

The Heralds of the Gospel are a sort of order that came with a dissidence in TFP, founded by Monsignor João Clá Scognamiglio, their headquarters are not far from my home, they have some sort of castle, have a military style discipline and dress in a medieval style, there are rumours that despite the traditionalist appearance, there are some weird cults to the TFP deceased leader Dr. Plínio Corrêa de Oliveira.

The vicar general of the Heralds of the Gospel was interviewed on EWTN when the friars associated with the network decided to transfer their professed brothers to the Heralds of the Gospel (curiously, EWTN seems to have distanced itself from them lately).  In it, their head spoke lavishly about the importance of the writings of Plinio Correa de Oliveira in their formation.  I couldn't help thinking that the Heralds of the Gospel look like the TFP that managed to get the blessing from Rome, by Pope St. JPII no less, to spread its errors.

[youssef]

You had say,
Considering that you critique people who believe in the importance of Tradition using the flawed Pharisee argument, what will you say during the Great Judgment when you will see the martyrs who died for believing in Christ, from Pagan Rome to ISIS? What about those who died defending the icons in Church against the popularity of iconoclasm at that time? (the martyrs of Byzantine iconoclasm)? What will you say to Saint Athanasius, who was persecuted for fighting against Arianism? Or Saint Flavian, who was murdered for accepting Dyophytism? Or Saint Cyprian and Saint Stephen, who debated fiercely about the necessity of rebaptism? Are all of these great and holy saints "white-washed tombs" who died in vain as hypocrites? Your accusing these great and honorable people for dying for even the littlest detail about the Faith as Pharisee-hypocrites, while you yourself are clean of sin, not caring about what you believe in?

There is 30000 oriental orthodox martyr killed in alexandria by the chalcadonian. Is that one of your tradition that you are proud of.

[youssef]

In every system of belief you have fixed idea that cannot be changed by time but you can add to them by time, and you have what us as human can freely changed it without opposing the fixing idea. Liturgy ia one of he thing that we can change, role of women for me it can change... Did you get my point now.

Where did i defend sola scriptura but i think we all here believe that what Jesus said is more important from what any of the church father sayings.

So stop judging people who are going to novus ordo or any other form and concentrate on your salvation.

[Lepanto]

Considering such smallness of the numbers and anemic growth as signs of hope is the trap of delusion.

What I am trying to get across is that absolute numbers are not the only metric here.

In a Church of over 1 billion adherents, the Tridentine liturgy and communities have made no dent at all and have no prospects of even keeping the numbers relative to the overall population, as one grows linearly and the other, exponentially.  All that the Catholic Church has had, has and will have for the foreseeable future is the dreadful Novus Ordo liturgy.  And, since lex orandi lex credenti, it's a foreseeably bleak future.

Again, it is not about absolute numbers or growth rates or percentages.
I am more than willing to concede that the Church is currently facing some serious problems related to liturgical abuse (among others).
Of course, the tenet lex orandi lex credendi remains true as ever.
However what consequences am I to draw?
Jump ship and leave the true Church just because the future is "foreseeably bleak"?
People have been predicting a "bleak" (or worse) future for the Church for 2000 years, this is not exactly a new idea.
So far, we could cope - HE does not leave his Church to perish.

[youssef]

Considering such smallness of the numbers and anemic growth as signs of hope is the trap of delusion.

What I am trying to get across is that absolute numbers are not the only metric here.

In a Church of over 1 billion adherents, the Tridentine liturgy and communities have made no dent at all and have no prospects of even keeping the numbers relative to the overall population, as one grows linearly and the other, exponentially.  All that the Catholic Church has had, has and will have for the foreseeable future is the dreadful Novus Ordo liturgy.  And, since lex orandi lex credenti, it's a foreseeably bleak future.

Again, it is not about absolute numbers or growth rates or percentages.
I am more than willing to concede that the Church is currently facing some serious problems related to liturgical abuse (among others).
Of course, the tenet lex orandi lex credendi remains true as ever.
However what consequences am I to draw?
Jump ship and leave the true Church just because the future is "foreseeably bleak"?
People have been predicting a "bleak" (or worse) future for the Church for 2000 years, this is not exactly a new idea.
So far, we could cope - HE does not leave his Church to perish.

I had see that in the last 2 years more people are going to church then before here in France. I am now entering to many church found them full in sunday mass.

[Alpo]

I wonder if this is the only instance where Pope Francis has explicitly mentioned magisterial authority?  I haven't read of any other but then again I'm not too knowledgeable of things Catholic.

[LivenotoneviL]

In every system of belief you have fixed idea that cannot be changed by time but you can add to them by time, and you have what us as human can freely changed it without opposing the fixing idea. Liturgy ia one of he thing that we can change, role of women for me it can change... Did you get my point now.

Where did i defend sola scriptura but i think we all here believe that what Jesus said is more important from what any of the church father sayings.

So stop judging people who are going to novus ordo or any other form and concentrate on your salvation.

You stated
"Tradition are there they don't represent the truth or they represent the faith. You can have our own system of belief but it has nothing to do with how the society should work. "

Maybe I misunderstood you or you said something that you didn't mean to say, maybe due to a language barrier, but to say Tradition doesn't represent the faith and to say that society should be completely severed from Christian morality are two concepts that I honestly think aren't compatible with Christianity.

The Bible itself is Tradition.

And the whole idea of "changing things over time" I don't think is applicable to what you have placed under your umbrella of "Tradition." You cannot equivocate a hymn or two to homosexuality as a concept in terms of what is able to be changed, nor can the same be said about several elements about Liturgy.

To separate the Liturgy from the Faith is a foolish idea, and to say it is something that should have no standards whatsoever is inherently wrong.

Although I'm not fond for using such tactics, let me use an extreme to demonstrate a point. Let's say that someone decided to perform a Novus Ordo mass, but they decided to wear Satanic robes, destroy images of the saints, and to use a piece of bread which has a Pentagram in it, and, as you put it, decided to have a naked woman on top of the altar. Is this acceptable? Isn't liturgy simply disciplinary, not linked to the faith, and can be changed at any time whatsoever? Following your logic, how is this morally unacceptable?

The Novus Ordo has allowed so much flexibility that disrespectful act have been permitted and promulgated. Up until the 60s for example, NOBODY was allowed to touch the eucharist except the priest in the Roman church, and every time he touched it he had to wash his hands with a form of holy water because - in line with Orthodox Tradition - it would be seen as disrespectful, due to the belief in the literal presence. One simply has to read Thomas Aquinas to figure this out. All of sudden, one council changed it instantaneously, and anybody can touch the eucharist as much as they want, and the liturgy logically makes no sense (why does the priest need to wash his hands if ANYBODY can tough it as much as they want)?

The whole idea of dressing up in a costume to church would bring about scandal in your church - One of my first times going to an Orthodox Church for example, still used to the standards of the Novus Ordo, I decided to wear shorts to Church, and people still are traumatized in my Church by it, and they constantly bring it up to me. Just the other day I was talking with a friend about short sleeved shirts in Church, and a guy I know came up to me and said "well, it is better to come to Church wearing a short sleeve shirt than the shorts you used to wear." Now imagine how they would react if I came in wearing Native American garments - they would forbid me from coming to Church. The Roman church was similar in their belief on the importance of standards in the liturgy, but not anymore:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpJzE-7GBjU

The fact that this was even an idea, and it is an idea which has occurred more than once around the world is disgusting to me. People aren't scandalized in church at all by this idolatry (a clear moral action which is banned by both the New Testament and the Old Testament, see my Saint Paul quote).

And it isn't my church, but considering that the word "ecumenism" has been shoved down my throat unceasingly by your church, and you guys are constantly trying to conflate the Orthodox Church and the Roman church together as the same church with the same beliefs, if you want ANY prospect of reunion, there should be some standards of respect for liturgy, otherwise we will take these sacrileges as offensive.

As for the common "Do not judge" argument, I recommend you read John Chrysostom when asked about what Christ meant by this:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200123.htm

And I am not at all judging you, dude. I myself probably committed much worse sins than you have in the past.

P.S. You haven't at all answered ANY of the questions I directly asked you. Admittedly they were caught in walls of text, but you still haven't answered them.

[Lepanto]

In every system of belief you have fixed idea that cannot be changed by time but you can add to them by time, and you have what us as human can freely changed it without opposing the fixing idea. Liturgy ia one of he thing that we can change, role of women for me it can change... Did you get my point now.

Where did i defend sola scriptura but i think we all here believe that what Jesus said is more important from what any of the church father sayings.

So stop judging people who are going to novus ordo or any other form and concentrate on your salvation.

You stated
"Tradition are there they don't represent the truth or they represent the faith. You can have our own system of belief but it has nothing to do with how the society should work. "

Maybe I misunderstood you or you said something that you didn't mean to say, maybe due to a language barrier, but to say Tradition doesn't represent the faith and to say that society should be completely severed from Christian morality are two concepts that I honestly think aren't compatible with Christianity.

The Bible itself is Tradition.

And the whole idea of "changing things over time" I don't think is applicable to what you have placed under your umbrella of "Tradition." You cannot equivocate a hymn or two to homosexuality as a concept in terms of what is able to be changed, nor can the same be said about several elements about Liturgy.

To separate the Liturgy from the Faith is a foolish idea, and to say it is something that should have no standards whatsoever is inherently wrong.

Although I'm not fond for using such tactics, let me use an extreme to demonstrate a point. Let's say that someone decided to perform a Novus Ordo mass, but they decided to wear Satanic robes, destroy images of the saints, and to use a piece of bread which has a Pentagram in it, and, as you put it, decided to have a naked woman on top of the altar. Is this acceptable? Isn't liturgy simply disciplinary, not linked to the faith, and can be changed at any time whatsoever? Following your logic, how is this morally unacceptable?

The Novus Ordo has allowed so much flexibility that disrespectful act have been permitted and promulgated. Up until the 60s for example, NOBODY was allowed to touch the eucharist except the priest in the Roman church, and every time he touched it he had to wash his hands with a form of holy water because - in line with Orthodox Tradition - it would be seen as disrespectful, due to the belief in the literal presence. One simply has to read Thomas Aquinas to figure this out. All of sudden, one council changed it instantaneously, and anybody can touch the eucharist as much as they want, and the liturgy logically makes no sense (why does the priest need to wash his hands if ANYBODY can tough it as much as they want)?

The whole idea of dressing up in a costume to church would bring about scandal in your church - One of my first times going to an Orthodox Church for example, still used to the standards of the Novus Ordo, I decided to wear shorts to Church, and people still are traumatized in my Church by it, and they constantly bring it up to me. Just the other day I was talking with a friend about short sleeved shirts in Church, and a guy I know came up to me and said "well, it is better to come to Church wearing a short sleeve shirt than the shorts you used to wear." Now imagine how they would react if I came in wearing Native American garments - they would forbid me from coming to Church. The Roman church was similar in their belief on the importance of standards in the liturgy, but not anymore:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpJzE-7GBjU

The fact that this was even an idea, and it is an idea which has occurred more than once around the world is disgusting to me. People aren't scandalized in church at all by this idolatry (a clear moral action which is banned by both the New Testament and the Old Testament, see my Saint Paul quote).

And it isn't my church, but considering that the word "ecumenism" has been shoved down my throat unceasingly by your church, and you guys are constantly trying to conflate the Orthodox Church and the Roman church together as the same church with the same beliefs, if you want ANY prospect of reunion, there should be some standards of respect for liturgy, otherwise we will take these sacrileges as offensive.

As for the common "Do not judge" argument, I recommend you read John Chrysostom when asked about what Christ meant by this:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200123.htm

And I am not at all judging you, dude. I myself probably committed much worse sins than you have in the past.

P.S. You haven't at all answered ANY of the questions I directly asked you. Admittedly they were caught in walls of text, but you still haven't answered them.

+1
Very well said.

[Iconodule]

My preferring and using the old forms doesn't mean I buy every accusation against the Novus Ordo. New services aren't necessarily a good idea but Paul VI's Latin and Benedict XVI's English are the Mass. I know little about the Neocatechumenate; I have no problem with low churchmanship and experimentation as long as you accept our doctrine, and don't tell me I can't be high-church, but it sounds like they go too far, even with their own rite (not approved by the church?). I'm fairly sure the church approves the group. I like a lot about TFP but they're probably too narrow for me; never heard of the Heralds of the Gospel

The Heralds of the Gospel are a sort of order that came with a dissidence in TFP, founded by Monsignor João Clá Scognamiglio, their headquarters are not far from my home, they have some sort of castle, have a military style discipline and dress in a medieval style, there are rumours that despite the traditionalist appearance, there are some weird cults to the TFP deceased leader Dr. Plínio Corrêa de Oliveira.

That's really creepy. But pretty much what you'd expect from an organization calling itself "Tradition, Family, Property."

[youssef]

What are your question that i didn't replied.

You had ask me what i should say to the martyr i answer in the same way what you will say to the 30000 martyr killing by your tradition. For an exemple.

But you can put your auestion again.

Stop talking about homosexuality and other stuff it is not our subject concentrate on the novus ordo. I know that maybe if you have the power you will go and kill them.

What chrysostom say about no judge it is a bit contradictory. Are you sure you have nothing in your eye.

[LivenotoneviL]

What are your question that i didn't replied.

You had ask me what i should say to the martyr i answer in the same way what you will say to the 30000 martyr killing by your tradition. For an exemple.

But you can put your auestion again.

Stop talking about homosexuality and other stuff it is not our subject concentrate on the novus ordo. I know that maybe if you have the power you will go and kill them.

What chrysostom say about no judge it is a bit contradictory. Are you sure you have nothing in your eye.

"Also, I find your post disgusting to say that Tradition doesn't matter. Why should we believe in God at all then? Why trust the Bible at all? The Church? Why believe Christ rose from the dead? All of this is Tradition, right? So why believe it? Is it something God permits arbitrarily?....Does God just allow us to pick and choose what we believe in from theological systems? If we can just accept that Tradition can simply be disregarded on a whim based on one's own feelings and opinions, why should we believe you need to believe in God to enter Heaven?"

"What will you say during the Great Judgment when you will see the martyrs who died for believing in Christ, from Pagan Rome to ISIS? What about those who died defending the icons in Church against the popularity of iconoclasm at that time? (the martyrs of Byzantine iconoclasm)? What will you say to Saint Athanasius, who was persecuted for fighting against Arianism? Or Saint Flavian, who was murdered for accepting Dyophytism? Or Saint Cyprian and Saint Stephen, who debated fiercely about the necessity of rebaptism? Are all of these great and holy saints "white-washed tombs" who died in vain as hypocrites? Your accusing these great and honorable people for dying for even the littlest detail about the Faith as Pharisee-hypocrites, while you yourself are clean of sin, not caring about what you believe in, ow can you call defenders of moral Truth hypocrites?"

"How can you say the Bible is subject to change, and on whose authority? (contradicting even what your Roman Catholic popes have said?)"


You've only given one answer to the "Tradition" argument, but the answer is flawed because murderers and their actions aren't commemorated in services - let ask you a question: Do the Eastern Orthodox or the Roman Catholics for that matter honor these murderers in their divine services? Is it part of either tradition?


I still find it very disturbing that you can dismiss Saint John Chrysostom and his teachings like that, believing your novel and nontraditional beliefs to be superior, and through direct implication, calling him a Hypocrite.

And you brought up the topic of homosexuality when you said that to be a True Christian one needs to allow homosexuality, and I am simply explaining how you are completely incorrect - in fact, you are the complete opposite of correct.

And honestly, I find you to be more of a Pharisee than I am: "If you disagree with me, my opinion which disagrees with the Church and the Bible, then you want to kill people."

Did I ever say that homosexuals should be killed? I'm sympathetic towards people who have such tendencies - especially those who decide to hang on to the Faith and follow through on it despite the cross they must bear.

Apparently the only form of argumentation you liberals adhere to - a form of strawman argumentation - if you disagree with me, you are just a murderer and oppressor in the closet and you should be stopped.

This same logic is what has caused Antifa to become so violent - they want to suppress anybody who holds a different belief than their cognitively inflexible worldview, believing that anybody who disagrees with them is actually a Fascist in disguise.

[youssef]

For me i had reply to all of them. Did i open the subject of homosexuality here.
I had say to you that some doctrine are fixed they cannot change, and some depend on a cultural issue that we are free to changed at it doesn't contradict the fixed doctrine. So what the catholic church did in novus ordo doesn't contradict fixed doctrine.

Your church is responsible for the 30000 martyrs that i mention and other also killed by your church not any one else.
The catholics church has exused for many of their fault till now that is good, you didn't fo that yet. Some of the killer are consider saint.

Where did i say that the bible is able to change our understanding can change by accumulation of knowledge.

Now i know that you will not kill people but many traditional will do it. Why must of the traditional are white people by the way.

[Asteriktos]

There is 30000 oriental orthodox martyr killed in alexandria by the chalcadonian. Is that one of your tradition that you are proud of.

To what does this refer?

[youssef]

There is 30000 oriental orthodox martyr killed in alexandria by the chalcadonian. Is that one of your tradition that you are proud of.

To what does this refer?

After the council of chalchadonia and the egyptian refuse it you had 30000 martyr in alexandria by the chalcadonian.
Is it part of the church tradition?

[scamandrius]

 Are you sure you have nothing in your eye.

Are you?

[youssef]

 Are you sure you have nothing in your eye.

Are you?

There is plenty of thing, i am not judging any christian or non christian living today.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

There is 30000 oriental orthodox martyr killed in alexandria by the chalcadonian. Is that one of your tradition that you are proud of.

To what does this refer?

After the council of chalchadonia and the egyptian refuse it you had 30000 martyr in alexandria by the chalcadonian.
Is it part of the church tradition?

Romans accept that "tradition" too. And the Roman Catholic Church sine Eastern Orthodox have killed a lot more people in history. So, I don't see where you're going with that.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

 Are you sure you have nothing in your eye.

Are you?

There is plenty of thing, i am not judging any christian or non christian living today.

Oh great sinless one! Please entreat Christ our God to save us.

[youssef]

There is 30000 oriental orthodox martyr killed in alexandria by the chalcadonian. Is that one of your tradition that you are proud of.

To what does this refer?

After the council of chalchadonia and the egyptian refuse it you had 30000 martyr in alexandria by the chalcadonian.
Is it part of the church tradition?

Romans accept that "tradition" too. And the Roman Catholic Church sine Eastern Orthodox have killed a lot more people in history. So, I don't see where you're going with that.

Many time i had say that i represent just my self, now in 2017 i am more closer to the catholics then the orthodox.

[youssef]

 Are you sure you have nothing in your eye.

Are you?

There is plenty of thing, i am not judging any christian or non christian living today.

Oh great sinless one! Please entreat Christ our God to save us.

Ok 

[scamandrius]

 Are you sure you have nothing in your eye.

Are you?

There is plenty of thing, i am not judging any christian or non christian living today.

Your posts say otherwise.  #sorrynotsorry

[youssef]

 Are you sure you have nothing in your eye.

Are you?

There is plenty of thing, i am not judging any christian or non christian living today.

Your posts say otherwise.  #sorrynotsorry

No the post are just reply to other post, they don't reflect clearly what i am think. I am just using the same way of argument.

[youssef]

Lepanto do you see the novus ordo mass valid or not?

[Sharbel]

I am more than willing to concede that the Church is currently facing some serious problems related to liturgical abuse (among others).
Of course, the tenet lex orandi lex credendi remains true as ever.
However what consequences am I to draw?
Jump ship and leave the true Church just because the future is "foreseeably bleak"?...

That the Roman Church is ill and perhaps terminally ill when the "source and summit" of her worship is hardly it.  Yes, the Church will go on, but Christianity has for all purposes died completely in some corners of the world where it used to thrive, even patriarchal sees.  Rome might as well join them.

The question is, if the Roman Church is ill, why is she?

I had see that in the last 2 years more people are going to church then before here in France. I am now entering to many church found them full in sunday mass.

Apparently from foreign immigration, so, in order to fill up churches in France, churches went empty elsewhere.

[youssef]

Here in paris most of the foreigner have their own mass in a church using their native language or like the maronite who have their own church who are always full bui i don't go there. These church are full of France people and african.

[youssef]

Here in paris most of the foreigner have their own mass in a church using their native language or like the maronite who have their own church who are always full bui i don't go there. These church are full of France people and african.

Also my observation is just in 4 churches in Paris so i can not say that it will be the same in other cburch.

[Asteriktos]

There is 30000 oriental orthodox martyr killed in alexandria by the chalcadonian. Is that one of your tradition that you are proud of.

To what does this refer?

After the council of chalchadonia and the egyptian refuse it you had 30000 martyr in alexandria by the chalcadonian.
Is it part of the church tradition?

Part of church history you mean? I'm not sure either way as I am largely unfamiliar with it.

[youssef]

There is 30000 oriental orthodox martyr killed in alexandria by the chalcadonian. Is that one of your tradition that you are proud of.

To what does this refer?

After the council of chalchadonia and the egyptian refuse it you had 30000 martyr in alexandria by the chalcadonian.
Is it part of the church tradition?

Part of church history you mean? I'm not sure either way as I am largely unfamiliar with it.

No i meant part of it tradition . Even the oriental orthodox here will not able to say that it didn't happen. Ask Mina

[Vanhyo]

There is 30000 oriental orthodox martyr killed in alexandria by the chalcadonian. Is that one of your tradition that you are proud of.

Maybe you mean by the Byzantine empire ? In the Orthodox Church priests are absolutely forbidden from participating in killings.

[LivenotoneviL]

My bad on the whole homosexuality issue, you brought it up elsewhere and I brought it up here, thinking for some reason you brought it up here.

[youssef]

There is 30000 oriental orthodox martyr killed in alexandria by the chalcadonian. Is that one of your tradition that you are proud of.

Maybe you mean by the Byzantine empire ? In the Orthodox Church priests are absolutely forbidden from participating in killings.

Who accept something it is like participate on it. No difference for me.

[youssef]

My bad on the whole homosexuality issue, you brought it up elsewhere and I brought it up here, thinking for some reason you brought it up here.

Me as liberal christian i am with the legalisation of same sex marriage because every group of people living in a country should have rights since this right doesn't hurt any one. What this subject has to do here.

[LivenotoneviL]

My bad on the whole homosexuality issue, you brought it up elsewhere and I brought it up here, thinking for some reason you brought it up here.

Me as liberal christian i am with the legalisation of same sex marriage because every group of people living in a country should have rights since this right doesn't hurt any one. What this subject has to do here.

It doesn't on this particular forum, and I'm sorry for bringing it up - it was pride on my part. I might of conflated your post elsewhere to this thread, but I think it was most likely pride. Although I still think you are wrong on the issue, and I will not give you that - but that's for another thread.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

For most of the church's history we didn't write new services because we didn't know how. Since liturgical studies around the 1800s, now we do. Catholic bishops and priests in the '50s fell for the modern belief in "Progress!" Streamline the services like the new jet planes and the church will get even better! That and some heresy (Annibale Bugnini, for example) produced the Novus Ordo, preserved from error because the Holy Spirit leads the church (I have no problem with the original Latin or the English since 2011) but unfortunate.

Infallible Church flopped on the fallible Mass.

[Lepanto]

Being in New England on a business trip, I went to a random NO mass today - actually my first mass in English 
It was refreshing to see the huge number of families with young children attending.
Also - within the bounds of the Novus Ordo - no liturgical experiments!
The only real downer was the apparently inevitable applause for the choir within the liturgy.
The homily was one of the best I heard in a while: The priest exclusively talked about the resurrection, first of Christ and then our´s. Can you believe that? Just resurrection, only briefly mentioning Las Vegas (in this context). No "we have to preserve creation, save the environment and fight for human rights" bla-bla at all.
So overall, things seem to be in much better shape here than in large parts of the (Middle) Europe I know.

Summary: If the changes are *sigh* irreversible on the grand scale of things - which in my opinion they indeed are -
then I would prefer to see what I saw in the U.S. today. This is not the "mass of all times", but nowadays, one has to make do and be thankful for what we have.

[Alpo]

The priest exclusively talked about the resurrection, first of Christ and then our´s. Can you believe that? Just resurrection, only briefly mentioning Las Vegas (in this context). No "we have to preserve creation, save the environment and fight for human rights" bla-bla at all.

As if these were mutually exclusive or the latter was useless. We actually do have to preserve Creation, save the enviroment, fight for Human Rights and I'd like to hear more homilies on those.

[Lepanto]

The priest exclusively talked about the resurrection, first of Christ and then our´s. Can you believe that? Just resurrection, only briefly mentioning Las Vegas (in this context). No "we have to preserve creation, save the environment and fight for human rights" bla-bla at all.

As if these were mutually exclusive or the latter was useless. We actually do have to preserve Creation, save the enviroment, fight for Human Rights and I'd like to hear more homilies on those.

But of course, they are important. But those are not at the core of liturgy, there are other places where they
should be dealt with in closer detail. I do not object to a priest casually mentioning those or even making them the topic of a homily occasionally.
However, in my experience, indeed these are mutually exclusive. The "save the world" - part is growing at the cost of the other parts of liturgy all too often, ignoring the fact that we will not be able to save ourselves, let alone the world, fully on our own, without HIS grace.
The Catholic Church much too often reduces itself to a community which aims at perfecting society, with a social mission, to protect the environment and help the poor. Nothing wrong with that. However, it just falls way too short. Each attempt trying to establish paradise on Earth with human means only so far ended in a disaster.