Traditionis custodes and the tridentine mass.

[poptart]

I'll just leave this here, real curious what the traditionalists here have to say.  Isn't this one way schisms can start?

Quick edit on my part, posted the wrong link.  

Traditionis custodes - Wikipedia

 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by poptart

[JustAnAustralian]

That went way over my head within the first paragraph. Is there a dumbed-down explanation for someone like me that doesn't know anything about different forms of Catholic masses?

Edited July 17, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Metis_LDS]

I did not know this was a Catholic board.

[poptart]

14 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

That went way over my head within the first paragraph. Is there a dumbed-down explanation for someone like me that doesn't know anything about different forms of Catholic masses?

Francis reimposes restrictions on Latin Mass, reversing decision of Pope Benedict | National Catholic Reporter (ncronline.org)

The Tridentine Mass, aka the Latin Mass is what parishes used pre Vatican II.  Under Benedict priests were allowed to use the old form, needless to say it exploded in popularity.  There are parishes out there that do the Latin Mass exclusively, the few i've been to were usually packed full of young families.  They are a sight to behold, for me it was one of the most awe inspiring things i'd ever seen religion wise, I'll post a video of one for those who have no idea what it is. 

Anyway, Pope Francis just cancelled all that, people are already throwing fits on social media and elsewhere.  Part of me can see why he did this, like with a lot of things conservative Catholics have not only been a real thorn in his side, they're not exactly the most Christ like.  As it is the Catholic Church is losing people, mostly over politics.  The Evangelicals are learning that lesson the hard way, when you alienate those who aren't as privileged as you are, people not only leave they often times end up political enemies at the polls.  My experience with Christianity growing up was pretty bad here, as was moms.  First thing we noticed when we came to the lower 48s when I was 13, they're quite a bit more selfish, racist, etc.  The place I went to for a bit was no different, privileged suburbanites who had no compassion for the least of these nor those different from themselves, sadly a lot of traditionalists in this country are that way, at least that's been the experience myself and many others have had.  That and politics is why the "nones" are exploding numbers wise, we've had it.  Bishop Barron has had more than a few talks on this, Pope Francis is keenly aware of this.  People take for granted just how nice he's been, he even said last year American Catholics need to be concerned with other things besides abortion like care for the poor, social justice etc.  Considering what the US council of Bishops just pulled at the reaction from a lot of people here I think Pope Francis may have had it.  Guess we'll see.  Either way, this will be quite the spectacle.  

 

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

I did not know this was a Catholic board.

I had hoped to discuss this, but it does not seem appropriate for this forum.

Poptart...Hi. Ask it be moved to the "In The News" forum.

By the way, that Mass that you posted from the SSPX is being held in the former refectory of the Jesuits who once had a seminary there. It looks okay on video, but the acoustics are terrible, and the low ceiling has a floor above it. Occasionally, during the school year, you can hear footsteps up there on weekday Masses. It has been only a tolerable and "temporary" home since a fire devastated the church in the 70's. Sunday sung masses are no longer held in the refectory/chapel. It only holds about 500 people. We are now in the auditorium until the new church can be built. It is going up fast and we are told that we will celebrate our last Holy Week without a real church building in 2022. You can see the progress being made here: https://www.anewimmaculata.org/watch

We live three houses to the west of that white house in the background. Heh. Great times. Anyway, I'll save discussion of the subject matter until we get the thread moved or an assurance that it is okay in here. Thanks for putting this out there!

Rory

 

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by 3DOP

[MiserereNobis]

1) This isn’t a Catholic board, so I’ll not say much. I see Rory is typing, and I’m sure he’ll do a good job explaining. 
 

2) Ugh. 
 

3) Popes are not infallible. This is an administrative decision, not a doctrinal one. 
 

4) The Bishop of the diocese where I attend has already reached out to my parish (FSSP) and said there will be no change for us. 
 

5) Ugh. 

[JustAnAustralian]

Very interesting now you've explained the practicalities of it.

How do you feel this has been/will be taken compared to something like female ordination or performing same sex marriages, both of which I've seen cause schisms in other religious denominations.
 

Edited July 17, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

I did not know this was a Catholic board.

This is a board that is blessed with a couple of devout Catholics who are willing to help others understand them and their faith better…which in turn can help others look at their own faith in new ways and thus lead to a more meaningful experience for them. 
 

So multiple reasons why I think this a great question/discussion. 

Edited July 18, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

I am wondering if a comparison could be drawn between using live actors in the temple rite and moving from room to room as originally designed to the more simplified, universal recorded presentation temple rite and how many members who had access to the live rite were upset when it was stopped while others treated it as if more spiritual or meaningful than the typical temple rite. 
 

Does that work or is there a fundamental difference?

Might work better if we had a choice of which endowment dialogue version we could use…

Edited July 18, 2021 by Calm

[Metis_LDS]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

This is a board that is blessed with a couple of devout Catholics who are willing to help others understand them and their faith better…which in turn can help others look at their own faith in new ways and thus lead to a more meaningful experience for them. 

Yes okay, but please ask that they remove the following. 

General Discussions

For topics and discussions concerning LDS Doctrine, History, Geography, etc... Please stay on topic all off topic posts will be moved/deleted.

[Calm]

It is part of the etc….

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It seems to me that their are several parallels here. From leadership infallibility, to doctrinal changes etc. Certainly more than some topics around here. 

[RBoylan]

On the topic of the Mass, I have a book on the topic (about 265 pages) addressing the various dogmas of the Mass (e.g., Transubstantiation; Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice; Concomittance; Eucharistic adoration/veneration):

 

"Do This In Memory of Me": A Biblical and Historical Analysis of Roman Catholic Dogmatic Teachings Concerning the Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass

 

It uses the Bible and patristic literature as evidence. It is largely a response to what I think is the best book on the topic from the RC perspective, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (2d ed.) by Robert Sungenis, though I also interact with the likes of Patrick Madrid, Brant Pitre, et al.

 

It is available on Lulu and Amazon, but I would love to send it to anyone for free (PDF version); you can contact me at ScripturalMormonismATGmailDOTCom.

[poptart]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

It is part of the etc….

That's what I thought hence why I posted this here.   How about this, if no one has any issues with this let's keep it here, if not move the thread to in the news. 

 

[3DOP]

45 minutes ago, poptart said:

That's what I thought hence why I posted this here.   How about this, if no one has any issues with this let's keep it here, if not move the thread to in the news. 

 

Poptart,

Given the interest shown by some and even argument in favor of your thread here, I feel comfortable discussing it now. If someone wishes that we do not do so, they should take it to the moderators for final decision. We get more traffic here which is why I would rather it be here if it is within the parameters of the forum according to the moderators. For now, I will assume that it is. More to come...🙂

Edited July 18, 2021 by 3DOP

[poptart]

32 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Poptart,

Given the interest shown by some and even argument in favor of your thread here, I feel comfortable discussing it now. If someone wishes that we do not do so, they should take it to the moderators for final decision. We get more traffic here which is why I would rather it be here if it is within the parameters of the forum according to the moderators. For now, I will assume that it is. More to come...🙂

Ok, let's keep it here then.

[3DOP]

I think I will begin with an examination of the explanation given in the "Rome Reports" shared with us by Poptart.

Beginning at about the 26 second mark the narrator mentions three characteristics of the Traditional Latin Mass as she observes it:

1) The priest speaks quietly.

In the Eastern Rite churches, the priest goes behind a screen when he enters the true holy of holies to mediate for the assembly as did the Jewish high priest who entered alone behind the veil on behalf of the people. The Roman Rite is a little less dramatic, but equally effective gestures, postures, and words demonstrate that the priest is praying those prayers silently, which he alone as a priest, is ordained to pray with authority, the very words of the Son of God. The Church has always wanted to show that the Old Covenant is analogous to the New Covenant. The silence, or use of a screen helps us to remember that from the beginning, God's plan has involved a priestly hierarchy and the faithful ought to lovingly embrace God's economy of salvation.

After the singing or saying of the threefold Sanctus there is an abrupt silence, which signals that something new and mysterious is coming soon. Heaven is coming to earth, God is descending for us and the angels observe with loving awe, the goodness of their God to man. While silence reigns for not more than two minutes, we hear a single bell rung. Almost immediately we see Father bent over the altar. We know he is now not speaking as a man, but by the will of God, the words that Christ spoke in the upper room, before His agony. We know what will happen next. The priest will adoringly genuflect before our God and Saviour, under the humble appearance of bread, and then raise Him high for all of us to see, and likewise adore, while the bell rings three more times. 

Catholic churches have been doing this for nearly two thousand years. It has only been in the last sixty years that some try to make it seem like an insult to the faithful that these words are said in silence. It is such a gross misunderstanding of the reasons why the liturgies both in the East and the West have developed as they have over the centuries. And yet this heavenly hush that invites one to greater attention to the mystery at hand, is cited often, as a reason to get rid of that nasty, people-hating Mass of the bad old days! Those Catholics who think they hate the Traditional Mass, are usually those who do not even understand it. They have been taught to misunderstand it by the reasons put forth for the reforms of the New Rite. Many want to impose a Protestant-like liturgy that diminishes the grandeur of the ordained priesthood and magnifies the priesthood of all believers. The consecration of the Holy Eucharist is a terribly inappropriate moment to diminish the ordained priesthood. But this is what the New Mass (Novus Ordo) does. Through word and act, the New Mass makes it seem like the faithful are essential to a valid Mass. By the action of the priest and faithful in the liturgy, the Church teaches her doctrine. It is subtle, but I would suggest that the New Mass teaches false doctrine by making this "reform" that makes the priest say the words of Christ aloud and eliminating these poignant moments of silence. It contributes to a loss of appreciation for the ordained priesthood. It makes Catholics forget that Holy Mother Church has nurtured souls from cradle to grave as the centuries have rolled on, and to make it seem like she hadn't been solicitous for her children, and merely wanted to elevate the priests and prelates at the expense of the dignity of the faithful. It is scandalous.  

2) The priest wears gloves?

In the clip provided by Rome Reports, the narrator notices bishops ordaining priests and wearing gloves while he carries his mitre and apparently assumes that all priests wear gloves while celebrating Mass! She should have done a little more homework. A bishop wears his gloves only when celebrating what is called, a pontifical Mass. There is a ceremony before the Sacrifice begins where the priest or bishop washes their hands with water as a token of the knowledge of his own personal unworthiness to act as it were, as another Christ, when saying the words of consecration. This act of humility requires bishops to remove their gloves as explained here:

"Liturgical gloves (chirothecœ, called also at an earlier date manicœ, wanti,) are a liturgical adornment reserved for bishops and cardinals. Other ecclesiastics, including abbots, cannot use them without a special papal privilege. They are worn only at a pontifical Mass, never at any other function, and then only to the washing of the hands before the Sacrifice."

---https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06589a.htm 

3) The priest faces away from the assembly.   

Once again, this makes it seem like the priest is disdaining the people. That is not the case at all. In the New Mass, the priest has to face the assembly, instead of His Creator, present behind the priest in the Tabernacle. Who is the priest praying to in this scenario, God or the people? It is wildly inappropriate for the priest to be praying with his back turned to the One to whom he is supposedly praying. I suggest that this liturgical defect in the New Mass contributes to a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about the Real Presence of Christ in consecrated hosts after Mass. Polls show as well as actions that Catholics are losing their faith in the Real Presence. My son was told by a priest to stop genuflecting so much when he was a Novus Ordo altar server. This priest preferred a quick and cursory bob of the head, when passing the altar, instead of the traditional custom of taking a knee (genuflecting) before our King. It is well known that Pope Francis never genuflects. This could be attributed to health issues of course. But for me, I have wondered about it ever since I saw a video of the pope, falling to his knees and kissing the feet of about a half dozen politicians to whom he must have been favorably impressed. It seemed excessive. I don't know the circumstances. But if we should kiss the feet of worldly leaders, maybe Catholics would do well to at least merely genuflect before Christ, who we say is really physically present, and in near proximity? Given what we say we believe, is genuflecting excessive for those enjoying the good health to do so?

This is the first pope ordained a priest with the new liturgy. He has never known the Traditional Latin Mass. We Traditionalists need to remember that we have in Francis, a Catholic whose very formation had been distorted as he prepared for his ordination. We might have expected this. This is the fruit of the New Mass. A pope who kisses politician's feet, and walks past the Tabernacle where Christ is present, without bending his knee.

Thanks for your interest,

3DOP                     

Edited July 18, 2021 by 3DOP

[Spammer]

IMO the controversy boils down to the question of which Magisterium is to be trusted. That which reformed the liturgy following Trent or that which reformed the liturgy at Vatican II? Except there’s really only one Magisterium, not two, and the same authority made both reforms. What’s the basis for deciding when the Magisterium’s decisions about liturgy are or aren’t valid? If the Magisterium can go astray like that, that implies a higher authority, a final arbiter in matters of worship to sort things out. Right? Who is that arbiter?

Edited July 18, 2021 by Spammer

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I think I will begin with an examination of the explanation given in the "Rome Reports" shared with us by Poptart.

Beginning at about the 26 second mark the narrator mentions three characteristics of the Traditional Latin Mass as she observes it:

1) The priest speaks quietly.

In the Eastern Rite churches, the priest goes behind a screen when he enters the true holy of holies to mediate for the assembly as did the Jewish high priest who entered alone behind the veil on behalf of the people. The Roman Rite is a little less dramatic, but equally effective gestures, postures, and words demonstrate that the priest is praying those prayers silently, which he alone as a priest, is ordained to pray with authority, the very words of the Son of God. The Church has always wanted to show that the Old Covenant is analogous to the New Covenant. The silence, or use of a screen helps us to remember that from the beginning, God's plan has involved a priestly hierarchy and the faithful ought to lovingly embrace God's economy of salvation.

After the singing or saying of the threefold Sanctus there is an abrupt silence, which signals that something new and mysterious is coming soon. Heaven is coming to earth, God is descending for us and the angels observe with loving awe, the goodness of their God to man. While silence reigns for not more than two minutes, we hear a single bell rung. Almost immediately we see Father bent over the altar. We know he is now not speaking as a man, but by the will of God, the words that Christ spoke in the upper room, before His agony. We know what will happen next. The priest will adoringly genuflect before our God and Saviour, under the humble appearance of bread, and then raise Him high for all of us to see, and likewise adore, while the bell rings three more times. 

Catholic churches have been doing this for nearly two thousand years. It has only been in the last sixty years that some try to make it seem like an insult to the faithful that these words are said in silence. It is such a gross misunderstanding of the reasons why the liturgies both in the East and the West have developed as they have over the centuries. And yet this heavenly hush that invites one to greater attention to the mystery at hand, is cited often, as a reason to get rid of that nasty, people-hating Mass of the bad old days! Those Catholics who think they hate the Traditional Mass, are usually those who do not even understand it. They have been taught to misunderstand it by the reasons put forth for the reforms of the New Rite. Many want to impose a Protestant-like liturgy that diminishes the grandeur of the ordained priesthood and magnifies the priesthood of all believers. The consecration of the Holy Eucharist is a terribly inappropriate moment to diminish the ordained priesthood. But this is what the New Mass (Novus Ordo) does. Through word and act, the New Mass makes it seem like the faithful are essential to a valid Mass. By the action of the priest and faithful in the liturgy, the Church teaches her doctrine. It is subtle, but I would suggest that the New Mass teaches false doctrine by making this "reform" that makes the priest say the words of Christ aloud and eliminating these poignant moments of silence. It contributes to a loss of appreciation for the ordained priesthood. It makes Catholics forget that Holy Mother Church has nurtured souls from cradle to grave as the centuries have rolled on, and to make it seem like she hadn't been solicitous for her children, and merely wanted to elevate the priests and prelates at the expense of the dignity of the faithful. It is scandalous.  

2) The priest wears gloves?

In the clip provided by Rome Reports, the narrator notices bishops ordaining priests and wearing gloves while he carries his mitre and apparently assumes that all priests wear gloves while celebrating Mass! She should have done a little more homework. A bishop wears his gloves only when celebrating what is called, a pontifical Mass. There is a ceremony before the Sacrifice begins where the priest or bishop washes their hands with water as a token of the knowledge of his own personal unworthiness to act as it were, as another Christ, when saying the words of consecration. This act of humility requires bishops to remove their gloves as explained here:

"Liturgical gloves (chirothecœ, called also at an earlier date manicœ, wanti,) are a liturgical adornment reserved for bishops and cardinals. Other ecclesiastics, including abbots, cannot use them without a special papal privilege. They are worn only at a pontifical Mass, never at any other function, and then only to the washing of the hands before the Sacrifice."

---https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06589a.htm 

3) The priest faces away from the assembly.   

Once again, this makes it seem like the priest is disdaining the people. That is not the case at all. In the New Mass, the priest has to face the assembly, instead of His Creator, present behind the priest in the Tabernacle. Who is the priest praying to in this scenario, God or the people? It is wildly inappropriate for the priest to be praying with his back turned to the One to whom he is supposedly praying. I suggest that this liturgical defect in the New Mass contributes to a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about the Real Presence of Christ in consecrated hosts after Mass. Polls show as well as actions that Catholics are losing their faith in the Real Presence. My son was told by a priest to stop genuflecting so much when he was a Novus Ordo altar server. This priest preferred a quick and cursory bob of the head, when passing the altar, instead of the traditional custom of taking a knee (genuflecting) before our King. It is well known that Pope Francis never genuflects. This could be attributed to health issues of course. But for me, I have wondered about it ever since I saw a video of the pope, falling to his knees and kissing the feet of about a half dozen politicians to whom he must have been favorably impressed. It seemed excessive. I don't know the circumstances. But if we should kiss the feet of worldly leaders, maybe Catholics would do well to at least merely genuflect before Christ, who we say is really physically present, and in near proximity? Given what we say we believe, is genuflecting excessive for those enjoying the good health to do so?

This is the first pope ordained a priest with the new liturgy. He has never known the Traditional Latin Mass. We Traditionalists need to remember that we have in Francis, a Catholic whose very formation had been distorted as he prepared for his ordination. We might have expected this. This is the fruit of the New Mass. A pope who kisses politician's feet, and walks past the Tabernacle where Christ is present, without bending his knee.

Thanks for your interest,

3DOP                     

Thank you for your thoughts. I find this discussion interesting and enlightening:)

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, poptart said:

Ok, let's keep it here then.

Yes, please keep it here. I think there is something here for all of us to learn, whatever our religion:)

[3DOP]

45 minutes ago, Spammer said:

IMO the controversy boils down to the question of which Magisterium is to be trusted. That which reformed the liturgy following Trent or that which reformed the liturgy at Vatican II? Except there’s really only one Magisterium, not two, and the same authority made both reforms. What’s the basis for deciding when the Magisterium’s decisions about liturgy are or aren’t valid? If the Magisterium can go astray like that, that implies a higher authority, a final arbiter in matters of worship to sort things out. Right? Who is that arbiter?

Hi Spammer, good to see you with your two dollars (inflation).

If Vatican II is supposed to be infallibly true, Joseph Smith was right about the Catholic Church in 1830 which was at that time proclaiming from the housetops that the ideas promulgated by that Council were already false according to Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church and especially the Roman Pontiffs were imperatively denying key doctrines that Vatican II accepted. Especially in regard to true religious liberty and ecumenism. Last week was the feast of St. Henry. He is just one of many good patrons and matrons of the Church who in their status as king and queen, supported the rights of the Catholic Church against heresies. How does one say that this is okay if the Apostles would have disapproved of them, as the Vatican II on religious liberty implies? It would demonstrate apostasy.

This is what LDS claims have done for me and why this thread could have potential interest to the LDS. The Catholic cannot admit such gross discontinuity between the present and past without the Restorationist coming along and showing them their problems. Any well informed LDS could shred claims of any Vatican II Catholic that the Catholic Church is the one true church...in my opinion.

Maybe that doesn't answer your question? I don't admit that Trent and Vatican II are both infallible.

Sorry to not clean this up a little better. I have to run.

Rory

Edited July 18, 2021 by 3DOP

[poptart]

27 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Spammer, good to see you with your two dollars (inflation).

If Vatican II is supposed to be infallibly true, Joseph Smith was right about the Catholic Church in 1830 which was at that time proclaiming from the housetops that the ideas promulgated by that Council were already false according to Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church and especially the Roman Pontiffs were imperatively denying key doctrines that Vatican II accepted. Especially in regard to true religious liberty and ecumenism. Last week was the feast of St. Henry. He is just one of many good patrons and matrons of the Church who in their status as king and queen, supported the rights of the Catholic Church against heresies. How does one say that this is okay if the Apostles would have disapproved of them, as the Vatican II on religious liberty implies? It would demonstrate apostasy.

This is what LDS claims have done for me and why this thread could have potential interest to the LDS. The Catholic cannot admit such gross discontinuity between the present and past without the Restorationist coming along and showing them their problems. Any well informed LDS could shred claims of any Vatican II Catholic that the Catholic Church is the one true church...in my opinion.

Maybe that doesn't answer your question? I don't admit that Trent and Vatican II are both infallible.

Sorry to not clean this up a little better. I have to run.

Rory

Your Scholarship is impressive, I had figured the reason why the Orthodox went behind the screen first.  My own grudges and politics aside, nothing compares to the Latin Mass, it is perfect.  I look forward to your further posts, I am humbled and grateful for you sharing this with us.  

[Spammer]

46 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Spammer, good to see you with your two dollars (inflation).

If Vatican II is supposed to be infallibly true, Joseph Smith was right about the Catholic Church in 1830 which was at that time proclaiming from the housetops that the ideas promulgated by that Council were already false according to Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church and especially the Roman Pontiffs were imperatively denying key doctrines that Vatican II accepted. Especially in regard to true religious liberty and ecumenism. Last week was the feast of St. Henry. He is just one of many good patrons and matrons of the Church who in their status as king and queen, supported the rights of the Catholic Church against heresies. How does one say that this is okay if the Apostles would have disapproved of them, as the Vatican II on religious liberty implies? It would demonstrate apostasy.

This is what LDS claims have done for me and why this thread could have potential interest to the LDS. The Catholic cannot admit such gross discontinuity between the present and past without the Restorationist coming along and showing them their problems. Any well informed LDS could shred claims of any Vatican II Catholic that the Catholic Church is the one true church...in my opinion.

Maybe that doesn't answer your question? I don't admit that Trent and Vatican II are both infallible.

Sorry to not clean this up a little better. I have to run.

Rory

Hey Rory. You’re very generous but my perspective is worth 2 cents after the inflation adjustment.

It seems to me that critics of Vatican 2 consider some elements of Catholic worship, e.g. facing East and silence, to be apostolic, part of the Deposit of Faith,  and therefore dogmatic. Yes? My question is who decides whether facing East is apostolic? Is it due to its venerability, perhaps because it can be found in the church fathers? St Basil would agree (see his ‘On the Holy Spirit’ for the earliest patristic reference to it I’m aware of) but he’s 4th century. Who decides Basil is right in every point? He’s one Bishop. What’s the basis for deciding what is and isn’t apostolic in the order of Christian worship? This is precisely what’s at issue I think. Who gets the final say if not the bishops and pope in communion meeting in an ecumenical council?

Edited July 18, 2021 by Spammer

[MiserereNobis]

Hi all. I will respond in depth to this issue, but I'm not quite ready yet. I'm still digesting this papal declaration and its short and long term implications. It's the long term implications that are most distressing. I want to be able to give an objective overview of the issue at hand and then give my thoughts on it. I'm not quite sure I'm ready to be objective yet, though. I've actually had a difficult weekend with this. Today's Mass was bittersweet. The priest actually teared up during the homily as he discussed obedience, sacrifice, and devotion to Holy Mother Church, with this papal decree as the context.

The most basic issue here is that the pope has severely limited the ability of priests to celebrate the traditional sacraments, including the traditional Latin mass. It appears that in the long term he wishes for the traditional sacraments to go away completely.

I think it's important for you to know that 3DOP (Rory) and I are both traditional Catholics. I say this because our views on this particular papal decree are going to be heavily influenced because of it. This motu proprio directly affects traditional Catholics.

Generally speaking, a traditional Catholic sees problems with the Second Vatican Council and the reforms in the Church that followed it, especially with the liturgy. Now there is a spectrum of traditional Catholicism. On one side, there are Catholics who prefer the traditional sacraments and who see problems with the council and the reforms, but believe that these problems can and will be cleared up. On the far other side, there are Catholics who believe that the council was invalid, the new sacraments are invalid, and that Pope Francis is not the pope because there is no pope currently.

I identify more with the first part of the spectrum. I'll let Rory say where he is, if he is so inclined. If you want to do some googling, I attend an FSSP parish, while Rory attends an SSPX chapel.

Again, I point this out so that you can put in context where we are coming from. For the average Catholic, this papal declaration will change very little, though I have spoken with Catholics who are not traditional Catholics who see the Pope's actions here as problematic and even a little cruel. This progressive Pope who speaks of tolerance slammed the traditional Catholic community with the full hammer of his authority, quite contrary to the way he has dealt with openly defiant and heretical actions taken by progressive Catholics, like some German bishops, in that he did nothing at all to them.

Ugh, see, this is why I need to sit with this awhile longer and pray for more grace, patience, and understanding. I promise I will get back to you, though.

+PAX+

Jesse

 

Edited July 19, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, Spammer said:

Hey Rory. You’re very generous but my perspective is worth 2 cents after the inflation adjustment.

It seems to me that critics of Vatican 2 consider some elements of Catholic worship, e.g. facing East and silence, to be apostolic, part of the Deposit of Faith,  and therefore dogmatic. Yes? My question is who decides whether facing East is apostolic? Is it due to its venerability, perhaps because it can be found in the church fathers? St Basil would agree (see his ‘On the Holy Spirit’ for the earliest patristic reference to it I’m aware of) but he’s 4th century. Who decides Basil is right in every point? He’s one Bishop. What’s the basis for deciding what is and isn’t apostolic in the order of Christian worship? This is precisely what’s at issue I think. Who gets the final say if not the bishops and pope in communion meeting in an ecumenical council?

You will let me know if I have missed your point. We had Trivia Night down at the auditorium this evening. We made third place out of over forty teams. What a hoot! Mrs. 3DOP is amazing. She carried us. But we were encouraged to support our church's young people's group that was sponsoring the event by consuming food and beverages at a cost above what would be ordinary. Well, I obeyed. Especially when it came to gins and tonic. I was eager to get home and see what transpired here, and hope what follows reflects less gin and more tonic. As for the Fathers and St. Basil, I thought it was a consensus of the Fathers, (not necessarily unanimity), that brings weight to the apostolicity of a position.  

Next week beginning tomorrow morning will be a little crazy. Mrs. 3DOP of trivia fame will be babysitting the grandchildren of our oldest daughter while her sixth baby is induced tomorrow. After that, she will be probably holding the latest grandchild a lot for a few days. In the meantime, I am supposed to feed cats, water the plants, work my usual ten hours, feed myself, become 65 years old on Wednesday, and bear many other associated crosses with joy during this period when I am left without my beloved helpmate. I may be less responsive than I would like in the next few days. Heh. Anyway, here goes late on Sunday night.

------   

Facing east can be apostolic without being dogmatic. Facing God seems to me to be apostolic AND dogmatic. The problem isn't that the Novus Ordo priest is facing west, or north, or south, but that in whatever direction the Tabernacle is located, the priest turns away from God towards the people. I am not defending silence as apostolic. I defend audio silence as well as the Eastern screening of any visible actions of the priest as appropriate and well-advised, and a venerable accepted practice, while those who oppose the Old Rite insist that the silence in the West shows that the Roman Rite Church has for generation after generation despised the priesthood of all believers in favor of the ordained clergy. These Western haters of Tradition haven't even realized in their ecumenical zeal, that the East has been much worse, (if one accepts that the people need to hear and see everything), in its displays of disdain for the people. 

I think there should be a desire to face east, where and when it is practical. I think there should be a desire to baptize by immersion, where and when it is practical. The Church has never taught that these ideals must always be met for a valid Sacrament. To the rising sun in the east is practically ideal, but not dogmatically necessary. In the place where I currently worship, that is considered by many to be crazy radical in its insistence on Tradition, we face south. The church burned down. We meet in the old refectory and east doesn't work there. We are deliberately facing east as we build the New Immaculata. We adhere to what is symbolically ideal without insisting that it is dogmatic.

Surely, the bishops and pope in communion meeting in an ecumenical council would oridnarily trump the opinion of 3DOP. But we have had hints from heaven (latter-day prophesy) that have foretold that the faithful might need to be prepared in our times for a Catholic hierarchy that is "diabolically disoriented". It is not merely my opinion, which gives me confidence that it is okay to pity the current apparent pope and his creepy prelates in their sad anti-Catholicism. It is the Church of the first 250 plus popes who never had the faithless fantasies of the current apparent successor of St. Peter which give me confidence that Jorge Bergoglio, who I assume to be Pope Francis, cannot be on the right track. If Francis could be right, the Church was still wrong as late as when people who are still living were born, like me, during the reign of Pope Pius XII.         

Prayers, regards, and always good to see you Spammer.

Rory