TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

[KnightofChrist]

4 minutes ago, Mercedes said:

It was never about the TLM itself but the fomenting of anti OF and VII goals.  Where that isn't happening in a TLM group there is no need to restrict it.

That's simply not so. Traditionis Custodes makes clear that the intention is in time to only have the NO, and no EF at all. Should TC be fully implemented it would slowly choke out the EF. 

[Ash Wednesday]

There was one bishop here in the UK that enforced the MP straight away, but most have not shown interest in changing anything. Britain is very secular but as far as church is concerned they are culturally pretty reserved in their style of worship and historically tended to be favorable to traditional liturgies, with an early indult granted to England and Wales in 1971. Agatha Christie among others signed the petition and Paul VI apparently recognized her name. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie_indult

[Peace]

52 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

That's simply not so. Traditionis Custodes makes clear that the intention is in time to only have the NO, and no EF at all. Should TC be fully implemented it would slowly choke out the EF. 

I'd say you are correct, but I wouldn't be surprised if PF and subsequent popes let the TLM go to the extent that the anti-V2 trads quiet down. If too many of these groups keep moaning and complaining about V2 and the NO, then the war rages on I think.

14 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

There was one bishop here in the UK that enforced the MP straight away, but most have not shown interest in changing anything. Britain is very secular but as far as church is concerned they are culturally pretty reserved in their style of worship and historically tended to be favorable to traditional liturgies, with an early indult granted to England and Wales in 1971. Agatha Christie among others signed the petition and Paul VI apparently recognized her name. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie_indult

What did the UK bishop do? One day a parish had the TLM, the next day it did not, sort of a thing?

I'd be willing to bet that my diocese is one of the most pro-TLM dioceses in the US, if not the most.

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Ash Wednesday said:

There was one bishop here in the UK that enforced the MP straight away, but most have not shown interest in changing anything. Britain is very secular but as far as church is concerned they are culturally pretty reserved in their style of worship and historically tended to be favorable to traditional liturgies, with an early indult granted to England and Wales in 1971. Agatha Christie among others signed the petition and Paul VI apparently recognized her name. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie_indult

I doubt the Church would be in as a big of mess today if the Agatha Christie indult, even with the 65', 67' revisions, had been the blueprint in the creation of the NO.

Sadly, according to Traditionis Custodes, no other liturgical books other than those of Saints Paul VI and John Paul II are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. All other previous norms, instructions, permissions, and customs, are abrogated. TC nukes more just the TLM.

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2021 by KnightofChrist

[Ash Wednesday]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

What did the UK bishop do? One day a parish had the TLM, the next day it did not, sort of a thing?

There was a community in Glastonbury that was allowed the mass that Sunday and I think that was it. But it wasn't a large diocese teeming with traditional communities to begin with, as the bishop generally did not favor them as it was already.

[Peace]

So one thing I learned from the MP is that the "Roman Canon" (Eucharistic Prayer I) is almost exactly the same as the TLM (not said in Latin obviously).

I've always felt like the TLM and the NO were pretty similar, and perhaps this is the reason why. Basically in the churches I attend, the priests almost always seem to select Eucharistic Prayer 1. I rarely if ever hear the other ones.

Apparently that is not the norm though, I am learning. Outside of my own little Catholic bubble, apparently in the NO the Roman Canon is barely used? Or are other people finding that the Roman Canon is the commonly selected option, too?

Edited July 23, 2021 by Peace

[MIKolbe]

5 hours ago, Peace said:

I've always felt like the TLM and the NO were pretty similar,

I think Benedict XVI said in his MP that the OF and EF are different forms of the one Mass. Maybe there's something to that?

 

5 hours ago, Peace said:

Apparently that is not the norm though, I am learning. Outside of my own little Catholic bubble, apparently in the NO the Roman Canon is barely used? Or are other people finding that the Roman Canon is the commonly selected option, too?

I prefer the Roman Canon and I wish priests would use it more. Our priests at my parish normally pray with EP 2 or 3. They will pray with the Roman Canon about 15% of the time. I can't remember the last time I heard EP 4.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, MIKolbe said:

I think Benedict XVI said in his MP that the OF and EF are different forms of the one Mass. Maybe there's something to that?

 

I prefer the Roman Canon and I wish priests would use it more. Our priests at my parish normally pray with EP 2 or 3. They will pray with the Roman Canon about 15% of the time. I can't remember the last time I heard EP 4.

Well yeah I would say that they feel like different forms of the same rite.

Yesterday one of the trads in my Young Adult group posted this article in our chat group:

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5486-dr-kwasniewski-on-traditionis-custodes-worst-papal-document-in-history

I simply do not understand the logic of speaking about the pope with that type of contempt. What do they think is going to happen? What did they think was gonna result after having harshly disrespecting and rebelling against literally everything PF has had to say the past 10 years? It's like your a thief, you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar then all of a sudden you are like "Who? Me? I did nothing."

Edited July 23, 2021 by Peace

[MIKolbe]

yes.. no one suffers as they suffer...

 

But then maybe that's (and I'm) part of the problem. We see "us" and "them", and there is only "us".

[KnightofChrist]

 

Dear Holy Father, dear bishops: A plea from young traditional Catholics worldwide

 

[fides' Jack]

On 7/23/2021 at 8:09 AM, Peace said:

I simply do not understand the logic of speaking about the pope with that type of contempt.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.  

I can't speak for everyone, but I do not have any contempt for PF.  I believe, after a number of things happen, he's either going to turn around and join the traditionalists, or he's going to be dead and the Church will be without a pope for a short time.  I pray and hope for the former.

On 7/23/2021 at 8:09 AM, Peace said:

What did they think was gonna result after having harshly disrespecting and rebelling against literally everything PF has had to say the past 10 years?

I don't think that's a fair statement.  As one of "them", I've made a point to bring up in conversation (perhaps not here so much) when PF has said good things, as he often has in regards to abortion.

Still, it's clear he's an anti-pope.  I submit to his authority, in respect for his office.  When I go outside of that, it's because he has disrespected his own office by going against God and the Church.  Of course, it's not very often that I'm able to distinguish when that is.  I try to err on the side of obedience.  But there are times, even already today, when obedience to the bishop and to the pope is not called for.  And those times will become more and more frequent as time goes on, for a while, at least.

On 7/23/2021 at 8:28 AM, MIKolbe said:

yes.. no one suffers as they suffer...

 

But then maybe that's (and I'm) part of the problem. We see "us" and "them", and there is only "us".

We are all part of the problem.

This is happening because of sin.

On 7/23/2021 at 12:18 AM, Peace said:

I've always felt like the TLM and the NO were pretty similar, and perhaps this is the reason why.

I've found it very interesting that even in other rites (byzantine, ruthenian, ukranian - those are the ones I've seen), you can always identity the most basic parts of Mass, which the NO does a good job of outlining: namely the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.  In all of them that I've seen the most basic structure is still the same, and in the same order.  It's something that I believe has been the same since the Apostles.

[Peace]

23 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Still, it's clear he's an anti-pope.  I submit to his authority, in respect for his office.  When I go outside of that, it's because he has disrespected his own office by going against God and the Church.  Of course, it's not very often that I'm able to distinguish when that is.  I try to err on the side of obedience.  But there are times, even already today, when obedience to the bishop and to the pope is not called for.  And those times will become more and more frequent as time goes on, for a while, at least.

So when he agrees with you, you submit to his "authority" but when he disagrees with you he's the anti-pope? It sounds a bit like this my friend:

Quote

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

 

Not exactly a good look.

[fides' Jack]

10 hours ago, Peace said:

So when he agrees with you, you submit to his "authority" but when he disagrees with you he's the anti-pope?

First, not THE anti-pope - whatever that is.  Just AN anti-pope.  Still pope, though, unless proper authority proves otherwise, and I wouldn't even know what that would look like.

This whole thing is a false accusation, and one often levied against those who do truly love the Church and conform themselves to the teachings of the Church.  But I understand that's what you really see is happening.  And if the pope told you to murder your mother, would you submit to his authority?  Or would you take it on your own conscience to determine that you know better?  I'm asking honestly, this is not just a rhetorical question.

It's just a matter of where you draw the line.  I would not reject his authority unless I were absolutely 100% certain that he has rejected the teachings of the Church - which he has, multiple times now.

And it's also a heresy to say that the pope can never fall and that we are morally-bound to everything he says.

It's just a matter of where you draw the line...

[Mercedes]

35 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

First, not THE anti-pope - whatever that is.  Just AN anti-pope.  Still pope, though, unless proper authority proves otherwise, and I wouldn't even know what that would look like.

This whole thing is a false accusation, and one often levied against those who do truly love the Church and conform themselves to the teachings of the Church.  But I understand that's what you really see is happening.  And if the pope told you to murder your mother, would you submit to his authority?  Or would you take it on your own conscience to determine that you know better?  I'm asking honestly, this is not just a rhetorical question.

It's just a matter of where you draw the line.  I would not reject his authority unless I were absolutely 100% certain that he has rejected the teachings of the Church - which he has, multiple times now.

And it's also a heresy to say that the pope can never fall and that we are morally-bound to everything he says.

It's just a matter of where you draw the line...

Catholics have expressed this attitude towards papal authority over the last 60 or 70 years.  They are called 'cafeteria' Catholics who simply pick and choose what they will submit too according to their own desires.

[Peace]

8 hours ago, Mercedes said:

Catholics have expressed this attitude towards papal authority over the last 60 or 70 years.  They are called 'cafeteria' Catholics who simply pick and choose what they will submit too according to their own desires.

Bingo.

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

First, not THE anti-pope - whatever that is.  Just AN anti-pope.  Still pope, though, unless proper authority proves otherwise, and I wouldn't even know what that would look like.

This whole thing is a false accusation, and one often levied against those who do truly love the Church and conform themselves to the teachings of the Church.  But I understand that's what you really see is happening.  And if the pope told you to murder your mother, would you submit to his authority?  Or would you take it on your own conscience to determine that you know better?  I'm asking honestly, this is not just a rhetorical question.

It's just a matter of where you draw the line.  I would not reject his authority unless I were absolutely 100% certain that he has rejected the teachings of the Church - which he has, multiple times now.

And it's also a heresy to say that the pope can never fall and that we are morally-bound to everything he says.

It's just a matter of where you draw the line...

When Pope Francis tells you or me to murder our mothers, I will be right here protesting with you.

Yes, conscience plays a role, but I think you are abusing it to essentially replace the pope's judgment with your own judgment , with respect to literally every issue. You seemingly will not give assent to any issue, unless it already conforms to your own own understanding of what the Church "really" teaches. Thus, for all practical purposes you seem to be your own pope. Pope Francis is only a bit of a mascot of sorts that you pull out as a prop when he happens to agree with you.

Now that is a serious charge but why do I think that? Because you and others have come on this forum and moaned and complained about him being wrong on this issue or that issue, but when others such as myself have challenged your assertion, you have been utterly incapable of objectively demonstrating that what PF said contradicts the teaching of the church. Almost all of your objections have fallen into gray areas, we are not talking about murdering infants. It's like the Holy Spirit prompted you to conclude that the footnote in Amoris was heresy.

Of course you cannot see that. Why? Perhaps the plank is obstructing your view, my friend.

You've basically publicly accused Pope Francis of being a heretic. Again, not a good look, especially for a layperson. Let a bishop do that, if it needs to be done.

*not like the Holy Spirit . . .*