For PSPX and Catholic Crusader

[Brother Adam]

Here is our thread.

In the thread you can share why you think the current leadership and teachings of VII are deadly wrong, I'll read everything you want me to, link me or copy and paste, and we'll talk about it. I'll admit I haven't read everything there is to read by any means. Perhaps here we can sort things out a little bit.

[CatholicCrusader]

The problems aren't so much with the actual documents of Vatican II themselves (there are some troubling spots), but mostly with what people now consider "orthodox" mearly because the Pope or someone in the hierarchy does or supports it.

Let us begin, however, with the Mass, which was not called for by Vatican II but which did end up being revolutionized.

First, have you ever been to a Traditional Mass? If so, good. If not, please find the text to it online. (http://www.unavoce.org/ttmass.htm)

OK, now look over the prayers at the foot of the Altar. These were removed from the new Mass. Why? It seems clear to me: they are clear about a Priest making a Sacrifice on an Altar. That is something that doesn't sit well with those who wrote the new Mass (6 of them protestants).

Continue to the Offertory. Read these prayers. Now compare them with the new Mass. The new Mass offertory (Blessed are You Lord God of all Creation, etc.) is a Jewish table prayer before meals. Compare the meal prayer with the Sacrificial nature of the prayers of the Traditional Mass. Again, clearly they were removing that which shows Sacrifice.

There are many other things we could discuss about the Mass, but I would like to keep it brief at least for now.

Another problem is lay "minsiters" of Holy Communion. Why would this ever be permitted? After Vatican II is the first time there were ever "lay ministers" of the Blessed Sacrament. Moreover, why is there Communion in the hand? What purpose does such a practice serve? None. All it serves is the agenda that: there is no Real Presence, the people are equal to the Priest (no hierarchial Prriesthood), etc. Also, why do people stand for Communion? In the Latin Church it has been a practice for a very long time to kneel for Communion and to show reverence. In the East it has not, but in the Latin Rite it has. Why would this be changed? Why should there ever be less reverence in the Mass? Moreover, why is the Priest not bound by the rubrics in the Novus Ordo to keep his index finger and thumb together after the Consecration? I guess that is just more legalism of the "pre-Vatican II Church", which was so very "scrupulous". There is clearly no reason--except indifference (or God forbid disbelief)--not to keep one's fingers together after Consecration to prevent any Particle from the Blessed Sacrament from being dropped and desecrated (which happens everytime someone receives in the hand).

Anyway, like I said, I will keep this part short for now, but I would like to address one more issue:

We were discussing on another thread the prayer for the Jews in the new Mass as compared to the Old Mass. Here is the prayer for the Jews in the Traditional Mass:

"Let us pray, also, for the faithless Jews, that our Lord and God may take away the veil from their hearts, so that they, too, may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord." [color=red]Let him not respond: Amen, nor let him say oremus, nor Flectamus genua, nor Levate, but immediately let him say:[/color] "Almighty, eternal God, Who repellest not even Jewish perfidy from Thy mercy, hearken to our prayers which we make in behalf of the blindness of that people, that, recognizing the light of Thy truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen."

Compare with the new "prayer" for the jews of the new Mass:

Let us pray for God's ancient people, the Jews,
the first to hear his word--
for greater understanding between Christian and Jew
[b]for the removal of our blindness[/b] (!!) and bitterness of heart
that God will grant us grace to be faithful to his covenant and to grow in the love of his name.

SILENCE

Lord, hear us.
Lord, graciously hear us.

Lord God of Abraham,
bless the children of your covenant, both Jew and Christian;
[u]take from us all blindness and bitterness of heart[/u],
and hasten the coming of your kingdom,
[b]when Israel shall be saved[/b],
the Gentiles gathered in,
[b]and we shall dwell together in mutual love and peace[/b]
under the one God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

This is completely absurd... the prayer has said for nearly 2000 years: remove the BLINDNESS FROM [b]THEIR HEARTS[/b]. Now it says to remove that blindness from US?? What? So basically we are blind, and they are correct?! Next, the Jews no longer have a covenant with God. That has been severed by their deicide and murder of Christ Himself. Moreover, the Church teaches: OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION. That means that there is no salvation, no covenant, no communion at all with God, outside the Catholic Church. Furthermore, it again mentions taking the blindness from us, which is clearly heretical. It says that ISREAL SHALL BE SAVED. Again, that COULD mean when they convert before the end of the world... but be realistic. That is not what it means at all. That means: the Jews go to Heaven, too, and that is how everyone who is there will take it to mean. This is reassured by the next two lines, which say how we shall dwell together with the Jews, as if they had no need to convert. There are many prayers like this throughout the year: taking apart and destroying prayers, even those 1600 + years old, and replacing them with either boarder-line or blatantly heretical "prayers".

We can move on next, but I'd like for you to address these issues first.

[cmotherofpirl]

Nope


[color=red]Catholic vs Catholic Debate- a post or comment that results in doctrinal debates that might cause scandal among the faithful. *Effective immediately, any negative criticism of the current Magisterium will result in deletion, and a warning from the moderators. This includes but is not limited to criticism of the Novus Ordo mass and/or our Holy Father. [/color]

Edited November 17, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Kilroy the Ninja]

nevermind. I retract. Cmom has spoken

Edited November 17, 2004 by Kilroy the Ninja

[homeschoolmom]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[popestpiusx]

I would like to respond if I may to some comments from the other thread. I have no intention of given any critique of Vat. II or the N.O in this thread. May I continue or is this thread doomed to be shut down?

[Brother Adam]

[quote]First, have you ever been to a Traditional Mass? If so, good. If not, please find the text to it online. (http://www.unavoce.org/ttmass.htm) [/quote]

I was indeed fortunate enough to be able to visit one a few weeks ago. It was very beautiful and reverant. First I agree that abuses take place more commonly in the new mass than ever would in the old mass. It's frustrating to say the least, however the new mass is a valid, licit mass.

Since most of the mass was in latin though, I'll have to go through the link you offered me to go over some of the prayers again.

[quote]OK, now look over the prayers at the foot of the Altar. These were removed from the new Mass. Why? It seems clear to me: they are clear about a Priest making a Sacrifice on an Altar. That is something that doesn't sit well with those who wrote the new Mass (6 of them protestants). [/quote]

In the Eucharistic prayers of the new mass, I have always had the impression, having known nothing at the time of the old latin mass, that the priest was offering the sacrifice. As far as the six protestants helping write the new mass - could you verify this? Did they actually play a major role in writing the new mass? Or maybe some Protestant scholars at some point looked over it and gave their input?

[quote]Another problem is lay "minsiters" of Holy Communion. Why would this ever be permitted? After Vatican II is the first time there were ever "lay ministers" of the Blessed Sacrament.[/quote]

Extrodinary ministers, yes, I've heard many arguments back and forth on this. It seems to me that the vatican has always held the opinion that they were to be used ONLY in extreme circumstances. I'm not too happy myself with the regular use of them that some liberal churches have made, but none-the-less I don't have the authority to say otherwise. If the current magistrium has allowed for their use, I don't see it as my place to say it is wrong. I can understand why, when today, there is such an extreme shortage of priests around the world, and in some areas it could concievably take large blocks of the day to distribute communion with only one priest and massses of people.

[quote]Another problem is lay "minsiters" of Holy Communion. Why would this ever be permitted? After Vatican II is the first time there were ever "lay ministers" of the Blessed Sacrament.[/quote]

I've never before in any Church, even liberal ones, seen someone who is unordained preside as the celebrant at the mass. Maybe you could clarify?

[quote]Moreover, why is there Communion in the hand?[/quote]

This is more in line with Jewish culture of biblical times and would have been how the first Christians would have recieved communion.

[quote]What purpose does such a practice serve? None. All it serves is the agenda that: there is no Real Presence, the people are equal to the Priest (no hierarchial Prriesthood)[/quote]

It serves such purpose as is the answer to your last question. No Real Presence? Equal to the priest? Hold the phone. All of that is quite extreme. The church has always taught the Real Presence and has never said that laymen are equal to the priest. This thinking to me is quite...overboard. How did you come to think of this?

[quote]Also, why do people stand for Communion? In the Latin Church it has been a practice for a very long time to kneel for Communion and to show reverence. In the East it has not, but in the Latin Rite it has. Why would this be changed?[/quote]

Let me share a story here, if I can? One of the ongoing conversations I have with a Protestant friend of mine is that of our "worship of Mary". He is convinced because we will kneel before icons of our Blessed Mother, that we worship her as a diety. I had to explain to the person, and I'm still not sure that he gets it, that it is our intention in kneeling that is important. We do not kneel before the Blessed Virgin to worship her as a god, but to show our reverance, and I made the illustration that if we were to visit the Queen of England, we would genuflect or bow before her, not as worship, but as a sign or respect for the land we are in and the leader of that land.

So why stand at communion, partly cultural, partly a discipline matter (not of faith or morals). It has been the practice for a long time, but sometimes practices change. I think if you found yourself suddenly in 100 AD with a group of practicing Christians you would find things yet dramatically different than they are in the latin mass today. What exactly went through the heads of those that changed the mass to what is is today here in the US? I honestly don't know. I don't personally think that recieving communion in the hand or standing removes reverence. If I personally were to choose though, I would recieve at an alter rail, as was the practice in my Lutheran Church most of the year. Change is hard to take sometimes, but doesn't mean it is wrong.

[quote]Why should there ever be less reverence in the Mass? Moreover, why is the Priest not bound by the rubrics in the Novus Ordo to keep his index finger and thumb together after the Consecration? I guess that is just more legalism of the "pre-Vatican II Church", which was so very "scrupulous". There is clearly no reason--except indifference (or God forbid disbelief)--not to keep one's fingers together after Consecration to prevent any Particle from the Blessed Sacrament from being dropped and desecrated (which happens everytime someone receives in the hand). [/quote]

I think there is less reverence at the new mass, but I don't think it is the fault of the new mass. I think it is the fault of the lay people in the mass. Too often they have the mentality of a typical American - I'm going to do mass however I want. They forget why it is they are at mass and what is happening in mass. It's a problem that I don't believe will be solved by simply returning to the old latin mass. When a gallup poll is done on American Catholics and over half respond that they don't believe in basic Catholic dogmas, something is fishy. I believe it lies in education, because nothing in the actions or words of the new mass give the impression that we don't believe in the Real Presence or any Catholic Dogma.

In your final address I only want to look at one statement, which I will give the reason for:

[quote]OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION. That means that there is no salvation, no covenant, no communion at all with God, outside the Catholic Church.[/quote]

I had to deal with this passage several times over before I became Catholic, and deal with it now all the time that I am Catholic. Because taken at face value, even the Church Fathers disagree with the statement such as Aquinas and Augustine.

One of the basic philosophical principals in our faith is that we are bound by the sacraments, but God is not. And one of the basic principals is that all men who are baptized validly are members of the Catholic Church. Perhaps orphaned members, but members none the less.

It maybe perhaps, while you have thought through many things, there are still some things to be thought through more. Perhaps it could be that you are not quite correct on this opinion? Or maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. But we can explore the topic more.

While I'll try to keep up with you, I am moving starting tomorrow to Stuebenville, and don't know when I'll have a phone line again and thus, the Internet.

God Bless, thank you for the discussion,

Bro. Adam

[Brother Adam]

Oh. If this thread is shut down for that reason I can understand, but we can move it over to the Flyfree Ministry Forum which I control, okay?

[cmotherofpirl]

Let me know when you have it copied.


and send me the link again.

Edited November 17, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[popestpiusx]

Are we able to proceed here? I simply want to address some comments made about me to to me.

[Brother Adam]

[url="http://www.flyfreeministries.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=634"]New Thread at Flyfree Ministry Forums[/url]

[url="http://www.flyfreeministries.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=634"]http://www.flyfreeministries.org/forum/ind...p?showtopic=634[/url]

Hi guys, please sign up at Flyfree Ministry Forums and post your replies here so we may respect Dust's rule about this type of dialogue. Sign up is free and you can post immediately. Everyone is welcome.