Questions for Trads

[Ora et Labora]

I agree fidei defensor...exactly.

[qfnol31]

[quote]1. You believe the Church has had an apostacy, right?
2. When, and why do you believe this?
3. How is you claiming this any different from the Mormons claiming this happened, only earlier?
4. How is your belief different from protestants?
5. Who is the pope if Pope Benedict isn't? Do you consider him an anti-pope?
6. Why would God abandon his Church now when he promised us he wouldn't? Is there biblical proof that he would?[/quote]

1. Nope.
2. Umm, I don't.
3. Well, there is no it, but I believe in quite a few differences that could take up a couple dissertations...
4. I believe in the Blessed Sacrament, Bishops, the Pope, infallibility, Mass, ........... (Maybe how does it differ from the Orthodox?)
5. I hope he's Pope. I've got a rosary blessed by him and if he's not Pope then it's not as special. Plus, I've been to Mass with him a couple times and I'm just about as positive as I can be they were valid.
6. God hasn't abandoned His Bride. I think the SSPX believe they are the Church and so Jesus has not left Her in that respect. Actually, same with the Orthodox.

[son_of_angels]

Speaking of which, I just got back from a glorious indult mass, said by a diocesan priest.

Let me put it this way, anyone claiming to be a "traditionalist" who takes the TLM out of the context of union with Rome, is a liar, "and the truth is not in him." He abuses the liturgy given us by our Fathers, and worse, abuses our Lord in the holy Eucharist as he mutters over it, in the Canon, either a prayer for a Pope in which he believes not, or for an absent pope who is present. Who would not discern the Body of the Lord?

On the other hand, those who participate in the TLM in union with Rome have been given a great gift. The spirit of prayer, the requirement of contemplation, grows within that person a fire of charity, which is, firstly, expressed to God and the things of God (our Lady and the Saints), and, second, to that highest Thing of God on Earth, our Lord's Vicar, the Pope. But those who obstinately follow in disobedience have their hearts hardened, the consciences, "burned with a hot iron."

God bless.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 15 2006, 02:21 PM']if the TLM is made the normative mass again, the liberal priests will schism.
[right][snapback]947965[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sam, that won't happen.

Point to a time in Church history when the Church has moved toward a previous time?

The answer: She has never done that. The Normative Mass is the current Liturgy. The Indult is a deviation from the norm.....anything else is wishful and incorrect thinking.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 15 2006, 11:33 AM']

btw its a little hard to speak to your bishop about liturgical abuses when he is the one perpreating these crimes.
[right][snapback]947671[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Do you fear your bishop? Do you think that he is untouchable? Take it from someone who has spent many an hour discussing a great many things with more than a few bishops, they are not.

While we owe them our respect and we should defer to them, if they are in clear error or if clear error is being permitted in his See, you have the right to ask him about it.

Do not fear the bishop, work with the bishop. He cannot address the issue if he doesn't know it is happening. (That would include his own igornance.) However, if you are going to critique the Missa Normativa, then you had best know all the ceremonies, because you will look foolish when he shows documentation to support his position. Have your ducks in a row.

[son_of_angels]

I hate to point this out, Cam, but, if the 1962 Missal is allowed to flower to its fullest extent, and it is taught at the seminary level, it could very possibly lead to a liturgical crisis for the Novus Ordo in many parts of the world. How that liturgical crisis would play out is anyone's guess, and I do not pretend to be God's counselor in this matter. It could certainly lead to an either disastrous or positive renewal in the character of the Novus Ordo rite, and more carefully circumscribe its usage and rubrics, or, worse, turn it into a sort of "ghetto" rite for parishes which do not have the resources to change, or for more "progressive" bishops and priests.

As for the "deviation from the norm" nonsense, as a thinker, you should realize the danger in what you are saying. "Deviation" indicates a position inferior for the many liturgies that are uses in the Holy Catholic Church of the Western Rite. The Dominican liturgy, the Anglican Use, the Tridentine, the Carthusian, all of these are not simply deviations from the exclusively "Roman Rite" but should, instead, be viewed as enrichments of it. The Catholicity and Romanity expressed in each should not be undermined as "deviant" but rather seen as a faithful branch on the stem of the Universal Cult which the Church renders to God. The right of priests, certainly, to use the Missale Romanum is indicative of its authority and of its universality as well, but it should not be seen as exclusive of others.

After all, if I was, say, a Carthusian and said that I loved my liturgy, and preferred it over Rome's, because it better emphasized the austerity and devotion proper to Catholicism, would I be wrong? I don't think Rome would say so. I would hope, in fact, that the Church as a whole would be glad that the Mass was being said with such devotion, whether it began with "Fratres, agnoscamus peccata nostra....", "Confitemini Domino quoniam bonus," or "Introibo ad altare Dei..." whatever the theological reasons behind each of these.

God bless.

[Cam42]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Apr 16 2006, 11:34 PM']I hate to point this out, Cam, but, if the 1962 Missal is allowed to flower to its fullest extent, and it is taught at the seminary level, it could very possibly lead to a liturgical crisis for the Novus Ordo in many parts of the world.  How that liturgical crisis would play out is anyone's guess, and I do not pretend to be God's counselor in this matter.  It could certainly lead to an either disastrous or positive renewal in the character of the Novus Ordo rite, and more carefully circumscribe its usage and rubrics, or, worse, turn it into a sort of "ghetto" rite for parishes which do not have the resources to change, or for more "progressive" bishops and priests.

As for the "deviation from the norm" nonsense, as a thinker, you should realize the danger in what you are saying.  "Deviation" indicates a position inferior for the many liturgies that are uses in the Holy Catholic Church of the Western Rite.  The Dominican liturgy, the Anglican Use, the Tridentine, the Carthusian, all of these are not simply deviations from the exclusively "Roman Rite" but should, instead, be viewed as enrichments of it.  The Catholicity and Romanity expressed in each should not be undermined as "deviant" but rather seen as a faithful branch on the stem of the Universal Cult which the Church renders to God.  The right of priests, certainly, to use the Missale Romanum is indicative of its authority and of its universality as well, but it should not be seen as exclusive of others.

After all, if I was, say, a Carthusian and said that I loved my liturgy, and preferred it over Rome's, because it better emphasized the austerity and devotion proper to Catholicism, would I be wrong?  I don't think Rome would say so.  I would hope, in fact, that the Church as a whole would be glad that the Mass was being said with such devotion, whether it began with "Fratres, agnoscamus peccata nostra....",  "Confitemini Domino quoniam bonus," or "Introibo ad altare Dei..." whatever the theological reasons behind each of these.

God bless.
[right][snapback]950048[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No way, don't buy it. There is no way that the Missa Normativa will be supplanted. There is no historical proof that supports your position.

What is the indult? Read the documents. It is meant as an exeption to the rule, which is the Missa Normativa.
[quote name='Quattuor Abhinc Annos']But the problem perdures and the Pope wishes to be responsive to such groups of priests and faithful. Accordingly, he grants to diocesan bishops the faculty of using an indult on behalf of such priests and faithful. The diocesan bishop may allow those who are explicitly named in a petition submitted to him to celebrate Mass by use of the 1962 editio typica of the Roman Missal.[/quote]

[quote name='Quattuor Abhinc Annos']There must be unequivocal, even public evidence that the priest and people petitioning have no ties with those who impugn the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1970 by Pope Paul VI.[/quote]

That speaks directly to the deviation from the norm. It is not to impugn the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the 1970 Missal. It is meant as an acception to the norm. It is an indult, which is defined as a faculty granted by the pope to deviate from the common law of the Church. So, it is in fact a deviation from the 1970 Missal for the benefit of some, not all.

Actually the different forms of which you describe are indults granted throughout time for the spiritual benefit of particular needs, much like the granting of the current indult of the Tridentine.

If you were a Carthusian and said that you loved your liturgy more than the approved liturgy, yes, you would be wrong. The Eucharist is conferred in the same manner although through different means. Even a Carthusian will celebrate the Missa Normativa outside his monestary.

Rome already has said so, in 1984. My view is sound and valid.

[Resurrexi]

The TLM will be the norm again!

[qfnol31]

Actually, though that would be a wonderful world, I don't think it can be...time for some organic development to happen, though.

[Cam42]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Apr 17 2006, 01:38 AM']The TLM will be the norm again!
[right][snapback]950340[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Wanna give proof how that will happen? Show me where, in history, the Church has EVER moved backward. Proof, there, STM, proof.

One liners don't promote any form of zeal, only ignorance and intolernace.