Non-Catholic curious about Latin Liturgy

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The recent GIRM, for the Novus Ordo Missae, stated quite clearly that the distinction made in the Roman Catechism was still considered valid. You need to look, yet again, at the numerous posts I’ve made on this passage in the GIRM. It is nonsense. It is self-contradictory. It does not even reference ‘new order’, at points, but rather what you called, the ‘old Mass’, in order to defend ‘new order’, which is a different thing. Moreover, the Novus Ordo was specifically designed by God the Holy Spirit God was not named Bugnini, nor Thurian. God didn’t give us a standard Mass which Ottaviani, Bacci, et al point out was rejected by the bishops, etc. God is not the author of the unholy ’spirit of’. It offends God. We know this because it goes against Catholic teaching. The Intervention was dead on in its criticism of ‘new order’. So was Gamber. So was Dietrich von Hildebrand. So is Davies, and Muggeridge. So was Lefebvre. So have been so many others. It’s a lot for you to deny. one flock, under one shepherd. The phraseology in the old Mass, while theologically accurate, nonetheless could be construed to imply a certain elitism The ‘new order’ contains a genuine elitism. The Mass has nothing of the kind. Elitism suggests unfair privilege, something unwarranted, undue, unearned. In ‘new order’, the thing echoes with the grasping arrogance of libral power – forced on the faithful Catholics of the day, as Cranmer knew ‘what was best’, as Cranmer was similarly an enemy of The Church. To sum up: "Many will," expresses the same truth as "All may," Even just at that, and whether or not it reads ‘many will’, the two are not equivalent. All may does not imply any will. Many will insists some will. So, I can’t see what you’re getting at when your premise is flawed even in something like this. that "All may," expresses it in a more positive manner, There is nothing negative about the consecration formula of The Holy Mass, in the qualitative sense you imply. It’s very positive. ‘New order’, rather, presents a negative view of salvation, by treating people who might be serious to a frivilous performance and a substitute rite. It’s as if to say that the home you came to has been sold to strangers – that your true family is gone – abandon all hope, all ye who enter. You need to think on this stuff. You really do. When God intends to do something, Mark, He first informs His Prophets of His intentions Give up this G o G fetish of yours. Confess The Church. Confess Catholicism. Be serious. You think you can fool me, or someone else. You really don’t think much of God, though. You can’t fool God. Simple reality. intentions. And in the process of bringing all baptized Christians into His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, He is simultaneously gathering His entire world on Earth into His Church. Yeah. Called the false prophet of the anti-Christ – the one-world religion – the enemy of The Church. You hope for abomination, and are too deluded, too proud, or too dumb to know it. Just my opinion. This is *not* Universalism No. Because it excludes one particular group – Catholics, orthodox Catholics, and even perhaps some ‘born-again’ heretics. Other than that – ’tis. individually. The exercise of free will involves the voluntary renunciation of all sin, both mortal and venial, or, the opposite decision — entry into sin with finality. Well, again just my opinion, here – but let’s hope you change your mind, then. Go along with worldly schemes. Or realize the simple truth – A) our flesh dies, B) we are judged, C) you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can never fool God. See the sig.

Personally, I would rather not be in schism from the Bishop of Rome when that time comes. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Peace. One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot discern truth from lies. Another is when they don’t even bother to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear. [Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]

Response:

I told you I was done arguing the point with you, and this time, I meant it. This subject is not something I care to debate with you further. I will answer some of the other things you have seen fit to paint me black about. When God intends to do something, Mark, He first informs His Prophets of His intentions Give up this G o G fetish of yours. Confess The Church. Confess Catholicism. Be serious. You think you can fool me, or someone else. You really don’t think much of God, though. You can’t fool God. Simple reality.

Actually, I will not answer that. I am happy to be abused at your hands for the sake of the truth, which I love — and I don’t care what your opinion is of my love for truth. intentions. And in the process of bringing all baptized Christians into His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, He is simultaneously gathering His entire world on Earth into His Church. Yeah. Called the false prophet of the anti-Christ – the one-world religion – the enemy of The Church. You hope for abomination, and are too deluded, too proud, or too dumb to know it. Just my opinion.

"The earth shall be filled with knowledge of the Lord, as water covers the sea." — just Isaias’ opinion, or God the Holy Spirit? (Isaias 11:9) "Seven thousand persons were killed during the earthquake; the rest were so terrified that they worshiped the God of heaven." — just Saint John’s opinion, or God the Holy Spirit? (Apocalypse 11:13) This is *not* Universalism No. Because it excludes one particular group – Catholics, orthodox Catholics, and even perhaps some ‘born-again’ heretics. Other than that – ’tis.

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about, here. The only ones who will be excluded are those who obstinately, to the very end, refuse to give up their sins. And they all will be killed by some plague or another, but definitely all dead by the time the great earthquake is finished, because we know, "the rest" — meaning ALL the rest — "were so terrified that they worshiped the God of heaven." Judgment of the worth or unworth of alleged prophecy is reserved to the Papacy. That, you are aware, but fail to acknowledge, is Catholic doctrine. individually. The exercise of free will involves the voluntary renunciation of all sin, both mortal and venial, or, the opposite decision — entry into sin with finality. Well, again just my opinion, here – but let’s hope you change your mind, then. Go along with worldly schemes. Or realize the simple truth – A) our flesh dies, B) we are judged, C) you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can never fool God. See the sig.

I do not intend to fool anyone. God has granted me extraordinary graces, and I am accepting them — and that, is not anything great about me — it is God Who did this to me. He did it by allowing me to taste some of the torments of hell, if I remained as I was. He did something similar, you may recall, for Saint Teresa of Avila, so there is your theological precedent for that. And what I am saying here, is no way open for any kind of debate. I have told you something of what happened interiorly to me. If you don’t believe me, call me a liar. But the point is not arguable.

Response:

I am going to be as concise as I can, and then I am done arguing with you, Mark. I am going to tell you how *I* reconcile Novus Ordo with the Roman Catechism. If my reasoning is not good enough for you, that is not my fault. My reasoning only has to convince me, no one else. The Roman Catechism said, about the Tridentine Rite, that the words, "for all" were not used, and gave as reason for this, that the fruit of the Sacrament, that is, conversion from sin, did not apply to all indiscriminately but only to those who were united to Christ by charity. Thus, in the Tridentine, "[My Blood] will be shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins." To expand on what the Catechism said: the first phrase, "[My Blood] will be shed for you and for many," defines that group who would receive the benefit described in the second phrase, which is the purpose of Our Lord’s shedding of His Blood — "for the remission of sins." The remission of sins means, very specifically, their cessation in a particular soul. Thus, when the express purpose of the shedding of His Blood is the remission of sins, it is theologically incorrect to couple this with, "for all," because it is obvious that not everyone is willing to renounce all sin. "for you and for all, for the remission of sins," would certainly imply the heresy of Universalism, as if to say that the graces of the Mass were indiscriminately applied to everyone. The recent GIRM, for the Novus Ordo Missae, stated quite clearly that the distinction made in the Roman Catechism was still considered valid. In the Novus Ordo, the words of the consecration are, "[My Blood] will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven." Analyzing this as before, we find the first phrase, "for you and for all," defining that group who would receive the benefit described in the second phrase, the purpose of the shedding of Our Lord’s Blood — "so that sins may be forgiven." Thus, when the express purpose of the shedding of His Blood is "so that sins may be forgiven," it is theologically incorrect to couple this with, "for many," because this would imply that not everyone’s sins might be forgiven. "for you and for many, so that sins may be forgiven," directly implies that the Redemption did not apply to all, but only to many, which we know is not the truth. Moreover, the Novus Ordo was specifically designed by God the Holy Spirit, to express the new pastoral directive of Ecumenism, initiated by God the Holy Spirit with the Second Vatican Council, and not to be considered complete until all the baptized are united in one fold, in one flock, under one shepherd. The phraseology in the old Mass, while theologically accurate, nonetheless could be construed to imply a certain elitism, as if to say, Jesus Christ died for Catholics only, and not for all of humanity. The new Mass, which is also theologically accurate, as elucidated above, yet expresses the Catholic Truth in a much more positive manner — Jesus Christ died for all, and all at least have the possibility of salvation. Whether they take advantage of that possibility manifests in exactly whether or not they accept God’s graces of conversion from sin — which begin with the forgiveness of sins, just as it is stated in the Mass. To sum up: "Many will," expresses the same truth as "All may," except that "All may," expresses it in a more positive manner, more in keeping with the *authentic* Spirit of Vatican II — which is nothing if not Ecumenical. When God intends to do something, Mark, He first informs His Prophets of His intentions, and then, He does it. His intentions for the Catholic practice of Ecumenism have already been revealed to the general public as of Vatican II. Thus, He is now carrying out those intentions. And in the process of bringing all baptized Christians into His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, He is simultaneously gathering His entire world on Earth into His Church. This is *not* Universalism — He is not eliminating free will. But He is requiring the exercise of that free will, now from each of His human creatures individually. The exercise of free will involves the voluntary renunciation of all sin, both mortal and venial, or, the opposite decision — entry into sin with finality.

Response:

The recent GIRM, for the Novus Ordo Missae, stated quite clearly that the distinction made in the Roman Catechism was still considered valid.

You need to look, yet again, at the numerous posts I’ve made on this passage in the GIRM. It is nonsense. It is self-contradictory. It does not even reference ‘new order’, at points, but rather what you called, the ‘old Mass’, in order to defend ‘new order’, which is a different thing. Moreover, the Novus Ordo was specifically designed by God the Holy Spirit

God was not named Bugnini, nor Thurian. God didn’t give us a standard Mass which Ottaviani, Bacci, et al point out was rejected by the bishops, etc. God is not the author of the unholy ’spirit of’. It offends God. We know this because it goes against Catholic teaching. The Intervention was dead on in its criticism of ‘new order’. So was Gamber. So was Dietrich von Hildebrand. So is Davies, and Muggeridge. So was Lefebvre. So have been so many others. It’s a lot for you to deny. one flock, under one shepherd. The phraseology in the old Mass, while theologically accurate, nonetheless could be construed to imply a certain elitism

The ‘new order’ contains a genuine elitism. The Mass has nothing of the kind. Elitism suggests unfair privilege, something unwarranted, undue, unearned. In ‘new order’, the thing echoes with the grasping arrogance of libral power – forced on the faithful Catholics of the day, as Cranmer knew ‘what was best’, as Cranmer was similarly an enemy of The Church. To sum up: "Many will," expresses the same truth as "All may,"

Even just at that, and whether or not it reads ‘many will’, the two are not equivalent. All may does not imply any will. Many will insists some will. So, I can’t see what you’re getting at when your premise is flawed even in something like this. that "All may," expresses it in a more positive manner,

There is nothing negative about the consecration formula of The Holy Mass, in the qualitative sense you imply. It’s very positive. ‘New order’, rather, presents a negative view of salvation, by treating people who might be serious to a frivilous performance and a substitute rite. It’s as if to say that the home you came to has been sold to strangers – that your true family is gone – abandon all hope, all ye who enter. You need to think on this stuff. You really do. When God intends to do something, Mark, He first informs His Prophets of His intentions

Give up this G o G fetish of yours. Confess The Church. Confess Catholicism. Be serious. You think you can fool me, or someone else. You really don’t think much of God, though. You can’t fool God. Simple reality. intentions. And in the process of bringing all baptized Christians into His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, He is simultaneously gathering His entire world on Earth into His Church.

Yeah. Called the false prophet of the anti-Christ – the one-world religion – the enemy of The Church. You hope for abomination, and are too deluded, too proud, or too dumb to know it. Just my opinion. This is *not* Universalism

No. Because it excludes one particular group – Catholics, orthodox Catholics, and even perhaps some ‘born-again’ heretics. Other than that – ’tis. individually. The exercise of free will involves the voluntary renunciation of all sin, both mortal and venial, or, the opposite decision — entry into sin with finality.

Well, again just my opinion, here – but let’s hope you change your mind, then. Go along with worldly schemes. Or realize the simple truth – A) our flesh dies, B) we are judged, C) you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can never fool God. See the sig. Peace. One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot discern truth from lies. Another is when they don’t even bother to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear. [Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]

Response:

My point, before, was that they, as you, find yourself political bedfellows in defending ‘new order’. Sure, their version of ‘new order’ is whatever is new, next month. But basically they defend the status quo, or particularly their role in what remains of the libral arch-structure within the institutional church, and that heterodox libral structure remains formidable and dominant, from what I can see. Interesting. Even though there is not anything at all of politics in my defense of Holy Mass,

Your defense of ‘new order’. And of course it’s political, as well as heretical. And in either case, you would be in the same camp as the ‘reformers’, here, who also defend ‘new order’, in some form, for probably just all the same reasons you do. You probably picked up some of your very ‘evidence’ and arguments as such, from them. Mark, I would hope you knew me better than that. But I don’t suppose you do, or care to. You just want to pigeonhole me as a liberal, a reformer or (shudder) a "libral". You know the difference then between an old mason and a new, perhaps? I have no idea what that means.

And old liberal at least spoke to liberal ideas. A new libral is just a tyrant. Remember, it’s been the liberals of today, as the one who wrote that article years ago that led me to suggest the difference, who have been shocked at the illiberalism of the typ. Dem and activist – the eastern libral establishment type so commonplace in various industries and sectors, not just public. None of those things matter to me at all. You are the one so into politics, remember? Not me.

It matters to you. If you bothered to pay any attention, you would realize that our viewpoints are not very much different. It’s just that I adhere to Church authority in matters of the liturgy, But you don’t. You "adhere" to churchmen, not to Popes come and gone. Paul VI is come and gone.

So are those before him. You forget to mention that. But tradition is revered particularly because it stays after Popes have died, and orthodox churchmen, too, are dead. You can’t have it both ways, saying you confess the holy see, and then ignore everything done prior to 1965, or whatever post-conciliar year you prefer. I don’t. I don’t even ignore you — but neither do I agree with you. I find no contradiction between what the Popes of the past said, and what this one says.

What has "this one" said, in your opinion? particular axe to grind — so I guess I get chopped with that, and thrown on to the pile with liberals, Adoremians, and anyone else who refuses to swallow the authority of Pope Mark Johnson. But I’m not Pope. damn straight.

Ah – but that’s also the case for someone else, here. Read on: And neither are you. And neither is anyone else here who wants to tweak or ‘do liturgy’, as some suggested. My reply was – with all respect to them – who the heck . . are _you_? No, your complaint isn’t really with me. stop kidding yourself. my complaint really is with you.

It’s with The Church. In other words – who the heck . . . are _you_? I obey The Church. I go to Mass. I didn’t make it up. I didn’t write the music. I didn’t sew the vestments. I wasn’t there when the traditions were founded. And so on. It’s with Trent Trent never said the things you have said about the Mass, of all things.

For this reason – for all – is not used – according to the Catechism of Trent. It’s mentioned, if you forget already, at http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/MassNote.htm . and Aquinas. nor did Aquinas, nor would he have dared to do so.

Same URL. I quote Aquinas at length. Your argument is with him. It’s with the old GIRM, The old GIRM applies to the old Mass. That is exactly what it is supposed to apply to.

That’s right. It’s not the same as ‘new order’. It’s a different liturgy. ‘New order’ is not The Holy Mass. The Mass is. You’re sort of beginning to inadvertently see it, yourself. Two different things. with the old rubrics, those apply to the old Mass as well. Rubrics are rubrics. They do not affect the consecration,

For this reason – for all – is not used. And even the intention of the priest can invalidate the consecration. That’s even still confessed, today. and are thus immaterial to the gist of *your* argument. Stop throwing red herrings around, and you might become easier to talk to. But I don’t suppose that is in any way your aim.

You want me to ignore Gamber and von Hildebrand, Ottaviani/Bacci/et al, Aquinas and Borromeo, the Catechism and Quo Primum, De Defectibus and Florence, and all the obv. comparisons made between The Holy Mass and this ‘reformist’ substitute called ‘new order’. Then, only then, will I be . . . . "easier to talk to"? Think about what you write. _I_ have reasons for saying what I do. You don’t. I have presented arguments for The Mass, against ‘new order’. You have nothing – other than just following orders, cause the orders could never be wrong, and Popes are never wrong. But they are wrong, in these ‘interesting times’. Churchmen can do the wrong thing. Even Popes. It’s the history of The Church. But ‘new order’ is entirely new in Church history. So the last two Popes are very wrong. You can’t confess that. It scares you, I think. Or you won’t confess it because you like heterodoxy, and hope The Mass never returns to the corner parish, church torn down and rebuilt to Catholic standards. Giving you the benefit of the doubt – if you were Catholic, you would not fear for the visible Church, even if the entire institution seems to have turned to heresy. It hasn’t, not entirely – from what I can see. Maybe the sedes are right. Maybe not. But The Church cannot be overcome – only churchmen. It’s an argument with Catholicism – which you really don’t confess. Your accusation is baseless and false. Take it back.

You confess Catholicism, do you? That means you confess the Magisterium? You confess that Our Lord died for all, but not all are saved? Get back to me on that. I wish you would get it done with and get out of my Church.

But you’re Catholic Reformed. _I’ve_ never been Catholic Reformed. I was raised Catholic, as Catholic. I rejected Catholicism as someone opposed to Catholicism, thanks to a univ indoctrination into Marxism (if you don’t believe it, even generally, check out any college bookstore and course ‘materials’ for sale, even today). I was then a ‘born again’ Prot, after something of a mild ‘Damascus experience’, who rejected Catholicism. And now I’m a faithful Catholic, who can say, in all those years, he never confessed Reformed Catholicism. A lot of ‘cradle Catholics’ have. They are the one’s most in danger of such neo-Protestanism, from their own compromises, delusions, rationalizations, etc. slowly over the years as Cranmer’s, er . . . ’spirit of’, ‘reforms’ were forced on them by the heterodox bishops of the world (cause that’s who really bears responsibility). that you would consider such a position *at all* speaks volumes about your attitude toward Tradition and private judgment.

I don’t think like that. I’m not Catholic Reformed. Don’t project. Yes, do, but I think it was someone who thought, erroneously, as you appraently do, The point is, I was trying to suggest in the context, there, that it was none other than Pope John 23rd. ‘kay?

And he was a Pope, too – correct? The Pope attributed his decision to call the Council to a direct inspiration from God the Holy Spirit — that is what he said. What ever else he may have said, does not change the weight of that.

I’m sure he would have said the same for the whole ’spirit of’? who as von Hildebrand correctly pointed out, took merely the name of the council, and pretty much made up the rest as suited _their_ agenda. The Adoremans complain of this, too. And in this, as in much else of what they say, I believe they are right. But there’s no virtue in following illegal orders. It was wrong to pen up those peaceful protesters at the Algore rally this week. Those guys who followed such orders – shouldn’t have. The system, as such, BREAKS DOWN – when they . . . do. Same for ‘new order’. God the Holy Spirit does not give "illegal orders."

The Pope is not God, Himself. It’s an exalted office, the papacy of The Church. Make no mistake. But he is NOT God. That’s the Prot complaint against Catholics, along with their imputation of impeccability. But no . . . . . Catholic, actually thinks that of His Holiness. And neither does, therefore . . His Holiness. guide His Church when she performs such a solemn task as promulgating the Liturgy of the Mass.

Then the Vatican Council omitted mention of that. It IS similar to Davies arg., I’ll grant you. But I think he’s wrong on this. ‘New order’ is not infallible. I assume that at one time, even you confessed this. But as all ‘new order’ defenders, you have to believe, somewhere deep down, that the only way to save ‘new order’, is to declare the whole thing infallible. Then Aquinas be damned, as it were. Ottaviani rest in peace. Let’s hear no more of catechisms and papal bulls. ‘New order’ is an infallible degree, protected by God, Himself, from any error, from any taint even of heterodoxy – as we all commune in the beingness of blessedness in the gatheringness of the god withinness in usness, as the EMs bless us on the head, and we bow before the cantor as the priest falls asleep waiting for his part to begin, etc. How incredibly ‘Catholic’ it all must seem – to a Protestant. We’ve seen what has happened to the institutional church. It’s in ruins. If you mean to refer to corruption within the priesthood and hierarchy, you speak the truth. It is attributable to sin only, and to the work of Satan. The Holy Mass is *not* the work of Satan.

Bugnini was a mason. Thurian a Prot. The ‘reformers’ have been … read more »

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have just now encountered the CTA (call-to-action) for the very first time. I was looking at the message boards at CIN and someone referenced it. Guess what? I do not agree with them. My point, before, was that they, as you, find yourself political bedfellows in defending ‘new order’. Sure, their version of ‘new order’ is whatever is new, next month. But basically they defend the status quo, or particularly their role in what remains of the libral arch-structure within the institutional church, and that heterodox libral structure remains formidable and dominant, from what I can see.

Interesting. Even though there is not anything at all of politics in my defense of Holy Mass, you call me "political bedfellows" of a group who, near as I can discern, has little more in common with me than the fact that neither of us agrees with your peculiar stance. Mark, I would hope you knew me better than that. But I don’t suppose you do, or care to. You just want to pigeonhole me as a liberal, a reformer or (shudder) a "libral". You know the difference then between an old mason and a new, perhaps?

I have no idea what that means. Remember, it’s been the liberals of today, as the one who wrote that article years ago that led me to suggest the difference, who have been shocked at the illiberalism of the typ. Dem and activist – the eastern libral establishment type so commonplace in various industries and sectors, not just public.

None of those things matter to me at all. You are the one so into politics, remember? Not me. If you bothered to pay any attention, you would realize that our viewpoints are not very much different. It’s just that I adhere to Church authority in matters of the liturgy, But you don’t. You "adhere" to churchmen, not to Popes come and gone.

Paul VI is come and gone. But tradition is revered particularly because it stays after Popes have died, and orthodox churchmen, too, are dead. You can’t have it both ways, saying you confess the holy see, and then ignore everything done prior to 1965, or whatever post-conciliar year you prefer.

I don’t. I don’t even ignore you — but neither do I agree with you. I find no contradiction between what the Popes of the past said, and what this one says. particular axe to grind — so I guess I get chopped with that, and thrown on to the pile with liberals, Adoremians, and anyone else who refuses to swallow the authority of Pope Mark Johnson. But I’m not Pope.

damn straight. And neither are you. And neither is anyone else here who wants to tweak or ‘do liturgy’, as some suggested. My reply was – with all respect to them – who the heck . . are _you_? No, your complaint isn’t really with me.

stop kidding yourself. my complaint really is with you. It’s with Trent

Trent never said the things you have said about the Mass, of all things. and Aquinas.

nor did Aquinas, nor would he have dared to do so. It’s with the old GIRM,

The old GIRM applies to the old Mass. That is exactly what it is supposed to apply to. with the old rubrics,

those apply to the old Mass as well. Rubrics are rubrics. They do not affect the consecration, and are thus immaterial to the gist of *your* argument. Stop throwing red herrings around, and you might become easier to talk to. But I don’t suppose that is in any way your aim. with The Holy Mass itself – quite literally.

I have never, ever, (search deja all you like) said anything was wrong with Holy Mass — whether Tridentine or Novus Ordo. I think you have me confused with you. I revere both as *The Mass*. You are the one who has a complaint with Holy Mass. It’s an argument with Catholicism – which you really don’t confess.

Your accusation is baseless and false. Take it back. By the way — *you* are in "my" Church, along with Mother Angelica, Ted Seeber, and, well, you know — Catholics. Heck, the Pope is even in *my* Church — do you acknowledge the same about him? I’m not a sede. I’m not yet convinced of that. If I were – you’d know about it.

I wish you would get it done with and get out of my Church. The fact that you would consider such a position *at all* speaks volumes about your attitude toward Tradition and private judgment. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Pope John XXIII stated that God the Holy Spirit moved him to call the Council. "Reconvene the Vatican Council? We are infallible enough." I’ll have to check on who is supposed to have said that. Yes, do, but I think it was someone who thought, erroneously, as you appraently do, The point is, I was trying to suggest in the context, there, that it was none other than Pope John 23rd. ‘kay? tried to come up with some documents and have the Pope sign them, and the Pope said, "no, you don’t get it — think a lot bigger than that!" — to that effect. Or he might have said what he is reputed to have said? Could be?

The Pope attributed his decision to call the Council to a direct inspiration from God the Holy Spirit — that is what he said. What ever else he may have said, does not change the weight of that. What you fail to recognize, or acknowledge, about me, is that I am fine with *whatever* the Church does. I will remain faithful, please God. The only reason I defend the Novus Ordo is that it is the official Mass of the Latin Rite. But there’s no virtue in following illegal orders. It was wrong to pen up those peaceful protesters at the Algore rally this week. Those guys who followed such orders – shouldn’t have. The system, as such, BREAKS DOWN – when they . . . do. Same for ‘new order’.

God the Holy Spirit does not give "illegal orders." He does, however, guide His Church when she performs such a solemn task as promulgating the Liturgy of the Mass. We’ve seen what has happened to the institutional church. It’s in ruins.

If you mean to refer to corruption within the priesthood and hierarchy, you speak the truth. It is attributable to sin only, and to the work of Satan. The Holy Mass is *not* the work of Satan. And of course I mean the Holy Mass in every form it has ever taken, right down to the present day. I accept the simple fact that God designs the Mass, not men. You do not accept that simple fact, so you see a conspiracy that "finally got to the Mass." Any trusting, believing Catholic knows that is impossible. That fact even rated a mention in the 3rd Secret of Fatima, as you might have read. The Mass is relegated to the catacombs. Orthodox faithful are mocked by their own pastors and nuncios, and so on. Open your eyes – or you might even miss these ‘interesting times’.

You do not acknowledge the full weight of just how interesting these times are. You still see some political machinery at work, and think it significant in some way. You do not see that God is taking over, probably because you do not want him to take over *you*. Period. If the Church decreed tomorrow that we were to go back to the Tridentine, I would start studying Latin so as to be better able to understand. Sure. Cause like someone else on these ngs – you don’t dare trust the ‘facing pages’?

No, that is not why. But what advantage is found in hearing Mass in a language you don’t understand? God desires to be understood. If you want to go to Mass – go.

I do. That’s what the ‘indult’ is for.

No, the indult is for folks like you. I do not demand that the Mass be in Latin. I trust God. It IS The Magisterium which holds against ‘new order’. It appears invalid on its face. For this reason – FOR ALL – is NOT used! Read that again. Our Lord died for all, but not all are saved. How much clearer can that be? When I take Communion at the Novus Ordo Missae, is there ANYTHING of bread in what I am taking, save the appearance? Or is it the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of my Savior? Read what I write – as it . . is written. ‘New order’ appears invalid on its face. That means the Sacrament . . . isn’t. Again – how much clearer can that be?

The Sacrament … isn’t — what? The sense of your sentences, in accepted English grammar, means that the Sacrament *isn’t* "invalid on its face" — that is the closest referent for your use of "isn’t." But somehow, I do not think that is what you mean to say. So say what you mean. Is it too much to ask you to speak in complete sentences? Do you mean, the Sacrament isn’t invalid, or, the Sacrament isn’t the Sacrament? Be clear. I admit it still might be problematic. But I’ve never seen anything to the contrary – and particularly on UseNet – save for you telling me the Pope is impeccable,

I never said anything remotely like that. Your continual insisting that I did, or that that is what I believe, is scandalously dishonest. the Pope can do no wrong.

And I never said that. I may very well have said the Pope cannot lead the whole Church astray, nor could he, as Pope, solemnly promulgate as The Mass what was not in fact The Mass. I’m sure I said something like that, something which you will not confess. Clearly Paul VI was wrong, and Popes can be wrong.

You can’t use the point you are trying to prove as its own proof. Show me some other Pope who has been wrong, and acknowledged so by the Church, on any matter even close to the gravity of the Liturgy. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If they are perfection, itself, then there’s no such thing as Pope –

Response:

I have just now encountered the CTA (call-to-action) for the very first time. I was looking at the message boards at CIN and someone referenced it. Guess what? I do not agree with them.

My point, before, was that they, as you, find yourself political bedfellows in defending ‘new order’. Sure, their version of ‘new order’ is whatever is new, next month. But basically they defend the status quo, or particularly their role in what remains of the libral arch-structure within the institutional church, and that heterodox libral structure remains formidable and dominant, from what I can see. Mark, I would hope you knew me better than that. But I don’t suppose you do, or care to. You just want to pigeonhole me as a liberal, a reformer or (shudder) a "libral".

You know the difference then between an old mason and a new, perhaps? Remember, it’s been the liberals of today, as the one who wrote that article years ago that led me to suggest the difference, who have been shocked at the illiberalism of the typ. Dem and activist – the eastern libral establishment type so commonplace in various industries and sectors, not just public. If you bothered to pay any attention, you would realize that our viewpoints are not very much different. It’s just that I adhere to Church authority in matters of the liturgy,

But you don’t. You "adhere" to churchmen, not to Popes come and gone. But tradition is revered particularly because it stays after Popes have died, and orthodox churchmen, too, are dead. You can’t have it both ways, saying you confess the holy see, and then ignore everything done prior to 1965, or whatever post-conciliar year you prefer. particular axe to grind — so I guess I get chopped with that, and thrown on to the pile with liberals, Adoremians, and anyone else who refuses to swallow the authority of Pope Mark Johnson.

But I’m not Pope. And neither are you. And neither is anyone else here who wants to tweak or ‘do liturgy’, as some suggested. My reply was – with all respect to them – who the heck . . are _you_? No, your complaint isn’t really with me. It’s with Trent and Aquinas. It’s with the old GIRM, with the old rubrics, with The Holy Mass itself – quite literally. It’s an argument with Catholicism – which you really don’t confess. By the way — *you* are in "my" Church, along with Mother Angelica, Ted Seeber, and, well, you know — Catholics. Heck, the Pope is even in *my* Church — do you acknowledge the same about him?

I’m not a sede. I’m not yet convinced of that. If I were – you’d know about it. Pope John XXIII stated that God the Holy Spirit moved him to call the Council. "Reconvene the Vatican Council? We are infallible enough." I’ll have to check on who is supposed to have said that. Yes, do, but I think it was someone who thought, erroneously, as you appraently do,

The point is, I was trying to suggest in the context, there, that it was none other than Pope John 23rd. ‘kay? tried to come up with some documents and have the Pope sign them, and the Pope said, "no, you don’t get it — think a lot bigger than that!" — to that effect.

Or he might have said what he is reputed to have said? Could be? What you fail to recognize, or acknowledge, about me, is that I am fine with *whatever* the Church does. I will remain faithful, please God. The only reason I defend the Novus Ordo is that it is the official Mass of the Latin Rite.

But there’s no virtue in following illegal orders. It was wrong to pen up those peaceful protesters at the Algore rally this week. Those guys who followed such orders – shouldn’t have. The system, as such, BREAKS DOWN – when they . . . do. Same for ‘new order’. We’ve seen what has happened to the institutional church. It’s in ruins. That fact even rated a mention in the 3rd Secret of Fatima, as you might have read. The Mass is relegated to the catacombs. Orthodox faithful are mocked by their own pastors and nuncios, and so on. Open your eyes – or you might even miss these ‘interesting times’. Period. If the Church decreed tomorrow that we were to go back to the Tridentine, I would start studying Latin so as to be better able to understand.

Sure. Cause like someone else on these ngs – you don’t dare trust the ‘facing pages’? ? If you want to go to Mass – go. That’s what the ‘indult’ is for. Go. No one is stopping you. If your bishop won’t have such, report him. Cause he’s not following orders. And you gotta do that – right? It IS The Magisterium which holds against ‘new order’. It appears invalid on its face. For this reason – FOR ALL – is NOT used! Read that again. Our Lord died for all, but not all are saved. How much clearer can that be? When I take Communion at the Novus Ordo Missae, is there ANYTHING of bread in what I am taking, save the appearance? Or is it the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of my Savior?

Read what I write – as it . . is written. ‘New order’ appears invalid on its face. That means the Sacrament . . . isn’t. Again – how much clearer can that be? I admit it still might be problematic. But I’ve never seen anything to the contrary – and particularly on UseNet – save for you telling me the Pope is impeccable, the Pope can do no wrong. Clearly Paul VI was wrong, and Popes can be wrong. If they are perfection, itself, then there’s no such thing as Pope – and the Prots are right for that very heretical reason. Actually, because of the obstinate attachments — well I don’t know, maybe it’s just nostalgia — of certain people, there are two.

Again – you be sure to get back to me when this unholy substitute thing is put away, for everyone’s sake, to please God, and by His grace and Providence. Then we’ll see how nostaligic _you_ get. aren’t supposed to be two, but there you have it. Either give the people what they want, or they will schizz, I guess. Not me. I eat what is placed before me, giving thanks.

For what? It’s like the libral cant about ‘choice’ – to do . . . what? Finish the sentence. Remember that when the time comes for the reemergence of The Holy Mass, by God’s grace and Providence. I’ll get back to you, then, and see if you’re still humming the same tune about ‘attachments’. We’ll see just what you’re attached to, then. ‘Channngge’ is hard, they say. Not for me, Mark. Honestly. I like to keep the fluidity of the warrior. (don’t know if you’ve read Castenada)

Lot a bunk. Read parts of two of his ‘tomes’ if I recall, some years ago. Utter waste of time. Typ. trendy garbage, keeping you from reading real books, by real authors. It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other

Obv. it does – and very much so. Be honest. but I will not sit idly by while you stir up dissent.

Callin me CTA agin, aren’t you? I was pointing out, that _you_ are much more on the CTA bandwagon that I could ever be. You defend the ‘new order’. I encourage Catholics to go Mass. Big difference. I have been to a Tridentine Mass. It is beautiful in its own way, and I recommend the experience to anyone. But the Novus Ordo is also beautiful,

It’s crass. It’s cheap. It’s a fraud. and there are good, solid reasons to prefer it.

Only for the heterodox. The most obvious reason is that it’s in the vernacular.

The old GIRM explained why you DON’T want the worldwide liturgy in some vernacular tongue. That’s what ‘facing pages’ are for, rather – not something the priest should be saying. Big difference. That means I can just close my eyes and follow along, naturally, without having to divide my concentration between praying and struggling to follow along,

Be honest. No one can follow a ‘new order’, not when it changes from week to week, from stage play to stage play, from ad hoc to ad hoc, and so on. translating, or following the translation. Just like the Early Church did, or just as if Latin was my mother tongue (if the Mass was in Latin).

It’s a phony complaint, and you have to realize it. Remember – whoever else might read something on UseNet – you know you’re writing to me. And you have not been readin at all if you think you can kid me with this kind of stuff. And yes, there are differences between the rites, and there are also similarities. But everything that makes the Mass the Mass is common to both.

Very little, about as much as Cranmer kept that suited _him_. Same for Bugnini, Thurian and whatever ‘liturgical experts’ since. You keep your ’super-experts’. I’ll stick with Catholicism. Regardless of your judgment about faulty translations. The question was answered in the GIRM

If you mean the dishonest doubletalk about ‘for all’ in the present GIRM – it answers nothing by avoiding the question. Just . . be honest. Try – to be honest. It’ll be better for you. All you get by sticking your head in the sand is an earful of misery. brought up again. Just because you didn’t like their answer

There was no answer. Read it again. And read my various criticisms of those passages on Deja again. don’t have to attend the Novus Ordo if you don’t like it, but then, you are depriving yourself of Daily Mass, to point out one glaring obvious lack. And it is you doing the depriving of yourself, no one else.

But I do want to go to Mass. So I do. It’s important. But it’s not important to you. You merely want to show up at some liturgy, some ‘get together’, some ‘beingness in communitiness in the lovingness of otherness and goddess within us’, or whatever the trendy local parish cant happens to be. You … read more »

Response:

Thank you Stephnie. I do know that — Mark and I went over and over this very discussion several months ago. Mark has the particular arrogance of thinking he’s more Catholic than the Pope.

Not me. I think Paul VI was wrong. I’ve said why, very specifically, and very consistently. I answer him is, as I stated, for the benefit of others.

For others to judge, as they say. Peace.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If I read you correctly here, you mean to say that the Church didn’t promulgate the Novus Ordo. Oh, Pope Paul VI did. But he did so against the very GIRM, against Trent, not in like manner as he falsely claimed, against the advice of Ottaviani in his official capacity, and Bacci, et al, against all good reason and orthodox faith, and he was a ‘reformer’. That he later lamented the ’smoke of Satan’ is one thing. And everyone has pointed that out. But it must be remembered that he was the one who let it in. And people are sometimes reluctant to remember something so obv. The Church, we agree, would never promulgate an "unholy substitute liturgy." You want to make the case that Pope Paul VI did independently of the Church. He did so as Pope, on his own authority – on his own – against good advice, against all common sense, against holy tradition, against the proscriptions of the docs of Vat II, against established practice for liturgical revision, against rejections of the very liturgy ultimately promulgated, and that and other criticism found in the short critical study signed by Ottaviani and Bacci, etc. He did this – on his own. Popes have done things – on their own. Sometimes, they recanted, very late in life. Sometimes history has shown they just – were wrong – period. Paul VI clearly overstepped. And the results are plain. Yes – we have the Mass. But I don’t think you do. The Catholic Reformed have _their_ liturgy, just as do the Anglicans. And it will be up to future Popes and bishops to declare just how much like the Anglican/Episcopal it is, and how much like the Mass it copies. But short of that official declaration, Catholics must act on what they know now, in good conscience, based on the evidence and prior Church teaching – http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . The Pope is the visible head of the Church. And Catholicism may be roughly defined as those individuals in communion with the Pope. The Pope is not impeccable. Do you really wish marginalize all the CTA types, with whom you now find yourself in political alliance, who criticize this Pope, or used to, at every opportunity? Who remains in your ‘church’, then – besides yourself?

Coincidentally(?) I have just now encountered the CTA (call-to-action) for the very first time. I was looking at the message boards at CIN and someone referenced it. Guess what? I do not agree with them. social activism is fine, and necessary, but — women priests? Come on, Mark, I would hope you knew me better than that. But I don’t suppose you do, or care to. You just want to pigeonhole me as a liberal, a reformer or (shudder) a "libral". The fact is, I am none of the above. If you bothered to pay any attention, you would realize that our viewpoints are not very much different. It’s just that I adhere to Church authority in matters of the liturgy, and you have your particular axe to grind — so I guess I get chopped with that, and thrown on to the pile with liberals, Adoremians, and anyone else who refuses to swallow the authority of Pope Mark Johnson. By the way — *you* are in "my" Church, along with Mother Angelica, Ted Seeber, and, well, you know — Catholics. Heck, the Pope is even in *my* Church — do you acknowledge the same about him? I think you believe ‘God’ – whatever you think that is – only started such communication after 1965. True?

False. And guess "what" I think God is??? Hint: It only looks like bread. Pope John XXIII stated that God the Holy Spirit moved him to call the Council. "Reconvene the Vatican Council? We are infallible enough." I’ll have to check on who is supposed to have said that.

Yes, do, but I think it was someone who thought, erroneously, as you appraently do, that Vatican II was for the purpose of "finishing up" Vatican I. From what I learned of the history of it, they initially tried to come up with some documents and have the Pope sign them, and the Pope said, "no, you don’t get it — think a lot bigger than that!" — to that effect. You fail to recognize that it is God Himself Who is still guiding His Church. Believe it. But you don’t appreciate what that means – or what it will mean for the causes and practices you currently defend.

What you fail to recognize, or acknowledge, about me, is that I am fine with *whatever* the Church does. I will remain faithful, please God. The only reason I defend the Novus Ordo is that it is the official Mass of the Latin Rite. Period. If the Church decreed tomorrow that we were to go back to the Tridentine, I would start studying Latin so as to be better able to understand. my question, which you must avoid answering at all costs, because you and I both know the answer — and you know it shoots down your argument, below: Do I receive the Body and Blood of Christ when I communicate at the Novus Ordo? It IS The Magisterium which holds against ‘new order’. It appears invalid on its face. For this reason – FOR ALL – is NOT used! Read that again. Our Lord died for all, but not all are saved. How much clearer can that be?

yes, have read that. Now answer my question: When I take Communion at the Novus Ordo Missae, is there ANYTHING of bread in what I am taking, save the appearance? Or is it the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of my Savior? Come on — we both know that you know the answer — you admitted it to me previously. Just reiterate, for the sake of our audience. If you don’t admit what you believe, I will tell them. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Yes, I am different. I am constantly growing. But point out to me how these differences indicate a "dead end." …? No – what I said was that your defense of ‘new order’ is a dead end. If you don’t see it, yet, at some point, you’re gonna hit the wall. It’s inevitable. Rather – repent! convert! Give up your Reformed Catholic ways. Yes, in some ways they beat the popular PC heathenism of our times. But that’s still not good enough. Staying an Episcopalean, or Reformed Catholic, when we’re talking here on a Catholic ng, is not the end of the journey. There will be many pastors and bishops who say – stay the course – fight against Catholicism and orthodoxy. But many pastors and bishops said similar things in the past. Heresies have always been with The Church, entire regions were threatened, in every historical period – read about it even in the NT letters. But churchmen are often wrong, and particularly when they embrace a ‘better way’, as is the thing, today. Don’t listen to them. If you argue against myself, or anyone, based on Denzinger’s, or Ott, or The Roman Catechism, or the Summa, and similar and much else, fine. _I_ could be wrong on many things. But you have to come at it from an orthodox perspective, or you can never appreciate what’s Catholic, and what’s not. Otherwise you’ll be just another ‘trendy theologian’, as it were – and just as useless.

When I am a theologian — at all — then we’ll discuss how good or bad of a job I am doing. For now, I am just a lay person. But based on what you write, on suggestions of papal impeccability and some overarching cult of personality, etc. All defenders of ‘new order’ seem to wind up in that heresy, eventually – the Pope can do no wrong, therefore ‘new order’ is right – end of discussion. I was acknowledging the Pope’s wisdom in allowing the Tridentine to continue, not in promulgating the Novus Ordo. This Pope didn’t do that, but he *does* use it — as any good Catholic priest should. Or should not, you mean.

Please don’t try to tell me what I mean. That is what you might think, but, you know, we disagree. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -And neither should he. But he may be too well ‘past it’, by this time, for it to matter, in his case. Again – I . . . don’t know. I don’t know why he does what he does, or fails to. Let me be clear on that. But he should have put a stop to ‘new order’ when he had the chance, gradually if you prefer – but he should have acted. Now it’ll be up to his successor, or to one after that. And he won’t be remembered well, I think, as Pope. And it’s his own fault for embracing as much of ‘reform’ as he appeared to do. Downfall for any pontiff to turn away from orthodox Catholicism and try to graft on some ‘better way’. Revelation was right the first time. It can’t be improved upon. You’d think any Pope would know that, and not even give the hint of a suggestion otherwise. But ‘new order’ stands or falls on its own right, and in comparison with the actual Mass it was _intended_ to replace – remember that? ‘New order’ wasn’t supposed to be some ‘parallel rite’, as is becoming the talk today (say Fr. Mole in the latest LM, who is dead wrong I think). It was supposed to be literally the Roman Rite, not Roman Rite 2, but . . The Roman Rite. Which is exactly what it is — the official Latin Rite. All the stamps. All the approvals. NOT a ‘parallel rite’. NOT intended to be a ‘parallel rite’. Meant to utterly displace and replace The Latin Mass – entirely, completely. There is only one Mass of The Church of The Latin Rite. We just disagree on which one ’tis.

Actually, because of the obstinate attachments — well I don’t know, maybe it’s just nostalgia — of certain people, there are two. There aren’t supposed to be two, but there you have it. Either give the people what they want, or they will schizz, I guess. Not me. I eat what is placed before me, giving thanks. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -reason the Tridentine is still around is because

Response:

Joseph, if you didn’t know, arguing with Mark Johnson = ramming your head against a brick wall

You must get tired of trying to run everyone else’s life for them. This is what – the 100th time or whatever that you’ve gone out of your way to tell someone not to talk to me on UseNet? You hate me that much, do you – you ‘Catholic’ you? You selfish hypocrite you. Peace. One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot discern truth from lies. Another is when they don’t even bother to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear. [Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I thought the Latin Liturgy was prohibited after Vatican II. Is the Latin Liturgy "recognized" by the Church? It’s still The Mass of The Church of The Latin Rite. The ‘new order’, the unholy substitute liturgy is what is problematic. The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. The Catholic Church does not promulgate "unholy substitute liturgies" The Church doesn’t. Joseph, if you didn’t know, arguing with Mark Johnson = ramming your head against a brick wall over and over and over and over. As far as he’s concerned, every Catholic in the world is wrong except for himself, which most people would call paranoia but he considers enlightenment. Mark, you’re in my killfile, so don’t bother responding to me.

Thank you Stephnie. I do know that — Mark and I went over and over this very discussion several months ago. Mark has the particular arrogance of thinking he’s more Catholic than the Pope. But the reason I answer him is, as I stated, for the benefit of others.

Response:

If I read you correctly here, you mean to say that the Church didn’t promulgate the Novus Ordo.

Oh, Pope Paul VI did. But he did so against the very GIRM, against Trent, not in like manner as he falsely claimed, against the advice of Ottaviani in his official capacity, and Bacci, et al, against all good reason and orthodox faith, and he was a ‘reformer’. That he later lamented the ’smoke of Satan’ is one thing. And everyone has pointed that out. But it must be remembered that he was the one who let it in. And people are sometimes reluctant to remember something so obv. The Church, we agree, would never promulgate an "unholy substitute liturgy." You want to make the case that Pope Paul VI did independently of the Church.

He did so as Pope, on his own authority – on his own – against good advice, against all common sense, against holy tradition, against the proscriptions of the docs of Vat II, against established practice for liturgical revision, against rejections of the very liturgy ultimately promulgated, and that and other criticism found in the short critical study signed by Ottaviani and Bacci, etc. He did this – on his own. Popes have done things – on their own. Sometimes, they recanted, very late in life. Sometimes history has shown they just – were wrong – period. Paul VI clearly overstepped. And the results are plain. Yes – we have the Mass. But I don’t think you do. The Catholic Reformed have _their_ liturgy, just as do the Anglicans. And it will be up to future Popes and bishops to declare just how much like the Anglican/Episcopal it is, and how much like the Mass it copies. But short of that official declaration, Catholics must act on what they know now, in good conscience, based on the evidence and prior Church teaching – http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . The Pope is the visible head of the Church. And Catholicism may be roughly defined as those individuals in communion with the Pope.

The Pope is not impeccable. Do you really wish marginalize all the CTA types, with whom you now find yourself in political alliance, who criticize this Pope, or used to, at every opportunity? Who remains in your ‘church’, then – besides yourself? So to separate the "Church" from the Pope, as you do, is to create a false dichotomy.

Popes can be wrong. He heads The Church. He can be wrong. Popes headed The Church in the past. And we have no reason – repeat, no reason – to believe they were wrong about The Mass – then. We have no reason to doubt The Roman Catechism. They had no reason to doubt the Summa. And so on. Either they were right, then, or they are – now. But there’s a clear contradiction. It suggests that the two PC Popes (post-conciliar), have been fundamentally wrong in both promulgating and maintaining the ‘new order’, the so-called revised Roman Rite – meant to utterly replace the Mass (sorry Fr. Mole, but true). If it ever comes to the point that ICELism gives way to an honest translation of the consecration – then we’re back to the Intervention and the early complaints with the ’standard mass’. But we’re not even at that point. He was wrong. He overstepped. He had the raw authority, but he still misused it. He did not do as The Church wished. He was at that time, the Vicar of Christ. He did not need *anyone’s* approval. That’s what you don’t seem to get. The Church is not a democracy, nor is it anything like a democracy.

It’s not a tyranny neither. You don’t understand. There are rules. There’s a standard. There are such things as illegal orders. And there’s no virtue, before God, in following such. As an example of this — the prefect for the Congreagation of the Doctrine of the Faith is, according to his rank in the Church, a bishop. He does not "outrank" his fellow bishops, nor is he "second in command" in the Church. Sacred Congregations, to the Pope, are like cabinet members to a president. They help him to carry out his functions, but they have no authority other than what the Pope entrusts to them. And the Pope, as sovereign, could dissolve any of these at any time he so chose.

You’re complaining about administrative shake-ups and changes. I’m talking about standards, or even just about the very proscriptions of the docs of Vat II with regard to a proposed revision of The Mass. ‘reformers’ always leave out of your careful calculations – God, Himself. The supernatural. Justice. No, Mark. It is you who ignore God.

But I go to Mass. I don’t ignore God. I think you do. You have a strange notion that God stopped communicating with His Church some time in the 60’s.

Never said such. And there are people trying to serve God, even today, in a ruined, desacralized institutional church – the worst it’s ever been. But I believe there are still Saints, nonetheless. I think you believe ‘God’ – whatever you think that is – only started such communication after 1965. True? Pope John XXIII stated that God the Holy Spirit moved him to call the Council.

"Reconvene the Vatican Council? We are infallible enough." I’ll have to check on who is supposed to have said that. God does not abandon His Church.

Churchmen abandon God. That’s how it works. Same for the Pharisees. Same for the chosen people, not once, but numerous times. Same for heretics and Reformed Catholics. True? You fail to recognize that it is God Himself Who is still guiding His Church.

Believe it. But you don’t appreciate what that means – or what it will mean for the causes and practices you currently defend. The frustration comes from dealing with the likes of you, Mark — plain and simple. Then your frustration is with Trent, and Aquinas, Gamber and von Hildebrand, with Scripture itself – but NOT with Bugnini, or Thurian, or the like. Don’t be frustrated. Repent! Convert! Trent and Aquinas I recognize. Scripture I recognize. Those other names have no authority that I am aware of.

Unfortunately for Catholics, Bugnini and Thurian and assorted others – DID – have legitimate authority. They, like Paul VI, simply misused that authority, and did wrong. It needs to be set right at some point – and not by some compromise that allows for ‘parallel rites’ in perpetuity. Only one rite is guaranteed for perpetuity. And it’s presently found in the catacombs. But you’ll see it more prominently, again. From the Mass, I get nothing but peace I’m sure the Anglicans say much the same – so too for the born agains who do so much good charitable work, and hang on to the latest CCM tune, and watch Pat Robertson religiously, as it were. so what?

So . . . they get ‘peace’, as well, after a fashion – just as you yourself describe. It’s not the peace that lasts. What, pray tell, would be lacking?

Catholicism. receive the Body and Blood of Christ when I communicate at the Novus Ordo?

It IS The Magisterium which holds against ‘new order’. It appears invalid on its face. For this reason – FOR ALL – is NOT used! Read that again. Our Lord died for all, but not all are saved. How much clearer can that be? Yes, I am different. I am constantly growing. But point out to me how these differences indicate a "dead end." …?

No – what I said was that your defense of ‘new order’ is a dead end. If you don’t see it, yet, at some point, you’re gonna hit the wall. It’s inevitable. Rather – repent! convert! Give up your Reformed Catholic ways. Yes, in some ways they beat the popular PC heathenism of our times. But that’s still not good enough. Staying an Episcopalean, or Reformed Catholic, when we’re talking here on a Catholic ng, is not the end of the journey. There will be many pastors and bishops who say – stay the course – fight against Catholicism and orthodoxy. But many pastors and bishops said similar things in the past. Heresies have always been with The Church, entire regions were threatened, in every historical period – read about it even in the NT letters. But churchmen are often wrong, and particularly when they embrace a ‘better way’, as is the thing, today. Don’t listen to them. If you argue against myself, or anyone, based on Denzinger’s, or Ott, or The Roman Catechism, or the Summa, and similar and much else, fine. _I_ could be wrong on many things. But you have to come at it from an orthodox perspective, or you can never appreciate what’s Catholic, and what’s not. Otherwise you’ll be just another ‘trendy theologian’, as it were – and just as useless. But based on what you write, on suggestions of papal impeccability and some overarching cult of personality, etc. All defenders of ‘new order’ seem to wind up in that heresy, eventually – the Pope can do no wrong, therefore ‘new order’ is right – end of discussion. I was acknowledging the Pope’s wisdom in allowing the Tridentine to continue, not in promulgating the Novus Ordo. This Pope didn’t do that, but he *does* use it — as any good Catholic priest should.

Or should not, you mean. And neither should he. But he may be too well ‘past it’, by this time, for it to matter, in his case. Again – I . . . don’t know. I don’t know why he does what he does, or fails to. Let me be clear on that. But he should have put a stop to ‘new order’ when he had the chance, gradually if you prefer – but he should have acted. Now it’ll be up to his successor, or to one after that. And he won’t be remembered well, I think, as Pope. And it’s his own fault for embracing as much of ‘reform’ as he appeared to do. Downfall for any pontiff to turn away from orthodox Catholicism and try to graft on some ‘better way’. Revelation was … read more »

Response:

Joseph, if you didn’t know, arguing with Mark Johnson = ramming your head against a brick wall over and over and over and over. As far as he’s concerned, every Catholic in the world is wrong except for himself, which most people would call paranoia but he considers enlightenment. Mark, you’re in my killfile, so don’t bother responding to me.

Response:

If I read you correctly here, you mean to say that the Church didn’t promulgate the Novus Ordo. The Church, we agree, would never promulgate an "unholy substitute liturgy." You want to make the case that Pope Paul VI did.

independently of the Church. The Pope is the visible head of the Church. And Catholicism may be roughly defined as those individuals in communion with the Pope. So to separate the "Church" from the Pope, as you do, is to create a false dichotomy. He was wrong. He overstepped. He had the raw authority, but he still misused it. He did not do as The Church wished.

He was at that time, the Vicar of Christ. He did not need *anyone’s* approval. That’s what you don’t seem to get. The Church is not a democracy, nor is it anything like a democracy. As an example of this — the prefect for the Congreagation of the Doctrine of the Faith is, according to his rank in the Church, a bishop. He does not "outrank" his fellow bishops, nor is he "second in command" in the Church. Sacred Congregations, to the Pope, are like cabinet members to a president. They help him to carry out his functions, but they have no authority other than what the Pope entrusts to them. And the Pope, as sovereign, could dissolve any of these at any time he so chose. You silly ‘reformers’ always leave out of your careful calculations – God, Himself. The supernatural. Justice.

No, Mark. It is you who ignore God. You have a strange notion that God stopped communicating with His Church some time in the 60’s. Pope John XXIII stated that God the Holy Spirit moved him to call the Council. God does not abandon His Church. You fail to recognize that it is God Himself Who is still guiding His Church. I am not attempting to reform anything. I believe the Church is still the Church, and the Mass is still the Mass, and the Pope is still the Pope. And God is still God. A ‘new mass’ is not necessarily one even valid, by form or intention. This has really yet to be systematically defended, apart from simply asserting that the Pope can do no wrong in these matters – that he’s not impeccable, but of course . . . he is (which he’s not) – which is ultimately where every defender of the ‘new order’ liturgy ends up; frustrated and almost insane. The frustration comes from dealing with the likes of you, Mark — plain and simple. Then your frustration is with Trent, and Aquinas, Gamber and von Hildebrand, with Scripture itself – but NOT with Bugnini, or Thurian, or the like. Don’t be frustrated. Repent! Convert!

Trent and Aquinas I recognize. Scripture I recognize. Those other names have no authority that I am aware of. From the Mass, I get nothing but peace I’m sure the Anglicans say much the same – so too for the born agains who do so much good charitable work, and hang on to the latest CCM tune, and watch Pat Robertson religiously, as it were.

so what? It’s not the peace that lasts.

What, pray tell, would be lacking? I want to hear you say it — do I receive the Body and Blood of Christ when I communicate at the Novus Ordo? You shouldn’t prefer this new liturgy, as I suspect you do. It’s not only a dead end. It’s a deadly dead end, as we see over the years just on UseNet. Where do you find *any* Mass offered on Usenet? It’s a dead end for defenders such as yourself. I mean . . . look at you. And look how you started out on UseNet. Very different.

Yes, I am different. I am constantly growing. But point out to me how these differences indicate a "dead end." …? I don’t think you know what you’re talking about, but if you have something to say, about me, back it up. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Is the Eucharist offered during the Latin Liturgy? yes. Apparently, the custom used to be it was not during certain High Masses. That may be the basis of the question. What is the current Pope’s position, officially or implicitly, on the Latin Liturgy? No one really knows. The current Pope’s position, explicitly declared and stated by him, is to provide for the Tridentine Rite, as a concession to those who are attached to it. It is, obviously, still the Mass, and given the two alternatives of allowing the Tridentine Rite to continue, thus keeping the likes of Mark Johnson in the Catholic Church, or disallowing it and letting them all schism away into some kind of "Roman Orthodox" Church, I see the wisdom in the Holy Father’s decision. I am glad Mark is still in the same Church as I am, even though he will not acknowledge that about me. But based on what you write, on suggestions of papal impeccability and some overarching cult of personality, etc. All defenders of ‘new order’ seem to wind up in that heresy, eventually – the Pope can do no wrong, therefore ‘new order’ is right – end of discussion.

I was acknowledging the Pope’s wisdom in allowing the Tridentine to continue, not in promulgating the Novus Ordo. This Pope didn’t do that, but he *does* use it — as any good Catholic priest should. But ‘new order’ stands or falls on its own right, and in comparison with the actual Mass it was _intended_ to replace – remember that? ‘New order’ wasn’t supposed to be some ‘parallel rite’, as is becoming the talk today (say Fr. Mole in the latest LM, who is dead wrong I think). It was supposed to be literally the Roman Rite, not Roman Rite 2, but . . The Roman Rite.

Which is exactly what it is — the official Latin Rite. The only reason the Tridentine is still around is because of the attachments of certain people. Of course The Latin Mass, the actual Catholic Mass of the Roman Rite had to be suppressed.

The Novus Ordo is the actual Catholic Mass of the Latin Rite. The former rite is still valid, of course, but not to be preferred. The fact that you can attend the Tridentine if you want to makes it obvious it hasn’t been suppressed. I really don’t want to discuss this any further with you, Mark. I have no desire whatsoever to beat my head against that particular wall. I will continue to point out to others the falsity of your "unholy substitute liturgy" position, whenever I see you bringing it up. Just so you know.

Response:

I thought the Latin Liturgy was prohibited after Vatican II. Is the Latin Liturgy "recognized" by the Church? It’s still The Mass of The Church of The Latin Rite. The ‘new order’, the unholy substitute liturgy is what is problematic. The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. The Catholic Church does not promulgate "unholy substitute liturgies"

The Church doesn’t. Pope Paul VI did. He was wrong. He overstepped. He had the raw authority, but he still misused it. He did not do as The Church wished. He ignored the very GIRM in the missal in use then. He ignored the docs of Vat II. He ignored much else to falsely promulgate this neo-Prot thing, as Ottaviani, Bacci, et al rightly characterized it. Johnson has a problem with it, so it’s problematic, to him. But not to faithful Catholics.

It IS The Magisterium which holds against ‘new order’. Our Lord died for all, but not all are saved. People may someday be nostalgic for ‘new order’, when it is suppressed. wishful thinking

Of course that’s my wish. But it’s not wishful thinking. You silly ‘reformers’ always leave out of your careful calculations – God, Himself. The supernatural. Justice. A ‘new mass’ is not necessarily one even valid, by form or intention. This has really yet to be systematically defended, apart from simply asserting that the Pope can do no wrong in these matters – that he’s not impeccable, but of course . . . he is (which he’s not) – which is ultimately where every defender of the ‘new order’ liturgy ends up; frustrated and almost insane. The frustration comes from dealing with the likes of you, Mark — plain and simple.

Then your frustration is with Trent, and Aquinas, Gamber and von Hildebrand, with Scripture itself – but NOT with Bugnini, or Thurian, or the like. Don’t be frustrated. Repent! Convert! From the Mass, I get nothing but peace

I’m sure the Anglicans say much the same – so too for the born agains who do so much good charitable work, and hang on to the latest CCM tune, and watch Pat Robertson religiously, as it were. It’s not the peace that lasts. You shouldn’t prefer this new liturgy, as I suspect you do. It’s not only a dead end. It’s a deadly dead end, as we see over the years just on UseNet. Where do you find *any* Mass offered on Usenet?

It’s a dead end for defenders such as yourself. I mean . . . look at you. And look how you started out on UseNet. Very different. Is the Eucharist offered during the Latin Liturgy? yes.

Apparently, the custom used to be it was not during certain High Masses. That may be the basis of the question. What is the current Pope’s position, officially or implicitly, on the Latin Liturgy? No one really knows. The current Pope’s position, explicitly declared and stated by him, is to provide for the Tridentine Rite, as a concession to those who are attached to it. It is, obviously, still the Mass, and given the two alternatives of allowing the Tridentine Rite to continue, thus keeping the likes of Mark Johnson in the Catholic Church, or disallowing it and letting them all schism away into some kind of "Roman Orthodox" Church, I see the wisdom in the Holy Father’s decision. I am glad Mark is still in the same Church as I am, even though he will not acknowledge that about me.

But based on what you write, on suggestions of papal impeccability and some overarching cult of personality, etc. All defenders of ‘new order’ seem to wind up in that heresy, eventually – the Pope can do no wrong, therefore ‘new order’ is right – end of discussion. But ‘new order’ stands or falls on its own right, and in comparison with the actual Mass it was _intended_ to replace – remember that? ‘New order’ wasn’t supposed to be some ‘parallel rite’, as is becoming the talk today (say Fr. Mole in the latest LM, who is dead wrong I think). It was supposed to be literally the Roman Rite, not Roman Rite 2, but . . The Roman Rite. Of course The Latin Mass, the actual Catholic Mass of the Roman Rite had to be suppressed. This wasn’t a variation, but was supposed to be the thing, itself. But ‘new order’ obv. was a fraud, from Bugnini on up, and right to the present day’s ad ‘hockery’ and ‘liturgies’ you can’t even follow because they change from week to week – talk about ‘participation’ ! It more than anything has led to the ruination of the institutional church for which JP II _should_ apologize, for his inaction in not suppressing ‘new order’ which has contributed significantly to the ‘problems in The Church’, as some phrase it. I suggest this even while I tend to believe those who believe the Pope is NOT responsible, not all there, not coherent, verging on senility if not already there, and so on – that what he signs are what people bring him who manage to break through whatever cordon of keepers. If a conservative brings him a doc, he signs, and chastises abuse of ‘EM’s, without criticizing ‘EM’s, that is – which Vat II never called for. If a libral comes along, he signs that, and sends mixed messages. He kisses the Koran, and may not even realized what he was doing at the time – we just don’t know. So I suggest he apologize, for his sin of omission and failure to lead as an actual Pope, allowing that he may not be competent personally at this point, only because he has apologized for a host of things either that The Church needn’t have apologized for or for which he had nothing to do himself. So this would be like that, but really, unlike so much of the rest – needs to be said. That may be the one, principal reason why he’ll remain silent? Interesting times. Peace. One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot discern truth from lies. Another is when they don’t even bother to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear. [Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]

Response:

The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. The Catholic Church does not promulgate "unholy substitute liturgies" in place of the Mass. Mark Johnson has a problem with it, so it’s problematic, to him. But not to faithful Catholics. Does it "count" as a real mass or is it just a form of nostalgia, if you’ll pardon the phrase?

It "counts" as a real Mass. People may someday be nostalgic for ‘new order’, when it is suppressed.

wishful thinking A ‘new mass’ is not necessarily one even valid, by form or intention. This has really yet to be systematically defended, apart from simply asserting that the Pope can do no wrong in these matters – that he’s not impeccable, but of course . . . he is (which he’s not) – which is ultimately where every defender of the ‘new order’ liturgy ends up; frustrated and almost insane.

The frustration comes from dealing with the likes of you, Mark — plain and simple. From the Mass, I get nothing but peace — and the conviction of my own sins, which, via the Mass, and Confession, get taken away. You shouldn’t prefer this new liturgy, as I suspect you do. It’s not only a dead end. It’s a deadly dead end, as we see over the years just on UseNet.

Where do you find *any* Mass offered on Usenet? Is the Eucharist offered during the Latin Liturgy?

yes. What is the current Pope’s position, officially or implicitly, on the Latin Liturgy? No one really knows.

That is a crock! The current Pope’s position, explicitly declared and stated by him, is to provide for the Tridentine Rite, as a concession to those who are attached to it. It is, obviously, still the Mass, and given the two alternatives of allowing the Tridentine Rite to continue, thus keeping the likes of Mark Johnson in the Catholic Church, or disallowing it and letting them all schism away into some kind of "Roman Orthodox" Church, I see the wisdom in the Holy Father’s decision. I am glad Mark is still in the same Church as I am, even though he will not acknowledge that about me.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In other matters, are the official documents of the Catholic Church still written in Latin; that is, is Latin still the official language of the CC? Are there any web sites devoted to current Catholic doctrines and issues written in Latin? I do believe that Latin is one of the official languages of the nation of Vatican City, so that is the reason that proclomations made by the church are in Latin. And since the rule is that Masses are to be said in the language of the country in which one is residing, one could safely assume that Masses said in Vatican City are said in Latin. I have sung in the choir for Masses that had the service music(the Gloria, the Agnus Dei, etc) in Latin, but the rest of the Mass was in English. These are usually the Masses of high holidays, i.e., Christmas and Easter. Buny

Actually, I think Italian is more often used in Vatican City. As far as I know, no one in the world speaks Latin as a first language — it is a "dead" language; and most of the inhabitants of Vatican City speak Italian.

Response:

In other matters, are the official documents of the Catholic Church still written in Latin; that is, is Latin still the official language of the CC? Are there any web sites devoted to current Catholic doctrines and issues written in Latin?

I do believe that Latin is one of the official languages of the nation of Vatican City, so that is the reason that proclomations made by the church are in Latin. And since the rule is that Masses are to be said in the language of the country in which one is residing, one could safely assume that Masses said in Vatican City are said in Latin. I have sung in the choir for Masses that had the service music(the Gloria, the Agnus Dei, etc) in Latin, but the rest of the Mass was in English. These are usually the Masses of high holidays, i.e., Christmas and Easter. Buny

Response:

It’s still The Mass of The Church of The Latin Rite. The ‘new order’, the unholy substitute liturgy is what is problematic. Does it "count" as a real mass or is it just a form of nostalgia, if you’ll pardon the phrase?

People may someday be nostalgic for ‘new order’, when it is suppressed. I issued the offer to various on even these ngs to please get back to me when _that_ is what’s getting . . . ‘changed’ (change being difficult, etc, etc). But while nostalgia is always present in anything worthwhile, there is also trust, and faith, and esteem for what was right from the start. It’s not nostalgia to prefer a well made suit to a cheap one. It’s not nostalgia to prefer good tv shows to junk. It’s not nostalgia to say they don’t make em like they used to. In a lot of cases, in order to fight the rampant inflation of the last half century (a car that cost $3000 in 1965, a similar model would cost maybe $20,000 today – a house at $30K, now at $600K – and so on), manufacturers HAVE cut back on quality, and reliability. A ‘new mass’ is not necessarily one even valid, by form or intention. This has really yet to be systematically defended, apart from simply asserting that the Pope can do no wrong in these matters – that he’s not impeccable, but of course . . . he is (which he’s not) – which is ultimately where every defender of the ‘new order’ liturgy ends up; frustrated and almost insane. You shouldn’t prefer this new liturgy, as I suspect you do. It’s not only a dead end. It’s a deadly dead end, as we see over the years just on UseNet. Is the Eucharist offered during the Latin Liturgy?

That’s an odd question. What is the current Pope’s position, officially or implicitly, on the Latin Liturgy?

No one really knows. But then the problem may be that this Pope either does not know his own mind, or is feeble and being held captive in some way by those of various factions. That is, he’s a figurehead, or rubberstamp, for whoever manages to get through the door. If it’s an orthodox Catholic, then we get orthodox decrees. If ‘reformer’, we get more ‘changing church’ stuff. From what I’ve read, this Pope appears to have been fairly heterodox from the start, and that might explain his election as Pope, rather than a dreaded ‘conservative’ – and such has been the dread, apparently, since the election of Paul VI. When the Latin Liturgy was performed before V II, I know the priest kept his back to the congregation for the most part. But could the parishioners hear what the priest was saying, or was it largely muttered?

You don’t know that the priest "kept his back to". He was facing the altar, to be more precise. At times, the rubrics call for him to turn and face the faithful. At times he is to raise his voice. At times he makes the Sign of the Cross, or even repeatedly. These actions are like markers that tell the faithful where the priest is at some point in, say, the Canon. In other matters, are the official documents of the Catholic Church still written in Latin; that is, is Latin still the official language of the CC? Are there any web sites devoted to current Catholic doctrines and issues written in Latin?

If you want ‘current’ doctrines, why the interest in Latin, at all? ‘Current’ doctrine is hardly that. It either is Catholic teaching, or not – and its ‘currency’ has nothing to do with it. Catholic teaching is not of the moment. It is not temporized. I don’t know if that’s what you were getting at. If so, is there an online dictionary of current terms translated into Latin. ( I know there must be a latin word for "computer" out there somewhere .)

The Church Latin is a dead language. It is a liturgical language. It is meant to be that way – unchanging. Latin, as you know, is used for technical terms, particularly in biology and medicine (as is Greek). But it is no longer a vernacular language. Now, I am not Catholic (I’m Episcopalian), but I have always **loved** the idea that you could go anywhere in the world and experience the same liturgy. It seems to engender a **real** sense of universality. I must say that a service in the vernacular simply can not do this.

Obviously. And more to the point, the General Instruction to the Roman Missal, prior to Vatican II, made _precisely_ this point. Paul VI had to have read that very missal, and that GIRM. Yet he promulgated an entirely vernacular rite. Idiocy? Bitter heterodox obstinancy? The ‘best of intentions’ based on delusion and rationalization? Who knows? I think the latin language is beautiful and have read (WF Buckley, for instance) as well as heard from others that the Latin Liturgy was positively sublime. Is there any real chance that in the future that the Latin Liturgy might be permitted as long as a church has one in the vernacular?

Why – "as long as"? Why must it be so? If the ‘new liturgy’ is problematic, why would you insist Catholics be forced to a problematic liturgy? The Latin Mass is available most everywhere, by the grace of God – if not that of churchmen, today – currently, speaking of that. You don’t seem as if you are particularly eager for more than ‘nostalgia’ or curiosity. I doubt the Holy Mass would mean much to you. ‘New order’ can be ‘workshopped’, and ‘crafted’, as people like. That’s what it’s designed for. And you might prefer that, or the Episcopalean service and the like, much more. If you are interested in this matter, please see: http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/MassNote.htm http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/The_Mass.htm http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/CathLink , under Controversies http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/Books.htm That’s why those pages are there. Peace. One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot discern truth from lies. Another is when they don’t even bother to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear. [Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]

Response:

You can hear a latin mass in any large city in the world. You have to look for it though. Special permission must be given for a church to say latin masses. However, this is commonly given.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was brushing up on my latin and decided to see what was on the net about it. I was surprised to see that there are still latin masses still performed. I have a few questions: I thought the Latin Liturgy was prohibited after Vatican II. Is the Latin Liturgy "recognized" by the Church? Does it "count" as a real mass or is it just a form of nostalgia, if you’ll pardon the phrase? Is the Eucharist offered during the Latin Liturgy? What is the current Pope’s position, officially or implicitly, on the Latin Liturgy? When the Latin Liturgy was performed before V II, I know the priest kept his back to the congregation for the most part. But could the parishioners hear what the priest was saying, or was it largely muttered? In other matters, are the official documents of the Catholic Church still written in Latin; that is, is Latin still the official language of the CC? Are there any web sites devoted to current Catholic doctrines and issues written in Latin? If so, is there an online dictionary of current terms translated into Latin. ( I know there must be a latin word for "computer" out there somewhere .) None of the sites I found talked about any of these issues. Now, I am not Catholic (I’m Episcopalian), but I have always **loved** the idea that you could go anywhere in the world and experience the same liturgy. It seems to engender a **real** sense of universality. I must say that a service in the vernacular simply can not do this. I think the latin language is beautiful and have read (WF Buckley, for instance) as well as heard from others that the Latin Liturgy was positively sublime. Is there any real chance that in the future that the Latin Liturgy might be permitted as long as a church has one in the vernacular? I would like to check one out one of these days. (I live in Queens, New York.)

Response:

I was brushing up on my Latin and decided to see what was on the net about it. I was surprised to see that there are still Latin masses still performed. I have a few questions: I thought the Latin Liturgy was prohibited after Vatican II. Is the Latin Liturgy "recognized" by the Church?

The vernacular is PREFERRED. No one outlawed Latin, though some Catholics would also mistakenly agree with your view, it is more a misunderstanding of Vatican II, than the truth. Does it "count" as a real mass or is it just a form of nostalgia, if you’ll pardon the phrase?

Attending a properly sanctioned Latin Mass fully and completely satisfies the faithful’s obligation to attend Mass on Sunday and Holy Days. Is the Eucharist offered during the Latin Liturgy?

Yes. All with full pre-vatican regalia, patens etc. What is the current Pope’s position, officially or implicitly, on the Latin Liturgy?

That it is useful, valuable, and not to be discouraged, those in the parish or deanery who are drawn to the Latin Mass are to be treated with respect and Love, they are not to be marginalized or in any way made to feel inferior to the vernacular Mass attendees. When the Latin Liturgy was performed before V II, I know the priest kept his back to the congregation for the most part. But could the parishioners hear what the priest was saying, or was it largely muttered?

Still muttered, can’t hear a thing. In other matters, are the official documents of the Catholic Church still written in Latin;

Yes, it is the official language of the Vatican. that is, is Latin still the official language of the CC?

I believe it is of the Vatican, of the Church is too broad a statement, it leaves out those Uniate Churches which are faithful sons and daughters of the Church who exercise their own non-Latin rites and yet are still in full union with the Holy Father, there are the Maronite, Byzantine, Coptic etc rites all in union with the Holy Father. Are there any web sites devoted to current Catholic doctrines and issues written in Latin?

I am sure you will find certain Catholics who will tell you that there has not been a legitimate pope since the death of Pope Pius XII. They are referred to as Sedevacantists, they are usually though not exclusively, the same crowd that thinks the current Latin Mass is not a legitimate form, since it deviates from certain norms they believe are essential. They believe that only they will be saved and that they are a remnant of the Church. It is when they start denouncing the Holy Father and the teaching authority of the bishops that things get out of hand. You can find one splinter group (of unknown numbers) who actually believe they’ve elected a new pope, Pius XIII!?!? If so, is there an online I think the Latin language is beautiful and have read (WF Buckley, for instance) as well as heard from others that the Latin Liturgy was positively sublime. Is there any real chance that in the future that the Latin Liturgy might be permitted as long as a church has one in the vernacular? I would like to check one out one of these days. (I live in Queens, New York.)

New York most certainly has a Latin Mass in many parishes, call the Archdiocese and ask. They should have a schedule. Of course they are a large bureaucracy, but being a native of New York, you shouldn’t have any trouble dealing with a bureaucracy.

Response:

I was brushing up on my latin and decided to see what was on the net about it. I was surprised to see that there are still latin masses still performed. I have a few questions: I thought the Latin Liturgy was prohibited after Vatican II. Is the Latin Liturgy "recognized" by the Church? Does it "count" as a real mass or is it just a form of nostalgia, if you’ll pardon the phrase? Is the Eucharist offered during the Latin Liturgy? What is the current Pope’s position, officially or implicitly, on the Latin Liturgy? When the Latin Liturgy was performed before V II, I know the priest kept his back to the congregation for the most part. But could the parishioners hear what the priest was saying, or was it largely muttered? In other matters, are the official documents of the Catholic Church still written in Latin; that is, is Latin still the official language of the CC? Are there any web sites devoted to current Catholic doctrines and issues written in Latin? If so, is there an online dictionary of current terms translated into Latin. ( I know there must be a latin word for "computer" out there somewhere .) None of the sites I found talked about any of these issues. Now, I am not Catholic (I’m Episcopalian), but I have always **loved** the idea that you could go anywhere in the world and experience the same liturgy. It seems to engender a **real** sense of universality. I must say that a service in the vernacular simply can not do this. I think the latin language is beautiful and have read (WF Buckley, for instance) as well as heard from others that the Latin Liturgy was positively sublime. Is there any real chance that in the future that the Latin Liturgy might be permitted as long as a church has one in the vernacular? I would like to check one out one of these days. (I live in Queens, New York.)

Response:

Filed under: Social Activism

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism