SSPX offered a Personal Prelature

Brer Fox

This is great news. Let's hope they accept the offer.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1202500.htm

Onesimus

Whats a prelature?

Brer Fox

Onesimus wrote: »

Whats a prelature?

Opus Dei is a Personal Prelature and the only one in the RCC at present.

Personal prelature is an institutional structure of the Roman Catholic Church which comprises a prelate, clergy and laity who undertake specific pastoral activities. Personal prelatures, similar to dioceses and military ordinariates, are under the governance of the Vatican's Congregation for Bishops. These three types of ecclesiastical structures are composed of lay people served by their own secular clergy and prelate. Unlike dioceses which cover territories, personal prelatures —like military ordinariates— take charge of persons as regards some objectives regardless of where they live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_prelature

Onesimus

Let us pray then that they will conform and accept the doctrines of the Church, Vatican II etc and move into union with her.

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

Let us pray then that they will conform and accept the doctrines of the Church, Vatican II etc and move into union with her.

Vatican II by its own admission was a "pastoral council" and not binding on any conscience.

What doctrines of the Church do the SSPX reject?

lmaopml

That's good news. I think Pope Benedict is doing everything he can to have constructive dialogue and to put Christ and his ways first, understanding and friendship and love of the wonderful call to serve him first as a vocation - the olive branch - the hand of friendship.

I hope it goes well.

Brer Fox

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Vatican II by its own admission was a "pastoral council" and not binding on any conscience.

What doctrines of the Church do the SSPX reject?

When the Council teaches on matters of faith and morals, we owe the assent of mind and will to the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. Although Vatican II defined no new dogmas, it did teach about matters of faith and morals.

HamletOrHecuba

Brer Fox wrote: »

When the Council teaches on matters of faith and morals, we owe the assent of mind and will to the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. Although Vatican II defined no new dogmas, it did teach about matters of faith and morals.

No we do not necessarily; not if it contradicts Tradition and Scripture. Truth can not contradict itself, so either way Vatican II is fallible.

HamletOrHecuba

Brer do you believe the restrictions on Scientology in Germany and Scandnavia are evil?

Onesimus

Onesimus wrote: »

Let us pray then that they will conform and accept the doctrines of the Church, Vatican II etc and move into union with her.

I think they would be better off not accepting the doctrines and documents of Vatican II. By praying to bring the SSPX into full communion with Rome and adhere to Vatican II doctrine (in the case that they will accept the personal prelature), will only alienated the followers of the SSPX. If the SSPX accept the prelature their followers will become mainstream Catholics, with traditional tendencies, and the SSPX will be able to get more followers and expand into new territories with Vatican and Diocesan support. But your prayers to move them into total unity with Rome which would include the introduction of saying of the Novus Ordo Mass, thus those who go to the SSPX churches for Mass in Latin, but won't find it, will try find it somewhere else, if your prayers move them to full Roman unity.

So if you pray that the the SSPX will fully unite with Rome we will have another split in the Roman Catholic Church and probably lose more mainstream Catholics, the original followers and those that they will gain during the Vatican supported expansion of the SSPX.

Instead pray that Vatican II will be repealed, so Mass can be solemnly celebrated once again, and not celebrated by happy-clappy priests making a joke of things and not even believing in transubstantiation.

Also pray for the Popes, (Arch)Bishops, priests, religious and laity for the mistakes they have made (liturgically or otherwise) but in the end we're all human... and God will judge us thereafter.

God Bless.

lmaopml

Hamza Petite Leotard wrote: »

I think they would be better off not accepting the doctrines and documents of Vatican II. By praying to bring the SSPX into full communion with Rome and adhere to Vatican II doctrine (in the case that they will accept the personal prelature), will only alienated the followers of the SSPX. If the SSPX accept the prelature their followers will become mainstream Catholics, with traditional tendencies, and the SSPX will be able to get more followers and expand into new territories with Vatican and Diocesan support. But your prayers to move them into total unity with Rome which would include the introduction of saying of the Novus Ordo Mass, thus those who go to the SSPX churches for Mass in Latin, but won't find it, will try find it somewhere else, if your prayers move them to full Roman unity.

So if you pray that the the SSPX will fully unite with Rome we will have another split in the Roman Catholic Church and probably lose more mainstream Catholics, the original followers and those that they will gain during the Vatican supported expansion of the SSPX.

Instead pray that Vatican II will be repealed, so Mass can be solemnly celebrated once again, and not celebrated by happy-clappy priests making a joke of things and not even believing in transubstantiation.

Also pray for the Popes, (Arch)Bishops, priests, religious and laity for the mistakes they have made (liturgically or otherwise) but in the end we're all human... and God will judge us thereafter.

God Bless.

I hope the people sitting at the table remember that they are servants to the servants, 'all' of them are - and put that vocation first with humility in mind and not pride. Christ will prevail one way or the other, so will his servants.

Brer Fox

Hamza Petite Leotard wrote: »

I think they would be better off not accepting the doctrines and documents of Vatican II. By praying to bring the SSPX into full communion with Rome and adhere to Vatican II doctrine (in the case that they will accept the personal prelature), will only alienated the followers of the SSPX. If the SSPX accept the prelature their followers will become mainstream Catholics, with traditional tendencies, and the SSPX will be able to get more followers and expand into new territories with Vatican and Diocesan support. But your prayers to move them into total unity with Rome which would include the introduction of saying of the Novus Ordo Mass, thus those who go to the SSPX churches for Mass in Latin, but won't find it, will try find it somewhere else, if your prayers move them to full Roman unity.

So if you pray that the the SSPX will fully unite with Rome we will have another split in the Roman Catholic Church and probably lose more mainstream Catholics, the original followers and those that they will gain during the Vatican supported expansion of the SSPX.

Instead pray that Vatican II will be repealed, so Mass can be solemnly celebrated once again, and not celebrated by happy-clappy priests making a joke of things and not even believing in transubstantiation.

Also pray for the Popes, (Arch)Bishops, priests, religious and laity for the mistakes they have made (liturgically or otherwise) but in the end we're all human... and God will judge us thereafter.

God Bless.

You seem a little misinformed. Firstly, the SSPX already accept the validity of the New Mass (N.O.), even if, as they might claim, some/most N.O. Masses may be/are invalid. Secondly, Pope Benedict freed up use of the TLM in 2007 so it is presently available, but not as much as we'd like or everywhere. Thirdly, the SSPX won't be forced to say the N.O.

Onesimus

Hamza Petite Leotard wrote: »

I think they would be better off not accepting the doctrines and documents of Vatican II. By praying to bring the SSPX into full communion with Rome and adhere to Vatican II doctrine (in the case that they will accept the personal prelature), will only alienated the followers of the SSPX. If the SSPX accept the prelature their followers will become mainstream Catholics, with traditional tendencies, and the SSPX will be able to get more followers and expand into new territories with Vatican and Diocesan support. But your prayers to move them into total unity with Rome which would include the introduction of saying of the Novus Ordo Mass, thus those who go to the SSPX churches for Mass in Latin, but won't find it, will try find it somewhere else, if your prayers move them to full Roman unity.

So if you pray that the the SSPX will fully unite with Rome we will have another split in the Roman Catholic Church and probably lose more mainstream Catholics, the original followers and those that they will gain during the Vatican supported expansion of the SSPX.

Instead pray that Vatican II will be repealed, so Mass can be solemnly celebrated once again, and not celebrated by happy-clappy priests making a joke of things and not even believing in transubstantiation.

Also pray for the Popes, (Arch)Bishops, priests, religious and laity for the mistakes they have made (liturgically or otherwise) but in the end we're all human... and God will judge us thereafter.

God Bless.

Jesus prayed ''May they all be one''. We ( Byzantines ) are in full communion with Rome. There is no half glass about unity. Your either fully in or your not.

Those happy clappy priests you are talking about are the modernist liberals who also reject vatican II ( even though they ''claim'' to accept it, they have their own interpretation ). The current SSPX fundamentalist group reject Vatican II altogether. So Yes I'll pray for....BOTH. Because both of these groups are not Catholic and both are causing damage in the Church. Both see themselves as ''victims of the institution'' who are being ''excommunicated for their phony claims that the Church has somehow abandoned the faith. Both of these groups echo the reformation all over again. History has a habit of repeating itself. Devil just keeps repeating the same old tactics but with new labels over and over again.

Get your head out of the sand and start praying for both of these groups.

God bless

Brer Fox

Onesimus wrote: »

The current SSPX fundamentalist group reject Vatican II altogether. So Yes I'll pray for....BOTH. Because both of these groups are not Catholic and both are causing damage in the Church. Both see themselves as ''victims of the institution'' who are being ''excommunicated for their phony claims that the Church has somehow abandoned the faith. Both of these groups echo the reformation all over again. History has a habit of repeating itself. Devil just keeps repeating the same old tactics but with new labels over and over again.

Get your head out of the sand and start praying for both of these groups.

God bless

That's not very nice. And it is not true. The SSPX are Catholic. The liberals are a separate kettle of fish and I make no comment about them. Cardinal Hoyos said the SSPX was not in schism and their four bishops are no longer excommunicated. See here. I think you will find the attitude of Bishop Fellay rather different to the write-off you've just issued.

It is disappointing to see such uncharitable comments from a fellow Catholic. We should embrace our brothers and not cast them off, even as both they and the Holy See are working so hard for unity.

Onesimus

Brer Fox wrote: »

That's not very nice. And it is not true. The SSPX are Catholic. The liberals are a separate kettle of fish and I make no comment about them. Cardinal Hoyos said the SSPX was not in schism and their four bishops are no longer excommunicated. See here. I think you will find the attitude of Bishop Fellay rather different to the write-off you've just issued.

It is disappointing to see such uncharitable comments from a fellow Catholic. We should embrace our brothers and not cast them off, even as both they and the Holy See are working so hard for unity.

For as long as Bishop Fellay argues against Catholic doctrine he is not in communion with Rome and not Catholic. I pray for his home coming and I am sure he has good intentions but I dont see how my commentry was not charitable, I was simply stating the facts that they are not yet Catholic, excommunicated or not excommunicated. I look forward to the SSPX accepting this proposal by Rome and coming home under the see of Peter.

The Church is taking no messing with Bishop Fellay and the SSPX this time around. It's crunch time. Your either in or ( very sadly ) your out for good this time around.

Brer Fox

Onesimus wrote: »

For as long as Bishop Fellay argues against Catholic doctrine he is not in communion with Rome and not Catholic. I pray for his home coming and I am sure he has good intentions but I dont see how my commentry was not charitable, I was simply stating the facts that they are not yet Catholic, excommunicated or not excommunicated. I look forward to the SSPX accepting this proposal by Rome and coming home under the see of Peter.

The Church is taking no messing with Bishop Fellay and the SSPX this time around. It's crunch time. Your either in or ( very sadly ) your out for good this time around.

What Catholic doctrine is Bishop Fellay arguing against? What doctrines of Catholic faith has he rejected?

If he is not excommunicated, then he is a Catholic Bishop, albeit in an irregular canonical situation. Let's look at what our friends at Wikipedia have to say:

Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics and remain bound by obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.). However, their communion with the Church is considered gravely impaired. In spite of that, they are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.

Only Catholics can be excommunicated. And now, Bishop Fellay is not excommunicated.

The secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts has said that there are no significant doctrinal problems barring the way to the reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta Ochoa told a Belgian audience that in talks between the traditionalist group and Vatican officials, “I think we were able to clarify the doctrinal problems.”

Who on earth are you to say that Bishop Fellay is not Catholic, when the Catholic Church in no way makes such a claim? You sound like your own Pope! I am astounded!

You also appear to have full control of the electic gate of both heaven and the Church! But let us look at what Pope Benedict said, quoting the Scriptures:

"The 'door of faith' (Acts14:27) is always open for us, ushering us into the life of communion with God and offering entry into his Church."
---Pope Benedict XVI, Apostolic Letter Porta Fidei for the Indiction of the Year of Faith.

Presumably, that door is open for all, even Catholics in canonically irregular situations.

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

Jesus prayed ''May they all be one''. We ( Byzantines ) are in full communion with Rome. There is no half glass about unity. Your either fully in or your not.

Onesimus please read your Church history.

During times of severe crisis such as the Arian crisis and the Iconoclasm crisis things were far from being that simple.

St Agobard rejected the Seventh Ecumenical Council which was approved the Roman Papacy and yet he is numbered among saints. Things can be very far from as black and white as you make out.

The SSPX does commemorate the Pope and the local Bishops. However even if technically they are still Catholic how possible is it to be saved within the Novus Ordo structures? People need spiritual guidance, they also need the liturgical traditions of the Church; for all its faults the life raft provided by the SSPX has led the eternal salvation of souls who would otherwise be in hell- is not the salvation of the souls the first law of the Church and the one that can over ride anything else?

Brer Fox

There's a good video from Salt+Light TV - an interview with Bishop Fellay:

Onesimus

Brer Fox wrote: »

What Catholic doctrine is Bishop Fellay arguing against? What doctrines of Catholic faith has he rejected?

If he is not excommunicated, then he is a Catholic Bishop, albeit in an irregular canonical situation. Let's look at what our friends at Wikipedia have to say:



Only Catholics can be excommunicated. And now, Bishop Fellay is not excommunicated.



Who on earth are you to say that Bishop Fellay is not Catholic, when the Catholic Church in no way makes such a claim? You sound like your own Pope! I am astounded!

You also appear to have full control of the electic gate of both heaven and the Church! But let us look at what Pope Benedict said, quoting the Scriptures:



Presumably, that door is open for all, even Catholics in canonically irregular situations.

Of course the door is open for him as is for non-Catholics. But anyone who fights the dogmas of the Church is not a Catholic. They are protestant because they are protesting the truth. simple fact really.

I dont need to debate you on what he rejects. The Church has spoken that if he doesnt accept the proposal then they will be cut off altogether. Such a irregular canonical situation cannot go on any longer in the Church.

But I think it will all end well.

Onesimus

HamletOrHecuba

Brer Fox wrote: »

What Catholic doctrine is Bishop Fellay arguing against? What doctrines of Catholic faith has he rejected?

The central dogmatic issues are whether Religious Liberty is an intrinsic good and human right number one, and number two whether the Jews and Muslims worship the same God as Christians number two.

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

Of course the door is open for him as is for non-Catholics. But anyone who fights the dogmas of the Church is not a Catholic. They are protestant because they are protesting the truth. simple fact really.

It is crazy to call them Protestant; do they teach Sola Scriptura or Justification by Faith? Would you call the Copts Protestant?

If anyone who fights the dogmas of the Church is not Catholic than where does that leave the Novus Ordo hierarchy?

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

I dont need to debate you on what he rejects. The Church has spoken that if he doesnt accept the proposal then they will be cut off altogether. Such a irregular canonical situation cannot go on any longer in the Church.

You have just contradicted yourself.

Non-Catholics cannot be in an irregular Canonical situation, only those belonging to the Church can.

Brer Fox

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

The central dogmatic issues are whether Religious Liberty is an intrinsic good and human right number one, and number two whether the Jews and Muslims worship the same God as Christians number two.

I think VII was speaking not in dogmatic terms about religious liberty, but simply about pastoral solutions to modern problems in a changed world. Thus I think SSPX have over-reacted to the teachings contained in VII about religious liberty.

Onesimus wrote: »

Of course the door is open for him as is for non-Catholics. But anyone who fights the dogmas of the Church is not a Catholic. They are protestant because they are protesting the truth. simple fact really.

I dont need to debate you on what he rejects. The Church has spoken that if he doesnt accept the proposal then they will be cut off altogether. Such a irregular canonical situation cannot go on any longer in the Church.

But I think it will all end well.

Onesimus

Does the Church say SSPX bishops are Protestants? Can you provide evidence for this claim? Church documents for instance?

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

It is crazy to call them Protestant; do they teach Sola Scriptura or Justification by Faith? Would you call the Copts Protestant?

If anyone who fights the dogmas of the Church is not Catholic than where does that leave the Novus Ordo hierarchy?

Indeed. Many priests do not believe in hell, for instance, and many also want women priests and homosexuality embraced. Are they Catholic?

lmaopml

I think the Pope is trying to offer the olive branch to those who are hard core traditionalists, Latin Mass only etc. etc , and those who are extremely modern in their views, women priests, feminism and the females in the Chruch who are moreso 'equalists' as opposed to 'radical feminists', who don't represent all women either etc. etc. - his job is a hard one.

With respect to all the various talks and opinions, I think it's important to realise that this Pope is a good man and despite the fact that there are people with broadly differing opinions, the vast majority are more than happy to have Mass in English, but don't want to 'stop' people attending Mass in Latin that are used to it - but it's not not a 'law' - The Catholic communion many years ago stated as a heresy that it was only lawful to praise God in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. In fact, well over a thousand years ago, so it's important to understand the spirit of that decision - it centered on spreading the Gospel and the great commission - We're Christians.

and also understand the Spirit of Vat II is about 'people' - not about modernising or change of very basic values, like that of Marriage, but about spreading the Gospel.

I like the new Liturgy, I think it's found a home in English - it makes more sense, and not only that, it is instantly recogniseable even for me as a Catholic I'm suddenly seeing where it stems from in the Gospels and thinking...'Gosh yeah, I didn't connect that before..'

That's what it's all about. Imo.

Brer Fox

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14646

This could take a while longer.

Brer Fox

lmaopml wrote: »

I think the Pope is trying to offer the olive branch to those who are hard core traditionalists, Latin Mass only etc. etc , and those who are extremely modern in their views, women priests, feminism and the females in the Chruch who are moreso 'equalists' as opposed to 'radical feminists', who don't represent all women either etc. etc. - his job is a hard one.

With respect to all the various talks and opinions, I think it's important to realise that this Pope is a good man and despite the fact that there are people with broadly differing opinions, the vast majority are more than happy to have Mass in English, but don't want to 'stop' people attending Mass in Latin that are used to it - but it's not not a 'law' - The Catholic communion many years ago stated as a heresy that it was only lawful to praise God in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. In fact, well over a thousand years ago, so it's important to understand the spirit of that decision - it centered on spreading the Gospel and the great commission - We're Christians.

and also understand the Spirit of Vat II is about 'people' - not about modernising or change of very basic values, like that of Marriage, but about spreading the Gospel.

I like the new Liturgy, I think it's found a home in English - it makes more sense, and not only that, it is instantly recogniseable even for me as a Catholic I'm suddenly seeing where it stems from in the Gospels and thinking...'Gosh yeah, I didn't connect that before..'

That's what it's all about. Imo.

I don't think 'hard core traditionalists' is a helpful phrase.

SC 36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
--- Vatican II

Interesting, no?

I like the spirituality of the Traditional Mass, but unfortunately it is not widely available. To the extent that it is not available, my spiritual needs are not being met. I don't think having the whole Mass in English makes sense. It's very wordy and most people miss much of it. Many of my friends prefer the TLM and find it more spiritual. I find that many priests saying the new Mass tend to make it about them, rather than about Him.

Pope Benedict's freeing up of the TLM wasn't simply about satisfying a few people who were used to it; he desired also to make the Mass more available to people, particularly young people:

Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them.
--- BXVI

Unfortunately, I can't experience that where I live; I have to make do with a modernist presentation which leaves me feeling sad.

HamletOrHecuba

Brer Fox wrote: »

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14646

This could take a while longer.

The SSPX was on the verge of a massive schism. My parents go between the "Indult" and the SSPX are want the merger but my grandparents consider Bishop Fellay an apostate at this stage. Bishop Fellay wants to regularize, Bishop Williamson would rather die than do so and the other Bishops are inbetween.

lmaopml

Brer Fox wrote: »

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14646

This could take a while longer.

I thought as much Brer, I understood that the SSPX weren't too happy, their Bishops, they're fairly entrenched, although some not so much.

Tbh, I hope they reconsider and remember their first calling is to Christ and his commission.

In Ireland, we had Mass under hedges you know, stones served as alters, it was interrupted, moved on quietly from house to house from field to field - people met in quiet to gather together in order to attend, to praise, to receive the Eucharist - Heck that's such a long way from these talks, but no doubt more real.

Brer Fox

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

The SSPX was on the verge of a massive schism. My parents go between the "Indult" and the SSPX are want the merger but my grandparents consider Bishop Fellay an apostate at this stage. Bishop Fellay wants to regularize, Bishop Williamson would rather die than do so and the other Bishops are inbetween.

This is it. There is a wide spectrum of opinion on this matter. Reading the comments on that Youtube interview I posted, you get a flavour of the division. Yet someone made a good point: can you legitimately ignore a request of the Holy Father which is not contrary to faith and morals? The answer, they thought, was no.

HamletOrHecuba

Brer Fox wrote: »

I like the spirituality of the Traditional Mass, but unfortunately it is not widely available. To the extent that it is not available, my spiritual needs are not being met. I don't think having the whole Mass in English makes sense. It's very wordy and most people miss much of it. Many of my friends prefer the TLM and find it more spiritual. I find that many priests saying the new Mass tend to make it about them, rather than about Him.

I would be perfectly happy with the Traditional Roman Rite in English.

It is more Spiritual because it was shaped by the Holy Ghost through the centuries, properly understood and properly prayed it is earth shattering; a foretaste of eternity. The Novus Ordo is the fruit of constant experimentation and allows the Priest to put his personality on the Rite rather than have his personality subordinated to the Spirit of the Church.

Brer Fox

lmaopml wrote: »

I thought as much Brer, I understood that the SSPX weren't too happy, their Bishops, they're fairly entrenched, although some not so much.

Tbh, I hope they reconsider and remember their first calling is to Christ and his commission.

In Ireland, we had Mass under hedges you know, stones served as alters, it was interrupted, moved on quietly from house to house from field to field - people met in quiet to gather together in order to attend, to praise, to receive the Eucharist - Heck that's such a long way from these talks, but no doubt more real.

It was in Latin back then. The Mass of Ages! I visited a Mass rock last weekend somewhere in Ireland.

lmaopml

Brer Fox wrote: »

It was in Latin back then. The Mass of Ages! I visited a Mass rock last weekend somewhere in Ireland.

Well this calls to mind the seperation by languages in Scripture at the tower of Babel. We've been given grace by being able to preach in home tongues, and even struggling to do so, but actions speak louder sometimes, that my friend has been going on since the very early Church, it's institution at the last Supper and Pentecost.

Irish people spoke as gaeilge at that time, but they 'still' understood because they wanted to. Now most Irish people speak English, and Gaeilge is a secong language, Latin Mass is surely beautiful too - Do we really believe that language counts? Nah, it's the people that count. No? If not for the people than for what?

Brer Fox

lmaopml wrote: »

Well this calls to mind the seperation by languages in Scripture at the tower of Babel. We've been given grace by being able to preach in home tongues, and even struggling to do so, but actions speak louder sometimes, that my friend has been going on since the very early Church, it's institution at the last Supper and Pentecost.

Irish people spoke as gaeilge at that time, but they 'still' understood because they wanted to. Now most Irish people speak English, and Gaeilge is a secong language, Latin Mass is surely beautiful too - Do we really believe that language counts? Nah, it's the people that count. No? If not for the people than for what?

I disagree with your opinion.

The Mass is not simply about understanding every word the priest utters. At the Transfiguration, for example, the Apostles hadn't really a clue what was going on or what was being said by the Lord. They were caught up in the mystery and awe of the moment. Does the new Mass do that? Not for me.

It used to be that the Mass was in Latin which was like a verbal iconostasis. This created a sense of mystery in the Mass. Now, the Mass is all in English, the priest smiles as he makes eye contact with the people, and there is precious little sense of mystery or indeed reverence. Of course, there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions, and they typically depend on the holiness of the priest, whereas with the TLM, that was less so essential, as desirable as it is.

HamletOrHecuba

lmaopml wrote: »

Well this calls to mind the seperation by languages in Scripture at the tower of Babel. We've been given grace by being able to preach in home tongues, and even struggling to do so, but actions speak louder sometimes, that my friend has been going on since the very early Church, it's institution at the last Supper and Pentecost.

Irish people spoke as gaeilge at that time, but they 'still' understood because they wanted to. Now most Irish people speak English, and Gaeilge is a secong language, Latin Mass is surely beautiful too - Do we really believe that language counts? Nah, it's the people that count. No? If not for the people than for what?

Latin is a more exact and dignified language than English and therefore superior for worship and theology. I attended a close friend of mine's Continuing (i.e. not in Communion with the Church of England which has abandoned so very much of Traditional Christianity) Anglican Wedding and it was extremely dignified and Catholic seeming- most Novus Ordo services in the British Isles are not Catholic seeming at all, the fragrance of the Saints and of Eternity is completely missing, the realization of that you are in the presence of the Heavenly worship, that you are now standing with the Angels, is not there- it is human, all to too human, and so either a mockery or a deception. The use of the English is the least of the problems with the Novus Ordo experiment.

Brer Fox

lmaopml wrote: »

Well this calls to mind the seperation by languages in Scripture at the tower of Babel.

Yes, it does. Watching the Congress and World Youth Days, one gets that Babel feeling, as the Mass in conducted in a little bit of English, Spanish, a sprinkling of Italian, a little bit of Latin, some French, so that most people only understand a little bit of the Mass. If it was in Latin, each nation could have its own language on one side, and the Latin on the other. The disunity of multiple languages is highlighted at these events, and the argument presented for the return or what still is the Church's universal language and the one which Vatican II said ought to be retained and preserved as the language of what is, lest we forget, the Latin Rite.

HamletOrHecuba

Brer Fox wrote: »

It used to be that the Mass was in Latin which was like a verbal iconostasis. This created a sense of mystery in the Mass. ow, the Mass is all in English, the priest smiles as he makes eye contact with the people, and there is precious little sense of mystery. Of course, there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions, and they typically depend on the holiness of the priest, whereas with the TLM, that was less so apparent.

Most people understood Latin though, that was the point of Irish hedge schools, the Irish kept a knowledge of Latin alive in the worst years of their nation's existence for a reason.

HamletOrHecuba

A Mass when it is valid is a participation in the Heavenly Liturgy, of the Son's Sacrificial offering of His Self to the Father in Eternity. It is dread inspiring.

If we are going to pray for the unity of the Church, pray that the Church will have one universal unifying language, Latin. So if you attend Mass in Paris or Beijing or where every you may be that the only differences you will find are the congregation, priest and language of the Celebrants Sermon.

Unlike, the N.O, where priests change parts of their Mass to personalize it, even the Eucharistic prayer.

lmaopml

Brer Fox wrote: »

I disagree with your opinion.

The Mass is not simply about understanding every word the priest utters. At the Transfiguration, for example, the Apostles hadn't really a clue what was going on or what was being said by the Lord. They were caught up in the mystery and awe of the moment. Does the new Mass do that? Not for me.

It used to be that the Mass was in Latin which was like a verbal iconostasis. This created a sense of mystery in the Mass. ow, the Mass is all in English, the priest smiles as he makes eye contact with the people, and there is precious little sense of mystery. Of course, there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions, and they typically depend on the holiness of the priest, whereas with the TLM, that was less so apparent.

Ok, I will agree to disagree

I think that Christ was perhaps more mysterious during his lifetime, to those of that time, too caught up in being 'just' for the sake of 'justness' sometimes only in the eyes of man, afterall they weren't expecting the Messiah to be the one who spoke throughout the ages to them to appear in person - God himself - that's the beauty of 'Our' Father.

So cool! Brilliant!

Just recently at Mass, my Priest shouted 'Come out Lazarus' to the congregation, and they actually clapped - he told them to stop - cool!

Jesus, said as much, when he asked them how they could discern the sky but not discern themselves what was right or wrong properly, that challenge, somewhere in Matthews Gospel..

It doesn't matter about language, although I think it's extremely important to speak what you mean and mean what you say too, but your actions always speak more. To walk in Christ, oh that we could, but pride is the great battle, and humility and those who worship in humility no matter what language are worthy, always worthy and always will be.

HamletOrHecuba

Hamza Petite Leotard wrote: »

If we are going to pray for the unity of the Church, pray that the Church will have one universal unifying language, Latin. So if you attend Mass in Paris or Beijing or where every you may be that the only differences you will find are the congregation, priest and language of the Celebrants Sermon.

Unlike, the N.O, where priests change parts of their Mass to personalize it, even the Eucharistic prayer.

What about the Maronites, the Chaleadions, the Melekites? Are you in favour of abolishing their ancient rites?

If so count me out; remember that the Sarum Rite was almost universal in England before the Reformation; which though in Latin is different from Roman Rite.

HamletOrHecuba

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

What about the Maronites, the Chaleadions, the Melekites? Are you in favour of abolishing their ancient rites?

If so count me out; remember that the Sarum Rite was almost universal in England before the Reformation.

No I would not be in favour of this as Pope St. Pius V, himself did not abolish any Rite older than 200 years, from the time of the Council of Trent. But Paul VI had no problem in abolishing them apart from the Ambrosian Rite which he himself as Archbishop of Milan, once celebrated, so naturally was sympathetic to traditions of a former archdiocese of his, but obviously didn't really care of the other traditions of the Universal Catholic Church.

HamletOrHecuba

Hamza Petite Leotard wrote: »

No I would not be in favour of this as Pope St. Pius V, himself did not abolish any Rite older than 200 years, from the time of the Council of Trent. But Paul VI had no problem in abolishing them apart from the Ambrosian Rite which he himself as Archbishop of Milan, once celebrated, so naturally was sympathetic to traditions of a former archdiocese of his, but obviously didn't really care of the other traditions of the Universal Catholic Church.

All the Eastern Rites got to keep their liturgies though- it was only the Roman Rite that was repressed. My grandparents drove miles to worship with Maronites before they found the SSPX.

HamletOrHecuba

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

All the Eastern Rites got to keep their liturgies though- it was only the Roman Rite that was repressed. My grandparents drove miles to worship with Maronites before they found the SSPX.

Where did they get the Maronite Rite in Ireland? (As in where did they go?)

HamletOrHecuba

Hamza Petite Leotard wrote: »

Where did they get the Maronite Rite in Ireland? (As in where did they go?)

My family is English.

It would be interesting to hear stories though of how Irish people reacted particularly in the early years to the repression of the Mass (in its fullness at least) and Vatican II.

lmaopml

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

All the Eastern Rites got to keep their liturgies though- it was only the Roman Rite that was repressed. My grandparents drove miles to worship with Maronites before they found the SSPX.

Well you could look on it another way Hamlet, it was only the Latin rite that spread because of it's willingness to obey the Great Commission and put that first, put people first, praising in three languages may generate feelings of patriotism, ownership, but that's not conducive to the Gospel - as recognised by the Church over a thousand years ago, and it's mission and pilgrimage, nobody has ownership.

Everybody has Grandparents.

I have no doubt your grandparents were cool, you seem pretty clever, and a fairly deep thinker, not average, but different - I hope that patriotism and perhaps living for others doesn't stop you from living for yourself too, and knowing what you 'think' -

Brer Fox

lmaopml wrote: »

I think that Christ was perhaps more mysterious during his lifetime, to those of that time, too caught up in being 'just' for the sake of 'justness' sometimes only in the eyes of man, afterall they weren't expecting the Messiah to be the one who spoke throughout the ages to them to appear in person - God himself - that's the beauty of 'Our' Father.

I disagree. Jesus is mystery now, and if He has been reduced to the familiar and the banal, then it isn't Jesus we are dealing with. Jesus should be shocking and awesome. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. We ought always to fall at His feet. I think a lot of our current problems are due to the disintegration of the Liturgy whereby we have forgotten God.

I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not He speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the world-wide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. And, because the ecclesial community cannot have its origin from itself but emerges as a unity only from the Lord, through faith, such circumstances will inexorably result in a disintegration into sectarian parties of all kinds - partisan opposition within a Church tearing herself apart. This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council.

Note that the above quotation is from a book by Cardinal Ratzinger, the extract of which is posted on this website which contains details about unapproved apparitions: http://www.tldm.org/news7/PopeBenedictXVIDisintegrationOfLiturgy.htm

As an aside...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8BZ1PW-3s8

HamletOrHecuba

lmaopml wrote: »

Well you could look on it another way Hamlet, it was only the Latin rite that spread because of it's willingness to obey the Great Commission and put that first, put people first, praising in three languages may generate feelings of patriotism, ownership, but that's not conducive to the Gospel - as recognised by the Church over a thousand years ago, and it's mission and pilgrimage, nobody has ownership.

Everybody has Grandparents.

I have no doubt your grandparents were cool, you seem pretty clever, and a fairly deep thinker, not average, but different - I hope that patriotism and perhaps living for others doesn't stop you from living for yourself too, and knowing what you 'think' -

I said before I would be happy for a Mass in English- just not a liturgical experiment in English. The Roman Rite in English would be fine with me.

What has patriotism got to do with? The Maronites worship in Syriac, my grandparents grew up with Latin, but they were happy with the Mass in Syriac as long as it was Catholic.

lmaopml

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

I said before I would be happy for a Mass in English- just not a liturgical experiment in English. The Roman Rite in English would be fine with me.

What has patriotism got to do with? The Maronites worship in Syriac, my grandparents grew up with Latin, but they were happy with the Mass in Syriac as long as it was Catholic.

Are you happy with the new liturgy Hamlet?

HamletOrHecuba

lmaopml wrote: »

Are you happy with the new liturgy Hamlet?

Obviously not.

Ive been to it three times out of loneliness and all it did was damage. Actual Catholic Rites even if you dont Commune bring you into a sphere beyond time and space, fill you with an a foretaste of heaven, give you an understanding of what St Paul talks about when he writes about tasting of the world to come.

Brer Fox

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Obviously not.

Ive been to it three times out of loneliness and all it did was damage. Actual Catholic Rites even if you dont Commune bring you into a sphere beyond time and space, fill you with an a foretaste of heaven, give you an understanding of what St Paul talks about when he writes about tasting of the world to come.

Of course, any Rite must be approached with the proper dispositions. Otherwise, the most reverent Mass can leave a sinner unmoved, particularly if he is in a state of habitual mortal sin.

The current Roman Rite (in the vernacular) today is flawed, and is not the direct translation of Popes St. Pius V, Urban VIII, Clement VIII, Leo XIII Missals. Each of these Popes added to the Liturgy, Pope Pius X removed some important prayers and other pieces, so too did Pope Pius XII. John XXIII butchered it and Paul VI left it in the gutter. The Mass of Paul VI to me rings out a certain illicit vibe and can really be valid?

The direct translation is shown here:
http://www.latinmassireland.org/thelatinmass/text_of_mass3.html

Compare it to The new revised Missal.