Butterfly3
Junior Member
I need to remember to log onto this site every once in awhile.
Posts: 74
|
Post by Butterfly3 on Mar 6, 2022 12:25:17 GMT -5
I just watched the live mass today the 9am one on the SGG website. I'm a bit confused and have questions. I would ask google, but I don't know what to even look up as I can't describe it perfectly to see what it even means. Google doesn't do a great job in helping me either when I don't know what things are called. One-on-One help is best, well group of people that are active, not a bot trying to figure out words... Anyways, There's a few different questions. I'll explain it first then ask during, because it's hard to explain and then in a separate place type out the questions. The context is lost doing it like that imho. I'll put the questions in bold. That might help me too. I'll post the link in here too, so people understand what I'm looking at too. linkBroadcasted 3/6/22 8:50am - 3/6/22 11:19am It's the First Sunday of Lent 2022. Well my first question is, Why does every church have their own different mass, including sede? I thought in the beginning of coming here in the sede churches that it would be all the same. All universal. Nope, I guess the universal church is gone in that sense? I've been to independent which is very similar to CMRI masses. Though I do think at sometimes, I forgot which season that is, but I do know it's pre-55 sometimes. But other times I guess it's After Pope Pius XII's death. Looking that up just now that's '58. Does EVERY year the mass change? We have 45, 55, 58 (I guess), 62.. That's all I know of. Not exactly sure of 58, but someone said CMRI was Pius XII's death mass or whatever. I can't even explain this correctly ((Sorry I'm not doing well either, so that might be why. Mass was canceled today, so Hopefully next Sunday we'll have it so I can go to confession)) Are these 2 guys standing next to the priest on each side seminarians or priests? Or are you a priest and a seminarian at the same time? The 2 guys in purple with a black line straight down the middle of their back and half of a vestment in the front I guess were seminarians, but they have to be priests because of what they've done in the Mass. Do certain times in their training they wear different vestments or sashes, copes, etc? Where can I learn more about that? I'm a curious person and I do know a lot of people tend to ask me questions that I ask myself and/or others, so it's good to know, so you don't look like a fool and just say, "oh I don't know..." because it makes you look like you're blindly following, and I don't want to blindly follow. I'd like to know what I'm looking at and explain if the question ever comes up. Which my mom has already asked certain questions and I don't know the answer. She's protestant. I guess after the Gospel there was a Golden book that one of the seminarian (sem.) priests brought up to the Altar, to later be taken down held by another seminarian priest to hold while the other sem. priest chants from it. I know the epistle is chanted sometimes, but that's usually before the Gospel not afterwards. Was curious what the golden book was? I don't know why the Priest isn't doing all this stuff. Maybe to help them learn, I don't know. The guy that was chanting from the golden book changed into a sash and the seminarian priest that was up on the podium wore a different type of sash. ----- I do know some lady from church that I asked a question to and she didn't care to answer my question about something else. Like she said that's the priests business he dealt with it, it had nothing to do with me, so why question. I don't know if that's pre vat2 attitude, but I've heard of stories about that from the novus ordo as well as former Catholics. I guess pre-vat2 you couldn't ask questions. You just nodded, smiled to listened without question from your priest. So you were in the dark in basically everything. That is blindly following to me, and I like to learn and read about everything of hte Church. The novus ordo people said when they were kids they weren't allowed to ask questions about the faith. You just had to accept it, even if you didn't understand it. Is that really pre vat2 how they did things??
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Mar 7, 2022 6:26:14 GMT -5
I just watched the live mass today the 9am one on the SGG website. I'm a bit confused and have questions. I would ask google, but I don't know what to even look up as I can't describe it perfectly to see what it even means. Google doesn't do a great job in helping me either when I don't know what things are called. One-on-One help is best, well group of people that are active, not a bot trying to figure out words... Anyways, There's a few different questions. I'll explain it first then ask during, because it's hard to explain and then in a separate place type out the questions. The context is lost doing it like that imho. I'll put the questions in bold. That might help me too. I'll post the link in here too, so people understand what I'm looking at too. linkBroadcasted 3/6/22 8:50am - 3/6/22 11:19am It's the First Sunday of Lent 2022. Well my first question is, Why does every church have their own different mass, including sede? I thought in the beginning of coming here in the sede churches that it would be all the same. All universal. Nope, I guess the universal church is gone in that sense? I've been to independent which is very similar to CMRI masses. Though I do think at sometimes, I forgot which season that is, but I do know it's pre-55 sometimes. But other times I guess it's After Pope Pius XII's death. Looking that up just now that's '58. Does EVERY year the mass change? We have 45, 55, 58 (I guess), 62.. That's all I know of. Not exactly sure of 58, but someone said CMRI was Pius XII's death mass or whatever. I can't even explain this correctly ((Sorry I'm not doing well either, so that might be why. Mass was canceled today, so Hopefully next Sunday we'll have it so I can go to confession)) Are these 2 guys standing next to the priest on each side seminarians or priests? Or are you a priest and a seminarian at the same time? The 2 guys in purple with a black line straight down the middle of their back and half of a vestment in the front I guess were seminarians, but they have to be priests because of what they've done in the Mass. Do certain times in their training they wear different vestments or sashes, copes, etc? Where can I learn more about that? I'm a curious person and I do know a lot of people tend to ask me questions that I ask myself and/or others, so it's good to know, so you don't look like a fool and just say, "oh I don't know..." because it makes you look like you're blindly following, and I don't want to blindly follow. I'd like to know what I'm looking at and explain if the question ever comes up. Which my mom has already asked certain questions and I don't know the answer. She's protestant. I guess after the Gospel there was a Golden book that one of the seminarian (sem.) priests brought up to the Altar, to later be taken down held by another seminarian priest to hold while the other sem. priest chants from it. I know the epistle is chanted sometimes, but that's usually before the Gospel not afterwards. Was curious what the golden book was? I don't know why the Priest isn't doing all this stuff. Maybe to help them learn, I don't know. The guy that was chanting from the golden book changed into a sash and the seminarian priest that was up on the podium wore a different type of sash. ----- I do know some lady from church that I asked a question to and she didn't care to answer my question about something else. Like she said that's the priests business he dealt with it, it had nothing to do with me, so why question. I don't know if that's pre vat2 attitude, but I've heard of stories about that from the novus ordo as well as former Catholics. I guess pre-vat2 you couldn't ask questions. You just nodded, smiled to listened without question from your priest. So you were in the dark in basically everything. That is blindly following to me, and I like to learn and read about everything of hte Church. The novus ordo people said when they were kids they weren't allowed to ask questions about the faith. You just had to accept it, even if you didn't understand it. Is that really pre vat2 how they did things??
I am sorry to hear that no one has been able to help answer any of your questions so far. We are all here to help you with any questions you may have. Let's see i I can give you some simple information that might help a little. 😊 Part of the current issue of unity is the papacy. I am sure that you have heard of the famous saying "Strike the Shepherd and the Sheep will scatter". As the apostles fled in all directions after Our Lord was taken in the Garden of Gethsemane, so tradition Catholics spread here and there without the papacy to hold them together in the smaller details. That being said, most traditional Catholics still hold unity in essence through the same Lord, Faith, and Sacraments. Another difference which actually all the traditional Catholic chapels have in common is the difference between Low, High and Solemn High Masses. At a Low Masses there is no singing done by the priest and if there is any singing it is usually just a few simple hymns or chants done by the choir. This is to keep the Mass shorter for weekdays before people have to go to work and to make life easier for some priests who can't sing. 😅 At High Masses many various parts are sung by the priest and by the choir and it is a more complicated Mass with the Ordinary of the Mass being sung (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei) as well as the Propers (Introit, Offertory, Communion). It is also necessary to have flowers on the altar and more candles lit. At a Solemn High Mass there are the special additions as with a High Mass but even more as priest, deacon and subdeacon are required or three priests. (The priest usually has the most elaborate vestment, the deacon and subdeacon a usually have more simple ones.). Incense is used for this Mass and the Epistle and Gospel are sung. The golden book you saw sounds like it was for the Gospel. The Epistle is usually sung at the altar for the Solemn High Mass and the Gospel is held by the subdeacon and sung by the deacon (I believe that is the order). Besides this, the Asperges Me before Mass (with the sprinkling of people with holy water) is only done on Sundays in union with a High or Solemn High Mass. These things I just mentioned are all done similarly by all traditional groups depending on whether the Mass is a Low, High or Solemn High Mass. As for the different missals Pre 1955-62... Some people believe that the 1955 and later missals prepared the way for the novus ordo and should be avoided. Other people don't see issues with them as Pius XII promulgated the 1955 missal and for others they believe that the 1962 missal didn't vary enough to make a difference. That being said, the average person might not notice much in the difference as much as one who has studied them would. Pacelli and the others probably could explain it better than I just have but I wanted you to have a quick answer to settle your mind. Hope this helps! And we are here for you if you have any further questions! God bless!😇
|
|
Butterfly3
Junior Member
I need to remember to log onto this site every once in awhile.
Posts: 74
|
Post by Butterfly3 on Mar 7, 2022 20:09:57 GMT -5
Thank you so much! I've not heard that saying, but I completely believe it because it's true. I learned just today from my Godmother this morning that we ARE pre-55, but Father does the "other options", I guess in some books there are other options to do if you don't want to do this or that in the mass. I have read something similar to that in a book I had, but I threw it away because one, it was falling apart and Father thought I shouldn't read it and he's 100% right about that. It was about moral theology and that book made me really scrupulous. I loved the book, but I was always asking myself what if I do this, it might be a sin. It was making me really think EVERYTHING I was about to do or was doing might be a sin or a mortal sin. Not a good book for me! Oh, unity in the papacy. I thought it was unity for the people. Though I really do think traditionalists should stick together because we are very divided already. I really have a hard time hearing the bickering with everyone talking about this and that. If you're not in this sect/group of sede then you're not going to the right church. You should just stay at home and not go to church, is truly a horrible thing to say to someone IMHO. I personally don't listen to those people, because I AM growing, just I have to wait for confession and taking Holy Communion this Sunday, God willing! We can't take church and the sacraments for granted. I do because I go every Sunday to church and I take the sacraments, but a lot of people have no church near them. I can't imagine them being ok for years without it. But I'm sure they do because some of my online friends don't have a church near them and they seem fine by me. But then again you can't tell too. I did find out that Father's missal or whatever the red book on the altar is is from the 1800s, so that might be why it's a bit different in wording than my missal. yea the Solemn High Mass, I've never seen and a friend online that goes to the SGG said it was that too. So, that's neat to of seen. I didn't know that the flowers were a thing that had to be up there? I thought it was decoration or to make the altar more pretty for Jesus. yea, I try to keep away from anything from the 60s. I just don't want to read something wrong. I just learned today too that you should be careful WHO said it was ok on the imprimatur. My Godmother said some cardinals and bishops might have been more liberal in their time/era than more conservative in the same time/era. I personally don't know of any bad ones on the imprimatur. I do think Cardinal manning is really good and Bishop Spellman(?) is good, but those are my opinions too. I do have a question about a book that I did buy from Cardinal manning. I'll ask in another thread or somewhere. I learned Pope Pius XII changed some of the fasting rules too. I think she said it was only for traveling, like long travels and you had to eat the meat before it goes bad type thing. I like what you said, the average person might not notice much of a difference, but someone that has studied them would. I didn't take that quote as for what we're talking about. But from me being an avg person not knowing and being still new to traditionalism than an older person in the true faith. What I think is crazy or not right, I could be totally wrong in my thoughts and feelings. Like Father says that our Feelings are temporary and they change pretty fast. That's true too. Like today, what I just learned I was freaking out about this morning. All because I compare people and masses with each other when they're all different anyway because they have different options to do so. I guess I thought it was just cut and dry. This way or the others are wrong. I was definitely wrong in that thinking and mindset. Satan is the art of confusion. Jesus is calm and understanding. Sorry, it's all choppy and smashed together. I need to learn (again) how to use each of your quotes from what you said above to what I was saying. So, I'm sorry again! It does help, thank you! God bless you too
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 8, 2022 8:32:18 GMT -5
Hello Butterfly,
Sorry for the late response. My time these days is becoming less and less. I lost my job/career from the Covid mandates, being fired for not taking an experimental shot, so things are much more complicated for me now.
The unity of the Church is not harmed by accidental divisions among Catholics. Some priests revert to older disciplines believing they are more pure as the changes of Pope Pius XII, according to them were influenced by modernists. I personally believe their assertions are unproven bunk, and furthermore it's grounded in a view that does not trust that the laws approved by the Pope for the universal Church are protected from any error and may not lead souls to Hell, therefore, there is never a good reason to distrust them, and from that they must be obeyed.
But, with that said, what if a priest chooses to revert to a prior discipline in our current situation? First, it's important to remember that so long as he is reverting to a discipline that was once approved, then the practice in and of itself cannot be evil, as the Church once used it. Is the priest justified in doing this on his own non-authority? It's a debated point, but I don't think it wise at all, at the very minimum.
The next question that comes from this is whether the priest's decision to revert to a prior discipline should be the cause of laity not attending such mass as the rite used is not in compliance with the law of the Church, and to that I would say, in my opinion, that the need for the sacraments for the laity outweigh any such considerations. Most Catholics who attend will hardly even notice the differences between the rites, except during Holy Week, as they may notice a few things such as Pope Pius XII's revised Holy Week was much shorter, but generally speaking, the laity will not notice any changes at all. Therefore, the risk of scandal is very low, maybe even non-existent.
Regarding the unity of the Church, it is certainly not harmed by the use of different rites, in an of itself, as the Church has been made up of many eastern rites, which clearly and outwardly differ from the Latin rite, but even in the Latin rite, Church history shows us that there were many separate and distinct rites within the Latin rite for much of Church history until Pope St. Pius V. The unity of the Church was never harmed by the many rites that existed within the Church.
So the next question could be, "what about the 1962 missal?" In my opinion, the case against John XXIII is not air tight, and the fact is that the Church peacefully accepted his laws. There was no outcry in that time period that the 1962 missal was a break with the Tradition, as there was against the Novus Ordo, and the reason why is that it was not a break at all. The fact also is that John XXIII did things, that is he took actions that set the stage for what would come after his death. There is debate about whether he did so with full knowledge, was he actively seeking to undermine and destroy the Church, or was he either naive and weak so as to not see the danger in what he was doing? They are good questions and someday the Church will helpfully investigate all of this. But in the meanwhile, I, as an opinion, believe that the 1962 missal is safe, as there is nothing in it against the Faith, and I would have no problem attending masses where it is used (SSPX for example).
Archbishop Lefebvre laid out the principle in his conference in Ridgefield, CT, 1983:
The Archbishop did not go on and discuss how the rite of Paul VI could be a danger of the Faith if it came from the Church, which would be impossible. But, he was able to clearly distinguish that the rites approved by John XXIII were not in any way against the Catholic Faith, which the rite of Paul VI certainly was. This fact, by the way, is one argument that supports the claim of John XXIII, there was no law approved by him for the universal Church that was evil, but in regards to Paul VI, it is a very strong argument against his claim to be Pope, that he promulgated rites that were an incentive to impiety, and may even be invalid! A lawful Pope could never approve such laws for the Church.
I hope that answers your question. If it did not, please let me know, as this is a very complex area of explanation of the principles that apply to this crisis, and I would be happy to discuss further.
|
|
Butterfly3
Junior Member
I need to remember to log onto this site every once in awhile.
Posts: 74
|
Post by Butterfly3 on Mar 8, 2022 21:23:33 GMT -5
That's fine Everyone has things to do and we're all pretty busy. I am so sorry! I have no idea they're getting away with that. I think it's so messed up. So I guess you can deny other vaccines but not this one. I won't do it either, people have died from it. They can say that it's safe all they want, but we have choices. I can't really say the statement about my body my choice, but I do. Though I always say afterward, I'm definitely not talking about the pro-murdering. That's not even their body. I'll pray for you after I type this up. I'm still confused about the "hell will not prevail" bible verse, but that's another topic. I don't care for what John XXIII did, well Pope Pius XII I've read as well wasn't all that good with being ok with the reforms too. The catholic church can NEVER have reforms. I have to disagree with you on the 62 and SSPX. I see that it's definitely Novus ordo. I've been to the SSPX chapel before and they have a picture of Francis and they're R&R, that's not good either. Though Father said that the priests are I forgot the word. I guess they're ordained correctly in the correct wording. But I wouldn't go back there for myself. I went for about half a year to a year to the Novus ordo 62 mass, but in that specific church, it had the updated Novus ordo mass; English, and Anglican usage mass (I don't even know why people think that's legal. Anglicans aren't catholic, they made their own religion). Plus that church was full of scandal. That's a long story. I'm willing to share it with you if you want to know, but it's in the news too. I don't understand Lefebvre in what he's saying there. John Paul II kissed the Quran, that's not catholic at all. What he did too was against his Pope, so I don't even know what to say to that. Though all these other groups are from Lefebvre's SSPX church, I mean they all came from there then left because he was becoming more modern I guess or after he died, I don't know. Ecumenism used to mean something different than it means now. We're not supposed to pray with other religions. There's only one church not many. If I answered or made any statements that don't align with what you said, I'm sorry, I might not be understanding perfectly what you're saying. I'm trying to understand. Thank you for taking the time to answer too
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Mar 9, 2022 19:49:09 GMT -5
You are most welcome! Glad to be able to help you a little. We live in such crazy and confusing times.😊
The saying comes from the Bible Zachariah 13:7. ("Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that cleaveth to me, saith the Lord of hosts: strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn my hand to the little ones.")
Ah... Yes... Some Moral Theology books are too much for the common person and meant more for priests helping guide souls. 😅
My two favorite simply written books which cover most of the religious issues a lay person can have are:
1. Introduction to the Devout Life by Saint Francis de Sales
2. Growth in Holiness by Father Faber
If you haven't read them, these books are amazing. They even talk about overzealousness and scrupulosity. The latter book especially helped me and I think I could read it over and over again and still find something knew to benefit from.
It sounds as if you have a great godmother! That is such a blessing! I think that I owe my conversion to traditional Catholicism largely due to my traditional Catholic godmother (none of my siblings had traditional godparents and are all still in the novus ordo).
All the bickering in the traditional movement definitely is sad... That being said, the best traditional Catholics I have known down hold little things against others and focus more on growing in virtue and following their vocations properly. I am grateful to have met quite a number of such people over the years. Their charity and humility always leaves me in awe. 😇
It definitely is hard to stay and grow in grace without the Sacraments. I prefer not to go to the SSPX, yet if they were my only option I would go as long as it was one of their valid priests (a few converted novus ordo priests never got conditionally ordained and that concerns me).
I didn't realize there was a rule about having flowers for a high Mass until our wedding. We were having a super simple one as my family were novus ordo and not going to participate. We had to run to the grocery store and find some flowers at the last minute a day or two before the wedding. 🤣
There definitely were many Bishops and Cardinals who were liberals and modernists even before Vatican II. How I long for the day when a true pope can clear all of it up as to who can be trusted and not. I pray I may live to see the restoration and the Reign of Mary. Got to run but keep searching and fighting for the truth and may God bless you and your efforts!
|
|
Butterfly3
Junior Member
I need to remember to log onto this site every once in awhile.
Posts: 74
|
Post by Butterfly3 on Mar 10, 2022 18:38:23 GMT -5
Sometimes it doesn't show that I have a notification that people have replied to my thread. Weird. I came back to this thread because I wanted to tell Pacelli that I was sorry if I sounded harsh because I do know quite a few that do go to the SSPX. I just disagree with it. I was thinking lately, if my chapel ever went away, like nobody to take care of it, I would either have to move or go to the SSPX. So, I guess that would be my last resort. I don't know a lot about it, but I've been trying not to get distracted, and it's really hard to get sucked into things that I don't think would help my faith. They might have good information in places but the Novus Ordo has some truth to it and the rest is poison(but just a few hours ago, I've been thinking about stuff that I need help understanding. I'll post a thread. Though some things will damage your faith and I don't want to be SSPX. (well technically I wouldn't be able to be SSPX as it's only for priests). I'm a bit impressionable (sp?) too, so that's dangerous to have. I don't know what the other sects/groups mean (what are they even called?), so I'd have to know that before I moved for Church. But anyway, I'm sorry if you took it any way that seemed mean or whatever. I only say that because I don't read between things and so I don't write like that either. But some people read between the lines and start saying I said something and I didn't. I hope you're all having a good day. Happy Feast of I think the 40 Holy Martyrs. Oh wow, that's cutting it quick, lol. But how beautiful a way to find out! Close to your wedding <3 Amen, I hope that too. God bless you too for your time God bless you and your Holy Guardian Angels
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 11, 2022 8:35:16 GMT -5
Hello. Butterfly, All of your comments in quotes, my replies follow. It is amazing what we are witnessing. There has been a significant shift in the status quo of the world, the only question now is where it leads. We are in dangerous times. Thank you for the prayers, If you are confused due to the state of the Church, the most I can say is that the essentials of the Church have been and remain present through the crisis. The four marks which identify the true Church are not as bright and clear as they once were, but they are certainly there. The Church can never defect. This is a big topic. What act of John XXIII are you speaking about? On some things I would agree, on others I would not. Regarding Pope Pius XII, he was certainly for the reforms he made and said as much publicly. What did you read that gave you this impression? Reforms are merely disciplinary laws. The Church can certainly change its discipline. The term "Novus Ordo" is not defined. I am not sure what we disagree about. Yes, they believe Francis' claim to the papacy, at least superficially, but I do not believe they accept his claim as a Catholic must accept the claim of a Pope. They do not learn from him and do not obey him, that much is obvious. Catholics do not behave in such a way to a Pope. The term, "R&R" is also not a Catholic term, it must be clearly defined as to what is meant by it. I would urge extreme caution when using any new and unapproved terminology. Catholic terms are precise and clearly defined. Any ambiguity in the use of terms is very dangerous as it can lead to principles being incorrectly applied and by that incorrect conclusions can and often are formed. Yes, all priests ordained in the SSPX are ordained by their bishops using the Catholic rite that existed prior to Paul VI's new rite. There are however crossover "priests" that are ordained through the Paul VI rites, so one must use caution when going to SSPX. That's fine. I'm not advocating for you to go to the mass with the 1962 missal or not, I was only answering your specific questions. Btw, the Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated in 1969 by Paul VI. The 1962 missal is not the Novus Ordo. With the Anglican converts, I would not recommend going to them for mass as their holy orders are suspect, due to the use of the Paul VI rites of orders. As far as their rite of mass goes, I haven't done enough research to say one way or the other. In the quote I gave you above, Archbishop Lefebvre is giving his judgment that what came before the Council was Catholic, what came after was not. I agree with him on this point. I have never, not even once read any argument that the 1962 missal defected from the Faith. If you have any specific case against the rite, then I'll look at it. Agreed, but it's not relevant to what this thread is about, and your initial questions. I don't know what you mean by this. There is no "SSPX church," so there isn't much to say here. There have been some very good papers done on .Archbishop Lefebvre and his position on the state of the Church. Here is one I recommend: strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Conciliar_Church.pdfEcumenism is modern concept and it is certainly at odds with Catholic teaching according to the common definition of the term. Agreed. The best way to begin to grasp the state of the Church is of course prayer asking God to help you grasp this, Secondly, it is to realize that this situation is a very deep mystery that is not easy to pierce with our tiny intellects. When trying to grasp the state of the Church, one must use extreme caution, defining clearly every term, amd being constantly on guard of forming unproven assumptions. We must constantly challenge our own assumptions that we make inadvertently. We are swimming in deep water here, and very dangerous waters. Catholics have always relied on the Divinely commissioned hierarchy to teach, nurture, and protect them, we no longer have that in our times, so being aware of that, I would urge anyone to be very very careful. Watch and pray!
|
|
Butterfly3
Junior Member
I need to remember to log onto this site every once in awhile.
Posts: 74
|
Post by Butterfly3 on May 8, 2022 17:34:15 GMT -5
Pacelli said: "If you are confused due to the state of the Church, the most I can say is that the essentials of the Church have been and remain present through the crisis. The four marks which identify the true Church are not as bright and clear as they once were, but they are certainly there. The Church can never defect." ------ I'm sorry I don't know how to quote you then answer correctly. Hopefully this is correct. I was talking about the visibility of the church. I don't understand that part. I just bought a book 3rd edition fundamentals of catholic dogma because the more updated ones actually have errors in them ((I was told from FB messenger that he bought the older version and then the modern one and he said it's a little bit different. I guess they put extra things in it from the original. I hate that because it just means I have to look online and hope someone has a book. I like reading actual books. Though I do like reading stuff online, but it's just easier to have the actual book. Anyways, it talks about what the invisible church actually is, so that's helpful. But the visible church isn't there, but that can't be correct because there HAS to be visible and invisible. Lately I've been having issues with the church, because of this reason and others.)) "This is a big topic. What act of John XXIII are you speaking about? On some things I would agree, on others I would not. Regarding Pope Pius XII, he was certainly for the reforms he made and said as much publicly. What did you read that gave you this impression?" ---- What I've read a little bit about John XXIII is that he was in on changing the church. I don't know why we lift Pius XII up as the best pope or whatever but he's wasn't all that great from what I've read. This might be a touchy subject too, because so many people like him and think he's a hero. It just seems like if you're asking questions or telling someone about certain people that are saints and just past people, they aren't very nice. I forgot completely what I've read and where but it talks about Roncolli and that guy was really bad and maybe a freemason. I'll have to look more into all that and try to explain better with websites, but there is one. I don't read this site too much anymore, because they might be wrong on somethings, I don't know. www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B286_PiusXII.html is what I just found trying to figure out where I heard about these two popes together. They might of talked together in a good light or something. I forgot what I read. "Reforms are merely disciplinary laws. The Church can certainly change its discipline." --- Can you give me an example of disciplinary laws? I was trying to look that up and I got from a site that sacramental discipline is like having divorced and remarried Catholics they can't take communion. So, I guess that can change? Communion in the hand instead of on the tongue, I guess that would be whatever you're talking about. I don't know, I guess it depends what type of discipline you're talking about. "me: I have to disagree with you on the 62 and SSPX. I see that it's definitely Novus ordo. you: The term "Novus Ordo" is not defined. I am not sure what we disagree about." ---- What do you mean Novus ordo isn't defined? What? "I've been to the SSPX chapel before and they have a picture of Francis and they're R&R, that's not good either. Yes, they believe Francis' claim to the papacy, at least superficially, but I do not believe they accept his claim as a Catholic must accept the claim of a Pope. They do not learn from him and do not obey him, that much is obvious. Catholics do not behave in such a way to a Pope. The term, "R&R" is also not a Catholic term, it must be clearly defined as to what is meant by it. I would urge extreme caution when using any new and unapproved terminology. Catholic terms are precise and clearly defined. Any ambiguity in the use of terms is very dangerous as it can lead to principles being incorrectly applied and by that incorrect conclusions can and often are formed." ---- Everyone uses the "R&R" and everyone(trad and sede. I'm sure the NO doesn't know what it means) knows what it means unless they're new into Catholicism. R&R means reconize and resist. Someone believes in the NO church, but they only do what they think is correct. "Yes, all priests ordained in the SSPX are ordained by their bishops using the Catholic rite that existed prior to Paul VI's new rite. There are however crossover "priests" that are ordained through the Paul VI rites, so one must use caution when going to SSPX." ---- That's why I think it's dangerous to go to the sspx chapels. Some people in the chapel that I go to sometimes in I guess bad weather go to the sspx chapel, but one of these guys that is really smart goes there too. I've asked him about it and the others and they don't know what's going on like who to trust I guess, 2 others thinks that it's possible francis is the real pope. I assumed when I went to a Sedevacantist church that everyone there would be sede. This sspx chapel that I've been to has a sede priest there but he can't do anything. I'm not too sure why he's even there. I guess he does some priestly things but he can't consecrate the host, because he's sede and he can't do confession. Just hearing that from someone from my chapel either that was my Godmother or a friend that goes mostly to CMRI. "That's fine. I'm not advocating for you to go to the mass with the 1962 missal or not, I was only answering your specific questions. Btw, the Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated in 1969 by Paul VI. The 1962 missal is not the Novus Ordo. With the Anglican converts, I would not recommend going to them for mass as their holy orders are suspect, due to the use of the Paul VI rites of orders. As far as their rite of mass goes, I haven't done enough research to say one way or the other." ---- Oh sorry, I assumed wrong. It just sounds to me that you are. I used the 62 missal when I went to tritentine mass or whatever it's called, I guess that's what we have at our church too, the tritentine mass. I can't spell it. But they were mixing the NO into the 1962 mass and then acouple sex scandals and then some beatings, that's when I left. I'm sure the 62 missal is very different than the pre 55 missal. Though I've learned it's ok to change the missal because everyone I've asked has said yes they change almost every year or just about. "In the quote I gave you above, Archbishop Lefebvre is giving his judgment that what came before the Council was Catholic, what came after was not. I agree with him on this point. I have never, not even once read any argument that the 1962 missal defected from the Faith. If you have any specific case against the rite, then I'll look at it. What he did too was against his Pope, so I don't even know what to say to that. I don't know what you mean by this." He consecrated Bishops without the Pope approval or he did and then got denied then excommunicated I guess. But It seemed like he was ok with vat2 then he changed his mind or something because he started doing all this well after vatican 2. I don't even know how that's possible to just not do what the pope says. I just think it's really confusing to say we're in the church but we don't have anything. We can't say we believe in the vatican anything because we don't. "Though all these other groups are from Lefebvre's SSPX church, I mean they all came from there then left because he was becoming more modern I guess or after he died, I don't know. There is no "SSPX church," so there isn't much to say here. There have been some very good papers done on .Archbishop Lefebvre and his position on the state of the Church." ---- No there's no sspx church, but there's the sspx. That's what I was talking about. I just wanted to say too, thanks for the reply. Sorry this is a late reply as well. I'm not really in a good mood and having a rough time being catholic I guess and having issues with the church. If you took anything I said in a rude or harsh tone, I didn't mean to.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 8, 2022 20:11:31 GMT -5
Hello Butterfly, Due to many obligations, I will respond to the rest of the points either tomorrow or this week, but I will respond to your first point now. Butterfly wrote: Don't worry about the quoting features on here. I understand your response and will answer it. Here is a great resource on learning Dogmatic Theology and its free!: www.ecatholic2000.com/theology/manual.shtmlJust an FYI, the only way to approach Dogmatic Theology is to start with the idea that it is highly complex, and that if we are not understanding it or if there appear to be contradictions, the problem is with us, as we are untrained individuals who are reading materials that were meant for those with training. Whatever happens, never doubt the Church or it's claims, just patiently try to work it all out, or if it is causing you to be scandalized, don't read it, pray your rosary, go to a valid mass, and just stick with the Baltimore Catechism, and not worry about the complicated stuff. Nothing is worth the loss of your soul. I hope this forum can assist you if you want to swim in the deep water. I'll get to more of your post soon. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 9, 2022 12:49:11 GMT -5
Butterfly wrote:
The case of John XXIII is much more complicated than Paul VI. He certainly did do things that led to the present crisis, but what is not clear is whether he was knowingly and willingly attacking the Faith by being a heretic or was he more of a liberal Catholic, whose actions were not good, but not directly against the Faith, and one whose desire was not to attack the Church or the Faith.
Let's look at some basic differences:
1. Paul VI approved the Vatican II documents. John XXIII did not. It's questionable whether he would have either, as there was a claim that on his deathbed he ordered the Council stopped. I cannot verify this claim, however.
2. Paul VI dissolved the Holy Office and replaced it with a weak replacement, while John XXIII left the Holy Office intact and continued to function during his time. The same for the Index, although in that case, there was no replacement, it was just abandoned.
3. The rites of worship were all fully intact during the time of John XXIII. Paul VI gutted and mutilated them all, and this mutilation was so serious that many of these rites may have become invalid.
4. The canonizations of John XXIII were all canonizations that were certainly of Catholics deserving of being canonized, and I realize that the same could be said about Paul VI, but the "popes" after Paul VI canonized individuals that were clearly not saints, and were possibly damned.
5. Paul VI was the first "pope" to personally and actively engage in interfaith worship with non-Catholics. John XXIII never did this.
There are other differences but this should give you the idea,
Regarding Pius XII, it's fine to say he wasn't the best Pope, but that's really irrelevant. He was certainly the Pope, and he never in any way defected from the Faith. The Church was functioning during his pontificate, and doing well by many metrics. Some, in their analysis of the crisis, blame him for his actions that they perceive led to the Novus Ordo or to Vatican II. I disagree strongly. Their interpretation of Pope Pius XII's actions are just that interpretations. It doesn't make it true to assert things.
Let me briefly cover two common arguments against Pius XII:
1. Pope Pius XII's Holy Week and other liturgical laws led to the Novus Ordo.
This is an unproven assertion, and it directly goes against the reason stated in the decree approving the Holy Week for the reason for the change which was empty churches during the Holy Week.
But, with that aside, the Pius XII Holy Week did not in any way defect from the Faith, so any argument that it led to the Novus Ordo is just idle conjecture. It seems to me, and this is my opinion, that people need to stop seeing the crisis in natural terms, thinking they can figure it out by tracing its history and looking at the different players at the time. I think this crisis goes well beyond any such superficial analysis.
God protects his Church. He is always in control. The Church couldn't have undergone this crisis if He did not permit it. He could have intervened to block Paul VI from approving Vatican II or changing the sacramental rites at any time. Paul VI could have been taken by God at any time. None of us most likely will ever know, while we live in this world why God allowed this, but we must trust Him. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the invisible ruler of His Church, and He has been ruling it during this crisis. The question would be why He would allow the entire Church to almost completely collapse. It seems to me that one possibility is that we might be living at the time between two ages of the Church, and these things were permitted because it will bring about God's Plan and therefore lead to a greater good that will come from the permitted evil.
2. Pius XII's appointee's are the ones who betrayed the Church. Yes, this is true, but it doesn't mean he knew that they would betray the Church. The men he appointed were all clergy of the Catholic Church, trained and approved by the Church, and all of whom took the oath against modernism. No one has ever proven that Pius XII knew that these men would turn out to be enemies of the Church and of the Faith, so it proves nothing. Judas was also a traitor, and although Our Lord knew this, as He must, the other Apostles, despite their proximity to Our Lord and being instructed directly by Him, did not detect the treason of Judas.
Catholics, unlike evil-doers, cannot use methods to defend themselves that the wicked use. We are required by the moral law to see the best in our neighbor and not rashly assume anything evil about him. We must try to excuse our neighbor as far as is reasonably possible to construe a good judgment upon him as far as is reasonable possible. We must take Our Lord's command to "judge not, lest he be judged" very seriously as He wasn't giving us a suggestion but a direct command that would affect our salvation.
So, considering all of this, how do Catholics defend the Church, when evil-doers can essentially use this against us? If they are in our midst, but are traitors, but deceive us and do not do anything overt to allow us to make a judgment against them, it would appear impossible to defend the Church at first glance. But, we know as Catholics, that the Church is not a human organization, it is God's supernatural kingdom on earth, that he personally rules over, and therefore it is protected from such evil men who would betray the Church. Whatever happens against the Church only happens because God permits it.
It is questionable then, whether there were enough prayers, sacrifices and penances being said and done in the 1950's and early 1960's to obtain from God protection from the coming evil. Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on why God permitted this to happen in the first place. God permitted great evils to happen to Job despite him being a just man who was pleasing to God. God allowed the evil, but a greater good came from it. We are in the thick of this crisis, so it's hard right now to understand why God has allowed this, but over time, it will get clearer. Our only job is to completely trust him as we are suffering through this chastisement and always remember that He has not abandoned us, and all that is happening to all of us Catholics is being permitted by Him. We must remain loyal to the end by giving Him our absolute trust.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 10, 2022 13:39:08 GMT -5
Butterfly wrote:
Well, let me ask you, point to me the definition in Catholic theology. I can save you the time, it isn't there.
It's usage is vague. It could refer to the 1969 missal. It could refer to the Concilar theology. It could refer to the sect that emerged after Vatican II. It's a common term, and I admit, I use it from time to time, but be aware, it's not an approved Catholic term, so there are risks in using it. It's definition is not clear.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 10, 2022 13:43:47 GMT -5
Butterfly wrote:
I agree, it's used, but it is not clearly defined, which makes the use of the term dangerous. The term, "R & R" is not a Catholic term, irs never been used in Catholic theology, so at a minimum, we must be very cautious when using it, especially once we understand the danger of using unapproved and vague terms.
Let me say this another way to make it easier to grasp: even a small mistake on a fundamental matter can lead to very serious conclusions, which lead to very serious errors. Be careful.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 10, 2022 13:53:22 GMT -5
Butterfly wrote:
I am certainly not telling you what to do. Only the lawful pastors of the Church may do that. I only speak to you as one not sent or commissioned in any way to tell you to do anything.
Scandals and especially beatings sound horrible, but don't let it determine what the truth is. The truth in our times is not easy to find, as those sent by God to teach it to you are not around any longer, at least for the most part.
The Novus Ordo can't be mixed with the 1962 missal. The Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated in 1969, seven years later. The 1962 missal had no error in it. It was in perfect harmony with Catholic teaching and worship. If you disagree, that's your choice, but show your evidence if you want to disagree on this forum.
There is no essential difference between the older missal and the 1962 missal. Some have made this a hill to die on, but I believe they are gravely misguided. The differences are small. If you have attended a 1962 missal and one said using an older missal, the laity would not have even noticed unless they are very in tune with minor liturgical changes.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 10, 2022 14:09:26 GMT -5
Butterfly wrote:
On the matter of consecrating bishops in the manner he did, I think it's a good point of dispute. Personally, I do my think it was a permissible act in the manner in which he did it, but if it was done differently, in my opinion, it would have been permissible snd even laudable.
Vatican II is a can of worms. With work, one can interpret it in a Catholic sense, so Archbishop Lefebvre and many others were clearly relying on a Catholic understanding of the documents.
I also agree that Catholics are not at liberty to reject the Pope's teachings and laws. In my opinion, the entire response to the crisis was incorrect, going back to the 1970's. With that said, it was an immensely complicated time, so as a prudential matter, I think it wise to realize that innocent mistakes were made in the fog of war.
The fruits of the mistakes are continually showing themselves, but at the same time, it's important to remember that we are looking back in hindsight, not living through the initial dilemma.
|
|