[murphE]

Ping

This is the reform of the reform argument. I don't agree with all of it, but he does present clear evidence that the NO as it is celebrated today is not consistent with the documents of Vatican II.

[26lemoncharlie]

I am a Sede Vacantist ( The Seat is Empty). Pope Benedict XVI knows the true intent of VII, he was there, he knows what has happened to the church and the modernist culprits who have gutted the Catholic Religion and the Churches.

I anxiously await his guidence toward a return of the Catholic Church in reversing all of the Heretic practices that the Moderist Bishops and Priests have invented and placed into the Mass. The hunting sown and extradition of the Homosexual and Pedophile Priest that have infiltrated the Priesthood, becaus eof the Liberal Modernists controlling the diocese. They will go, defrocked and thrown out as they should be.
Praise be to the Lord out God!

[Mershon]

And Fr. Fessio can continue to offer Mass in this manner (I have assisted with him, and with another priest who offered it identically. They have their own "Mass of Vatican II" missals.

Unfortunately, they are the only two priests in the nation who believe this is the Mass of Vatican II. Perhaps he should inform all the bishops and the Holy See, who allowed a myriad of options that are not in this "Mass of Vatican II" missal.

The truth of the matter is that it does not represent the Mass of Vatican II because Sacrosactum Concilium gave the authority of various "options" within the liturgy to the bishops.

[Romulus]

So until the Second Vatican Council, the term “active participation” referred exclusively to the singing of Gregorian Chant by the people.

This is just not so. Mediator Dei is quite plain:

105. Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass, strive to make them familiar with the "Roman Missal," so that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be done in more than one way, when, for instance, the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner, or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass, or do both, or finally in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant.

[donbosco74]

The Moderates have it backwards!

>>Then you have the moderates. Those in the middle. Me and a few others. But I am going to insist on my right as a Catholic and as priest to celebrate the liturgy according to the Council, according to the presently approved liturgical books, to celebrate a form of the Mass
>>>that therefore needs no special permission<<< — and which in fact
>>>cannot be prohibited<<< — what I’ve called “the Mass of Vatican II.”<<

Interesting that Fessio is afraid of some liturgy needing "special permission."

Or that a particular rite might be "prohibited."

According to authentic Catholic tradition, the only prohibited rites have been RECENTLY DEVELOPED ones, like any of them that were less than 200 years old at the time of Trent.

According to authentic Catholic tradition, the only "special permission" should be for the use of the Novus Ordo liturgies!

But Fessio is emphatically concluding that that of his own terminology, "the Mass of Vatican II" (the quote marks are his own), is the one that "therefore needs no special permission" and "cannot be prohibited."

I'm so sorry to see he's got it all backwards! This must be another pathetic case of Diabolical Disorientation, again. D2 strikes when you least expect it! D2 is kind of like AIDS and the Plague in that way: you never know when it's coming, like an unwelcome vial from the Angel of the Apocalypse.

In fact, this is probably one of those very vials! Those with eyes to see, let them see! But there are none so blind as those who WISH NOT to see.

Fessio and the Moderates have it backwards. In fact, they might be more honest to refer to themselves as neo-Modernists, not "Moderates." Why? They are not Modernists, because Modernists tried to use the force of logic to defend their defection from Tradition. Neo-Modernists, on the other hand, have abandoned that tack since it doesn't work. There is no logically defensible course for them to use. Neo-Modernists instead attempt to corral the last vestiges of authority (while it lasts) to usurp Tradition and to attack it with inside out logic (like Fessio's here), until the house of cards collapses all around them; at which point they will walk away like they did with the Anglicans.

Furthermore, he insinuates the false premise that the missal of 1962 is the furthest any priest could dare to go, in distancing himself from the modern (abominations). Unfortunately, the missal of 1962 already contains the seeds of corruption that blossomed into the Robber Council II.

The Mass that needs no "special permission" is the Traditional Latin Mass, not Fessio's "Mass of Vatican II."

The Mass that cannot be prohibited is the Traditional Latin Mass, NOT Fessio's "Mass of Vatican II."

It might seem like a bitter pill, but the truth is actually sweet. The bitterness is a subjective sensation that disappears once erstwhile error is recognized and abandoned. That's the way it is with intellection.

[k omalley]

The Novus Ordo is done exactly this way at the Brompton Oratory in London. The priest faces the altar, the choir sings Gregorian chant, the people respond in Latin with great enthusiasm while the readings and the prayers are said in English. Clouds of incense float heavenward. Communion is received kneeling. I think that this is the way the VII Mass was meant to be celebrated.

[narses]

+

[sneakers]

bump!