Posted on 06/03/2005 9:22:21 PM PDT by GOPmember
What We have Lost
...and the Road to Restoration
A critical look at the changes in the Catholic Church
This video gives you an intimate, up-close look at the destructive and wide-spread changes that have taken place in the two-thousand-year-old Catholic Church since the close of the Second Vatican Council in 1965.
Much of what you see will surprise you, maybe even shock you, and -- unfortunately -- will sadden you. "What We Have Lost" not ony exposes the external damage that has been done to the Universal Church, but goes deep behind the scenes to reveal the hidden changes; how and when they were made; and who made them.
This video asks the hard questions: Is the Church still Catholic? Has She lost the true faith? Does the clergy still truly "believe?" Can we count on today's Church to lead us to salvation? The answers found in "What We Have Lost" may bring you to anger -- or to tears. But after you see it, you will never look at the "modern" Church in the same way again.
And "What We Have Lost" is about hope. Hope in Jesus Christ and His one true Church on earth. Plus it's about the restoration of the traditional Latin Mass and the "Faith of our Fathers;" and it documents the groundswell of traditionalism within the Church, and how you can be a part of it...on the "Road to Restoration."
Cite one Ecumenical Council after which no turmoil occured.
So, it makes one wonder why he troubled himself to convert to Catholicsm after the Council. What would be the point?
Protestants were guaranteed safe passage to and fro Trent and were givewn lewave to introduce and debate ANY issue/topic/doctrine etc.
I guess that means Trent is heretical also
bump
Oh, he could be faking it, right? Good point. Very shrewd of you. Come to think of it, so could you. Since Pete vere doesn't get a free pass, why should you? I ask only for information.
There's a difference. I've not been given a free pass. As a traditionalist, I have to back up everything I state with facts, references, sources etc. And as futile as it seems at times, Catholic doctrine.
And in the end, the blind still don't want to see. They have faith in something other than the Catholic Faith. It's a diabolical disorientation.
Don't see how this is relevant to your insinuation (NOT backed up by facts, references, sources etc.) that Pete Vere's a satanist mole.
I'm just relating my own experience with him and his writing.
You are the one jumping to conclusions without any facts.
I stand by my statement that he is no traditionalist and I've never heard or read anything from him that renounces his occult past.
You'd think from his writing that attending an SSPX chapel was worse.
I know I've asked this question in different forms before on other threads, but have never felt that I've received a satisfactory answer: why isn't the Tridentine Mass available for use in the vernacular in the Catholic Church?
In Orthodoxy, liturgies in a form of the vernacular are very important, since it is felt that the full spiritual effect of the liturgical services comes with understanding of the words. I have a bit of a knack for languages and am reasonably well educated, but there is simply no way that I can pray in another language as well as I can in my own. I have no way of knowing, but I would suspect that Latin is only comparable to ecclesiastical Greek and Slavonic in terms of comprehendability by the faithful for, say, Italians and Spaniards.
I was recently browsing through the old 1950's St. Joseph Missal (in traditional English!) that sits on my shelf, and noticing how beautiful it is. There are a few things in the text of the mass itself that I would disagree with as an Orthodox Christian, especially differences in emphasis created by rubrics, but not much. I do *not* at all feel that way when I'm browsing through a N.O. "missalette" -- and it's not just because the music is abysmal!
Why, if the theology of the Tridentine Mass is still an accurate relection of Catholic belief (else why would it be allowed, and even officially encouraged?), is it not made one of the options for parishes to use in the vernacular? If there were problems with it, why wasn't it simply revised slightly to address those perceived problems and then translated into various vernacular languages?
If it is not acceptable theologically anymore, then why is it allowed in Latin? Ratzinger's writings clearly indicated that he felt (and feels) that liturgical reform was necessary, even though he also feels that it took a seriously wrong turn. The question is what he, as B16, will do about it. To me, as a liturgically-minded Orthodox Christian, the blindingly obvious starting point is *not* a return to the Tridentine Mass in Latin (except for those countries where comprehension levels would be high, with a little education), but rather the use of pre-Vatican II liturgical services in the vernacular -- then go from there in whatever reforms are felt to be necessary. But that is just a view from the outside.
"I know I've asked this question in different forms before on other threads, but have never felt that I've received a satisfactory answer: why isn't the Tridentine Mass available for use in the vernacular in the Catholic Church?"
There simply is not a satisfactory answer to this question, I'm afraid! ;)
The traditionalists wouldn't want the Rite translated into the vernacular because that would lose the sacred language of Latin (traditionally Catholics have viewed Latin, Greek and Hebrew as our sacred languages) and it would bring with it all the attendant problems of the quality of translations etc.
The modernists wouldn't want it translated into the vernacular because that would then put it in open competition with the Novus Ordo rite and the latter would probably lose!
The Tridentine rite does a far better job of reflecting Catholic belief than the new rite, but we have become infested with modernist liturgists who hate it for that reason. They view Tridentine Eucharistic theology as outdated and no longer relevant to the modern Church. The Novus Ordo was concocted primarily to make the Mass more acceptable to Protestants by reducing the emphasis on sacrifice and the Presence of our Lord - both things which Protestants object to. This is how crazy the whole ecumenical thing had become in the late '60's and early '70's - everything could be thrown out for the sake of clearing the path for ecumenism. Most traditional Catholics therefore have no trust or respect for either liturgists or ecumenists.
"If there were problems with it, why wasn't it simply revised slightly to address those perceived problems and then translated into various vernacular languages?"
Congratulations and bingo! Bloody obvious really, wasn't it? (excuse my French!) If you read the actual Vatican II documents you will see that this was precisely the plan which the Council Father's had in mind. And in 1965 this is exactly what was done with a rite that was approved on an experimental basis until 1970. It was the Tridentine Mass which had been trimmed down a little and vernacularised. Unfortunately this wasn't enough for the "reformers" who had an agenda they were pursuing to make the Mass look as much like a Protestant service as possible. As well as their well-intentioned, but misplaced ecumenical fervour, they had effectively lost the faith in terms of the Eucharistic theology of the Council of Trent which many started (and still do) rejecting.
"If it is not acceptable theologically anymore, then why is it allowed in Latin?"
It is more than acceptable to Catholics, but it is anathema to the liberals who control much of our hierarchy.
"To me, as a liturgically-minded Orthodox Christian, the blindingly obvious starting point is *not* a return to the Tridentine Mass in Latin (except for those countries where comprehension levels would be high, with a little education), but rather the use of pre-Vatican II liturgical services in the vernacular"
That would suit me down to the ground as well - as long as the vernacular it was translated into was suitably sacred. However, one could still retain the well-known prayers of the ordinary of the Mass in Latin and Greek (Kyrie) without causing too much intellectual difficulty.
Your "view from the outside" is probably what many of us on the inside would call simple common sense. Unfortunately the "Spiwit of Vatican II" chased that away for a while and we hope it will come back soon! ;)
Well, this former Protestant will echo your "French" in saying that they bloody well succeeded! As you have heard me say on other threads, if Catholics around where I live were to pick the churches closest to them in belief and worship, I doubt that we lowly Orthodox would even make the top five...
Thanks for your overview. It is nice to know that there are those within Catholicism who have "common-sense" views of these matters, and particularly nice to know that there are Catholics who care about the kind of English that the services are translated into.
One of the things that keeps Orthodoxy from having more uniform translations in the English-speaking world is the disagreement over the type of English that should be used.
There are those, like me, who believe that true, modern, vernacular is a formula for shifting sands and constant revisions as languges change. We believe that each language needs to have a "liturgical dialect" that has high levels of comprehension, and yet which remains quite stable from century to century. We believe that English has such a liturgical dialect, and that it is roughly encompassed by the AV/BCP tradition. Until about midway through this century, that dialect was pretty universally used -- Catholic prayer books, Protestant hymnals, Orthodox liturgical translations... all used it in one form or another, and it was the property of all who spoke the language.
The other viewpoint is that of using modern "literary" English, and much of this is the result of "peer pressure" of N.O. translations and modern Biblical translations. Feelings run strong on this, and it is often tied up with other baggage...
Our parish uses traditional liturgical English translations exclusively. I am grateful to be in a diocese where the bishop feels strongly about this.
It would be nice if liturgically traditional Catholics would open up a new "front" in this war! Is there enough flexibility on things like this that an individual priest could make an appeal to his bishop for special permission to offer the Tridentine Mass (and the offices of the Breviary!) using the English of older missals and breviaries? Like you, I suspect that it would rapidly become very popular...
Finally, it is interesting that the radical revisions in the Catholic liturgy were done in the name of ecumenism, since the end-result was to move Catholicism significantly away from Orthodoxy. While much of Vatican II at least blurs the fault-lines between Catholicism and Orthodoxy and numerous points are viewed favorably by us, what happened to the liturgies has been overwhelmingly negative, and has, if anything, created new divides where old ones didn't exist.
"Is there enough flexibility on things like this that an individual priest could make an appeal to his bishop for special permission to offer the Tridentine Mass (and the offices of the Breviary!) using the English of older missals and breviaries?"
Unfortunately the chances of anything like this coming off lie somewhere between zero and non-existent! IMHO there is no significant chance of us recovering our own tradition (even in vernacularised form) until all the senior clergy who went through Vatican II are dead. (I sometimes wonder whether I should be giving God a helping hand to accelerate the process, but I probably shouldn't go there!!)
Too many people have too much invested in the conciliar fallout to even consider that they screwed up. Too many Catholics actually prefer a banalized, dumbed-down, infantilized liturgy because its more comfortable to have "cute" than be challenged.
Even if Benedict XVI wanted to take some steps back in order to step forward, I don't think he would get support from the bishops. From the outside the Pope may appear to have supreme power to do whatever he needs to do to get things put right. However, the mundane reality of the situation is that he has no more effective power than any other patriarch and he can't make any major changes without the consensus at least of the senior clergy.
"Finally, it is interesting that the radical revisions in the Catholic liturgy were done in the name of ecumenism, since the end-result was to move Catholicism significantly away from Orthodoxy."
I believe some Orthodox ecumenists have made exactly this point. I would wholeheartedly agree and just wish that they would say it more loudly, forcefully and continuously!!! Eventually someone might hear.
Well, this former Protestant will echo your "French" in saying that they bloody well succeeded!
Some might say this was the goal of the reformers, some might actually believe it to be a noble thing, unity and all.
Some others say the goal is far more sinister. Some others say that the source of grace in the world is The Catholic Church, primarily through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the sacrifice of Calvary, offered by the Catholic priesthood. Some might say that Satan knows this, and since he wants to bring as many souls as he can to hell with him the three big targets he would want to attack would be The Church, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the priesthood.
Some might say that although the Protestant revolt did do damage to The Church, it would be far more effective if the attacks on the Church could somehow be made from the inside. So, some might say, Satan went to work attacking the very means of grace, the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, (primarily the mass but all of them have been changed including Holy Orders). Some might say to do this he would need accomplices, no problem with that, he would only need a few. The vast majority of support he would get would be from those who serve his purposes unwittingly under the belief that they are really doing good, you know unity and all.
Anyway, Satan doesn't care if everyone feels good about being united so long as they are united in error an confusion and not truth. And isn't that just what has been accomplished. Less Catholics going to confession and mass on a regular basis, less Catholics believing in the Real Presence, less faithful priests teaching orthodox doctrine, less valid masses, and more flexibility to have masses that profane the Eucharist and foster something other than the Catholic faith, less grace for the world, less divine protection against sin and error, and a whole lot of souls being lead astray. And most of them feel really good about it.
Anyway that's what some others might say.
8. This reform puts an end to uncertainties, to discussions, to arbitrary abuses. It calls us back to that uniformity of rites and feeling proper to the Catholic Church, the heir and continuation of that first Christian community, which was all "one single heart and a single soul" (Acts 4:32). The choral character of the Church's prayer is one of the strengths of her unity and her catholicity. The change about to be made must not break up that choral character or disturb it. It ought to confirm it and make it resound with a new spirit, the spirit of her youth.
Interesting quotes you posted. Now that we have a few decades worth of perspective here, is the irony entirely lost on you?
Oh, go on! Beat about the bush if you must! ;)
As a traditionalist, I think it necessary to be humble enough to accept it is the Living Magisterium which defines Tradtion and tradition and to submit to those decisions which modify , and even abandon, traditions because that is the common good for any particular epoch
To put it another way, I don't think the changes/reforms etc were done with malign intent. As a Christian Tradtionalist, that puts me in a distinct miniority here. I, reflexively, consider what Holy Mother Church does is because she knows what is best for all of us. I am not one who imagines that what my personal prejudices, preferences, proclivities etc are ought be normative for every other Christian Catholic on earth
It is my personal opinion that all the cavilling, complaining, condemning etc done by both the left and the right and directed at the Body of Christ has infected nearly all of us with the inclination to adopt protestant categories of thought vis a vis the Magisterium and we desire to crush and sift each and every decison taken by the Magisterium and run it through the filter of what are our personal understanding of Compassion/Tradition is and to decide whether or not we shall accept or reject Magisterial decisions..
In other words, even though I may prefer the Mass anchored in a particular Liturgy, if the Living Magisterium takes another decision and undertakes a reform of the Liturgy, who am I to muscle-up to the public podium and begin denouncing them for protestantizing this and liberalizing that and destroying this and corrupting that? Adopting the habit of thinking Holy Mother Church is suspect or, worse, corrupting, signifies Satan's influence is growing amongst far too many who call themselves tradtionalists
In what way is denouncing any normative Rite Tradition? (It goes without saying that nobody is wrong in denouncing bad translations, abuses of the GIRM etc)
No language is sacred for Catholic Tradtionalists. It is not our Liturgies, it is not our language, it is not our Rites, ancient or revised/reformed, which preserve truth and Doctrinal certitude, it is the Triune God working through the Church He established which assures and preserves Truth and is is the Living Magisterium which takes decisions mediating that Salvific Grace in its Sacraments, Rites, Liturgues etc that we must submit to and ahere to and not attack.
Nixon, infamously, once said, "We are all Kenyesians" now. In the future, maybe some tradtionalist will note, "All the traditionalists were protestant-oriented in that epoch"
"As a traditionalist, I think it necessary to be humble enough to accept it is the Living Magisterium which defines Tradtion and tradition and to submit to those decisions which modify , and even abandon, traditions because that is the common good for any particular epoch"
But don't you think the Living Magisterium is capable of deficient conduct, being deficient in the disciplines it promulgates, and even formulating doctrine deficiently?
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven
Exactly! That is why Quo Primum Tempore is in perpetuity.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven
Exactly! That is why Quo Primum Tempore is in perpetuity.
It ain't necessary. Thinking a Pope can bind all future Popes in a non Dogmatic are would give that particular Pope MORE authority than Jesus gave each Pope beginning with Peter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.