[Major Catholic Schism Partially Ended!!!]: Lefebvre Catholics opt for full communion with Rome

www.FIDES.org ^ | 1-18-2002 | staff

[Notwithstanding]

NOW = NOT

[sinkspur]

The irony of all this is that those devoted to the Tridentine Rite ask simply for it to be made available. For some reason, this is construed as a threat to the Novus Ordo.

The Tridentine Rite is not a threat to the Novus Ordo.

If I were a priest today, I wouldn't celebrate the Tridentine Mass except under threat from the bishop.

Like Latin? Let's celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin.

If you insist on the Tridentine Mass, I'm all for establishing a Tridentine Rite in which you can stare at the priest's back to your heart's content.

[marshmallow]

If you are saying that the only people who are attached to the Tridentine Rite are SSPX members, then you might be right. But that is far from the case.

You know about FSSP, I'm sure. Then there are a large number of people, amongst whom I include myself, who attend the Novus Ordo every week, but who still have a deep love for the old rite and would attend it ,if made available. Circumstances (i.e. a non-cooperative bishop) often do not allow this.

The Pope recognizes this too. Read Ecclesia Dei. The Holy Father,asked for a "wide and generous" interpretation of its provisions. He knows we're not asking for the suppression of the Novus Ordo.

[marshmallow]

If you insist on the Tridentine Mass, I'm all for establishing a Tridentine Rite in which you can stare at the priest's back to your heart's content.

This is childish talk.

I don't go to church to stare at anybody's back.

This comment says more about your own spirituality, than any defect in the Tridentine Rite.

[Rubber Duckie]

I'm not a Catholic, but tell me just how major is a schism of 28,000 members in an overwhelmingly (70%) Catholic country of 175 million can be. Granted, they may have a few more split-off members in Europe and elsewhere.

A far more serious concern for the Roman Catholic church ought to be politicians in high places who espouse allegiance to the church and vote against what it teaches, such as the scantity of life. You can make a long list of such "Catholics" just in the U.S. Senate-- Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Mikulski, Paul Sarbanes, Mary Landrieu . . . who not only go along with the party leadership but are leaders in formulating it.

In fact, the only two Catholics in the Senate I can think of who follow the teachings of their church in their public life are both white guys-- Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

[Notwithstanding]

The Church does not force its lay members to do or believe anything. If a person likes to say "I am Catholic" and then go pray like a Buddhist, then they are wrong and not living up to their baptismal promises. People are always free to sin.

[sinkspur]

This comment says more about your own spirituality, than any defect in the Tridentine Rite.

No it doesn't.

It was a cheap shot. To which you answered with your own cheap shot.

We're even.

[ventana]

"We can tell a tree by its fruits, and the fruits of Vatican II can be seen in the great loss of faith, vocations and fidelity to the Church's teachings among the laity, and the misdirection and apostasy of much of the priesthood, religious, and bishops."

Is this true? I was under the impression that the RC church was the only Christian Church that was not in decline. Speaking only for myself, I have doubts that I would have begun the process of converting to Catholicism if it had been solely in Latin.

I "enjoy" an occasional trip down to a nearby parish where they are permitted to celebrate the Mass in Latin. From the bi-lingual missalette it seems to be pretty much the same. Architecturally the altar is against the front wall, whereas in our normal (I mean the one we are members of) Church the Altar stands between the Priest and the congregation. In both cases the Priest does not put his back to the altar unless he is holding the Consecrated Host.

I am generally quite moved by the reverence, piety, and adherence to the forms of the Mass by the attendees of the Latin Mass. And while not at all dismayed that they frequently seem to be "in this world but not of it", I have on one occasion been beset by a woman who held forth at great length on the Popes betrayal, and the kowtowing to Protestant and Jewish groups to come up with a form of the Mass that would not offend said groups (Vatican II).

She seemed a bit disloyal to me, but as I am not yet even a Neophyte, I obviously have much to learn, If the Pope says its so, who are we to dispute it?

[pbear8]

Now, now co-religionists, let us not fight among ourselves but fight the real enemy. We just do his work for him if we fight among ourselves.

I (and many other Catholics) are happily conversant in both Novus Ordo and Trid Masses and are able to assist at either. It is my belief that Rome has finally heard the complaints of many Catholics who, through no fault of their own, are condemned to circus masses and will act to relieve their suffering.

As long as NO or the Trid are said with reverence and love for Jesus I will be happy with either.

[Loyalist]

He knows we're not asking for the suppression of the Novus Ordo.

It may not be necessary, because the Vatican II revolution, like all revolutions, has turned its destructive energies on itself.

The Novus Ordo needs vocations in order to survive. Those dioceses and orders most enraptured by the spirit of Vatican II aren't getting them. The more conservative Novus Ordo diocese and orders, which could be easily become wholly traditionalist, are at least replacing themselves or growing. And traditionalist orders are growing, per capita, at the fastest rate.

Moreover, the old guard who made the Vatican II revolution, who burned the altars while their secular counterparts burned their draft cards, are dying off now. While they have done more damage to the Church than any other group of heretics since the Arians, they have not produced a generation of clerics who share their revolutionary fervour.

Trusting in Our Lord's promise to Peter that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, we may be sure that the Vatican II revolution will be decisively defeated.

[sinkspur]

As long as NO or the Trid are said with reverence and love for Jesus I will be happy with either.

We are in full agreement. However, I'll let you have my place at the Tridentine Mass, and I'll do double duty at the Novus Ordo liturgy.

[duck soup]

This is so riddled with falsehoods as to be laughable

Communion in the hand can, in fact, be traced back to Jesus Himself. Did the apostles stick out their tongues to share in the Bread Jesus gave them?

COMMUNION IN THE HAND

"Communion in the hand" is a Protestant innovation foisted upon the Catholic world in the name of false ecumenism. The Novus Ordo practice of communion in the hand is rooted in the rejection of the Catholic doctrine on the Holy Eucharist and the denial of the Catholic priesthood.

The Church has condemned communion in the hand from the early centuries on: ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: "Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus..." [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbad the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution." St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbad the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). "Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). "This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Apostolic Epistle "Memoriale Domini")

POPE JOHN PAUL II (1978-). "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

"It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another." (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

[Diddle E. Squat]

I was under the impression that the RC church was the only Christian Church that was not in decline

Actually there are many evangelical Protestant denominations that are growing rapidly. However most mainstream Protestant denominations are in decline(generally the ones with a liberal bent). I dunno, maybe, just maybe something to do with their aversion to evangelism? (Why 'go into the world' if you might risk offending an atheist, gay, pedophile, liberal victim group de jour?)

[Land of the Irish]

Where in the world did I say the FSSP priests are forbidden to say the Tridentine Mass? It seems like they're the only ones who have Vatican permission to do so. Certainly, not the SSPX for they are supposedly "excommunicated" for having insisted on doing so. Also, I never said FSSP are forced to celebrate the "Nervous Order" Mass. I said they have to concelebrate it;i.e. two or more priests.
As far as the American bishops: they have totally disobeyed "Ecxcelsia (forgive my spelling) Dei" in their refusals to permit the Tridentine Mass to those seeking it, or if they do so, it's it on a limited basie; i.e. every third Saturday in the funeral home down by the river.

[sinkspur]

POPE JOHN PAUL II (1978-). "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

Strange. He said this after he approved the distribution of Communion in the hand in the United States in 1977. I think I'll do a google search on this to make sure you didn't make it up.

You are, of course, free to receive the Eucharist on the tongue.

[duck soup]

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."

Apostles were ordained and you were correct that they handled the body of Christ. LOL. Happy hunting on google.

[Land of the Irish]

You are, of course, free to receive the Eucharist on the tongue.
Sure, with no paten under the chin and a lay Eucharist minister who makes a face and winces when you refuse to present your hands.

[sinkspur]

Sure, with no paten under the chin and a lay Eucharist minister who makes a face and winces when you refuse to present your hands.

Sounds like you're a good candidate for the new Tridentine Rite.

You'll have patens galore over there.

[Land of the Irish]

new Tridentine Rite ??
No such thing exists. Don't worry about me! I'm sticking with the one and only Tridentine Mass. Get over it. It'll will last far longer then this silly circus VC II experiment (long gone sour). Go soar on eagles' wings and sing kumbaya.