Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
A lot of Catholic German soldiers disagreed with Hitler, but they followed his "lawful authority".
Blind obedience is not a virtue.
I don't give a hoot about Godwin's Law. I didn't even read your link.
The only law I care about is God's Law.
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made in a thread the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
I wasn't defending them - just pointing out that they by no means condemn evangelization in favor of "dialogue" (what does "dialogue" have to do with prayer in common, anyway?).
You are the one who says that the Pope is opposed to evangelization and thinks only of "dialogue", something which you cannot prove in the least.
I don't have to; Pope John Paul II proves it himself: kissing the Koran, kissing the Archdruid's ring, giving Tony Blair Holy Communion ...
It certainly wasn't the traditional Latin Mass either! I'm sure you know very well that a New Mass was approved in 1964, one that closely resembles the official New Mass of Pope Paul VI. Fortunately it still had the Latin Offertory and Consecration, so the heart of the Mass was untouched. But all the other parts of the Mass were translated into the vernacular and open to "inculturation" and experiments to encourage the "full and active participation of the congregation" -- precisely things like Hootenanny Masses.
So I hope you weren't deliberately encouraging the false impression that the Mass being travestied during the period from 1964 - 1967 was the traditional Latin Mass.
2. The self-serving SSPX schism, however, at least according to the schism, can decide, without so much as personal acquaintance of a given priest in communion with the Holy See or witnessing a given NO Mass what that priest's internal disposition was. Right, chief! Sure!
3. The experience of arguing with any of the schismatic satraps is like arguing with John Francois Kerry. Marcel's ittle legion will stay on message because they have such a narrow agenda to defend. There will never be a meeting of minds or engagement on issues (not that y'all deserve to be engaged on what pass for issues in the schism).
4. I don't miss your point. I find your point without substance, credibility or excuse. I disagree with your point. I regard your point as just so much schismatic propaganda. After all, if you guys can hurl hatred at the pope 24/7/365 in the guise of disagreeing with him, I guess Catholics can certainly disagree with you. Or did Marcel forbid us to disagree with those ensnared in the schism?
5. The last paragraph of your post stands on its own as one of the most farfetched ever posted even here bu the "trads" without a pope.
6. As often as you claim the schism to be Catholicism while it rejects the Novus Ordo Mass (as though the schism had the authority to do anything) as invalid, the point must be made to those new to the argument or forgetful that SSPX does, in fact, in its own publications reject the Novus Ordo Mass as valid and reject the Indult Tridentine Masses as fit for Catholics on the ground that it may lead us into diasagreeing with the all self-worshipping schism on the NO Masses (or because Tridentine Masses said by priests in communion with actual diocesan bishops and with the Holy Father may take some pittance or more from the hungry coffers of SSPX and the non-stop propaganda campaign of SSPX against the Roman Catholic Church???).
7. Of course, the schism spokesfolks here would NEVER, EVER, even think of repeating themselves, now would they???? They don't have to. Their needle is stuck.
Also, I am jealous. Dominick has been arguing with you for much less time than I but he gets his posts ignored by you! In the spirit of the otherwise saintly late Bishop Castro de Mayer: Hey, whaddabout me?????
Compare the 1964 Missal to that of 1962. The only difference of any substance is the allowance of the vernacular in lieu of any Latin for certain readings and prayers. The 1964 Missal is universally acknowledged to be the same as the 1570 Missal, the only difference being the allowing of the vernacular. It was however, the same words. And that was the Missal used in the first Clown Masses. There is certainly nothing special about the Tridentine Missal that protects it from abuses like that.
Really, who cares what the offertory says or if there is even a significant offertory at all?
There certainly wasn't one worth writing home about for the first 1000 years of the Roman Rite, since the offertory in the early liturgical books was nothing more than the Offertory Procession, Chant and Secret.
I certainly like the Tridentine Offertory prayers, but it is hardly an essential of the Mass, unlike the Canon. No reason to get hung up on such minor details and nuances.
The Roman Canon is actually more Protestantistic in some ways, especially the infamous phrase "ut nobis" in the prayer "Quam oblationem", which could easily be misinterpreted in an Anglican/Cranmerian sense that the Real Presence the Canon speaks of is only "for us" and not an objective reality, thus reducing the sacrifice to a mere offering of bread and wine. Canon III of the 1970 Missal, for example, omits this imprecision. Why can the combination of "ut nobis" and the dropping of the formal epiklesis not be taken as "proof" that the Gregorian/Tridentine Canon denies the Real Presence, but some minor rewording of the Offertory is sufficient proof for the 1970 Missal?
St. Ignatius and other great Saints thought it was. Of course, I'm sure you know better.
Pharsea? Shouldn't it be Pharisee or just plain Pharce? The website is emblematic of those who want to have their sin and salvation too.
Thank you for a very enlightening post.
"Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you". 1 Cor. xi,2
"Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have learned. Whether by word or by our epistle." 2 Thess. II, 14
"If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!" Gal. I, 9
I have a copy right here in front of me, and the difference from the traditional Latin Mass is night and day. It entirely incorporates the spirit of Vatican II and the New Mass.
The 1964 Missal is universally acknowledged to be the same as the 1570 Missal, the only difference being the allowing of the vernacular.
Your stance of being a traditionalist at heart but just loyal to Rome is betrayed when you make statements like this. Rather than being "universally acknowledged to be the same as the 1570 missal," the reality is that not a single traditionalist on the face of the Earth is using the 1964 version of the Mass. Nor would they. It is universally execrated, by traditionalists as a betrayal of the traditional Latin Mass, and by liturgical revolutionaries as not revolutionary enough.
And that was the Missal used in the first Clown Masses.
Thank you for admitting that it was never the traditional Latin Mass that ever allowed even "the first Clown Mass," but rather the post-Vatican II 1964 Missal which first allowed sacrilege and heterodoxy to replace the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
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.