Posted on 07/27/2002 2:54:34 PM PDT by NYer
From where I sit, Pope John Paul II is just across Lake Ontario. I'm visiting family in Niagara Falls, and from here you can nearly feel his power. It is not a political power. It's not so much a cultural force. It's a spiritual power -- a holy power. John Paul is the most powerful man on earth not because he controls an army or even because he leads a Church with more than one billion members, but because he is surrounded by the Holy Spirit.
That Spirit has descended on him because his life has been one of prayer, longsuffering, and sacrifice. Men cry in his presence -- uncontrollably. Women say they can feel his presence before he's even visible. Youths cheer as if the 82-year-old were a rock star. And the world has been changed by his presence. He has changed the world.
This is something the press doesn't like to report: that Karol Wojtyla, now known as Pope John Paul II, has affected mankind more than any other person in at least a century. Although we are quick to forget, for much of the twentieth century mankind lived under the constant threat of Communist Russia (as forecast at Fatima) and it was only through the intervention of John Paul II -- who prayed, who fasted, who directed Lech Walesa -- that Communism fell. Think of this: the man who was shot on the Fatima anniversary day of May 13, 1981, and whose shooting seemed presaged by the famous third secret and who himself became instrumental in releasing the third secret then became the instrument through which Communism -- the key concern at Fatima -- was defeated (at least in Europe and at least for the time being).
The greatest nemesis to Christianity, the red dragon -- which threatened to conquer the world and which threatened to annihilate our very belief in God -- was staved off by this heroic man due to his consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart and through the purity of his life, which proves the power of celibacy.
Celibacy is like fasting and with fasting we can stop wars and even suspend the laws of nature.
This is what Karol Wojtyla, the Pope of the Fatima secret, has done, and it is a lesson to all the Church at a time when many question the issue of celibacy. Granted, one does not have to be celibate to be holy. There are married ministers and Orthodox priests who exude goodness -- and who have been heroic. There are married saints.
But the power behind John Paul II goes beyond what we see anywhere else, and as a result, he is subject to attack. There are those who dissent from him, who ridicule his age, or who defame him. This happens among radical Catholics as well as protestants (some of whom make the absurd, demented claim that he is the "anti-christ"; we saw one such radical website slip an article through our own net). In other cases, as with the media, they simply ignore his accomplishments.
But such is the power of John Paul that even those who don't attend church, or are not even Catholic, know he is the essence of goodness, a close link to God, a very close link, and he is this example to us all: that with self-sacrifice, with prayer and fasting, anything can be done, whether in our own lives or across this troubled planet. And it is through that self-immolation -- which continues with every labored step he takes -- that John Paul comes about as close as a human can to a state of perfection.
That's not the way we work here. Remember, this is a Republican site?? Or did you forget that for a moment and think you were posting at DU?
Because Catholics will always lean on the truth as spoken by Jesus Christ. think back over your posts today.
Where was the love of Jesus Christ? [in your posts] Where was the guidance of the Holy Spirit? [in your posts]
We do care. We are merely calling you to re-examine your motives and your facts or non-facts, whichever they may be.
I find some of the following activities to be prevalent in my diocese. Then again, Albany, NY is home to Fr. Dick Vosko, "wreckovator" of many cathedrals in our country. My parish, so far, has kept the kneelers but this is Bishop Hubbard country. What follows below is their information.
Is Your Mass Valid? Liturgical Abuse
By Bruce Sabalaskey
Copyright 2001. All Rights Reserved.
Various Church documents are referenced (all are online here):
Firstly, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a term rarely heard today. Why use that term? Before Modernism greatly influenced the Church, that was the term understood for hundreds of years by every Catholic. This title explains fully what the Mass really is - the very same Holy Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross made present to us today in time. Absolutely nothing on earth could possibly be even remotely more important. Once you understand this, then the importance of a proper Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will become clearer. Vatican II Sacrosanctum Concilium explains in detail:
#2: For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, "the work of our redemption is accomplished," and it is through the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.
#7. To accomplish so great a work Christ is always present in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass not only in the person of his minister, "the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross, " but especially in the eucharistic species. by his power he is present in the sacraments so that when anybody baptizes it is really Christ himself who baptizes. He is present in his word since it is he himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church. Lastly, he is present when the Church prays and sings, for he has promised "where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them" (Mt. 18:20).
Christ, indeed, always associates the Church with himself in this great work in which God is perfectly glorified and men are sanctified. the Church is his beloved Bride who calls to her Lord, and through him offers worship to the eternal Father.
The liturgy, then, is rightly seen as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. It involves the presentation of man's sanctification under the guise of signs perceptible by the senses and its accomplishment in ways appropriate to each of these signs. In it full public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and his members.
From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the Priest and of his Body, which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others. No other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree.
#8. In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, Minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle. With all the warriors of the heavenly army we sing a hymn of glory to the Lord; venerating the memory of the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them; we eagerly await the Saviour, Our Lord Jesus Christ, until he our life shall appear and we too will appear with him in glory.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church further explains:
#1330 "The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection. The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, 'sacrifice of praise,' spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant."
#1366 "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper 'on the night when he was betrayed,' [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit."#1367 "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: 'The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.' 'In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.'"
#1368 "The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering."
Canon Law reconfirms the truth:
Canon 897: "The most venerable sacrament is the blessed Eucharist, in which Christ the Lord himself is contained, offered and received, and by which the Church continually lives and grows. The eucharistic Sacrifice, the memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, in which the Sacrifice of the cross is forever perpetuated, is the summit and the source of all worship and Christian life. By means of it the unity of God's people is signified and brought about, and the building up of the body of Christ is perfected. The other sacraments and all the apostolic works of Christ are bound up with, and directed to, the blessed Eucharist."
Clearly then, the Mass is not a "meal." - it is a Sacrifice. This is dogma.
Before getting into the specific abuses, it is important to understand the rules for celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. These rules are officially called rubrics. These rubrics are contained in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM)[1], and many clarifications have been made in more recent documents such as Instruction Concerning Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (Inaestimabile Donum).
The most serious type of abuse makes the Mass "invalid." For a Mass to be invalid, the Consecration of the Eucharist does not occur. Going to an invalid Mass is like not attending Mass at all since Jesus is not physically present via the miracle of transubstantiation[9]. The issue of fulfilling the Sunday obligation under such a circumstance will be dealt with later in this article.
The lesser abuse is called "illicit." These type of abuses are less serious and do not cause the failure of the Consecration of the Eucharist. There are a wide variety of these types of abuses which detract from the holiness and reverence in the Mass. However, an illicit Mass can still be a valid (as opposed to invalid) Mass.
In general, experimentation is gravely wrong, as stated in Vatican II's Instruction on the Orderly Carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy (Liturgicae Instaurationes):
"The effectiveness of liturgy does not lie in experimenting with rites and altering them over and over, nor in a continuous reductionism, but solely in entering more deeply into the word of God and the mystery being celebrated. It is the presence of these two that authenticates the Church's rites, not what some priest decides, indulging his own preferences."
"Keep in mind, then, that the private recasting of ritual introduced by an individual priest insults the dignity of the believer and lays the way open to individual and idiosyncratic forms in celebrations that are in fact the property of the whole Church."
Abuses of any kind causes scandal, meaning that such practices are obstructions to a person's way to increased Faith (see Matthew 18:6-9). As Inaestimabile Donum says, "The use of unauthorized texts means a loss of the necessary connection between the lex orandi and the lex credendi" (translation: people believe as they pray).
The serious abuses which invalidate the Mass are all those which inhibit transubstantiation, that is fail to begin about Jesus' True Presence in the Eucharist. The Church has very specifically defined what must - and must not - occur so that transubstantiation will result. There are four conditions required for a valid Consecration resulting in the miracle of transubstantiation. All of these conditions must be present for a valid Consecration. This is dogma. Therefore, anyone who denies these requirements is liable to heresy.
Only a validly ordained male priest can confect the Eucharistic (i.e. enable transubstantiation).
Canon 530 "The functions especially entrusted to the parish priest are as follows: ... 7¡ the more solemn celebration of the Eucharist on Sundays and holydays of obligation."
Canon 834 ?1 "The Church carries out its office of sanctifying in a special way in the sacred liturgy, which is an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. In the liturgy, by the use of signs perceptible to the senses, our sanctification is symbolized and, in a manner appropriate to each sign, is brought about. Through the liturgy a complete public worship is offered to God by the head and members of the mystical body of Christ." ?2 "This worship takes place when it is offered in the name of the Church, by persons lawfully deputed and through actions approved by ecclesiastical authority."
Canon 900 ?1 "The only minister who, in the person of Christ, can bring into being the sacrament of the Eucharist, is a validly ordained priest."
Lumen Gentium #28 (Vatican II) "... However, it is in the eucharistic cult or in the eucharistic assembly of the faithful (synaxis) that they [priests] exercise in a supreme degree their sacred functions; there, acting in the person of Christ and proclaiming his mystery, they unite the votive offerings of the faithful to the sacrifice of Christ their head, and in the sacrifice of the Mass they make present again and apply, until the coming of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 11:26), the unique sacrifice of the New Testament, that namely of Christ offering himself once for all a spotless victim to the Father (cf. Heb. 9:11-28). ..."
Liturgicae Instaurationes #4. "The eucharistic prayer more than any other part of the Mass is, by reason of his office, the prayer of the priest alone. [GIRM no 10] Recitation of any part by a lesser minister the assembly, or any individual is forbidden. Such a course conflicts with the hierarchic character of the liturgy in which all are to do all but only those parts belonging to them. [Sacrosanctum Concilium art. 28] The priest alone, therefore, is to recite the entire eucharistic prayer."
This means that any deacons (permanent deacons included) or laity cannot do so, nor can any woman regardless of her claim of being ordained. A validly ordained male priest acts literally "in the person of Christ" and it his ordination which gives him the power to confect the Eucharist. Even Angels cannot confect the Eucharist! (The hot-button topic of so-called "women priests" will be dealt with later in another article.) Similarly, Notitiae (17 [1981] 186) reaffirms that the priest may never invite the congregation to stand around the altar and hold hands during the consecration (i.e. other non-priests at the Altar during the Eucharistic prayer with the intent to "co-consecrate" with the priest will also invalidate the consecration). Several priests con-celebrating is, of course, permitted since they have the priestly powers from their ordination.
The priest must have the intent of doing what the Church does, that being the intent to make Jesus physically present via the miracle of transubstantiation at the consecration. The Council of Trent - a dogmatic council in response to the Protestant heresy - declared against the Protestant view which denies the necessity of the intention of the minister. St. Thomas Aquinas also covers this requirement in Summa Theologica (Third Part, Question 64, Articles 8, 9, 10).
Council of Trent, Seventh Session, March 3, 1547; Canon 11: " If anyone says that in ministers, when they effect and
confer the sacraments, there is not required at least the intention of doing what the Church does, [Eugene IV in the decr. cited.] let him be anathema."
Note that this article deals with only the Western Latin Rite Church. There are different rules for Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, such as Byzantine Catholic. For the Western Latin Rite Catholic Church, valid matter consists of wheat unleavened bread and grape wine.
Canon 924 ?1 The most holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist must be celebrated in bread, and in wine to which a small quantity of water is to be added. ?2 The bread must be wheaten only, and recently made, so that there is no danger of corruption. ?3 The wine must be natural, made from grapes of the vine, and not corrupt.
Canon 926 In the Eucharistic celebration, in accordance with the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread wherever he celebrates Mass.
GIRM 282. According to the tradition of the entire Church, the bread must be made from wheat; according to the tradition of the Latin Church, it must be unleavened.
GIRM 283. The nature of the sign demands that the material for the eucharistic celebration truly have the appearance of food. Accordingly, even though unleavened and baked in the traditional shape, the eucharistic bread should be made in such a way that in a Mass with a congregation the priest is able actually to break the host into parts and distribute them to at least some of the faithful. (When, however, the number of communicants is large or other pastoral needs require it, small hosts are in no way ruled out.) The action of the breaking of the bread, the simple term for the Eucharist in apostolic times, will more clearly bring out the force and meaning of the sign of the unity of all in the one bread and of their charity, since the one bread is being distributed among the members of one family.
GIRM 284. The wine for the Eucharist must be from the fruit of the vine (see Lk 22:18), natural, and pure, that is not mixed with any foreign substance.
GIRM 285. Care must be taken to ensure that the elements are kept in good condition: that the wine does not turn to vinegar or the bread spoil or become too hard to be broken easily.
Any other matter of Altar breads, especially forms becoming more popular with dissenters such as cakes or cookies, invalidates transubstantiation. St. Thomas Aquinas also covers this requirement in Summa Theologica (Third Part, Question 74, Articles 1 through 8). There are rare exceptions where Bishops may grant individual priests with allergies or alcohol problems the right to use low-gluten altar breads or mustem (a specific form of grape juice with fermentation suspended). It is gravely sinful for a priest to celebrate Mass knowing the matter is invalid.
Christ took the bread and the cup and gave thanks; he broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying: "Take and eat, this is my body." Giving the cup, he said: "Take and drink, this is the cup of my blood. Do this in memory of me." Accordingly, the Church has planned the celebration of the eucharistic liturgy around the parts corresponding to these words and actions of Christ. The key phrases which confect the Eucharist are "This is My Body" and "This is ... My Blood," which when said by a priest with the proper intention and matter (explained above), truly show the priest acts in the Person of Christ. Other parts of the Eucharistic prayer are, according to St. Ambrose (also quoted in Summa Theologica), essentially preparatory; "by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, for others, but when the time comes for perfecting the Sacrament, the priest no longer uses his own words but the words of Christ." St. Thomas Aquinas also explains this requirement in great detail in Summa Theologica (Third Part, Question 78, Articles 1 through 6). Changing the words of the preparatory parts of the Eucharistic prayer is illicit and gravely sinful for the priest, but would not invalidate the Eucharist as long as "This is My Body" and "This is ... My Blood" are said.
There are many more illicit abuses being practiced throughout the diocese of the world. Only some of the most common ones are listed here. Note that there is no attempt to prioritize the abuses as to most to least common or any such ranking. The abuse and the related Church teaching on the proper practice are presented.
All the texts of the Mass - prayers, responses, Epistles, Gospel - must be according to the norms approved by the Church. Under no circumstances can anything be changed outside of the rules laid down by the Church. This is clearly stated, even in Vatican II! The modernist usage of inclusive language is getting more widespread.
Sacrosanctum Concilium #22: (1) Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. (2) In virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops' conferences, legitimately established, with competence in given territories. (3) Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
Canon 928 The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been lawfully approved.
Inaestimabile Donum #5. "Only the Eucharistic Prayers included in the Roman Missal or those that the Apostolic See has by law admitted, in the manner and within the limits laid down by the Holy See, are to be used. To modify the Eucharistic Prayers approved by the Church or to adopt others privately composed is a most serious abuse."
Be aware that it is possible to invalidate the Mass if the key words of the Eucharistic prayer are not properly performed as previously described. ("This is My Body" and "This is ... My Blood")
Holding hands during the Our Father has become commonplace, but it is an illicit addition to the Liturgy. Clarifications and Interpretations of the GIRM ["Notitiae" Vol. XI (1975) p. 226] explains:
". . .holding hands is a sign of intimacy and not reconciliation, and as such disrupts the flow of the Sacramental signs in the Mass which leads to the Sacramental sign of intimacy with Christ and our neighbor, Holy Communion."
112. QUERY 2: In some places there is a current practice whereby those taking part in the Mass replace the giving of the sign of peace at the deacon's invitation by holding hands during the singing of the Lord's Prayer. Is this acceptable?
REPLY: The prolonged holding of hands is of itself a sign of communion rather than of peace. Further, it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics. Nor is there any clear explanation of why the sign of peace at the invitation: "Let us offer each other the sign of peace" should be supplanted in order to bring a different gesture with less meaning into another part of the Mass: the sign of peace is filled with meaning, graciousness, and Christian inspiration. Any substitution for it must be repudiated.
Dance is not allowed whatsoever. The document Dance In The Liturgy contains a full explanation. To summarize:
"[In western culture] dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure."
"For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations."
The Bishops have expressly prohibited any and all forms of dancing in the Liturgy.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS (BISHOPS' COMMITTEE on the LITURGY) NEWSLETTER. APRIL/MAY 1982.
"FROM THESE DIRECTIVES, from the NATIONAL CONFERENCE of CATHOLIC BISHOPS, all dancing, (ballet, children's gesture as dancing, the clown liturgy) are not permitted to be 'introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever.'"
The Penitential Rite is when the priest washes his hands after the offering of bread and wine before the Eucharistic prayer. This may not be omitted. The Query and Reply Official Interpretations of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal provides the answer:
52. QUERY: May the rite of washing the hands be omitted from the celebration of Mass?
REPLY: In no way. 1. Both the GIRM (nos. 52, 106, 222) and the Order of Mass (with a congregation, no. 24; without a congregation, no. 18) show the "Lavabo" to be one of the prescribed rites in the preparation of the gifts. A rite of major importance is clearly not at issue, but it is not to be dropped since its meaning is: "an expression of the (priest's) desire to be cleansed within" (GIRM no. 52). In the course of the Consilium's work on the Order of Mass, there were a number of debates on the value and the place to be assigned to the "Lavabo," e.g., on whether it should be a rite in silence or with an accompanying text; there was, however, unanimity that it must be retained. Even though there has been no practical reason for the act of hand-washing since the beginning of the Middle Ages, its symbolism is obvious and understood by all (see SC art. 34). The rite is a usage in all liturgies of the West. 2. The Constitution on the Liturgy (SC art. 37-40) envisions ritual adaptations to be suggested by the conferences of bishops and submitted to the Holy See. Such adaptations must be based on serious reasons, for example, the specific culture and viewpoint of a people, contrary and unchangeable usages, the practical impossibility of adapting some new rite that is foreign to the genius of a people, and so on. 3. Apart from the envisioned exemptions from rubrics and differing translations of texts (see Consilium, Instr. 25 Jan. 1969), the Order of Mass is presented as a single unit whose general structure and individual components must be exactly respected
The Heresy of Ecumenism —
The heresy of Ecumenism attempts to unite all religions at the expense and sacrifice of religious truth.
Condemned: Pope Pius XI (The Encyclical Mortalium Animos, On Fostering True Religious Unity. Pope Pius XI, January 6, 1928).
Proof: One of the most striking proofs of the ecumenical nature of the New Mass is found in the fact that six Protestant ministers [Dr. George, Canon Jasper, Dr. Shepherd, Dr. Kunneth, Dr. Smith, and Brother Max Thurian ( Itináraires, December 1973 Issue.)] participated in its fabrication. It is important to note here that they didn’t merely "observe", as some claim, but that they had an active place in the Concilium, which was responsible for drawing up the New Mass. In 1967, Cardinal W. W. Baum, who was executive director of the American Catholic Bishop’s Commission on Ecumenical Affairs, admitted in the June 27, issue of The Detroit News:
"They (the six Protestant ministers) are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed."
Don't know if you have been following this heated exchange, but stick around on the thread. I have just posted the names of the 6 protestant consultants who supposedly assisted in the development of the novus ordo.
Participated in the discussions, but who made the final decision? Not the Protestants.
I skimmed through some of what you linked. This last link seems to call into question the orthodoxy of the Mass of Pope Paul VI.
What do you think, NYer? Do you think that the Mass of Pope Paul VI is heretical?
sitetest
Regardless of the answer to that question, you must back up one more step to the next obvious question. Why were they invited? And, by whom? They participated fully in order to accomplish someone's agenda.
If you have not yet done so, visit the DOMUS DEI we site (address posted above). You will gain an immense understanding of Dr. (Fr.) Vosko's insidious plan to "protestantize" catholic worship spaces by moving the Tabernacle, ripping out the communion rail and kneelers, replacing the crucifix with a simple cross and baptismal fonts with pools. Here is the pastable link - http://community-1.webtv.net/crproc/DOMUSDEIANDREAL/index.html
In reviewing the site to which you've linked from this post, it's apparent that this site promotes, at the very least, schism from the See of Peter.
The article to which you have linked denies the orthodoxy of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, and charges that it is a heretical invention. Of course, the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church cannot promulgate a heretical Mass, and of course, Pope Paul VI promulgated the Mass in question. Thus, to state that the Mass of Pope Paul VI is heretical is to deny the doctrine of papal infallibility, and to sunder one's union with the Chair of Peter.
In browsing further on this website, there is a directory of "Traditional Catholic Masses" which gives information on every schismatic movement one can think of, encouraging Catholics to attend Masses which are in all cases illicit, and in many cases, perhaps invalid, and of course, entirely out of union with Peter.
The website also promotes vocations to the Society of St. Pius X, which is, of course, cut off from full communion with the Holy Catholic Church by virtue of the still-standing excommunication of its bishops, and the lack of jurisdiction of its priests, and thus, the invalidity of some of its sacraments.
This is not a website that leads devout Catholics closer to our Lord and His Church. It is a website dedicated to stealing away the sheep of our Lord's flock into the abyss of schism.
And of course, one does not generally credit the arguments of schismatics, right? Thus, this isn't a particularly good site to learn about how the Mass of Pope Paul VI came about.
Surely you were unaware of the nature of this site? Perhaps you would like to repudiate the posting of this site of schismatics, and all its evil works?
sitetest
Many of you are more knowledgeable about these things than I am. Could you please take a moment to review what NYer has linked here, especially the link in post #127? It seems that especially this last link is of a website where the author(s) has fallen into schismatic views.
I would appreciate your input on this matter.
sitetest
All these myths of yours have been disposed of repeatedly before. It's past midnight where I am, so I can't personally dig any of this stuff up, now.
To claim what you claim is to claim that the Holy Catholic Church has defected from the faith.
It's sad that you would wish to drag others into schism and rupture from Peter.
I'll pray for you in my daily Rosary tomorrow.
sitetest
You know, patent decisively answered many of your questions just in the last few days. Did you already forget what you were taught?
Before I depart, here is a link to another thread where patent answered part of your false ideas about the Mass:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/722077/posts?page=268#268
sitetest
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.