Replies

Traditionalists might have survived Vatican II with our noses out of joint, but the New Mass was a false worship and had to be rejected. It represents a new religion and a clear denial of Catholic doctrines.

How? And please provide doctrinal specifics. Violations of CANON LAW. Not preferences.

That is what I find most damnable about Rome's current agenda. It goes about destroying Tradition, but doing so as Cranmer did in England--by subterfuge and suppression. Do you think it will come out and deny the Real Presence?

I don't know where you live, but you need to get out more. There has NEVER been a denial of the Real Presence in official church teaching. There are some bishops suppressing it, I suppose (not where I live). But this has never been denied in any way from the Vatican.

Not on your life--but it won't defend it either and allows apostate bishops to have their way and deny kneeling before communion and the shunting aside of tabernacles.

You haven't been paying attention. This is in the process of being fixed. Bishops have been warned. No, their heads aren't rolling, but they've been corrected, and, yes, they are resisting. It might take retirements before some dioceses change. The reversal is going to be gradual.

Now, would you kindly give us ONE, just ONE, example of an OFFICIAL piece of Canon Law, Doctrine, not Mass rubrics, either, which has been contradicted under the current Magisterium.

YOU haven't been paying attention. I have been posting now for months on end detailed objections to the New Mass--insofar as it is a violation of Trent. Cardinal Ratzinger himself has recognized the problem with the Novus Ordo and its violation of Trent in his speech at Fontgombault. Here is what he said about the invalidation by Trent of precisely the kind of Mass concocted by Bugnini in violation of Catholic doctrine and the whole of Catholic tradition:

"It is only by grasping that it [the hatred for the old Latin Mass by Novus Ordo bishops] results from the practical invalidation of Trent, that one can understand the exasperation that accompanies the fight against the possibility of still celebrating Mass according to the '62 Missal."

And he said this at the same venue:

"From the start, I was in favor of the freedom to continue to use the old Missal, for a very simple reason: people were already beginning to speak of a rupture with the pre-conciliar Church, and the formation of different models of churches: an 'outmoded' pre-conciliar Church, and a new, conciliar Church...It seems to me indispensable to retain the possibility of celebrating according to the former missal as a sign of the permanent identity of the Church."

This is why I speak of a new religion. There is no real permanent identity between the two, between pre-conciliar condemnations of modernism and modernism's triumph in Rome. There is, instead, a clear rupture between what went before the Council and what came after. This is why Rome itself accuses traditionalist priests of not thinking with "the conciliar Church" and makes fantastic claims of being the arbiter of what is and is not Tradition. The Pope is supposedly the bridge, the unifying force, the true decider of all things Traditional. But he ceases to be this when he himself is so enamored of radical change and has aligned himself so clearly against his predecessors. So we have two churches, the before Church and the after Church. You and others apparently accept and affirm the latter which is forty years old. I believe and affirm the former which has existed for twenty centuries and still exists among a traditional Catholic remnant.