Free Republic

I agree about the climate, but the 1 area Kennedy was as strong as anyone was on the COVID-19 policies of the Biden Administration, in particular their Vax policy/mandates, etc.

On that point, MAGA and Kennedy perhaps overlapped more than anyone else, at least in my estimation.

Regarding your map, this SCOTUS ruling is actually making LA go back to an earlier map with 2 Black Congressional districts. To accomplish that, one District was centered on New Orleans and areas along the MS River with high concentration of Black voters. So it was a very closely connected district. The other majority Black district if memory serves me correctly started up on the LA-Arkansas border and was drawn along the MS River LA/MS border down to Baton Rouge (The areas with large numbers of Black voters). Some earlier Courts used the “Gerrymandering” concept and argued that such a district was geographically/racially gerrymandered and the LA map had to be redrawn.

It is a parish Church that is more of a mission parish of the Cathedral with a homeless shelter that serves battered women. It is located in the center of town so is not a parish per se with an elementary school.

So the local Bishop has not changed that this parish offers the TLM, it has been doing so for years, even before Pope Benedict issued the Moto. The parish has sung Vespers in Latin on the last Sunday of every month.

So nothing has changed. What I think is the case is that parishes attached to large schools, there is not a different Mass at different times. In the past, I have seen where one parish can have a Mass in English using MIssal of Pope Paul VI, then same Missal but in Latin, then a Mass using the Missal of Pius V.

I have heard and seen evidence myself different cliches in a parish form with each saying well why do you go the this or that mass.

This is just my experience, the Mad Trads, not the Glad Trads or Sad Trads mine you, in my opinion, seems like that subset of Trad groups are often critical of other Catholics receiving the eucharist at a Liturgy not celebrated according to the Missal of Pius V.

So this parish in my diocese, in the downtown near the Diocesan Cathedral has always been a Mission Parish and has a stable group of Catholics who go there.

What does not happen at My Diocese is different Liturgies according to different Missals being celebrated at the same parish Church.

So my local Bishop has allowed the Mission Parish in the downtown area of my diocese continue to celebrate the TLM, which it has been doing going back to the last 2 Bishops we have had. And the folks at that parish do not get into Liturgical wars with Catholics who do not go there.

So in my diocese, the Trads are overwhelmingly Glad Trads.

Peace and lets all say the Litany of the Sacred Heart of Jesus today (I have once already and will do it again later tonight).

Yes, there is 1 parish in my Diocese that has a Traditional Latin Mass.

It is also a parish that had a Maronite Liturgy given there is a relatively good size community of Catholics of Lebanese ancestry who attend Roman Rite parishes but the parish had a Maronite Liturgy for them to experience their ancient Liturgical tradition.

So my Diocese thank God doesn’t have as much of the Liturgy wars going on as others.

Peace

ebb tide:

Yes, if they live in a Diocese with a Bishop who is not fond of the Missal of Pius V, that would be sad.

I attend a Roman Rite parish that uses the Missal of Pope Paul VI, fortunately, we have a good Bishop. The Liturgy is always in line with the GIRM, the people all bow at the part of the Creed that speaks of the incarnation of Christ, people bow their heads when they receive communion.

My only issue with where I go to Mass is some of the choirs choose more ancient Catholic Tunes or better modern ones, some choose hyms that while theologically not wrong, just is bad music.

I am not your enemy ebb tide, nor against the Traditional form of the Roman Rite. I just don’t like when I am on a forum or blog getting told that I go to a Mass with a less valid sacrament. I am like hey man, that is not correct.

I am in 100% agreement when Priest use the Mass as their personal Liturgy, that is `100% nonsense and needs to be called out.

Time will cure all this, of the 458 Catholic priests ordained this pass May, 75% were involved with Eucharistic adoration and 66% prayed the rosary.

So father time is undefeated as the saying goes, these new priests being ordained to celebrate the ordinary form of the Roman Liturgy are more traditional in terms of devotions, which in my view will lead to more and more reverent celebrations of the Roman Mass according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI and I pray for more allowances for those Catholics, who accept Vatican II and are in communion with the entire Catholic Church, but desire to attend the Roman Liturgy celebrated according to the Missal of Pope Pius V.

I am for all Catholics, regardless of where they attend the Liturgy, being spiritually nourished, Roman Rite Catholics, Eastern Catholics, etc.

I am not against you ebb tide, I am a Catholic who attends a parish that uses the Missal of Pope Paul VI that is actually an ally. I am not against the Roman Liturgy according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI.

I am no fan of Traditonis Custodes, my guess is some Bishops used some of the rhetoric in social media to get the Pope that that are divisive elements.

But I think the Ancient Roman Rite is not going away, as I said, the younger generation of priests ordained in the Ordinary form of the Roman rite are much more traditional in terms of prayer and devotion than the hippie kumbaya types that were ordained in the 70’s when I was attending Catholic School.

Ok ebb if that is how you meant it, then ok.

In the future, I respectfully ask you to be clearer on your choice of words.

Given my ancestors immigrated 125 years ago, yes they would celebrate the Liturgy according to the Roman Missal of Pope Pius V. All Roman Rite Catholics did accept in a few areas of the world where other forms of the Roman Rite were allowed (Ambrosian in Milan, Bregan in Portugal, etc).

ebb tide:

Of course I have heard of Fatima and yes I pray for Pope Francis as well. Given that nothing he has said is either personal pastoral positions or ordinary magisterium, I generally don’t pay much attention to what comes out of Rome.

I am being 100% honest. So I pray for the Pope at Mass, and my local Bishop, which is part of the Eucharistic prayer and try my best to follow Christ and live the faith.

I don’t like all these divisions in the Church. I really don’t. And in fact, I am sympathetic to those who prefer the Roman Missal of Pope Pius V.

My opinion, and that is all it is, is there are Trads who are Glad, who I have respect and support their desire to attend the Roman Liturgy according to the Missal of Pope Pius V.

On the other hand, there are some Trads in my experience are Mad Trads that attack anything that is not related to the TLM. For example, in the past I have been told that going to the Liturgy and receiving Holy Communion in the Roman Liturgy according to Pope Paul VI is less holy, or less of a sacrament, I kind of think that is questionable theology.

There are millions of Catholics around the world who receive the Eucharist in Liturgies that are not celebrated according to either Missal of the Roman Rite.

Well anyway, glad to see you pray for Pope Francis, I do the same.

If you meant bi-ritual then say it.

ebb tide:

Don’t play that little game. you know bleeping well what you meant when you posted it.

just what it means, all my ancestors immigrated to the USA from there around 1900.

We are not sissy people my friend, your little cheap shot “BI” doesn’t mean anything, in fact, I am glad the mods did not delete it.

ebb tide, no it is cryptic enough with the right amount of sophistry to suggest what you were thinking.

You are not that smart to think you are going fool me.

Why use such a loaded term?

ebb tide:

And you called me “BI”. My American of Sicilian ancestry is tough enough to handle your petty nonsense..

You see, your hatred for Francis blinds you to have any ability for rationale thought.

And you called me “BI” in a post earlier. You want to play that game.

I did not delete any post.

I accept Outside the Church there is no Salvation.

I don’t accept what I think is your lay Catholic interpretation of what it means.

I am as I said almost 60 years old, certain Trad elements push that only those who have been baptized members of the Catholic Church will be saved. By baptism, that means the Sacrament of Baptism with proper matter (Water) and form (Trinity).

But as it has been shown, the Early Church Fathers unanimously affirmed baptism of Desire (of which Baptism of blood) was part of.

The Holy Innocents is a feast of all the ancient Churches, Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East. Saint Augustine spoke on this and used this as why the Holy Tradition of the Church baptized infants

The Good thief on the Cross was seen as receiving a baptism of desire and blood (Saint Cyprian of Carthage and Saint Augustine are clear on this point).

Saint Thomas Aquinas clearly teaches baptism of desire.

The Council of Trent clearly teaches baptism of desire.

So the formulation of Outside the Church there is no Salvation (Dogma) by Vatican II actually incorporates the entire Catholic Tradition more accurately.

All Salvation is through Christ through the Church and those who are saved who are not in visible communion with the Catholic Church are saved by Christ through the Church in ways only known to God (which baptism of desire or blood would be such means).

ebb tide:

Lets go back, in post 17 I said this Kramer guy is nuts, not you. I called him a liar in post 20, not you

Your post 24 said I was citing Vatican II garbage and compared Trent to V2 and said “Bi”

In post 20, I called this Kramer guy a sede.

You then went with the modernist attack.

Go back and read the posts.

So lets keep it simple, what say you about the 8 Anglican bishops who have been received into the Catholic Church and the 4 (5 next week) that were ordained as priests since Pope Francis was first Pope in 2013.

Yes, as Cardinal, he it seems told 2 Anglican bishops not to become Catholic.

Let me see you reconcile those 2 points.

you well know that calling someone a modernist is loaded language.

ebb tide:

Ok man, why the personal attacks. You are not the sole authority of the Catholic Church anymore than I am.

You said you attend Mass at the Society of Saint Peter, correct, are they not a canonically a Priestly Fraternity that was brought into full communion by Pope John Paul II (They were former SSPX members).

Is that not correct?

Ok, I don’t really care for the site Lifesite. If Then Cardinal Francis said that, well he was not Pope and the Personal Ordinariate is now canonical. He said that as a Cardinal, but as Pope he has to follow what the Church allows.

Bishop Gregory Venables and Bishop Palmer are 2 that did not become Catholic. Granted point taken. I concede that point.

However, Pope Francis was installed as Bishop of Rome 13 March 2013. Since he has been Pope, 6 former Anglican bishops have been received into the Catholic Church.

David Moyer in 2014
Galvin Ashenden in 2019 (who has a channel on youtube that I have listened to)
Jonathan Goodall in 2021
Peter Robert Forster in 2021
John Goodard in 2021
Michael James Nazir-Ali in 2021
Richard Pain in 2023

So that is 8 Anglican bishops who have been received into the Catholic Church since Pope Francis became Pope

Moyer is a layman, Ashenden is a layman the associate editor of the Catholic Herald, leading Catholic paper in UK.
Goodall was ordained a priest in 2012
Nazir-Ali was ordained a priest in 2021
Goddard was ordained a priest in 2022 and was appointed a chaplain for the Pope (I guess he is an excellent Homilist) and given the title of Monsignor.
Forster is a layman and I have seen no reports whether or not he has sought priestly ordination.
Richard Pain will be ordained a priest next week.

So of the 8 former Anglican bishops that have been received in the Catholic Church, 5 of them were ordained as priest and 1 given the title Monsignor.

So how about a rational and civil discussion. There seems to come clear differences here, in the case of the 2 Anglican Bishops in the article you sited, Venables and the late Palmer, the Pope did not encourage them to become Catholic.

On the other hand, we have 8 former Anglican bishops who did become Catholic while he was Pope, 5 ordained as priests.

My take is, well I am near 60 and I remember in the 1970’s there were discussions between Rome and Cantebury and the hope was from the Catholic perspective that the Anglican communion would be brought in corporately. In the 1980’s the Anglicans allowed some jurisdictions to ordain women deacons and priests, which Rome warned against, then by the late 1990’s, around 1997, they allowed female bishops which if there were any Anglican clergy who had valid Holy Orders do to the Old Catholic Bishops in the 1920’s (before they went to female bishops), female bishops would once again render any notion that some Anglicans had valid orders.

Since Francis became Pope in 2013 (10 years ago), the Anglican communion has only broken and splintered more. There was a group of Anglicans that met in the Global south and GAFCON which effectively no longer recognize the chief Anglican Primate, Welby.

So what do you do with that, I have given my take, what is yours. Give an honest fair assessment and lets both try to stay civil and avoid the personal attacks (I am speaking to me as well).