qfnol31 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 [quote]A bishop marked with the fullness of the sacrament of Orders, is "the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood," (48*) especially in the Eucharist, which he offers or causes to be offered,(49*) and by which the Church continually lives and grows. This Church of Christ is truly present in all legitimate local congregations of the faithful which, united with their pastors, are themselves called churches in the New Testament.(50*) For in their locality these are the new People called by God, in the Holy Spirit and in much fullness.(167) In them the faithful are gathered together by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord's Supper is celebrated, that by the food and blood of the Lord's body the whole brotherhood may be joined together.(51*) In any community of the altar, under the sacred ministry of the bishop,(52*) there is exhibited a symbol of that charity and "unity of the mystical Body, without which there can be no salvation."(53*) In these communities, though frequently small and poor, or living in the Diaspora, Christ is present, and in virtue of His presence there is brought together one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.(54*) For "the partaking of the body and blood of Christ does nothing other than make us be transformed into that which we consume". (55*)[/quote] There, that sums up some of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 My second no should be a yes...time to get out my Bible... "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes', and your 'No', 'No'. (Mt 5:37)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doe-jo Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I love the TLM and I do attend it regularly. I have to drive 30 miles to get there though which can get expensive. However, if the SSPX returns to communion with Rome, I won't have to drive that far to attend the TLM because there's an SSPX chapel 10-15 miles from my house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 for reference in answering the poll, these are all the SSPX chapels in the US: [url="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&om=1&msa=0&msid=108690725629687888796.0000011257517f0a77875&om=1&ll=39.707187,-95.800781&spn=29.826281,59.238281&z=4"]http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&....238281&z=4[/url] one benefit of the SSPX, scarce any diocesan latin masses have daily mass; the SSPX brings daily masses to places which only have weekly or monthly masses in the Extraordinary Form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aalpha1989 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) I don't trust theology or ecclesiology taught by SSPX priests. They and their supporters seem to think that it is ok to uncharitably criticize the pope, and also to disobey him whenever your conscience feels a little weird. They totally forget the Tradition of holy obedience, and therefore I could not go to an SSPX chapel even if they rejoined Rome- I very much doubt that the theology taught by them would change. I am in discussion with a former SSPX seminarian, and no matter what happens between the SSPX and the pope, their members tend to say "we were right all along, the current pope just sees that better than the last one". Although Benedict is more friendly to traditionalism than JPII was, there was no excuse for the episcopal consecrations in 1988, and I sincerely doubt that most SSPXers will ever admit that. I am not being prideful, I just believe that their reluctance to admit that taints all other theology. I should add that I do hope that they rejoin Rome soon, and I have supported the Holy Father's decision to lift the latae sententiae excommunications all along. I should also say that I do attend FSSP Masses on occasion, and that I love the 1962 Missal. It is the SSPX's lack of obedience and the way the encourage others to follow in their steps that I take issue with. Edited February 17, 2009 by aalpha1989 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Traditional Catholics are too divided. They ought to recognize the common goal between them and help each other out when necessary. When the goal is achieved the personal differences that divide them will no longer exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouisvilleFan Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I love the Novus Ordo too much to attend any other liturgy on a regular basis. Sometimes I do enjoy the local Tridentine Rite, which is a 15-20 minute walk from my apartment during daylight. Walking there at night would be faster, in that I would see Jesus sooner, but not in my current physical state. I also go to an Antiochian Orthodox parish on occasion. There are a lot of cute girls there... makes me wanna say, "Let East meet West, and we'll build the Golden Bridge." Any Pacino fans in da house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I have never attended a Traditional Latin Mass and have no intention of doing so any time in the near future. There is a regular celebration of one in my city, so it's available, should I ever wish to attend. It would be interesting to go, and I would like to experience it someday, for the historical significance more than anything else. But it's not very high on my priority list. I love the mass, and I love Jesus' presence in the Eucharist. I have those at the Church I go to now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doe-jo Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 [quote name='mortify' post='1783856' date='Feb 17 2009, 05:27 PM']Traditional Catholics are too divided.[/quote] The liberals aren't? Well, I guess they're united in being separated from the traditions of the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Well, you know, if you don't look at either extreme of the spectrum, you end up with Catholics who go to church, say their prayers, raise their families, and get involved in some outreach...you know, garden variety Catholics living out their faith, not getting too chuffed by all the conflicts that swirl through from time to time. In other words....they're not divided. Being zealous for your faith, radical in how you carry it out and enflamed with love for God and neighbor is a good thing. But if it is ever divorced from Christian charity? Oh boy...not a pretty picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 [quote name='doe-jo' post='1794252' date='Mar 1 2009, 11:55 AM'] The liberals aren't? Well, I guess they're united in being separated from the traditions of the Church.[/quote] The liberals are of greater number, have more power, and are more united. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Mass in Latin, of the Pre-Vatican II or post-Vatican II variety, in no holier than the English Mass. It is no more impressive than an English Mass (and the point of going to Mass is not be impressed, anyway). It is only less comprehensible than the English Mass except for the educated, and only a few of them. When I pray, I cast my thoughts into words (or align my thoughts with the words that are spoken); if I'm spending all my mental energy trying to find the right words, or figure out what they mean, then I'm not communing with God - I'm just doing linguistics in the pews. I've done it in Italian and French when I was in those countries - I knew enough to keep up, but not really to participate. I was concerned about embarrassing myself through mispronunciation, or with throwing a monkey wrench into the group recitation. I tried praying in English to myself, but then I thought I looked like a religion-tourist among the faithful. The Latin Mass eliminates monolinguals from worship. While learning Latin would be useful to almost everyone with the time, inclination, study habits, and tuition, the point of the Catholic Church is to make access to God universal - even to monolinguals. latin is a dead language, dead as it can be. It killed off all the Romans, and now it's killing ME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 [quote name='Luigi' post='1794802' date='Mar 1 2009, 10:05 PM']Mass in Latin, of the Pre-Vatican II or post-Vatican II variety, in no holier than the English Mass. It is no more impressive than an English Mass (and the point of going to Mass is not be impressed, anyway). It is only less comprehensible than the English Mass except for the educated, and only a few of them. When I pray, I cast my thoughts into words (or align my thoughts with the words that are spoken); if I'm spending all my mental energy trying to find the right words, or figure out what they mean, then I'm not communing with God - I'm just doing linguistics in the pews. I've done it in Italian and French when I was in those countries - I knew enough to keep up, but not really to participate. I was concerned about embarrassing myself through mispronunciation, or with throwing a monkey wrench into the group recitation. I tried praying in English to myself, but then I thought I looked like a religion-tourist among the faithful. The Latin Mass eliminates monolinguals from worship. While learning Latin would be useful to almost everyone with the time, inclination, study habits, and tuition, the point of the Catholic Church is to make access to God universal - even to monolinguals. latin is a dead language, dead as it can be. It killed off all the Romans, and now it's killing ME.[/quote] alll those Catholics for 2000 years before 1960's must've been some darn smart cookies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 No - in fact, they stood like cattle in huge churches without pews or microphones and waited for the bell to be rung so they would know the elevation was happening. There was no participation. The priest spoke and the deacons, or the altars boys, answered on behalf of the people. People "heard" Mass in those days. The choirs provided lots of unintelligible but angelic sounding music When the rosary came into use, lots of people took to praying that during Mass, and some few still do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 What a complete and utter disrespect you have for the Mass of our ancestors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now