I'm not sure I like the changes "pope" Benedict made to the Nicene Creed (I think it is)

[discombobulated1]

You expressed opposition to celebration of the mass facing the people. I agree with you, in general, but there is a specific exception imposed by the architecture of historic churches in Rome, going back to antiquity, which is relevant and which I described in my post.

Sedevacantists have many complaints about serious things that are wrong in the NO Church. Most Catholics don't have a clue about those things in my pov. This is not good because

well, again, Jesus said that few find the Narrow Way

and of course the Bible does not explicitly explain what Narrow means, although we know it means giving up mortal sin. The world says there is no such thing. Protestants say all sin is equally bad or something to that effect.

Anything that is destructive of the True Religion is a very bad thing, which I am sure you would agree with? I know someone who has a lot of problems, which I won't go into but sometimes I just sigh and think to myself

He wasn't raised Catholic (it's a long story) Non-Catholics don't know what to do with suffering (for example)..

Sometimes I don't either... sigh

 

[Lost4words]

I put quotes on the word Pope because I say that there hasn't been a valid one of those since 1958. I guess I am a Sedevacantist and yet I say that the Real Presence, a tangible Presence, is still there in at least SOME novus ordo Churches... so that makes me wonder about... well, I'm not sure how to word what all I wonder about but in any case, back to the... I think that prayer we say in the Mass is the Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth... (There's the Apostolic Creed.. I think it is called.. which is shorter)

So anyway, that Creed used to begin: "We believe..."

Ratzinger changed it to "I believe..."

I don't like that. I love the way Catholics are united by the fact that the Mass readings are all the same throughout the world. Therefore, it seems way better to say We believe... and I still do. I use this prayer when praying (beginning) the rosary, although most probably use the other one

So, maybe you could tell us what YOU like and dislike about changes to the Mass in modern times.

I absolutely HATE the priest not facing the altar (God) and instead facing the people throughout the Mass..

I don't like greeting ea other during Mass.. hate that

You need to repent......

God bless you

 

[discombobulated1]

Attacking Benedict/Ratzinger for restoring the traditional language of the Creed on the basis of some kind of Traditionalism, ultimately on the basis of personal preference on your part, just seems wild to me. /

Oh, I was "attacking" Ratzinger.

I didn't know that...

 

[discombobulated1]

You need to repent......

God bless you

You need to repent......
God bless you

 

[discombobulated1]

There were other changes. 'Et cum spiritu tuo' got changed back from 'and also with you' to 'and with your spirit'. And a dozen other small changes. These were 'reforms of the reform' that Ratzinger and Sarah and the ICEL and Anglocone bishops worked on for years as part of the same package. My understanding was that there would be more such changes every decade or so to renormalize the liturgy. But then Francis happened and I'm not sure where correcting the novus ordo is at right now. Cardinal Sarah, as head of the Liturgy Office, asked us all to say mass 'ad orientem'. Then pope Francis removed him from his job. The 'reform of the reform is stalled for a while.

The changes after Vatican II were rapidly imposed on us with little preparation. They were a shock. A disaster of a crisis of faith for many people. Reverting that quickly would be equally shocking. Things need to be carefully explained and not just imposed violently like they were.

I agreed until you said it would be equally shocking to revert back

It would be less shocking because EVERYONE, Catholic or otherwise knows that big changes were made at V2 and most people know that Catholics mostly didn't like them.

If I had learned about Sedevactantism, say 15 years ago, I would have missed out. . because I wouldn't have gone to the novus ordo Church and whether Sedes like it or not, Jesus is still there in the NO Churches. They say that bc the Eucharist is not validly confected by a validly ordained priest, it is not really Eucharist, but I find that totally un-true. It's a long story why I say that, but I know it is not true.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Oh, I was "attacking" Ratzinger.

I didn't know that...

In the sense of making an argument against. I'm not implying you have personal animosity against him. But it was polemical.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Some Orthodox, as noted by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, are less concerned by it, but on the whole Orthodox concern over the filioque has actually increased in recent decades, but among the Orthodox who are more inclined to tolerate it, it becomes much more acceptable if one clarifies it to mean that the Holy Spirit was sent by the Son, which is of course undoubtably the case from the Bible, as opposed to eternally originating in the Son, which we regard as problematic. The Orthodox belief is that the Son is eternally begotten from the unoriginate Father, and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the unoriginate Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit are fully God, and are uncreated, but the Father is the unoriginate source of the Godhood. What we really want to avoid is a situation in which the Holy Spirit is regarded as a shared attribute of the Father and the Son, in a depersonalized way.

Since it is clear that orthodox Lutherans do regard the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person and not as an impersonal shared attribute of the Father and the Son, this is much less of a problem as I see it.

The Filioque, as theology, is ancient and, I'd argue, orthodox. Nobody questions that the Holy Spirit was sent by the Son; but this is a very different matter than procession.

I am actually very symphathetic toward the Orthodox position here. And I understand the Orthodox antithesis toward the Filioque; because what is desired is to preserve the Divine Monarchy of the Father; and thus the Holy Spirit is Divine because He, like the Son, is of the Father's own Essence or Ousia.

What I think the Filoque does, at least theologically, is convey what is something we actually see commonly among the ancient fathers, not only in the West, but also in the East; where the Perichoretic relationship of the Divine Persons conveys the essence of God's own Being and love. The Spirit, therefore, proceeds from the Son as well as the Father, because there is a reciprocity; the Holy Spirit is not the Divine Spirit of the Father only, but of the Son as well; because the Father and the Son stand, relationally, toward one another; the Father toward the Son, and the Son toward the Father--and the Holy Spirit is here, of the Father in eternal procession, and of the Son. Not as though the Son becomes a father co-begetting the Spirit with the Father--the Spirit is not begotten, but proceeds. There is Spiration, the Holy Spirit receives His Divine Essence from the Father through eternal procession, but there is also a reciprocal. The Spirit in the Father, the Spirit in the Son; the Spirit toward the Son from the Father and the Spirit toward the Father from the Son. He, the Spirit, we receive from both Father and the Son because both send Him; but by sending Him we are caught up together in the life of not the Father only, but the life of both the Father and the Son.

I pray that this is well understood and doesn't come across as meaningless gibbering.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

I pray that this is well understood and doesn't come across as meaningless gibbering.

Nothing you write comes across as meaningless gibbering! Obviously I have the upmost respect for learned colleagues such as yourself, even where we might potentially disagree on issues such as the filioque.

My primary interest is ecumenical reconciliation, and alas, I fear the Orthodox are unlikely to budge on that issue, which is why I anticipate communion between Orthodox churches and Continuing Anglican churches is likely to precede the restoration of communion with Evangelical Catholic Lutheran churches, and this is depressing to me; I myself take a very moderate view on this issue like Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, and I would also note your views themselves seek an ecumenical reconciliation.

Thus ultimately I feel it is best if we simply set aside divisive issues between our communions at present and focus on those areas where our doctrines align, because if we do that, we might, through the Socratic method, arrive at a consensus, on the basis of our loving relationship with each other as fellow Nicene Christians who have an ardent belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I agreed until you said it would be equally shocking to revert back

It would be less shocking because EVERYONE, Catholic or otherwise knows that big changes were made at V2 and most people know that Catholics mostly didn't like them.

Not EVERYONE knows that. Lots of people aren't old enough to have gone through the Latin -> English shock. Not everyone knows the losses from the old Liturgy. Some youngsters probably think the novus ordo is all that ever was, not even knowing that is is 'novus'. So it is not at all the 'common knowledge' that maybe it should be. It would be shocking to do an English -> Latin change, or even a major English -> English change without a careful preparation. It would. We are in need of change in the traditional direction, and now that we are a leaner Church we are probably more ready for it, but it could still be a shock for most in the pews. And those who seldom darken the door of the Church, well, they're already mostly gone anyway.

If I had learned about Sedevactantism, say 15 years ago, I would have missed out. . because I wouldn't have gone to the novus ordo Church and whether Sedes like it or not, Jesus is still there in the NO Churches. They say that bc the Eucharist is not validly confected by a validly ordained priest, it is not really Eucharist, but I find that totally un-true. It's a long story why I say that, but I know it is not true.

For worse or better, we do have a pope. The sedevacantist impulse is strong, but ultimately futile. To be Catholic is to have a seat of unity and that seat of unity is the bishop of Rome. Even when pope Francis is a bad pope. We have had numerous bad popes in the past. To be consistent, the sedevacantists would have to declare that every pope including Peter has lost his office and is no pope. Which is to say we are all popes in our own minds.

Yes the NO, at least as practiced in the majority of situations, is valid. It may be a low pass, but it can be done reverently. Which is why there is a listing of 'Reverent Catholic Masses' and it does include many NO locations.

 

[The Liturgist]

@discombobulated1 I want to make it extremely clear that I am sympathetic to your frustrations concerning the liturgical changes in Catholicism. Although I would stress that what Vatican II authorized in Sacrosanctum Concilium, and what the group known as the Consilium led by Annibale Bugnini actually delivered, were quite different; Sacrosanctum Concilium authorizing a much more conservative reform which would have retained the use of Latin in the mass alongside increased use of the vernacular, among other things. The only real objection I have to Sacrosanctum Concilium was the strange decision to suppress the ancient office of Prime from the Liturgy of the Hours (also known as the Divine Office, or in Easter Orthodoxy, we sometimes call it the Horologion; Orthodox churches celebrate Prime with the sole exception of the Syriac Orthodox.

In the West it was particularly important as the most exemplary part of the Divine Office, in that it was longer than Terce, Sext and Noone (the Third, Sixth and Ninth Hours, which correspond to 9 AM, noon and 3 PM), but not too long; it was used for teaching people how to read Latin, with the Primer, a service book that contains just the office of Prime, being the first book people would learn to read, and this is the origin of the word Primer to refer to introductory books on a subject. Some members of the nobility had beautiful illuminated Primers.

Not EVERYONE knows that. Lots of people aren't old enough to have gone through the Latin -> English shock. Not everyone knows the losses from the old Liturgy. Some youngsters probably think the novus ordo is all that ever was, not even knowing that is is 'novus'. So it is not at all the 'common knowledge' that maybe it should be. It would be shocking to do an English -> Latin change, or even a major English -> English change without a careful preparation. It would. We are in need of change in the traditional direction, and now that we are a leaner Church we are probably more ready for it, but it could still be a shock for most in the pews. And those who seldom darken the door of the Church, well, they're already mostly gone anyway.

Indeed, it is unforunate how many people buy into certain inaccurate ideas about the Extraordinary Form of the RC Liturgy, even on CF.com. You my friend are the most staunchly traditional Catholic member I know of on CF.com, and I was very disappointed how among my Catholic friends, so few of them shared our mutual concern over Traditiones Custodes, and the even more troubling Fiducia Supplicans.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes the NO, at least as practiced in the majority of situations, is valid. It may be a low pass, but it can be done reverently. Which is why there is a listing of 'Reverent Catholic Masses' and it does include many NO locations.

Indeed, and it can even be done in Latin. It’s not as good as the EF for the most part, although I have heard that it partially reverted the changes made to the Paschal Triduum by Pius XII in the 1950s, which I object to as much as I object to the Novus Ordo, since before those changes, the Triduum was extremely similiar to Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Catholic liturgy during Pascha, and afterwards it wasn’t, with the suppression of a shared legacy going back to St. Gregory the Great, who was not only a superb Pope but also a man who made huge contributions not only to Roman Catholic but to Eastern Orthodox liturgy; St. Gregory is for example responsible for the predominant vesperal form of the Pre-sanctified Liturgy.

 

[chevyontheriver]

@discombobulated1 I want to make it extremely clear that I am sympathetic to your frustrations concerning the liturgical changes in Catholicism. Although I would stress that what Vatican II authorized in Sacrosanctum Concilium, and what the group known as the Consilium led by Annibale Bugnini actually delivered, were quite different; Sacrosanctum Concilium authorizing a much more conservative reform which would have retained the use of Latin in the mass alongside increased use of the vernacular, among other things. The only real objection I have to Sacrosanctum Concilium was the strange decision to suppress the ancient office of Prime from the Liturgy of the Hours (also known as the Divine Office, or in Easter Orthodoxy, we sometimes call it the Horologion; Orthodox churches celebrate Prime with the sole exception of the Syriac Orthodox.

In the West it was particularly important as the most exemplary part of the Divine Office, in that it was longer than Terce, Sext and Noone (the Third, Sixth and Ninth Hours, which correspond to 9 AM, noon and 3 PM), but not too long; it was used for teaching people how to read Latin, with the Primer, a service book that contains just the office of Prime, being the first book people would learn to read, and this is the origin of the word Primer to refer to introductory books on a subject. Some members of the nobility had beautiful illuminated Primers.



Indeed, it is unforunate how many people buy into certain inaccurate ideas about the Extraordinary Form of the RC Liturgy, even on CF.com. You my friend are the most staunchly traditional Catholic member I know of on CF.com, and I was very disappointed how among my Catholic friends, so few of them shared our mutual concern over Traditiones Custodes, and the even more troubling Fiducia Supplicans.

For the most part TC doesn't have an impact on the parish level UNLESS that parish also had a TLM. So for st least 90% of practicing Catholics it has no effect. In one ear and out the other. FS is worse but for the most part it's not going to have an impact in most parishes. I suspect most don't even know about it. Or to the extent that they do it's just a pet perversion of James Martin. For that matter, they may only know of James Martin for the more or less OK book he wrote years ago about the Saints. Not everybody is as over-connected as I am. Some go to confession and daily mass and are far more faithful hour by hour than over-connected me. It's on my radar. Not on theirs. Has it made me a better disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. Maybe not.

 

[discombobulated1]

@discombobulated1 I want to make it extremely clear that I am sympathetic to your frustrations concerning the liturgical changes in Catholicism. Although I would stress that what Vatican II authorized in Sacrosanctum Concilium, and what the group known as the Consilium led by Annibale Bugnini actually delivered, were quite different; Sacrosanctum Concilium authorizing a much more conservative reform which would have retained the use of Latin in the mass alongside increased use of the vernacular, among other things.

The only real objection I have to Sacrosanctum Concilium was the strange decision to suppress the ancient office of Prime from the Liturgy of the Hours (also known as the Divine Office, or in Easter Orthodoxy, we sometimes call it the Horologion; Orthodox churches celebrate Prime with the sole exception of the Syriac Orthodox.

I fully understood the highlighted parts



I'm just an everyday Catholic, have not gotten into the details like this. I can't say I plan to since, not only is my time limited these days, there is no Catholic bookstore in my area, that I know of and also, I think the Lord wants me to focus on other things... True, one never knows w/ God! But sometimes the Holy Spirit has unique ways of guiding us (if we comply). I tend to be very interested in the infiltration issue... have read many books on that. Mario Derksen thought, as I did also, that the book Infiltration by Marshall Taylor (or is it Taylor Marshall? LOL) was not well-written or very well researched. But it was interesting. Something "odd" about me is that I seem to be insatiable about learning as much as possible about the beginnings of Vatican II and related matters. I frankly think a movie should be made about... things like the "mysterious" death of JP the first... which, btw is NOT mysterious to yours truly at all

 

[discombobulated1]

For the most part TC doesn't have an impact on the parish level UNLESS that parish also had a TLM. So for st least 90% of practicing Catholics it has no effect. In one ear and out the other. FS is worse but for the most part it's not going to have an impact in most parishes. I suspect most don't even know about it. Or to the extent that they do it's just a pet perversion of James Martin. For that matter, they may only know of James Martin for the more or less OK book he wrote years ago about the Saints. Not everybody is as over-connected as I am. Some go to confession and daily mass and are far more faithful hour by hour than over-connected me. It's on my radar. Not on theirs. Has it made me a better disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. Maybe not.

what is FS?

 

[chevyontheriver]

what is FS?

Fiducia supplicans. A diabolical Vatican document written by new cardinal Fernandez and approved by the pope.

 

[jas3]

To be consistent, the sedevacantists would have to declare that every pope including Peter has lost his office and is no pope.

In all fairness to the sedevacantists, the bad popes of the past were personally depraved, but didn't promote scandalous and contradictory doctrines as official Church teaching like the recent popes, especially Francis, are accused of doing.

 

[The Liturgist]

I fully understood the highlighted parts



I'm just an everyday Catholic, have not gotten into the details like this. I can't say I plan to since, not only is my time limited these days, there is no Catholic bookstore in my area, that I know of and also, I think the Lord wants me to focus on other things... True, one never knows w/ God! But sometimes the Holy Spirit has unique ways of guiding us (if we comply). I tend to be very interested in the infiltration issue... have read many books on that. Mario Derksen thought, as I did also, that the book Infiltration by Marshall Taylor (or is it Taylor Marshall? LOL) was not well-written or very well researched. But it was interesting. Something "odd" about me is that I seem to be insatiable about learning as much as possible about the beginnings of Vatican II and related matters. I frankly think a movie should be made about... things like the "mysterious" death of JP the first... which, btw is NOT mysterious to yours truly at all

In the case of Pope John Paul I my understanding was that unlike his successor St. John Paul II, he was believed to be a fairly liberal bishop, along the lines of Paul VI or Francis. I do think most traditional Catholics including the Traditional Latin Mass communities greatly appreciate Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, because during their tenure, the restrictions imposed on the Traditional Latin Mass by Paul VI were greatly relaxed, and ultimately abolished, first by setting up the FSSP and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei under John Paul II (which Pope Francis scrapped with Traditiones Custodes), and then the enormous breakthrough that was Summorum Pontificum under Benedict XVI.

I myself, as I have said on many occasions, would likely have joined the RCC had Pope Benedict remained in power.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In all fairness to the sedevacantists, the bad popes of the past were personally depraved, but didn't promote scandalous and contradictory doctrines as official Church teaching like the recent popes, especially Francis, are accused of doing.

In fairness to the sedevacantists there are lots of different criteria for determining that this pope they don’t like or that pope they don’t like really isn’t a pope. Some say Pius XII wasn’t a real pope. The SSPV for example think Pius XII just wasn’t pope material. Luther had a different opinion. The SDA and JWs a different opinion. They are so sedevacantist they do away with the office entirely. No quite as bad as that crazy guy in Kansas who styled himself pope and lived with his mother, holding court on her front porch. Pope Michael I believe.

The challenge is to accept there are real but bad popes.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In fairness to the sedevacantists there are lots of different criteria for determining that this pope they don’t like or that pope they don’t like really isn’t a pope. Some say Pius XII wasn’t a real pope. The SSPV for example think Pius XII just wasn’t pope material. Luther had a different opinion. The SDA and JWs a different opinion. They are so sedevacantist they do away with the office entirely. No quite as bad as that crazy guy in Kansas who styled himself pope and lived with his mother, holding court on her front porch. Pope Michael I believe.

The challenge is to accept there are real but bad popes.

Lutherans don't believe that St. Peter's Chair in Rome is empty. We aren't Sedevacantists. The Chair is occupied, but those who occupy the Chair are in a state of rebellion against the Church Catholic.


-CryptoLutheran

 

[chevyontheriver]

Lutherans don't believe that St. Peter's Chair in Rome is empty. We aren't Sedevacantists. The Chair is occupied, but those who occupy the Chair are in a state of rebellion against the Church Catholic.


-CryptoLutheran

Now you have me totally confused. The chair is occupied (not empty), and you recognize the authority of the chair (maybe), but not any occupant for hundreds of years?