Hello again,
I like your article very much and I think it highlights the issue of the danger in the path many take. It does seem very easy to go from the moderate sounding position to something completely radical.
But I do want to ask regarding something that I have come across in discussion with TLM enthusiasts.
They charge that the NO lacks sacredness and expressiveness of certain Catholic truths the TLM had built in. This is actually true given that many of the prayers that touched upon what would be considered "too harsh" or "not ecumenical" is now missing in the NO [Good Friday prayer for the conversion for Jews for an example].
In this sense, they argue that while the NO is valid [because the moment the Church says it is valid, it must be valid], it is inferior to the TLM and is a compromise to the world. They would say it does not make it evil but it does makes it relatively lacking.
They would also say that traditions do not need organic development to be valid (unlike Doctrine). The traditions need the organic development so that the faithful will not be confused when it is just change drastically. One of my close friends argue that the drastic change was the visible sign that lead almost everyone to believe that the Church had finally conceded to the demands of the modern world. To be honest, this seems true to my mind given the widespread confusion with the change of the liturgy after Vatican II.
Lately, though I only attend the NO myself and cannot find a TLM even if I wanted to, I am finding that argumentation more and more convincing.
I like your article very much and I think it highlights the issue of the danger in the path many take. It does seem very easy to go from the moderate sounding position to something completely radical.
But I do want to ask regarding something that I have come across in discussion with TLM enthusiasts.
They charge that the NO lacks sacredness and expressiveness of certain Catholic truths the TLM had built in. This is actually true given that many of the prayers that touched upon what would be considered "too harsh" or "not ecumenical" is now missing in the NO [Good Friday prayer for the conversion for Jews for an example].
In this sense, they argue that while the NO is valid [because the moment the Church says it is valid, it must be valid], it is inferior to the TLM and is a compromise to the world. They would say it does not make it evil but it does makes it relatively lacking.
They would also say that traditions do not need organic development to be valid (unlike Doctrine). The traditions need the organic development so that the faithful will not be confused when it is just change drastically. One of my close friends argue that the drastic change was the visible sign that lead almost everyone to believe that the Church had finally conceded to the demands of the modern world. To be honest, this seems true to my mind given the widespread confusion with the change of the liturgy after Vatican II.
Lately, though I only attend the NO myself and cannot find a TLM even if I wanted to, I am finding that argumentation more and more convincing.
http://socrates58.blogspot.it/2014/02/peter-kwasniewski-fr-thomas-kocik-and_26.html
They charge that the NO lacks sacredness and expressiveness of certain Catholic truths the TLM had built in. This is actually true given that many of the prayers that touched upon what would be considered "too harsh" or "not ecumenical" is now missing in the NO [Good Friday prayer for the conversion for Jews for an example].
Lionel:
With the irrational premise Vatican Council II rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The irrational premise came into the Catholic Church in the 1940's in Boston. Cardinal Richard Cushing rejected the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney. He assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are know exceptions, visible to us on earth. As if he could name these cases!
Eufrosnia D
In this sense, they argue that while the NO is valid [because the moment the Church says it is valid, it must be valid], it is inferior to the TLM and is a compromise to the world. They would say it does not make it evil but it does makes it relatively lacking.
Eufrosnia D
In this sense, they argue that while the NO is valid [because the moment the Church says it is valid, it must be valid], it is inferior to the TLM and is a compromise to the world. They would say it does not make it evil but it does makes it relatively lacking.
Lionel:
The Mass in itself is not evil of course! However most of the priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and much of Tradition. They also interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with the irrational premise, creating new doctrine.This is heresy.
Eufrosnia D
They would also say that traditions do not need organic development to be valid (unlike Doctrine). The traditions need the organic development so that the faithful will not be confused when it is just change drastically. One of my close friends argue that the drastic change was the visible sign that lead almost everyone to believe that the Church had finally conceded to the demands of the modern world. To be honest, this seems true to my mind given the widespread confusion with the change of the liturgy after Vatican II.
Eufrosnia D
They would also say that traditions do not need organic development to be valid (unlike Doctrine). The traditions need the organic development so that the faithful will not be confused when it is just change drastically. One of my close friends argue that the drastic change was the visible sign that lead almost everyone to believe that the Church had finally conceded to the demands of the modern world. To be honest, this seems true to my mind given the widespread confusion with the change of the liturgy after Vatican II.
Lionel:
It is true when Vatican Council II is interpreted by most people using an irrational premise.
If the irrational premise is not used, the Council is traditional.
The fault is not with Vatican Council II itself.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
