Really? It simply abandoned all forms of Latin Mass? That’s extreme. So I take now you only go to EF mass right? Tus padres se debieron quedar destrozados con el cambio
The fact that CAF has a forum titled, Traditional Catholicism is divisive in of itself.
Devote Catholics are traditionalist, even though they like the Church as it is and Pope Francis.
The forum should be renamed to “Fundamentalist Catholicism,” for that’s what I many members who tear down post Vatican II Catholicism.
The Extraordinary Form existed before the Council… it’s all that there was before the Council- it simply wasnt called the Extraordinary Form…
I welcomed Vatican II and have no problem with it. I would not want to go back.
In the early days of post V-II liturgical experimentation, things got pretty wild at times, but that (at least in my region) has pretty much settled down. The pendulum has returned to center, and we have a new liturgical stability with reverence and a serious purpose of worship.
I thinks she means immediately after the council
What we now call the EF was only allowed after Vatican II for only a few old priests here and there and Wales as far as I know.
"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
But how can that be? If the Church fell, then Christ was lying, no?
They, for some reason, think that not having a pope wouldn’t mean the Church necessarily “fell”.
I agree with you. I think sedevacantism is nonsensical and untenable. But they’re doing a whole bunch of re-defining of terms and stuff like that. They’re “moving the goalposts” in order to make it so that they cannot be proven wrong.
To him, the Church has not fallen. Its membership is just small.
No solos mis padres, sino, toda la familia. Soy la unica que guarda la fe de mis antepasados.
Indeed he did. So Francis could not have “usurped”.
I am blown away that people people think so little of Pope Benedict so much as to think he would betray God. Any conspiracy theory has to have Pope Benedict as a turn-coat.
With respect, that sounds extraordinarily arrogant, superior and self-serving.
Seriously? Do they ask why the US has so many Presidents?
Come on Jim… My grandparents (who are in their late 80s and 90s) proudly call themselves “Traditional Catholics.” Not because of the liturgy of the mass, but because of the type of music they prefer, the Crosses in the house, the rosaries they have and pray, the statues in the home, the teachings they respect, etc.
You can be a “traditional Catholic” and still embrace the Ordinary Form.
I consider myself a traditional Catholic and I love a well done Ordinary Form. When I go to our Cathedral, they always do a beautiful job with the Ordinary Form.
What I don’t like, is going to Mass with drums, guitars, and other instruments that drown out the words being prayed though song.
The closest church to me is within walking distance but I choose to drive 25 minutes one way to go to my parish, and it’s partly because of the music selection. I don’t like the guitars and keyboards, and partly that’s due to my time in the Protestant churches. But at the end of the day I’m not at Mass to satisfy myself. If I had to go to the nearby parish, I would. I might not like it as much but Mass isn’t about me. I’m grateful to have the option to choose.
Well said. God bless
Thanks, back at you Phil.
I agree with you. These are some of the biggest tin-foil-hat statements I have ever read.