Do you think...


#1

Do you think that there is anyone in the College of Cardinals, heck, even the College of bishops who would return to the TLM? Before the conclave, I thought that if Ratzinger were elected, he would be one of the few, if not only, one with enough Liturgical “Chachas” to do this. I was apparently proven wrong, however, and wonder if there is anyone in the Church who would possibly have the urge to return to the old ways.


#2

When we consider that the entire body of Catholic bishops (including Archbishop Lefevbre) voted in favor of changing the Tridentine Latin Mass (1962 Missal), it shouldn’t be surprising that there are few bishops who want to return to it now.

The bishops voted to change the 1962 Missal – why? They saw areas where it needed to be reformed. This was before there ever was a Novus Ordo. All they had was the Tridentine Mass and they voted (virtually unanmiously) to change it.

Thinking that the Pope and Cardinals in Rome want to return to the Tridentine Mass is just not realistic.


#3

I am a little disappointed in what I see in the new Pope :frowning: When he was elected I thought it was a prayer come true :smiley: Even my Protestant friends knew I was supprised & happy. I personally think the rotwile has lost his ambision. … politics :confused: I do not know.

I trust him to be loyal, I just think he lost his backbone. I pray he will regain stringth :bowdown:


#4

Oh Lord, it’s only been a year and a half since the poor man was elected - and while doubtless a good Pope he’s not the youngest chicken in the coop either. Give him a break and be patient.


#5

“I am a little disappointed in what I see in the new Pope When he was elected I thought it was a prayer come true Even my Protestant friends knew I was supprised & happy. I personally think the rotwile has lost his ambision. … politics I do not know. I trust him to be loyal, I just think he lost his backbone. I pray he will regain stringth”

You know what, that is exactly what I think. During the whole Islam thing, I thought, “Yes! Ol’ Ratzi’s gonna show them why they nicknamed him God’s Rottweiler!” But, God’s Rottweiler went belly up to the radicals. I don’t get it either…


#6

I can be patient and watch. I trust him not to err on the things that will effect my salvation. I am totally a loyal Catholic.

When I made my post I was specifically referring to when he made a recent accurate statement about muslims and they got upset (the next day 1 nun was shot dead in SE Asia). I know he did not officially apologize, but he did back step. This is something that totally surprised me. It saddened me.

I love the Pope. I pray for him. He has the whole world on his shoulders.


#7

Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos maybe?

(But mostly: What LilyM said)

tee


#8

What do you mean by “return”? If you mean “allow” I think there’s a good chance he might. If you mean and actual return for the whole Church, what gives you the idea that he’d want that? From those I know who knew Cardinal Ratzinger personally, a “return” per se was not his goal.


#9

Perhaps many of them would want a “do-over” on how we got from 1962 to present day.


#10

:thumbsup:


#11

“I am a little disappointed in what I see in the new Pope When he was elected I thought it was a prayer come true Even my Protestant friends knew I was supprised & happy. I personally think the rotwile has lost his ambision. … politics I do not know. I trust him to be loyal, I just think he lost his backbone. I pray he will regain stringth”

We have to understand that the Pope is not going to go in there and make wholesale changes everywhere. That is not how the Church works. It is patient, and deliberate. We may not see it but I’m sure there are many things that are in motion. The same thing is happening in my archdiocese. We got a new Bishop and he is slowly making changes. I had a chance to talk to him several months ago regarding an e-mail I had sent him about how some retreats were handled where prayer was almost non-existant and he assured me there would be changes but he said that these things take time. If B16 were to go in like gangbusters he would probably have a huge schism in his hands and that cannot happen. Pray for him trust him, be patient and ask the Holy Spirit to guide him and give him strength. Recite this prayer every day.
Prayer for the Pope
Lord, source of eternal life and truth, give to Your shepherd, Pope (N.), a spirit of courage and right judgment, a spirit of knowledge and love.
By governing with fidelity those entrusted to his care may he, as successor to the apostle Peter and vicar of Christ, build Your church into a sacrament of unity, love, and peace for all the world.
We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son, Who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen.


#12

Archbishop Lefebvre voted in favor of changing the TLM?( 1962 Missal ) I don’t think so! Do you have any written proof or statement from him that he did? If so, please post it here.
Here is what i found:

In 1955, he was made the first archbishop of Dakar. In 1962, His Grace returned to France to be the Bishop of Tulle. The same year he was elected as the Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers. He filled this position until 1968, at which point he resigned rather than assist in the changes that his Congregation would force him to implement. In 1969,

sspx.ca/FAQs.htm

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q2_ab.htm

there is no proof or reference that Archbishop Lefebvre ever had any part in changing the Mass, or the Missal. your “facts” are wrong.


#13

AMEN!

B16 has done more to discipline the Bishops than JPII did in the last 15 years of his papacy.

Come on, the Pope moves in Vatican time. Slow as dirt. B16 has been like lightening in those standards!


#14

I don’t have any written “Proof”, but I am pretty sure that Archbishop Lefebvre participated in, and signed off on that part of the Vatican II documents that called for the TLM be updated. I also seem to remember that he repudiated his signature saying that he was mistaken in accepting the word of his fellow conferees that the changes would be minor.

I say this as an admirer of Archbishop Lefebvre. It may be embarassing to the SSPX, but it is, I am pretty sure, true.


#15

tell you what, i will ask our priest today when i go to mass. i will also do some checking on google.

The Coetus Internationalis Patrum did, however, manage to get the preliminary vote (with suggestions for modifications) on the document put off until the fourth session of the Council, but were unable to prevent the adoption, on 7 December 1965, of the final text of the declaration Dignitatis humanae by the overwhelming majority of the Council.[84] The expressed view of some that this overwhelming majority was only due to intense lobbying by the reformist wing of Council Fathers among those prelates who initially had reservations or even objections[85] is not accepted by all observers however. Lefebvre was one of those who voted against the declaration, but he was one of those who added their signature to the document, after that of the Pope, though not all present did sign.[86] Lefebvre later declared that the sheet of paper that he signed and that was “passed from hand to hand among the Fathers of the Council and upon which everyone placed his signature, had no meaning of a vote for or against, but signified simply our presence at the meeting to vote for four documents.”[87] However, the paper on which his signature appears, and which was not “the relatively unimportant attendance sheet which Lefebvre recalled in his interview”, bears “the title Declaratio de Libertate Religiosa (along with the titles of three other documents) at the top,” and "(t)he fathers were informed that if they wished to sign one or more documents, but not all of them, they could make a marginal annotation beside their name, specifying which documents they did or did not wish to sign. No such annotation is found beside the names of either Lefebvre or de Castro Mayer, which proves that they were prepared to share in the official promulgation of that Declaration on Religious Liberty which they later publicly rejected

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Lefebvre

edited to find facts.


#16

I did find this on CA.

Prior to Vatican II, John XXIII had tapped Archbishop Lefebvre to help prepare some of the prepatory schema for the Council, efforts the archbishop saw go largely to waste when confronted by the will of the French and German bishops. Nonetheless, he continued to play a role at the Council, leading, for instance, the charge against the Declaration on Religious Liberty. Although he signed the document, he spent the rest of his life fighting it and several other documents that were produced during those pivotal years, namely the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and the Decree on Ecumenism.

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304fea2.asp

…and like you, it is off to Mass for me. Talk at you later. :slight_smile:


#17

see my post above yours.


#18

I’m not surprised at the shocked reply to the fact that Abp. Lefevbre signed the liturgy document.

More important than his signature – he was appointed and served on the committee that was assigned with liturgical reform. Why?

Clearly, Lefevbre like the entire body of bishops of the Church knew that the 1962 Missal needed reform. That’s why he served on the committee to reform the 1962 Missal. That’s why he voted for the liturgical changes.

There are many “traditionalists” who have the absurd notion that the entire body of Catholic bishops were “wrong” about the need for liturgical reform. That is, the entire body except the great hero, Abp. Lefevbre – supposedly he was the only one who got it right.

What does that say about the Catholic Church? That all the bishops were stupid, deceived, false, blind? All except for one, that is.

When we notice that Abp. Lefevbre himself retracted his statements and attempted to withdraw his signature (as he did with the protocol of 1988), what does that say about him? That he is a man of his word? That he gave careful consideration to the officially promulgated documents?

The Church is not dependent on Abp. Lefevbre and officially promulgated liturgical documents cannot be dismissed.

More importantly, it is a fact that the Church, in an Ecumenical Council, decided to change the 1962 Missal.

If all the bishops were blinded by Satan or deceived, how did they get that way? All they had was the 1962 Missal. They were all “traditionalists”.

Since the whole body of Catholic bishops became “blind, deceived and in error” while they were celebrating exclusively the Tridentine Mass – that proves that the Tridentine Mass lead them all into error and blindness.

Therefore, if the Tridentine Mass is restored to normative usage, we can expect the same thing to happen.

Obviously, this kind of argument is ridiculous. But it’s also ridiculous to say that Lefevbre didn’t accept that the 1962 Missal required change. After the Council closed, Lefebre accepted the results – it wasn’t until 1970 that he withdrew.

The facts are clear. I do believe that mistaken loyalty to Abp. Lefevbre does obscure the facts of what really happened.


#19

Abp. Lefevbre accepted the changes to the 1962 Missal.

He used the 1965 (reformed Tridentine Mass) missal at Econe for five years until 1970 when he formed his priestly society.

So, I’ll say again that it is a fact that he agreed that the 1962 Missal required change and reform and he accepted it fully, and some (like Michael Davies and others) believed he never would have objected to the liturgical reform if the 1965 Missal had been retained.


#20

No such annotation is found beside the names of either Lefebvre or de Castro Mayer, which proves that they were prepared to share in the official promulgation of that Declaration on Religious Liberty which they later publicly rejected

Some have called this a dishonest move by Abp. Lefebvre.

The same thing was said when he reneged on a signed agreement with Rome in 1988.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.