Quote from: Ambrose

Matto,

Do you enjoy twisting my words, or are you just ignorant.

I did not lie at all. Twisting your words would be lying. I stated your position accurately as I believed it to be based on reading your posts for a long time in many different threads.

Your statement was an oversimplification of what I said.  I asked you a question rather than accuse you.  

Looking back, though, I should have used a milder tone, and for that I retract what I said.  

We are friends here. If you think my statement of your position was inaccurate, I invite you to state your true position and let me know where you think I was wrong in my statement.

Matto,

Thank you, we are friends here.  

You wrote:

Ambrose tells us that we have to believe whatever the Pope says and follow him no matter what he does, and then when he doesn't like what the Pope says or does he declares they are anti-popes instead of believing whatever the Pope says and following them.

The Pope can err is his private statements, letters, and even in sermons.  In all of these cases he is not exercising his magisterium, or another way of saying it is that he is not using the power given to the Pope by Jesus Christ to teach, therefore to bind the flock.

When the Pope exercises his office as the Supreme Teacher of Christendom by teaching the universal Church on a matter of Faith and morals, even when the Pope does not exercise his infallibility, all Catholics must give a sincere firm assent to his teaching.  

When a Catholic rejects the Pope's non-infallible universal teaching on matters of Faith and morals, they do not by that become a heretic, but it is a serious sin of disobedience.  Catholics do not have the liberty to hold positions at odds with the Pope's ordinary magisterium.  It is not permissible for a Catholic to just remain silent and not publicly disagree with the Pope, a Catholic is bound under pain of serious sin to believe the Pope.

Regarding your second point:  "when he doesn't like what the Pope says or does he declares they are anti-popes instead of believing whatever the Pope says and following them."

This has nothing to do with my likes or dislikes.  I never wanted to believe that these men, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis have defected from the Faith.  

For a long time in my life, I simply resisted, went to the traditional Mass, at that time SSPX and the Ukrainian rite.  But, one longs for a complete position, that answers all the questions.  I never bought the SSPX line that Catholics can just resist the Pope, not learn from the Pope, open seminaries, chapels and schools all in defiance to the Pope and his bishops, and not accept the laws of the Pope.

i take no pleasure in recognizing the fact of these men's defection from the Faith.  This goes beyond any moral certitude I have formed about them based on the evidence.

The strongest argument that these men are not Popes is that they have done things that the Office prevents a Pope from doing.  The Pope cannot bind the Church to sin, or to believe heresy or grave errors.  

Let me give an example. John Paul II in his universal law in canon 844 allows Catholics to receive Communion from schismatics and heretics with valid orders, and likewise for Non-Catholics to receive from Catholic priests.

This is a break with Catholic teaching.  This is an evil law, and such a law cannot come from the Church.  St. Peter's successor has the power to bind and loosen the laws of the Church.  If John Paul II were Pope, then he would have bound the Church to a heretical and evil law.  

If this were true, then the Church would have defected and become unholy, as it would have given heresy and taught Catholics to sin by actively participating in non-Catholic worship to the point of receiving Communion from them.  It would have also bound Catholic priests to sin by knowingly administering Holy Communion to non-Catholics.

This law alone proves that John Paul II, who in his pretended power as Pope bound the Universal Church to obey this law, could not have been the Pope.  

It is only after a long process of being morally certain that these men have defected, while trying to excuse them, that one should ever make the determination that they are not Popes.  The example I gave you above is iron-clad, there is no way out of it.  

Maybe the Dialogue Mass was commissioned by the Pope for occasional use but I certainly do not recall saying the responses out loud as a child in the '50s and early '60s. I remember a golden silence where I could commune with Heaven but maybe I just have a faulty memory and the silence was all in my head.  

Once as an adult, I went to a Mass said in the Dialogue form and I found it disruptive. If it really was the norm when I was a child, the remembered silence could be because I was closer to heaven then through innocence and piety than I am as an adult.  

Regarding the New Mass while this is still fresh on this thread

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Pope Leo XIII had a vision and when he pulled himself together, he sat
down and wrote the famous Leonine Prayer to St. Michael Archangel. 

In the long form it says that the iniquity of the devil will reach into the 
very highest offices of the Church, and lay its foul hands onto Her 
most sacred treasures. .

This quote from Paul VI certainly fulfills Pope Leo XIII's vision. 

       "It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power, and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. Why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?"

Not that you said this, but I believe it is important to keep in mind that the Dialogue Mass has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.

The Dialogue Mass was given to us by Pope Pius XI and continued by Pope Pius XII, therefore it is good, holy and pleasing to God.

The Novus Ordo was given by a heretical antipope, therefore we cannot be certain of its validity, and we can with certainty know that is impious and contains both explicit and implicit heretical and erroneous ideas.

I am not advocating the Dialogue Mass, but it is not my duty as a layman to advocate or refuse anything, it is my duty to obey the one with the commission to govern the Church, St. Peter's successor.  Since he approved the Dialogue Mass, our duty is to accept it, and trust the Pope.

The formatting of my last post was off, I have fixed it here.

Quote from: Memento

Regarding the New Mass while this is still fresh on this thread

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Pope Leo XIII had a vision and when he pulled himself together, he sat
down and wrote the famous Leonine Prayer to St. Michael Archangel. 

In the long form it says that the iniquity of the devil will reach into the 
very highest offices of the Church, and lay its foul hands onto Her 
most sacred treasures. .

This quote from Paul VI certainly fulfills Pope Leo XIII's vision. 

       "It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power, and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. Why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?"

Not that you said this, but I believe it is important to keep in mind that the Dialogue Mass has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.

The Dialogue Mass was given to us by Pope Pius XI and continued by Pope Pius XII, therefore it is good, holy and pleasing to God.

The Novus Ordo was given by a heretical antipope, therefore we cannot be certain of its validity, and we can with certainty know that is impious and contains both explicit and implicit heretical and erroneous ideas.
 
I am not advocating the Dialogue Mass, but it is not my duty as a layman to advocate or refuse anything, it is my duty to obey the one with the commission to govern the Church, St. Peter's successor. Since he approved the Dialogue Mass, our duty is to accept it, and tru
st the Pope.

I hear what you are saying Ambrose. I meant no connection between the two posts.  

It seems that the "sifting" that is happening here and amongst many Catholics is of the particles of modernism that seeped back into the Church once St. Pius X went to his heavenly reward. Introducing  the laity's oral responses into the Low Mass seems to be an intrusion into the individual contemplation of the Mass - the very thing condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei.

Truly you are correct, it is beyond our ability to sift. We do not have the commission to do so but in the meantime looking back at these constant tiny changes, they give  the impression  of bringing on the greater shifts in the Liturgy and the Faith.  We are living in the age of apostasy which we know did not happen all at once. So many of us are acting like detectives, with the reason of trying to save ours and others souls,  trying to pinpoint the root cause. There  were forewarnings by the popes for at least a century prior to Pope St. Pius X, and he gave the loudest and largest warnings of all. Even he knew that he did not destroy all of the Modernists but that they just dug in deeper until it was safe to emerge. 

So there is a mystery as to why during the times of the popes who were our last great shepherds, modernism and its attending ills of liberalism and change were allowed to seep back into the Church. It has a name - the mystery of iniquity - and good Catholics are simply reacting to it. I pray that this is all resolved soon so that more souls are not lost. 

Quote from: Ambrose

The formatting of my last post was off, I have fixed it here.

Quote from: Memento

Regarding the New Mass while this is still fresh on this thread

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Pope Leo XIII had a vision and when he pulled himself together, he sat
down and wrote the famous Leonine Prayer to St. Michael Archangel. 

In the long form it says that the iniquity of the devil will reach into the 
very highest offices of the Church, and lay its foul hands onto Her 
most sacred treasures. .

This quote from Paul VI certainly fulfills Pope Leo XIII's vision. 

       "It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power, and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. Why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?"

Not that you said this, but I believe it is important to keep in mind that the Dialogue Mass has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.

The Dialogue Mass was given to us by Pope Pius XI and continued by Pope Pius XII, therefore it is good, holy and pleasing to God.

The Novus Ordo was given by a heretical antipope, therefore we cannot be certain of its validity, and we can with certainty know that is impious and contains both explicit and implicit heretical and erroneous ideas.
 
I am not advocating the Dialogue Mass, but it is not my duty as a layman to advocate or refuse anything, it is my duty to obey the one with the commission to govern the Church, St. Peter's successor. Since he approved the Dialogue Mass, our duty is to accept it, and tru
st the Pope.

I hear what you are saying Ambrose. I meant no connection between the two posts.  

It seems that the "sifting" that is happening here and amongst many Catholics is of the particles of modernism that seeped back into the Church once St. Pius X went to his heavenly reward. Introducing  the laity's oral responses into the Low Mass seems to be an intrusion into the individual contemplation of the Mass - the very thing condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei.

Truly you are correct, it is beyond our ability to sift. We do not have the commission to do so but in the meantime looking back at these constant tiny changes, they give  the impression  of bringing on the greater shifts in the Liturgy and the Faith.  We are living in the age of apostasy which we know did not happen all at once. So many of us are acting like detectives, with the reason of trying to save ours and others souls,  trying to pinpoint the root cause. There  were forewarnings by the popes for at least a century prior to Pope St. Pius X, and he gave the loudest and largest warnings of all. Even he knew that he did not destroy all of the Modernists but that they just dug in deeper until it was safe to emerge. 

So there is a mystery as to why during the times of the popes who were our last great shepherds, modernism and its attending ills of liberalism and change were allowed to seep back into the Church. It has a name - the mystery of iniquity - and good Catholics are simply reacting to it. I pray that this is all resolved soon so that more souls are not lost. 

I'm not trying to change the subject here, but there is wisdom in many of the things popes have done that we may not yet be able to see.

Take Pius XII's changes to the Eucharistic fast law, for example. It might have seemed liberal, though if you read his explanation, it is not. But, in God's Providence, through His Shepherd, it has been a blessing in our times.

How many people are driving, some of them elderly, an hour or more to mass? That they can eat before such a trip, before the three hours, is a blessing and may actually help some get to Holy Communion more often. Since many traditional priests travel, mass is sometimes later in the day. Sometimes a priest must travel between masses, this gives him a chance to eat as well.

That is to say nothing of the obligations of a father to work. Some have to work different shifts, Sundays, even, in order to keep their jobs or because they are necessary. The law helps the working man, too, who is unfortunately caught in a secular society. Now a father (or any man)in a non-traditional 9-5/weekends off situation can get to mass and recieve Our Lord after he finishes a overnight shift. Thankfully, he can take a lunch break so he has the energy to drive his family to mass. I know more than a few men in such situations, with the sacraments so critical to family life, it truly is a good law.

There may be some good reasons for a dialogue mass, I'm not familiar with the intricacies, maybe even the purpose has not yet come to light. But, the Church cannot give us bad laws or rites that harm souls, so there is no need to worry about it, at least for my part.

Not that you said this, but I believe it is important to keep in mind that the Dialogue Mass has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.

The Dialogue Mass was given to us by Pope Pius XI and continued by Pope Pius XII, therefore it is good, holy and pleasing to God.

Kind of like divorce in the Old Testament?  As I posted in my OP, the Wikipedia article seems to be accurate, especially, given Mabel's recollections:

Nevertheless, Dialogue Mass was never made obligatory until the introduction of the vernacular in the 1960s and for a time there were conflicting statements about the practice emanating from the Vatican e.g. a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of August 4, 1922, shortly after the incipient Dialogue Mass was raising questions in certain quarters. The Decree was in reply to the question "May the congregation, assisting at the Sacrifice make the responses in unison, instead of the server?" Reply: The norm is: Things that in themselves are licit are not always expedient. Owing to the difficulties which may easily arise, as in this case, especially on account of the disturbances which the priests who celebrate and the people who assist may experience, to the disadvantage of the sacred Action and of the rubrics. Hence it is expedient to retain the common usage, as we have several times replied in similar cases.

In view of this ambivalence, Dialogue Mass never became prevalent in English-speaking countries, and current celebrations of Tridentine Mass in these countries are in practice rarely structured as a Dialogue Mass. In other countries, however, such as France, and Germany, the Dialogue Mass met with a greater acceptance as the Church hierarchies of these countries in the 1940s and 50’s tended to be more progressive than the generally traditionally- minded bishops in English speaking lands as became evident during the Second Vatican Council. Quite a number of Tridentine Masses currently celebrated in these countries use the Dialogue Mass form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Mass