Author Topic: Motu Mess? (Read 5787 times)

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #30 on:** July 18, 2009, 11:58:11 PM »

Credo, I was told recently that the communion in the hand indult applies to the TLM and therefore priests in the NO must give communion in the hand to those who present themselves in this manner at a TLM. Is this correct?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #31 on:** July 19, 2009, 10:45:22 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Other more sane posters did have excellent contributions though, I must say. Our own Telemaque included.

Thanks Stevus.

You know, I really don't get it. But I think we're seeing just how damaging it is to common sense to remain in the typical diocesan Parish.

Fish Eaters is a separate story than Angelqueen.org. It really is beyond the pale, when someone is downrated 60 points for defending the injunction of St. Paul that wives should obey their husbands, and only a very few step up to agree with me.

I suppose it's beating a dead horse, but it never ceases to amaze me sometimes just how far the typical Catholic has moved away from Traditional teachings. Why think of themselves as Trads if they constantly have their knives out for anyone who restates the view that would have been accepted by any typical believing Catholic through the centuries?

Then they cover their own illogic and refusal to accept even the simplest premises (a wife should make a meal for her husband if he asks, shorts are not appropriate for mass) by resorting to suggestions that the person pointing those issues should be examining their own conscience.

No, some of these "Trads" are no different in spirit than the typical NO crowd.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #32 on:** July 19, 2009, 11:18:17 AM »

I really, really, really cannot accept that people who think taking Holy Communion in the hand is OK believe that is Our Lord.

The priest who hands gives Communion in the hand? I am sorry, I just don't see how he can possibly justify this in his head. Did he have a true vocation in the first place? What do they teach these guys in the NO seminaries about this practice, does anyone know?

Caraffa · « **Reply #33 on:** July 19, 2009, 04:00:51 PM »

It's interesting that several people commented that they felt as if they were on CAF. It's as if some of those on AQ are buying the neo-modernist, neo-Protestant, "come as you are" mentality. Do some of them not have children? If they wouldn't raise your children with NO abuses then why are TLM abuses ok? Children when they are young will pick up on these things.

I really do think that the MP has had an effect on the mindset of Trads. Some seem to think that all is good, especially the newcomers. The problem overall with the MP is that it puts the cart before the horse-the mass before the faith. Too many of them are kidding themselves if they think that authentic tradition is growing.

CatholicThurifer · « **Reply #34 on:** July 19, 2009, 04:10:00 PM »

I agree with a lot of what Stevus has said. I read through a lot of the posts on the AngelQueen thread that was closed. I was surprised by what some of the more liberal posters were saying.

However, I do have one suggestion for Stevus. I think you should focus on the liturgical abuses in the Mass, rather than the clothing. Although I agree that shorts are never appropriate for Holy Mass, I think there are more important issues.

I'll tell my story about the local Traditional Latin Mass; all the people and places shall remain anonymous:

In my diocese, the choir sits in the pews while an electronic keyboard is played. The man who does this is apparently too old to climb the stairs to play the real pipe organ in the choir loft. He plays it so that it sounds like strings you'd hear in a movie. It's highly inappropriate, as the only instrument allowed by Holy Mother Church is the pipe organ. I've asked them to do something about, but to no avail.

So there are liturgical abuses in diocesan TLMs. They are not accidental, they are done on purpose.

And that's what I think we should focus on, because those are the most pressing issues, rather than focusing on clothing so much. Just my two cents.

Matthew · « **Reply #35 on:** July 19, 2009, 04:27:03 PM »

That is the "cardinal sin" of the Indult, and why I would never attend it no matter how reverent or beautiful the liturgy was.

What is that "cardinal sin"? Namely: believing that there is no Crisis in the Church; that it's simply about the Liturgy (the Mass) -- whereas the problem is actually the Catholic Faith itself being lost.

Yes, the Mass is a huge part of the Crisis, but only because the Mass is so central to the Faith. But it's the FAITH at stake in this Crisis in the Church. It's about Catholic dogma, identity, culture, the Priesthood, and relations with the modern world.

Matthew

TheD · « **Reply #36 on:** July 19, 2009, 04:50:53 PM »

Quote from: ChantCd

That is the "cardinal sin" of the Indult, and why I would never attend it no matter how reverent or beautiful the liturgy was.

What is that "cardinal sin"? Namely: believing that there is no Crisis in the Church; that it's simply about the Liturgy (the Mass) -- whereas the problem is actually the Catholic Faith itself being lost.

Yes, the Mass is a huge part of the Crisis, but only because the Mass is so central to the Faith. But it's the FAITH at stake in this Crisis in the Church. It's about Catholic dogma, identity, culture, the Priesthood, and relations with the modern world.

Matthew

That is right. The problem with my Motu mass is not so much the liturgy which is beautiful and reverent, but the fact that the Mass is reduced to personal preferences and the crisis is downplayed or ignored altogether.

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #37 on:** July 19, 2009, 10:52:15 PM »

Quote from: ChantCd

Important point to note here:

Stevus INTENTIONALLY left out the name of the parish and priest, because it's not about condemnations or personalities -- it's about facts and the TRUTH.

Good move on his part. It proves he's concerned about ideas and principles, and not specific individuals.

I'm the same way.

Matthew

How truly admirable! Wow, I'm really impressed with your newfound integrity.

Too bad you didn't have it just a few days ago when you were 100% behind another loudmouth poster when he was naming names of some clergymen up in Cleveland and accusing them of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, child molestation, embezzelment, and breaking the confessional seal.

Hypocrite!

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #38 on:** July 19, 2009, 11:00:20 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

My AQ Motu Mass thread was locked by et cuм apparently.

Would love to dissect the discussion here to add to this one.

I must say I'm completely floored by the outright anger and condemnations hurled my way from multiple sources.

It's amazing how posters will come out of the woodwork to defend secular nuns who receive in the hand, women in short skirts at Mass, and men in shorts at Mass who they have never met nor talked to.

Typical lawlerly misdirection. My post was about little pissant Pharisees who have never posted anything but self-serving rants about how ever so superior they are to everyone else. I've never seen anything from you but your "analysis" of what's wrong with every Mass, every priest, or every other poster you've ever encountered.

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Yet they will miss no opportunity to publicly judge, castigate, admonish, lecture, and accuse those who point these things out of every sort of sin, fault, impure intention, and wrongdoing.

I was wrong! You do have the capacity for self-reflection! I couldn't have described you better myself!

Matthew · « **Reply #39 on:** July 19, 2009, 11:01:36 PM »

Gladius_veritatis is not Stevus_Magnus.

Why are you confusing the two cases, which are completely separate, and completely different?

At any rate, even in the case of Gladius (who DID name names), he is only interested in the general welfare -- that nothing untoward will happen to any parishioners in the future. He's merely trying to get the word out. He also wills the conversion of the priests involved -- I see a Catholic spirit there. I don't see a problem with that.

Matthew

Matthew · « **Reply #40 on:** July 19, 2009, 11:06:08 PM »

Quote from: St Jude Thaddeus

Quote from: ChantCd
Important point to note here:

Stevus INTENTIONALLY left out the name of the parish and priest, because it's not about condemnations or personalities -- it's about facts and the TRUTH.

Good move on his part. It proves he's concerned about ideas and principles, and not specific individuals.

I'm the same way.

Matthew

How truly admirable! Wow, I'm really impressed with your newfound integrity.

Too bad you didn't have it just a few days ago when you were 100% behind another loudmouth poster when he was naming names of some clergymen up in Cleveland and accusing them of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, child molestation, embezzelment, and breaking the confessional seal.

Hypocrite!

What if I knew a thief in your city, and knew that you were an acquaintance of his? How about I just tell you "There's a thief in this town, one who you invite into your house all the time" but don't name names?

I might as well be stealing from you myself, since I'm an accomplish to the thief's future theft.

Sometimes you have to name names, to protect the innocent and future victims.

You can reveal the true sins of others to select individuals -- who have a right to know -- for a good cause.

Let's see if you'll deny that Catholic doctrine.

Matthew

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #41 on:** July 19, 2009, 11:31:08 PM »

No confusion on my part at all.

One poster is engaging in for what all I know could be a case of prosecutable libel. The other is only subtly casting aspersions on the work of some other priest, whoever he may be, because his Holy Mass doesn't meet that poster's impeccable standards.

What both threads have in common is that their OP's apparently feel some great need and responsibility to "decry" various abuses, and when someone responds to the contrary, they act offended and either accuse the defender of being personally involved in the case or of the same old canards of being lax and modernist, to which all the other sheeple happily chime in with their assent.

There's nothing Catholic about calumny and detraction.

As far as "revealing the true sins of others" don't you have to provide some kind of proof of this malfeasance? As I recall, you quickly banned Laurenzo and William for coming on here and simply trying to elicit some kind of verifiable proof of wrongdoing.

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #42 on:** July 19, 2009, 11:52:41 PM »

After retiring to finish praying the daily rosary, I realized that I wish to apologize to stevus and matthew for calling them names. It was a childish response on my part.

I need to take a break from all the negativity on these forums, especially my own.

CM · « **Reply #43 on:** July 20, 2009, 03:13:32 AM »

SJT, very mature of you.

And just as an aside, I think cases where we need to prove malfeasance do not include those where the well being of others is reasonably suspect of being compromised. In those cases it is better, in my humble opinion, to make known the potential threats.

The burden of proof rests far better on the shoulders of those who wish to show that they are doing no harm, than those who wish to show that harm is being done.

Quote from: Caraffa

Where do you attend mass(Which group)?

Sorry, Caraffa, I wasn't ignoring your post, I just didn't check this thread until now. I have researched and called the 'churches' in my area some time ago, when I was trying to find one I could go to, and to my dismay, there are none that are not in schismatic subjection to satan and his antipope. Except the CMRI 'parish' in London, but the problem there is that CMRI holds to heresy, and I think they don't bind people to the sedevacantist position, as they should, since it is a dogmatic fact.

I also (briefly) was looking for a seminary to study in, and I was about this close to joining under Sanborn, until I learned the truth about the baptism of desire heresy.

Credo · « **Reply #44 on:** July 20, 2009, 12:23:20 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Credo, I was told recently that the communion in the hand indult applies to the TLM and therefore priests in the NO must give communion in the hand to those who present themselves in this manner at a TLM. Is this correct?

I don't believe so. Recently at mass, someone tried to kneel and receive in the hand and Father gave a nod of his head and the man put his hands down and received on the tongue. From what I understand, the pope instructed the priests must follow the missal exactly. Though in the missal it does not say they are to receive Communion kneeling and on the tongue, it does have a picture of the proper way.

I believe bishops has caused this confusion because of the swine flu outbreak. They gave permission for all masses to give Communion in the hand to protect themselves and their parishes until further notice. Which of course is ridiculous, because it is airborne. It doesn't take much to see it is bishops taking yet another shot to undermined the importance of the reverence needed to receive the Blessed Sacrament.