Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei  (Read 7140 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cantarella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7509
  • Reputation: +4465/-573
  • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Ecumenism in the Reform of John XXIII. The Jansenists hadn’t thought of this one. The reform of 1960 suppresses from the prayers of Good Friday the Latin adjective perfidis (faithless) with reference to the Jews, and the noun perfidiam (impiety) with reference to Judaism. It left the door open for John Paul II’s visit to the synagogue.

    Number 181 of the 1960 Rubrics states: “The Mass against the Pagans shall be called the Mass for the Defense of the Church. The Mass to Take Away Schism shall be called the Mass for the Unity of the Church.”

    "Unfortunately, in the “traditionalist” camp, confusion reigns: one stops at 1955; another at 1965 or 1967. Archbishop Lefebvre’s followers, having first adopted the reform of 1965, returned to the 1960 rubrics of John XXIII even while permitting the introduction of earlier or later uses! There, in Germany, England, and the United States, where the Breviary of St. Pius X had been, recited, the Archbishop attempted to impose the changes of John XXIII. This was not only for legal motives, but as a matter of principle; meanwhile, the Archbishop’s followers barely tolerated the private recitation of the Breviary of St. Pius X.

    We hope that this and other studies will help people understand that these changes are part of the same reform and that ALL of it must be rejected if ALL is not accepted. Only with the help of God — and clear thinking — will a true restoration of Catholic worship be possible."
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline nottambula

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 89
    • Reputation: +39/-4
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The people who think this theory of Pope Benedict being assassinated are the ones who think he is still the pope and that he was coerced into resigning therefore it is null.  People like Louis Verrachio and Fr. Kramer.  They somehow want to believe he was a good pope.........

    Dear narcissistic gaslighter and UN-lover of Truth. My message to you is Proverbs 12:22. Without a doubt, you'll know exactly what I am referring to.

    Hope we're clear on this. 


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 349
    • Reputation: +1052/-219
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Still haven’t answered the question.  John XXIII abrogated St Pius Xs missal so how can anyone use it without breaking the law?

    Second, John XXIII suspended Bugnini before the 62 missal was released so your claim that this missal had a “bad intent” is unprovable because Bugnini wasn’t involved until Paul VI put him back on the commission.

    Thirdly, was St Pius Xs missal the Tridentine missal?  Yes, it was the legal child of Quo Primum, which started the Tridentine rite.   Therefore, if the 62 missal replaced St Pius Xs missal, then the 62 missal is the valid successor of the Tridentine rite.  

    The only way that your theory makes any sense is if you prove that John XXIIIs law which created the 62 missal was never legal.  Other than that, you can’t explain this law and its effects.  

    Your questions are immaterial.  I can speculate just as well as you and it will make no difference whatsoever.  John XXIII has no authority to implement changes in the “received and approved” rite of Mass whose end is the destruction of that rite.  It is gross perversion of dogma and Catholic morality to argue otherwise.

    The claim that John XXIII changes were not an implementation of the Pian commission headed by Bugnini is absurd.  It is referenced in the document itself.

    To say that, “Quo Primum….started the Tridentine rite” is historically inaccurate and grossly misleading.

    I do not have to prove anything regarding the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal beyond what has already been clearly demonstrated, that is, Rome legally regards the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as a matter of mere discipline firstly as an Indult and then as a grant of legal privilege.  Those who use this Missal have accepted all the conditions contingent upon it use which I have already enumerated.  It is therefore impossible that Rome could regard the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as the “received and approved” Roman rite. 

    As I said in a letter to my local ordinary years ago, if Rome at some future date determines that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is the “received and approved” rite, and gives that Missal the standing of immemorial tradition then I would accept it as so.  Until then, I will not.  That is not likely to happen.  When there is a sound liturgical restoration in the future it will not included anything produced by Bugnini.

    You have nothing but your legal and liturgical opinion as your sole authority for this matter and frankly, I have little regard for either.  What is certain is that your opinions cannot serve as a basis for the defense of Catholic faith or worship.

    Drew    


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3502
    • Reputation: +2157/-1061
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    The “reformers” of the 1930s and 1940s introduced the “Dialogue Mass,” because of their “excessive emphasis on the active participation of the faithful in the liturgical functions.” In some cases — in scout camps, and other youth and student organizations — the innovators succeeded in introducing Mass in the vernacular, the celebration of Mass on a table facing the people, and even concelebration. Among the young priests who took a delight in liturgical experiments in Rome in 1933 was the chaplain of the Catholic youth movement, a certain Father Giovanni Battista Montini.

    Ok, but these were precursors to the new mass, NOT part of the 62 missal. 

    Quote
    Here is a partial list of other innovations introduced by the new Holy Week:
    Ok, but Holy Week is not "the mass".  The 62 missal did not ESSENTIALLY change the mass.  This is the main point.

    Quote
    "Unfortunately, in the “traditionalist” camp, confusion reigns: one stops at 1955; another at 1965 or 1967.....We hope that this and other studies will help people understand that these changes are part of the same reform and that ALL of it must be rejected if ALL is not accepted.
    This logic will lead to chaos because who decides which reforms are "ok" and which aren't?  We have to look at THE LAWS which promulgated these reforms - this is the key. 

    Was St Pius X's reform obligatory on all catholics?  Yes
    Was Pius XII's reform obligatory?  Yes.
    Was John XXIII's reform of 62 obligatory?  Yes.

    All of these reforms legally revised the previous missals, made the previous missals off-limits, and imposed their new missal on the faithful.

    Were the reforms of 65, 69, etc (i.e. all post-V2 reforms) obligatory?  No.
    As any post-V2 pope said they were?  No.

    Therefore, the obligations of these missals are different.  Therefore, the LAST missal which imposes an obligation on us, AND which is legally in force (since the missals of St Pius X and Pius XII were CLEARLY abrogated) is the 1962 missal.

    Is this missal, aside from the Holy Week changes and the addition of St Joseph, problematic?  No.
    Do the changes to Holy Week affect the doctrine/theology/morality of "the mass" on a daily, weekly or yearly basis?  No.
    Does the addition of St Joseph affect the doctrine/theology/morality of "the mass"?  No.

    ...(one could argue that the addition of St Joseph is NOT part of the 62 missal, since it was NOT included in the first edition, but came later.  So maybe even this change isn't obligatory.  If it's not, then there is almost NO changes to the mass itself in the 62 missal).

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3502
    • Reputation: +2157/-1061
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  
    Quote
    Your questions are immaterial.  I can speculate just as well as you and it will make no difference whatsoever.  

    I'm not speculating - I'm reading the laws and what they say.


    Quote
    John XXIII has no authority to implement changes in the “received and approved” rite of Mass whose end is the destruction of that rite.

    So you can judge what the pope has a right to do or not?  If you think he was the pope, you're basically a schismatic, since you're questioning his decisions.  I'll say it again, it doesn't matter what his FUTURE intentions were, it matters what the changes actually were.

    If I decided to murder my friend by sneaking over to his apartment and shooting him, but when I tried to pick the front door lock I got scared and ran, I didn't commit murder.  I didn't hurt my friend or his apartment in any way.  The only sin was a sin of intention.  There was NO sin in ACT.

    In the same way, John XXIII may have had the intention to destroy the mass, which is a sin...but only in intention.  It was NOT a sin of ACT because the 1962 missal does not have any ESSENTIAL changes to the mass, therefore his plans were not realized in 1962.  One's intention does not change reality until the ACT is committed.



    Quote
    The claim that John XXIII changes were not an implementation of the Pian commission headed by Bugnini is absurd.  It is referenced in the document itself.

    John XXIII removed Bugnini from the commission, a historical fact.  Bugnini was put back on under Paul VI.



    Quote
    To say that, “Quo Primum….started the Tridentine rite” is historically inaccurate and grossly misleading.

    Is this a joke?  "Tridentine" refers to the Council of Trent, which ordered that the missals/breviary/liturgy be revised, which St Pius V completed with his law, Quo Primum.  So, yes, Quo Primum started the Tridentine rite.



    Quote
    I do not have to prove anything regarding the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal beyond what has already been clearly demonstrated, that is, Rome legally regards the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as a matter of mere discipline firstly as an Indult and then as a grant of legal privilege.  Those who use this Missal have accepted all the conditions contingent upon it use which I have already enumerated.  It is therefore impossible that Rome could regard the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as the “received and approved” Roman rite.  

    Wrong.  The 1962 missal was "received and approved" in 1962 and this was still the case when JPII's commission said that it hadn't been outlawed.  This commission happened BEFORE the indult even existed, so this proves that the indult was pointless and legal trickery.



    Quote
    As I said in a letter to my local ordinary years ago, if Rome at some future date determines that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is the “received and approved” rite, and gives that Missal the standing of immemorial tradition then I would accept it as so.  Until then, I will not.  That is not likely to happen.  When there is a sound liturgical restoration in the future it will not included anything produced by Bugnini.

    Your views are full of contradiction.  First you say that John XXIII didn't have the right to issue the 1962 missal, but now you're saying that a FUTURE POPE could say that John XXIII's changes were ok?

    Why can't you accept John's authority?  Why do you need a future pope to "bless" a previous pope's actions?  This isn't how the Church works.  You either believe/accept that John XXIII was pope or not, with ALL of the same authority/power that a FUTURE pope has as well.

    The only conclusion is that you don't think John XXIII was a true pope.  Just admit it and we'll stop the discussion.




    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7509
    • Reputation: +4465/-573
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    Is this a joke?  "Tridentine" refers to the Council of Trent, which ordered that the missals/breviary/liturgy be revised, which St Pius V completed with his law, Quo Primum.  So, yes, Quo Primum started the Tridentine rite.

    I think he means that Pius V did not really alter the "substance" of the immemorial Holy Mass, but was only dealing with the Missal itself, not the doctrine or theology per se; but his real problem is that he believes that liturgical rites are a matter of dogma; instead of discipline. Popes cannot bind future pope in matter of discipline; only of dogma. That is the reason why Quo Primum has been modified more than once throughout the centuries. A document that deals with the prayers, ceremonies and rites of the Holy Mass belongs, by definition, to the realm of discipline, not dogma. The question is then why would Pope Pius V have the authority to promulgate his Tridentine Missal, evidently making alterations to the pre - Tridentine one, but Pope John XXIII (considering he was a true pope) would not? In the correct order of things, no legitimate successor of St. Peter has more authority, or is superior, than the other.


    Quote
    So you can judge what the pope has a right to do or not?  If you think he was the pope, you're basically a schismatic, since you're questioning his decisions. ..

    This isn't how the Church works.  You either believe/accept that John XXIII was pope or not, with ALL of the same authority/power that a FUTURE pope has as well.


    The only conclusion is that you don't think John XXIII was a true pope.  Just admit it and we'll stop the discussion.

    Yes, this is another contradiction or inconsistency in his reasoning, but it all boils down to the same error of believing liturgical rites are dogmatic. The problem then would begin with very first revision of Quo Primum, long, long before the XX century 60's. Only 34 years after the publication of Quo Primum, Clement VIII made a general revision of the Roman Missal, as did Urban VIII 30 years later... and so forth, concluding with the 1962' Missal, which is the last one "approved".  
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 349
    • Reputation: +1052/-219
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    PAX
    Quote
    DREW
    Your questions are immaterial.  I can speculate just as well as you and it will make no difference whatsoever.
      I'm not speculating - I'm reading the laws and what they say

    You have no authority to do anything other than speculate.  You are pretending to be a legal and liturgical expert without papers.  The the three legal documents touching upon the nature of the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal consistently regard this Bugnini production as Indult or grant of legal privilege.  You have tried to characterize this as legal “trickery” but who are you to make this judgment?  Call it what you want but the legal fact is that in accepting the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as the Extra-Ordinary form of the Novus Ordo, you have submitted yourself to the conditions stipulated in its usage.  You have accepted the all of Bugnini’s liturgical principles and their liturgical application.  You have also accepted that there is no doctrinal error in Vatican II.  So why are you posting in a Resistance forum?


    Quote
      PAX
    Quote
    Drew
    John XXIII has no authority to implement changes in the “received and approved” rite of Mass whose end is the destruction of that rite.
    So you can judge what the pope has a right to do or not?  If you think he was the pope, you're basically a schismatic, since you're questioning his decisions.  I'll say it again, it doesn't matter what his FUTURE intentions were, it matters what the changes actually were.

    If I decided to murder my friend by sneaking over to his apartment and shooting him, but when I tried to pick the front door lock I got scared and ran, I didn't commit murder.  I didn't hurt my friend or his apartment in any way.  The only sin was a sin of intention.  There was NO sin in ACT.
     
     In the same way, John XXIII may have had the intention to destroy the mass, which is a sin...but only in intention.  It was NOT a sin of ACT because the 1962 missal does not have any ESSENTIAL changes to the mass, therefore his plans were not realized in 1962.  One's intention does not change reality until the ACT is committed.

    So anyone who questions the decisions of a pope is a schismatic?  Is this another of your legal opinions?  You do not even know the legal definition of schism.  Was +Lefebvre “schismatic” because he disobeyed the pope?  If not, why am I?  You apparently hold the pope as your proximate rule of faith which leads to numerous errors.  Dogma is the proximate rule of faith and this truth is essential to recognize.
     
    Your moral sense is no better than your legal sense.  No one, not even the pope, possess the right or the authority to harm the faith or corrupt worship.  It does not matter one twit what the intention of John XXIII was with regard to implementing Bugnini’s liturgical reforms, so, in answer to your question, I am not judging the internal disposition of John XXIII even in light of the evidence that he attended Masonic meetings while in Paris.  The end for which the Bugnini reforms were intended from the very beginning was the destruction of the “received and approved” rite of Mass.   It is a dogma, that is, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastors of the churches whomsoever can change the “received and approved” rites into other new rites.  This dogma was incorporated into the Tridentine profession of faith.   A valid law must necessarily promote the common good and the intention of the lawgiver is immaterial. 
     

    Quote
    PAX
    Quote
    Drew
    The claim that John XXIII changes were not an implementation of the Pian commission headed by Bugnini is absurd.  It is referenced in the document itself.
    John XXIII removed Bugnini from the commission, a historical fact.  Bugnini was put back on under Paul VI.

    So what?  What I said is true, and your reply is completely immaterial.


    Quote
    PAX
    Quote
    Drew
    To say that, “Quo Primum….started the Tridentine rite” is historically inaccurate and grossly misleading.
    Is this a joke?  "Tridentine" refers to the Council of Trent, which ordered that the missals/breviary/liturgy be revised, which St Pius V completed with his law, Quo Primum.  So, yes, Quo Primum started the Tridentine rite.

    I do not have the official title of the Roman Missal published by St. Pius V before me at this time but if you are able to look it up you will find that the word “restored” is in the title of the Missal. In Quo Primum St. Pius says, for the “preservation of a pure liturgy….  these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.”  The restoration was necessary because of the corruption of the Missal by heretics.   If you need further proof I can post images from Missals that are for all intents and purposes identical with the Missal restored by St. Pius V.
     
    I must add that your argument was offered repeatedly in the 1970s by those defending the Novus Ordo and Paul VI right to publish a new Missal with the claim that St. Pius V did the same thing.  The argument was so beaten down I thought I would never hear it again.  
         
    Quote
    PAX
    Quote
    Drew
    I do not have to prove anything regarding the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal beyond what has already been clearly demonstrated, that is, Rome legally regards the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as a matter of mere discipline firstly as an Indult and then as a grant of legal privilege.  Those who use this Missal have accepted all the conditions contingent upon it use which I have already enumerated.  It is therefore impossible that Rome could regard the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal as the “received and approved” Roman rite.  
    Wrong.  The 1962 missal was "received and approved" in 1962 and this was still the case when JPII's commission said that it hadn't been outlawed.  This commission happened BEFORE the indult even existed, so this proves that the indult was pointless and legal trickery.

    I have already addressed the JPII’s “commission” but apparently I did not make it clear enough.  This is “commission” was a group of cardinals who were asked to submit their opinions on two questions.  The findings of this “commission” were not published and were never intended to be published.  The constitute advice given to the pope in the fulfillment of his office and nothing more.
     
    Cardinal Strickler is the only source of information regarding the advice that was given to JPII.  From Cardinal Strickler we know the JPII was advised that the immemorial Roman rite was never outlawed and any priest was free to use that Missal irrespective of any objections by the hierarchy of the Church.  The 1962 Bugnini Missal was never considered in the question of JPII or in the advice given him by the cardinals.  After, and only after learning that the immemorial Roman rite could be used by any cleric did JPII create the 1962 Bugnini Indult. 

    You foolishly call this “trickery.”  This judgment is based upon your own excellence in discerning liturgical and legal questions.  There is another view.  JPII knew he could not make the immemorial Roman rite into an Indult but he could make the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal into one.  That is what he did.  My opinion on this saves all appearances. 


    Quote
    PAX
    Quote
    Drew
    As I said in a letter to my local ordinary years ago, if Rome at some future date determines that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is the “received and approved” rite, and gives that Missal the standing of immemorial tradition then I would accept it as so.  Until then, I will not.  That is not likely to happen.  When there is a sound liturgical restoration in the future it will not included anything produced by Bugnini.
    Your views are full of contradiction.  First you say that John XXIII didn't have the right to issue the 1962 missal, but now you're saying that a FUTURE POPE could say that John XXIII's changes were ok?

    There is no contradiction in this.  It is an acknowledgment of fact and my own limitations to make fine distinctions beyond my competency.  The 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal cannot be the “received and approved” Roman rite because it is regarded by Rome as a matter of mere discipline, first as an Indult and now as a grant of legal privilege.  That is a FACT.  Now there are two possibilities: one, Rome is mistaken and the three documents touching on this Missal will have to be eventually withdrawn and apologized for, and the Bugnini 1962 Missal will then be afforded the rights of immemorial tradition.  Or, Rome is not mistaken and all the Bugnini reforms constitute a break in the immemorial tradition of liturgical development in which case Benedict XVI is correct when he said that the 1962 and 1969 Bugnini Missals are one and the same ‘lex orandi, lex credendi.’

    All I have said to my local ordinary is that I will used the Missal that is without question the “received and approved” Roman rite until the matter is definitively settled by authority.
    My position makes no claims to definitive judgment while you claim an authority you do not and will never possess.  Furthermore, my position is eminently grounded in Catholic dogma and moral rectitude.  Most importantly, I have not accepted the conditions for the legal grant of privilege to use Bugnini’s 1962 Missal which you have done.  I have not sold my faith for a pot of gruel.
      

    Quote
    PAX
    Why can't you accept John's authority?  Why do you need a future pope to "bless" a previous pope's actions?  This isn't how the Church works.  You either believe/accept that John XXIII was pope or not, with ALL of the same authority/power that a FUTURE pope has as well.

    The only conclusion is that you don't think John XXIII was a true pope.  Just admit it and we'll stop the discussion.

    And “why can’t you accept Paul VI’s authority?”  Yes, I know you have legally examined the articles and can definitively say even at the risk of your eternal salvation exactly what is and what is not.  Well, you can stay where you are for all I care.  But now that you have accepted all the conditions, the legal stipulations, for use of Bugnini’s 1962 transitional Indult Missal, you have no business hanging around on a Resistance forum.  You have already accepted the Novus Ordo and Vatican II without reserve.  You can’t resist anything.

    Drew  

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3502
    • Reputation: +2157/-1061
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    you have submitted yourself to the conditions stipulated in its usage. (ie the Indult)
    Problem 1 with your logic:  The 1962 missal was issued prior to the Indult laws and the 62 law has never been abrogated therefore the missal still is legal, which is why both a) JPIIs commission said the True Mass wasn’t outlawed, and b) why Benedict said the 62 missal was never outlawed.  

    Problem #2.  Since the 62 missal was never outlawed/abrogated, therefore it’s still valid, therefore it was valid BEFORE THE INDULT LAWS EXISTED, therefore the indult laws are unnecessary.

    Problem #3.  None of the indult laws obligate ANY catholic to follow them, nor is there any penalty for disobeying them.  Therefore, in addition to being unnecessary, they are legally unenforceable.  

    Problem #4.  None of the indult laws require ANY catholic at accept the Novus Ordo, or V2 or any novelty whatsoever.  They make a legal argument that the old vs new missals are “two usages of the same rite” (which they are), but neither law requires me to accept the new usage NOR must i accept that the new usage is “just as good”.  

    One who attends an actual indult mass, said “under Rome”, does implicitly accept the above errors through their public appearance, but the indult laws do not prevent me from attending the True Mass at a non-diocesan, non-“under Rome” mass.  


    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14212
    • Reputation: +545/-1417
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The 1955 Holy Week: Other Innovations

    Here is a partial list of other innovations introduced by the new Holy Week:


    This brief examination of the reform of Holy Week should allow the reader to realize how the “experts” who would come up with the New Mass fourteen years later had used and taken advantage of the 1955 Holy Week rites to test their revolutionary experiments before applying them to the whole liturgy.
    Didn't Pope St Pius X call for participation of the laity when he initiated a reform of the Liturgy?

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7509
    • Reputation: +4465/-573
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    It is a dogma, that is, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that no pastors of the churches whomsoever can change the “received and approved” rites into other new rites.  This dogma was incorporated into the Tridentine profession of faith.

    So, how did over 20 Liturgical Rites of the Catholic Church came to be in the first place, if there is no one on earth with the authority to "receive them and approve them". This is, if the Roman Pontiff is also included in the "no pastors of the Churches" canon, as you curiously believe.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1291
    • Reputation: +1275/-84
    • Gender: Female
    So, how did over 20 Liturgical Rites of the Catholic Church came to be in the first place, if there is no one on earth with the authority to "receive them and approve them". This is, if the Roman Pontiff is also included in the "no pastors of the Churches" canon, as you curiously believe.

    This discussion only concerns the Roman Rire. You are correct, there are over 20 Liturgical Rites in the Catholic Church, all under the pope BUT each one has the own liturgy and traditions, their own Church Fathers, Eparchies  (dioceses)...Quo Primum concern only the Latin Roman Rite.You can do a search on the Eastern Rite liturgies.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16