The loss of tradition in the Western Roman Church

[RomanRite]

My Brethren in Christ,

Many people blame the Second Vatican Council for the modernism presant in the Roman Catholic Church, when not even Vatican 2 mentioned any of the abuses.

A couple of examples of modernism in the Roman Church here in the USA are the spaceship/gymnasium architecture, removal of altar rails in most parishes, altar girls, "extraordinary eucharistic ministers", communion in the hand, priest facing the people etc.

It's time to pray the Church return back to tradition, because it seems it is very watered down, unlike the Eastern Churches both in communion and not in communion with Rome.

Pope Pius X and many other of the other Popes warned us about the heresy of modernism, its time to pray for restoration in the Church.

Please keep the Church in your prayers!

God Bless,
Roman Rite

THE REMNANT NEWSPAPER: The Christian Life

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

With all this hysterical "V2 is the root of all evil" stuff floating around this board a person might conclude the Pope John XXIII burns in hell.

btw, hasn't he been beatified or something by now ?

 

[Basil the Great]

Rumor has it that he might soon be canonized as a saint, just like John Paul the Great.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Of course Modernism and Vatican II have nothing to do with each other, nor does allowing Extraordinary Ministers or not having altar rails.

These things the OP is attracted to are ego attachments, and not the Spirit of the Gospel.

Jesus is the Center of our Lives, and when a person places the ascetics of religion above Him, they will forever be discontent when religion doesn't feed their ego-identity.

I'm really getting tired of self-proclaimed traditionalist attacking Vatican II and how the Church in the modern world has evolved.

They are attached to religion, period. I pray that Christ comes into their lives so that they will see him in everything and everyone one.

Jim

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Rumor has it that he might soon be canonized as a saint, just like John Paul the Great.

I really wish people would stop referring to him that way.

There was actually a JPI, who was also name John Paul and although his reign was rather short I still have great respect for him and his accomplishment during his reign and I don't like to see him lost in the shuffle.

 

[RomanRite]

Of course Modernism and Vatican II have nothing to do with each other, nor does allowing Extraordinary Ministers or not having altar rails.

These things the OP is attracted to are ego attachments, and not the Spirit of the Gospel.

Jesus is the Center of our Lives, and when a person places the ascetics of religion above Him, they will forever be discontent when religion doesn't feed their ego-identity.

I'm really getting tired of self-proclaimed traditionalist attacking Vatican II and how the Church in the modern world has evolved.

They are attached to religion, period. I pray that Christ comes into their lives so that they will see him in everything and everyone one.

Jim

I'm not sure if you noticed or not, but I have not bashed Vatican II in anyway. This is why I mentioned that it had nothing to do with modernism. My point was that the Traditions of the church need to return to show great reverence to our Lord in the Eucharist.

 

[RomanRite]

I really wish people would stop referring to him that way.

There was actually a JPI, who was also name John Paul and although his reign was rather short I still have great respect for him and his accomplishment during his reign and I don't like to see him lost in the shuffle.

Agreed

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I'm not sure if you noticed or not, but I have not bashed Vatican II in anyway. This is why I mentioned that it had nothing to do with modernism. My point was that the Traditions of the church need to return to show great reverence to our Lord in the Eucharist.

But you brought up the things that Vatican II brought about. which you call modernism.

It has nothing to do with the Modernism Pius X, was referring to.



Jim

 

[Memento Mori]

I really wish people would stop referring to him that way.

There was actually a JPI, who was also name John Paul and although his reign was rather short I still have great respect for him and his accomplishment during his reign and I don't like to see him lost in the shuffle.

C'mon, that's not at all an inappropriate title, or an insult to JPI. "The Great" is a very apt title for JPII.

 

[Davidnic]

I'm not sure if you noticed or not, but I have not bashed Vatican II in anyway. This is why I mentioned that it had nothing to do with modernism. My point was that the Traditions of the church need to return to show great reverence to our Lord in the Eucharist.

Well except by posting the link to a website that is pro SSPX and Ultra-Trad as rated by Catholic culture:

The Remnant
Review Ratings what do these ratings mean?

First Evaluated: 05/31/2006; Last Updated: 06/12/2010

1. Fidelity:
   
   Danger!
2. Resources: Fair
3. Useability: Excellent

Strengths

• The Douay Catechism of 1649 Resources

Weaknesses

• Fidelity: The Remnant attacks the authority of Vatican II and rejects certain doctrinal teachings of the council. Example(s)
• Fidelity: The Renmant supports Archbishop Lefebvre and the leaders of the society of St. Pius X, who have been guilty of schismatic acts and persistent disobedience to the Pope. Example(s)
• Fidelity: The Novus Ordo Mass is completely rejected and denounced as a horror of the Church. Example(s)

A reminder support of the SSPX beliefs and ideology was decided to be a violation of the OBOB rules. Just a reminder to keep this conversation on the right side of that rule

 

[RomanRite]

But you brought up the things that Vatican II brought about. which you call modernism.

It has nothing to do with the Modernism Pius X, was referring to.



Jim

Again, I think you are misreading what I just mentioned above. The point of the post was to mention that the Second Vatican Council did not mention any of the things listed below, such as Altar girls. Instead, it was very traditional and even recommended gregorian chant. The whole rumor that Vatican II made everything more "progressive " is false.

 

[RomanRite]

Well except by posting the link to a website that is pro SSPX and Ultra-Trad as rated by Catholic culture:

The Remnant
Review Ratings what do these ratings mean?

First Evaluated: 05/31/2006; Last Updated: 06/12/2010

1. Fidelity:
   
   Danger!
2. Resources: Fair
3. Useability: Excellent

Strengths

• The Douay Catechism of 1649 Resources

Weaknesses

• Fidelity: The Remnant attacks the authority of Vatican II and rejects certain doctrinal teachings of the council. Example(s)
• Fidelity: The Renmant supports Archbishop Lefebvre and the leaders of the society of St. Pius X, who have been guilty of schismatic acts and persistent disobedience to the Pope. Example(s)
• Fidelity: The Novus Ordo Mass is completely rejected and denounced as a horror of the Church. Example(s)

A reminder support of the SSPX beliefs and ideology was decided to be a violation of the OBOB rules. Just a reminder to keep this conversation on the right side of that rule

But the SSPX are Roman Catholic, and this is a Catholic subforum is it not? If SSPX beliefs and practices are not allowed to be discussed, then what can? Last time I checked, CAF was the one closing threads on sedevacantistism and traditionalism (even though SSPX are indeed not Sedevacantist due to the fact they accept all Popes after Vatican II valid Popes of the Church).

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

C'mon, that's not at all an inappropriate title, or an insult to JPI. "The Great" is a very apt title for JPII.

Well, it's an apt title for me too but nobody uses it.

 

[Gwendolyn]

But the SSPX are Roman Catholic, and this is a Catholic subforum is it not?

The SSPX are schismatic. They rejected the last attempts at staying in union.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Again, I think you are misreading what I just mentioned above. The point of the post was to mention that the Second Vatican Council did not mention any of the things listed below, such as Altar girls. Instead, it was very traditional and even recommended gregorian chant. The whole rumor that Vatican II made everything more "progressive " is false.

Vatican II gave the Bishops the authority to experiment with parts of the Liturgy to see how it would play out. What we have today, evolved from Vatican II's mandate for giving the laity a more active role within the Liturgy.

Use of Altar girls has been allowed by the Pope and Bishops, the same is true of Lectors, Extra Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. In fact, they are now the ordinary in every parish in my dioceses and I'm sure elsewhere in the the USA and Canada.

Vatican II held a high place for Latin and Gregorian Chant, but not to the exclusion of the vernacular or other styles of music which is more common in US parishes.

Again, the Bishops watched what was working and keeping in touch with the Vatican, allowed things to evolve as they did.

I grew up before Vatican II. There were problems that had the changes we have not come about, we'd be far worse off than we are. People participate in the Mass today like they never were allowed to Pre-Vatican II.

Christ is our center, not the ascetics of the religion which many attach their ego-identity to.

We are an inclusive Church, not exclusionary. As a result, the Bishops have to serve all levels of faith within the Church, not just the elite.


Jim

 

[WarriorAngel]

'Form' changes through out time.
Its the Liturgical pillars that remain the same.

 

[Davidnic]

But the SSPX are Roman Catholic, and this is a Catholic subforum is it not? If SSPX beliefs and practices are not allowed to be discussed, then what can? Last time I checked, CAF was the one closing threads on sedevacantistism and traditionalism (even though SSPX are indeed not Sedevacantist due to the fact they accept all Popes after Vatican II valid Popes of the Church).

SSPX are Schismatic, their Bishops suspended A divinis. And they rejected attempts at full union.

SSPX beliefs and practices are considered a violation of the Statement of Faith for OBOB.

Until they decided to obey the Pope and agree to accept VCII that is not changing. It's not up for debate.

 

[RomanRite]

Vatican II gave the Bishops the authority to experiment with parts of the Liturgy to see how it would play out. What we have today, evolved from Vatican II's mandate for giving the laity a more active role within the Liturgy.

Use of Altar girls has been allowed by the Pope and Bishops, the same is true of Lectors, Extra Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. In fact, they are now the ordinary in every parish in my dioceses and I'm sure elsewhere in the the USA and Canada.

Vatican II held a high place for Latin and Gregorian Chant, but not to the exclusion of the vernacular or other styles of music which is more common in US parishes.

Again, the Bishops watched what was working and keeping in touch with the Vatican, allowed things to evolve as they did.

I grew up before Vatican II. There were problems that had the changes we have not come about, we'd be far worse off than we are. People participate in the Mass today like they never were allowed to Pre-Vatican II.

Christ is our center, not the ascetics of the religion which many attach their ego-identity to.

We are an inclusive Church, not exclusionary. As a result, the Bishops have to serve all levels of faith within the Church, not just the elite.


Jim

So wait, your telling me if a bishop has claimed Homosexual marriage, abortion, contraception etc was accepted by the church and arnt morally wrong you would accept that also?

 

[WarriorAngel]

In the ancient basilicas the priest, as he stood at the altar, faced the people. The basilicas of the Roman Empire were, as a rule, law courts or meeting places. They were generally spacious, and the interior area was separated by two, or, it might be, four rows of pillars, forming a central nave and side aisles. The end opposite the entrance had a semi-circular shape, called the apse, and in this portion, which was raised above the level of the floor, sat the judge and his assessors, while right before him stood an altar upon which sacrifice was offered before beginning any important public business.
When these public buildings were adapted for Christian assemblies, slight modifications were made. The apse was reserved for the bishop and his clergy; the faithful occupied the centre and side aisles, while between the clergy and people stood the altar. Later on the altar was placed, in churches, in the apse against, or at least near, the wall, so that the priest when celebrating faced the east, and behind him the people were placed. In primitive times there was but one altar in each church. Ignatius the Martyr, Cyprian, Irenaeus, and Jerome, speak of only one altar (Benedict XIV, De Sacr. Missae, no. 1, xvii). Some think that more than one altar existed in the Cathedral of Milan in the time of St. Ambrose, because he sometimes uses the word altaria, although others are of opinion that altaria in this place means an altar.
Towards the end of the sixth century we find evidence of a plurality of altars, for Gregory the Great sent relics for four altars to Palladius, Bishop of Saintes, France, who had placed in a church thirteen altars, four of which remained unconsecrated for want of relics. Although there was only one altar in each church, minor altars were erected in side chapels, which were distinct buildings (as is the custom in the Greek, and some Oriental Churches even at the present day) in which Mass was celebrated only once on the same day in each church (Benedict XIV, Ibidem). The fact that in the early ages of Christianity only the bishop celebrated Mass, assisted by his clergy, who received Holy Communion from the bishop's hands, is the reason that only one altar was erected in each church, but after the introduction of private Masses the necessity of several altars in each church arose.
In ceremonials there is mention of the right and left side of the altar. Before 1488, the epistle side was called the right side of the altar, and the gospel side the left. In that year, Augustine Patrizi, Bishop of Pienza, published a ceremonial in which the epistle side is called the left of the altar, and the gospel side the right, the denomination being taken from the facing of the crucifix, the principal ornament of the altar, not of the priest or the laity. This change of expression was accepted by Pope Pius V and introduced into the rubrics.






Altar (Catholicism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

Vatican II gave the Bishops the authority to experiment with parts of the Liturgy to see how it would play out. What we have today, evolved from Vatican II's mandate for giving the laity a more active role within the Liturgy.

Use of Altar girls has been allowed by the Pope and Bishops, the same is true of Lectors, Extra Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. In fact, they are now the ordinary in every parish in my dioceses and I'm sure elsewhere in the the USA and Canada.

Vatican II held a high place for Latin and Gregorian Chant, but not to the exclusion of the vernacular or other styles of music which is more common in US parishes.

Again, the Bishops watched what was working and keeping in touch with the Vatican, allowed things to evolve as they did.

I grew up before Vatican II. There were problems that had the changes we have not come about, we'd be far worse off than we are. People participate in the Mass today like they never were allowed to Pre-Vatican II.

Christ is our center, not the ascetics of the religion which many attach their ego-identity to.

We are an inclusive Church, not exclusionary. As a result, the Bishops have to serve all levels of faith within the Church, not just the elite.


Jim

To expand on this there is also the fact that unlike the Eastern Rites, which are largely confined to a single Ethnic group, the Latin Church spans the entire world and a plethora of peoples.

Now this does mean that it needs to be a little more flexible to accommodate everyone from the African tribesman to the Suburban family. But what we end up seeing in the US is that the Church is feeling more and more Protestant, and that's what I dislike.

We like the old prayers, the invocations of the Saints, the old hymns (Latin or not), and the smells and bells