I can hip-hop, be-bop, dance till ya drop, and yo yo yo, make a mean cup of coco.
–Mrs. Doubtfire
Some people say I only belittle and humiliate my posters. I disagree (circle gets the square). I only do that to the ones that annoy me. In fact, it’s quite possible to disagree with me and not be annoying. For example: Clara took exception with my characterization of “Phatmass” and asked me to reconsider. So, being the decent guy that I am, I go back to Phatmass with an open mind.
Of course, it didn’t take long to find the hate for Tradition.
When has the Church ever acted that way? When has the Church ever moved backward? Quo Primum did the very same thing as Missale Romanum, except it was 399 years earlier.
That is naive and that is incorrect disciplinary theology. The Church has never moved backward in order to promote Tradition. Not once. Why now? I disagree. Why don’t we simply push for proper implementation of the Missa Normativa? When done correctly it is as beautiful and theologically correct as the so called Tridentine.
Actually, I’m not sure if the Church every moved backward in order to promote Tradition. Why don’t you ask the Pope in Avignon?
So what you’re saying is, no one ever reauthorized Communion in the hand? Well, that’s a load off my mind! I mean, the big argument of the time was “the early Christians received Communion by hand”. If we go that route, the whole Novus Ordo was supposed to return the liturgy to some idyllic “pure and primitive” form. That means, the Mass you’re championing is an example of something you claim never happened. Somebody call that Alanis Morissette chick.
- Quo Primum did the very same thing as Missale Romanum, except it was 399 years earlier.
That’s a bold and intriguing statement there. It also happens to be entirely wrong.
Missalae Romanum created an entirely new liturgy whole cloth. The Missal of Pius V was a codification of existing practices. Pius V alsoretained any rite with more than 200 years of continual use. Oh, and Pius V didn’t have Protestants help design the liturgy. Other than that, it was the very same thing as Missale Romanum.
If you think the current Mass is as theologically correct as the Traditional Mass, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. The New Mass was designed with the aid of Protestants who were able to make informal “suggestions” about the reform of the Mass. What, do you think those guys were saying, “You know, you really need to stress Transubstantiation and the Sacrificial nature of the Mass more”?
My man, I wouldn’t go throwing around words like “incorrect” and “naive”. I’m just saying.




















