Ubenedictus:


so you don't share the view that there should be peace in Nigeria and that bishop should be true peace maker?


Since you claim to be a "traditional catholic", i think i should ask you, have you ever attended the beautiful tradentine mass? I have, severally and i Know the eucharistic prayer there prays for peace, if you do not share these sentiments then i doubt you are a catholic at all.

well if u read me well u will see where I said "I don't share his views MOST times but wherever the peace comes from, it is welcomed" does it sound like A̶̲̥̅♏ not an advocate of peace. About the mass, I've not been opportuned to get a purely trandestine, maybe u can refer me perhaps? Will appreciate

thoth:

Tell us your country and what the Catholic church has done on the points i raised ?

I'm from Zimbabwe and the Catholic Church was one of the most powerful voices against colonial oppression when our country was still called Rhodesia. Everyone who has read my country's history knows the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace. Not to mention the countless Catholic schools and hospitals in my country.

Horus:


Your are just trying to justify slavery and you disregard the fact that some of the first Popes were once slaves traders. Are you aware that 12 millions Africans slaves deported to the Americas had no connection with the Saracens or ISIS members today?

I wont justify any slavery. And I know there were a few evil Popes who violated Church teaching. I was only responding to your allegations on Dum Diversas.

Ubenedictus:

wow! Really?

There is a FSsp chapel in Orlu Nigeria, there are usually a few masses in Lagos. The SspX are also around, there are about 3 chapels in and around enugu, there is a mass centre for sspx in abuja, asaba, in even togo and ghana. I advise people i know to stay away from the Sspx, some of their priests are good preachers and u wouldn't know they are in schism.

Well I wouldn't say the SSPX are really schismatics since they commemorate the Pope. I would say they are just disobedient children of the Church. I also sympathise with them a little because of some of our modernist bishops. But they should just reconcile with the Popes like the Transalpine Redemptorists did. We need them for the reformation of our sacred liturgy. Blessings.

I guess you mean your fake bishop oyedepo and co....

Tolexander:
Pope, please help us to tell them to stop collecting bribes and envelopes from the politicians.

Horus:
The Devil has sent a letter to the Bishops of Nigeria

Nwa ekwensu

Papist:

Well I wouldn't say the SSPX are really schismatics since they commemorate the Pope. I would say they are just disobedient children of the Church. I also sympathise with them a little because of some of our modernist bishops. But they should just reconcile with the Popes like the Transalpine Redemptorists did. We need them for the reformation of our sacred liturgy. Blessings.

You understand the situation correctly.

The SSPX will be the first to shout that the seat to peter isn't empty so they are not sedesvacantist. They also claim to keep communion with the church in doctrine, in sacrament, the only problem is that they have refused to regularised their status in the church and they fail to respect vatican II council.

As for their disrespect of the council, that is even more complicated because i have seen people interprete the council's documents in a modenist sense, and the fluid nature of those documents leave them open to pretty bad interpretation. As for the liturgy i believe a reformation is needed, when sacrosanctum councilium was written nobody saw the problems it would cause, how various priest will twist the liturgy into a quasi form of a banquet lacking in beauty, majesty and lacking in meaning and even at time detrimental to the lex credendi (the law of faith). When Benedict xvi wrote sumorium pontificum he had a hope that the tradentine mass will romance with the new order in such a way that both will be uplifting and may help the people of God better in worship.

Anyway, I still would discourage people from the sspx because they are without recognised ministry in the church and because they do not fully recognise a catholic council.

Ubenedictus:

You understand the situation correctly.

The SSPX will be the first to shout that the seat to peter isn't empty so they are not sedesvacantist. They also claim to keep communion with the church in doctrine, in sacrament, the only problem is that they have refused to regularised their status in the church and they fail to respect vatican II council.

As for their disrespect of the council, that is even more complicated because i have seen people interprete the council's documents in a modenist sense, and the fluid nature of those documents leave them open to pretty bad interpretation. As for the liturgy i believe a reformation is needed, when sacrosanctum councilium was written nobody saw the problems it would cause, how various priest will twist the liturgy into a quasi form of a banquet lacking in beauty, majesty and lacking in meaning and even at time detrimental to the lex credendi (the law of faith). When Benedict xvi wrote sumorium pontificum he had a hope that the tradentine mass will romance with the new order in such a way that both will be uplifting and may help the people of God better in worship.

Anyway, I still would discourage people from the sspx because they are without recognised ministry in the church and because they do not fully recognise a catholic council.

My brother i bow to your knowledge. I haven't read Sacrosanctum Concilium myself although it's on my list of things to do. But I believe Sacrosanctum Concilium was a mistake. Not that the Ordinary Mass is invalid...it definitely is equal in dignity to the Traditional Mass. But the timing was bad. The 60s were a turbulent time when the modernist heresy was rampant. I'm 28 by the way so don't take me that serious. But I would prefer if the Tridentine Mass had just been translated, like what Sts Cryil and Methodios did to the Liturgy of St Chrysostom. It is shameful that our liturgy, because of the abuses, no longer communicates the Eucharistic reality to the faithful. Having said that I'm aware that all Ecumenical Councils need much time to be fully understood. I hope in after the Holy Father Francis we get a Pope in the mould of St Leo the Great or St Gregory. Blessings

Papist:

My brother i bow to your knowledge. I haven't read Sacrosanctum Concilium myself although it's on my list of things to do. But I believe Sacrosanctum Concilium was a mistake. Not that the Ordinary Mass is invalid...it definitely is equal in dignity to the Traditional Mass. But the timing was bad. The 60s were a turbulent time when the modernist heresy was rampant. I'm 28 by the way so don't take me that serious. But I would prefer if the Tridentine Mass had just been translated, like what Sts Cryil and Methodios did to the Liturgy of St Chrysostom. It is shameful that our liturgy, because of the abuses, no longer communicates the Eucharistic reality to the faithful. Having said that I'm aware that all Ecumenical Councils need much time to be fully understood. I hope in after the Holy Father Francis we get a Pope in the mould of St Leo the Great or St Gregory. Blessings

While I have been known to critique the new order liturgy, I think there was a need to actually retouch the liturgy at Vatican II, the main reasons was that new grounds were opening for evangelism and for each culture it was important to communicate first in the language the people understand, that already said, i think the council took a step too far.

The first sentiments that led to the revision of the liturgy were as i said the new evangelism opening and the need to communicate and interact with other cultures but as the council went futher the aim of revising the liturgy changed, the new aim was "ecumenism", infact over 4 people in the liturgy commitee of the council were protestants, the drive was to make the liturgy more appealing and acceptable to the protestant and that led to modeling the liturgy after the examples of Cramer, luther and Calvin. I'll give a few examples,
1. The ancient church celebrated the liturgy ad Orientem, it was the protestant that emphasized the "banquet" nature of the eucharist and celebrated ad Populi.

2. The earlier penitential rites were removed, the sign of peace was moved into the eucharist and a few other changes that seem to make the mass identical to the protestant service.

3. A few words were also shifted in the liturgy, for example, in the old rite one of the prayers said when ordaining a priest is that he should recieve power to "bless, baptise, offer sacrifice..." in the new liturgy it was made to simply say recieve the power for the liturgy without stating clearly d work of d priest. Bearing in mind catholics and protestants disagree on the duty of a pastor.

Infact the definition d new order used in its first missa was protestant and had bishop saying "heresy" so much so the first missal had to be recall and re-revised.

The council itself placed a premuim on inculturation, revision and freedom, so the masses where first experimented before they were promulgated, after the rubrics were defined a few priest decided to add their own rubrics. This lead to deformation.

And yes, as you said modernism was rampart in those days and many priest and bishops interpreted and still interprete the words of the council in the modernist sense.

Ubenedictus:



While I have been known to critique the new order liturgy, I think there was a need to actually retouch the liturgy at Vatican II, the main reasons was that new grounds were opening for evangelism and for each culture it was important to communicate first in the language the people understand, that already said, i think the council took a step too far.

The first sentiments that led to the revision of the liturgy were as i said the new evangelism opening and the need to communicate and interact with other cultures but as the council went futher the aim of revising the liturgy changed, the new aim was "ecumenism", infact over 4 people in the liturgy commitee of the council were protestants, the drive was to make the liturgy more appealing and acceptable to the protestant and that led to modeling the liturgy after the examples of Cramer, luther and Calvin. I'll give a few examples,
1. The ancient church celebrated the liturgy ad Orientem, it was the protestant that emphasized the "banquet" nature of the eucharist and celebrated ad Populi.

2. The earlier penitential rites were removed, the sign of peace was moved into the eucharist and a few other changes that seem to make the mass identical to the protestant service.

3. A few words were also shifted in the liturgy, for example, in the old rite one of the prayers said when ordaining a priest is that he should recieve power to "bless, baptise, offer sacrifice..." in the new liturgy it was made to simply say recieve the power for the liturgy without stating clearly d work of d priest. Bearing in mind catholics and protestants disagree on the duty of a pastor.

Infact the definition d new order used in its first missa was protestant and had bishop saying "heresy" so much so the first missal had to be recall and re-revised.

The council itself placed a premuim on inculturation, revision and freedom, so the masses where first experimented before they were promulgated, after the rubrics were defined a few priest decided to add their own rubrics. This lead to deformation.

And yes, as you said modernism was rampart in those days and many priest and bishops interpreted and still interprete the words of the council in the modernist sense.

Wow thanks for the explanation brother. I didn't know that Protestants were involved in the writing of the Novus Ordo. But now I understand why the high altars were destroyed and replaced with tables and why many statues and relics were destroyed in Catholic Churches. I also can't get why the ad orientem was replaced with the versus populum. May the Blessed Virgin pray for us for the restoration of the Roman Mass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tESjLy1o-Nw

[size=15pt]The Pope Orders The Slave Trade[/size]

Papist:

Wow thanks for the explanation brother. I didn't know that Protestants were involved in the writing of the Novus Ordo. But now I understand why the high altars were destroyed and replaced with tables and why many statues and relics were destroyed in Catholic Churches. I also can't get why the ad orientem was replaced with the versus populum. May the Blessed Virgin pray for us for the restoration of the Roman Mass.

there were protestant observers through out the council, adding them to the liturgy commitee was just suprising, there was a kind of drastic reduction in religious images after the council, fine statues were distroyed, a few structures were accused of been too big and "intimidating the poor", religious vestments were simplified and many lost their meaning, ask a priest the significance of his vestments now and you'll be shocked many do not know.

Facing the people at critical times in the liturgy was an invention of Cramer, Luther and Calvin, they didn't believe the mass is a Sacrifice where the priest in persona Christi offers a victim to God, they believe it was just a banquet, a familiar celebration so instead of facing God and offering a sacrifice, they faced the people and were banqueting. I'm not sure they understood the significance of that change, now the thing been removed from the church are altar rails and kneelers, those were also adopted from the protestants.