Clear Creek Monks' Church

[Shlomayo]

Back after a year. This is BlackCappa. I have to actually apologize: I was wrong on the TLM - NO - issue.

[deliveringit]

@Shlomayo I acutally have an original missal printed in 1966 of the 1965 rite of Mass. Most people don't know about this rite. The '65 version preceded the '69 (N.O.). But the '65 rite was scrapped in favor of the '69. The only point being, rites of the Church can be scrapped. There is a precedent. I look forward to the day when the Church scraps the '69 Mass and just goes back (totally) to the '62 TLM.

[Shlomayo]

@deliveringit You're not the only one hoping for that. I finally got the chance to attend the TLM regularly and I am just baffled as to how one could even think of having "reforms" with such a Mass...

[eraser695]

God Bless these Monks.... 

[mea69culpa]

WHY GREEK,I AM GREEK AND I AM NOT PAPIST,CLEAR GREEK?SHAME OF YOU

[eraser695]

@mea69culpa curse the Christians.... God is Watching.... Praise the Lord Jesus Christ.... Fall of Arrogance....

[grottoprayer]

glad they got a new residence they needed it and are very good people loving god and one another. we need prayful people today soooo much.

[benoitmaur]

beatiful, my prayers for dom François.

UDP

Philippe

oblsb fontgombault

[dacatholicbandorgan]

Are they in Communion with  Rome?

[deliveringit]

Of course they are in communion with Rome.

They are traditional as opposed to Novus Ordo. How can something called the "new order" be traditional? Since the N.O. was not simply the organic development of the TLM, where did it come from? It was created by Bugnini and is therefore a totally new form. By definition, then, it cannot be traditional since it did not exist before at all. Unless of course you have succumbed to Modernism where words have no more meaning.

[dacatholicbandorgan]

What I mean to ask is if they accept the teachings of Vatican II like the FSSP or the ICK?

[deliveringit]

They are just like FSSP: communion with Rome, believe the Pope is the Pope, believe the N.O. Mass is valid, etc. But FSSP does not accept that many of the pastoral directives of VII were wise and could point to the enormous failures of those directives. Of course the pastoral directives of VII were never binding like for example the teachings of Trent. Take the N.O. Mass: it was a child of VII, yet, was never binding on any priest as Sumorum Pontificum clarified.

[magpie4321]

you are incorrect in your statement. I have a brother who's there

[BlackCappa]

No roganic development? This was something I used to believe in after talkign to Dominican monks and checking out some history books on Liturgical development. We know that handcommunion, celebration versus populum, the tabernacle not being in the center, prayers in the vernacular, etc. have a longer tradition than what is often suggested by some people who call themselves "traditionalists".

As long as you obey Rome and remain in full communion in the due humility, all is fine.

pace e bene

[deliveringit]

The key word you seem to miss is "organic" Nobody ever said there has not always been organic development. There has been. But the N.O. Mass was certainly not "organic" but it was a new creature. This is not my opinion, but the Pope's. He is the one that recognized that the N.O. and TLM are different forms. If the N.O. Mass is simply an organically developed TLM, then why keep the TLM? Why admit that they are in fact different forms?

[BlackCappa]

Are you suggesting that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is the only "organically developped" form?

May I remind you that there were not only different forms, but different rites within use in the Catholic Church.

[deliveringit]

Your point is not clear to me. I simply say that the N.O. Mass is not organically developed. If it were a separate rite, your point would be more valid. While I would personally be happier if it were declared a separate rite, nonetheless, Rome has spoken and it is a separate form. OK. I can accept that as a wise compromise. I would suggest you contact Fr. Joseph Fessio of Ave Maria University who is an expert on organic development, although he is not a "traditionalist"

[BlackCappa]

You stated that the ordinary form of the Roman Rite cannot be considered traditional because - supposedly - it had no organic development: however, the parts of the OF are all traditional aspects of the Liturgy. And again, there was a development that lead to the Liturgical Reform.

[deliveringit]

I see your point clearly now. Organic development does not mean one goes back hundreds or thousands of years and resurrects some things from the past, jumbles them up with novelties, and then claims "tradition" or "organic development." A child grows up, organically developing from what he was yesterday. What you would have as organic, would be an adult all of a sudden removing his arms and feet and replacing them with his arms and feet from when he was a child.

[BlackCappa]

Ah a common response: if that si what we are going by then you too are by no means a "traditionalist" since the EF is not = the old Tridentine Mass: there have been changes, substractions and additions.

[deliveringit]

Let me try one final time:organic development, if it is to mean anything, means that small, natural changes take place. OF COURSE, as I have said over and over again, the TLM has undergone such an organic development. My whole point, which you seem to be missing, is that the N.O. CANNOT claim to have organically developed from anything. It is WAY too different than the TLM to claim to have organically developed from the TLM. The N.O. mass was jumbled together all at once and is a step change.

[BlackCappa]

If that were true, then there should not be any developments leading to the Liturgical reform at all, however there were such developments. Furthermore, the OF - not "Novus Ordo" - has a very similar structure to the EF.

As such, your statement of it being "WAY too different" is simply absurd.

And you have no "TLM", but the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

[deliveringit]

Your responses are simply incoherent. You seem incapable of registering the concept of what organic development is and what it's not. If you think the N.O. Mass is not a step-change, then your facts and or logic are simply wrong. You just don't know what you are talking about. There are some similar "structures" between the N.O. and TLM, but so what? Humans have some similar structures to chimpanzees.  But that does not mean one organically developed from the other.

[1rams123]

Well put- Check out my channel, I discuss some of these issues there in the "Clarification Vids" to a certain 'paps' but he has subsequently deleted his channel so his vids are gone. Oh and btw, u are right about the NO. Significant subtractions have never been a part of a real organic development, so the NO mas cannot be an organic development. Those who say otherwise are simply engaging in wishful thinking & trying to justify it and just refusing to actually look at the liturgy objectively.

[deliveringit]

I believe Benedictine.

[christianvs1]

Indeed, but let us be more precise:

1. The Roman Rite is ONE rite, expressed in TWO Forms, viz. Extraordinary Form (1962 Roman Liturgy) and Ordinary Form (post 1970 Roman Liturgy) - see "Summorum Pontificum, 1".

2 These monks chose the Extraordinary Form of the one Roman Rite.

3 So, it is incorrect to afix the label 'tridentine' or 'taditional' to them. They do not use the tridentine missal of Pope Paul V, promulgated in 1570.

5. This means that they are faithful sons of the Church.

[christianvs1]

Erratum:

No. 3 should read: 'Pope St Pius V', not Pope Paul V.

[WeenisLad]

What rite are these monks?

[Catholiques]

They are Benedictine Monks of the Latin Rite(Roman) Catholic Church. traditional and founded from the Abbey de Fontgombault in France.

more on my blog.,Vocation-Station at blogspot, via my profile

PAX

[Catholiques]

thanks for this

[benoitmaur]

beatiful

P A X . THANKS AND MERRY CHRISTMAS.

+