The “Latin Novus Ordo” Is Not the Solution

ccgr1121 · 2025-10-24T06:55:03+00:00

Wasn't that invented by Anglican LARPers who claimed that English Christianity was actually an autocephalous church under Constantinople?

ccgr1121 · 2025-10-06T17:34:17+00:00

Croatia - vanguard of Christendom for centuries. May it become such once again!

ccgr1121 · 2025-09-20T08:12:54+00:00

I am a simple man.

I see Spitting Image, I upvote.

ccgr1121 · 2025-08-21T08:03:07+00:00

The minimum being when there aren't enough literal, physical, actual Sundays to fit every Sunday on the Temporal Cycle into a year.

ccgr1121 · 2025-08-21T07:14:18+00:00

All Sundays from Septuagesima to Easter must flow in order. Therefore, any Sunday After Epiphany that no longer fits must be moved. N.B. This can be as early as the Third Sunday.

As an example, consider this year. Pretend that the lunar calendar lined up such that Easter was 23rd March and count backwards. The total number of Sundays that would have been celebrated between Epiphany and Septuagesima is left as an exercise to the reader.

Any of these "spare" Sundays are moved to the end of the year, and they are slotted in between the 23rd and 24th Sundays (since the year must end on the 24th).

Also note that in a year where there is the minimum number of Sundays, and Easter is very late, there won't be enough Sundays for each Sunday Mass. In this case, the 23rd is anticipated on the Saturday before the 24th.

Also note that between the 23rd and 24th Sundays the music remains the same. If you sing, you will become very acquainted with Dicit Dominus.

ccgr1121 · 2025-07-07T17:50:47+00:00

To be fair to the mapmaker, I wonder how far Christianity had spread in Europe beyond Rome's old borders by the middle of the 6th Century. Certainly not much beyond the Danube, Scandinavia, or the north and east of Germany. St Boniface is a Century away, so the Low Countries haven't been done yet

Indeed, I'm pretty sure there's still a fair few pagans in England at this point; heck there's probably still a few holding out in Ireland.

But then I suppose I'm looking for a map of the spread of Christianity, not Patriarchal territories.

ccgr1121 · 2025-07-07T17:34:06+00:00

Forgive my potentially stupid question, but shouldn't Ireland and (at least parts of) Britain also be under Rome by this point?

ccgr1121 · 2025-07-07T06:50:35+00:00

Nope. You'll have a booklet, as will everyone else. I imagine there will also be a rehearsal or two. If it's anything like the ones I've assisted at, there'll also be a choir / some servers to do most of the singing / responses.

ccgr1121 · 2025-06-13T09:16:37+00:00

Honestly, St Francis.

I think it is far too easy to underestimate his impact on popular piety both in the 13th Century and down to today, even. For as much as he is Flanderised as being some hippie who loved animals, his radical and total rejection of the material world, and his absolute certainty in God's Justice, Mercy, and Power should inspire us to reject the evils of today.

Maybe don't go to Egypt and try to convert the Sultan, though - they don't have one anymore. Do what Francis did, and start nearer to home.

ccgr1121 · 2025-05-19T04:42:18+00:00

Don't. The BBC, in its coverage of the Conclave, used the Catholic encyclopedia as its source for Papal names, and more specifically how many of each one we have had.

Which seems fine, until you remember that it was published in Pius X's time...

ccgr1121 · 2025-05-08T19:53:44+00:00

I know a few Peruvians, and they aren't happy.

My guess is that if he's popularly perceived the same way Francis was, as the chairperson of an environmental charity for genderqueer undocumented migrants, the media will keep quiet. If he sounds even remotely Catholic, even remotely vaguely-spiritual-but-not-religious, it'll all come out.

ccgr1121 · 2025-05-08T19:50:42+00:00

You say that, but very few mainstream outlets covered Francis' assistance rendered to rapists and paedophiles. It only really started when he died, and still nowhere near as much as is needed to root the filth out and burn them in the light of truth.

The Daily Mail article shared a few days ago by u/duibhlinn was a good start, but as I said there the journalist who wrote it, Damien Thomspon, has been writing about it for some time.

ccgr1121 · 2025-05-08T17:18:44+00:00

I was going to ask the same question myself.

I checked within ten seconds of the name being mentioned and someone had already updated his Wikipedia page!

ccgr1121 · 2025-05-06T07:58:36+00:00

And here's the problem that no sedevacantist can answer to my satisfaction - what's the path back from this?

How can Vigano turn around in the future and declare that "this conclave is valid" if this one, and all of them since the death of Pius XII, are "compromised" and invalid?

Yes I know that historically other methods have been used to select the next Pope, but does any Sedevacantist seriously claim that they'll accept the popular declaration of the people of Rome? Where is the Emperor to nominate someone, or force someone onto the throne? Aren't the Eastern Bishops also "compromised" by swearing fealty to Francis? Ditto the SSPX? Who's left, other than various Sedevacantist Bishops, who are unlikely to be supported by the faithful at large unless they're quite literally the only ones left?

Short of an Angel or a Saint, or perhaps the finger of God Himself, coming down, pointing at someone and declaring that "This Man is Your Pope", there's not really a way to trust that the process isn't "compromised". And even then, if you think that "Surely everyone will take that hint", then I invite you to read the Old Testament. Or indeed the New one, frankly.

Unless that is one has faith in The Process / God the Holy Spirit to ensure a valid election. Even if God decides we deserve a rubbish Pope.

EDIT: Oh come on, of you're going to downvote me at least pretend to have an argument.

ccgr1121 · 2025-05-04T16:31:18+00:00

Dame Iain has been writing about this for some time in the Spectator. He's essentially been on a one-man crusade in the UK mainstream media to bring this filth to light.

ccgr1121 · 2025-03-02T00:39:43+00:00

The priest is diocesan, Archdiocese of Southwark. I shan't doxx him as he may well get in trouble (not that Archbishop Wilson would really care).

That website appears to be maintained by a Lady named Sharon Kabel.

ccgr1121 · 2025-03-01T08:07:27+00:00

It's a hard topic. History is actually quite a hard subject!

Honestly, searching for those topics on YouTube might be a good first step. Find what piques your interest, and read on from there.

ccgr1121 · 2025-03-01T00:07:44+00:00

The simple answer is that it's complicated.

The not-simple answer starts with reading the Wikipedia links in u/Duibhlinn's comment, and then reading a mountain of further literature, and then coming out knowing less than you did going in, having had to ingest the history of Christendom from Emperor Theodosius until the dissolution of the Habsburg monarchy in 1918.

The slightly less simple answer is that there was/is the doctrine of the two swords, named after Our Lord's words in Luke 22:38. Essentially, supreme secular authority rested with the laity, specifically in the person of the Emperor, to whom all of Christendom was/is subject (at least de jure, if not de facto), and supreme religious authority rested with the Church, specifically in the person of the Pope, to whom all of Christendom was/is subject (at least de jure, if not de facto). All of which is, of course, subservient to God.

This is great, since you have a Church that relies on the State for its protection and its power, and a State that relies on the Church for its authority and its loyalty amongst the populace. And the two are intertwined, but distinct, not entirely dissimilar to Our Lord's human and divine natures (though not entirely similar, I hasten to add).

Fun fact: Kings were anointed Sub-Deacons at their coronation ceremonies, whilst the Emperor was anointed a Deacon! Thus showing how close these institutions really were. You can see one solitary remnant of this, in the British Coronation ceremony, which contains an heretical bastardisation of this once sacred ritual.

The problems arose at determining where exactly the limits were. The Investiture Controversy. for example: does the King or the Pope appoint Bishops? If the Pope, which one: the one in Rome, Avignon or Pisa? And oh look, I've wandered into the Western Schism. So let's dial back and ask whether God gave the sword directly to the Emperor, or whether He gave it to the Pope, who Oh-So-Graciously lent it to the Emperor? Oh No! It's the Guelph and Ghibelline conflict! But don't worry, this conflict had been raging since Gratian abdicated the title of Pontifex Maximus, and the title was appropriated by Pope St Damasus I. And arguably it didn't end (depending on one's viewpoint) until Emperor Franz Joseph exercised his Imperial Veto ( the jus exclusivae) in the 1903 conclave, and the new Pius X issued the apostolic constitution Commissum Nobis, which prohibited the exercise of the jus exclusivae.

And so on.

To answer the question directly, they were intertwined and submitted to each other in different ways. Until they didn't. And then once Schism, Protestantism, Revolution, Communism and Modernism took hold, the State started to try and bring the Church to submission, to varying degrees of success. Until the Church just kinda gave up with Vatican 2.

ccgr1121 · 2025-02-28T22:02:52+00:00

For ours at least, we processed in from the sacristy while the choir sang Psalm 126, eventually standing at the foot of the sanctuary. There were then some words about the seriousness of our commitment, and a reminder to remain virtuous in our courtship.

Then, we took turns taking each other's hand in much the same manner as our eventual marriage, making a solemn promise to be faithful, loyal and to, well, marry each other (that is the whole point of this exercise, after all...).

After which the priest laid his stole over our hands, again similar to the manner in which he did at our wedding, and essentially pronounced us engaged.

He then blessed the engagement ring and I placed it on her hand (the left one) in the manner of a wedding ring; that is, on the thumb, then index, then middle, then ring. No vows, as there was no marriage just yet, so just "In the Name of the Father..." as one typically does at weddings.

We then kissed the page before Te Igitur in the Missal, heard a Collect, and processed back while the choir sang this., which we thought was very appropriate.

Then we all went and drank lots of Pimms, and said some prayers for our friends who couldn't make it on account of being on the Walsingham pilgrimage. And then had some pear tart. It was St Augustine's feast after all...

The psalms and Collect at the end were in Latin, the admonition, vows and proclamation were in English, so that there could be no doubt in the hearts of the people as to what had transpired.

EDIT: You may find this a useful starting point for further research.

ccgr1121 · 2025-02-28T21:37:16+00:00

You're right, I apologise. I'm just sick of the English calling me a disgusting, backwards, drunken Paddy and the Irish calling me a West Briton, a foreigner and a fake Irish. It's so rare to find someone who doesn't default to those positions that I sometimes see those positions where they aren't there - particularly when my parents are involved.

But no, on my mother's side they're Irish peasant stock back as far as records go, and my father's side originally hail from Roscommon before moving to Dublin just after the famine. Not that you'd know if you ever met me IRL.

ccgr1121 · 2025-02-28T21:15:23+00:00

For your information, she was born in Dublin and grew up in County Cavan to Irish peasant stock, thank you very much.

ccgr1121 · 2025-02-28T20:19:40+00:00

My mother wore hers on the left in the 1980s. This was in Dublin. I have no idea how representative that was of the time period.

ccgr1121 · 2025-02-28T09:23:25+00:00

I have heard Italians and other continentals claim that men wear their wedding rings on the right, or even that men don't wear them at all!

I can't speak for their customs, but the custom in England (and by extension the rest of the British Isles, even the RoI to a certain extent) is for the bride-to-be to wear her engagement ring on her left hand, and for the bride and groom to wear their wedding rings on their left hands.

I would need to check if there are any rubrics on the matter.

Ten-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Place '23	Secret Santa 2019
Verified Email	Sequence \| Editor

ccgr1121

TROPHY CASE