User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 2:42:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Now this right here is a very interesting and astute point. If the law is unjust, then most of us would sincerely believe that it is no longer a legitimate law. Now, whether that means it should be ignored out of obligation to our conscience is subject to some debate. Some will say "yes", others may say "Leave unto Ceasar...etc". I fall into the camp that I think you do as well; I believe we are not obligated to follow unjust laws. HOWEVER, here is where it becomes a bit sticky for me; There exists a distinction between laws and the Church's promulgation of Faith as defined by its natural authority. This is the line whose boundary I have yet to reconcile. If I consider a law to be unjust, at what point does that law take a subordinate position to a Church proclamation. In this case, I do consider his promulgation quite disturbing and bordering or unjust, if not unjust outright. Still, I have yet to arrive at a conclusion as to which, in this case, would be subordinate to the other. My feelings say that his decision could justly be ignored, but my reason tells me that such an action would be an affront to the Church as the TLM is not an Article of Faith. Again, I believe that TLM should always hold an active place in our Church, perhaps not to an extent that it is holds a primary position, but it should still be widely accessible. So yes, I do not agree or find well-intentioned this decision of his. Quote HistoryQuoted: Now this right here is a very interesting and astute point. If the law is unjust, then most of us would sincerely believe that it is no longer a legitimate law. Now, whether that means it should be ignored out of obligation to our conscience is subject to some debate. Some will say "yes", others may say "Leave unto Ceasar...etc". I fall into the camp that I think you do as well; I believe we are not obligated to follow unjust laws. HOWEVER, here is where it becomes a bit sticky for me; There exists a distinction between laws and the Church's promulgation of Faith as defined by its natural authority. This is the line whose boundary I have yet to reconcile. If I consider a law to be unjust, at what point does that law take a subordinate position to a Church proclamation. In this case, I do consider his promulgation quite disturbing and bordering or unjust, if not unjust outright. Still, I have yet to arrive at a conclusion as to which, in this case, would be subordinate to the other. My feelings say that his decision could justly be ignored, but my reason tells me that such an action would be an affront to the Church as the TLM is not an Article of Faith. Again, I believe that TLM should always hold an active place in our Church, perhaps not to an extent that it is holds a primary position, but it should still be widely accessible. So yes, I do not agree or find well-intentioned this decision of his. The Church teaches we must obey prelates, the only exception being if they ordered the commission of sin. Where do folks find an exception to this? Serious question, If there is one, I want to know too.  I'll re-post this excerpt from the Catechism of the Council of Trent: The Apostle also teaches that they are entitled to obedience: Obey your prelates, and be subject to them; for they watch as being to render an account of your souls. Nay, more. Christ the Lord commands obedience even to wicked pastors: Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the scribes and Pharisees: all things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works do ye not, for they say and do not. This is a cross that Christ has given us. If there's a way out, great, if not, we have to be willing to take up our cross and suffer with Christ. Francis wants us to overreact and rebel and schism. That way he can be rid of those troublesome trads. Don't give him what he wants! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 2:54:33 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I grew up in a very conservative non-instrumental Church of Christ family and congregation. I was later confirmed and married in the Episcopal Church so I have a general understanding of the flow of a catholic mass. Why would I want to attend a religious service spoken in a language I cannot understand? For me personally I would get very little out of that service, it would not engage my mind and my spirt/heart would wander and not focus on the worship. Well, actually, you do know what is said. There are many reasons for the Latin. 1. It is one of the 3 Sacred Languages Blessed by the Blood of Christ. The note on His Cross was written in Greek/Hebrew/Latin. 2. Latin is a pure language. It has not changed in meaning for centuries. Especially since it is not spoken anymore. No curse words, no impure meanings. A spoken language has approx 10-20% of its words meanings change over a few decades. 3. It provides a mystery. A sacredness in this mystery. It brings you away from the world outside, into the realm of Heaven. It solemnly prepares you to commune with God. It allows your human nature to awaken to "oh, wow... this is special". Beauty comes to you with all the senses, the language, music, smells, atmosphere.... it brings you to the foot of the Cross, to look up into Jesus's Eyes & say "I am unworthy of this Sacrifice but thank you for all of it" 4. Plus, it was the language that became universal no matter where in the world you went. You knew exactly what was said. Since it was the language of the greatest Empire at the time. It worked out. That is what you get out of it. Well, at least I do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 3:08:44 PM EDT
[#3]
If He did not want the Church to get away from Latin Mass one would think He would have made a rule about it. And in 2000 years at least one person would have written such a law down.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 3:12:24 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Church teaches we must obey prelates, the only exception being if they ordered the commission of sin. Where do folks find an exception to this? Serious question, If there is one, I want to know too.
I'll re-post this excerpt from the Catechism of the Council of Trent: This is a cross that Christ has given us. If there's a way out, great, if not, we have to be willing to take up our cross and suffer with Christ. Francis wants us to overreact and rebel and schism. That way he can be rid of those troublesome trads. Don't give him what he wants! Quote HistoryQuoted: The Church teaches we must obey prelates, the only exception being if they ordered the commission of sin. Where do folks find an exception to this? Serious question, If there is one, I want to know too.
I'll re-post this excerpt from the Catechism of the Council of Trent: This is a cross that Christ has given us. If there's a way out, great, if not, we have to be willing to take up our cross and suffer with Christ. Francis wants us to overreact and rebel and schism. That way he can be rid of those troublesome trads. Don't give him what he wants! 4. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times. Lies, damned lies and Trent did not demand that we assent to the very mindset which Trent was convened to oppose! Don't be obtuse. Now to the reauthorization of the Tridentine Mass. This endeavour was somewhat timid. Was that because of the resisters within the Church itself? Sure, first because there was a fear of, let’s say, the restoration, and, second, some people who simply misunderstood the reform. It was certainly not as though there would now be another mass. There are two ways to represent it ritually, but they belong to one fundamental rite. I have always said, and even still say, that it was important that something which was previously the most sacred thing in the Church to people should not suddenly be completely forbidden. A society that considers now to be forbidden what it once perceived as the central core – that cannot be. The inner identity it has with the other must remain visible. So for me it was not about tactical matters and God knows what, but about the inward reconciliation of the Church with itself. The reauthorization of the Tridentine Mass is often interpreted primarily as a concession to the Society of St. Pius X. That is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now. The rite must develop. In that sense reform is appropriate. But the continuity must not be ruptured. The Society of St. Pius X is based on the fact that people felt the Church was renouncing itself. That must not be. But as I said, my intentions were not of a tactical nature, they were about the substance of the matter itself. Of course it is also the case that, the moment one sees a Church schism looming the Pope is obliged to do whatever is possible to prevent it happening. This also includes the attempt to lead these people back into unity with the Church, if possible. https://www.saintpetermerchantville.com/post/2017/01/29/pope-benedict-xvi-and-the-latin-mass There is no redemption by carrying the Cross without Calvary; such a thing simply is torture. This action on the part of Bergoglio is a slap at the very people who have bent over backwards to engage in the fetid idea of Conciliar "unity". It doesn't impact anyone who would actually be accusable of fostering disunity. It's like beating your dog because the dog down the street bit your child. It's about as fatherly as Satan, frankly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 3:15:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If He did not want the Church to get away from Latin Mass one would think He would have made a rule about it. And in 2000 years at least one person would have written such a law down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 3:26:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, actually, you do know what is said. There are many reasons for the Latin. 1. It is one of the 3 Sacred Languages Blessed by the Blood of Christ. The note on His Cross was written in Greek/Hebrew/Latin. 2. Latin is a pure language. It has not changed in meaning for centuries. Especially since it is not spoken anymore. No curse words, no impure meanings. A spoken language has approx 10-20% of its words meanings change over a few decades. 3. It provides a mystery. A sacredness in this mystery. It brings you away from the world outside, into the realm of Heaven. It solemnly prepares you to commune with God. It allows your human nature to awaken to "oh, wow... this is special". Beauty comes to you with all the senses, the language, music, smells, atmosphere.... it brings you to the foot of the Cross, to look up into Jesus's Eyes & say "I am unworthy of this Sacrifice but thank you for all of it" 4. Plus, it was the language that became universal no matter where in the world you went. You knew exactly what was said. Since it was the language of the greatest Empire at the time. It worked out. That is what you get out of it. Well, at least I do. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I grew up in a very conservative non-instrumental Church of Christ family and congregation. I was later confirmed and married in the Episcopal Church so I have a general understanding of the flow of a catholic mass. Why would I want to attend a religious service spoken in a language I cannot understand? For me personally I would get very little out of that service, it would not engage my mind and my spirt/heart would wander and not focus on the worship. Well, actually, you do know what is said. There are many reasons for the Latin. 1. It is one of the 3 Sacred Languages Blessed by the Blood of Christ. The note on His Cross was written in Greek/Hebrew/Latin. 2. Latin is a pure language. It has not changed in meaning for centuries. Especially since it is not spoken anymore. No curse words, no impure meanings. A spoken language has approx 10-20% of its words meanings change over a few decades. 3. It provides a mystery. A sacredness in this mystery. It brings you away from the world outside, into the realm of Heaven. It solemnly prepares you to commune with God. It allows your human nature to awaken to "oh, wow... this is special". Beauty comes to you with all the senses, the language, music, smells, atmosphere.... it brings you to the foot of the Cross, to look up into Jesus's Eyes & say "I am unworthy of this Sacrifice but thank you for all of it" 4. Plus, it was the language that became universal no matter where in the world you went. You knew exactly what was said. Since it was the language of the greatest Empire at the time. It worked out. That is what you get out of it. Well, at least I do. 1. Why does the sign over Christ head on the cross make the languages used sacred and why don't we do mass in Greek and Hebrew? 2. This is almost certain false, a quick google search show lots of curses and literature, poems, etc with double meanings in Latin. The language may not be changing but the language it is translated into for me (and others not fluent in Latin) to understand are still living languages and thus it still suffers the same drift in meaning and interpretation. 3. There is plenty of mystery in the nature of God already, I don't need to add extra to it by using a language I do not understand. Someone speaking a language I do not understand just frustrates me, it does not help me focus on God or the worship service. It makes me feel like an outsider and not a welcome participant in the service. 4. Using this logic we should be using Mandarin, Spanish, or English since those are currently the most used languages on the planet currently. IMHO the mass should be accessible and using a dead language does not make it accessible, especially to the new members. YMMV I have attended one or two Catholic Masses done in Latin and a few Spanish in my life and they left me unmoved. Not being able to understand the language made the effort completely pointless to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 3:51:19 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. Why does the sign over Christ head on the cross make the languages used sacred and why don't we do mass in Greek and Hebrew? 2. This is almost certain false, a quick google search show lots of curses and literature, poems, etc with double meanings in Latin. The language may not be changing but the language it is translated into for me (and others not fluent in Latin) to understand are still living languages and thus it still suffers the same drift in meaning and interpretation. 3. There is plenty of mystery in the nature of God already, I don't need to add extra to it by using a language I do not understand. Someone speaking a language I do not understand just frustrates me, it does not help me focus on God or the worship service. It makes me feel like an outsider and not a welcome participant in the service. 4. Using this logic we should be using Mandarin, Spanish, or English since those are currently the most used languages on the planet currently. IMHO the mass should be accessible and using a dead language does not make it accessible, especially to the new members. YMMV I have attended one or two Catholic Masses done in Latin and a few spanish in my life and they left me unmoved. Not being able to understand the language made the effort completely pointless to me. 1) All three languages are represented in the Traditional Mass: Latin (obviously; see above encyclical on why), Greek (Kyrie Eleison, and parts of the Sanctus), Hebrew (retained in a few words in the Sanctus and the Alleluia); other Rites have primarily Greek or Aramaic/Hebrew (I'm not very well versed on the Eastern Rites, admittedly), etc. 2) Abusus non tollit usum (that's to say, abuse does not cancel use); there is a reason science uses (or used?) Latin. We know what the meaning is in any phase of English because we can trace the usage via latin/English dictionaries. Latin simply does not change, while others might, so it provides continuity. 3) You are an observer, primarily, a participant secondarily. It is Calvary, simply. The Priest offers the Sacrifice in persona Christi. If you'd put in a little effort, you would have no problem finding the object of your objection, for which you seek. Personally, I want to pray at Mass, as much as conjunction with the intention of the priest as possible. I have no desire to keep up like I'm a musician being run by a metronome. I want to be able to meditate on things if need be. I have literally no desire to "actively" participate (as it's meant by the deformers). I'd rather actually participate in the Sacrifice as able, which has nothing to do with physically saying something and being a drone. 4) You are missing the point. With a Latin - X language missal (be it Latin to French, Latin to English, Latin - Mandarin, etc.), I can go to any Latin Mass in the world and know what is being said, where things are, etc. in my own language. Again, read John XXIII's encyclical linked above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 3:55:03 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Church teaches we must obey prelates, the only exception being if they ordered the commission of sin. Where do folks find an exception to this? Serious question, If there is one, I want to know too. That way he can be rid of those troublesome trads. Don't give him what he wants! Very good post. I haven't thought of this possible angle. I'm not sure Francis wants a schism, but I do believe he wants an end to the TLM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 4:06:30 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Very good post. I haven't thought of this possible angle. I'm not sure Francis wants a schism, but I do believe he wants an end to the TLM. For many of us, that's exactly what the Novus Ordo is. There are limits to power, authority, and obedience, and such declarations as that of Trent do not assume the disemboweling and defenestration of the Faith as always taught. Contextually, it was made because of prelates who, though not teaching and commanding against the Faith violated the trust of people through immoral actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 4:10:03 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You mean, like.... Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum? My understanding is that this made exceptions where there existed a different Mass liturgy of at least two hundred years of tradition. I believe there was also a provision for some other allowances. In their book, More Catholic than the Pope: An Inside Look at Extreme Traditionalism, Patrick Madrid, and Pete Vere note that: "...although the bull Quo primum contained expressions such as 'Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other Churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world', exceptions were allowed from the start, and not all priests, even of the Latin Rite were obliged to adopt the Missal of Pius V." Now, here is where some people get a bit "tripped up", at least according to Denis Crouan in his work, The History and the Future of the Roman Liturgy. The issue is that while Pope Pius V did say: "By this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it." He also said "No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." this was not the "full stop" some believe it to be. As such, Crouan and other scholars such as James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead in their book, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass have noted that this did not, nor was ever intended, to apply to the Holy See: "By this, he forbade alterations by other authorities, ecclesiastical or civil, or by private individuals. He gives a list of ecclesiastical dignitaries who, he says, may not alter his Missal, even of the level of cardinal ('each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence'), but does not include those of a higher level, that is popes." "He himself altered his Missal when, after the victory of Lepanto in the following year, he added to it the feast of Our Lady of Victory. In 1585, Pope Sixtus V restored the feast of the Presentation of the Virgin Mary, which Pope Pius V had removed from the Missal. Only 34 years after the publication of Quo primum, Pope Clement VIII made a general revision of the Roman Missal, as did Pope Urban VIII 30 years later. The custom of placing tabernacles on altars, introduced later, made it necessary to introduce new rituals not in the missal of Pius V." Incidentally, this is the line of reasoning (at least as I have heard) that the Cardinals and the Pope were operating under when they decided to proceed with Vatican II. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 4:13:23 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it's both too simplistic and intellectual weak to advance that there is a parallel between having the basic tenets of the Mass, which are and have always been present, with the Rites of TLM. That is too great a leap to assert, and a conflation at best. If such were true then the NO, which also has all of the core tenets, is likewise just an extension of TLM. This is obviously not the case. Moreover, even if I were to agree with crux of your three points, which would again require quite a stretch, that would still only make the "TLM" in its present form date to the 1300s. Thus, it would be a very sacred and holy institution that comprises roughly 650 years of the Church's 2000 year history. Again, the Church is Christ, and its mass is a product of both Christ and the Church; The Mass is not the Church. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm not saying you're wrong, but taking this opportunity to explain to other members in this thread that you're wrong.  Seriously though, if you're proposing that the traditional Mass did not come through the centuries unchanged from the apostolic times until 1962, obviously, I agree, and no one is making that claim. If you are proposing that the traditional Mass is a PSPV creation, you are wrong. Tridentine is not an accurate name for it, but an acceptable ones. Other names for it you may encounter are Gregorian Mass, Mass of the Ages, usus antiquior, etc. A few key things to look at: 1. PSPV encoded what was verifiably at least 200 years old (200 years before him). Therefore, not a XVI century innovation. It was not even his creation. He merely standardized some things, yet allowed many of the religious orders to retain their own versions. These versions vary so little that the untrained Catholic may not even notice the differences. These are the types of differences that he dealt with at his time. So, if he went back to at least 200 years, was it a XIV century innovation then? Nope. The Canon of the Mass, which is the heart of the Mass (which PPVI desecrated), came from at least as early as the canon of PSGtG (hence, Gregorian Mass), just shy of a full millennium before PSPV. The changes among the centuries were so small that most Catholics would not have noticed them through the course of their lifetime. 2. Other popes made minor changes both before and after PSPV. Heck, St. Thomas Aquinas not only celebrated the same Mass, but he actually wrote the propers for the Feast of Corpus Christi, which we still use today in the old Mass. I know of no traditional Catholics that have a problem with careful changes that do not alter the form the substantially and that are consistent with Catholic tradition. What we have a problem with is with the careless or wanton disregard of one of the key components of tradition and its replacement with something new that was heavily influenced by protestantism and secularism. 3. As far as I know, we only know of one change that PSGtG made to the Canon during his reign, which points to the fact that it is much older. Most scholars I'm aware of seem to narrow it down to around 400 AD when the Mass was mostly crystalized in its current form. Minor modification across the centuries, of course, do not constitute a change of form, which is what the new Mass gave us. I think it's both too simplistic and intellectual weak to advance that there is a parallel between having the basic tenets of the Mass, which are and have always been present, with the Rites of TLM. That is too great a leap to assert, and a conflation at best. If such were true then the NO, which also has all of the core tenets, is likewise just an extension of TLM. This is obviously not the case. Moreover, even if I were to agree with crux of your three points, which would again require quite a stretch, that would still only make the "TLM" in its present form date to the 1300s. Thus, it would be a very sacred and holy institution that comprises roughly 650 years of the Church's 2000 year history. Again, the Church is Christ, and its mass is a product of both Christ and the Church; The Mass is not the Church. I've drafted a few different replies to this, but they ended either in an uncharitable tone or exercise in frustration over explaining the most basic things about the Mass. How about you pick two books from the list below and I'll send you the money to buy them? I guarantee that my previous post will make more sense after you understand the components and history of the Mass better. The Traditional Mass by Michael Fiedrowicz The Traditional Mass Explained by Dom Prosper Gueranger Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski Pope Paul's New Mass by Michael Davies |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 4:18:54 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've drafted a few different replies to this, but they ended either in an uncharitable tone or exercise in frustration over explaining the most basic things about the Mass. How about you pick two books from the list below and I'll send you the money to buy them? I guarantee that my previous post will make more sense after you understand the components and history of the Mass better. The Traditional Mass by Michael Fiedrowicz The Traditional Mass Explained by Dom Prosper Gueranger Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski Pope Paul's New Mass by Michael Davies I appreciate the offer very much, and I thank you for your kindness. I'll decline however and buy them myself. I have some credits on Audible and a gift card to Amazon. Thank you again though! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 4:19:44 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My understanding is that this made exceptions where there existed a different Mass liturgy of at least two hundred years of tradition. I believe there was also a provision for some other allowances. In their book, More Catholic than the Pope: An Inside Look at Extreme Traditionalism, Patrick Madrid, and Pete Vere note that: "...although the bull Quo primum contained expressions such as 'Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other Churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world', exceptions were allowed from the start, and not all priests, even of the Latin Rite were obliged to adopt the Missal of Pius V." Now, here is where some people get a bit "tripped up", at least according to Denis Crouan in his work, The History and the Future of the Roman Liturgy. The issue is that Pope Pius V did say: "By this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it." He also said "No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." However, Crouan and other scholars such as James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead in their book, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass have noted that this did not, nor was ever intended, to apply to the Holy See: "By this, he forbade alterations by other authorities, ecclesiastical or civil, or by private individuals. He gives a list of ecclesiastical dignitaries who, he says, may not alter his Missal, even of the level of cardinal ('each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence'), but does not include those of a higher level, that is popes." "He himself altered his Missal when, after the victory of Lepanto in the following year, he added to it the feast of Our Lady of Victory. In 1585, Pope Sixtus V restored the feast of the Presentation of the Virgin Mary, which Pope Pius V had removed from the Missal. Only 34 years after the publication of Quo primum, Pope Clement VIII made a general revision of the Roman Missal, as did Pope Urban VIII 30 years later. The custom of placing tabernacles on altars, introduced later, made it necessary to introduce new rituals not in the missal of Pius V." No one claims (as far as I know) that a Pope cannot introduce another rite or form of the Mass, or otherwise modify them. That's kind of a red herring. This is a heavily layered subject. We will not solve it in this thread, as multiple men with PhD's and other high levels of academic background still have no nailed down exactly what these limits are. Patrick Madrid is best for answering Jack Chick-levels of objections. He is not competent to begin approaching this, as he is doing nothing more than repackaging talking points which academics with far more experience than him have proffered and arrived at an impasse when arguing it amongst themselves. Also, as far as the Novus Ordo, the jettisoning of the Traditional Mass and replacement with something essentially already developed by committee is in direct contradiction to Sacrosanctum Concilium as I quoted earlier, and as Benedict has been quoted as saying was problematic, and as far as the Traditional Mass, was never meant to be tossed out like yesterday's trash. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 4:22:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I grew up in a very conservative non-instrumental Church of Christ family and congregation. I was later confirmed and married in the Episcopal Church so I have a general understanding of the flow of a catholic mass. Why would I want to attend a religious service spoken in a language I cannot understand? For me personally I would get very little out of that service, it would not engage my mind and my spirt/heart would wander and not focus on the worship. notsureifserious.jpg Everything that you typed after that statement proves that you do not have a general understanding of Mass. Mass is primarily and essentially a sacrifice offered to God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 4:25:12 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This doesn't comport with what Benedict XVI himself said as far as completely getting rid of the Traditional Mass as well as the problem with the synthetic development of the Novus Ordo, which was the point being addressed. I agree with you on this point completely. There is no justification for going after TLM. And no, I understand that Patrick Madrid is not a top tier scholar, but he is a scholar and is accurate in almost all of his work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 4:25:52 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mass is primarily and essentially a sacrifice offered to God. This is correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 4:36:06 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've drafted a few different replies to this, but they ended either in an uncharitable tone or exercise in frustration over explaining the most basic things about the Mass. How about you pick two books from the list below and I'll send you the money to buy them? I guarantee that my previous post will make more sense after you understand the components and history of the Mass better. The Traditional Mass by Michael Fiedrowicz The Traditional Mass Explained by Dom Prosper Gueranger Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski Pope Paul's New Mass by Michael Davies I'd possibly add to the list The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Fr. Michael Mueller, C.SS.R https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Sacrifice-Mass-Michael-Mueller-ebook/dp/B010CIN952 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 4:37:16 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Very good post. I haven't thought of this possible angle. I'm not sure Francis wants a schism, but I do believe he wants an end to the TLM. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Church teaches we must obey prelates, the only exception being if they ordered the commission of sin. Where do folks find an exception to this? Serious question, If there is one, I want to know too. That way he can be rid of those troublesome trads. Don't give him what he wants! Very good post. I haven't thought of this possible angle. I'm not sure Francis wants a schism, but I do believe he wants an end to the TLM. Actually, I believe he was quoted as saying he would be the Pope remembered for bringing about a schism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 4:47:49 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: notsureifserious.jpg Everything that you typed after that statement proves that you do not have a general understanding of Mass. Mass is primarily and essentially a sacrifice offered to God. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I grew up in a very conservative non-instrumental Church of Christ family and congregation. I was later confirmed and married in the Episcopal Church so I have a general understanding of the flow of a catholic mass. Why would I want to attend a religious service spoken in a language I cannot understand? For me personally I would get very little out of that service, it would not engage my mind and my spirt/heart would wander and not focus on the worship. notsureifserious.jpg Everything that you typed after that statement proves that you do not have a general understanding of Mass. Mass is primarily and essentially a sacrifice offered to God. How can I make a sacrifice offering to God if I do not understand what is being said? That seem completely pointless. ETA Remember I grew up in a church that was about as far from the Catholic Church as you can get and still be loosely defined as a Christian. The Episcopal church though much closer to the Catholic Church in much of its doctrine and service is far far less familiar to me than what I grew up with. In the Church of Christ I grew up in we had no service explicitly laid out in a prayer book. We change the order of the service frequently (songs, communion, sermon) and the communion was almost never the same, from one service to the next. I have a tough enough time paying attention to the same four services in the Episcopal prayer book as the repetition does not engage my brain, that repetition in another language would do that even faster. I am far more engage by the much more extemporaneous services I grew up with though I am no longer quite that conservative in my beliefs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 4:49:57 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How can I make a sacrifice offering to God if I do not understand what is being said. That seem completely pointless. It's the same words, or set of words, in every mass. Your'e not listening to some Pastor's sermon, and the readings and some other portions are (or can be) in the vernacular. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 4:51:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How can I make a sacrifice offering to God if I do not understand what is being said. That seem completely pointless. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I grew up in a very conservative non-instrumental Church of Christ family and congregation. I was later confirmed and married in the Episcopal Church so I have a general understanding of the flow of a catholic mass. Why would I want to attend a religious service spoken in a language I cannot understand? For me personally I would get very little out of that service, it would not engage my mind and my spirt/heart would wander and not focus on the worship. notsureifserious.jpg Everything that you typed after that statement proves that you do not have a general understanding of Mass. Mass is primarily and essentially a sacrifice offered to God. How can I make a sacrifice offering to God if I do not understand what is being said. That seem completely pointless. It's not us offering the sacrifice; it's the priest. We're just blessed enough to see it, hear it, smell it, unite our own prayers to it, and of course, reap the graces that flow therefrom. From page 1: ETA: Lest we lose track of the bigger picture, it is not necessary (though certainly beneficial) for the laity to hear or understand the [some of the] words in the Mass. In other words: L1: "I cannot hear what the priest is saying." L2: "Don't worry about it; he's not talking to you."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 5:02:57 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, I believe he was quoted as saying he would be the Pope remembered for bringing about a schism. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Church teaches we must obey prelates, the only exception being if they ordered the commission of sin. Where do folks find an exception to this? Serious question, If there is one, I want to know too. That way he can be rid of those troublesome trads. Don't give him what he wants! Very good post. I haven't thought of this possible angle. I'm not sure Francis wants a schism, but I do believe he wants an end to the TLM. Actually, I believe he was quoted as saying he would be the Pope remembered for bringing about a schism. Wow. I don't understand why any pope would say something like that. PJPII was terrified at the thought of having his name associated with a schism (I suppose not terrified enough as to grant bishops to the SSPX, but I don't believe he took pleasure in that conflict). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 5:08:42 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not us offering the sacrifice; it's the priest. We're just blessed enough to see it, hear it, smell it, unite our own prayers to it, and of course, reap the graces that flow therefrom. From page 1: ETA: Lest we lose track of the bigger picture, it is not necessary (though certainly beneficial) for the laity to hear or understand the [some of the] words in the Mass. In other words: L1: "I cannot hear what the priest is saying." L2: "Don't worry about it; he's not talking to you." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I grew up in a very conservative non-instrumental Church of Christ family and congregation. I was later confirmed and married in the Episcopal Church so I have a general understanding of the flow of a catholic mass. Why would I want to attend a religious service spoken in a language I cannot understand? For me personally I would get very little out of that service, it would not engage my mind and my spirt/heart would wander and not focus on the worship. notsureifserious.jpg Everything that you typed after that statement proves that you do not have a general understanding of Mass. Mass is primarily and essentially a sacrifice offered to God. How can I make a sacrifice offering to God if I do not understand what is being said. That seem completely pointless. It's not us offering the sacrifice; it's the priest. We're just blessed enough to see it, hear it, smell it, unite our own prayers to it, and of course, reap the graces that flow therefrom. From page 1: ETA: Lest we lose track of the bigger picture, it is not necessary (though certainly beneficial) for the laity to hear or understand the [some of the] words in the Mass. In other words: L1: "I cannot hear what the priest is saying." L2: "Don't worry about it; he's not talking to you." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 5:14:27 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not us offering the sacrifice; it's the priest. We're just blessed enough to see it, hear it, smell it, unite our own prayers to it, and of course, reap the graces that flow therefrom. From page 1: ETA: Lest we lose track of the bigger picture, it is not necessary (though certainly beneficial) for the laity to hear or understand the [some of the] words in the Mass. In other words: L1: "I cannot hear what the priest is saying." L2: "Don't worry about it; he's not talking to you." https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/07/20/latin-mass-deaf-catholic-access-liturgy-241084 And in "America" magazine of all things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 5:51:44 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not us offering the sacrifice; it's the priest. We're just blessed enough to see it, hear it, smell it, unite our own prayers to it, and of course, reap the graces that flow therefrom. From page 1: ETA: Lest we lose track of the bigger picture, it is not necessary (though certainly beneficial) for the laity to hear or understand the [some of the] words in the Mass. In other words: L1: "I cannot hear what the priest is saying." L2: "Don't worry about it; he's not talking to you." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I grew up in a very conservative non-instrumental Church of Christ family and congregation. I was later confirmed and married in the Episcopal Church so I have a general understanding of the flow of a catholic mass. Why would I want to attend a religious service spoken in a language I cannot understand? For me personally I would get very little out of that service, it would not engage my mind and my spirt/heart would wander and not focus on the worship. notsureifserious.jpg Everything that you typed after that statement proves that you do not have a general understanding of Mass. Mass is primarily and essentially a sacrifice offered to God. How can I make a sacrifice offering to God if I do not understand what is being said. That seem completely pointless. It's not us offering the sacrifice; it's the priest. We're just blessed enough to see it, hear it, smell it, unite our own prayers to it, and of course, reap the graces that flow therefrom. From page 1: ETA: Lest we lose track of the bigger picture, it is not necessary (though certainly beneficial) for the laity to hear or understand the [some of the] words in the Mass. In other words: L1: "I cannot hear what the priest is saying." L2: "Don't worry about it; he's not talking to you." Also there are missals and online tools that provide things side by side in Latin and English. A paperback missal with the Oridnary of the Mass - parts that don't change - is $13. There are web sites that have the propers (readings and prayers that change every week) available for free. You can follow on your phone or print them out. There are nicer missals that have the oridnary, the propers, an explanation of the Mass, several prayers and devotions for $60-$100 with leather/pleather covers. Because the TLM lectionary is more compact than the NO, these missals are about the size of a bible. As the TLM's popularity has mushroomed, there is now even a monthly magazine-style publication that will have the ordinary and propers for the Mass and some articles as well (I think). I was completely lost at my first Mass. i had no idea how quiet it would be. By the third time, I was following without much trouble. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 6:55:13 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah that seems total foreign to me. Remember I grew up in a church with no priests, my congregation was so small and poor we did not even have full time paid preacher. Several of the older men in the congregation would rotate through leading the service and giving the sermon. My exposure to the Episcopal church, I have always seen it as the priest is leading the congregation in the mass not doing it for us. But I think at this point there are some basic underlying assumptions and beliefs that are way out of alignment between what Catholics believe here and what my bastardization of my fundamental up bring and conversion to the Episcopal faith has left me with. My wife is Church of Christ traditional; One cup, no instruments, no Bible study, women wear skirts and never cut their hair etc. I know where you're coming from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 7:33:16 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ---- Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2nd Vatican Council Lies, damned lies and Trent did not demand that we assent to the very mindset which Trent was convened to oppose! Don't be obtuse. Benedict XVI: Last Will and Testament, interview with Peter Seewald https://www.saintpetermerchantville.com/post/2017/01/29/pope-benedict-xvi-and-the-latin-mass There is no redemption by carrying the Cross without Calvary; such a thing simply is torture. This action on the part of Bergoglio is a slap at the very people who have bent over backwards to engage in the fetid idea of Conciliar "unity". It doesn't impact anyone who would actually be accusable of fostering disunity. It's like beating your dog because the dog down the street bit your child. It's about as fatherly as Satan, frankly. Thanks but I'm not sure that answered my question. I agree completely with Pope Benedict and that the new mass did not do a good job in keeping with the council documents! How does that authorize me to disobey my Bishop and Pope if they say "no Latin Mass for you?" I seriously want to know. I would much rather thumb my nose at them and attend some off grid basement Latin Mass, but my understanding of Catholicism is that isn't the Catholic thing to do. It is my understanding from Scripture and Tradition that we are to obey our shepherds even when they are cruel and wicked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 8:16:39 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How does that authorize me to disobey my Bishop and Pope if they say "no Latin Mass for you?" I seriously want to know. I would much rather thumb my nose at them and attend some off grid basement Latin Mass, but my understanding of Catholicism is that isn't the Catholic thing to do. It is my understanding from Scripture and Tradition that we are to obey our shepherds even when they are cruel and wicked. I agree with you. We have to obey in matters pertaining to the practice of the faith. Doesn’t stop anyone from running over to an adjacent diocese where the bishop allows TLM nor does it stop the faithful from petitioning their clergy or withholding their donations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 8:16:56 PM EDT
[#29]
Double
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 9:47:38 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How does that authorize me to disobey my Bishop and Pope if they say "no Latin Mass for you?" I seriously want to know. I would much rather thumb my nose at them and attend some off grid basement Latin Mass, but my understanding of Catholicism is that isn't the Catholic thing to do. It is my understanding from Scripture and Tradition that we are to obey our shepherds even when they are cruel and wicked. I wouldn't go so far as to say, "even when they are cruel and wicked", but yes, we are obey the Church. Period. And this decision may be unjust, inappropriate, and aggressive, but it is not YET "cruel" or "wicked". |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 9:50:26 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree with you. We have to obey in matters pertaining to the practice of the faith. Doesn’t stop anyone from running over to an adjacent diocese where the bishop allows TLM nor does it stop the faithful from petitioning their clergy.. Well said, and I hope and pray that TLM survives and thrives despite the Pope's action. But as to this part: "...or withholding their donations.", I am not in agreement. The Church is to be given what we can insofar as alms or "tithing" is concerned as this is/was Christ's charge, not the Church's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 10:12:50 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well said, and I hope and pray that TLM survives and thrives despite the Pope's action. But as to this part: "...or withholding their donations.", I am not in agreement. The Church is to be given what we can insofar as alms or "tithing" is concerned as this is/was Christ's charge, not the Church's. None of that compels me to contribute to immoral or misused funds. After what I've seen the Fracis pontificate do with Peter's Pence, that fund won't see one thin dime of my money. If I am compelled to attend an irreverent liturgy that violates Catholic teaching, that parish will get a minimum of money to cover the expense of having me attend. The rest of my money will either go to bishops or clergy that deserve it or directly to the poor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 10:17:17 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If I am compelled to attend an irreverent liturgy that ciolates Catholic teaching, that parish will get a minimum of money to cover the expense of having me attend. The rest of my money will either go to bishops or clergy that deserve it or directly to the poor. Again, well said and IMO a very wise and "just" course of action. Unfortunately, I think many would just abandon the Church or refrain from their alms altogether. Let's hope Francis doesn't push it this far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 10:35:05 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, well said and IMO a very wise and "just" course of action. Unfortunately, I think many would just abandon the Church or refrain from their alms altogether. Let's hope Francis doesn't push it this far. No, we are called to be charitable. Frankly we need to be so for our own souls' sakes more than the benefit of others. We are not called to give those resources to those who will misuse them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 10:45:00 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, we are called to be charitable. Frankly we need to be so for our own souls' sakes more than the benefit of others. We are not called to give those resources to those who will misuse them. I stopped tithing to my local priest because of him refusing Eucharist to my family and I. I hated it because our community needed funds, but I used direct action giving, when they needed something. I also, picked multiple online groups that were fighting & supporting the Faith. Am I in the wrong here? Honest question. Not trying to be rigid. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 10:55:36 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I stopped tithing to my local priest because of him refusing Eucharist to my family and I. I hated it because our community needed funds, but I used direct action giving, when they needed something. I also, picked multiple online groups that were fighting & supporting the Faith. Am I in the wrong here? Honest question. Not trying to be rigid. I haven't really researched this or thought about it deeply because I haven't had this issue. That said, I think it may come down to your intention. Is it vindictive or are you trying to apply correction? Laity don't have many tools at their disposal to use on clergy: prayer, encouragement, criticism, reports to their seniors. Depending on his disposition, $$$ may be all you have to work with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 11:07:55 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I haven't really researched this or thought about it deeply because I haven't had this issue. That said, I think it may come down to your intention. Is it vindictive or are you trying to apply correction? Laity don't have many tools at their disposal to use on clergy: prayer, encouragement, criticism, reports to their seniors. Depending on his disposition, $$$ may be all you have to work with. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I stopped tithing to my local priest because of him refusing Eucharist to my family and I. I hated it because our community needed funds, but I used direct action giving, when they needed something. I also, picked multiple online groups that were fighting & supporting the Faith. Am I in the wrong here? Honest question. Not trying to be rigid. I haven't really researched this or thought about it deeply because I haven't had this issue. That said, I think it may come down to your intention. Is it vindictive or are you trying to apply correction? Laity don't have many tools at their disposal to use on clergy: prayer, encouragement, criticism, reports to their seniors. Depending on his disposition, $$$ may be all you have to work with. It is not vindictive in the sense that I still love my priest and pray for him daily. But, he does not deserve my financial charity. Others that are furthering the Faith are who my hard earned $ should go to, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 11:16:17 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That was painful. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's real. Here's Fr Matt explaining All Saints in Walton's cancellation. Starts at 1:55 in.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TygqXbMTMsYThat was painful. Also, it just occurred to me that Bp. Foys is the one who threw Nick Sandmann under the bus within 24 hours and then refused to apologize when the true facts emerged. Not surprised. Glad he's on his way out and I hope his successor will be more worth of the see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 11:21:24 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also, it just occurred to me that Bp. Foys is the one who threw Nick Sandmann under the bus within 24 hours and then refused to apologize when the true facts emerged. Not surprised. Glad he's on his way out and I hope his successor will be more worth of the see. If this is the case, then I am in agreement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 11:29:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I haven't really researched this or thought about it deeply because I haven't had this issue. That said, I think it may come down to your intention. Is it vindictive or are you trying to apply correction? Laity don't have many tools at their disposal to use on clergy: prayer, encouragement, criticism, reports to their seniors. Depending on his disposition, $$$ may be all you have to work with. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I stopped tithing to my local priest because of him refusing Eucharist to my family and I. I hated it because our community needed funds, but I used direct action giving, when they needed something. I also, picked multiple online groups that were fighting & supporting the Faith. Am I in the wrong here? Honest question. Not trying to be rigid. I haven't really researched this or thought about it deeply because I haven't had this issue. That said, I think it may come down to your intention. Is it vindictive or are you trying to apply correction? Laity don't have many tools at their disposal to use on clergy: prayer, encouragement, criticism, reports to their seniors. Depending on his disposition, $$$ may be all you have to work with. This is how I've heard it explained from multiple priests. Further, the precept is to provide for the material needs of the Church according to one's ability. It is not necessarily financial, but in our American society, that is pretty much the default. Further, the Church is big; there are plenty of good parishes (and you can earmark it for a specific fund or just parish only), orders, religious communities, and hermitages that are worth supporting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 11:37:41 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If this is the case, then I am in agreement. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Also, it just occurred to me that Bp. Foys is the one who threw Nick Sandmann under the bus within 24 hours and then refused to apologize when the true facts emerged. Not surprised. Glad he's on his way out and I hope his successor will be more worth of the see. If this is the case, then I am in agreement. Well, I'll be. I don't generally open my mouth unless I'm highly certain of something, but I was clearly wrong in this case. Bp. Foys did apologize. 'I especially apologize to Nicholas Sandmann and his family as well as to all CovCath families who have felt abandoned during this ordeal. Nicholas unfortunately has become the face of these allegations based on video clips,” said Foys. “This is not fair. This is not just.' I remember Sandmann and his lawyers saying that they were going to go after the diocese too if they didn't retract their condemnation, but don't recall the Bp. Foys ever apologizing. Either way, my fault, and glad to be proven wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2021 11:46:47 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How can I make a sacrifice offering to God if I do not understand what is being said? That seem completely pointless. ETA Remember I grew up in a church that was about as far from the Catholic Church as you can get and still be loosely defined a Christian. The Episcopal church though much closer to the Catholic Church in much of its doctrine and service is far far less familiar to me than what I grew up with. In the Church of Christ I grew up in we had no service explicitly layout in a pray book. We change the order of the service frequently (songs, communion, sermon) and the communion was almost never the same from one service to the next. I have a tough enough time paying attention to the same four services in the Episcopal pray book as the repetition does not engage my brain, that repitition in another language would do that even faster. I am far more engage by the much more extemporaneous service I grew up with though I am no longer quite that conservative in my beliefs. The ETA was not there when I quoted you the first time. Unfortunately, you don't have many regular traditional Mass options in Alabama, and with this motu proprio they may even be suspended, but if you get a chance, try to attend a Sung/High or Solemn High Mass even if simply as you would go to theater. Don't even try to keep up. Just watch, listen, smell, and pray if you can. If you still don't feel engaged or connected in some way, you might be a ginger. A large group of mostly non-Catholics artists actually petitioned Pope Paul VI to not abrogate the old Mass on account of its artistic and cultural values. Even non-Catholics knew it for the gem that it is. ETA: In case it helps, if you're in the central part, the Blessed Sacrament in Birmingham is a beautiful church, but I've only been there for a low Mass so I cannot comment on their schola. If you're south, there's an SSPX chapel in Miramar Beach, FL. I have not been to a high Mass there either, but if they do a high Mass, chances are that it's done well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2021 9:25:38 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The ETA was not there when I quoted you the first time. Unfortunately, you don't have many regular traditional Mass options in Alabama, and with this motu proprio they may even be suspended, but if you get a chance, try to attend a Sung/High or Solemn High Mass even if simply as you would go to theater. Don't even try to keep up. Just watch, listen, smell, and pray if you can. If you still don't feel engaged or connected in some way, you might be a ginger. A large group of mostly non-Catholics artists actually petitioned Pope Paul VI to not abrogate the old Mass on account of its artistic and cultural values. Even non-Catholics knew it for the gem that it is. ETA: In case it helps, if you're in the central part, the Blessed Sacrament in Birmingham is a beautiful church, but I've only been there for a low Mass so I cannot comment on their schola. If you're south, there's an SSPX chapel in Miramar Beach, FL. I have not been to a high Mass there either, but if they do a high Mass, chances are that it's done well. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How can I make a sacrifice offering to God if I do not understand what is being said? That seem completely pointless. ETA Remember I grew up in a church that was about as far from the Catholic Church as you can get and still be loosely defined a Christian. The Episcopal church though much closer to the Catholic Church in much of its doctrine and service is far far less familiar to me than what I grew up with. In the Church of Christ I grew up in we had no service explicitly layout in a pray book. We change the order of the service frequently (songs, communion, sermon) and the communion was almost never the same from one service to the next. I have a tough enough time paying attention to the same four services in the Episcopal pray book as the repetition does not engage my brain, that repitition in another language would do that even faster. I am far more engage by the much more extemporaneous service I grew up with though I am no longer quite that conservative in my beliefs. The ETA was not there when I quoted you the first time. Unfortunately, you don't have many regular traditional Mass options in Alabama, and with this motu proprio they may even be suspended, but if you get a chance, try to attend a Sung/High or Solemn High Mass even if simply as you would go to theater. Don't even try to keep up. Just watch, listen, smell, and pray if you can. If you still don't feel engaged or connected in some way, you might be a ginger. A large group of mostly non-Catholics artists actually petitioned Pope Paul VI to not abrogate the old Mass on account of its artistic and cultural values. Even non-Catholics knew it for the gem that it is. ETA: In case it helps, if you're in the central part, the Blessed Sacrament in Birmingham is a beautiful church, but I've only been there for a low Mass so I cannot comment on their schola. If you're south, there's an SSPX chapel in Miramar Beach, FL. I have not been to a high Mass there either, but if they do a high Mass, chances are that it's done well. The Episcopal church I was a member of in Ohio was a very High Church (high and low was pretty new to me then) and did the Episcopal equivalent of the Sung/High Mass frequently. They used the chain censer, wore all the fancy robs, procession etc. It was a nice service but it was done in English. I have no doubt that a High Catholic mass in the right congregation would be even more grand than what I experience with that Episcopal congregation and no doubt the Latin would add a certain flair to, as you put it, the "theater" of the service but for me personally it would be far to easy to tune it out after the novelty of that service wore off. I need to be able to follow along to keep my mind focused on the service. I am sure some of that is simply what we have become accustom too and our personalities. My engineering brain needs something to engage with and a language I do not under stand would simply frustrate that aspect of who I am. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2021 10:31:04 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I married the ginger, a Catholic ginger at that. I am in norther Alabama The Episcopal church I was a member of in Ohio was a very High Church (high and low was pretty new to me then) and did the Episcopal equivalent of the Sung/High Mass frequently. They used the chain censer, wore all the fancy robs, procession etc. It was a nice service but it was done in English. I have no doubt that a High Catholic mass in the right congregation would be even more grand than what I experience with that Episcopal congregation and no doubt the Latin would add a certain flair to, as you put it, the "theater" of the service but for me personally it would be far to easy to tune it out after the novelty of that service wore off. I need to be able to follow along to keep my mind focused on the service. I am sure some of that is simply what we have become accustom too and our personalities. My engineering brain needs something to engage with and a language I do not under stand would simply frustrate that aspect of who I am. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: How can I make a sacrifice offering to God if I do not understand what is being said? That seem completely pointless. ETA Remember I grew up in a church that was about as far from the Catholic Church as you can get and still be loosely defined a Christian. The Episcopal church though much closer to the Catholic Church in much of its doctrine and service is far far less familiar to me than what I grew up with. In the Church of Christ I grew up in we had no service explicitly layout in a pray book. We change the order of the service frequently (songs, communion, sermon) and the communion was almost never the same from one service to the next. I have a tough enough time paying attention to the same four services in the Episcopal pray book as the repetition does not engage my brain, that repitition in another language would do that even faster. I am far more engage by the much more extemporaneous service I grew up with though I am no longer quite that conservative in my beliefs. The ETA was not there when I quoted you the first time. Unfortunately, you don't have many regular traditional Mass options in Alabama, and with this motu proprio they may even be suspended, but if you get a chance, try to attend a Sung/High or Solemn High Mass even if simply as you would go to theater. Don't even try to keep up. Just watch, listen, smell, and pray if you can. If you still don't feel engaged or connected in some way, you might be a ginger. A large group of mostly non-Catholics artists actually petitioned Pope Paul VI to not abrogate the old Mass on account of its artistic and cultural values. Even non-Catholics knew it for the gem that it is. ETA: In case it helps, if you're in the central part, the Blessed Sacrament in Birmingham is a beautiful church, but I've only been there for a low Mass so I cannot comment on their schola. If you're south, there's an SSPX chapel in Miramar Beach, FL. I have not been to a high Mass there either, but if they do a high Mass, chances are that it's done well. The Episcopal church I was a member of in Ohio was a very High Church (high and low was pretty new to me then) and did the Episcopal equivalent of the Sung/High Mass frequently. They used the chain censer, wore all the fancy robs, procession etc. It was a nice service but it was done in English. I have no doubt that a High Catholic mass in the right congregation would be even more grand than what I experience with that Episcopal congregation and no doubt the Latin would add a certain flair to, as you put it, the "theater" of the service but for me personally it would be far to easy to tune it out after the novelty of that service wore off. I need to be able to follow along to keep my mind focused on the service. I am sure some of that is simply what we have become accustom too and our personalities. My engineering brain needs something to engage with and a language I do not under stand would simply frustrate that aspect of who I am. I hear you, and as H46Driver pointed out previously, that's one of the reasons why we have Latin/English missals. It doesn't surprise me that the Episcopal Church does a beautiful service (although the Catholic Church does not consider it valid due to lack of ministry). I've witnessed the Anglican Mass a couple of times in churches that rejoined the Catholic church during the pontificate of BXVI. I was surprised at how similar it is to the traditional Mass. I guess it makes sense since they did not undergo the liturgical abuse that the Catholic Church did 50 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2021 10:43:40 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I married the ginger, a Catholic ginger at that. I am in norther Alabama The Episcopal church I was a member of in Ohio was a very High Church (high and low was pretty new to me then) and did the Episcopal equivalent of the Sung/High Mass frequently. They used the chain censer, wore all the fancy robs, procession etc. It was a nice service but it was done in English. I have no doubt that a High Catholic mass in the right congregation would be even more grand than what I experience with that Episcopal congregation and no doubt the Latin would add a certain flair to, as you put it, the "theater" of the service but for me personally it would be far to easy to tune it out after the novelty of that service wore off. I need to be able to follow along to keep my mind focused on the service. I am sure some of that is simply what we have become accustom too and our personalities. My engineering brain needs something to engage with and a language I do not under stand would simply frustrate that aspect of who I am. Check out Our Lady Help of Christians in Huntsville and Christ the King Monastery in Cullman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2021 10:52:35 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow... this deaf woman gets it and understands participation and the universality of the Traditional Mass: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/07/20/latin-mass-deaf-catholic-access-liturgy-241084 And in "America" magazine of all things. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It's not us offering the sacrifice; it's the priest. We're just blessed enough to see it, hear it, smell it, unite our own prayers to it, and of course, reap the graces that flow therefrom. From page 1: ETA: Lest we lose track of the bigger picture, it is not necessary (though certainly beneficial) for the laity to hear or understand the [some of the] words in the Mass. In other words: L1: "I cannot hear what the priest is saying." L2: "Don't worry about it; he's not talking to you." Wow... this deaf woman gets it and understands participation and the universality of the Traditional Mass: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/07/20/latin-mass-deaf-catholic-access-liturgy-241084 And in "America" magazine of all things. I started reading that article and thought, "What the hell kind of TLM parish does she go to."  Nice find. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2021 11:14:33 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you are proposing that the traditional Mass is a PSPV creation, you are wrong. Tridentine is not an accurate name for it, but an acceptable ones. Other names for it you may encounter are Gregorian Mass, Mass of the Ages, usus antiquior, etc. A few key things to look at: 1. PSPV encoded what was verifiably at least 200 years old (200 years before him). Therefore, not a XVI century innovation. It was not even his creation. He merely standardized some things, yet allowed many of the religious orders to retain their own versions. These versions vary so little that the untrained Catholic may not even notice the differences. These are the types of differences that he dealt with at his time. So, if he went back to at least 200 years, was it a XIV century innovation then? Nope. The Canon of the Mass, which is the heart of the Mass (which PPVI desecrated), came from at least as early as the canon of PSGtG (hence, Gregorian Mass), just shy of a full millennium before PSPV. The changes among the centuries were so small that most Catholics would not have noticed them through the course of their lifetime. This is a good post. Plenty of Lib/Left Caths gloating all over social media that "Well Pope Pius V changed the Mass to the TLM and got rid of what came before so Francis can do the same thing". Like most of the things these people say, it's true, but only on the surface. Pius V codified the liturgy to eliminate abuses and innovations that had crept into Catholic liturgy in and around the Protestant Reformation. He purged these novelties from the liturgy while preserving the older form. The NOM is the exact opposite of what Pius V did. It swept in novelty in both the liturgy and the sacraments, eliminating more than half of the intercessory prayers of the mass, demolishing the offertory, and bringing the liturgy much closer to a Lutheran Lord's Supper than to the Mass that preceded it. Solemn exorcisms eliminated from the sacrament of baptism, etc. Someone else posted about the high church Anglican mass. That liturgy was drawn from the TLM and put in the vernacular. It is available to Catholics today who belong to Ordinariate churches (Anglican reverts to the RCC), which will probably be the next to draw the withering gaze of our papal Sauron. The Ordinariate Mass was not subject to the innovations inspired by V2 and the missal of Paul VI so it retains tradition: ad orientum orientation, communion kneeling on the tongue at an altar rail, etc. if this is what Bugnini and his comrades had produced, the number of TLM devotees and holdouts would have been a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of Catholics devoted to the TLM in 1970. I can only surmise that such a liturgy was not revolutionary enough for these men. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2021 11:34:00 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow... this deaf woman gets it and understands participation and the universality of the Traditional Mass: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/07/20/latin-mass-deaf-catholic-access-liturgy-241084 And in "America" magazine of all things. Funny, around Pentecost I found myself in a social media exchange with an anti-trad who asserted that Mass in the vernacular was the equivalent of the apostles speaking in tongues. Since the apostles preached in their own language, but all assembled understood in their own language, this is clearly not the case. Thanks to inexpensive Latin Mass missals facilitated by modern printing technology, every TLM is a modern re-presentation of speaking in tongues during the Mass. If I were to attend TLM anywhere in the world, my Latin missal would allow me to follow the Mass. To do so in the vernacular would require a stack of missals, one per language spoken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2021 11:51:59 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a good post. Plenty of Lib/Left Caths gloating all over social media that "Well Pope Pius V changed the Mass to the TLM and got rid of what came before so Francis can do the same thing". Like most of the things these people say, it's true, but only on the surface. Pius V codified the liturgy to eliminate abuses and innovations that had crept into Catholic liturgy in and around the Protestant Reformation. He purged these novelties from the liturgy while preserving the older form. The NOM is the exact opposite of what Pius V did. It swept in novelty in both the liturgy and the sacraments, eliminating more than half of the intercessory prayers of the mass, demolishing the offertory, and bringing the liturgy much closer to a Lutheran Lord's Supper than to the Mass that preceded it. Solemn exorcisms eliminated from the sacrament of baptism, etc. Someone else posted about the high church Anglican mass. That liturgy was drawn from the TLM and put in the vernacular. It is available to Catholics today who belong to Ordinariate churches (Anglican reverts to the RCC), which will probably be the next to draw the withering gaze of our papal Sauron. The Ordinariate Mass was not subject to the innovations inspired by V2 and the missal of Paul VI so it retains tradition: ad orientum orientation, communion kneeling on the tongue at an altar rail, etc. if this is what Bugnini and his comrades had produced, the number of TLM devotees and holdouts would have been a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of Catholics devoted to the TLM in 1970. I can only surmise that such a liturgy was not revolutionary enough for these men. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If you are proposing that the traditional Mass is a PSPV creation, you are wrong. Tridentine is not an accurate name for it, but an acceptable ones. Other names for it you may encounter are Gregorian Mass, Mass of the Ages, usus antiquior, etc. A few key things to look at: 1. PSPV encoded what was verifiably at least 200 years old (200 years before him). Therefore, not a XVI century innovation. It was not even his creation. He merely standardized some things, yet allowed many of the religious orders to retain their own versions. These versions vary so little that the untrained Catholic may not even notice the differences. These are the types of differences that he dealt with at his time. So, if he went back to at least 200 years, was it a XIV century innovation then? Nope. The Canon of the Mass, which is the heart of the Mass (which PPVI desecrated), came from at least as early as the canon of PSGtG (hence, Gregorian Mass), just shy of a full millennium before PSPV. The changes among the centuries were so small that most Catholics would not have noticed them through the course of their lifetime. This is a good post. Plenty of Lib/Left Caths gloating all over social media that "Well Pope Pius V changed the Mass to the TLM and got rid of what came before so Francis can do the same thing". Like most of the things these people say, it's true, but only on the surface. Pius V codified the liturgy to eliminate abuses and innovations that had crept into Catholic liturgy in and around the Protestant Reformation. He purged these novelties from the liturgy while preserving the older form. The NOM is the exact opposite of what Pius V did. It swept in novelty in both the liturgy and the sacraments, eliminating more than half of the intercessory prayers of the mass, demolishing the offertory, and bringing the liturgy much closer to a Lutheran Lord's Supper than to the Mass that preceded it. Solemn exorcisms eliminated from the sacrament of baptism, etc. Someone else posted about the high church Anglican mass. That liturgy was drawn from the TLM and put in the vernacular. It is available to Catholics today who belong to Ordinariate churches (Anglican reverts to the RCC), which will probably be the next to draw the withering gaze of our papal Sauron. The Ordinariate Mass was not subject to the innovations inspired by V2 and the missal of Paul VI so it retains tradition: ad orientum orientation, communion kneeling on the tongue at an altar rail, etc. if this is what Bugnini and his comrades had produced, the number of TLM devotees and holdouts would have been a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of Catholics devoted to the TLM in 1970. I can only surmise that such a liturgy was not revolutionary enough for these men. Since you brought this back, I'll rephrase the unthinkable abuse to the Canon. To those not familiar, the Canon of the Mass is where the sacrifice literally happens, the most important part of the Mass, the nucleus around which every other component of the Mass is constructed. It is so holy and mysterious that the priest only whispers it. It is the holiest of holies partition if you will. St. Gregory the Great reportedly even drew a curtain around the altar during the Canon. While its importance in the liturgy is paramount, we can even look at size for further context. The Canon comprises the vast majority of the Mass of the Faithful, and almost half (~40%) of the Mass in total. In my missal, it's eight full pages (not including the vernacular copy). It was unmolested for 1,400 years and comes to us directly from St. Gregory the Great (who barely touched it himself). Again, most scholars agree that it was crystalized around the year 400, while we have documented components of it from earlier in Church history. This is what Paul VI tossed. 1.5 millenia of zealously guarded tradition and replaced it with something informed by a culture of protestantism and secularism. Now, each priest sort of decides how to do it (someone, name escapes me, did the math on the total number of variations in which the new Mass can be offered, and it was in the millions). Of course, I have not even discussed the content of the changed prayers, etc. There are dozens if not hundreds of books on the latter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2021 10:52:46 PM EDT
[#50]
Official communique from the FSSP.
... Founded and canonically approved according to the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta of Pope St. John Paul II of July 2, 1988, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter has always professed its adherence to the entire Magisterium of the Church and its fidelity to the Roman Pontiff and the successors of the Apostles, exercising its ministry under the responsibility of the diocesan bishops. Referring in its Constitutions to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, the Fraternity has always sought to be in accord with what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI called in 2005: “the hermeneutic of reform in the continuity of the Church” (Address to the Roman Curia, December 22, 2005). Today, therefore, the Fraternity of St. Peter is deeply saddened by the reasons given for limiting the use of the Missal of Pope St. John XXIII... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
