C
corsair
Guest
You got it right, Weepixie. Some of the others here are purposely blind. They would never admit to the truth, unless their life depended upon it.
- Status
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
i feel the proof of protestantism is everywhere. i dont see how you can attend an EF and wonder this.
**First of all: The Church cannot protest against Herself. She can promulgate nothing in Her laws, disciplinary or otherwise, that go against Her teaching. The above is CATHOLIC teaching which is what we are supposed to go by, not visceral responses, not our “feelings.” There is nothing ontologically “protestant” about the Church today, in particular the Mass as it is written ansd as it OUGHT to be celebrated. **
what i have noticed is all of the things that i loved about my catholic faith were stripped in the churches that held novus ordo mass. things that protestants found strange or thought of idol worshipers.
-most protestants found it odd that we kneeled to receive communion. they assumed we were kneeling to the priest. now we do not kneel **This is patently absurd and it demonstrates an ignorance of both Protestantism AND Catholicism. I was rasised a fundamentalist. Churches of the Anabaptist and Calvinist traditions (all the Baptists, the Presbyterians, Churches of Christ (Campbellites), etc., receive Holy Communion while seated in their pews, the elements being passed to them on trays. Those of the Anglican tradition (Episcopal and Methodist), when I attended for five years 20 years ago (well after the “Protestant Mass” had come in…well, guess what? THEY KNELT AT A RAIL FOR HOLY COMMUNION. Knelt…at a rail. The only time they didn’t were at diocesan conventions, which gatherings they deemed to be to large and unwieldy and which more often than not were held at auditoriums or even Baptist churches. I did not attend Lutheran services, so I cannot speak to that. **
-protestants loved their music and so of it is good. i love “amazing grace” but its not catholic so why put it a catholic mass. our catholic songs are very hard to find now even during the month of may. some didnt even have a may crowning. another point since so many protestants have a problem with mary.
-protestants thought we worshiped saints. our beautiful statues of our saints are gone along with our beautiful stain glass saintly windows. and i know it wasnt do to finances.
**I guess it depends on what you call beautiful. I’ve seen SOME (not all, not even most) older churches crowded with statuary. And some might think that what you or I call beautiful is actually gaudy. **
-a lot of protestant have their choir in the front of the church and would occasionally let other people talk about their “Holy Spirit” or “Jesus” encounter in the front of the church. our masses used to only have clergy, seminarians and servers to make a point of the importance of the sanctuary. now the priest is lost up there tucked away in the background. sometimes he feels so lost in the background he feels he was to leave the sanctuary to make his point.
**There has been a problem with “wreakovation,” but what you complain of isn’t what makes the Church Catholic. **
as far as older people before the OFliking the EF, well everyone is entitled to their opinion. i know a lot of older people too that are ecstatic that they have the EF is back. my grandmother cant stand the EF mass. she is very liberal and she thinks that women will be sent back into the dark ages. while my mother loves the EF and wont step foot into an OF now to save her life. either mass is valid so to each their own.
**Then why don’t you stop dumping on the OF? **
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
OR…they are able to seperate fact from visceral feeling. See, it isn’t a matter of “truth.” In fact, the amount of untruth batted around this forum is frankly astonishing.
W
weepixie71
Guest
what comparison did i make that was untruthful?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Well, for one thing, as I said, you don’t seem to know much about real Protestants, yet you keep comparing them to the Church and the Mass.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
And you said that the OF was written by Protestants and Freemasons.
W
weepixie71
Guest
**First of all: The Church cannot protest against Herself. She can promulgate nothing in Her laws, disciplinary or otherwise, that go against Her teaching. The above is CATHOLIC teaching which is what we are supposed to go by, not visceral responses, not our “feelings.” There is nothing ontologically “protestant” about the Church today, in particular the Mass as it is written ansd as it OUGHT to be celebrated. **
true she didnt protest against herself she removed all items and customs that cause controversy. i disagree with the feelings part… sorry… God gave me feelings to let me know when something doesnt smell right. ive attended one too many OF that didnt smell right to trust them anymore. as far as disciplines go, as i stated before a few back, disciplines mean very little to people who attend the OF. they would have to because they are here today gone tomorrow. maybe if they replaced them with something equally gratifiying to God but they dont… they just take take take. the OF because of this way of thinking has so many different types of masses its just absolute craziness. its no different than changing protestant services. i dont like what goes on at this church or how this priest does something so ill just go to the other one the next 15miles over.
i have been attending an EF now for 14yrs and never once did i find it distasteful or lacking of reverence or hear a priest say something or do something completely off the wall. and the best part way more women than dont dress modestly and the men atleast wear something that calls for dress shoes to match.
**a fundamentalist. Churches of the Anabaptist and Calvinist traditions (all the Baptists, the Presbyterians, Churches of Christ (Campbellites), etc., receive Holy Communion while seated in their pews, the elements being passed to them on trays. Those of the Anglican tradition (Episcopal and Methodist), when I attended for five years 20 years ago (well after the “Protestant Mass” had come in…well, guess what? THEY KNELT AT A RAIL FOR HOLY COMMUNION. Knelt…at a rail. The only time they didn’t were at diocesan conventions, which gatherings they deemed to be to large and unwieldy and which more often than not were held at auditoriums or even Baptist churches. I did not attend Lutheran services, so I cannot speak to that. **
all this tells me is that even these other religions could see that the sanctuary is sacred and the communion rail should not be crossed… WHAT you mean they kneel receiving communion and it isnt even really God because the priests are not consecrated to do so? … oh yeah, they dont believe that. they believe they are receiving Jesus Christ… wait even protestants believe that communion is sacred enough that you should kneel? how pius of them 
. but catholics dont… they dont have to dress like they are going to see Christ and they dont have to kneel when they stand before Christ… but protestants do…
am i the only one confused by this?
**There has been a problem with “wreakovation,” but what you complain of isn’t what makes the Church Catholic. **
nope all you need is a valid priest, introductory rite, liturgy of the word, liturgy of the Eucharist, and concluding rite, and in that order… how you do them, well that just discipline right?
true she didnt protest against herself she removed all items and customs that cause controversy. i disagree with the feelings part… sorry… God gave me feelings to let me know when something doesnt smell right. ive attended one too many OF that didnt smell right to trust them anymore. as far as disciplines go, as i stated before a few back, disciplines mean very little to people who attend the OF. they would have to because they are here today gone tomorrow. maybe if they replaced them with something equally gratifiying to God but they dont… they just take take take. the OF because of this way of thinking has so many different types of masses its just absolute craziness. its no different than changing protestant services. i dont like what goes on at this church or how this priest does something so ill just go to the other one the next 15miles over.
i have been attending an EF now for 14yrs and never once did i find it distasteful or lacking of reverence or hear a priest say something or do something completely off the wall. and the best part way more women than dont dress modestly and the men atleast wear something that calls for dress shoes to match.
**a fundamentalist. Churches of the Anabaptist and Calvinist traditions (all the Baptists, the Presbyterians, Churches of Christ (Campbellites), etc., receive Holy Communion while seated in their pews, the elements being passed to them on trays. Those of the Anglican tradition (Episcopal and Methodist), when I attended for five years 20 years ago (well after the “Protestant Mass” had come in
…well, guess what? THEY KNELT AT A RAIL FOR HOLY COMMUNION. Knelt…at a rail. The only time they didn’t were at diocesan conventions, which gatherings they deemed to be to large and unwieldy and which more often than not were held at auditoriums or even Baptist churches. I did not attend Lutheran services, so I cannot speak to that. **all this tells me is that even these other religions could see that the sanctuary is sacred and the communion rail should not be crossed… WHAT you mean they kneel receiving communion and it isnt even really God because the priests are not consecrated to do so? … oh yeah, they dont believe that
. they believe they are receiving Jesus Christ… wait even protestants believe that communion is sacred enough that you should kneel? how pius of them . but catholics dont… they dont have to dress like they are going to see Christ and they dont have to kneel when they stand before Christ… but protestants do… am i the only one confused by this?**There has been a problem with “wreakovation,” but what you complain of isn’t what makes the Church Catholic. **
nope all you need is a valid priest, introductory rite, liturgy of the word, liturgy of the Eucharist, and concluding rite, and in that order… how you do them, well that just discipline right?
T
Timothysis
Guest
Some “of the others here” will also never admit to the truth until they put aside their prejudices and false ideas of “tradition” and recognize that the Church is only as small as they can make it.
We often times hear from people who, while they prefer the Ordinary Form, have no problem with the Extraordinary Form. Yet, the “traditionalists” who prefer the Extraordinary Form go out of their way to heap scorn, criticisms and to denigrate the Missal of Pope Paul VI in every way they can. I can’t tell you how many times the false fact of “six protestants wrote the Eucharistic prayers” has been bandied around here. Or that the freemasons were behind Vatican II. One poster on this thread even said that "the novus ordo is so fruitless…", as if the Sacrifice of the Mass is “fruitless” for those who receive in a state of grace! Or the attitude that God is more pleased with Mass celebrated according to the Extraordinary Form. Did God fill out a survey and list, in order of preference, His favorite rites in the entire Church? A couple of posters here keep trying to interject that the Eastern Churches are just as Catholic as the western, with their own richness of liturgies and prayers but we keep getting bombarded with the Extraordinary Form being the “Mass of the Ages,” the “Mass of All Time,” and the Mass that St. Peter himself wrote in Rome in the latin language.
I mention this for a particular reason. Many here, rightly so, maintain that Mass isn’t about being entertained. Yet, it strikes me that those who prefer with such a near fanaticism the Extraordinary Form do the exact same thing as those on the other end of the spectrum as seeing Mass as a sort of liturgical entertainment; the more like the old days, the better. While I personally think that the Church should do all that she can to preserve her traditions, culture and identity I do think it sometimes becomes antiquated just to do things as they were once done long ago for no other reason than we like it. Mass is the perpetuation of Christ’s sacrifice on Cavalry and is re-presented every time the liturgy is celebrated. Isn’t this what is most important?
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
I think we are straying again…I noticed any threads dealing with Archbishop Lefebvre and the Old Mass quickly becomes a rehash on negativity explored over and over again on other threads. Why are we getting so negative?
I have written on other threads that I attend the New Mass (which name, Novus Ordo, by the way, comes from the preliminary draft of the Paul VI missal in 1969), so obviously I feel it is fruitful. Whether it conveys the Catholic Faith in the same gravity and degree as the Old Mass is another matter. I may only speak for myself, but I do not prefer the Church maintaining traditions because “I like it that way” or “I do not like change.” As I have said elsewhere, saints have fought and died for the old traditions, our forefathers in Faith revered them, and they have been passed down from age to age, ratified by history. How can we just turn our backs on that for the sake of the “modern” ways? How can we abandon centuries of what was once our very identity without forgetting our roots?
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
By the way, does anyone here have proof that protestants and freemasons were not involved in writting the New Mass? I do not believe that to be true, but saying the argument is absurd or false is not an argument. Can someone share any background on this so we know for future reference?
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
And what, pray tell, are real protestants like?
T
Timothysis
Guest
On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.” (Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649).
If this isn’t good enough for you then nothing will be.
T
Timothysis
Guest
For the last time, “novus ordo” is NOT the name of the Mass. All new editions of a missal are a “novus ordo,” be it the latin missal or the Missal of Pope Paul VI. Each new missal is technically a “novus ordo”, a “new order of the Mass.” “Novus ordo” is NOT a title!!!
I have not read one opinion here that suggests we do such a thing.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
There, now we have a point of reference. Was that so bad? I still do not see the reason for hostility.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
I never said Novus Ordo was its title, I merely stated where the use of this name originated from. It does not make it right or wrong.
What people’s opinions are is not relevant to what we can observe: why else change the Mass? Bishops and liturgical experts needed a summer project? Kicks on Saturday night? What other reason was the Mass changed? Is this implying the Mass has not changed, even in form or essence? Our senses tell us otherwise. Even the Holy Father states the New Mass was not formed as well as it should have been. Can there be any other reason besides the embrace of modernity that the Mass be changed? Is not substance affected by form, and vice-versa?
A
aicirt
Guest
Just asking a question: Why were Protestants even observing? What was the reasoning to have them there? Were any representatives of other religions there? If they didn’t participate in the composition, what did they participate in? Thanks.
T
Timothysis
Guest
I can not give you a specific answer as of this moment but suffice it to say that many of the meetings at the Council of Trent were delayed to give the invited protestant theologians time to arrive. You see, it wasn’t just the Vatican II council that had protestant observers; they were at Trent, too.
T
Timothysis
Guest
“I have written on other threads that I attend the New Mass (which name, Novus Ordo, by the way, comes from the preliminary draft of the Paul VI missal in 1969),”
Actually, you did say it and you are still wrong in using Novus Ordo as a name for Pope Paul’s Mass.
“A deep interest in fostering the liturgy has become widespread and strong among the Christian people and our predecessor Pius XII has viewed this both as a sign of God’s caring will regarding today’s people and as a saving movement of the Holy Spirit through his Church.[2] Since the beginning of this liturgical renewal, it has also become clear that the formularies of the Roman Missal had to be revised and enriched. A beginning was made by Pius XII in the restoration of the Easter Vigil and Holy Week services;[3] he thus took the first step toward adapting the Roman Missal to the contemporary mentality.”What people’s opinions are is not relevant to what we can observe: why else change the Mass? Bishops and liturgical experts needed a summer project? Kicks on Saturday night? What other reason was the Mass changed? Is this implying the Mass has not changed, even in form or essence? Our senses tell us otherwise. Even the Holy Father states the New Mass was not formed as well as it should have been. Can there be any other reason besides the embrace of modernity that the Mass be changed? Is not substance affected by form, and vice-versa?
*
“No one should think, however, that this revision of the Roman Missal has come out of nowhere. The progress in liturgical studies during the last four centuries has certainly prepared the way. Just after the Council of Trent, the study “of ancient manuscripts in the Vatican library and elsewhere,” as St. Pius V attests in the Apostolic Constitution “Quo primum,” helped greatly in the correction of the Roman Missal. Since then, however, other ancient sources have been discovered and published and liturgical formularies of the Eastern Church have been studied. Accordingly many have had the desire for these doctrinal and spiritual riches not to be stored away in the dark, but to be put into use for the enlightenment of the mind of Christians and for the nurture of their spirit.*”
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6MISSAL.HTM
D
DorianGregorian
Guest
I think Lefebvre certainly could of handled it a different way, but when push came to shove, he acted out of necessity.
…and probably saved TLM in the progress.
Remember that the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, is not infallible in every single thing he says or does. Remember Gal 1:8-9, all men can know the faith as an ultimate last-resort.
Laus Deo
…and probably saved TLM in the progress.
Remember that the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, is not infallible in every single thing he says or does. Remember Gal 1:8-9, all men can know the faith as an ultimate last-resort.
Laus Deo
L
Layman
Guest
I think Lefebrvre did the right thing. He saw the rot, and acted to stop it. Modernism erupted like a fever in the body of the Church, having been previously kept at bay by the ‘antibiotics’ of good Popes, which parts of the Hierachy eventually became immune to.
I for one have had enough of priests trying to be trendy. A TLM in every parish early on a Sunday with some good catechesis in the sermon would be a nice change.
- How many readers now groan inwardly at the thought of things like ‘outdoor concelebrated folk masses’?
- How many automatically ‘tune out’ when their priest preaches on ‘social issues’?
- When was the last time you heard a sermon on Hell and how you can end up there?
- Do you cringe when you see the Body Of Christ doled out like bread by lay-women?
I for one have had enough of priests trying to be trendy. A TLM in every parish early on a Sunday with some good catechesis in the sermon would be a nice change.
- Status