Another Liturgical Abuse Video- B. Brown's Diocese of Orange

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angels_Watchin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
anamchara said:
I understand, and your are right. That is against forum rules. But then how are the videos naming Priests and Parishes allowed? Because it’s link? I’m asking because I don’t want to make a mistake if I ever want to post something. I should re-read the rules.
Click to expand...
The videos are allowed bwcause they are in the public domain. From an outside source that one can link,
 
Netmil(name removed by moderator):
At the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) the video states that the priest said that “It’s in the missal” Not the General Instruction of the Roman Missal but an Oregon Press missal.

I think it’s more than the priest messing up.
Click to expand...
Before you speak publicly against an approved missal of the Church, wouldn’t it be a wise thing to look up and see exactly what is printed there?

In the O.P. Missal it states clearly on page 30:
This is the Lamb of God who takes aaway the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.
R. Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.
Click to expand...
Page two has the Concordat Cum Originali, and Published with the approval of the Committee on the Liturgy, USCCB.

An erroneous version of the Mass is never permitted to be used in any diocese.

Incidentally,
that a video is in public domain does not automatically permit the poster to use it if the forum rules require a source. We are talking about identifiable clergy and parishes, and it is required that the source be named when slander is being promulgated. Anti-catholic and blasphemous website links are also in the public domain, but one has to consider always what Catholic Answers permits to be used here.
 
As for the rules and the posting of Videos from YouTube, it’s up to the Mods and not individual posters…🙂
Originally Posted by Netmil(name removed by moderator)
*At the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) the video states that the priest said that “It’s in the missal” Not the General Instruction of the Roman Missal but an Oregon Press missal.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think it’s more than the priest messing up.<<

Yup, he is not just messing up, he is using the Oregon Press Missal.

Might want to start reading here…
adoremus.org/1202AgnusDei.html
*
 
What part of O.P. missal did you miss? Shall I spell it out that O.P. means Oregon Press? Who, besides yourself, believes that an approved missal is in error? You still insist on promoting this error, I see, in spite of the correction posted.
 
Joysong said:
What part of O.P. missal did you miss? Shall I spell it out that O.P. means Oregon Press? Who, besides yourself, believes that an approved missal is in error? You still insist on promoting this error, I see, in spite of the correction posted.
Click to expand...
Read the article at the bottom of my post and you will see.
A version of the Agnus Dei approved by the Bishops does not override the GIRM.
 
And, pray tell, do you know for a FACT that the Agnus Dei in the O.P. is deficient as specified by the GIRM? You have seen it? You are publicly allowed to condemn it based on assumptions?

You know, Netm, the more you talk against the new liturgy, its ministers, its piety, its missals, its unorthodoxy, I suppose you believe that by “much speaking,” others will hear. What they will hear is a bias full of pride and contempt for a sacred and lawful liturgy of Holy Mother Church.

Continue speaking, and you will eventually lose all support.
 
Joysong said:
And, pray tell, do you know for a FACT that the Agnus Dei in the O.P. is deficient as specified by the GIRM? You have seen it? You are publicly allowed to condemn it based on assumptions?
Click to expand...
Lighten up! 🙂 I am shocked that you would come in with such an attitude angelqueen.org
No need for the sarcasm at all. We are one big happy family and if you are just going to come across as someone tinkled in you cherrios, I have no need to answer you questions.

Have a good day! angelqueen.org
 
Joysong said:
You know, Netm, the more you talk against the new liturgy, its ministers, its piety, its missals, its unorthodoxy, I suppose you believe that by “much speaking,” others will hear. What they will hear is a bias full of pride and contempt for a sacred and lawful liturgy of Holy Mother Church.

Continue speaking, and you will eventually lose all support.
Click to expand...
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I attend a NO Holy Mass!!! I’m supporting the NO Holy Mass!!!
 
Angels_Watchin said:
The Oregon Catholic Press missals are not imprimatured -they have not been reviewed and accepted.
Click to expand...
You know all the searcing on the OCP website and I can see NO mention of this, that they have an imprimatur for any of their Missals**…**you’d think that they would want folks to know this:confused:
 
Joysong said:
And, pray tell, do you know for a FACT that the Agnus Dei in the O.P. is deficient as specified by the GIRM? You have seen it? You are publicly allowed to condemn it based on assumptions?.
Click to expand...
Oh Sorry, Karin found your answer. Right from AngelsWatchin, the OP
The Oregon Catholic Press missals are not imprimatured -they have not been reviewed and accepted.
Click to expand...
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joysong

You know, Netm, the more you talk against the new liturgy, its ministers, its piety, its missals, its unorthodoxy, I suppose you believe that by “much speaking,” others will hear. What they will hear is a bias full of pride and contempt for a sacred and lawful liturgy of Holy Mother Church.
Continue speaking, and you will eventually lose all support.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I attend a NO Holy Mass!!! I’m supporting the NO Holy Mass!!!
Click to expand...
I must say—in all the time that I have read netmil(name removed by moderator)s posts—she has supported the Mass as the Church intends.
 
Joysong said:
What part of O.P. missal did you miss? Shall I spell it out that O.P. means Oregon Press? Who, besides yourself, believes that an approved missal is in error? You still insist on promoting this error, I see, in spite of the correction posted.
Click to expand...
with out the imprimatur is it an approved Missal?
 
40.png
Karin:
You know all the searcing on the OCP website and I can see NO mention of this, that they have an imprimatur for any of their Missals…you’d think that they would want folks to know this
Click to expand...
I highly doubt it, unless they are liturgy police. The majority of people trust that their clergy are using approved missalettes and don’t even think to question it. The burden of proof that it is NOT approved and licit is on the doubter, and since you cannot find it on the internet, tells me you haven’t looked inside of the actual missalette. It also tells me you have no idea of how publishers of missalettes must adhere to strict liturgical standards before they can be put into parish use. It speaks also of your disinclination to believe the required notice I mentioned above, which is printed on page 2 that proves it is legit.

I would think you people would rejoice that the O.P. is more correct than the Bishop who misstated that it is in the book. :confused:
 
Walking_Home said:
I must say—in all the time that I have read netmil(name removed by moderator)s posts—she has supported the Mass as the Church intends.
Click to expand...
I guess in Bizzaro World, I attend a NO but hate it.

That must be why those people do the WonderTwins powers, motion for the Our Father. 😛
 
Joysong said:
I highly doubt it, unless they are liturgy police. The majority of people trust that their clergy are using approved missalettes and don’t even think to question it. The burden of proof that it is NOT approved and licit is on the doubter, and since you cannot find it on the internet, tells me you haven’t looked inside of the actual missalette. It also tells me you have no idea of how publishers of missalettes must adhere to strict liturgical standards before they can be put into parish use. It speaks also of your disinclination to believe the required notice I mentioned above, which is printed on page 2 that proves it is legit.

I would think you people would rejoice that the O.P. is more correct than the Bishop who misstated that it is in the book. :confused:
Click to expand...
you know the Missals we use on our Parish have the imprimatur:) …and on further searching (Missal, imprimatur)
I have notcied that every other Missal states very prominently that they have the imprimatur…so why shouldnt the OCP do the same?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top