C
CrusaderNY
Guest
The Missal was denied to the laity???
katherine2:
- Status
K
katherine2
Guest
Jerusalem Bible? That is a modern translation. If you family had one, you are fairly young. I think it first came out in French shortly before the Council.
In 1884, Father Anselm Schott was disciplined by the Holy Office for daring to pubish a German-Latin Missal, invoking an earlier decree of October 25, 1849. Nevertheless, that was the begining of the end, as the political situation in Germany made it impossible to make the order effective. Soon, the popular demand made these missals widespread and gradually the Holy See gave in.
I don’t know if your family had an unauthorized missal or if what you think is a missal has the Latin text next to vernacular prayers and paraphrases (even as late as my son’s first communion, this is what he was given).
However, yes, the Church once prohibited translated missals. I do find many neo-trads have a longing for 1961 but little knowledge of developments leading to that point.
P
Pandora
Guest
My grandfather’s communion missal has the Ordinary of the Mass with a split page with a line down the midddle on side Latin and the other English plus common prayers. It does not have the daily readings for the Mass as his later missal does. It is pretty close to my missal now as far as the translation goes. There are a few differences as you follow word for word. His oldest missal has the Mass slightly longer.You know Katherine you are not the only one to know what a missal contains.
My parent’s Jerusalem Bible was a wedding gift so it would be from 1960 or slightly before. I would have to go dig it up at my parents house to find the copyright of it.
Kathy
My parent’s Jerusalem Bible was a wedding gift so it would be from 1960 or slightly before. I would have to go dig it up at my parents house to find the copyright of it.
Kathy
K
katherine2
Guest
1960 might well have been a English language Jerusalem Bible. Your grandfather might be young enough to have an authorized English/Latin Missal or maybe he had one of the unauthorized ones. The point remains, it took the Liturgical Movement to get the Vatican to repeal its ban on translated Missals.
If your parents were married in 1960, I assume nothing you know about the pre-counciliar church is first hand information.
C
CrusaderNY
Guest
Gee I guess you could only find one example, maybe it was the German government cracking down on Catholics at this time, as Protestants ruled Germany if you do not know as the government is Protestant. And what about France after the French revolution, and your and every liberal hero in Voltaire led the execution of thousands of Catholic Priests and Sisters in France, as it was at this time that many Saints were to be cannonized at a later time, due to their visions
katherine2:
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
A thing of pride–there you go–that says it all. Are all not welcome? I thought Christ came to call us all especially the sinners? I don’t remember Christ sending Peter home to change out of his fishing garb in order to follow him. Personally I like it when people dress a little better–I think it shows respect–but I’d much rather have them at Mass.
People who say they are not fed at Mass–are looking for entertainment and not to be fed. How can one go to Mass and receive Christ in the Eucharist and not be fed, not get something out of it? Too many people come to Mass and worry about how others are dressed, or who’s kid makes noise, and in “getting something” rather than in praying and worshiping together and in receiving Christ. We get out of the Mass what we put into it.
The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark
C
CrusaderNY
Guest
Mark
I get a little confused at mass now days, with all of the back slapping, hand shaking, waving across the aisle, the guitar and the rap music masses, the priest wearing garb with crosses that were put on with a paintbrush, with people receiving our Lord in their hands (as the Protestants instructed to deny the real presence), the female altar girls, the Priests that sound so effiminate it makes you wonder if they are pedophile, the seminaries that only allow gay, liberal, or anti orthodox candidates in, the changing of the sacremental words and meanings, the dress in mass now (shorts, halter tops, flip flops, etc), priests who only talk about Love Love and More Love and never Sin and heaven…hmmm Did I leave anything out???
MarkInOregon:
I get a little confused at mass now days, with all of the back slapping, hand shaking, waving across the aisle, the guitar and the rap music masses, the priest wearing garb with crosses that were put on with a paintbrush, with people receiving our Lord in their hands (as the Protestants instructed to deny the real presence), the female altar girls, the Priests that sound so effiminate it makes you wonder if they are pedophile, the seminaries that only allow gay, liberal, or anti orthodox candidates in, the changing of the sacremental words and meanings, the dress in mass now (shorts, halter tops, flip flops, etc), priests who only talk about Love Love and More Love and never Sin and heaven…hmmm Did I leave anything out???
O
otm
Guest
So was I!
K
katolik
Guest
katherine2 said:
SO waht was the aim of the Liturgical Movement?
Jesuits preparing for more blasphemy as is today? It started with using Latin in the confessional to insult the priest but now what do the Jesuits do at “liturgy”[not Mass]
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
To return to the actual topic of this thread, while I never devoted much thought to the notion I’ve always thought that it might be best to clear room in the Latin church for the coexistence of the Tridentine rite. While I don’t doubt the validity or licitness of the Pauline missal, I do think it has some serious flaws (for instance, whoever decided to place the sign of peace *between *the consecration and reception of communion must have been using some SERIOUSLY mind-altering drugs); this leads me to prefer the Tridentine missal and I would like to see an organic return within the Pauline missal to a greater similarity to its predecessor, thus effecting the organic change actually mandated by the council fathers. Perhaps a Pauline Mass in Latin, ad orientem, etc. really does fulfill this mandate, but since very few people have ever experienced this it would take some effort just to begin implementing that missal.
S
smn
Guest
Andreas Hofer said:
Actually, the sign of peace (“Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum”) occurs in the TLM at the same time at it does in the Novus Ordo. It’s not visibly extended to the laity, but the ministers do embrace each other at a Solemn Mass.
Scott
K
katherine2
Guest
Thnak you Scott. You know, conservatives and neo-traditionalists have a lot to offer the Church when they use intellectual rigor in their views. However, moss-backedness does little for us.
C
CrusaderNY
Guest
**Exerpt from the RCF , where even pedophile priests are offered protection, but Traditionalism is not, should not our Cardinal get involved here?:
**As president of RCF since 1996, I have had the unfortunate opportunity to witness first-hand some of the horrific consequences of this vile vice that some of our bishops and priests now refer to as a “gift” from God. While in Dallas, RCF held a press conference to expose some of these offenders. We named two priests from the Dallas Diocese who had been part of St. Sebastian’s Angels, a network of homosexual priests who were operating on the internet.
In January of this year, The Boston Globe forced this issue out into the open by exposing Bernard Cardinal Law. The Boston prelate showed a complete disregard for the safety and well-being of children by allowing two homosexual priests who had sexually abused children to continue to function as men of God, thereby enabling them to abuse others.
On the opening day of the bishops’ meeting, the Dallas Morning News published a story presenting facts that suggested at least two thirds of the American hierarchy had protected sexually abusive clergy. Since January, two American Bishops, Anthony O’Connell of West Palm Beach, FL, and Kendrick Williams of Lexington, KY, have resigned after they were accused of the sexual abuse of teenage boys. A third bishop, auxiliary James F. McCarthy of New York, resigned after admitting to having had affairs with women. A former boyfriend of Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee recently went public with the fact that he was paid $450,000 to keep quiet about his relationship with the Archbishop. Even though the diocese of Jefferson City, MO, paid a cash settlement to one of Bishop O’Connell’s victims in 1996. O’Connell was appointed Bishop of West Palm Beach, FL, by Pope John Paul II. Until bishops are held accountable for their actions, nothing will change. Three years ago, Bishop J. Keith Symons, also of West Palm Beach, resigned after he admitted abusing five boys when he was a priest. A year later, RCF found him leading retreats in the Lansing Diocese, still carrying the title “Most Reverend”. The list goes on.
**The bishops are the problem and proof of their anti-Catholic attitudes is readily available. **
A June 3, 2002 New York Times article stated "Pope John Paul II’s spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, questioned whether ordinations of gays were even valid. ‘People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained.’ Dr. Navarro-Valls said in an interview, citing canon law but wading into what he knew was sensitive territory. [3]
Dr. Navarro-Valls based his statement on a 1961 Vatican document titled, “Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders” that was promulgated by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for Religious on February 2, 1961. The paragraph regarding homosexuals and the priesthood states: “Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.” (emphasis added)The document, which can be found on RCF’s web site at [/"]www.rcf.org]]("http://www.rcf.org) was signed by Pope John XXIII, the very Pope praised by the liberals for calling the Second Vatican Council.
**Homosexual priest who abuses children and presents false teaching than for the faithful whom they have sworn to serve. While the rights of the homosexual priest are protected, the rights of the faithful priests and laity are trampled underfoot. **
**The scandalous sex education that destroys the innocence of children, pro-abortion Catholic politicians who go unchallenged by our bishops, heretical teachings, and liturgical abuse all point to a loss of faith on the part of our bishops. It seems the only zero tolerance policy our bishops are willing to enforce is a zero tolerance for orthodoxy and the traditional Mass. **
katherine2:
**As president of RCF since 1996, I have had the unfortunate opportunity to witness first-hand some of the horrific consequences of this vile vice that some of our bishops and priests now refer to as a “gift” from God. While in Dallas, RCF held a press conference to expose some of these offenders. We named two priests from the Dallas Diocese who had been part of St. Sebastian’s Angels, a network of homosexual priests who were operating on the internet.
In January of this year, The Boston Globe forced this issue out into the open by exposing Bernard Cardinal Law. The Boston prelate showed a complete disregard for the safety and well-being of children by allowing two homosexual priests who had sexually abused children to continue to function as men of God, thereby enabling them to abuse others.
On the opening day of the bishops’ meeting, the Dallas Morning News published a story presenting facts that suggested at least two thirds of the American hierarchy had protected sexually abusive clergy. Since January, two American Bishops, Anthony O’Connell of West Palm Beach, FL, and Kendrick Williams of Lexington, KY, have resigned after they were accused of the sexual abuse of teenage boys. A third bishop, auxiliary James F. McCarthy of New York, resigned after admitting to having had affairs with women. A former boyfriend of Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee recently went public with the fact that he was paid $450,000 to keep quiet about his relationship with the Archbishop. Even though the diocese of Jefferson City, MO, paid a cash settlement to one of Bishop O’Connell’s victims in 1996. O’Connell was appointed Bishop of West Palm Beach, FL, by Pope John Paul II. Until bishops are held accountable for their actions, nothing will change. Three years ago, Bishop J. Keith Symons, also of West Palm Beach, resigned after he admitted abusing five boys when he was a priest. A year later, RCF found him leading retreats in the Lansing Diocese, still carrying the title “Most Reverend”. The list goes on.
**The bishops are the problem and proof of their anti-Catholic attitudes is readily available. **
A June 3, 2002 New York Times article stated "Pope John Paul II’s spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, questioned whether ordinations of gays were even valid. ‘People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained.’ Dr. Navarro-Valls said in an interview, citing canon law but wading into what he knew was sensitive territory. [3]
Dr. Navarro-Valls based his statement on a 1961 Vatican document titled, “Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders” that was promulgated by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for Religious on February 2, 1961. The paragraph regarding homosexuals and the priesthood states: “Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.” (emphasis added)The document, which can be found on RCF’s web site at [/"]www.rcf.org]]("http://www.rcf.org) was signed by Pope John XXIII, the very Pope praised by the liberals for calling the Second Vatican Council.
**Homosexual priest who abuses children and presents false teaching than for the faithful whom they have sworn to serve. While the rights of the homosexual priest are protected, the rights of the faithful priests and laity are trampled underfoot. **
**The scandalous sex education that destroys the innocence of children, pro-abortion Catholic politicians who go unchallenged by our bishops, heretical teachings, and liturgical abuse all point to a loss of faith on the part of our bishops. It seems the only zero tolerance policy our bishops are willing to enforce is a zero tolerance for orthodoxy and the traditional Mass. **
T
Theodred
Guest
Umm, Ratzinger!!!
What’s wrong with you Katherine? You are so vehement about your agenda that you miss the obvious.
K
kmktexas
Guest
I think some of the confusion may be the term “missal”. As I understand it, the actual Missal used to celebrate Mass was not allowed to be translated into vernacular languages prior to Vatican II. That is the actual Generalis Missalis Romani which is, even now, officially published in Latin. While that Missal was not translated, liturgical liberals will sometimes twist that to say that the laity did not have access to Missals in their own languages. I personally own approved Latin/English personal missals going back to 1948. I have seen missals for sale that are much older, in Latin/English as well as Latin/various other languages. We used the missals in our parish until at least 1968. The translations tended to be very literal. I doubt there were Catholics in the 20th century in America who did not have access to English translations of the Mass. So at least a whole generation had passed - you can’t use this as a reason for requiring the use of the vernacular.
K
katherine2
Guest
I never said the translated Missal were not legal by 1948. What I said is that their legality was brought about by the Liturgical progressives. If you take pride in having your Missal, you should hug a liberal.
You know, would it really hurt you guys all that much to say, yes, the “train” was a good thing, I just think we should have gotten off at a different stop from where we did. Instead you set yourself up by damning the train.
K
katolik
Guest
The real Liturgical Movement was derailed.
see here for more info
www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2003_January/Liturgical_Movement.htm
K
katherine2
Guest
if I’m going to look up quotes from sspx, I much perfer these:
Bishop Williamson :
“there was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel… Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil, and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism.”.
In the Letter to Friends and Benefactors of the SSPX’s St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona USA., of May 2000, Williamson wrote:
“God puts in men’s hands the “Protocols of the Sages of Sion” and the “Rakovsky Interview”, if men want to know the truth, but few do.”
Bishop Williamson :
“there was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel… Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil, and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism.”.
In the Letter to Friends and Benefactors of the SSPX’s St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona USA., of May 2000, Williamson wrote:
“God puts in men’s hands the “Protocols of the Sages of Sion” and the “Rakovsky Interview”, if men want to know the truth, but few do.”
C
CrusaderNY
Guest
No, but the Jews have THREATENED to sue the Vatican , for supposed calloboration with the Nazis, as they have sued Switzerland and now Hungary to get back monies (Kind of wonder if my grandmother was killed in a concentration camp would I even care if I got back some money for the items taken from her, but that is another thread). The threat was so serious, that the Vatican and Pius XII started the wheels in motion to help the Jews in every which way after the war, out of fear of being sued for Vatican riches. And that leads us up to Vatican II, ecumenism, The silence over “The Passion of the Christ”, the Pope holding ceremony in a synagogue, and the throwing away of our faith, and even the denial of scripture as the book of Mathew clearly states that there was Jewish involvement
katherine2:
O
otm
Guest
I am not exactly sure what you are referring to when you use the word “blasphemy”. Perhaps you could give examples?
I also am puzzeled by your references to the Jesuits, as the liturgical reform was more the work of the Benedictines.
As to what the aim of the liturgical movement was, it was greater lay participation.
As anyone who has engaged in a conversation with someone else in another language through the use of an interpreter has experienced, there is a great difference between that cumbersome process and speaking with the individual directly. The translator is used because the parties each speak a different language. When they speak a common language, they are more directly engaged.
- Status