Ever get a "tired of liberal Church" M.Angelica moment?

[SnorterLuster]

JKirkLVNV:

A) Isn’t it “we” who are saying the creed? Corporately, together, in one congregation? I’m mean, we can say “I” when we’re praying the Creed alone, can’t we? Aren’t we preserving the essentials (God the Father, God the Son, begotten not made, one in being, etc)

It is probably a pet peeve of mine, but when I say the creed, it is what I believe. When I die, I don’t expect there will be any of my fellow parishioners there saying “we” committed these sins and “we” did these acts of charity. The judgement will be of me, as an individual, not of my wife, kids or the other parishioners.

If you have ever said an oath in a group setting, it usually goes “I, (say name), do solemnly swear…etc.”. I have never heard of it being "We do solemnly swear…

Anyway, I do think words make a difference, even words with one or two letters.

 

[twiztedseraph]

JKirkLVNV:

I don’t much care one way or the other, BUT there’s a rigidity here that I think we could talk about. Fundamentally, does it matter? Don’t start down the road of how it will lead to clown masses and lesbian EMHC’s, just address how important it is:

A) Isn’t it “we” who are saying the creed? Corporately, together, in one congregation? I’m mean, we can say “I” when we’re praying the Creed alone, can’t we? Aren’t we preserving the essentials (God the Father, God the Son, begotten not made, one in being, etc)

B) “Et cum spirito tuo:” Lovely in latin, but kind of awkward in English, IMHO. We don’t talk like that. I don’t get why people get worked up about this. I acknowledge that it doesn’t SAY that precisely, but it’s smoother (again, IMHO) the way it is now.

C) “Orate, Frates:” I dislike the neutering of language in pursuit of some illusive equality for women, but this isn’t an essential, is it? It isn’t the actual wording of the consecration itself. I don’t know any woman who doesn’t know that “human” refers to her, “man” in the Bible contextually refers to her (but I hang out with sensible women), but really, what’s the harm of saying “Pray, my brothers and sisters?” Why get worked up about it? If it changes, I’m not going to get upset. I’ll be obedient. I just don’t get the things that people get worked up about.

Perhaps they don’t get what gets me worked up.

Now, I thought we covered this. If the Pope’s, the Councils have taught us how to say the creed one way, then thats how we should say it.

And with Thy Spirit…Well, when one is in love, one wishes to speak poetically. Not as if what they were saying was just more of the mundane. The Mass is sacred! The Poetic language that a literal translation would give us, would remind us, “we’re not in Kansas anymore.”

But hey, alot of this would be solved with a greater use of Latin in the Liturgy.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

twiztedseraph:

Now, I thought we covered this. If the Pope’s, the Councils have taught us how to say the creed one way, then thats how we should say it.

And with Thy Spirit…Well, when one is in love, one wishes to speak poetically. Not as if what they were saying was just more of the mundane. The Mass is sacred! The Poetic language that a literal translation would give us, would remind us, “we’re not in Kansas anymore.”

But hey, alot of this would be solved with a greater use of Latin in the Liturgy.

I agree, the Mass is sacred. It’s the holiest thing there is. The Holy See approved the use of the current translations. If they want them reworked, then that’s what will come about. I just don’t see why we get so very worked up about incidentals (please, please, no “slippery slope down the hill to a clown mass,” I can see it coming).

 

[twiztedseraph]

JKirkLVNV:

I agree, the Mass is sacred. It’s the holiest thing there is. The Holy See approved the use of the current translations. If they want them reworked, then that’s what will come about. I just don’t see why we get so very worked up about incidentals (please, please, no “slippery slope down the hill to a clown mass,” I can see it coming).

Its a slippery slope to the clown mass.

I just think a literal translation would be a teeny bit more poetic. So why not?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

twiztedseraph:

Its a slippery slope to the clown mass.

I just think a literal translation would be a teeny bit more poetic. So why not?

That’s just it, it isn’t that slippery. On one hand, you’re talking about a translation approved by the Holy See and used throughout the English speaking world. That may change, but I’m not going to take umbrage one way or the other. It doesn’t, however, logically follow that this is going to lead to a clown mass, an obvious abuse.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

twiztedseraph:

Its a slippery slope to the clown mass.

I just think a literal translation would be a teeny bit more poetic. So why not?

That’s just it, it isn’t that slippery. On one hand, you’re talking about a translation approved by the Holy See and used throughout the English speaking world. That may change, but I’m not going to take umbrage one way or the other. It doesn’t, however, logically follow that this is going to lead to a clown mass, an obvious abuse. My “I’m so sick of you, liberal American church” moment WOULD not include “and also with you” instead of “and with your spirit,” because it isn’t a glaring thing. For some, it’s like a piece of grit to an oyster. I think we should concentrate on the big stuff, the obvious stuff, at least before we start on the more subtle stuff.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I don’t much care one way or the other, BUT there’s a rigidity here that I think we could talk about. Fundamentally, does it matter? Don’t start down the road of how it will lead to clown masses and lesbian EMHC’s, just address how important it is:

It isn’t a terribly big deal-that is why I have an issue with it. The official Latin text is clear, why can’t we simply translate it how it is supposed to be? It is just a matter of simply doing things the way they are supposed to be done.

 

[MichelleTherese]

EVERYONE is disgruntled. For every ten people I hear complaining about the Liturgy in America there is only one person who likes it. So WHY are we still suffering the same modernized folk-hippie nonsense??? If 9 out of 10 people HATE the music and HATE the folk stuff why is it still around??? That’s what I’d like to know. Why cant we get Mass changed back to something normal and sane??

 

[ComradeAndrei]

EVERYONE is disgruntled. For every ten people I hear complaining about the Liturgy in America there is only one person who likes it. So WHY are we still suffering the same modernized folk-hippie nonsense??? If 9 out of 10 people HATE the music and HATE the folk stuff why is it still around??? That’s what I’d like to know. Why cant we get Mass changed back to something normal and sane??

It is always extremely difficult to change something “back” to how it was. It is also extremely difficult to reassert control once the grip has been loosened. I know the Church is not comparible to the Soviet Union, but look what happened during Gorbachev’s “Perestroika” (sp?). You start giving people a little bit of freedom and your whole gov’t collapses.

With the Church, VII gave more freedom to the laity and encouraged more participation and then people ran with it. It is hard to re-establish a norm from which you are not supposed to deviate.

Most of us don’t like the hippie-folk junk music, but what do we want? I want Gregorian chant, traditional hymns. Organs and choirs-no pianos, no drum sets, no guitars, no tambourines. I don’t want any innovation by the organist or the “music director”. We are going to sing lots more Marian hymns and a whole lot less of “Let there be peace on earth”.

Now, the battle begins. Some folks have differing opinions on what is “traditional”, what traditional is supposed to mean etc. Then you have some folks that think you are accusing them of heresy because they like that folksy stuff. It is just a big mess.

 

[Ace86]

ComradeAndrei:

It is always extremely difficult to change something “back” to how it was. It is also extremely difficult to reassert control once the grip has been loosened. I know the Church is not comparible to the Soviet Union, but look what happened during Gorbachev’s “Perestroika” (sp?). You start giving people a little bit of freedom and your whole gov’t collapses.

With the Church, VII gave more freedom to the laity and encouraged more participation and then people ran with it. It is hard to re-establish a norm from which you are not supposed to deviate.

Most of us don’t like the hippie-folk junk music, but what do we want? I want Gregorian chant, traditional hymns. Organs and choirs-no pianos, no drum sets, no guitars, no tambourines. I don’t want any innovation by the organist or the “music director”. We are going to sing lots more Marian hymns and a whole lot less of “Let there be peace on earth”.

Now, the battle begins. Some folks have differing opinions on what is “traditional”, what traditional is supposed to mean etc. Then you have some folks that think you are accusing them of heresy because they like that folksy stuff. It is just a big mess.

Right. That is why all should look to the Vicar of Christ.

 

[AltarMan]

I’m honestly not sure why it troubles you so that this statement about communion in the hand is attributed to Mother Teresa. I would also like to know if it is incorrect. But it doesn’t seem to have been disproved, and it is a quote from Fr. Rutler’s Good Friday homily in 1989. I understand it is available on the St. Agnes Cassettes. Fr. Rutler is still active at another parish in NYC and is well known for his Good Friday homilies; he also appears on EWTN. He has been associated with the Missionaries of Charities for some time as a retreat master and has published at least 14 books. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to doubt it. (That doesn’t mean that communion in the hand isn’t permitted; we know that it is.)

In any event, there is no need to be a cyber bully about it.

Because it’s never been verified! Yet people trumpet it around like it’s concrete fact. Same with the 30-40% real presence “statistic.” Buncha garbage.

Not one of your references are what I would consider rock-solid.

 

[TOME]

In reading the various post of this thread, which are similar to many other post from many other threads, a thought continously comes to my mind. When we express our opinions on the liturgy are these opinions firmly rooted in the Nature of the Liturgy as found in the principles of the Vat II’s constitution on the sacred liturgy? Do we fully understand the full nature of the liturgy or is our understanding of the liturgy limited to just one or two aspects while neglecting the entire teachings of the Church?

Also, because of the essential relationship of the Liturgy and the life of the Church, how well do we understand the Church’s own teachings on Her own Nature and role as proclaimed in the Vat II documents “Gaudium et spes” and “Lumen Gentium”?

Perhaps our knowledge of these documents of the Church is a bit lacking, and this lack of a better understanding of these documents has limited our full understanding of the Liturgy itself and thus our knowledge of the “why” we celebrate, today, as we do. I must emphasize here, I am refering to the celebration of the Liturgy in accordance to the Church’s laws and regulations and not the abuses so often mentioned.

Too often I read post quoting and refering to works of Popes and Councils that preceeded Vat II. Personally, I find this more often than not a misuse of these teachings because I find implyed in the use of the past popes and councils writings a perception that what developed from Vat II has no true relationship with what was taught and practiced by the pre-Vatican II Church. At times, it seems to me, that some feel the dichomy is so great between the Church of pre-Vat II and what was developed at Vat II that the documents of Vat II border on being invalid at the best or worse just ignored because they have been judge as having merit.

Also, when I read various criticisms of the way the Liturgy is celebrated today, and a Vat II document is sighted, the text quoted is often taken from the Catechism, but just as we criticize my protestants for using particular verses of the Bible quoting them our of context, the Catechism (and other documents from the post Vat II era) are, in my opinion, taken out of context and my guess is people were looking for a particular passage to augment their position with out reading the whole document.

So going back to my original point, I ask each of us to define your understanding of the full nature of the Liturgy of the Eucharist?

 

[Homebrew_roots]

Keep hope in the Church! We young people are bound and determined to get back to the more orthodox masses and teachings. We wont let these old liberal hippies have a hold on the church much longer! hhaha wow, that sounded mean but i dont care. Being PC was never part of my agenda.

 

[Wolseley]

MichelleTherese:

EVERYONE is disgruntled. For every ten people I hear complaining about the Liturgy in America there is only one person who likes it. So WHY are we still suffering the same modernized folk-hippie nonsense??? If 9 out of 10 people HATE the music and HATE the folk stuff why is it still around??? That’s what I’d like to know. Why cant we get Mass changed back to something normal and sane??

Because to do it, we’d have to buck the bishops…and as good Catholics, we are forbidden to fight with our bishops.

 

[Ace86]

TOME:

So going back to my original point, I ask each of us to define your understanding of the full nature of the Liturgy of the Eucharist?

Well it is the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Other than that, I really couldn’t tell you because the nature of the Liturgy in my experience has been so skewed I wouldn’t know what to tell you. Maybe someone could recomend some good truthful books that Catholics can read on the nature of the Liturgy.

 

[byHisGrace]

AltarMan:

Both extremes in the Church suck.

In their minds they couldn’t be more different, yet in reality they can be quite similiar. Both can be quite heterodox and welcoming of liturgical abuses and delicts:

Heterodox Group Alpha. Often referred to as “liberals”, “Spirit of Vatican II’ers.” Fond of referring to themselves as “progressives.” Common traits: Appreciate porous ceramic chalices and liturgical dancing. Mantra: “the spirit of Vatican II” ** Idealistic spritual advisor:** Roger Cardinal Mahony.

Heterodox Group Beta Often referred to as “right-wing whack-jobs” and sometimes as “preeners.” Fond of referring to themselves as “traditionalists.” Common traits: they know better than the Church what is best; more Catholic than the Pope. Mantra: It’s not abusive if it’s “better” than what the Church actually directs. Idealistic spritual advisor: Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz.

AltarMan,
While I can appreciate your frustration of heterodox points of view on both ends of the spectrum; to associate Bishop Bruskewitz as the “idealistic spiritual advisor” for “right-wing whack-jobs” is a terrible misrepresentation of Bishop Bruskewitz and the reality of his teaching. The good Bishop is very orthodox, and in no way could be associated with anything you could classify as heterodox during his time in Lincoln.

 

[AMDG1]

What if Jesus just doesn’t care about the “liberal” stuff? I mean…what if we’re more concerned than He is? What if the orthodoxy makes us feel better than it does Him?

Deep thoughts…don’t throw tomahtoes at me - just playing devil’s advocate whilst challenging our thinking (including mine)…

 

[Dr.Bombay]

AMDG1:

What if Jesus just doesn’t care about the “liberal” stuff? I mean…what if we’re more concerned than He is? What if the orthodoxy makes us feel better than it does Him?

Deep thoughts…don’t throw tomahtoes at me - just playing devil’s advocate whilst challenging our thinking (including mine)…

Well, since Christ gave His Church the power to bind and loose on earth and promised that power would be mirrored in heaven, and since His Church has chosen to lay down very specific guidelines on how Mass is to be said…unless Jesus was a liar, He is just as concerned about the manner in which Mass is celebrated as His Church is. Not more, not less.

Or that’s how I see it.

 

[cecelia]

All the time, “a parish community” “coming to the table,” etc. All those phrases are so mushy,wimpy,ineffective, and trite. I just want to stand up and say,“We’re the Church Militant, not the Community Reticent.”

 

[TEME525]

Ace86, I think part 2 of the Catechism, “The Celebration of the Christiam Mystery” is the best place to begin a serious study of the nature of the Liturgy.