R
Rich_C
Guest
According to FB, they’re experience issues with the new server the site was moved on to after the hacking incident.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
Not every part of the text is part of the form. Therefore, the pope can change it at his discretion. He can authorize the Congregation for Divine Worship to change it. He can authorize the Patriarchs to change it or in the West, the Conferences of Bishops. It’s his call to make.
For example, in the consecration, every Catholic Church except for one must say, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” There is only one Church that is allowed to consecrate without those words, because they never used them. The rest of the text in the Eucharistic Prayer or in the Anaphora can be changed by the Church and has been changed over the centuries.
The same applies for other sacraments. In baptism you must say “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Everything else is extra, the salt, the exorcism, the anointing with oil and the texts that go with these rites are not part of the form. Whether they are present or not, it does not change the sacrament.
In Penance, the priest must say, “I absolve you . . . .” The rest of the text supports the action, but it’s not part of the form.
None of the changes in the texts have touched the words necessary to the form.
I hope this helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
I realize this, but Timothy referred to vestments and architecture but not to the texts. I think this was innocent, but the omission has consequences. This is because the biggest problem many of us have with the OF is that the texts insufficiently convey the theology of the Mass which the EF conveys abundantly.Not every part of the text is part of the form. Therefore, the pope can change it at his discretion. He can authorize the Congregation for Divine Worship to change it. He can authorize the Patriarchs to change it or in the West, the Conferences of Bishops. It’s his call to make.
For example, in the consecration, every Catholic Church except for one must say, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” There is only one Church that is allowed to consecrate without those words, because they never used them. The rest of the text in the Eucharistic Prayer or in the Anaphora can be changed by the Church and has been changed over the centuries.
The same applies for other sacraments. In baptism you must say “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Everything else is extra, the salt, the exorcism, the anointing with oil and the texts that go with these rites are not part of the form. Whether they are present or not, it does not change the sacrament.
In Penance, the priest must say, “I absolve you . . . .” The rest of the text supports the action, but it’s not part of the form.
None of the changes in the texts have touched the words necessary to the form.
I hope this helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
This is the concern that most trads have who (like me) think the OF is valid. It’s valid, but all of the changes do have great consequences, especially the texts. The Offertory prayers, the Mysterium Fidei, EPs II-IV, and so on … serious consequences in how we think about the Mass, the experience of the Mass, and so on.
S
Spooky7272
Guest
Indeed. I just looked over that section and see no errors.
anyone can look for themselves fisheaters.com/posture.html
The part about genuflection is about mid-page
T
TrueLight
Guest
Yes, that section was so helpful to me when I was first learning about Catholicism. I didn’t know anything about genuflections. I studied that page.
The other page that helped me was the page on how to make the sign of the cross. I really had no idea how to hold my fingers because I had never seen anyone do it up close.
The section on Being Catholic is really a great resource for converts.
Anyone who has a blog or who has written for a website can appreciate the amount of research and time it takes to write such articles.
J
jensnick
Guest
What’s the facebook group called? I searched “fisheaters” and came up with no results.
F
floresco
Guest
I googled “facebook” with “fisheaters” and I got it.
It is back up now, but the underlying problem is not solved, so it is expected to go down again.
P
PatrickSanDiego
Guest
…See, Truelight, you have to leave your pride at the door. Or, at least be complete enough to back up these statements. You state this is the third person. I would say with a high degree of probability that, although in the third person, is generally aimed at me, and generally about my disposition towards Fisheaters. If you go back in this thread, you will read a statement that I make that displays, plainly, a liking of Fisheaters. I’ve read through Fisheaters, extensively. What I said, in my words was correct. Arguing on the internet is sooo 1995.I guess you told me! You sure put me in my place!
Who’s being rude and hostile?
In any case, I don’t agree with you. Like I said, their forum has some issues, but their articles are quite good including the ones on traditional practices. They’re extremely well researched.
Once someone’s made up their mind about something, it’s hard for them to see anything else.
Talk about something positive!
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t think that’s a universal feeling. Speaking for myself, I don’t find that I’m missing anything in either form or in either text. I know exactly what each means to say and the origin of each rendition. This always takes me back to the same old thing. We dropped the ball on catechesis. The differences in the texts would not be as problematic, if people were well educated in what they each try to convey and where they come from. But that is not what happens in the average religious education class.
I teach religious ed to grade 6. I cover the texts of both forms. The kids get very excited about them, because they understand them. I take the time to explain the language, the origins and their roots. For example, when I explained to the kids that the idea of four Eucharistic prayers was a carry over from male religious houses, because many of the older communities have always had them, the kids wanted to know about the Cistercians, Trappists, Franciscans and Servites. It put things in context for them.
When I explained the Canon and its history and how the words were used by the early Christians, the kids wanted to know about these people. I even went into a little Greek and Latin with them to help them understand some of the terminology used in the Canon.
They see the big picture. Just yesterday, the kids asked me to explain to them why the major religious orders of men were allowed to keep the Eucharistic prayers and the rest of the Church was not. That’s good catechesis. These kids will walk into an OF or EF mass and know the history and the intent of the text.
We need to do this.
I apologize . . . I’ve derailed this thread. I’ll shut up now.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
I know it’s not universal (feeling there’s a problem with the OF texts) but it’s certainly common (very common) among trads.I don’t think that’s a universal feeling. Speaking for myself, I don’t find that I’m missing anything in either form or in either text. I know exactly what each means to say and the origin of each rendition. This always takes me back to the same old thing. We dropped the ball on catechesis. The differences in the texts would not be as problematic, if people were well educated in what they each try to convey and where they come from. But that is not what happens in the average religious education class.
I teach religious ed to grade 6. I cover the texts of both forms. The kids get very excited about them, because they understand them. I take the time to explain the language, the origins and their roots. For example, when I explained to the kids that the idea of four Eucharistic prayers was a carry over from male religious houses, because many of the older communities have always had them, the kids wanted to know about the Cistercians, Trappists, Franciscans and Servites. It put things in context for them.
When I explained the Canon and its history and how the words were used by the early Christians, the kids wanted to know about these people. I even went into a little Greek and Latin with them to help them understand some of the terminology used in the Canon.
They see the big picture. Just yesterday, the kids asked me to explain to them why the major religious orders of men were allowed to keep the Eucharistic prayers and the rest of the Church was not. That’s good catechesis. These kids will walk into an OF or EF mass and know the history and the intent of the text.
We need to do this.
I apologize . . . I’ve derailed this thread. I’ll shut up now.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
But your other point: are you actually saying that EPs II-IV come from ancient usages of orders?
Because my understanding has been:
EP I: based on the Roman Canon, though not without changing some things.
EP II: supposedly based upon Hippolytus but actually comparing the texts side by side show significant changes.
EPs III and IV: patched together from different sources
EPs for children and other EPs: totally made up
So I am being unfair in this characterization? Does EP III really come from a Cisterian Missal?
J
JReducation
Guest
This comes from several renditions of the Roman Canon. The version that is in the current Roman Missal was written by the CDW. The older versions of it were actually used in some religious houses long before Vatican II.
Hippolytus EP was used by the mendicants except for the Carmelites and Dominicans who had their own rites. It underwent several revisions. The final one was by the CDW.
This one is a hybrid.
The one for children was written by the CDW and the others were created by the Benedictines. They were asked to create them, but I’m not sure which congregation of Benedictines.
EP III came from an ancient Cistercian Missal that the CDW reworked in order to make the translation into the modern languages flow better. CDW reworded the Latin and then each language group did their translations. Franciscans used the old version of what is today EP III for centuries. They actually had two, the Roman Canon and the Roman-Franciscan Canon as it was called. EP III, is a hybrid of traditions. They were actually different EP’s according to the different orders. The CDW tried to unify it. It’s not bad. It’s not my favorite.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
R
Rich_C
Guest
Try “fish eaters” instead.
J
jensnick
Guest
Ok I found it. Thx!
M
MartinJordan
Guest
Hi. I used to visit fisheaters.com till I saw this a year ago:
Note:
*In October 2002, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, recommended adding 5 more Mysteries to the Rosary to be prayed on Thursdays – the “Luminous Mysteries” which focus on Jesus’ public life. These Mysteries are:
This novelty does not change the true Rosary and is merely presented as an option for Christians. This option, however, is one that totally disrupts the relationship between the Rosary and the Breviary’s Psalms. Stick with the classic tried-and-true Rosary. To read why adding Mysteries to the Rosary was a most horrible idea, see this page, and to read a critique of Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical on the matter, see this page (both pages offsite, will open in new browser window)*
Source: fisheaters.com/lists.html
Sincerely,
MJ
Note:
*In October 2002, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, recommended adding 5 more Mysteries to the Rosary to be prayed on Thursdays – the “Luminous Mysteries” which focus on Jesus’ public life. These Mysteries are:
Code:
The Baptism in the Jordan
The Marriage Feast at Cana
The Proclamation of the Kingdom
The Transfiguration
The Institution of the EucharistSource: fisheaters.com/lists.html
Sincerely,
MJ
P
Padraig1972
Guest
These mysteries are fine and was an important part of my conversion process. But they are not the traditional ones. I do agree, that it is best and recommended to stick to the true-traditional 15 mysteries.
M
Marybeloved
Guest
I always thought that the 15 mysteries were incomplete because they were silent on everything after Christ at 12, then just jumped straight to the last day of his life! It’s like, Christ was born and was a kid, then he suffered and died, then the glorious mysteries. Change sometimes is uncomfortable but can be very good. I’m happy that now, I can focus on his life in the rest of the Gospels too! I still think it’s inadequate- The sermon on the mount should definitely be there- But I like it much better as it is now. So when they say that it’s a compendium of the Gospel in prayer, I can agree! 
Fisheaters has been very, very helpful to me. It introduced me to the St. Louis de Monteforte’s Consecration to Jesus through Mary- This literally saved my life and faith, I assure you. They are a reliable source if your focus is spirituality- I really don’t like meeting these new Catholics who know all about the teachings of modern popular writers and almost nothing about the Saints or their writings or teachings.
You cannot get a true sense of the Catholic mind without getting acquainted with the saints. You can be easily swept up in false perspectives and think them orthodox and catholic when they go against the “beat” and rhythm of the wisdom of the saints, which is Catholic faith as lived in the fullest sense. If you read the Saints- You know what authentic Catholicism is and ought to be and what its true aims and perspectives are.
Fisheaters has been very, very helpful to me. It introduced me to the St. Louis de Monteforte’s Consecration to Jesus through Mary- This literally saved my life and faith, I assure you. They are a reliable source if your focus is spirituality- I really don’t like meeting these new Catholics who know all about the teachings of modern popular writers and almost nothing about the Saints or their writings or teachings.
You cannot get a true sense of the Catholic mind without getting acquainted with the saints. You can be easily swept up in false perspectives and think them orthodox and catholic when they go against the “beat” and rhythm of the wisdom of the saints, which is Catholic faith as lived in the fullest sense. If you read the Saints- You know what authentic Catholicism is and ought to be and what its true aims and perspectives are.
C
cothrige
Guest
I always find the Luminous Mysteries an amusing example of the modern Catholic mind at work. I can remember when Pope John Paul II came out with this idea he prefaced it very clearly as a mere suggestion for those who may be interested, and never implied the least sort of necessity for following it. They were obviously a personal consideration rather than any kind of authoritative teaching. There are phrases such as “I believe . . .” and “while left to the freedom of individuals and communities . . .” before mentioning his thoughts on these new mysteries. And what was the response of the churches to this novel idea? Absolute and total adoption, without any possible note of disagreement. Every Rosary said publicly in Churches now incorporate these and use the modified daily arrangement of the mysteries which their inclusion requires. Also, printed books never give the traditional arrangement and rather use the new one using these mysteries. One would have thought that these mysteries were dictated as a matter of ex cathedra teaching rather than being a mere suggestion, which they clearly were.
In opposition to this false piety there stands the liturgy. Our popes have given actual teachings regarding the liturgy and other official prayers of the Church again and again, and yet where is this obsession to follow the the pope then? Is there any obedience to the Holy Father in what he actually teaches and promotes regarding the public worship of the Church itself? Certainly not. It amuses me to no end to walk into our churches, with their Lenten stoups filled with sand, or the washing of women’s feet, mangled creeds, unapproved vestments, lay preachers, songs about Yahweh and fictional Eucharistic prayers, and yet find the Rosary being “obediently” prayed with the wrong mysteries. The pope taught it after all.
It reveals a lot about what constitutes the Catholic faith in these United States.
J
JaMc
Guest
Looks like it’s just someone’s personal opinion on the Luminous Mysteries. It’s not as vitriolic as some of what I’ve seen written about them on the web… In any event, the Rosary is a private devotion, so, if you like the Luminous Mysteries, pray them, and if you don’t, don’t.
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
Yes, just someone’s opinion (and one that I agree with).
Leaving FE for that reason makes no sense.
Well, I should modify that: you can leave if you want, if it’s not profitable for you. But to judge that as a problem when it’s actually a valid opinion makes no sense.
(Just like leaving for information on genuflection which happens to be correct, like another poster.)
B
Big_Feet
Guest
The same could be said about any of the other 3 sets of myseries of the Rosary, or for that matter, the entire rosary itself.
It is a private devotion, and is not reqired of any of the faithful.
- Status