Has anyone changed there mind here?

[Aragorn1]

Regarding the ongoing exchange about the prayers of absolution during Mass, I think they were modified in the OF precisely so as to not give the impression that sins were being remitted during Mass (I guess some people thought the prayer was sufficient for mortal sins as well and this caused confusion). As it is, I think the emphasis should be on having sins forgiven in the confessional. Also if I’m not mistaken, aren’t venial sins forgiven anyway through a valid confession? And also a worthy reception of Communion? So it’s not as if the absolution is really necessary.

 

[Aragorn1]

You don’t see a problem? Well, how would you like it if you willed your belongings to go to certain people but the state decided that you really meant for all to have it?

Um, Christ does not will only the elect to be saved and He did not shed His blood only for some. That’s Jansenism! On the contrary, He died for all men and He wills all men to be saved, even if not all respond. In that sense, then, the words “for all” are not theologically problematic, though I agree they should be changed to reflect what Christ actually said. But your example is not analogous.

 

[AJV]

.

Since 'forgive" is sufficient does this apply to the Espiscopal Church? They also have what they call the " Penitential Rite" in their liturgy which reads. “Bless the Lord who forgiveth all our sins. His mercy endures for ever”

Penitential Rite II [they also have options} goes even further.
The priest says, "Almighty God have mercy on you, **forgive you all your sins

through our Lord Jesus Christ, strenghen you in all goodness, and by the power of the Holy Spirit keep you in eternal Life. Amen"

The efficacy is the same as applies to most sacramentals when used by those outside the visible confines of the Church.

As to the appropriateness, the first formula is clearly not since it is not a prayer for the forgiveness of sins. The second formula is and when used by a Catholic priest would be a sacramental. I don’t think the first formula is regarded even by the Anglicans as an act of penitence or absolution. For then, I think it is more akin to a “Dominus Vobiscum” for penitential occasions.

Comparison with the '79 BCP (which I assume you were using) hardly demonstrates in any case that the Misereatur is not a formula for absolving venial sins simply because the Anglicans are using it. The BCP also contains

The Almighty and merciful Lord grant you absolution and remission of all your sins, true repentance, amendment of life, and the grace and consolation of his Holy Spirit. Amen.

for Holy Communion and Morning and Evening Prayer. This formula was inherited from the Sarum version of the Indulgentiam.

And outside these services, for an optional “Reconciliation of a Penitent”

Our Lord Jesus Christ, who has left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive you all your offenses; and by his authority committed to me, I absolve you from all your sins: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Regarding the ongoing exchange about the prayers of absolution during Mass, I think they were modified in the OF precisely so as to not give the impression that sins were being remitted during Mass

Yes, exactly. Some of the revisers considered that the formula could be mistaken as applying to sins remitted only through the sacrament of Penance. The precise merits of that argument is another matter…

 

[stmaria]

Regarding the ongoing exchange about the prayers of absolution during Mass, I think they were modified in the OF precisely so as to not give the impression that sins were being remitted during Mass (I guess some people thought the prayer was sufficient for mortal sins as well and this caused confusion). As it is, I think the emphasis should be on having sins forgiven in the confessional. Also if I’m not mistaken, aren’t venial sins forgiven anyway through a valid confession? And also a worthy reception of Communion? So it’s not as if the absolution is really necessary.

It was Father Bugnini’s decision to omit the absolution part of the prayer. He doesn’t say why he made the change but I have my reasons as to why he did it.
In his book *Reform of the Liturgy *he says.
" The penitential act should be short, well defined, uniformed thoroughout the Church…there should be more numerous formulas for the penitential act…**the absolution **after the penietneial act is **not to be a genuine absolution **and should not be worded in such a way as to lead the faithful into error on this point."

 

[ProVobis]

Um, Christ does not will only the elect to be saved and He did not shed His blood only for some. .

That’s a bit of a stretch, isn’t it? The words are “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” John 17:9.

I’ll take Christ’s words over yours, thanks.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

It was Father Bugnini’s decision to omit the absolution part of the prayer. He doesn’t say why he made the change but I have my reasons as to why he did it.
In his book *Reform of the Liturgy *he says.
" The penitential act should be short, well defined, uniformed thoroughout the Church…there should be more numerous formulas for the penitential act…**the absolution **after the penietneial act is **not to be a genuine absolution **and should not be worded in such a way as to lead the faithful into error on this point."

Is all this a denial that VENIAL sins are forgiven during the penitential rite of the OF?

 

[stmaria]

Is all this a denial that VENIAL sins are forgiven during the penitential rite of the OF?

According to the architect of the New Mass, yes. The absolution is still there in the Traditional Mass.

 

[MrS]

That’s a bit of a stretch, isn’t it? The words are “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” John 17:9.

I’ll take Christ’s words over yours, thanks.

Yes, it is true that it is God’s will that all be saved. And yes, He does know who will accept His gift and who will not. But the “for all” misleads some into thinking just that… “all” will be saved.

Instead it is for the many who will be saved by acceptance, repentance and union with Jesus the Christ.

Some priests, for whatever reason, bought into the idea that “for many” actually should be “for the many”, and that means “for all” .

Perhaps that is what they were told.

Thankfully that is being corrected, as is the Credo from “we beleive” to the proper “I beleive”.

Darn, there is that “Latin thing” again that helps in the proper understanding of the Liturgy.

.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

According to the architect of the New Mass, yes. The absolution is still there in the Traditional Mass.

Straining at this gnat seems to put folks in more danger of mistaking that ‘absolution’ with the same quality obtained from the sacrament of Confession.

BTW – any Vatican type documents to back up this claim venial sins are not forgiven in the OF?

 

[stmaria]

=Eilish Maura;3432210]Straining at this gnat seems to put folks in more danger of mistaking that ‘absolution’ with the same quality obtained from the sacrament of Confession.

No one that goes to the Traditional mass will be confused. They all know that nothing can replace the sacrament of Penance.

BTW – any Vatican type documents to back up this claim venial sins are not forgiven in the OF?

Venial sins are not forgive by way of this one prayer. That’s all I am talking about . This one prayer in the Pentiential Rite.

 

[AJV]

According to the architect of the New Mass, yes. The absolution is still there in the Traditional Mass.

By “genuine absolution” he is speaking of the absolution in the Sacrament of Penance. The wording of the Indulgentiam is quite close- and, for good reason for it is inherited from the Sacrament of Penance (cf Jungmann’s Mass of the Roman Rite) where it was used until the indicative form came into being.

Venial sins can still be forgiven by the recitation of the Misereatur in the OF.

 

[richardwy]

No one that goes to the Traditional mass will be confused. They all know that nothing can replace the sacrament of Penance.

So simply and well stated!

When converting and unacquainted with the Tridentine Mass, I knew the difference.

Oh how I love the Church!

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Venial sins are still forgiven during the penitential rite. There is NO SACRAMENTAL ABSOLUTION. All that is necessary is a sincere intent on the part of the people that they be contrite. Remember, a person is not barred from receiving the Eucharist due to venial sin, as the reception of the Eucharist itself removes them. This argument looked at as a whole, really has no merit, because of this one last fact I said about the Eucharist. Remember, we are not talking sacramental absolution. The entire argument boils down to what ** YOU** as an individual prefer to be said, which has no bearing on its efficacy.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Ghoti]

I agree with most of what you say, but man do you need to calm down. You’re giving all the rest of us “non-traditionalists” a bad name!

Yes, I saw the smileys, but I cannot let this go by without comment.

How exactly am I giving “non-traditionalists” a bad name?

I am NOT a non-traditionalist. I am NOT a traditionalist. I am a Catholic; it’s all I know. By belief in union with Rome, but by sin, not (i.e., I *really *have to get to confession).

I love my Mass – the only Mass I have ever known – as much as the proponents of the TLM love theirs. I was baptized Novus Ordo. I did my First Confession Novus Ordo. I did my First Communion Novus Ordo. I was confirmed by my bishop at the Cathedral Novus Ordo. It is all I have ever known: the Word of God to me, and my prayers to Him, in English.

Who knows: perhaps I might love the TLM when I get the opportunity to go. Perhaps even more. I might end up going exclusively to Latin Masses. Then again, I might not.

BTW, I hope this particular entry is coherent. I haven’t had much sleep last night. And yes, as I said in my last post, I have been weeping; that was not hyperbole. I get very very frustrated at the condescension and insults.

Because of my beliefs, and my Mass…To the atheists, I’m a benighted, delusional idiot (“Christard”, I think is one adjective). To the Muslims, I am an infidel, worthy of death. To the Jews, I’m a polytheist. To the SDAs, I’m the follower of the Antichrist. To the Orthodox, I’m a schismatic, and my Sacraments are invalid. To the Evangelicals, I’m a Mary-worshippin’ Statue-prayin’ bead-mumblin’ papish on his way to hell. It’s very hard, but I **try **to deal with it with a .

But when people in my own Church start in… That makes it even harder. My defensive walls were built to withstand attack from without, not from my comrades-in-arms within. To me, it’s an ecclesiastic “Et tu, Brute?”

Acts 2: [sup]1[/sup] And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: …[sup]4[/sup] And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak. [sup]5[/sup] Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. [sup]6[/sup] And when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded in mind, **because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue. **

Seems to me the Holy Spirit could have avoided a lot of trouble if He’d just handed out Roman Missals instead.

 

[MrS]

Seems to me the Holy Spirit could have avoided a lot of trouble if He’d just handed out Roman Missals instead.

Boy ain’t that the truth?

We could have used the missiles against the WMD these last 40 years.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Venial sins are not forgive by way of this one prayer. That’s all I am talking about . This one prayer in the Pentiential Rite.

Seems you are making a fuss about nothing.

 

[stmaria]

Seems you are making a fuss about nothing.

I just find it interesting that the prayer needed to changed in the first place.
Just like Eucharistic prayer II, the most commonly used, which has removed any mention of the communion of the Saints, Blessed Virgin Mary, St Peter and Paul. The similiarity between the Novus Ordo and the revised Book of Common Prayer used by the Anglicans and Episcopals is quite striking, from their Penitential prayer, their optional Eucharistic prayers, to their words of “consecration” to their understanding of the “Mystery of Faith”, to their sign of peace, to their Our Father with the acclamation, “for thine is the kingdom”.
Seems to me that the Protestant " observors "at the Consilium did have some influence on the Novus Ordo. They were revising their liturgy at the same time we were revising ours. Seems to me that they shared ideas of how a Mass should be celebrated.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I just find it interesting that the prayer needed to changed in the first place.
Just like Eucharistic prayer II, the most commonly used, which has removed any mention of the communion of the Saints, Blessed Virgin Mary, St Peter and Paul. The similiarity between the Novus Ordo and the revised Book of Common Prayer used by the Anglicans and Episcopals is quite striking, from their Penitential prayer, their optional Eucharistic prayers, to their words of “consecration” to their understanding of the “Mystery of Faith”, to their sign of peace, to their Our Father with the acclamation, “for thine is the kingdom”.
Seems to me that the Protestant " observors "at the Consilium did have some influence on the Novus Ordo. They were revising their liturgy at the same time we were revising ours. Seems to me that they shared ideas of how a Mass should be celebrated.

You can find it interesting – you can find it the best thing since sliced bread – but where do you get the authoritative information to base the claims you have made???

Where do you get your official back up for saying that venial sins are not forgiven during the penitential rite of the OF??

 

[AJV]

I just find it interesting that the prayer needed to changed in the first place.

Just like Eucharistic prayer II, the most commonly used, which has removed any mention of the communion of the Saints, Blessed Virgin Mary, St Peter and Paul. The similiarity between the Novus Ordo and the revised Book of Common Prayer used by the Anglicans and Episcopals is quite striking, from their Penitential prayer, their optional Eucharistic prayers, to their words of “consecration” to their understanding of the “Mystery of Faith”, to their sign of peace, to their Our Father with the acclamation, “for thine is the kingdom”.

Seems to me that the Protestant " observors "at the Consilium did have some influence on the Novus Ordo. They were revising their liturgy at the same time we were revising ours. Seems to me that they shared ideas of how a Mass should be celebrated.

Strange that the Episcopalians felt quite comfortable adding it their Prayerbook an equivalent to the prayer suppressed in the OF, isn’t it? “The Almighty and merciful Lord grant you absolution and remission of all your sins…”.

The words of consecration in the OF don’t exactly match theirs, anyway. Neither is the sign of peace in the same place and none of their Eucharistic Prayers are exactly the same. The one that comes closest (D) is a self-confessed adaptation because they liked it so much.

 

[I_Believe]

Please define what you consider to be a Liberal, an Orthodox, and a Traditionalist Catholic.

** A liberal would argue that liturgical dancers are ok because their Bishop has no problem with it. An orthodox would accept it or feel uneasy about it, and may or may not speak against it. A traditionalist knows better and is likely to voice his/her opinion. Liberals look for loopholes. NFP would be an example. **

The problem is, some such threads are started off in the guise of “Subject: HOLY TRUE RED instead of happy clappy pinko.”

** HMM, the words red and pinko make me think communism.
Not sure what you mean. **

Ooooh, sounds like a conspiracy.

** In what way ? **

Liberals don’t tend to let those of similar mindset fight their own battles. They will read a post obviously directed towards the words of another poster, and butt in and begin their own little “virtual inquisition”. Their intent is belittlement rather than discussion.

But, then again I guess we are all liberals. We are very liberal with our opinions here. We all take liberty to “speak for the Church”.
We are very liberal in our tendency to assume others are implying what we would like them to imply. Usually so we can attack their words. I’m guilty of it as are 90 % of those who post here.

A CA member I respect very much emailed me and told me I have a knack of offending everyone at times. Liberals, Orthodox, and Traditionalists. He told me to focus on the Liberals with prudence lol.

Good day