Has anyone changed there mind here?

[Aragorn1]

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 penitential 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."

Exactly.

 

[Aragorn1]

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.

There’s no need to pit my words against those of Christ.

Matt1618:

We can see that the teaching that Christ shed his blood for all is in tune with Scripture. Scripture is a binding source of revelation for Catholics. For example, 1 John 2:2 reveals that “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” What was his propitiation? A shedding of his blood. Thus, according to unambiguous Scriptural teaching, his blood was shed for the whole world, not merely the elect. The Church in no way contradicts this Scriptural teaching.

Paul also writes 2 Cor. 5:15: “And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”
He did not die only for some, or even many, but for all.

Paul says quite clearly about who God wants saved, and who he sent his Son for, in 1 Tim. 2:4-6:

4 **who desires all men to be saved **and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.

And on top of Scripture there’s the Council of Trent:

Denzinger, 794:

Whereby it came to pass that the heavenly Father, “the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort” [2 Cor. 1:3], when that “blessed fullness of time” was come [Eph. 1:10; Gal. 4:4] sent to men Christ Jesus [can. 1], his Son, who had been announced and promised [cf. Gen. 49:10, 18], both before the Law and at the time of the Law to many holy Fathers, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law, and the “gentiles, who did not follow after justice, might attain to justice” [Rom. 9:30], and that all men “might receive the adoption of sons” [Gal. 4:5]. “Him God has proposed as a propitiator through faith in his BLOOD, for our sins” [Rom. 3:25], and not for our sins only, **but also for those of the whole world **[1 John 2:2]] (my emphasis)

Yes, God wills the salvation of all men, not just “the elect”. And Christ shed His blood for all men, not just “the elect”. This does not mean that all men will be saved. You’re clearly confusing salvation with redemption here: a basic fundamentalist confusion. Redemption is what Christ did for us, salvation is how the merits of His death are applied to us.

You might find this an interesting read.

And again, I’m all for a more accurate translation in the Mass. But the current formula is neither heretical nor invalid. That’s all I’m insisting on.

God Bless!

 

[Aragorn1]

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.

First of all the Protestants were not “observers” but observers, that is to say, there is no evidence that they did anything besides observing so there’s no reason for the quotation marks.

Second, even if they did influence the Council in some way, this only renders the Council problematic if it also renders the Council of Trent problematic. The Thirteenth Session of that Council features a “Decree for Postponing the Definition of Four Articles Touching the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and For Giving a Safe-Conduct to Protestants.” The Definition was postponed in order to obtain the Protestants’ (name removed by moderator)ut. Thus not only were Protestants invited to the Council, they were to go far beyond merely observing!

You can read the decree here (scroll down almost all the way).

 

[Aragorn1]

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.

Liturgical dancing is a liturgical abuse, regardless of whether the Bishop has a problem with it (see Jimmy Akin’s Mass Confusion). A truly orthodox Catholic would not merely “feel uneasy about it”. I don’t consider myself a traditionalist, yet I would oppose it if I saw it happening in my parish. And if a liberal would argue that liturgical dancers are OK, then to prove your hypothesis about “liberals invading this forum” you should point out at least several people here who are OK with liturgical dancers. I bet you won’t find many, if any.

Liberals look for loopholes. NFP would be an example.

I’m not sure what you mean to say here… Are you implying that NFP is intrinsically immoral, even when used for a serious reason??? If so, ever read this???

 

[dyspepsic]

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

Indulgences DO NOT forgive sins. So your theology is off. Indulgences rid us of some of the penalties due to our sins after they are forgiven.

An act of contrition works just as well to absolving us of sin, even mortal sin, if done fervently.

 

[dyspepsic]

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.

“It seems to you…” “It seems to you…”

You were there? You were an perita? What makes you such an expert as to come up with this nonsensical analysis. You just don’t know what you are talking about. You are just spewing the SSPX agenda of attacking the Magisterium of the Church, and Vatican 2, and the good things it did.

Why don’t you go back to pushing for ‘communion in the hand’, a real significant issue, and insist it is due to Protestantism.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Indulgences DO NOT forgive sins. So your theology is off. Indulgences rid us of some of the penalties due to our sins after they are forgiven.

An act of contrition works just as well to absolving us of sin, even mortal sin, if done fervently.

As he said, an indulgence, partial, is a partial remission of temporal punishment due to sin. A plenary indulgence, is a total remission of temporal punishment due to sin.
Only sacramental absolution, or perfect contrition can remove mortal sin.
Deacon Ed b

 

[ProVobis]

I love my Mass – the only Mass I have ever known – as much as the proponents of the TLM love theirs.

Yes, but doesn’t it bother you to know that there were many less-than-honest people in the Church who tried to deprive you of your right to attend a long-standing Catholic Mass by telling you it was abrogated? I know several people who don’t think the Latin Mass is even Catholic. Ouch, the power of misinformation.

 

[Aragorn1]

Yes, but doesn’t it bother you to know that there were many less-than-honest people in the Church who tried to deprive you of your right to attend a long-standing Catholic Mass by telling you it was abrogated? I know several people who don’t think the Latin Mass is even Catholic. Ouch, the power of misinformation.

Thankfully, the issue of it being abrogated or not was cleared up with Summorum Pontificum.

 

[ProVobis]

And again, I’m all for a more accurate translation in the Mass.

Then we’ll both look forward to the revised texts which will reflect what Christ said.

 

[elt1956]

Back to the original post, I am curious if anyone else had an answer. While my answer is “no”, I admit to having learned a few things, softening my opinion in some areas and even reversing my opinion in at least one area. Not that my opinion has any bearing of what the Church will decied, I think it is good to know that some here do try to keep an open mind.

BTW, the thing I nave changed my mind about is the orientation of the priest, facing east. That was largely because of a suggest that I read Spirit of the Liturgy a while back.

Okay, catche me up on this. Do you really thing the Church will have the NERVE (well yeah, if it wants to), to limit the form of OUR Mass to only Latin, or NO? I can’t see it. Can you? Peace.

 

[elt1956]

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.

Who are the elect??? Is the word “them” specific?, or whom/who? does Christ mean? Peace.

 

[Ghoti]

Yes, but doesn’t it bother you to know that there were many less-than-honest people in the Church who tried to deprive you of your right to attend a long-standing Catholic Mass by telling you it was abrogated? I know several people who don’t think the Latin Mass is even Catholic. Ouch, the power of misinformation.

Yes. It does.

It does not change my earlier tirade (let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?). If you have a problem with Novus Ordo, or John XXIII, or Vatican II, you can point out where you see specific flaws etc without having to resort to name calling and insults.

 

[elt1956]

“It seems to you…” “It seems to you…”

You were there? You were an perita? What makes you such an expert as to come up with this nonsensical analysis. You just don’t know what you are talking about. You are just spewing the SSPX agenda of attacking the Magisterium of the Church, and Vatican 2, and the good things it did.

Why don’t you go back to pushing for ‘communion in the hand’, a real significant issue, and insist it is due to Protestantism.

Oh dear dyspepsic. It “seems” to me the operative word here is “seems”. It doesn’t “seem” to me that stmaria was giving anything more absolute that an “opinion” and you know how written in stone those are. Peace.

 

[stmaria]

=dyspepsic;3433118]“It seems to you…” “It seems to you…”

You were there? You were an perita? What makes you such an expert as to come up with this nonsensical analysis

.
Sorry, I am just saying that the Anglicans were revising their liturgy at the same time we were revising ours. That is why they wee invited to the Consilium by Pope Paul.

Reform of the Liturgy-Annibale Bugnini, “ At the audience of December 2, 1965, Cardinal Lercaro, president of the Consilium, gave the Pope a statement in which he said that some members of the Anglican communion who were involved in the revision of that Church’s liturgy had let it be known by indirect channels that they would be interested in following the work of the Consilium at close hand."
,
Protestant observer Canon Ronald Jasper was interviewed in1977 and he explained that the observers received all the documents from the drafters,.they were present at the debates, but not allowed to join in the debate. In the afternoon they always had an informal meeting with the periti who had prepared the drafts and at these meetings they were allowed to comment and criticize and make suggestions. .

"They (the Protestant ministers) were not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed.”
(Monsignor Baum, quoted in “The Detroit News”, June 27, 1967)

You just don’t know what you are talking about. You are just spewing the SSPX agenda of attacking the Magisterium of the Church, and Vatican 2, and the good things it did.

I am not with the SSPX, just interested in the history of the liturgy and how things came to be.

 

[ProVobis]

Who are the elect??? Is the word “them” specific?, or whom/who? does Christ mean? Peace.

Not for the world means not for the world. Why are we questioning Christ’s rhetoric? By the way, “for you and for all” is somewhat redundant, adding further insult to Christ in my opinion.

But then, I guess I’m a little of a hypocrite as I did change the wording slightly on the OP’s Thread Title. Maybe he really meant “there.”

 

[GerardP]

But then, I guess I’m a little of a hypocrite as I did change the wording slightly on the OP’s Thread Title. Maybe he really meant “there.”

Or maybe “their”?

The singular “their” is acceptable in English tradition.

crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html

 

[elt1956]

Not for the world means not for the world. Why are we questioning Christ’s rhetoric? By the way, “for you and for all” is somewhat redundant, adding further insult to Christ in my opinion.

But then, I guess I’m a little of a hypocrite as I did change the wording slightly on the OP’s Thread Title. Maybe he really meant “there.”

I’m not questioning Christ. I am asking YOU. WHO do you mean by the elect. I have heard that term used by LDS members and just wonder what it means in Catholic termonology. And who do you think Christ meant by THEM? Isn’t that plural? He didn’t say he, her, him, she. I am asking YOU… Thanks. Peace.

 

[Your_Abbott]

Awwwwwwww Dyspepsic. Nothing is in the past as long as we have memories. Nothing against the NO as I have lived with it since the 60s, but have you ever gone to a Latin Mass? I was raised with it, being a child of the 40s and 50s and it is quite beautiful. I know I am “old” and sentimental about the Latin Mass, but I truly do not remember being directed by 8 year olds as to when to stand, kneel, etc. They were at least 10. Just kidding. All kidding aside, it was/is a part of my life and nothing can take that away. I truly wish every Catholic would give both forms of the Mass a chance. I just don’t understand the bru ha ha about it having to be one form or another or one is not “truly” worshiping God in the proper way.The core of the Mass, the Consecration and Communion happen in both forms. Isn’t this the Mass??

I understand the culture shock of those Catholics attending a Latin Mass for the first few times. It would indeed be strange. Strange, but eventually appreciated. I suppose the NO wasn’t such a shock to me as it was in English so I adjusted to it, but it was also strange at first. Peace.

You didn’t answer the question. I disagree with your post. Where are the priests of your age, out there in the front, leading the battle for the latin mass. They don’t seem to want any part of it. Check any major diocese in the country. Probably one latin mass for each million catholics in their population. The faithful know best. The priests are following them.

 

[Derbingo]

Absolution of venial sins, if you are contrite, is only available in the Traditional Mass. This absolution has been removed in the OF. This doesn’t mean that you can ignore confession. Penance is a sacrament and from it you will receive grace.

Can you source your proof of this contention that there is absolution of venial sins in the Trad Mass?