Has anyone changed there mind here?

[Derbingo]

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 have any proof of this: 1) they were revising their liturgy
2) they advised us to change ours to the like of theirs

'Seems to me" argument is not enough since you are so partial to the TLM,. and so ‘anti’ to any change in the liturgy. You have become overwrought over this issue. It really doesn’t matter that much objectively.

 

[THutch04]

You have any proof of this: 1) they were revising their liturgy
2) they advised us to change ours to the like of theirs

I believe that they did begin revising their liturgy starting in 1960. And it changed significantly as well. However the final version in the US was not released until 1979. I wouldn’t say that the penitential rite is very similar between the Catholic and Episcopal Churches. It is in the beginning (which was a great simplification of the 1928 version in the Book of Common Prayer), but that’s really where the similarities end. I agree that the responses and the structure are VERY similar (as long as you can follow along with the fact that the two stand and kneel at different times), but there are some noticeable differences between the two. I won’t disagree that they may have consulted Vatican officials, but I don’t think it would really be fair to say that they advised us to change our liturgy to be like theirs, because the version that the Episcopal Church uses now is not the version that was around at that point, and the 1928 liturgy is very different from the OF of the Mass. That’s of course only based on my experience with the United States versions. I don’t know if the ones in the other provinces are very different.

 

[I_Believe]

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.

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???

Ok, my point is, there are liberals who post on the forum. I don’t keep a list of them lol.

Do you believe there are none who post here ? If so, I’m ok with that

When I said this forum is infested with liberals it was because of the trend here the last two or three months. I was tee’d off.

Look at page one of this forum day after day. The same threads stay at the top for a week or two at a time, with hundreds of posts. Everyone is arguing the same old argument, citing the same sources to back their arguments. It always turns ugly and if the thread gets locked, another one pops up.

It’s always been that way. Welcome to the internet I_Believe. Sure, but here lately it’s nuts.

And, liturgical dancers ? Here we go again. I didn’t say we have liberals here who are ok with liturgical dancers. I used liturgical dancers as an example of what a liberal might be ok with imo. Should I have just ignored the one who asked ?

You say you don’t like liturgical dancers. Good deal. Who would be more likely to think liturgical dancers are a good idea in your opinion ? A liberal, an orthodox, or a traditionalist ? If you would answer liberal, then why did you not read my example for what it was ?

NFP ? Just what I said. Some use it as an excuse. Some use it because they don’t want children. Some don’t want them “just yet” “we want to be financially secure before we have our first child” . I don’t get it. Why did they marry ? Because the Church says no sex before Marriage ? So sex is an issue ? “well, it’s natural for a man and woman to desire sex. God gave us that desire.” Right. God gave it to us for a reason. Is Chastity so great a sacrafice that it can so easily be pushed aside to satisfy Lust ? And money ? If you don’t want kids or you can’t afford them, why are you Married ? Is that Catholicism ? (not asking you all these questions, just ranting)

It’s in a sense, a mockery of the Sacrament of Marriage considering God has also Willed that some couples will not bear children. That’s a tough cross to bear.

jmo

Anyhow, how would you rate me ? Traditional, Orthodox, Liberal, of Hard Headed ?

 

[Like]

Ok, my point is, there are liberals who post on the forum. I don’t keep a list of them lol.

Do you believe there are none who post here ? If so, I’m ok with that

When I said this forum is infested with liberals it was because of the trend here the last two or three months. I was tee’d off.

Look at page one of this forum day after day. The same threads stay at the top for a week or two at a time, with hundreds of posts. Everyone is arguing the same old argument, citing the same sources to back their arguments. It always turns ugly and if the thread gets locked, another one pops up.

It’s always been that way. Welcome to the internet I_Believe. Sure, but here lately it’s nuts.

And, liturgical dancers ? Here we go again. I didn’t say we have liberals here who are ok with liturgical dancers. I used liturgical dancers as an example of what a liberal might be ok with imo. Should I have just ignored the one who asked ?

You say you don’t like liturgical dancers. Good deal. Who would be more likely to think liturgical dancers are a good idea in your opinion ? A liberal, an orthodox, or a traditionalist ? If you would answer liberal, then why did you not read my example for what it was ?

NFP ? Just what I said. Some use it as an excuse. Some use it because they don’t want children. Some don’t want them “just yet” “we want to be financially secure before we have our first child” . I don’t get it. Why did they marry ? Because the Church says no sex before Marriage ? So sex is an issue ? “well, it’s natural for a man and woman to desire sex. God gave us that desire.” Right. God gave it to us for a reason. Is Chastity so great a sacrafice that it can so easily be pushed aside to satisfy Lust ? And money ? If you don’t want kids or you can’t afford them, why are you Married ? Is that Catholicism ? (not asking you all these questions, just ranting)

It’s in a sense, a mockery of the Sacrament of Marriage considering God has also Willed that some couples will not bear children. That’s a tough cross to bear.

jmo

Anyhow, how would you rate me ? Traditional, Orthodox, Liberal, of Hard Headed ?

And since when is it a sin to be poor?
All I can say is, I’m sure glad my folks didn’t use birth control, but then again, I’m not so sure they knew what caused it being I have 11 bros & sisters. lol

 

[elt1956]

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.

Well your not my Abbott, but I’ll answer anyway. I don’t know where the priests my age are, I don’t know if any are still living, and I don’t know why they aren’t out in front leading the way. I only know what I experienced as a child and young adutl. That is the picture I was trying to present. WHAT is the BIG deal??? We have a chance to attend both forms of the Mass. We have a CHOICE!! How often do we have that GIFT and still remain within the confines of the Catholic Church? And the “faithful” know best? Which FAITHFUL, the ones who want to set THEIR standard for celebrating the Mass? The ones who say you will go to hell if you don’t celebrate the Mass in ONLY one form in the NO, or in the Latin form, whichever they favor? Give me a break. . Peace.

 

[onenow1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Your Abbott
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.

Well your not my Abbott, but I’ll answer anyway. I don’t know where the priests my age are, I don’t know if any are still living, and I don’t know why they aren’t out in front leading the way. I only know what I experienced as a child and young adutl. That is the picture I was trying to present. WHAT is the BIG deal??? We have a chance to attend both forms of the Mass. We have a CHOICE!! How often do we have that GIFT and still remain within the confines of the Catholic Church? And the “faithful” know best? Which FAITHFUL, the ones who want to set THEIR standard for celebrating the Mass? The ones who say you will go to hell if you don’t celebrate the Mass in ONLY one form in the NO, or in the Latin form, whichever they favor? Give me a break. . Peace.

The old Priests that are living are obeying the decrees of the CC.

YUP ! The power of binding and loosening ! One Holy Cathlic and Apostolic Church !

Peace, OneNow1

 

[stmaria]

You have any proof of this: 1) they were revising their liturgy
2) they advised us to change ours to the like of theirs

'Seems to me" argument is not enough since you are so partial to the TLM,. and so ‘anti’ to any change in the liturgy. You have become overwrought over this issue. It really doesn’t matter that much objectively.

The proof is from Father Annibale Bugnini, he was there, he oversaw the writing of the New Mass. He said the following in his book on the New Mass.

Page 199 “ 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.
The Cardinal noted that a reciprocal knowledge of the researches and schemas of the two Churches would not be a bad thing. It might even serve as a positive help to rapprochement of the two Churches."

“

 

[Eilish_Maura]

The proof is from Father Annibale Bugnini, he was there, he oversaw the writing of the New Mass. He said the following in his book on the New Mass.

Page 199 “ 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.
The Cardinal noted that a reciprocal knowledge of the researches and schemas of the two Churches would not be a bad thing. It might even serve as a positive help to rapprochement of the two Churches."

“

In all fairness we do not know if he was giving an unbiased and verbatim report on what Card. Lercaro said.

 

[elt1956]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Your Abbott
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.

The old Priests that are living are obeying the decrees of the CC.

YUP ! The power of binding and loosening ! One Holy Cathlic and Apostolic Church !

Peace, OneNow1

YUP! That’s what I have been trying to do since VII. But it is the STANCE by some Cs., of ALL or nothing, regarding either the Novus Ordo, or the TLM that gets my blood pressure elevated. Christ said the first one in either Hebrew, or Arabic and it was still THE MASS. The church regards both forms as THE MASS. That is sufficient unto itself for me. PEACE for heaven’s sake.

 

[Your_Abbott]

The proof is from Father Annibale Bugnini, he was there, he oversaw the writing of the New Mass. He said the following in his book on the New Mass.

Page 199 “ 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.
The Cardinal noted that a reciprocal knowledge of the researches and schemas of the two Churches would not be a bad thing. It might even serve as a positive help to rapprochement of the two Churches."

“

Bugnini had his own ideas about changes in the liturgy. He was a respected liturgist in his own rite. Traditionalists forget this. They throw stones at this great intellectual. He didn’t need or want anything from the Anglicans but concurrence. The so-called exchange amounted to anything but smiles and a cup of tea. There is no proof that the Anglicans put forward any ideas, and that Bugnini was so enamoured of them that he accepted them.

Bugnini was interested in the English, or in our language. He had the universal church to think of, and Americans and English hardly were at the top of the list. As a matter of fact, the Anglicans are a small part of his concern. He had the Italians, and the French, and the Germans to think about - Americans? I think not.

 

[Your_Abbott]

Well your not my Abbott, but I’ll answer anyway. I don’t know where the priests my age are, I don’t know if any are still living, and I don’t know why they aren’t out in front leading the way. I only know what I experienced as a child and young adutl. That is the picture I was trying to present. WHAT is the BIG deal??? We have a chance to attend both forms of the Mass. We have a CHOICE!! How often do we have that GIFT and still remain within the confines of the Catholic Church? And the “faithful” know best? Which FAITHFUL, the ones who want to set THEIR standard for celebrating the Mass? The ones who say you will go to hell if you don’t celebrate the Mass in ONLY one form in the NO, or in the Latin form, whichever they favor? Give me a break. . Peace.

You only prove my point, except…from your retirement home you have no idea why the older priests haven’t run with the idea of TLM, you don’t know where any of your conferes are on this. They can’t all be dead physically. You can only say we should have peace on this.

World peace is a great objective, but that can’t be resolved here.
Neither can we quiet the nonsense about communion on the tongue vs. communion in the hands, which is a totally insignifican issue, even as more insignificant as genuflections, signs of the cross, the Last Gospel, and my big bugaboo about the whole thing: the liturgy in Latin.

If you were around in those days, wasn’t everyone overjoyed to know that the Mass would be more intelligible because it was to be said in our mother tongue. Don’t people relish the concept of The Participated Mass. We had the faithful to be involved in the Mass vs what was the stoic silence coming from the pews.

 

[stmaria]

World peace is a great objective, but that can’t be resolved here.
Neither can we quiet the nonsense about communion on the tongue vs. communion in the hands,

which is a totally insignifican issue, even as** more insignificant as genuflections, signs of the cross, the Last Gospel**

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Your Abbott;3435554:

I was around in those days. The Latin was easy. By the way please contact Pope Benedict about your hatred for this “unintelligble” language.

Why do you term it as “hatred” for Latin?

 

[MrS]

Pope Benedict XVI
"I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions.** In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church**, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, ( that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers of the Church’s tradition **should be recited in Latin **and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to **celebrate Mass in Latin, **and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant. "

Isn’t it great that the Pope has confidence that some (many, not for all ) can be taught Latin, and Gregorian chant ??

Of course he also understands that there are some (many, not for all ) who will see no value in the traditions in the Liturgy, and will be content with an NO, properly celebrated (rare) or with some or many abuses (it seems they can’t tell or don’t care about the difference)

Instead of welcoming his corrections (The MP, his examples, his appointments) , some posters here insist on silly comments like
“…no one wants the EF…” or
“… no one wants a ‘dead’ language…” or
“… they are licit, so what is the big deal…”
… and they they get upset at those stubborn traditionalists.

.

 

[ProVobis]

Or maybe “their”?

The singular “their” is acceptable in English tradition.

crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html

I always thought it was a feminist’s thing to use “their” instead of “his”. (Let’s face it, Latinists would certainly not be able to get away with numbers not agreeing.) But either way, it’s certainly better than “they’re” or “there”.

 

[ProVobis]

The faithful know best. The priests are following them.

So the “faithful” are running the Church now?

 

[Ghoti]

So the “faithful” are running the Church now?

So you’re saying they’re “faithless”, instead?

 

[MrS]

So the “faithful” are running the Church now?

Sure they are… just ask them

.

 

[Aragorn1]

Ok, my point is, there are liberals who post on the forum. I don’t keep a list of them lol.

Do you believe there are none who post here ? If so, I’m ok with that

I don’t know if there are or aren’t, or how many. And I wouldn’t make the assertion that there were unless I had names and examples of their liberalism to back it up.

And, liturgical dancers ? Here we go again. I didn’t say we have liberals here who are ok with liturgical dancers. I used liturgical dancers as an example of what a liberal might be ok with imo. Should I have just ignored the one who asked ?

You say you don’t like liturgical dancers. Good deal. Who would be more likely to think liturgical dancers are a good idea in your opinion ? A liberal, an orthodox, or a traditionalist ? If you would answer liberal, then why did you not read my example for what it was ?

I don’t just “not like” LD, as if they merely did not appeal to me or something. The Church prohibits it; I obey her.

Again, I think your definitions were flawed. I would say a liberal would be most likely to approve of LD, but this doesn’t mean all would. And any truly orthodox Catholic would be expected to follow the rubrics to the letter, right? The rubrics prohibit LD, right? Therefore no person who could properly be termed orthodox would accept LD as you stated about some of them, right? If he did he would not be orthodox.

NFP ? Just what I said. Some use it as an excuse. Some use it because they don’t want children. Some don’t want them “just yet” “we want to be financially secure before we have our first child” . I don’t get it. Why did they marry ? Because the Church says no sex before Marriage ? So sex is an issue ? “well, it’s natural for a man and woman to desire sex. God gave us that desire.” Right. God gave it to us for a reason. Is Chastity so great a sacrafice that it can so easily be pushed aside to satisfy Lust ? And money ? If you don’t want kids or you can’t afford them, why are you Married ? Is that Catholicism ? (not asking you all these questions, just ranting)

It’s in a sense, a mockery of the Sacrament of Marriage considering God has also Willed that some couples will not bear children. That’s a tough cross to bear.

So you only oppose NFP being used when there is no good reason? Good, so do I, and so does Humanae Vitae (it says that there must be a serious reason). Thanks for the clarification; I thought you meant it was immoral in itself. Glad we’re on the same page now!

Anyhow, how would you rate me ? Traditional, Orthodox, Liberal, of Hard Headed ?

By your definitions I would say you’re Traditional.

 

[Aragorn1]

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

By the way, does anyone know when this comes out???