How come some priests don't want to celebrate EF?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brigid12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure said:
You should be more polite. Accusing people of not reading well is not charitable.

You are incorrect. Check the GIRM 2002 again. It states: “302. The practice of placing relics of Saints, even those not Martyrs, under the altar to be dedicated is fittingly retained.” “Retained” does not mean recommended. It means it is still a requirement in force.
Click to expand...
GIRM 2002 (whatever that is) was written first in Latin. From what we are told to believe priests nowadays can read latin, so he is the one who probably can’t read very well.🙂

peace
 
mgrfin said:
GIRM 2002 (whatever that is) was written first in Latin. From what we are told to believe priests nowadays can read latin, so he is the one who probably can’t read very well.🙂

peace
Click to expand...
Not sure where you’re hanging out, but I doubt anyone believes that. Latin to a novus ordo priest is like garlic to a … well you know the rest.
 
otjm said:
Having been in the seminary a while ago, Latin for seminarians was at that time a two year college course; and those who had not had Latin in high school had a much rougher time of it than those who did. The issue is not that they can’t do it; the issue is how do they go about it. And given the shortage of priests, and the increased load each one now carries, it is going to be difficult to get anywhere quickly in the matter.
Click to expand...
My pastor does not know Latin, nor does the associate priest. My pastor is also pastor of another parish. With his workload of being in charge of two parishes, he would not be able to go back to school to learn another language.
 
otjm said:
And I am old enough to have gone to Mass when the EF was the OF and the priest did not have his biretta on. Pleae, if you are going to state that something is a rule, be prepared to quote the rule (and if it was a rule at some time, please confirm that with the changes to the EF, that it was still in effect with the Missal that is to be used). The priest may have told you this, but as I last recall, the quoted rule is the final proof, not something some priest told you.

It may well be the rule - I wouldn’t go into deep shock to find that a priest didn’t follow all the rules then, either; but I attended Mass in more than one or two parishes back then, and they weren’t wearing the biretta. I kid you not.

And yes, you are a bit melodramatic.
Click to expand...
I trust this priest, more than anyone…If he said it …I believe it. I am not even 30 yrs old…and I am A convert…What happened back in the day, I cant answer…wasnt there…But My priest friend, Must have something right…because you only see birettas, in the EF form…He even told me that if A priest had no biretta, they used an amice, with cowl…you see that in the famous video, from the 40’s narrated by Fulton Sheen.

Melodramatic?/ no one asked your opinion…Funny you failed to point out, that JKIRK, seems to be casting aspersions, on the “Manliness” of Priests. By the choice of Fabrics employed. In vestments.
This thread, is about why some Priests do not want to celebrate the EF. Now suppose some Priest is lurking on this site. He reads, comments like that. “see through nighty ish albs” “silly” “unmanly”…suppose he is considering celebrating the EF…maybe He decides…against it…I mean the clergy have enough bad press, as it is…Maybe thats why “THEY” have planted people like that on these forums…(hears laughter in the background, like in a horror movie)…Is that Melodramatic enough for you???🙂
 
Scotty_PGH said:
I apologize for being rude. I thought you were being deliberately obtuse or evasive.

GIRM = General Instruction Of The Roman Missal

:rotfl:
Click to expand...
Okay, enough with apologies. What “Sure” right - that relics are to be retained?

My Latin Missal is 1964 edition.

peace
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Again, it isn’t relevant to the discussion, AT ALL. Has no bearing, no point, doesn’t enter INTO IT. The Church has used a variety of fabrics throughout the centuries (go and look at the old vestments on display in the Missions of California). One FABRIC is no more sacred than another and thus, no less exempt or immune from critique than another. Be logical, for pities sake:
The discussion of birettas and fabric has no connection to Tyburn any more than a discussion on wooden poles has to the martyrdom of Saint Joan of Arc.
Click to expand...
If it has no bearing, then why do you bring it up?? constantly…Why do you cast aspersions on the “manliness” of priests who use such vestments… You do not assist at the EF form, of the rite…do you? so why would you care?. .Do you fear the EF??..it understandable if you do…this same old Priest friend of mine, has said that the EF will eventually drive out the OF…I think his words are prophetic…I brought up the English Martyrs, because, I have seen you post that that you came frome the Anglican Church. And I wanted to point out that, “Manly” Priests suffered and died wearing these vestments, during the inception of the Elizabethan settlement…
Are you trying to discourage Priests from the EF?..(hears that horror movie laughter again…🙂
 
mgrfin said:
Okay, enough with apologies. What “Sure” right - that relics are to be retained?

My Latin Missal is 1964 edition.

peace
Click to expand...
The GIRM states that relics are to be retained just like the Vatican II documents suggested that Latin is to be retained in the liturgy. It is a fact that most modern novus ordo table-altars no longer contain relics. Altar stones are no longer required, nor are they practical with most NO altars. I do not have a master list of all altars in the world, but it’s known that this is the case.
 
mao_now said:
I trust this priest, more than anyone…If he said it …I believe it. I am not even 30 yrs old…and I am A convert…What happened back in the day, I cant answer…wasnt there…But My priest friend, Must have something right…because you only see birettas, in the EF form…He even told me that if A priest had no biretta, they used an amice, with cowl…you see that in the famous video, from the 40’s narrated by Fulton Sheen.

Melodramatic?/ no one asked your opinion…Funny you failed to point out, that JKIRK, seems to be casting aspersions, on the “Manliness” of Priests. By the choice of Fabrics employed. In vestments.
This thread, is about why some Priests do not want to celebrate the EF. Now suppose some Priest is lurking on this site. He reads, comments like that. “see through nighty ish albs” “silly” “unmanly”…suppose he is considering celebrating the EF…maybe He decides…against it…I mean the clergy have enough bad press, as it is…Maybe thats why “THEY” have planted people like that on these forums…(hears laughter in the background, like in a horror movie)…Is that Melodramatic enough for you???🙂
Click to expand...
You really need to learn to read properly. I haven’t cast aspersion on the manliness of priests. Look C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y. I said an alb made of frothy, see-through material that resembles that fabric that is used to make negligees is hardly a manly garment. I’m entitled to that opinion. You don’t have to like it, BUT it hardly makes me less of a Catholic or less of a Christian (speaking of casting aspersion and of questioning someone’s religious devotion, not to mention a complete dissociation from logic) AND you hardly have a proportional right to claim that that is somehow an aspersion on priests in general OR on the martyrs of Tyburn in particular (indeed, one could make a case that you’ve outrageously INSULTED those holy martyrs, who died for the sanctification of the Holy Name of Jesus and the Gospel and NOT for a type of hat or a style of alb or a category of fabric).

Any priest who’s remotely intelligent and informed liturgically KNOWS (contrary to what you assert) that he does NOT have to wear the type of alb which you seem to favor (and which the Martyrs of Tyburn sanctified by their glorious deaths:rolleyes:), but can wear one made much like the ones in the picture I provided. So I doubt very many would be put off the EF because they aren’t as misinformed as you seem to be.
 
mao_now said:
If it has no bearing, then why do you bring it up?? constantly…Why do you cast aspersions on the “manliness” of priests who use such vestments… You do not assist at the EF form, of the rite…do you? so why would you care?. .Do you fear the EF??..it understandable if you do…this same old Priest friend of mine, has said that the EF will eventually drive out the OF…I think his words are prophetic…I brought up the English Martyrs, because, I have seen you post that that you came frome the Anglican Church. And I wanted to point out that, “Manly” Priests suffered and died wearing these vestments, during the inception of the Elizabethan settlement…
Are you trying to discourage Priests from the EF?..(hears that horror movie laughter again…🙂
Click to expand...
See my last post. YOU are the one bringing up Tyburn and other things that are not germane to the discussion. No, I’m not attempting to discourage anyone from the EF.

You also need to work on your basic Christian charity. I’ve not insulted ANYONE, anymore so than “traditionalists” commenting on modern chasubles.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
You really need to learn to read properly. I haven’t cast aspersion on the manliness of priests. Look C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y. I said an alb made of frothy, see-through material that resembles that fabric that is used to make negligees is hardly a manly garment. I’m entitled to that opinion. You don’t have to like it, BUT it hardly makes me less of a Catholic or less of a Christian (speaking of casting aspersion and of questioning someone’s religious devotion, not to mention a complete dissociation from logic) AND you hardly have a proportional right to claim that that is somehow an aspersion on priests in general OR on the martyrs of Tyburn in particular (indeed, one could make a case that you’ve outrageously INSULTED those holy martyrs, who died for the sanctification of the Holy Name of Jesus and the Gospel and NOT for a type of hat or a style of alb or a category of fabric).

Any priest who’s remotely intelligent and informed liturgically KNOWS (contrary to what you assert) that he does NOT have to wear the type of alb which you seem to favor (and which the Martyrs of Tyburn sanctified by their glorious deaths:rolleyes:), but can wear one made much like the ones in the picture I provided. So I doubt very many would be put off the EF because they aren’t as misinformed as you seem to be.
Click to expand...
Do you really think that vestments were NOT part of the controversy, surrounding the Henrician “reforms” and the Elizabethan settlement???

I gave you the titles of 2 great works by professor Duffy. …Now, Turn off the TV. And stop watching old reruns of Starsky and Hutch…and pick up A book and read!!!

Tyburn did indeed give us glorious martyrs, And Our Holy Father has given us the EF…love it or leave it…
 
Scotty_PGH said:
The GIRM states that relics are to be retained just like the Vatican II documents suggested that Latin is to be retained in the liturgy. It is a fact that most modern novus ordo table-altars no longer contain relics. Altar stones are no longer required, nor are they practical with most NO altars. I do not have a master list of all altars in the world, but it’s known that this is the case.
Click to expand...
Okay, I now know what GIRM means.

What’s NO? Why are they not practical?

I am sure any churches built in 1960 or before (most altars in the world), have permanent altars, with relics.

enough with the abbreviations, please?

peace
 
JKirkLVNV said:
You really need to learn to read properly. I haven’t cast aspersion on the manliness of priests. Look C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y. I said an alb made of frothy, see-through material that resembles that fabric that is used to make negligees is hardly a manly garment. I’m entitled to that opinion. You don’t have to like it, BUT it hardly makes me less of a Catholic or less of a Christian (speaking of casting aspersion and of questioning someone’s religious devotion, not to mention a complete dissociation from logic) AND you hardly have a proportional right to claim that that is somehow an aspersion on priests in general OR on the martyrs of Tyburn in particular (indeed, one could make a case that you’ve outrageously INSULTED those holy martyrs, who died for the sanctification of the Holy Name of Jesus and the Gospel and NOT for a type of hat or a style of alb or a category of fabric).

Any priest who’s remotely intelligent and informed liturgically KNOWS (contrary to what you assert) that he does NOT have to wear the type of alb which you seem to favor (and which the Martyrs of Tyburn sanctified by their glorious deaths:rolleyes:), but can wear one made much like the ones in the picture I provided. So I doubt very many would be put off the EF because they aren’t as misinformed as you seem to be.
Click to expand...
I read the above JKirkLVNV–and what you say in your opinion—a manly priest who is remotely intelligent KNOWS that he does NOT have to wear what you consider a frothy negligee type garment. So basicly --if a priest does wear a frothy negligee type garment it reflects back on his intelligence and manliness
 
Scotty_PGH said:
The GIRM states that relics are to be retained just like the Vatican II documents suggested that Latin is to be retained in the liturgy. It is a fact that most modern novus ordo table-altars no longer contain relics. Altar stones are no longer required, nor are they practical with most NO altars. I do not have a master list of all altars in the world, but it’s known that this is the case.
Click to expand...
Provide evidence. The portion of the GIRM says “is retained”. That means it continues to be the law. Until you show something where the Vatican revokes that, you haven’t proved a thing. All you are stating is that YOU don’t think there are relics, yet you have no documentation and no proof.
 
Sure said:
Provide evidence. The portion of the GIRM says “is retained”. That means it continues to be the law. Until you show something where the Vatican revokes that, you haven’t proved a thing. All you are stating is that YOU don’t think there are relics, yet you have no documentation and no proof.
Click to expand...


http://70.87.34.114/
 
Walking_Home said:
I read the above JKirkLVNV–and what you say in your opinion—a manly priest who is remotely intelligent KNOWS that he does NOT have to wear what you consider a frothy negligee type garment. So basicly --if a priest does wear a frothy negligee type garment it reflects back on his intelligence and manliness
Click to expand...
I don’t know where you guys grew up, but cassocks, albs, chasubles, birettas, etc. were never considered feminine by anyone I know.

peace
 
mao_now said:
Do you really think that vestments were NOT part of the controversy, surrounding the Henrician “reforms” and the Elizabethan settlement???

I gave you the titles of 2 great works by professor Duffy. …Now, Turn off the TV. And stop watching old reruns of Starsky and Hutch…and pick up A book and read!!!

Tyburn did indeed give us glorious martyrs, And Our Holy Father has given us the EF…love it or leave it…
Click to expand...
Getting a little testy there, Mao. We’re not in Red China anymore!

peace
 
mgrfin said:
I don’t know where you guys grew up, but cassocks, albs, chasubles, birettas, etc. were never considered feminine by anyone I know.

peace
Click to expand...
You’re right. And it’s a twisted mind who would think they were. What you’re seeing in this thread is a desperate, contrived attempt to find fault with anything EF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top