In need of a POPE?

[Contarini]

RCCDefender:

I have never heard this before. Care to elaborate??

Just read Acts 1-2.

Or for that matter, haven’t you ever heard the third Glorious Mystery of the Rosary introduced as “The descent of the Holy Spirit on Mary and the Apostles?” Did you really not know that the Blessed Virgin was present at Pentecost? I’m not going to be the one to prove this to you. It’s written explicitly in Acts 1 (the people present at Pentecost being evidently the same people mentioned as gathered in Acts 1), and Catholic writers refer to it all the time. See Lumen Gentium 8.2.59, for instance. John Paul II invokes her as the “Virgin of Pentecost” in Catechesi Tradendae 73. See also Dominum et Vivificantem 30. And finally CCC 726: “she was present with the Twelve, who “with one accord devoted themselves to prayer,” (Acts 1:14) at the dawn of the “end time” which the Spirit was to inaugurate on the morning of Pentecost with the manifestation of the Church.” (For these references I’m indebted to the University of Dayton’s “Mary page.”)

Edwin

 

[RCCDefender]

So basically, Contarini, you only believe Church teachings when they appeal to you? As in the point you keep making that:

"All Christians are in some sense part of the Catholic Church. That is affirmed by Vatican II, and I accept it. We are part of the same Church you are. We disagree on just how and to what degree, but that much we can agree on (unless you reject Vatican II). So how can I not care what the Roman Communion teaches? "

But when it come to a teaching you don’t like, then you say:

“Well, that’s an affirmation I have no reason to accept. I understand why you believe it, but simply saying it isn’t going to convince me.”

First you say:
"No one disputes that he [Ignatius] is writing to individual churches and that bishops at that era were the leaders of local Christian communities in particular cities. "

Then you say:
“I didn’t say that Ignatius’s remarks only apply to the church he was writing to. I said that when he speaks of the bishop, presbyters, deacons etc., these are clearly officers within the local church.”

You say:
"I’m not trying to invalidate Catholicism as a true Church. I don’t even claim that what I’m saying invalidates Catholicism as the true Church, in the sense of the Church that has preserved the deposit of the Faith and has not officially taught error, and hence the Church to which all Christians should belong. "

But then turn right around and try to change what you say:
“I didn’t say it was the true Church. I said it was a true Church and that my arguments don’t invalidate its claim to be the true Church in a relatively restricted sense.”

So basically you are trying to be one of us while still being against us.

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” Matthew 12:30

 

[RCCDefender]

Contarini:

Just read Acts 1-2.

Or for that matter, haven’t you ever heard the third Glorious Mystery of the Rosary introduced as “The descent of the Holy Spirit on Mary and the Apostles?” Did you really not know that the Blessed Virgin was present at Pentecost? I’m not going to be the one to prove this to you. It’s written explicitly in Acts 1 (the people present at Pentecost being evidently the same people mentioned as gathered in Acts 1), and Catholic writers refer to it all the time. See Lumen Gentium 8.2.59, for instance. John Paul II invokes her as the “Virgin of Pentecost” in Catechesi Tradendae 73. See also Dominum et Vivificantem 30. And finally CCC 726: “she was present with the Twelve, who “with one accord devoted themselves to prayer,” (Acts 1:14) at the dawn of the “end time” which the Spirit was to inaugurate on the morning of Pentecost with the manifestation of the Church.” (For these references I’m indebted to the University of Dayton’s “Mary page.”)

Edwin

Actually when I read it the first time I just saw “in the upper room”
without seeing the part about Pentacost, so on that I stand corrected. What I had thought you were implying was that there were 120 in the upper room for the Last Supper.
I do apologize. We all receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit at confirmation.

 

[Contarini]

RCCDefender:

Marcion:
The Church of God which sojourns Smyrna, to the Church of God which sojourns in Philomelium, and to all the doiceses of the holy and Catholic Church in every place: May mercy, peace, and love of God the Father and of our Lord Jesus Christ be given you in abundance…
Now with the Apostles and all the just he is glorifying God and the Father Almighty, and he is blessing our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of souls, the Helmsman of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church.
The Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp [A.D. 155]

As you can see each of the “individual” Churches are not their own little individual identities at all but actually dioceses of the Catholic Church.

I’m sorry, but you can’t build much on one word, especially since “diocese” is a questionable translation. The Greek word there is “paroikia.” This eventually would come to mean “parish.” But it is actually the noun derived from the verb translated “sojourn” in that same sentence. In other words, “he paroikia” is a shorthand for “he ekklesia he paroikousa” (the church sojourning in) Smyrna or any other city. From the later use of “paroikia” as part of an elaborate administrative system you can’t assume that such a system was already in place in the second century, when the immediate context is flatly against such an interpretation.

Furthermore, you’re twisting my words when you speak of “their own little individual entities.” Communion among churches was vitally important–that is clear. And I’ll grant that referring to local churches as “paroikiai” of the Catholic Church indicates that the second-century Christians firmly believed in a universal Church of which each particular church was the local expression. We have no disagreement on that point–I accept that vision of the Church whole-heartedly. But in the early centuries relationships among churches were based on communion and consensus and consultation, rather than a corporate model in which a central bureaucracy issues mandates and appoints “branch managers.” That’s what Protestants and Orthodox see in modern Catholicism, and that’s the root of many of our objections to your ecclesiology.

Whether orthodox post-Vatican II theology (represented most outstandingly by the ecclesiological writings of the man who is now Benedict XVI) has adequately addressed our concerns is something that needs to be looked into. Ratzinger does stress the universal Church over the local to a degree that some Protestants find troubling, but at the same time his ecclesiology is based on communion and is deeply rooted in the Fathers. Those are very positive developments from our point of view. And Protestants–especially the more Free Church traditions–don’t have an adequate conception of the Universal Church. I’m currently reading Miroslav Volf’s *In our Image and Likeness, *which lays out a “free church” (i.e., Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.) ecclesiology in dialogue with Ratzinger and John Zizioulas (an eminent Orthodox theologian). I haven’t finished the book yet; so far I agree with some of what he is saying but certainly can’t go all the way with him.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

RCCDefender:

Actually when I read it the first time I just saw “in the upper room”
without seeing the part about Pentacost, so on that I stand corrected. What I had thought you were implying was that there were 120 in the upper room for the Last Supper.
I do apologize. We all receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit at confirmation.

OK. I was really baffled. I should have known that there was some misunderstanding. I see how you were confused. I think that the tradition is that it was the same upper room–at least Catholics often use the term “cenacle” for the room in which the Holy Spirit descended, and a “cenacle” means a room in which you have supper.

Not that that’s particularly relevant. . . .

More to the point, the we receive the Holy Spirit in *baptism. *Confirmation “confirms” (i.e., strengthens and brings to maturity) this initial gift of the Spirit (in Western usage–the Orthodox celebrate the whole thing as one rite). See CCC 1241-42, 1265, 1267, 1274. 1273-74 encapsulates what I’ve been trying to argue, though of course I’d push the implications of this further than the Catholic Church does.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

RCCDefender:

No, not every Catholic Church has communion in both species, but many do.

Only since Vatican II. This was a very positive development from our perspective.

When, during your time in RCIA, did you not have access to Scripture?

I’m speaking historically, not of the contemporary Catholic Church. Again, this is a point on which Protestantism is historically superior to Catholicism, though Catholics have been coming around for the past couple of centuries. But Scripture-reading is still not deeply instilled into lay Catholic piety the way it is in Protestantism. Other very good things that we lack are there. I’m giving one side of the picture because that’s what you disagree with. But if you were to list all the things Protestants lack that you have, I’d probably agree with you about 80-90%.

Everyone who comes to Mass participates in worship.

But not necessarily in the manner proper to the baptized who have received the gift of the Spirit. Again, I’m thinking primarily of the pre-Vatican-II Mass. I hear conflicting reports about it, and I’m sure practices varied. But I have been to two Tridentine Masses, one of which was authorized by the Catholic Church (the other was SSPX). At that Mass, the people literally said practically nothing, even at the places where the text of the Mass had a part for them. The entire thing was a dialogue between priest and server, most of it completely inaudible. I’m sorry, but that’s not how the early Church did things, and Protestants were absolutely right when they rejected this as an appropriate model for Christian worship.

Read Aidan Nichols’s *Rome and the Eastern Churches. *He says, if I remember rightly, that the Latin Mass was drawn up in the sixth century (roughly–obviously parts of it are older and parts more recent), at a time when spoken Latin was already diverging significantly from the classical norm. At this point the Western Church was dominated by the Roman aristocracy (see Peter Brown’s *The Rise of Western Christendom *to confirm this point–at least I think that’s the right book), and the texts of the Mass were written in a deliberately elaborate, classical, elite form which ordinary people had trouble following. In other words, Western Catholicism has had trouble with popular participation for as long as the “traditional” Mass has been in place. The problems are deeply rooted. (Nichols is comparing this with the Byzantine liturgy, which was *originally *written in a language that ordinary people could understand without difficulty. While obviously that’s not the case for Greek-speakers today, there is a long tradition of lay understanding of and participation in the liturgy and in theological endeavors generally, which has shaped Orthodoxy profoundly.)

The problems Protestantism was addressing went back at least to the fall of the Empire and the dominance of the Church by those committed to preserving Roman culture. This had some magnificent effects (i.e., classical culture *was *preserved, and for that we should all be grateful!). But I would argue that it established a division between the elites and ordinary laypeople that went beyond the inevitable process of clericalization (as we can see it in Eastern churches as well–I actually think it’s possible that much of the clericalization of the Eastern churches may postdate the fall of Constantinople, but I could be wrong there).

You seem to be confusing Traditions with traditions. All of the above, which you had cited as Traditions, are not; they are traditions.

I’m not confusing anything. I’m challenging the way in which Catholicism distinguishes between the two. It’s just too convenient. If you want to depart from the early Church’s model on something, you redefine it as a “tradition.” But if we do or say anything different from medieval (not to speak of patristic) theology and practice, you accuse us of abandoning Tradition. Of course you always win by these rules. It’s a foregone conclusion, because you get to define the terms.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

ComradeAndrei:

I would say transplanting. Protestantism, objectively, is heretical. That there exists good people within protestantism does nothing to prove that it has any right to exist as a viable alternative to Catholicism or even as another option.

But that wasn’t my argument. There are good people within Buddhism. But the goodness that exists within Protestantism comes from explicitly, visibly Christian sources: Holy Scripture, the sacrament of Baptism, and yes, the sacrament of the Eucharist (even though you don’t recognize its validity among us–we still experience it as a powerful means of grace). The Catholic Church recognizes this. And this transforms the whole question of conversion.

Protestantism has preserved nothing better than the Catholic Church.

Well, you can go on believing that. For me to agree to such a statement would be like disbelieving in the existence of trees and flowers.

Communion in both kinds is a tradition (little t) that is subject to the authority of the Church, as the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are present in even the smallest particle of the Precious Body or smallest drop of the Precious Blood. Therefore, it is totally acceptable to receive Communion in one form and not only acceptable but preferable as you are less likely to have mishaps with the Host than with the Blood.

You keep responding with these pontifications. You know I’m not a Catholic, so what good do you think you are doing? My whole point is precisely that I don’t accept this line of thinking. I don’t accept the categorization of communion in both kinds as something wholly under the authority of the Church. Same with lay access to Scripture.

None of the things you mention about the Catholic Church’s preservation of Scripture (setting aside the fact that you’re speaking of the pre-Reformation Church, which hardly counts since we Protestants claim descent from that Church) are relevant to what I was saying. The Church taught that it had the right to withhold Scripture in the vernacular from the laity if prudence seemed to necessitate this. It was a relatively common response to dissident movements. Protestants condemned this as arrogant and blasphemous, and they were absolutely right. The Church has never had any right to do this, and by claiming such a right it fell into serious error.

Lay participation? It is one of the Precepts of the Church-Participate at Mass on Sundays and all Holy Days of Obligation. As RCCDefender pointed out, everyone at Mass is participating in worship. Everyone has their place, and everyone’s place is not up front.

See my previous post to RCCDefender.

On all these points Vatican II has made immense progress. But the implementation of Vatican II (as I’m sure you’ll agree) was hijacked to some extent by people whose agendas were not entirely orthodox, and a lot is still up for grabs. You still have a long way to go (this isn’t as patronizing as it sounds, because we Protestants have much farther to go–indeed, it’s largely from you that we gain a sense of the direction in which we should be heading).

Edwin

 

[Malachi4U]

Catholic4aReasn:

Wait a minute! I thought that each individual Protestant was essentially his own pope.

In Christ,
Nancy

OH GOD! Don’t tell my wife that. When she finds out shes the Pope she’ll demand indulgences and penance from me!:crying: I’ll be broke and in servitude for all eternity!:bowdown: I’ll never have enough good works built up for her to bind me for salvation.

 

[gryskull]

Contarini:

Where does Ignatius describe what it takes to be a “validly ordained” bishop?

Edwin

But the Bible shows us how, not being a bishop, but how the authority was passed down from generation to generation. It was true the laying of hands, even paul mentions it in Timothy, that the blessings was passed on. With this blessing came the authority. From this we can infer such thing that a valid bishop can only be ordained by someone who has the authority, such as another bishop. This has been the tradition ever since.

 

[Contarini]

gryskull:

But the Bible shows us how, not being a bishop, but how the authority was passed down from generation to generation. It was true the laying of hands, even paul mentions it in Timothy, that the blessings was passed on.

Yes, but he says that Timothy was consecrated by the body of presbyters–indicating, as other evidence does, that the distinction between presbyters and bishops was very unclear in the early Church. St. Jerome (Ep. 146) tells us that the presbyters at Alexandria chose a bishop from among themselves, and he plays down the distinction between bishops and presbyters (this is in the early fifth century). The tradition is not as unanimous as you are claiming.

Edwin

 

[gryskull]

Contarini:

Yes, but he says that Timothy was consecrated by the body of presbyters–indicating, as other evidence does, that the distinction between presbyters and bishops was very unclear in the early Church. St. Jerome (Ep. 146) tells us that the presbyters at Alexandria chose a bishop from among themselves, and he plays down the distinction between bishops and presbyters (this is in the early fifth century). The tradition is not as unanimous as you are claiming.

Edwin

Yes, you were citing 1 Tim but in 2 Tim it was thru Pauls own hands. Actually, it was clear. The very word for priest was presbytoroi and the word for bishops was episkopos. I don’t know why it would be unclear. Although a bishop can be a priest but a priest is not a bishop unless conferred to the office.

 

[Ahimsa]

gryskull:

Ok. That’s surprising and a little bit hard to digest since they would have some doctrinal issues.

Doctrinal issues can be re-interpreted and/or put into the background.

One big attraction for Mormonism is that it is unified and has one human shepherd/president at a time, traits also found in the Catholic Church. Add to that, current Mormon suppression of the more “radical” elements of Joseph Smith and early Mormonism, and you have what could be described as a “Protestant” group with a visible shepherd who acts as a symbol of unity, if nothing else.

 

[gryskull]

Ahimsa:

Doctrinal issues can be re-interpreted and/or put into the background.

One big attraction for Mormonism is that it is unified and has one human shepherd/president at a time, traits also found in the Catholic Church. Add to that, current Mormon suppression of the more “radical” elements of Joseph Smith and early Mormonism, and you have what could be described as a “Protestant” group with a visible shepherd who acts as a symbol of unity, if nothing else.

And that’s what I heard too on a different thread that Mormonism, due to their suppression/changes of their old doctrine, moves towards traditional christianity. But the underlying truth of their doctrine still cannot be hidden. I’m just wondering if the person from a traditional background have studied their doctrine. The unifying factor of Mormonism, I think, is not sufficient enough reason for someone to change religion. It should always be truth of doctrine. I wonder if they(people who join mormonism) do take that into consideration.

One more thing that attracts so many people to mormonism is their stress in valuing family. That is something that I really like about them too.

 

[Ahimsa]

gryskull:

And that’s what I heard too on a different thread that Mormonism, due to their suppression/changes of their old doctrine, moves towards traditional christianity. But the underlying truth of their doctrine still cannot be hidden. I’m just wondering if the person from a traditional background have studied their doctrine. The unifying factor of Mormonism, I think, is not sufficient enough reason for someone to change religion. It should always be truth of doctrine. I wonder if they(people who join mormonism) do take that into consideration.

One more thing that attracts so many people to mormonism is their stress in valuing family. That is something that I really like about them too.

Well, if you read the Book of Mormon, there’s nothing in there about polygamy (if I remember correctly) or any of the other more objectionable teachings of Mormonism. So, a hard-core Mormon could simply build his or her faith on the Bible and the BoM, and claim that those are the only essential scriptures of Mormonism. Anything not found in those two books can be jettisoned as human errors.

Unity doesn’t mean something is true, but if members of a religion exhibit unity, then that is one strong argument that they’re on to something, especially since Jesus wanted His followers to be “one.” Add to that the idea of family values (in a world where such values are increasingly thrown in doubt), and you have a powerful combination.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Contarini.

your quote

“None of the things you mention about the Catholic Church’s preservation of Scripture (setting aside the fact that you’re speaking of the pre-Reformation Church, which hardly counts since we Protestants claim descent from that Church) are relevant to what I was saying. The Church taught that it had the right to withhold Scripture in the vernacular from the laity if prudence seemed to necessitate this. It was a relatively common response to dissident movements. Protestants condemned this as arrogant and blasphemous, and they were absolutely right. The Church has never had any right to do this, and by claiming such a right it fell into serious error.”

Giving the bible to the lay has not solved a single problem has it, in fact it has created farmore problems, the fact that there are numerous divisions amongst protestant groups, Jehovas witness, mormons etc etc who ALL base their belief on their STUDY of scripture/bible indicate that no real good has come of letting the lay people decide for themselves what it meant.

YOu see logic is required to a certain degree within religeon. It is an absolute requirment of God to have a “faithfull and discreet slave” as the JW’s cal l it to decide on what is ‘the faith’ and what is not. It actually requires some sort of infalliability, becasue if there is no infalliability then there is no way that you and I or anyone else can know the truth in context of salvation.

If God simply lets humans of themselves decide what religon they belong to without assured guidance then he cannot judge people to hell if in fact he is the sort of loving God that we as Christians paint him to be because he has not appropriately suplied us with the right material to make a valid and fair gist of life.

Whether or not I like it I hav to submit tot he catholic church becasue if they are not the true church then it is IMPOSSIBLE to know who has kept the teaching of the true church, because who knows when God jumped ship to someone else, meaning who knows at what point of so called dogma or behaviour we are actually true christians according to God or not.

Unless you can SPECIFICALLY point to time and date and teachings that occured at that point when God jumped ship and then point to who at that time had the TRUE teaching that God jumped ship to and then did not change such teachings thereafter, then, you or I are only making it up as we go to suit ourselves, plain and simple.

 

[gryskull]

Contarini:

I didn’t say it was the true Church. I said it was ***a ***true Church…

Edwin

Which means that she is just one of the many true churches. Hmmmm. I thought Jesus established **a church **and not churches.

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

 

[ComradeAndrei]

But the goodness that exists within Protestantism comes from explicitly, visibly Christian sources: Holy Scripture, the sacrament of Baptism, and yes, the sacrament of the Eucharist (even though you don’t recognize its validity among us–we still experience it as a powerful means of grace). The Catholic Church recognizes this. And this transforms the whole question of conversion.

All grace found within the protestant communities comes from the Catholic Church, not from protestantism itself.

Well, you can go on believing that. For me to agree to such a statement would be like disbelieving in the existence of trees and flowers.

Well, that is all nice but it isn’t so concrete.

You keep responding with these pontifications. You know I’m not a Catholic, so what good do you think you are doing? My whole point is precisely that I don’t accept this line of thinking. I don’t accept the categorization of communion in both kinds as something wholly under the authority of the Church. Same with lay access to Scripture.

Why, praytell, don’t you accept this line of thinking? What authority do you have to say that the question of Communion under both species is not under the authority of Holy Church?

None of the things you mention about the Catholic Church’s preservation of Scripture (setting aside the fact that you’re speaking of the pre-Reformation Church, which hardly counts since we Protestants claim descent from that Church) are relevant to what I was saying.

Au contraire, it is relevant. This “pre-reformation” church IS the Catholic Church. The Church of St. Thomas Aquinas, of St. Augustine, of St. Catherine of Sienna, of St. Dominic, St. Francis, etc. etc. IS most certainly Catholic. Your peculiar protestant inventions are found NOWHERE in orthodox Christianity from the very time of Jesus to the time of the Great Protestant Drop-out.

Protestantism descended from the Church in that it (or at least some, one cannot really put on finger on protestantism since it is so pluralistic) held on to a bare minimum of Truth (such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, Baptism if practiced validly-possibly some protestants would dispute these), but then added its own anti-biblical and anti-magisterial “doctrines”.

The Church taught that it had the right to withhold Scripture in the vernacular from the laity if prudence seemed to necessitate this. It was a relatively common response to dissident movements.

Yeah, and look where all this reading the Bible fast and loose got us, with all the thousands of squabbling protestant sects out there. The very fact we are having this converstation is proof for the wisdom of the Church’s past actions regarding limiting some vernacular translations. Unguided people reading the Scriptures (not to mention about anything else) is a dangerous thing. People can come up with and propagate all sorts of insane ideas if they have a bible, a bit of pride and a silver tongue.

Protestants condemned this as arrogant and blasphemous, and they were absolutely right.

Really? That is rediculous. What authority did Luther, Calvin, and the rest of their protestant buddies have to condemn the Church? The Church is our Mother and Teacher-and She is right to discipline us and keep us on the straight and narrow path.

The Church has never had any right to do this, and by claiming such a right it fell into serious error.

Again, that may be your opinion but this is wrong. The Church has the right, not to mention solemn duty, to guide the people of God to salvation. It cannot do this effectively if you have heretics thinking up all sorts of foolish and dangerous ideas and leading the flocks astray. Folks should read the Bible-but only with the guiding light of the Church. Besides, what “right” do people have to read a Bible? The Church is where people must go to for spiritual needs-not their own interpretations, not their own notions. If Holy Mother Church decides that it is imprudent to let people have a vernacular translation of the Bible, it is done for the good of the people.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Continued from above-

But not necessarily in the manner proper to the baptized who have received the gift of the Spirit.

And what would this be?

Again, I’m thinking primarily of the pre-Vatican-II Mass. I hear conflicting reports about it, and I’m sure practices varied. But I have been to two Tridentine Masses, one of which was authorized by the Catholic Church (the other was SSPX). At that Mass, the people literally said practically nothing, even at the places where the text of the Mass had a part for them. The entire thing was a dialogue between priest and server, most of it completely inaudible. I’m sorry, but that’s not how the early Church did things, and Protestants were absolutely right when they rejected this as an appropriate model for Christian worship.

First things first, in this modern world, I think it would profit folks to shut their yaps sometimes. We don’t need to be hootin’ and hollerin’ for “worship”. The very beauty of the Tridentine Mass is in the chants and hymns (mostly done by choirs), the ceremony, and the solemnity-and the calm. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Novus Ordo Mass (if done properly)-but if done properly it is also solemn and not heavy in lay “participation”.

Furthermore, how do you think that the Early Church supposedly said the Mass? Regardless of how they did it, it is irrelevant because the Church grows and changes. It is like the parable of the mustard seed. The Early Church was the mustard seed, it is growing into the great tree that birds make their nests in. Just because the Early Church did something one way doesn’t mean that is the way we have to do it. Besides, the way of saying the Mass is a discipline-the Church has the authority to change it as they see fit. Protestant worship goes from anything like an imitation of Holy Mass to the hootin’ and hollerin’ of the Pentacostal or Baptists. Do you think Luther would have approved of such things? Luther (and the other original protestants) would have kept the Mass (protestantized of course) and its largely silent lay participation.

Read Aidan Nichols’s Rome and the Eastern Churches. He says, if I remember rightly, that the Latin Mass was drawn up in the sixth century (roughly–obviously parts of it are older and parts more recent), at a time when spoken Latin was already diverging significantly from the classical norm. At this point the Western Church was dominated by the Roman aristocracy (see Peter Brown’s The Rise of Western Christendom to confirm this point–at least I think that’s the right book), and the texts of the Mass were written in a deliberately elaborate, classical, elite form which ordinary people had trouble following. In other words, Western Catholicism has had trouble with popular participation for as long as the “traditional” Mass has been in place.

So just because Latin was becoming vulgar, the Church should have followed the downward spiral and dumbed down the language? Why should we hold to the lowest common denominator?

When people have a problem with following along, that is something they need to rectify. Do some reading up outside of Mass, afterall, Church isn’t just a Sunday pastime. Talk to the priest. Talk with other folks that you go to Mass with. We don’t need to turn Mass into some sort of bastardized, whishy-washy protestant-style “worship service”. Unfortunately that is happening in some dioceses.

.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Further continuation-

On all these points Vatican II has made immense progress. But the implementation of Vatican II (as I’m sure you’ll agree) was hijacked to some extent by people whose agendas were not entirely orthodox, and a lot is still up for grabs.

I love the Tridentine Mass, I love the old customs such as the Papal tiara, and all the pomp and circumstance that was of the pre-Vatican II days. However, I realize that this is all discipline and I recognize that some things can and do change.

However, I do lament the loss of a lot of the fire and zeal the Church used to have (and is now returning with the reigns of H.H. Pope John Paul II of Happy Memory and H. H. Pope Benedict XVI) as well as the orthodoxy that came along with it. Maybe we stepped on a lot of toes that we didn’t really need to do, but now a lot of folks don’t even want to assert orthodox Catholic doctrine.

The front line of this is the Mass. Thank God that many of the countercultural priests that infiltrated the Church in the '60’s and 70’s are retiring and are starting to turn over the Church to more orthodox and zealous priests, that will become our next line of orthodox and zealous bishops. We’ve had enough of the “God loves you, let’s sing kumbaya” theology-we want Truth, not sugar coating! Neither do we need some liberal idea that the laity needs to be more active in Mass-no we don’t! We don’t need bands, we don’t need to hold hands, etc. etc. Like Pope St. Piux X said, “Don’t pray at Holy Mass, pray the Holy Mass!”

I don’t want to be told I’m OK, you’re OK-I want to be shaken out of my complacency by the reality of sin and by good and faithful priests that are willing to teach this. The anathemas are still in place, sin is still sin, and Mass should still be Holy Mass!

You still have a long way to go (this isn’t as patronizing as it sounds, because we Protestants have much farther to go–indeed, it’s largely from you that we gain a sense of the direction in which we should be heading).

I agree. We need to snuff out the liberalism that has infiltrated the Church, the smoke of hell that Pope Paul VI spoke of. We need to impliment Vatican II faithfully in accord with Holy Catholic Tradition. We need to keep the Novus Ordo Mass a Holy Mass-not some liberalized farce. We need to get rid of Catholicism Lite, and get back to orthodoxy and authority. Most of all, we need to pray, pray pray! Namely, pray for good and orthodox men and women to dedicate their lives in the religious vocations