B
Brother_John
Guest
Sanity rulesâŚat least for tonightâŚ:twocents:
Do I hear six?
- Status
S
stmaria
Guest
Why would you say that the priest is facing " the wall?". You know that isntâ true. You know he is facing God in the Tabernacle.
The reverence in the Traditional Mass versus the Novus Ordo will always be debated. Sorry, but the differences are enormus.
.
.
There is no denying that this debate has caused a division.
I
.
That is the problem I see with the Vatican II documents like Religious Liberty. Look at the footnotes. Pre-Vatican Popes are ignored except for token references. Pope John Paulâs writings quote Vatican II and rarely any Pre-Vatican II writings.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Thank you JR for what you said in the very first post. You are totally correct, the Church is not a democracy. What we see is the American culture of freedom of choice being imbued into our minds so much that people do not know how to distinguish between their rights as American citizens and their obligations as Catholics. Much of the problem, I am sad to say stems from the so called spirit of Vatican II. The spirit of Vatican II had nothing to do with it. People and sad to say, some priests, who did not read and study all of the documents took , what many journalists said about it as fact. That is major error # I. Do not get your teaching on the Church from the news, the press, etc. Get it from someone who knows the faith, and has a well grounded education in the One True Faith. You have no idea how often I am correcting people on what the Church teaches, practices and believes. I do not profess by any means to know it all. I will admit I know more than some and not as much as others. In grades 1 through 12, I had 9 years of Catholic education. In college, I had 8 plus 4 years of diaconate formation. and believe me, I do not know it all. Learn from those who are well grounded. If they do not know an answer, they will be the first to say so, and usually add that they will find out. God Bless
Deacon Ed B
Deacon Ed B
J
JReducation
Guest
He also has God on the altar. It was never the Churchâs intention to have adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernaacle simultaneously with the Eucharistic celebration. There is nothing wrong with the tabernacle there. I didnât like looking at the priestâs back.
No one ever said there wasnât a difference. The point is, whether or not it has to be debated. The mysticism of the Eastern Rites is mind-boggling, but Catholics donât spend their time debating the merits of the Eastern rites over the Western rite. The differences exist to enrich the Church, not to divide the Church.
. Look at the footnotes. Pre-Vatican Popes are ignored except for token references. Pope John Paulâs writings quote Vatican II and rarely any Pre-Vatican II writings.
The fact that there are few citations does not mean theyâre being ignored. The Council Fathers didnât need to reference them. If they felt that it served the purpose of what they wanted to say they would have. You make it sound as if they deliberately through them out the window, which is not true. We see many references to older and ancient documents all over the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, which John Paul II also approved.
Would you not agree that despite his frequent references to Vatican II writings and less references to older writings that his writing are deeply mystical and that they show a depth of holiness in the man that few of us have?
Why the preocupation that we have to cite pre Vatican II writings to be prove our fidelity to Tradition?
JR
C
catharina
Guest
I have no idea. I checked the Catechism and what popped up is very much the same as what I recall having learned from the Catechism in the early 1950s, way before Vatican II.Why the preocupation that we have to cite pre Vatican II writings to be prove our fidelity to Tradition?
JR
"In the person of Christ the Head . . .
1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:[23]
It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).[24]
Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.[25]
1549 Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers.[26] In the beautiful expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop is typos tou Patros: he is like the living image of God the Father.[27]
1550 This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the ministerâs sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church.
1551 This priesthood is ministerial. âThat office . . . which the Lord committed to the pastors of his people, is in the strict sense of the term a service.â[28] It is entirely related to Christ and to men. It depends entirely on Christ and on his unique priesthood; it has been instituted for the good of men and the communion of the Church. The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a âsacred powerâ which is none other than that of Christ. The exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself the least and the servant of all.[29] âThe Lord said clearly that concern for his flock was proof of love for him.â[30]"
A priest exists as a priestly minister of Christ (true representative)
and as such, also exists to serve Church and parish.
J
JReducation
Guest
The bottom line is that nothing that Vatican II or the post Vatican II popes or the Catechism of the Catholic Church have said on the sacraments is new. They have reworked some of the wording and added or deleted what they felt had pastoral purpose, but the dogmatic part has not been changed.
As I said when I stated this thread, the Church is not a democracy. We canât decide what she does or does not do. We can respectfully agree or disagree. We can make requests and suggestions. In the end, we are expected to love and obey.
These debates over the mass and how the priest celebrates the mass donât always show a great deal of love for the Church that preserved the mass for us for 2000 years or for those who love the mass.
Itâs almost a childish competition. âMy mass is holier than your mass.â
We forget that we have had many rites in the Church. Up to Vatican II, we had more than the Tridentine mass in the Western Church. We also had the Dominican, the Franciscan and the Benedictine mass. Because they were in Latin, mot people didnât realize that the prayers were different and even the readings for certain days were different.
They are no longer called rites, but the Dominicans, Franciscans and Benedictines do not use the same sacramentary or lectionary as the universal Church, nor do they follow the same liturgical calendar to the letter. Many holy days are different. What is a memorial or feast for the universal Church may be solemnity for these orders and in their parishes they are celebrated as such. They even change the saints around. The saints of each order take priority over the saints of the universal Church except for the major holy days. For example, the Solmenity of St. Francis bumps out any other saint that may be celebrated on Oct 3. In the Universal church itâs the memorial of St. Francis and itâs on Oct 4. The Dominican Saints bump the other saints if the days coincide. The readings and prayers are changed and the same happens among the Benedictines.
If you are a religious, the rite of ordination is slightly different. In an ordination mass the candidate to the priesthood kneels before the bishop, placing his hands in the hands of the bishop, he promises the bishop obedience. This is deleted in the ordination of religious, becaue all orders make a solemn vow of obedience to their religious superior long before ordination. Another difference in the ritual is that the bishop does not approve the candidates presented to him for ordination. He asks the religious superior, whether he be a priest or not, if the religious superior has found them worthy. Then the liturgy continues. The ordaining bishop must use the sacramentary and the lectionary of the religious order, if the Order has one of its own. These readings and payers donât always match those in the sacramentary and lectionary of the universal Church word for word.
My point is, that there are always going to be differences, even in Latin celebrations. If the priest is secular he follows certain norms and customs and if the priest is a Brother, he follows the norms and customs of his order. For example, the Marianists never wear a cassock. They are an order of Brothers. They only allow some members to be ordained. They never wore cassocks and are not allowed to wear them. They wear an alb over their street clothes, because they never had a habit since the 1700s. I realize this is minor, but someone may find this surprising.
If you attend mass in a Franciscan Friary, even in Latin, the Brothers all receive the host in their hands and then say the âLord I am not worthy . . .â This was a practice instituted by St. Francis, who was not a priest, to preserve the unity of the Fraternity during the liturgy. What they do maintain is that the presider distributes the hosts. But, if there is a Brother Deacon, he does it.
There are subtle diffences and theyâre going to be there in English or Latin.
Weâre always going to find slight differences, if we pay close attention. They are no reason to debate.
JR
S
stmaria
Guest
The altar only represents Christ. In the tabernacle Christ is physically present, body and blood. Big difference.
You are not looking at the Priestâs back. You are looking with him facing God.
This must really confuse you. I never read of these types of testimonials concerning the Novus Ordo.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=223852
.
But Bishops continue to refuse to provide the TLM or they only allow it in a small chapel in an out of the way place one or twice a month.
.
Check out the absence of footnotes from previous teachings in NOSTRA AETATE or the footnotes in the Decree on Ecumenism. { why isnât *MORTALIUM ANIMOS * cited?
Because pre-Vatican II is Tradition. It canât be ignored.
J
JReducation
Guest
The Eucharistic celebration is not about adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. It is about the sacrfice of Calvary and the Paschal mystery. Check your Catholic Catechism. The Lord will be present on the altar through the consecration.
We are also looking at him holding God when he consecrates. You sound as if this is the only way to do this. Have you forgotten that the Byzentine rite has nevver faced the tabernacle during the liturgy of the Eucharist? They cover it up. They have been doing this since apostolic times. The priest has always focused on the elements of bread and wine on the altar until he pronounces the words of consecration and the deacon proclaims the mystery of faith to the community. This has also been part of our Catholic tradition. A much older part of the Churchâs tradition than the Tridentine mass. What Iâm saying is that there is more than one perspective to how one should celebrate mass.
The Carthusians celebrate mass in their cells, not in chapel, except on Sundays. This has been going on for more than 1000 years.
Donât make assumptions. Iâve been a professor of Philosophy of Theology for many years and a professor of Mystical Theology before that. For many more years, a Director of Pastoral Care. This does not confuse me at all. What saddens me is the fact that many who love the Tridentine mass feel it is their mission to convince everyone else that this is the right thing to do for everyone. It makes me wonder why this group canât worship in the TLM and pay homage and respect for all of the other rites in the Catholic Church.
.
Bishops have an obligation to provide for all of the faithful. Also, you must remember that not every priest may want to celebrate in the TLM. As I have often posted on this thread, a large number of priests are religious. The local religious superior must also authorize it. Itâs not always up to the Bishop. For example, if the Marianist superior says that he will not run a parish with the TLM, the bishop is in a jam. He cannot force the Marianists to run a parish for him. He is not their superior and he does not have enough secular priests.
You also have the largest number of Catholics in the USA are Latin Americans. Most Latin Americans are not favourable to the TLM. The largest number of priests are religious. Do we really know how religious superiors feel about the TLM or making it the norm in their parishes? In some religious orders these changes require the approval of a chapter. In some communities the superior does not have the athority to accept changes of this magnitude. The Church can authorize the TLM, but the religious chapter must decide whether itâs consistent with the charism of their order. Unless the Pope orders it, the religious orders have the freedom to decide for themselves what is consistent with their charism and the desires of their members. As long as it does not do harm to the Church, the Pope does not involve himself in the internal decisions of religious orders of men and the bishops do not have the canonical authority to do so. The bishop only has authority over the pastoral care of his people.
Iâm trying to help you understand, that this is not as easy for bishops to do as waving a magic wand.
If the Magisterium believes that it is necessary, it will do so. If it believes that what it is teaching is self-explanatory, it will not use the references. There is no hidden agenda.
Not quoting something is not the same as ignoring it. The Constitution of a nation cannot be ignored. However, not every law cites it. The legislators cite it when itâs necessary to support a point. If the point can stand on its own merit, they donât use the citations. This is no indicator that they ignore the Constitution. The same happens with the scripture or previous documents. The old Baltimore Catechism hardly cited any scritpure. It didnât mean that its authors were ignorant of or disregarded scripture.
If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church it cites all kinds of writings and councils. It even cites many of the Doctors. Like any kind of work, necessity determines how to write something and how to present it.
JR
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
Traditionalists donât argue about Dominican, Eastern, or Byzantine rites because the ultimate issues are about reverence, verticality, doctrinal expression, and organic development. The other rites you mention are not inadequate on those counts.The bottom line is that nothing that Vatican II or the post Vatican II popes or the Catechism of the Catholic Church have said on the sacraments is new. They have reworked some of the wording and added or deleted what they felt had pastoral purpose, but the dogmatic part has not been changed.
As I said when I stated this thread, the Church is not a democracy. We canât decide what she does or does not do. We can respectfully agree or disagree. We can make requests and suggestions. In the end, we are expected to love and obey.
These debates over the mass and how the priest celebrates the mass donât always show a great deal of love for the Church that preserved the mass for us for 2000 years or for those who love the mass.
Itâs almost a childish competition. âMy mass is holier than your mass.â
We forget that we have had many rites in the Church. Up to Vatican II, we had more than the Tridentine mass in the Western Church. We also had the Dominican, the Franciscan and the Benedictine mass. Because they were in Latin, mot people didnât realize that the prayers were different and even the readings for certain days were different.
They are no longer called rites, but the Dominicans, Franciscans and Benedictines do not use the same sacramentary or lectionary as the universal Church, nor do they follow the same liturgical calendar to the letter. Many holy days are different. What is a memorial or feast for the universal Church may be solemnity for these orders and in their parishes they are celebrated as such. They even change the saints around. The saints of each order take priority over the saints of the universal Church except for the major holy days. For example, the Solmenity of St. Francis bumps out any other saint that may be celebrated on Oct 3. In the Universal church itâs the memorial of St. Francis and itâs on Oct 4. The Dominican Saints bump the other saints if the days coincide. The readings and prayers are changed and the same happens among the Benedictines.
If you are a religious, the rite of ordination is slightly different. In an ordination mass the candidate to the priesthood kneels before the bishop, placing his hands in the hands of the bishop, he promises the bishop obedience. This is deleted in the ordination of religious, becaue all orders make a solemn vow of obedience to their religious superior long before ordination. Another difference in the ritual is that the bishop does not approve the candidates presented to him for ordination. He asks the religious superior, whether he be a priest or not, if the religious superior has found them worthy. Then the liturgy continues. The ordaining bishop must use the sacramentary and the lectionary of the religious order, if the Order has one of its own. These readings and payers donât always match those in the sacramentary and lectionary of the universal Church word for word.
My point is, that there are always going to be differences, even in Latin celebrations. If the priest is secular he follows certain norms and customs and if the priest is a Brother, he follows the norms and customs of his order. For example, the Marianists never wear a cassock. They are an order of Brothers. They only allow some members to be ordained. They never wore cassocks and are not allowed to wear them. They wear an alb over their street clothes, because they never had a habit since the 1700s. I realize this is minor, but someone may find this surprising.
If you attend mass in a Franciscan Friary, even in Latin, the Brothers all receive the host in their hands and then say the âLord I am not worthy . . .â This was a practice instituted by St. Francis, who was not a priest, to preserve the unity of the Fraternity during the liturgy. What they do maintain is that the presider distributes the hosts. But, if there is a Brother Deacon, he does it.
There are subtle diffences and theyâre going to be there in English or Latin.
Weâre always going to find slight differences, if we pay close attention. They are no reason to debate.
JR
Some would say that the Novus Ordo, while valid, is not particularly strong on those points (to say the least). Plus, you are mentioning rites with roots that go back hundreds of years, while we trace much of the Novus Ordo back to the 1960âs and Archbishop Bugniniâs committee, which altered the liturgy as it had never been altered before.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
My mass is more reverent than yours.
My mass is holier than yours.
More people like my mass than yours.
My mass is older than yours.
Where is all this taking us and to what purpose? Are we not at mass the celebrate the Holy Eucharist? So you have a preference? Why is your preference better or holier than mine. Someone earlier hit the nail on the head. They said it appears that we are like a bunch of children, trying to pull a oneupmanship on the other. Wherever you go or whatever kind you prefer, concentrate on the why you go. The why is not a feeling, the Why is to adore.
Deacon Ed B
My mass is holier than yours.
More people like my mass than yours.
My mass is older than yours.
Where is all this taking us and to what purpose? Are we not at mass the celebrate the Holy Eucharist? So you have a preference? Why is your preference better or holier than mine. Someone earlier hit the nail on the head. They said it appears that we are like a bunch of children, trying to pull a oneupmanship on the other. Wherever you go or whatever kind you prefer, concentrate on the why you go. The why is not a feeling, the Why is to adore.
Deacon Ed B
S
stmaria
Guest
I want my children to be able to worship in the most reverent way possible. The Novus Ordo doesnât achieve that goal.They are being denied the experience of worshiping God as He deserves to be worshiped. Changes need to be made. It is not about having the Mass in Latin. The options that are available to the Priest in the Novus Ordo are ridiculous.
You canât convince me that the way the Novus Ordo begins and the way the Traditional Mass begins are equal in reverence to God. The Penitential Rite A, " I confess to almighty God" is optional. That is so sad. There is so much lacking in the Novus Ordo. Eucharistic Prayer # 2 , the most commonly used, could be said by a " Protestant minister in his own celebration".
I do not wish to impose the Traditional mass on anyone. I want to impose sacredness. Many of you either donât recognize this or refuse to.
A sign of desacralization, is the reduction or even elimination of kneeling in liturgical settings. Pope Benedict is aware of this. In his book *Spirit of the Liturgy *â" "There are groups, of no small influence, who are trying to talk us out of kneelingâŚâThe kneeling of Christians is not a form of inculturation into existing customs. It is quite the opposite, an expression of Christian culture, which transforms the existing culture through a new and deeper knowledge and experience of GodâŚThe humble gesture by which we fall at the feet of the Lord inserts us into the true path of life of the cosmos.ââŚ
My daughters do not have a Traditional Mass to attend.They should not be denied the experience of worshiping God as he deserves to be worshiped.
I pray that Pope Benedict brings back the sacredness to the Mass by making necessary changes but it wonât be easy. There are âwolvesâ in his midst that do not want this.
B
Brother_John
Guest
:clapping: :tiphat: :bowdown: :bowdown2:
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
This is exactly what I mean. So now you are in a position of judging the sacredness of the NO Mass. And judging whether God is being worshiped properly. What is your position in the Magisterium that enables you to make such a statement. Absent that position, one biblical verse comes to my mind at this time. *** âJudge not lest you be judgedâ. *** The Novus Ordo mass imparts the same infinite merit of the Latin Mass. You are still free to worship in the Latin Mass, that if your right. But do not degrade the Novus Ordo Mass or those who prefer it.
Deacon Ed B
S
stmaria
Guest
Sorry, but they are not the same. Both are valid. But they are not the same. One only needs to be aware of all that has been removed or supressed to see the difference.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Are you saying the Latin Mass imparts more grace and merit than the Novus Ordo Mass. Be careful here, as this could put you on a very slippery slope.
Deacon Ed B
S
stmaria
Guest
Consider the following prayer said in the TLM
âMay almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you your sins, and bring you to life everlasting. [Amen] May the Almighty and merciful Lord grant us pardon, absolution [he blesses the people with the sign of the cross], and ** remission of our sins**.â { TLM Absolution of venial sins.
The Novus Ordo has entirely done away with the Absolution portion of this prayer. This indulgence, complete with the sign of the cross, is able to forgive venial sins
Consider also that less than 40% of Catholics believe in the Real Physical Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I guarantee you that 100% of those that prefer the TLM believe in the Real Physical Presence of Christ. The law of prayer is the law of belief.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
You still have not answered my question. Are you saying that one is more efficacious than the other? If not what is the problem? And yes, my parish has the Novus Ordo mass and believe it or not the absolution is contained in the penitential rite.
Deacon Ed B
Deacon Ed B
S
stmaria
Guest
Yes I believe that the TLM is more efficacious. That doesnât mean that the OF is not efficacious for some .But the TLM is simply more reverent and it will have a greater impact on the religious life of those that attend reguarly
No, the absolution is not in the pentinetial rite. First of all the pentential rite **is optional **so it may not be said at all. Here is the penitential portion in the New Mass. There is no absolution.
âMay almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life.â (NOM, Penitential Rite}
TLM
âMay almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you your sins, and bring you to life everlasting. [Amen] May the Almighty and merciful Lord grant us pardon, absolution he blesses the people with the sign of the cross], and remission of our sins.â (TLM Absolution}
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
Does the HMC rate one missal as more efficacious than the other?
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
The first point I would make is that if the merits of the mass are infinite, ergo, they are equally efficacious. The Eucharist, which is the purpose of the mass and the reenactment of the sacrifice of calvary is equally efficacious. The next point is that since the penitential rite deals with venial sins only, the wording is equally meritorious. It also removes venial sin, ergo, equally efficacious.
Everything then comes down to personal preference, which I respect. But do not make the mistake of saying that one is more efficacious than the other. Such a statement is not theologically correct and can lead to all kinds of dire consequences. That is the slippery slope I was referring to. Simply respect peoples preferences for something the Church gives you an option on.
Deacon Ed B
- Status