Is this true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monica4316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ockham said:
You have a disdainful prejudice against traditional Catholics as proven in this post.

BTW, the pope said ad populus was like the priest facing the audience. Take up your grievance with him.

The Mass is a prayer. I suspect those little old ladies didn’t have a missal so did the next best thing and said the rosary. Their head coverings have biblical and cultural significance not merely a performance intended to make themselves look holier than thou.
Click to expand...
Lycorth said:
Catholics should not dismiss liturgical reform because there are “better things to do” - there isn’t anything more important than reforming how Catholics have been approaching the Blessed Sacrament over the past 40 years.

Lex orandi - lex credendi. The law of prayer is the law of belief. How we pray affects how we live and how we approach our faith and life. The Church has many crucial problems to address, including the sex scandals of the recent past and the task of drawing lost sheep back into the fold, but reformation of how we pray is the most important task, the one upon which all others hinge. We will never see reform of the Church until we see reform of how we pray, because how we pray will directly affect how we believe, how we approach even the simplest tasks in our personal lives as well as church-related activities, and how we approach life itself.

Both the TLM needs to be brought to more churches and the OF needs to be reformed, its rubrics tightened both voluntarily and by Church order (and the Third Missal it seems will begin the work of this) to mirror the true and traditional reverence of the Church. We can’t just focus on everything else and ignore the way we pray; we will sabotage all our efforts to evangelize the world and root out problems in the Church if we fail at this. If we fail to reform how we presume to honor the Lord and treat His Sacraments, why should God bless our efforts?

Liturgical reform is at the heart of everything. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise 🙂
Click to expand...
👍 Awsome bro!
 
The article contains half truths. It would be hard to refute since it is such a long diatribe. Mind you I am in sink with the sentiment.
Turned the altar into a table instead of a sacred altar
Click to expand...
It is both an altar and a table. This what I learned BEFORE Vatican II. The Last Supper took place at a table.

There is no documentation for the assertions made in the article. If there were secret meetings, how does he know about them?

Head covering for women came about not as some evil plan but because society changed. Women stopped wearing head covering as did men. This was a social phenomenon not a planned one.

I have not seen Latin outlawed that is just a plain hyperbole that puts doubt on the whole article.

So is it true?

A partial truth is never true.
 
adrift said:
Head covering for women came about not as some evil plan but because society changed. Women stopped wearing head covering as did men. This was a social phenomenon not a planned one.
Click to expand...
That’s the problem. Many people in the Church (but not the Church itself) caved in to society on many issues (most but not all are morality related) including women dressing more like men and less like proper ladies. So women stopped dressing like women (dresses, veils, etc.) and started dressing like men (pants, no head covering, etc.). The feminist movement is about making women less like women and more like men, but I digress. The point is, society put pressure on the Church (as it always has done since the 1st century) and many in the Church caved in to society and chose society’s ways over the Church’s ways. All of a sudden society was right and the Church was wrong and had to change, as if God has to bow down to society, when things are supposed to be the other way around: the Church is supposed to convert society.
 
Lycorth said:
Lex orandi - lex credendi. The law of prayer is the law of belief. How we pray affects how we live and how we approach our faith and life. The Church has many crucial problems to address, including the sex scandals of the recent past and the task of drawing lost sheep back into the fold, but reformation of how we pray is the most important task, the one upon which all others hinge. We will never see reform of the Church until we see reform of how we pray, because how we pray will directly affect how we believe, how we approach even the simplest tasks in our personal lives as well as church-related activities, and how we approach life itself.

Liturgical reform is at the heart of everything. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise 🙂
Click to expand...
Then way that we pray is also of personal choice. Boths forms of the mass allow an individuals to worship and praise God. My preference is the OF of the mass. IOt allows me to experiance a much more personal relationship with God. At commuion I can touch him with my own hands, there is no physical barrior (i.e. alatar rail ) that keeps me form approaching the altar of scrafice. Common people (the layity) are allowed to participate, to proclaim the word, to serve, both male and female, to distribute the presiousbody and blood as EMHC. This is all done prayerfully anf with reverence.
Christ sat around the table of sinners and dined. The OF in some way reflects His table ministery. For many, this personal contact and participation in prayer is how they relate to ouor Lord.

Others like you want the bells prayers and smoke. I don’t mean it as a put down , put in your prayer you relate to God on the high thrown, were we should bow and pray below him. You want the worship of the mass the exhault him and certainly the EF does that, buit also does the OF in a different way.

The untimate way of prayer is how we live our lives and follow the teaching of Christ. If we are not following his message to spread the gospel and take care of those in need. Then it doesn’t matter how we pray behind four walls, our worship and prayers are meaningless without true action.

Peace,
FAB
 
FAB said:
Then way that we pray is also of personal choice.
Click to expand...
That sums up the flaw in your philosophy. This concept of “choice” extends to moral relativism which is the basis for many modern sins. Individualism in the liturgy is a Protestant hallmark along with their “personal relationship with Jesus”.

Taking Jesus in your hand is arrogant at best with your ego attempting to pull Him down to our level. Jesus became man so He could die for our sins, redeem us, not so you and the EMHC could handle Him. He instituted the priesthood in order for the other sacraments to be performed through Him. When we play priest that distinction is lost.

Individualism also is to blame for the novelties and customizations from one parish to the next. At one time the Mass was universal, now you never know what you’re going to get.

Jesus gave us a Church to guide us to Heaven. If we don’t need the Church or modify it to our liking then we are no better than those outside it. If we have “choice” then we are no better than the Fundamentalist, Muslim, or agnostic who claims to be ‘spiritual but not religious’ and mistakenly assured of his eternal salvation.

Ours has been a generation of disobedience. It’s not the first time as the Bible shows us and we should consider the consequences that previous generations endured. Jesus told us the gate to Heaven is narrow and our Lady at Fatima told us many people will be surprised when they arrive in Hell. The best course is to leave behind this Baby Boomer mentality and resubmit ourselves to Christ’s Church as He intended.
 
FAB said:
IOt allows me to experiance a much more personal relationship with God. At commuion I can touch him with my own hands, there is no physical barrior (i.e. alatar rail ) that keeps me form approaching the altar of scrafice. Common people (the layity) are allowed to participate, to proclaim the word, to serve, both male and female, to distribute the presiousbody and blood as EMHC. This is all done prayerfully anf with reverence.
Click to expand...
Quite a contrast between the Holy of Holies which God prescribed in the OT (where only the high priest was allowed to enter and only once a year) and the modernist world. But, of course, the self-serving modernist knows best. :rolleyes:
 
FAB said:
Then way that we pray is also of personal choice. Boths forms of the mass allow an individuals to worship and praise God. My preference is the OF of the mass. IOt allows me to experiance a much more personal relationship with God. At commuion I can touch him with my own hands, there is no physical barrior (i.e. alatar rail ) that keeps me form approaching the altar of scrafice. Common people (the layity) are allowed to participate, to proclaim the word, to serve, both male and female, to distribute the presiousbody and blood as EMHC. This is all done prayerfully anf with reverence.
Christ sat around the table of sinners and dined. The OF in some way reflects His table ministery. For many, this personal contact and participation in prayer is how they relate to ouor Lord.

Others like you want the bells prayers and smoke. I don’t mean it as a put down , put in your prayer you relate to God on the high thrown, were we should bow and pray below him. You want the worship of the mass the exhault him and certainly the EF does that, buit also does the OF in a different way.

The untimate way of prayer is how we live our lives and follow the teaching of Christ. If we are not following his message to spread the gospel and take care of those in need. Then it doesn’t matter how we pray behind four walls, our worship and prayers are meaningless without true action.

Peace,
FAB
Click to expand...
The problem is, we’re not worthy to touch the Lord with our own hands, nor to dare presume to approach His tabernacle just because we think we should be, nor to allow just anyone to do as they wish. Prayer is not personal choice - the Lord taught us how to pray in the Gospels and continues to do so through the Church which He gave us.

That’s the problem with the OF; it has permitted people to presume more worthiness unto themselves than we have a right to. No good ever comes from presuming more righteousness unto ourselves or from dragging the Lord down to our level instead of sacrificing our wants from the Mass in order to lift ourselves up to Him. The OF is only said reverently when it is said in that fashion, not when it is said or set in such an atmosphere as to blur the line between the profane and the sacred and give us the impression that we are holier or worthier than we really are.

It’s why folks like me prefer the EF; not just because it has more smells and bells (I have yet to attend my first High Mass; God willing the wife and I can on Sunday) but because every little thing in it is strictly ordered to the glory of God and towards no other goal, even the most seemingly insignificant part of it. There is much less room for error and for irreverence, and all the pomp and circumstance of the TLM ends up translating into greater reverence. The OF can be done in similar fashion, but it requires going above and beyond what its own rubrics call for.
 
Ockham said:
That sums up the flaw in your philosophy. This concept of “choice” extends to moral relativism which is the basis for many modern sins. Individualism in the liturgy is a Protestant hallmark along with their “personal relationship with Jesus”.

Taking Jesus in your hand is arrogant at best with your ego attempting to pull Him down to our level. Jesus became man so He could die for our sins, redeem us, not so you and the EMHC could handle Him. He instituted the priesthood in order for the other sacraments to be performed through Him. When we play priest that distinction is lost.

Individualism also is to blame for the novelties and customizations from one parish to the next. At one time the Mass was universal, now you never know what you’re going to get.

Jesus gave us a Church to guide us to Heaven. If we don’t need the Church or modify it to our liking then we are no better than those outside it. If we have “choice” then we are no better than the Fundamentalist, Muslim, or agnostic who claims to be ‘spiritual but not religious’ and mistakenly assured of his eternal salvation.

Ours has been a generation of disobedience. It’s not the first time as the Bible shows us and we should consider the consequences that previous generations endured. Jesus told us the gate to Heaven is narrow and our Lady at Fatima told us many people will be surprised when they arrive in Hell. The best course is to leave behind this Baby Boomer mentality and resubmit ourselves to Christ’s Church as He intended.
Click to expand...
I disagree that having a choice in the way that we go to worship leads to moral relativism. In your discussions you also leave out all the other churchs who are in communion witht the church that niether use the OF or the EF. I also maintain that our forms of worship are superior to protestant practices. Your charge of moral relatism implies that I am comparing our forms of worship to other religions which is not the case.
I am trying to point out that discussion between the EF and OF that they are two side of the same coin. The effect of both is the sacrafic at the altar that we share in.

I also disagree that the change in the mass had anything to do with a baby boomer generation or of any disobediance. Any studies of church history show that there were moves to change the mass years before VII. Since I trust theat the Holy Spirit guides the church, it is my belief that we are worshiping as Christ intended.

Peace,
FAB
 
Any studies of church history show that there were moves to change the mass years before VII.
Click to expand...
Actually even before Trent. They were called the Reformers.
 
Lycorth said:
The problem is, we’re not worthy to touch the Lord with our own hands, nor to dare presume to approach His tabernacle just because we think we should be, nor to allow just anyone to do as they wish. Prayer is not personal choice - the Lord taught us how to pray in the Gospels and continues to do so through the Church which He gave us.

.
Click to expand...
Our relationship with God is very personal, that is why prayer is personal, and how we choose to comunicate to God through out prayer is personal.

As far as being worthy to approach God, that is a theological difference between some traditionalist and I guess the term another poster wants to lable me as a moderist. The problem with that label is I go back to the Gospel were Christ walked with us, allowed us to touch Him and he touched us. This has given us permission to approach him, this gave us the knowelge that our Lord is not in some far off place and untouchable. His death and resurrection made us worthy to approach him.
Your approach to God is a through back the the Jewish practice of God was unapproachable, Christ changed that idea
forever.

Peace,
FAB
 
Your approach to God is a through back the the Jewish practice of God was unapproachable, Christ changed that idea
forever.
Click to expand...
Christ changed the sacrifice idea? Or the priestly order of Melchisedech?
 
FAB said:
I disagree that having a choice in the way that we go to worship leads to moral relativism. In your discussions you also leave out all the other churchs who are in communion witht the church that niether use the OF or the EF. I also maintain that our forms of worship are superior to protestant practices. Your charge of moral relatism implies that I am comparing our forms of worship to other religions which is not the case.
I am trying to point out that discussion between the EF and OF that they are two side of the same coin. The effect of both is the sacrafic at the altar that we share in.

I also disagree that the change in the mass had anything to do with a baby boomer generation or of any disobediance. Any studies of church history show that there were moves to change the mass years before VII. Since I trust theat the Holy Spirit guides the church, it is my belief that we are worshiping as Christ intended.

Peace,
FAB
Click to expand...
The Eastern Churches have strict rubrics that have gone unchanged for thousands of years, just go to any Eastern mass and you will notice the sacredness and reverence much quicker than your “average” OF. Today the majority (but certainly not all) OF masses are done with the mentality that it’s about the people, “the mass must be done by certain time”, “we need ECHM so the line goes quicker”, “we need to use more modern music for the young crowd”, “the priest should face the people so they don’t feel alienated”. It’s all about feelings, and feelings tend to guide us on the wrong directions. When Vat II spoke about participation in the Mass, it wasn’t talking about all these things, but instead it was to allow the lay people to participate in more prayers of the Mass and to have a better understanding of it, not to be an ECHM or lector. The EF has given me a better appreciation for the OF, but not in the way you think. I don’t do ECHM because in my opinion I don’t feel worthy to step in the Lord’s sanctuary or to even touch Him. I have an appreciation because of the prayers we are allowed to say out loud with the priest and that real and better participation we have at the OF, but we still have long ways to go to make the OF more reverent and even sacred (I am excluding the 2nd part of the mass here because that alone is Holiest of Holys).

Vat II never called for ECHM at every possible mass, they are only meant to be used for extra-ordinary times when a priest truly needs them. The council never called for strict vernacular masses only, yet most masses are only said in the vernacular. It never called for “girl” altar-boys, but look at us now! The council never called for the removal of altar rails, removal of stone altars, or even the removal of the organ, but many churches now look like your typical protestant churches. A massive suppression against the organ and Gregorian chant, even though the Church holds it at the higher level than your typical guitar-singing choir. So yeah there were/are many disobediences against the Holy See.
 
FAB said:
Our relationship with God is very personal, that is why prayer is personal, and how we choose to comunicate to God through out prayer is personal.

As far as being worthy to approach God, that is a theological difference between some traditionalist and I guess the term another poster wants to lable me as a moderist. The problem with that label is I go back to the Gospel were Christ walked with us, allowed us to touch Him and he touched us. This has given us permission to approach him, this gave us the knowelge that our Lord is not in some far off place and untouchable. His death and resurrection made us worthy to approach him.
Your approach to God is a through back the the Jewish practice of God was unapproachable, Christ changed that idea
forever.

Peace,
FAB
Click to expand...
Answer me this, why then did the Church for thousands of years only allow COTT? Why do the majority of Saints and Church fathers hold COTT as the best way to receive Christ, yet I’ve only know one Church Father that spoke about COTH? Last time I checked the Saints where after the time of Christ and not Jews. There is a reason why non of us can see the beatific vision, not even in visions or dreams, because we could never handle such great vision, it’s only meant for those who die in a state of grace! Touching Christ and thinking you are worthy of it is bringing Christ down from His divinity.
 
Noli mi tangere… .

There’s a lot of deep meaning there.

We should always have the greatest reverence and prudence. I am reminded of the Ancient Prayer to St. Joseph… . we have to be pure as can be to touch the pure. . .
 
ProVobis said:
Christ changed the sacrifice idea? Or the priestly order of Melchisedech?
Click to expand...
That God is unapproachable except once a year in the Holy of Holies. Remember the current of the sanctuary was torn in half at the death of Christ.

Peace,
FAB
 
archangel04 said:
Answer me this, why then did the Church for thousands of years only allow COTT? Why do the majority of Saints and Church fathers hold COTT as the best way to receive Christ, yet I’ve only know one Church Father that spoke about COTH? Last time I checked the Saints where after the time of Christ and not Jews. There is a reason why non of us can see the beatific vision, not even in visions or dreams, because we could never handle such great vision, it’s only meant for those who die in a state of grace! Touching Christ and thinking you are worthy of it is bringing Christ down from His divinity.
Click to expand...
Since the Church is 2000 years old, COTT could not be practiced for thousands of years. I’m not certain when the practice first started but I’m thinking the middle ages since that was about the time that the wafer came into wide use. Perhaps you can find out.
The early church fathers believed that the Eucharist was to be treated with reverence as did the saints. As with many things in the Church one has to examine the reasons why COTT was first started. By your argument though no one but the priest and the sub deacons should receive communion. This was also the practice of the Church for Hundreds of year. The people were left with optical communion (adoration).

As far as your other post that you don’t feel worthy. That issue goes back to my earlier point that Christ came and ate with the sinners. Those that the scribes and pharisees
felt were unworthy.

Peace,
FAB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top