None of what you list has to do with the liturgy itself but the discipline of how the liturgy is celebrated.
that’s exactly what I mean though! the discipline of how it’s celebrated! I’m NOT questioning the validity of the Sacraments of the Novus Ordo… I DO believe its a real Mass… (even the article says that too, but that’s besides the point). I’m talking about the disciplines. But I do consider them pretty important… they alter the spiritual disposition of the people at the Mass… they add to or detract from reverence… etc.
For those Churches without a high altar (and there are many) the priest DOES face the altar; in fact the priest and the entire congregation face the altar!
Yes, but I meant - in the Latin Mass, the priest faces away from the people. I find that this does actualy help to focus less on the priest himself and more on what God is doing through him.
Pope Benedict is not against communion in the hand. He distributes kneeling and on the tongue as a teaching moment to the rest of the world. He did not say “I’m not doing it.”
There is much evidence that his first choice is Communion on the tongue. As for Communion in the hand, I’ll post a quote by Fr John Hardon about that:
Fr John Hardon and the origin of Communion in the hand:
"We were at concelebrated Mass with the Holy Father, and we were absolutely forbidden to give Communion in the hands. Communion in the hand began…with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody’s permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See. One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for, permission to receive Communion in the hand. I was asked by the bishops’ conference to write a defense of Communion on the tongue, and I can again talk for hours.
"In the very, very early Church, Communion was given in the hands. However, as the faith of the Christians weakened in the Real Presence, by the 5th, 6th centuries Communion on the tongue became mandatory—remained mandatory until the present century. Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.
And the American hierarchy took most—three times, those wanting Communion in the hand kept pushing and pushing. Finally, meantime, I was asked by the vice-president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops to defend Communion on the tongue, which I did. To get enough votes to give Communion in the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”
Fr. John Hardon, S.J., November 1st, 1997 Call to Holiness Conference
in Detroit, Michigan, panel discussion.
.
So how far back do you want to go? The Tridentine Mass was “forced” on the Latin Church in 1570, suppressing other rites that had been around for less than 2 centuries. In St. Francis’ time, the Roman Rite wasn’t even used in the diocese of Rome. Are you suggesting that the Church return to the localized versions of the Gallican Rite? Do you want the Mass to be "what it was supposed to be like,
" or do you want it the way YOU want?
I’m not saying the older the better, I’m saying that often the Novus Ordo is not as reverent, and that is true, - and like I said it’s not even the Church’s fault necessarily, - it’s because people took what VII said and started adding whatever THEY wanted
no it does not depend on my perspective or yours
it depends on what the website says
if they accuse the universal Catholic Church-- which was established by Christ, exists today as his Mytical Body, and is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error–of teaching and publishing error, it lies, it blasphemes, it is anti-Catholic, and not worthy of the attention of any professed Catholic.
but see the thing is, it’s not saying the Church has accepted anything heretical… in fact it is saying that the Pope never approved the changes of this Mass… it says the Pope is infallible, even if there are corrupt bishops. I am only saying this to clarify. I’m not saying I agree with all that the article is saying.
