Latin Mass/Novus Ordo

[netmilsmom]

well from your post it read that you called her backwards…

Honestly, after many pages of Brendan and I explaining about our parishes altar boys, she swooped in and said that it is backward thinking.
We weren’t talking about the Idea of Altar boys but the practice in my parish.
So…
If people come in and talk about how wonderful handholding is in their parish and I add “Happy Catholic” to their experience, it should just not be taken personally, right?

 

[anamchara]

well from your post it read that oyu called her backwards…

What are you talking about…you have totally lost me to be honest.

not my place your not insulting me but another poster…

I haven’t insulted anyone.

Naww I don’t remember calling her that, the more I think about it, I called the practice backwards and it was over a week ago. Go look it up and find it if you want. I might be wrong. It doesn’t matter anyway, why do you keep bringing this up? It’s over. Can you not find anything else on me?

 

[Karin]

Honestly, after many pages of Brendan and I explaining about our parishes altar boys, she swooped in and said that it is backward thinking.
We weren’t talking about the Idea of Altar boys but the practice in my parish.
So…
If people come in and talk about how wonderful handholding is in their parish and I add “Happy Catholic” to their experience, it should just not be taken personally, right?

 

[Joysong]

Karin…

AND? How is saying that one is demonstrating a lack of love inappropriate when they are soiling another’s reputation? It is the Church we are speaking of … it is still either “calumny” until proven true, or “detraction” which means to reveal a failing to someone who did not know it – without a good reason. The Church is not on trial here, and there is never a good reason, IMO, to air her weaknesses publicly to put Her in a bad light. This is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and nobody speaks evil of their bride… never!

Looks like our peace truce lasted as long as Israel and Hamas. Maybe not even that long?

 

[Karin]

I haven’t insulted anyone.

Naww I don’t remember calling her that, the more I think about it, I called the practice backwards and it was over a week ago. Go look it up and find it if you want. I might be wrong. It doesn’t matter anyway, why do you keep bringing this up? It’s over. Can you not find anything else on me?

Hmm…I did not bring it up you did my dear…go back and read your posts…especially post #186 where you brought the topic up.

I have no desire to hunt down other folks posts (unlike some) unless relevant to the current thread…by the way.

 

[DesertBrother]

Karin,

You misread my post.
If you were truly “sick” as you say, you would never reveal them publicly Them refers to the pictures, not a person.

That’s the same philosophy the bishops had in covering up the abuse scandals, which allowed the poison to spread freely for decades.

If I were a member of any of those parishes and loved my Church, I would forward those pictures to the local bishop. If he were indifferent, I would forward them to the Vatican with a big sign saying “HELP US!” Brushing them under the carpet only helps prolong the problem.

 

[Karin]

Karin…

AND? How is saying that one is demonstrating a lack of love inappropriate when they are soiling another’s reputation? It is the Church we are speaking of … it is still either “calumny” until proven true, or “detraction” which means to reveal a failing to someone who did not know it – without a good reason. The Church is not on trial here, and there is never a good reason, IMO, to air her weaknesses publicly to put Her in a bad light. This is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and nobody speaks evil of their bride… never!

Looks like our peace truce lasted as long as Israel and Hamas. Maybe not even that long?

I am using the same criteria that you used for blaming other posters that their posts questioned your love for the Church…
Also the photo of Clinton was proven correct…so you would rather hide the abuse to the Church then bring it out in the light so the problem could be fixed?

 

[netmilsmom]

That’s the same philosophy the bishops had in covering up the abuse scandals, which allowed the poison to spread freely for decades.

Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner.

The little innovations and abuses that we haven’t stopped have lead to the mass going this far afield.

I’m with Kirk, these are the absolute extremes but I’m not going to be so blind to believe that they didn’t happen because I don’t want it to be this way.

Not believing that a priest could do something so low, lead to Bishops moving them from place to place. And putting our most innocent in harms way.

 

[DesertBrother]

The Church is not on trial here, and there is never a good reason, IMO, to air her weaknesses publicly to put Her in a bad light. This is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and nobody speaks evil of their bride… never!
?

No one said the Church herself was on trial. When the sexual abuse scandals came out, no one was “speaking evil” of the bride of Christ, but defending her from evil men! Those who are supposed to be shepherds of the Church, that are allowing these situations are the ones in question.

These are not “weaknesses” of the Church, but of men. You speak as if everyone is attacking Christ Himself, when in fact they are striving to uphold the respect and reverence He deserves by exposing this horrifying sacrilige.

 

[netmilsmom]

Isn’t Mary the Spouse of the Holy Spirit?
cuttingedge.org/articles/RC126.htm

 

[Rabbititus]

I’m not saying Latin isn’t important. It is, as important as Greek or Hebrew. But I take a “balance scale” view. Putting Latin on one side and the value of people understanding the Mass on the other, to me, at least, the scale comes down on the side of people understanding the mass.

But why do you consider a Mass with Latin and a Mass that can be understood to be mutually exclusive? Why can’t you have much of the mass in Latin and still have understanding? You don’t need to know a whole language to understand a few pages of text.

I understand and support vernacular for the changing parts of mass - but it seems bizarre to me that the Gloria, Our Father, and all those other unchanging parts of Mass will be impossible to understand in Latin when you hear and read them week after week and year after year for an entire lifetime.

Further, I believe that Moslems, at least, throughout the world, actually TEACH Arabic as a second language to be used in prayer, in order to actually ACCESS their religion, because of positive prohibitions against the translation of the Koran, etc. (I admit, I’m not that up on Islam). I think that’s bizarre: in order to practice your faith in God, you have to know a certain language?

I recall hearing that Muslims consider Arabic to be particularly holy since it was the language Mohammad used and presumably the one that God used when speaking to him. I’ve also heard that some of the power, poetry, and emotion of the Arabic is often lost in translations to other languages - particularly English, where the Koran can often times sound quite banal or even silly when translated (again, this is only what I’ve heard).

 

[Joysong]

If I were a member of any of those parishes and loved my Church, I would forward those pictures to the local bishop. If he were indifferent, I would forward them to the Vatican with a big sign saying “HELP US!” Brushing them under the carpet only helps prolong the problem.

The person who posted them was striving to prove his point. It is still detraction or calumny, for it was not presented as you suggested to proper authority, but used rather as shock tactics to unknown members who are not able to prove them as true, or do anything about it.

I think this too is against forum rules, unless one can cite the source as true. He has not done so. It is innuendo, and I would pull the pictures if I had the authority unless a reputable source was given.

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t believe that’s true. Certainly, Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church, certainly, it’s important in our scholarship and in our history. But “Latin truly says Catholic?” No, I don’t think so. There are other Churches that are Catholic outside the Latin Rite. And the Church’s primary function is the salvation of souls…not the preservation of Latin. Can souls be saved by a greater or more expanded use of Latin? I very seriously doubt it.

---

The Church was saving souls prior to Vat II.

unavoce.org/veterumsapientia.htm

Veterum Sapientia
An Apostolic Constitution of His Holiness John XXIII,

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See

The nature of Latin

…
Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latins for mal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws.”…

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Churchs life, “is important not so much on cul tural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons.” 6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indi cated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Churchs nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time . . of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non vernacular.” …

Non-vernacular

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."0 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure . . . of incomparable worth.” (11). It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Churchs teaching.2 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity…

 

[Julianna]

Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner.

The little innovations and abuses that we haven’t stopped have lead to the mass going this far afield.

I’m with Kirk, these are the absolute extremes but I’m not going to be so blind to believe that they didn’t happen because I don’t want it to be this way.

**Not believing that a priest could do something so low, lead to Bishops moving them from place to place. ** And putting our most innocent in harms way.

because back in the day…NO lay person…much less a child would dare question a priest…and no group of priests or hushed up parents would dare challenge a Bishops decision to move a priest…

now we know…that priests and bishops are human beings…and need to be held accountable for what has been done to cause today’s scandal…

yeah the good ol days…

 

[Joysong]

Isn’t Mary the Spouse of the Holy Spirit?

Of course. Do you not know that the Church is also called the bride of Christ? You indicated that Mother Angelica is, too. Why so picky?

 

[DesertBrother]

The person who posted them was striving to prove his point. It is still detraction or calumny, for it was not presented as you suggested to proper authority, but used rather as shock tactics to unknown members who are not able to prove them as true, or do anything about it.

You might have a point there.

 

[netmilsmom]

because back in the day…NO lay person…much less a child would dare question a priest…and no group of priests or hushed up parents would dare challenge a Bishops decision to move a priest…

now we know…that priests and bishops are human beings…and need to be held accountable for what has been done to cause today’s scandal…

yeah the good ol days…

Yet some here question the validity of pictures.
Others question the YouTube videos.
And when Mother Angelica does it, it’s scandalous, according to some.

Yeah baby, we’ve come a long way.

 

[netmilsmom]

You might have a point there.

Or maybe not.
How do we KNOW that the person who posted hasn’t sent them to the proper authorities?

From what I read of his posts over these months, and his love for Our Lord, he is the type of person who would.

But it’s okay to presume for some things and not for others.

 

[netmilsmom]

Of course. Do you not know that the Church is also called the bride of Christ? You indicated that Mother Angelica is, too. Why so picky?

So do you call Mary the Bride of Christ?

The only people I have heard call the church “The Spouse of the Holy Spirit” are the Charismatics.

 

[anamchara]

The person who posted them was striving to prove his point. It is still detraction or calumny, for it was not presented as you suggested to proper authority, but used rather as shock tactics to unknown members who are not able to prove them as true, or do anything about it.

I think this too is against forum rules, unless one can cite the source as true. He has not done so. It is innuendo, and I would pull the pictures if I had the authority unless a reputable source was given.

Ya shock tactics I’m afraid and I’m not sure if posting pictures is aganist forum rules since the actual parish is not mentioned, although using the pictures to prove that one way to worship is more reverent than the other is I believe against the rules but then you and I have pointed this out several times. It’s going on deaf ears