Liberals admit the OF is a fabrication. Do Conservatives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter keepitreal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m confused, whose the liberal and where did they admit the OF is a fabrication?
 
“Those Angry Traditionalists” was an entertaining, if disappointing read.

Conservatives can’t refute traditionalist arguments with sound reasoning, so they go ad hominem, accusing us of being “perpetually angry” and thinking every Novus Ordo is a clown Mass. The crisis in the Church won’t end until they realize they’re targetting the wrong people. They should venerate the traditions of the Church - not calumniate against them and those who hold them dear.
 
Freshman88 said:
I’m confused, whose the liberal and where did they admit the OF is a fabrication?
Click to expand...
The fact that Liberals admit the OF is a fabrication is no secret. They are very proud of this fact. Avery Dulles, in the article, merely is repeating this. You have to go to the article.😃
 
keepitreal said:
The fact that Liberals admit the OF is a fabrication is no secret. They are very proud of this fact. Avery Dulles, in the article, merely is repeating this. You have to go to the article.😃
Click to expand...
Oh, so this Avery Dulles is in fact a liberal? Is this what you were trying to point out?

The article itself doesn’t seem to make the point that liberals are admitting this, that’s why I’m rather confused.
 
Freshman88 said:
Oh, so this Avery Dulles is in fact a liberal? Is this what you were trying to point out?

The article itself doesn’t seem to make the point that liberals are admitting this, that’s why I’m rather confused.
Click to expand...
You’re right. I was just trying to make a “title”, and while doing this point out something that I found interesting and wanted to share:shrug:
 
I also posted this article because it is good. The author, Steve Skojec, is a self-described traditionalist, he’s not a liberal. He also makes some good points in the comments section below the article.

It is also nice that he is making arguments for the TLM in a venue (formerly Crisis magazine) which isn’t necessarily known for doing that.
 
keepitreal said:
You’re right. I was just trying to make a “title”, and while doing this point out something that I found interesting and wanted to share:shrug:
Click to expand...
I believe that this violates the forum’s guidelines found here,

IMPORTANT FORUM INFO: Please read!

Specifically;
Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answer Forums:
  • Use the original title. When you post an article, be sure to use the original title in the subject of your post. This helps users find the article and lessens the chance of a double post.
Click to expand...
 
EVERY Liturgy, even the ancient classical ones are fabrications to an extent. REAL LIVE PEOPLE were involved in their composition.

Believe it or not, the Holy Spirit did NOT dictate text and rubrics into the ear of Pope Pius V.
 
bpbasilphx said:
EVERY Liturgy, even the ancient classical ones are fabrications to an extent. REAL LIVE PEOPLE were involved in their composition.

Believe it or not, the Holy Spirit did NOT dictate text and rubrics into the ear of Pope Pius V.
Click to expand...
The difference lies in the amount of change imposed on the rites.
 
EVERY Liturgy, even the ancient classical ones are fabrications to an extent. REAL LIVE PEOPLE were involved in their composition.
Click to expand...
Most Liturgies were not created by ad hoc committees whose goal was to appease non-believers, and rid the Mass of anything they found offensive. Furthermore, ancient prayers and customs were not discarded and replaced by totally new prayers for no other reason than the Committee thought they were more appropriate to modern man.
 
So we can all be speaking intelligently TO one another, instead of AT one another. Would you be so kind as to give us your definition of LIBERALS. While the Novus Ordo is my mass preference, I hardly consider myself religiously liberal.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
FYI: I attend OF primarily, sometimes attend EF.

In comparing the basic format of the OF vs. the EF,
I notice no great change in essence.
Certain EF things were eliminated (prayers at the foot of the altar) or its repetitions eliminated (Confiteor at beginning of Mass reduced to one, repetition eliminated entirely just before communion).

Some things were added, and more options were allowed.
A third reading for Sundays, usually from Old testement, usually linked to Gospel for that day.

Additional options for Eucharistic Prayers were added, some of which date back to or are based on prayers used in early Church.

The faithful are able to respond directly to priest, instead of just the server responding.

The Mass is prayed out loud mostly, except for certain priest specific prayers.

In essense, the format of the Mass is the same.

The valid critiques of the OF primarily concern innovations or abuses on the part of celebrants etc.

Re the EF, I never understood why it was done in silence, with the server standing in for congregation. I had heard this arose because of the private mass, where priest would celebrate with out a congregation at a monastery side altar. Several private masses would be going on at once, so I guess there would be ensuing babble if all masses were done out loud.

If this is true, than the silence of the EF is not part of its essence, but a response to conditions at the time in history. Once it became a habit, it then became a tradition. I guess folks who did not know better thought that was the essence of the Mass, and then would construct arguments justifying the practice.

One EF practice I find esp. annoying is the hurried run-on way it is said, similar to that you might hear in recitations of the Rosary.

“IntroiboaltarDei” etc. It seems to lack reverence.

My 2 cents, a quarter adjusted for inflation.
 
**
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpbasilphx View Post
EVERY Liturgy, even the ancient classical ones are fabrications to an extent. REAL LIVE PEOPLE were involved in their composition.
Like the Apostles maybe?**

**In broad structure, yes.

But a comparison of ALL the classical liturgies reveals this broad, that seems to be with me (and, I assume, also with you) a doubtless Apostolic structure.**
 
bpbasilphx said:
**
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpbasilphx View Post
EVERY Liturgy, even the ancient classical ones are fabrications to an extent. REAL LIVE PEOPLE were involved in their composition.
Like the Apostles maybe?**

**In broad structure, yes.

But a comparison of ALL the classical liturgies reveals this broad, that seems to be with me (and, I assume, also with you) a doubtless Apostolic structure.**
Click to expand...
Mane nobiscum Domine (Lk 24,29) 👍
 
Freshman88 said:
I’m confused, whose the liberal and where did they admit the OF is a fabrication?
Click to expand...
Here’s a quote from another site that might better support the OP’s title:

“The amusing thing is that conservatives are intent on upholding the authority of the Pauline Missal against the traditionalists. One well known priest once wrote, “I actually see no real difference between the two missals,” which was as great discredit to his reputation as a scholar. The line is that the New Mass is not really New, despite the fact that a careful reading of Bugnini’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy reveals that it is all new and that the so-called restorations are questionable indeed and the work was written in fact as a justification for the unjustifiable.1 The liturgists realize the New Mass is new, the liberals realize the New Mass is new, everyone in the Church realizes the New Mass is new except for the conservatives. The conservatives who fight very hard to demand observance of the rubrics and adequate translations usually end up being routed. Abuses are routinely made licit, and conservatives who deride others for not obeying the Pope then have to do exactly the disobedient practice they railed against in the first place, to save the authority of the pope at the expense of a more critical analysis of the nature of the liturgy itself. Conservatives consistently find themselves in positions of liturgical inconsistence because their barometer of religious fervor is that of accepting whatever comes out of Rome and not what actually makes sense. This is often seen with the attitude towards extraordinary ministers of various kinds. Many will use eucharistic ministers while hating every minute of it, seeing it as a kind if lesser evil permitted by the church, but at the same time they will defend to blood the Catholic liturgical principle that An extraordinary minister cannot function in the presence of an ordinary one. Then they go to Rome and are scandalized to see this being flouted everywhere, and then when they see the same thing happen at Papal Masses, then say, well the Pope does it so it must be okay and then go back to the US to try to simultaneously hold two mutually exclusive positions. Examples of this abound.”

The complete article can be found here:

seattlecatholic.com/article_20030321.html
 
Any time I see a statement which assumes the “liberals” are in agreement about anything whatsoever, I take it with a grain of salt.

Besides, the truth is what the truth is, and it doesn’t matter what label you put on those who believe it or don’t, what the demographics are within those who believe it or don’t, what majority believes or not.

The NO is the valid and ordinary form of the Roman Mass at present, promulgated by those who, by virtue of their Apostolic Succession, have the authority to do so. What some faction of the Church or other has to say about that really is besides the point. Like it or not, poll anyone you like, it is what it is.

(PS The OF is the ordinary form, the EF is the extraordinary form. It is pretty amusing to see the difference in how the word “extraordinary” is interpreted, depending on whether one is talking about a form of the Mass or the person distributing the Blessed Sacrament. But that is neither here nor there.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top