Liturgical Reform------ R. I. P.?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PASCENDI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Agomemnon:
You encourage the abuse and then you use the results of that abuse as evidence for you to keep it.

I can even hear it in the background “Amchurch Amchuch RAH RAH RAH!”
Click to expand...
It’s not an abuse female servers
Podo
 
40.png
Podo2004:
It’s not an abuse female servers
Podo
Click to expand...
It is worthwhile recalling that as recently as 1980, when the Holy Father reaffirmed the Church’s bimillennial prohibition of female altar servers in Inæstimabile donum, the Vatican’s own official liturgical publication, Notitiæ, ran an article declaring that this prohibition was “set in stone” as early as the fifth century A.D.

Now, in the case of a religious tradition which has not only existed, but has been consciously, continuously, and emphatically reaffirmed and insisted upon for two millennia, there must be a very strong presumption that such a tradition reflects the will of Christ. And this is in fact the case with the tradition against female altar service. In the Vatican journal Notitiæ, the liturgical scholar we have already mentioned, Aimé-Georges Martimort, affirms that

*[the] general discipline of the Church [against female altar service] has been set in stone by canon 44 of the Collection of Laodicea which dates generally from the end of the 4th century and which has figured in almost all canonical collections of East and West. *

Martimort also recalls that Popes ever since St. Gelasius in 494 had denounced this practice as an abuse. It appears there were already feminist influences making themselves felt in Sicily and southern Italy at that time, and Pope St. Gelasius felt obliged to write to the bishops of those regions saying

We have heard with sorrow of the great contempt [mépris] with which the sacred mysteries have been treated. It has reached the point where women have been encouraged to serve at the altar, and to carry out roles that are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender.

Every edition of the Roman Missal from 1570 till 1962 carried the prohibition of female altar servers, as did the 1917 Code of Canon Law (c. 813, §2), not to mention the documents of the post-conciliar liturgical reform in their earlier and less radical phase.

John Paul II told the Bishops *“It is Laudible that the Noble Tradition of having only men and boys serve the altar” *

Perhaps you just need to follow the intentions of the Pope for once.
 
When I first attended the Mass in Spanish, I noticed several differences. The translation of the Novus Ordo into Spanish is far superior to the English translation.

I never say “And also with you” at Mass anymore. It is wrong. The Mass needs to be retranslated faithfully and if Bishop Trautman doesn’t like it, he needs to resign.
 
The people are used to saying “and also with you”.

Personally, you might not like to say it, but I think you’re in the minority.

I think they translated it that way , as they didn’t want it to sound “too Lutheran”, as the Lutherans say “and with thy spirit”.
 
Is everyone here from the United States? Trust me, things are far worse here in Canada. We don’t even have the new GIRM yet and it was just sent in from the Catholic Bishops for approval after many, many, many requests for indults.

Guess what happens when a liturgical abuse is brought forth? They blame not changing abuses on the fact that we don’t have the new GIRM yet, therefore, they don’t want to change anything until we get it. (I know and you know this doesn’t make sense so why doesn’t everyone get it?) We are in LIMBO!! We are victims of weird and strange liturgical creativity!

I am not silent though. I have a couple of letters off to Rome and I am waiting for replies.

God bless, Debbie
 
Thank you for the link to the architect. Now I know who to grumble at for the St. James Cathedral mangling. I truly hate how many churches have been ruined by moving the altar from a front and center position to an “in the round” location. Throws off all the lines of the church. In St. James it is particularly comical. The pulpit (ambo?) is in a very difficult place for anyone to see and the whole round sanctuary thing is just impossible. I never knew what it looked like pre-remodel. Why on earth did they change it?

Anyone else sick of the “plus sign” designs? Very eighties and very non-sectarian. Hello, are we Catholics or what? Bring back the crucifix! Our parish doesn’t have one at all. 😦
 
40.png
Agomemnon:
It is worthwhile recalling that as recently as 1980, when the Holy Father reaffirmed the Church’s bimillennial prohibition of female altar servers in Inæstimabile donum, the Vatican’s own official liturgical publication, Notitiæ, ran an article declaring that this prohibition was “set in stone” as early as the fifth century A.D.

Now, in the case of a religious tradition which has not only existed, but has been consciously, continuously, and emphatically reaffirmed and insisted upon for two millennia, there must be a very strong presumption that such a tradition reflects the will of Christ. And this is in fact the case with the tradition against female altar service. In the Vatican journal Notitiæ, the liturgical scholar we have already mentioned, Aimé-Georges Martimort, affirms that

*[the] general discipline of the Church [against female altar service] has been set in stone by canon 44 of the Collection of Laodicea which dates generally from the end of the 4th century and which has figured in almost all canonical collections of East and West. *

Martimort also recalls that Popes ever since St. Gelasius in 494 had denounced this practice as an abuse. It appears there were already feminist influences making themselves felt in Sicily and southern Italy at that time, and Pope St. Gelasius felt obliged to write to the bishops of those regions saying

We have heard with sorrow of the great contempt [mépris] with which the sacred mysteries have been treated. It has reached the point where women have been encouraged to serve at the altar, and to carry out roles that are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender.

Every edition of the Roman Missal from 1570 till 1962 carried the prohibition of female altar servers, as did the 1917 Code of Canon Law (c. 813, §2), not to mention the documents of the post-conciliar liturgical reform in their earlier and less radical phase.

John Paul II told the Bishops *“It is Laudible that the Noble Tradition of having only men and boys serve the altar” *

Perhaps you just need to follow the intentions of the Pope for once.
Click to expand...
Our current Holy Father’s past 26 year pontificat has been one of compromise and giving in time and again to his fellow bishops, especially in the U.S. The key, as most of our bishops know, is that if one breaks liturgical rules or Canon Law long enough, Rome will simply wash their hands of it, and the abuse will become law.

St. Pius X and Pius XII, we need you now!
 
40.png
Podo2004:
What i great sign, i’d like to be a EMHC one day, i mean the honor of giving His Body and Blood is so cool!😃
Podo
Click to expand...
Yes it’s cool all right, but I tell you it feels weird! I did it for the first time last weekend and I felt like a priest. It’s going to my head already! They obviously need people to visit shutins, so I guess I’ll go with the flow, but still…It ain’t right…I’ve been asking about it in the liturgy forum and everyone there is being supportive, but I finally realized this was a Vat II thing and pretty controversial to boot.

We have as many priests here as we ever did, 3 in my parish, with 2 deacons, plus one at the hospital, and the other 4 parishes with a priest and a couple extra, so why the change? Is it because of the national shortage that the dioceses are being extra nice to the priests they have by not working them too hard? I hope they’re still doing visitations at hospitals and nursing homes, but I fear they aren’t.
 
in no way is it a VII thing carol… the institution of the Extraordinary ministers came long after the end of Vatican II
The 1973 instruction “Immensae Caritatis,” No. 6, outlines some of the personal qualities demanded of the extraordinary minister:
Click to expand...
“The person who has been appointed to be an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is necessarily to be duly instructed and should distinguish himself by his Christian life, faith and morals. Let him strive to be worthy of this great office; let him cultivate devotion to the Holy Eucharist and show himself as an example to the other faithful by his piety and reverence for this most holy Sacrament of the altar. Let no one be chosen whose selection may cause scandal among the faithful.”
Click to expand...
 
And Cardinal Baloney says, “we have no abuse here”

If it wasn’t so sad, it’d be laughable!
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
The people are used to saying “and also with you”.

Personally, you might not like to say it, but I think you’re in the minority.

I think they translated it that way , as they didn’t want it to sound “too Lutheran”, as the Lutherans say “and with thy spirit”.
Click to expand...
It’s too bad because in Latin, the priest says

Dominus Vobiscum

and the people answer

et cum spiritu tuo

which means and with thy spirit. Remember the Lutherans stole their service from our Mass, we should not have to change our Mass because of that.

as far as “And also with you”

It is an acceptable translation of the Latin and is NOT wrong as stated above.
 
we should not have to change our Mass because of that.
Click to expand...
But we did change the Mass for other reasons. We originally, and for many centuries, had the response as et cum spiritu tuo, It was never “and with thy spirit” in the Catholic Church.

Our Lutheran friends said “and with thy spirit” for a long, long time before the Catholic Church even thought of vernacularizing to English.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top