Masses celebrated properly

[Indyann]

Are you saying that you agree with this man’s use of such accusing language as “rubbishing the Church”?

His preaching to “others” (inferring Traditional Catholics) on the sins of pride?? & on & on.

Weren’t you on another thread accusing Michael Voris of being too blunt & tactless. I’m embarrassed for you.

If you read “rubbishing the Church” in the context it was written, I think you will find that he was referring to the majority of Catholics who attend the OF. I do not read it as the WHOLE Church.

As it is against forum rules to “cross thread”, I will ignore the rest of your post.

 

[ProVobis]

Not every language in the world evolved from Latin. What about us Asians?

You got me. I didn’t find yours on the Indo-European tree.

What that be part of the Austronesian languages?

 

[ConstantineTG]

You got me. I didn’t find yours on the Indo-European tree.

What that be part of the Austronesian languages?

The dialects in the Philippines came from Malay, so yes its Austronesian. Of course in the last 500 years we’ve had strong influences from English (America), Spanish (Spain) and Chinese (Taiwan, mostly the Fookien dialect).

 

[ProVobis]

The dialects in the Philippines came from Malay, so yes its Austronesian. Of course in the last 500 years we’ve had strong influences from English (America), Spanish (Spain) and Chinese (Taiwan, mostly the Fookien dialect).

And whose alphabet do you use?

 

[ConstantineTG]

And whose alphabet do you use?

The Spanish have eliminated the Baybayin (sometimes referred to as the Alibata) so today its all Latin alphabet. But for the most part we’ve used only 19 letters plus Ng as a letter on its own for Tagalog. I remember at one point we even tried to use the Spanish alphabet. But I think today its back to the traditional letters in Latin alphabet:

A B K D E G H I L M N Ng O P R S T U W Y

Latin would definitely be a challenge to most Filipinos. Most are taught English from pre-school but the difficulty of most Filipinos in conversing in English is the fact that sentence construction is very different. So when you hear a Filipino speak poor English, if you can translate word-for-word into Filipino, you’ll have a well written Filipino sentence. Most would translate word-for-word only in their mind without changing sentence construction.

 

[CradleCath]

Actually, Italian became the official language in the 20th century. The reason is because it is the dominant language. Let’s face it, if you work at the Vatican you either live in Vatican City or in Rome, but a few blocks away. You’re using Italian all day.

I just hope we stay with the topic of this thread. I find the language the Mass is said in is only ONE part of the topic which is “Masses celebrated properly” are as reverent as the TLM. That was the claim of the OP. Let’s communicate about that without being rude & angry. There are many other issues at stake here & the OP. & others here have mentioned them.

1. Why were the prayers at the foot of the altar dropped? Does standing & receiving the Eucharist in the hand seem more reverent to most Catholics? How about the Last Gospel? I love the gospel of John that ends the TLM. “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.” Why was it also dropped. Do some of you think that the Novus Ordo is more reverent since it excluded John’s gospel??

I happen to believe that Latin is part of our heritage & should not be lost. The “proper Novus Ordo Mass” is primarily in Latin, but we’ve been through this language thing so many times. Let’s put iit aside for the moment.

 

[CradleCath]

I’ve seen the highlighted section before, but don’t know what it means. If they are the same why are there two of them? If they are both as holy, confer the same graces, why did we get the new Mass in the first place?

Because Vat. II believed that if we made the Mass more Protestant, the “Separated Brethren” would come “home”. It hasn’t happened.

But, You’ve shown yourself to be a serious Catholic who is willing to put forth an effort to understand what happened. Don’t take my word for anything & don’t **completely **base your point of view on anything said on this message board. You just keep on with your studying & you’ll KNOW the truth.

 

[Indyann]

I’ve seen the highlighted section before, but don’t know what it means. If they are the same why are there two of them? If they are both as holy, confer the same graces, why did we get the new Mass in the first place?

Here is a link to Vatican II Documents. You may read them for yourself and determine if what certain people claim about Vat. II is true or not. Don’t be misled by internet posters.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm

 

[CB_Catholic]

Because Vat. II believed that if we made the Mass more Protestant, the “Separated Brethren” would come “home”. It hasn’t happened.

But, You’ve shown yourself to be a serious Catholic who is willing to put forth an effort to understand what happened. Don’t take my word for anything & don’t **completely **base your point of view on anything said on this message board. You just keep on with your studying & you’ll KNOW the truth.

I would like to see that claim about Vatican II substantiated from it’s documents.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

Well, I found this…

"9. We must get to know the outlook of our separated brethren. To achieve this purpose, study is of necessity required, and this must be pursued with a sense of realism and good will. Catholics, who already have a proper grounding, need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and general background. Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides-especially for discussion of theological problems-where each can treat with the other on an equal footing-provided that those who take part in them are truly competent and have the approval of the bishops. From such dialogue will emerge still more clearly what the situation of the Catholic Church really is. In this way too the outlook of our separated brethren will be better understood, and our own belief more aptly explained.

1. Sacred theology and other branches of knowledge, especially of an historical nature, must be taught with due regard for the ecumenical point of view, so that they may correspond more exactly with the facts.

It is most important that future shepherds and priests should have mastered a theology that has been carefully worked out in this way and not polemically, especially with regard to those aspects which concern the relations of separated brethren with the Catholic Church.

This importance is the greater because the instruction and spiritual formation of the faithful and of religious depends so largely on the formation which their priests have received.

Moreover, Catholics engaged in missionary work in the same territories as other Christians ought to know, particularly in these times, the problems and the benefits in their apostolate which derive from the ecumenical movement.

1. The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.

At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.

Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a “hierarchy” of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened by which through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of Christ.(34)"

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

“We must discard from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything that could constitute the slightest risk of obstacle or displeasure for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”
-Fr. Annibale Bugnini, principal author of the Novus Ordo liturgical reforms, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

catholicquotations.blogspot.com/2007/12/liturgy-1.html

 

[MarkThompson]

“We must discard from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything that could constitute the slightest risk of obstacle or displeasure for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”
-Fr. Annibale Bugnini, principal author of the Novus Ordo liturgical reforms, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

catholicquotations.blogspot.com/2007/12/liturgy-1.html

As I’ve observed and explained elsewhere, that version of what Abp. Bugnini said is fraudulent.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

Very nice Mark, thank you. I searched for the original document to do a Google translate, but could not find it.

“And still the love of souls and the desire to facilitate the path of union for separated brothers, removing a stone that could constitute while far-away an obstacle or motive of discomfort, have led the Church also to these painful sacrifices.”

If this is what Archbishop Bugnini actually said then the meaning seems the same to me, just packaged differently.

 

[Indyann]

“We must discard from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything that could constitute the slightest risk of obstacle or displeasure for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”
-Fr. Annibale Bugnini, principal author of the Novus Ordo liturgical reforms, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

catholicquotations.blogspot.com/2007/12/liturgy-1.html

Well, that didn’t happen did it? Else everyone would have rushed to convert.

You have referenced a blog and a newspaper that has to correct itself often instead of official Vatican documents.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

Isn’t that the official newspaper of the Vatican?

I referenced a document from Vatican II. It speaks of removing barriers to the separated brethren returning to Rome. A few years later we had the new Mass.

I just read a comparison of the two forms by Michael Davis. It seems the prayers taken out of the new Mass have to deal with sacrifice and the Virgin Mary. Could they be the obstacles the document had in mind?

That’s quite the thread Mark quoted from. Many people got banned. Is that common here?

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

Mark, do you know if these quotes are accurate?

---

"“Let those who like myself have known and sung a Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists [le rite romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus]. It has been destroyed [il est detruit]. Some walls of the former edifice have fallen while others have changed their appearance, to the extent that it appears today either as a ruin or the partial substructure of a different building. We must not weep over the ruins or dream of an historical reconstruction.”
-Fr. Joseph Gelineau, one of the most influential members of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini’s Consilium, which composed the New Mass, “Demain La Liturgie,” Latin Mass, November-December 1992, p. 32

“What happened at the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living, process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”
-Pope Benedict XVI, From the preface to the French edition of “Reforms of the Roman Liturgy Its Problems and Background” 1993

“The second great event at the beginning of my years in Regensburg was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, which was accompanied by the almost total prohibition, after a transitional phase of only half a year, of using the missal we had had until then. (…) The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic.”
-Pope Benedict XVI, “Milestones – Memoirs 1927 – 1977”, Joseph Ratzinger, Ignatius, San Francisco, 1998, p. 146"

catholicquotations.blogspot.com/2007/12/liturgy-1.html

---

 

[Indyann]

Isn’t that the official newspaper of the Vatican?

I referenced a document from Vatican II. It speaks of removing barriers to the separated brethren returning to Rome. A few years later we had the new Mass.

I just read a comparison of the two forms by Michael Davis. It seems the prayers taken out of the new Mass have to deal with sacrifice and the Virgin Mary. Could they be the obstacles the document had in mind?

That’s quite the thread Mark quoted from. Many people got banned. Is that common here?

It is the “semi-official” newspaper. Nothing is “official” until it comes from the Vatican itself.
They get many things wrong. Like all newspapers, they have an editor, who may or may not be biased. I do know they have reported many “papal” circumstances incorrectly.

Having not read any of Michael Davis, I cannot comment on his writings. I do know that God is not the author of confusion and unrest.
If following the words and teaching of the Holy Father, makes me a papist, so be it.

People are only banned if they have transgressed the rules of CAF in some way.

 

[MarkThompson]

If this is what Archbishop Bugnini actually said then the meaning seems the same to me, just packaged differently.

But he was not talking about the Novus Ordo Mass. In fact, the article predated its very existence by four years. He was talking about an alteration to the Good Friday prayer (removing you-are-heretics language) applicable to the old form of the Mass. The article and the quote simply had nothing at all to do with some general concept that we should remove things from our worship that are “too Catholic.”

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

Wasn’t Archbishop Bugnini already working on the new Mass in 1965?

Removing part of the Good Friday prayer to not offend our separated brethren is the same line of thinking of creating a new Mass to make converting easier for them, isn’t it?

 

[ProVobis]

Well, that didn’t happen did it? Else everyone would have rushed to convert.

Maybe they didn’t rush to convert but was that the purpose of promulgating a New Mass? I ask because the net result was that our “brothers” eventually used translations of the New Mass in their liturgies. Just saying.