McBrien absolutely RIPS the TLM

  • Thread starter Thread starter decn2b
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of our cathedral choir members married an Episcopalian and we sang for their wedding. With the exception of some word changes the Episcopalian mass was no different from a NO.
 
Can someone explain to me why this man hasn’t been excommunicated? PLEASE!?:confused:
 
All I was pointing to is the main reason that they would not just use a vernacular TLM.
Click to expand...
Sacrosanctum Concilium says nothing to this end. It talks about the need to reform the Liturgy but not because of ecumenical reasons and it says that Latin should still be retained.

Now, what the people charged with doing the reforming’s motives were are myriad and probably included “ecumencial” warm n’ fuzzies.
One of our cathedral choir members married an Episcopalian and we sang for their wedding. With the exception of some word changes the Episcopalian mass was no different from a NO.
Click to expand...
I’ve also been to an Episcopalian worship service and it comes straight out of the Book of Worship 1979 (or whatever the most updated one is). You can say it is similar (which is not surprising considering the Anglican church broke off from us) but it definately isn’t just an Anglicized NO.
 
francesco920 said:
Can someone explain to me why this man hasn’t been excommunicated? PLEASE!?:confused:
Click to expand...
Why would he be? There are others who have done much worse than he has. The Church is very accomodating to almost all who adhere to and promote, how I shall we say, Liberal views.

In fact liberal and innovative thinkers seem to get a pass on almost everything.
 
Indeed.

A Priest who says the TLM without a Bishop’s permission will be demanded to stop and will have to see the said Bishop within 48 Hours…

Barney Blessing however… I still think the Bishop hasn’t done anything to him.
 
ComradeAndrei said:
All of that is true, but…

Then why isn’t the NO Mass used in any mainline protestant sect? The Anglicans and Episcopalians still use their Book of Common Prayer, the Methodists still use their prayer books, the Lutheran still use their own thing and so do the Presbyterians and any other protestant group I can think of. The only protestants that I can think of that use a Catholic Mass are certain High Church Anglicans who use an English Tridentine Mass.

I would think that it is more because certain bishops and clergy just want their “FutureChurch”. I think the false ecumenism plays a part, but that isn’t the only thing involved.

Yet the protestants still think its too sacrificial and too Catholic for their own use. While I do think we’re missing a lot with some of these Eucharistic Prayers (give me the Roman Canon any day) I don’t think “ecumenism” was the only issue.

Lots of Episcopalians, Anglicans and Lutherans still use a communion rail and receive on the tongue. Our lessing of the use of communion rails, reception on the tongue, proper tabernacles and genuflection can be chalked up to modernism more than anything. We have people that don’t want to “protestantize” the Church, they want to “modernize” it. Protestanism is passe to them, they want to go way beyond that.

That much I agree with, you really can’t bring about some touchy-feely Protestant/Catholic “church” or “FutureChurch” with the traditional Mass.

There were definately certain people who were chomping at the bit to throw off all the rubrics and rules of the “pre-Vatican II” Church but I don’t see it as a protestant thing, just modernism pure and simple.
Click to expand...
Well one of the things widely promoted at the Council was the re-unification of Catholics and other Christians. What separated Catholics from Protestants, the largest group of other Christians, more than almost anything else was the overtly sacrificial nature of the Mass the Papacyand to a lesser degree , Marian devotion .

So, we do away with as much of the sacrificial nature as we can get away with without actually scrapping the whole thing , try to go to a more collegial manner of leadership and de-emphasize Marian devotion… None of them worked particularly well, because try as you can you cannot disguise a sacrifice as anything else for any length of time. the Pope proved he was still ultimately in charge with Humanae Vitae and when the Blessed Mother stepped in and saved Pope John Paul II, she made a remarkable comeback with the faithful…

No, I see the move towards a more common form of worship primarily a bow to the Protestants and secondly a bow to the modernists.
 
ComradeAndrei said:
I’ve also been to an Episcopalian worship service and it comes straight out of the Book of Worship 1979 (or whatever the most updated one is). You can say it is similar (which is not surprising considering the Anglican church broke off from us) but it definately isn’t just an Anglicized NO.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that. I said it was so close that an entire Roman Catholic cathedral choir attempted to respond in our manner to what was obviously a close simulacra to our NO Mass - particularly since they were using what amounts to Eucharistic Prayer #1 AND our cathedral rector was in attendance and witnessed the marriage rite for the couple.

I know full well what the TLM was and is. I was an altar boy before Vatican II. And I can tell you that there was very little liturgical difference between the Episcopalian mass and the NO that day. You can play semantic games with me all day but I know what I experienced. Have you given any thought to the fact that the Episcopalians and the Lutherans are using the same set of liturgical readings that we use?

Is it not inconceivable that after the NO was initiated, they adapted their liturgy to more closely conform with ours?
 
brotherhrolf said:
I didn’t say that. I said it was so close that an entire Roman Catholic cathedral choir attempted to respond in our manner to what was obviously a close simulacra to our NO Mass - particularly since they were using what amounts to Eucharistic Prayer #1 AND our cathedral rector was in attendance and witnessed the marriage rite for the couple.

I know full well what the TLM was and is. I was an altar boy before Vatican II. And I can tell you that there was very little liturgical difference between the Episcopalian mass and the NO that day. You can play semantic games with me all day but I know what I experienced. Have you given any thought to the fact that the Episcopalians and the Lutherans are using the same set of liturgical readings that we use?

Is it not inconceivable that after the NO was initiated, they adapted their liturgy to more closely conform with ours?
Click to expand...
Perhaps dayfter I can get into the issue of the 1979 BCP a little more closely. It incorporates some drastic changes in Anglican doctrine and is the most radical Protestant book produced ever.

Perhaps a short indication of this would be to see things like prayers for the dead, or Votive Masses disguised as “For special occasions”. In fact, if you compare the collect and readings for that titled “Of the Holy Eucharist” in the 1979 BCP it is the same as that in the Traditional Missal (1962 or ealier: but in Egnlish, of course) under the heading “Votive Mass of the Most Blessed Sacrament” Ditto for collects of the Holy Cross, Holy Angels, etc., etc.

With regard to the lectionary, the RCL Sunday cycle is only one of the available lectionaries with readings. It also differs in many weeks from the lectionery of the Mass.

To be sure, sometimes it does come very close: for example, Prayer D Rite II is very close to Eucharistic Prayer IV but with ommisssions (like the oblations).
 
I know full well what the TLM was and is. I was an altar boy before Vatican II. And I can tell you that there was very little liturgical difference between the Episcopalian mass and the NO that day. You can play semantic games with me all day but I know what I experienced. Have you given any thought to the fact that the Episcopalians and the Lutherans are using the same set of liturgical readings that we use?
Click to expand...
Is it not inconceivable that after the NO was initiated, they adapted their liturgy to more closely conform with ours?
Click to expand...
Don’t get in a huff. I too know what I experienced and, like I said, while their service isn’t drastically different than our Mass (in that they are liturgical protestants that have stayed closer to their Roman roots than folks like the Baptists or Evangelicals) neither is part of some grand conspiracy to “protestantize” the Church. Not that you think that, but I’m just pointing that out to anyone.
 
ComradeAndrei said:
Sacrosanctum Concilium says nothing to this end. It talks about the need to reform the Liturgy but not because of ecumenical reasons and it says that Latin should still be retained.
Click to expand...
I think that is the point that TNT, and a host of others, is trying to make. Vatican II never stated, or even suuggested, that a new Mass rite should be created. It did encourage an increased us Venacular language at MAss, but never, never a new rite.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I wouldn’t believe anything McBrien said, right down to his name, unless he produced his birth certificate to prove that. Even then, I would check with the Bureau of Vital Statistics to see if the information matched and ask him for an inked footprint to compare.
Click to expand...
Your post is the biggest reason why I hesitate to find an indult Parish. I would be scared to death it would be inhabited by people who feel so free to speak so maliciously in the name of Love.

And I have no idea who this McBrien is.
 
You aren’t really going to judge a perfectly legitimate and valid Mass–and its many worshippers–on one or two posts from a message board, are you?

Father McBrien is a noted theologian at a very noted Catholic university. As a priest, he is to be respected; as a theologian, his intellect is certainly to be respected. However, as a Catholic, to many “average Catholics” and to a fair number of Fr. McBrien’s own peers, including other priests and theologians, many of Fr. McBrien’s works are problematic. While most likely he is an honest, sincere person, many honest and sincere people can be totally wrong on a given subject, and if they are considered ‘expert’ they are all the more dangerous to the average person who pretty much ‘trusts the experts’ in every phase of life (you tend to trust that your doctor, lawyer, banker, electrician, teachers etc. will be giving you ‘straight’ information, so IF they are not being straight, this is more harmful–since you expect straight teaching from them–than it would be were you to ask your banker about a slipped disk or your doctor about junk bonds. In fact, your banker might know something about disks and your doctor something about bonds–but you wouldn’t expect them to be as expert as someone whose job it was to know, and deal with, the above.)

It is my sincere hope that Fr. McBrien’s works will be (as all theological works should be) carefully evaluated in the light of authentic Catholic theology, and any ‘difficulties’ corrected, as I am sure Fr. McBrien would wish to be as accurate as possible. And after all, every other theologian must also be carefully checked, and often rechecked. Nobody is trying to make (I hope) Fr. McBrien into the antiChrist or thinking that ‘only he’ should be checked out.

After reading the article, it does seem that Fr. McBrien does have a very distinct mindset regarding Catholicism and that his personal style regarding anything that is antithetical to his mindset involves treating it with a rather–abrasive–touch. This is certainly not something which ONLY Fr. McBrien does, but it does come across as being rather cutting and offputting. It is just as jarring to have a person ‘ripping’ a valid Mass (and the TLM is indeed valid) as it is to have people ‘ripping’ the valid N.O. To have a priest ‘ripping’ a Mass said by his brother priests is even more upsetting than to have it ‘ripped’ by Joe in the pew.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
You aren’t really going to judge a perfectly legitimate and valid Mass–and its many worshippers–on one or two posts from a message board, are you?

Father McBrien is a noted theologian at a very noted Catholic university. As a priest, he is to be respected; as a theologian, his intellect is certainly to be respected. However, as a Catholic, to many “average Catholics” and to a fair number of Fr. McBrien’s own peers, including other priests and theologians, many of Fr. McBrien’s works are problematic. While most likely he is an honest, sincere person, many honest and sincere people can be totally wrong on a given subject, and if they are considered ‘expert’ they are all the more dangerous to the average person who pretty much ‘trusts the experts’ in every phase of life (you tend to trust that your doctor, lawyer, banker, electrician, teachers etc. will be giving you ‘straight’ information, so IF they are not being straight, this is more harmful–since you expect straight teaching from them–than it would be were you to ask your banker about a slipped disk or your doctor about junk bonds. In fact, your banker might know something about disks and your doctor something about bonds–but you wouldn’t expect them to be as expert as someone whose job it was to know, and deal with, the above.)

It is my sincere hope that Fr. McBrien’s works will be (as all theological works should be) carefully evaluated in the light of authentic Catholic theology, and any ‘difficulties’ corrected, as I am sure Fr. McBrien would wish to be as accurate as possible. And after all, every other theologian must also be carefully checked, and often rechecked. Nobody is trying to make (I hope) Fr. McBrien into the antiChrist or thinking that ‘only he’ should be checked out.

After reading the article, it does seem that Fr. McBrien does have a very distinct mindset regarding Catholicism and that his personal style regarding anything that is antithetical to his mindset involves treating it with a rather–abrasive–touch. This is certainly not something which ONLY Fr. McBrien does, but it does come across as being rather cutting and offputting. It is just as jarring to have a person ‘ripping’ a valid Mass (and the TLM is indeed valid) as it is to have people ‘ripping’ the valid N.O. To have a priest ‘ripping’ a Mass said by his brother priests is even more upsetting than to have it ‘ripped’ by Joe in the pew.
Click to expand...
Thank you for being so rational, and for taking the time to evaluate the topic objectively. It is upsetting to some of us who love the Church, who love the way things are even if we know that we would love it more if things were the way He means for them to be. But, alas, it was said by the great Italian novelist di Lampedusa: “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” I think that more aptly describes my fears and hesitations–and a big part of what it means to be human.

It is ‘off-putting’ to hear the way some of the more radical proponents of either side speak of and to one another. Your voice is an oasis amid all the sand. Thank you.
 
Joe_Kelley said:
Whenever a TLM is said a Liturgist loses his wings.😃
Click to expand...
A suggestion of modification, take it or leave it (your one-liner is already funny enough):

“Every time the bell at the TLM rings, a liturgist loses his wings”
 
Tantum_ergo said:
You aren’t really going to judge a perfectly legitimate and valid Mass–and its many worshippers–on one or two posts from a message board, are you?

Father McBrien is a noted theologian at a very noted Catholic university. As a priest, he is to be respected; as a theologian, his intellect is certainly to be respected. However, as a Catholic, to many “average Catholics” and to a fair number of Fr. McBrien’s own peers, including other priests and theologians, many of Fr. McBrien’s works are problematic. While most likely he is an honest, sincere person, many honest and sincere people can be totally wrong on a given subject, and if they are considered ‘expert’ they are all the more dangerous to the average person who pretty much ‘trusts the experts’ in every phase of life (you tend to trust that your doctor, lawyer, banker, electrician, teachers etc. will be giving you ‘straight’ information, so IF they are not being straight, this is more harmful–since you expect straight teaching from them–than it would be were you to ask your banker about a slipped disk or your doctor about junk bonds. In fact, your banker might know something about disks and your doctor something about bonds–but you wouldn’t expect them to be as expert as someone whose job it was to know, and deal with, the above.)

It is my sincere hope that Fr. McBrien’s works will be (as all theological works should be) carefully evaluated in the light of authentic Catholic theology, and any ‘difficulties’ corrected, as I am sure Fr. McBrien would wish to be as accurate as possible. And after all, every other theologian must also be carefully checked, and often rechecked. Nobody is trying to make (I hope) Fr. McBrien into the antiChrist or thinking that ‘only he’ should be checked out.

After reading the article, it does seem that Fr. McBrien does have a very distinct mindset regarding Catholicism and that his personal style regarding anything that is antithetical to his mindset involves treating it with a rather–abrasive–touch. This is certainly not something which ONLY Fr. McBrien does, but it does come across as being rather cutting and offputting. It is just as jarring to have a person ‘ripping’ a valid Mass (and the TLM is indeed valid) as it is to have people ‘ripping’ the valid N.O. To have a priest ‘ripping’ a Mass said by his brother priests is even more upsetting than to have it ‘ripped’ by Joe in the pew.
Click to expand...
Leonardo Boff and Hans Kung are also Catholic Priests and theologians, yet what they teach is no where near what Catholicism teaches. I don’t believe that being a renegade Priest and theologian should entitle a man to respect merely because of his position, any more then the Berrigan brothers, also Priests, were deserving of respect for their activities during the Vietnam war.
 
maurin said:
Your post is the biggest reason why I hesitate to find an indult Parish. I would be scared to death it would be inhabited by people who feel so free to speak so maliciously in the name of Love.

And I have no idea who this McBrien is.
Click to expand...
If you knew who he was and what kind of damage he does to the faith–especially that of the youth–you would feel as strongly.

As St. Jerome said:

“How does it touch you who profess to be both an orthodox person and my admirer, if I am a little too sharp upon heretics, and expose their tricks before the public? You should rejoice in my invectives: otherwise, if you are vexed at them, you may be thought to be yourself a heretic.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top