Novus Ordo Mass

[JNB]

I see this is becoming a game for you. Anyways, I do not feel looking though his blog entries for an hour to get the quotes, if you are intrested, I gave you the source material, you can research it.

bear06:

I think you are missing the point. All you are doing is making unsubstantiated accusations. What I am trying to say is that if you are going to accuse McIlhenny of something then you should at least provide factual evidence.

 

[bear06]

JNB:

I see this is becoming a game for you. Anyways, I do not feel looking though his blog entries for an hour to get the quotes, if you are intrested, I gave you the source material, you can research it.

Actually, it’s not a game at all. Without proof, which I believe you should provide since you made the statements about Mr. M rather than having us have to search through hundreds or thousands of blog entries, your arguments should hold no more weight than calumny. Most, of course, are probably not willing to search through a blog and some will take your statements at face value. Like I said, you may or may not have it right. You should at least afford us your sources if you say you are debunking something.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JNB:

I see this is becoming a game for you. Anyways, I do not feel looking though his blog entries for an hour to get the quotes, if you are intrested, I gave you the source material, you can research it.

Bear06 doesn’t engage in games, re: the Mass.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

It’s already been well established on previous threads, primarily with support from my buddies Petergee and thistle, that Traditionalists comprise .10 of Catholics worldwide. That’s as many as 120 million people and it could very well be more since that number doesn’t include the various independent and wildcat Tradtionalists.

This is no small number and is not to be dismissed lightly. The Pauline Mass is here to stay and it is the Mass of the Pope. But the old Roman Rite isn’t going anywhere either.

Now, can’t we all just get along? :tiphat:

 

[netmilsmom]

Dr. Bombay:

It’s already been well established on previous threads, primarily with support from my buddies Petergee and thistle, that Traditionalists comprise .10 of Catholics worldwide. That’s as many as 120 million people and it could very well be more since that number doesn’t include the various independent and wildcat Tradtionalists.

This is no small number and is not to be dismissed lightly. The Pauline Mass is here to stay and it is the Mass of the Pope. But the old Roman Rite isn’t going anywhere either.

Now, can’t we all just get along? :tiphat:

Really? only 10%?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Really? only 10%?

Yes, although it could very well be more. Some people are “Traditionalists” at heart, but because they prefer Mass in the vernacular facing the people, they don’t self-identify as Traditionalist.

And then there are distinctions even among Traditionalists. Having attended the old Rite for sometime now, there are some things that I would like to see done differently in that Mass. Of course, some Traditionalists would be horrified to hear me say that, but it is what it is.

So trying to paint all Traditionalists with a broad brush, as some like to do, as nostalgic octogenarians who hate the Pauline Mass is great fun, but not a true reflection of what’s going on in the real world.

 

[netmilsmom]

Dr. Bombay:

Yes, although it could very well be more. Some people are “Traditionalists” at heart, but because they prefer Mass in the vernacular facing the people, they don’t self-identify as Traditionalist.

And then there are distinctions even among Traditionalists. Having attended the old Rite for sometime now, there are some things that I would like to see done differently in that Mass. Of course, some Traditionalists would be horrified to hear me say that, but it is what it is.

So trying to paint all Traditionalists with a broad brush, as some like to do, as nostalgic octogenarians who hate the Pauline Mass is great fun, but not a true reflection of what’s going on in the real world.

Does this include the SSPX? Check this out!
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1549970/posts?page=3#3

Scroll to the top to read it. It seems to be saying that they are not in schism!

 

[Dr.Bombay]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Does this include the SSPX? Check this out!
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1549970/posts?page=3#3

Scroll to the top to read it. It seems to be saying that they are not in schism!

Oh, they’re in schism all right. I weary of debating this. It’s like denying the sky is blue. “But sometimes it’s pink or purple or red or black.”

I think the 10% number includes only those in communion with the Holy See. Sadly, that does not include the SSPX at the present time. Even if they do regularize their status with Rome, some SSPXers will see that as a compromise with “modernist Rome” and break off and continue to do their own thing. And so it goes.

We should pray with Our Lord that we will all be one someday. Pride is such an insidious sin, though. It’s easy to be blinded by it. :nope:

 

[Sean_O_L]

JNB wrote:

I have read enough of his tirades on his website. One thing for example, he asserts early mass was facing the people, but that flies oin the face of much scholarship,

This is but just one more unsubstantiated assertion; but, let me offer evidence from a fairly reputable source:

In his Chapter V, p. 186 (“The Talmud on the Last Supper or Passover”) Father James L. Meagher, D.D. writes:

“The Haggada is the Seder or Liturgy of the Passover. Sometimes they placed a separate table at the head of the couch for each person. But at the last Supper there were many tables arranged in the form of a U.”
“How Christ said The First Mass, or The Lord’s Last Supper”, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. 1984 reprint of the original 1906 publication.

Fr. Meagher repeats this in respect of the Last Supper on p. 209 - writing:

“This table was at the toe of the horse-shoe, and the Apostles at his right and left in the positions, gave rise to the custom in the early Church in which the celebrant faced the people when saying Mass.”

He also writes that “The Lord reclined at the head as master of the ‘band’ celebrating the Passover.”

I. Shawn McElhinney, methinks, may be in good company IF he made the claim that you disparage - but, as a matter of integrity, the burden of proof of your defamatory assertions remains for you to prove - not I, not bear06 - just YOU. Your integrity is at issue here.

 

[JNB]

I remeber reading stats that around 10% of the Catholics in the US would prefer a traditional mass, with Latin, smalles and bells, but of course, it wasnt clear if that really meant the TLM, or a Reverent Novus Ordo such as the one Lux and Netmil(name removed by moderator) goes to.

The problem in growing numbers to the TLM is that they are in often inconvient times and in inconvient locations, as Karl Keating mentioned a few months back in one of his entries. Given a chance, we could see a large expansion in their numbers.

I am under no illusion that the majority, or even a large minority wants the TLM back, but I can evsion upwards of 10-15%% of Catholics woulds go to high mass parishes(meaning both TLM and parishes like Netmil(name removed by moderator)) if such parishes were allowed to be planted. If that does ever happen, then within a few years, a majority of priestly and religous vocations would my guess come from parishes such as these.
Dr. Bombay:

It’s already been well established on previous threads, primarily with support from my buddies Petergee and thistle, that Traditionalists comprise .10 of Catholics worldwide. That’s as many as 120 million people and it could very well be more since that number doesn’t include the various independent and wildcat Tradtionalists.

This is no small number and is not to be dismissed lightly. The Pauline Mass is here to stay and it is the Mass of the Pope. But the old Roman Rite isn’t going anywhere either.

Now, can’t we all just get along? :tiphat:

 

[netmilsmom]

Dr. Bombay:

Oh, they’re in schism all right. I weary of debating this. It’s like denying the sky is blue. “But sometimes it’s pink or purple or red or black.”

I think the 10% number includes only those in communion with the Holy See. Sadly, that does not include the SSPX at the present time. Even if they do regularize their status with Rome, some SSPXers will see that as a compromise with “modernist Rome” and break off and continue to do their own thing. And so it goes.

We should pray with Our Lord that we will all be one someday. Pride is such an insidious sin, though. It’s easy to be blinded by it. :nope:

Actually, My Dear Friend, this is a development…(we may get them back!)

“In Light Of Tradition”… The Society Of St. Pius X And Vatican II
By Brian Mershon
MichNews.com
Dec 12, 2005

                                     For those vaguely familiar with traditional Catholic circles, two recent articles by Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, curial prefect for the Clergy and for the Ecclesia Dei Commission, might not seem meaningful.

Admittedly, even within circles of those who keep tabs on Church issues, this story has not received much press. Many recognize a cordial dialogue took place between the Society of St. Pius X superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, on August 29 with the Holy Father. In November, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos appeared on Italian television, and in an interview, made the following statement:

 

[Lapsed]

JNB:

I remeber reading stats that around 10% of the Catholics in the US would prefer a traditional mass, with Latin, smalles and bells, but of course, it wasnt clear if that really meant the TLM, or a Reverent Novus Ordo such as the one Lux and Netmil(name removed by moderator) goes to.

This would be my choice. The Pauline Mass in Latin performed ad orientum so that the priest is leading the worship of the faithful outward instead of being turned in on itself, which is the way ad populum feels to me.

Ah, to have sufficient priests and faithful that every parish could have its own priest and different Masses!

 

[Dr.Bombay]

JNB:

I remeber reading stats that around 10% of the Catholics in the US would prefer a traditional mass, with Latin, smalles and bells, but of course, it wasnt clear if that really meant the TLM, or a Reverent Novus Ordo such as the one Lux and Netmil(name removed by moderator) goes to.

The problem in growing numbers to the TLM is that they are in often inconvient times and in inconvient locations, as Karl Keating mentioned a few months back in one of his entries. Given a chance, we could see a large expansion in their numbers.

I am under no illusion that the majority, or even a large minority wants the TLM back, but I can evsion upwards of 10-15%% of Catholics woulds go to high mass parishes(meaning both TLM and parishes like Netmil(name removed by moderator)) if such parishes were allowed to be planted. If that does ever happen, then within a few years, a majority of priestly and religous vocations would my guess come from parishes such as these.

In our diocese, our good bishop has given the Traditionalist community our own church, which will be used exclusively for the celebration of Mass and all the sacraments in the traditional Rite. Of course, before we move in we have to restore the High Altar, Communion Rail and other liturgical appointments that were removed in a misguided 1970s wreckovation.

Word does spread about the “good” Pauline Masses that are celebrated in our diocese. At the same time, we also know which churches and priests to avoid. I agree, if more “traditional” Novus Ordo parishes were available, I think they would be popular. Most people aren’t going to drive far just for a more reverent liturgy. But if it’s available just a 10 minute drive away at their local parish, I think they would really appreciate it. And sloooooooowly, maybe the reverence would spread through the whole Church.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Dr Bombay wrote:

It’s already been well established on previous threads, primarily with support from my buddies Petergee and thistle, that Traditionalists comprise .10 of Catholics worldwide. That’s as many as 120 million people and it could very well be more since that number doesn’t include the various independent and wildcat Tradtionalists.

This is totally false!

Petergee wrote and speculated that “traditionalists” may comprise 0.1% of an estimated 1,200,000,000 (that is, 1.2 billion Catholics).

You have misrepresented the facts - omitting the % qualifier. This is a **gross **factual error!

Here is the maths AGAIN:
0.1/100 = 0.1%
10/100 = 10%
There is a VAST difference between the two - but worse, Petergee never quoted 0.1 without the mathematical % qualifier!

Thus, 0.1/100 x 1,200,000,000 = 1,200,000 NOT the totally mythical 120 million that you falsely claim!

On the other hand, 10% of 1,200,000,000 DOES = 120,000,000 (120 million)

This is no small number and is not to be dismissed lightly.

Right on - but not for the “reason” you claim!

The Pauline Mass is here to stay and it is the Mass of the Pope. But the old Roman Rite isn’t going anywhere either.

But, hopefully, the Pauline Mass will be reformed and reverential attitudes will return following sound catechesis. This is what I pray for.

 

[JNB]

Like I said, and this will be the last time I say this, go to his blog, look up the posts. You will get his tone. As for integrity, based on the distortions that material that he has supposedly “researched”, I would say that Mr McIlheny needs to get some integrity himself, and needs to let whatever took place between him and the SSPX go.

Again, I do not apporve of the SSPX actions in recent years, I will be the first to say they should have taken Romes offer in late 2001, and again I repeat, that doesnt give a green light for what Mr McIlheny does. When he takes the quotes of past church leaders, the saints, the Bishops the Popes, and justify the nonsense that goes on in most parishes today, that is where I drew the line. Again, read his blog, read his tirades on his website, and look at what he defends. It is one thing to say the SSPX is acting in an all too prideful manner, it is quite another to go write hundreds of pages in an bitter attempt to tear down the TLM by distorting history, using the last supper as an example is just one attempt, leaving out that it was also the first ordination of men to the priesthood and being Bishops, leaving out the fact that the Roman Canon and the basic framework for the Tridentine mass go back to Pope St Gregory the Great who codified the Roman Canon, not to mention the mass in the catacombs was celebrated facing the East in the tombs of the Saints.

He also leaves out that if mass facing the people and mass with communion in the hand(and by the way in the diocese it was done in, it was done in a far different manner than it is done today) was so common, why did both of these things, and again there is no proof that even in the earliest church that these practices were universal, die off so early?

His defense of the Novus Ordo is flimisy at best, and the only way it can be fully defended as part of the liturgical tradition of the West is if it is celebrated in Latin, with a priest facing ad orientem, with none of the "innovations" that has taken place since 1970. At least that tack of logical, but he didnt even defend using those terms.

Anyways, there are not enough pages on this site, nor time in the day, nor energy on my part to deal with Mr. McIlhenys distortions.
Sean O L:

JNB wrote:

This is but just one more unsubstantiated assertion; but, let me offer evidence from a fairly reputable source:

In his Chapter V, p. 186 (“The Talmud on the Last Supper or Passover”) Father James L. Meagher, D.D. writes:

Fr. Meagher repeats this in respect of the Last Supper on p. 209 - writing:

He also writes that “The Lord reclined at the head as master of the ‘band’ celebrating the Passover.”

I. Shawn McElhinney, methinks, may be in good company IF he made the claim that you disparage - but, as a matter of integrity, the burden of proof of your defamatory assertions remains for you to prove - not I, not bear06 - just YOU. Your integrity is at issue here.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Actually, My Dear Friend, this is a development…(we may get them back!)

“In Light Of Tradition”… The Society Of St. Pius X And Vatican II
By Brian Mershon
MichNews.com
Dec 12, 2005

                                     For those vaguely familiar with traditional Catholic circles, two recent articles by Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, curial prefect for the Clergy and for the Ecclesia Dei Commission, might not seem meaningful.

Admittedly, even within circles of those who keep tabs on Church issues, this story has not received much press. Many recognize a cordial dialogue took place between the Society of St. Pius X superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, on August 29 with the Holy Father. In November, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos appeared on Italian television, and in an interview, made the following statement:

I wish Traditionalists would claim Vatican II. It’s our Council too. Why should it belong exclusively to the progressives and liberals? This is what irritates me most about many Traditionalists. If you’re willing to cede an entire Church Council to modernists, you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face. It’s ridiculous.

I did hear a talk a few weeks ago from a Traditionalist priest and he actually quoted from Vatican II, in a positive way. So maybe the tide is turning.

We’ll get the SSPX back, of that I have no doubt. It just may take awhile.

 

[JNB]

Just an example in my diocese. I attended midnight mass not at the TLM indult, but at a parish downtown ran by a religous order, and all I can say, no one who attended this mass would doubt that it is firmly in line with Westeren Liturgical tradition.

While it was mainly in English, a bit of Latin was used, the priest sung his parts, the Roman Canon was used, no post 1970 “innovations” were used(such as altar girls and communion under both species via the chalice or EMHCs). If this was the standard of the church rather than what we see today, then no doubt it would be in far stronger shape. Sadly this isint the norm, and sadly in the bane of very blind obidience, or because of ones own bitterness or what have you, people who should know better defend todays staus quo, even with things that have not even been mandated.
Dr. Bombay:

In our diocese, our good bishop has given the Traditionalist community our own church, which will be used exclusively for the celebration of Mass and all the sacraments in the traditional Rite. Of course, before we move in we have to restore the High Altar, Communion Rail and other liturgical appointments that were removed in a misguided 1970s wreckovation.

Word does spread about the “good” Pauline Masses that are celebrated in our diocese. At the same time, we also know which churches and priests to avoid. I agree, if more “traditional” Novus Ordo parishes were available, I think they would be popular. Most people aren’t going to drive far just for a more reverent liturgy. But if it’s available just a 10 minute drive away at their local parish, I think they would really appreciate it. And sloooooooowly, maybe the reverence would spread through the whole Church.

 

[JNB]

Believe it or not, if the NO is celebrated in Latin, Ad Orientem, using the Confetior and the Roman Canon, and using none of the post 1970 “innovations” outwardly, there isint all that much of a difference, at least not for someone who isiant a expert in liturgy. The main difference of course are the Propers(The readings) and the offertory. But the logic many follow, and I am probably one of them, if a NO is taken this far towrds tradition, why not go all the way back to the TLM.

My solution would probably please no one, use the original 1965 misal(without its post 1967 modifications).

Lapsed:

This would be my choice. The Pauline Mass in Latin performed ad orientum so that the priest is leading the worship of the faithful outward instead of being turned in on itself, which is the way ad populum feels to me.

Ah, to have sufficient priests and faithful that every parish could have its own priest and different Masses!

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Sean O L:

This is totally false!

Petergee wrote and speculated that “traditionalists” may comprise 0.1% of an estimated 1,200,000,000 (that is, 1.2 billion Catholics).

You have misrepresented the facts - omitting the % qualifier. This is a **gross **factual error!

Here is the maths AGAIN:
0.1/100 = 0.1%
10/100 = 10%
There is a VAST difference between the two - but worse, Petergee never quoted 0.1 without the mathematical % qualifier!

Thus, 0.1/100 x 1,200,000,000 = 1,200,000 NOT the totally mythical 120 million that you falsely claim!

On the other hand, 10% of 1,200,000,000 DOES = 120,000,000 (120 million)

“Gross factual error”??? What is that, 144 times worse than a regular factual error? It’s indeed possible that I’m in error. Not likely, but possible.

We’ve already settled this, Seano. When I see .10 I automatically assume it’s the same as 10%. And I’m glad to see you admit that 10% of 1.2 billion is, indeed, 120 million. I believe we have achieved a breakthrough. Seano, you’re a good man. :tiphat:

 

[Sean_O_L]

JNB wrote:

Like I said, and this will be the last time I say this, go to his blog, look up the posts. You will get his tone. As for integrity, based on the distortions that material that he has supposedly “researched”, I would say that Mr McIlheny needs to get some integrity himself, and needs to let whatever took place between him and the SSPX go.
etc.

These are the unsubstantiated ravings of a cad! Pure and simple! The burden of proof for your assertions are on YOU JNB - on no-one else!
And, you enmire yourself with further unsubstantiated assertings!

For the sake of the readers here, I WILL provide a quotation from I. Shawn McElhinney in support of (then) Cardinal Ratzinger. For space sake I will not quote it here but provide the URLs:
http://lidless-eye.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_lidless-eye_archive.html#107216666759296260

---

Also quoted at TCR News: http://tcrnews2.com/genmass4.html

Cardinal Ratzinger’s Balanced Assessment of the Revised Roman Missal

and an endorsement of I. Shawn McElhinney by Christopher Blosser of ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2003/08/happy-birthday-shawn-mcelhinneys-rerum.html

Happy Birthday (Shawn McElhinney’s) Rerum Novarum!
Posted by Christopher at 11:33 AM

A belated congratulations to I. Shawn McElhinney, who celebrated the birthday of his blog Rerum Novarum on August 18th. Those who have defended Vatican II and the Holy Father against the slanders of Radical Traditionalists can testify how much time and effort it requires, and St. Blog’s is truly blessed to have Shawn’s skills applied to this task. A number of Shawn’s works are found here (with special attention to “A Prescription Against Traditonalism”). When he’s not blogging on his own, Shawn lends a hand in “exposing the crackpots of the self-styled traditionalist fringe” on The Lidless Eye Inquisition.

As far as I am concerned, if JNB does not possess sufficient integrity to provide evidence for his unsubstantiated assertions - while resting on a cowardly base of anonymity - then, there is nothing more to say, except, may God bless him.