B
bear06
Guest
You know me so well! I also don’t play games when it comes to people having to prove faulty accusations. Alas, I’ve been MIA so Mr. O took care of it for me. Miss one day and you miss so much!
- Status
J
Joysong
Guest
Dear dumspirospero
You probably did not read back far enough when I began to report on what I observed at the papal mass 1/1/06. Your itemized list contained some things that are valid and licit within the Church today, irregardless of where or when they were initiated. I’m not disputing that. I’m only saying that if a person continues to call them abuses, when they are not, this spreads error to innocent people inadvertently.
Dear Netmil(name removed by moderator)
Yet, the innovations are something that we are suppose to accept, like them or not.
Unfortunately, that is a part of life, and a fact that exists within any organization as long as there are people in it.
Every family has its source of likes and dislikes, and it is a matter of charity to try and “accept the things we cannot change, change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
As for accepting, sometimes that is a road to peace in any situation, provided we heed the last words – the wisdom to know the difference! When things are obviously wrong, we have a duty to report them, and we should do so through the proper channels. That is to wisely “change the things we can.”
In humility, it does not hurt to try and speak privately with the priest to become informed. Many times there are good valid reasons for what one perceives as error. If there is no satisfaction, we take it to higher eccesial authority. A casual reading of the GIRM without the thorough education the clergy receive in workshops about it, does not give most of us sufficient background to begin a verbal assault against them.
Practically speaking, many may be entirely correct with their observations, but wrong in their application of bringing it to the eye of the public, without valid reason. If one is trying to learn, perhaps it can be excused…but if one is simply reporting the matter to shock and awe the reader/listener or get it off their chest, then I take exception to that. It is very easy to spot the difference to anyone who is discerning, no matter how hard these persons try to mask their real intention.
I hope you realize, Net, that I am speaking generally, and not to anyone specifically.
Carole
You probably did not read back far enough when I began to report on what I observed at the papal mass 1/1/06. Your itemized list contained some things that are valid and licit within the Church today, irregardless of where or when they were initiated. I’m not disputing that. I’m only saying that if a person continues to call them abuses, when they are not, this spreads error to innocent people inadvertently.
Dear Netmil(name removed by moderator)
Yet, the innovations are something that we are suppose to accept, like them or not.
Unfortunately, that is a part of life, and a fact that exists within any organization as long as there are people in it.
Every family has its source of likes and dislikes, and it is a matter of charity to try and “accept the things we cannot change, change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”As for accepting, sometimes that is a road to peace in any situation, provided we heed the last words – the wisdom to know the difference! When things are obviously wrong, we have a duty to report them, and we should do so through the proper channels. That is to wisely “change the things we can.”
In humility, it does not hurt to try and speak privately with the priest to become informed. Many times there are good valid reasons for what one perceives as error. If there is no satisfaction, we take it to higher eccesial authority. A casual reading of the GIRM without the thorough education the clergy receive in workshops about it, does not give most of us sufficient background to begin a verbal assault against them.
Practically speaking, many may be entirely correct with their observations, but wrong in their application of bringing it to the eye of the public, without valid reason. If one is trying to learn, perhaps it can be excused…but if one is simply reporting the matter to shock and awe the reader/listener or get it off their chest, then I take exception to that. It is very easy to spot the difference to anyone who is discerning, no matter how hard these persons try to mask their real intention.
I hope you realize, Net, that I am speaking generally, and not to anyone specifically.
Carole
L
LeahInancsi
Guest
I can’t believe I started this thread. I’m like Thistle, I’m stuck with the Pauline Mass. My local parish only has Pauline Mass and I don’t want to leave, so that’s that.
What I’m looking for is a step by step guide to the Pauline Mass so I won’t make a fool of myself before we reach this topic in my RCIA class.
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
Pope Benedict can’t make changes overnight and because he celebrated versus populum does not mean that it is his preference. Also, many of us who discuss the ad orientem stance used in the NO, do regard it as a preferential matter, for which we are often hammered by those who prefer the versus populum. Setting aside a few zealots who discount the NO, and likely the Pope, altogether, some on this forum make it sound criminal to want to even discuss the ad orientem preference. Some comments directly and indirectly from Cardinal Ratzinger in this article, “Turning Towards the Lord” show that versus populum (facing the people) is hardly his preference. I don’t recall anyone of the usuals (outside of those rogue zealots) claiming the Mass is somehow illicit or invalid if versus populum is used.
Early Critics of "facing the people"
Already in the sixties, theologians of international renown criticized the sweeping triumph of the celebration versus populum. In addition to Jungmann and Bouyer, Joseph Ratzinger, then professor of theology at Tübingen and peritus at the Council, delivered a lecture at the Katholikentag of 1966 in Bamberg that was received with much attention. His observations have lost nothing of their relevance: We can no longer deny that exaggerations and aberrations have crept in which are both annoying and unbecoming. Must every Mass, for instance, be celebrated facing the people? Is it so absolutely important to be able to look the priest in the face, or might it not be often very salutary to reflect that he also is a Christian and that he has every reason to turn to God with all his fellow-Christians of the congregation and to say together with them ‘Our Father’?**16
**
Further down the same article…
Cardinal Ratzinger is equally emphatic that the celebration of the Eucharist, just as Christian prayer in general, has a trinitarian direction and discusses the question of how this can be communicated most fittingly in liturgical gesture. When we speak to someone, we obviously face that person. Accordingly, the whole liturgical assembly, priest and people, should face the same way, turning towards God to whom prayers and offerings are addressed in this common act of trinitarian worship. Ratzinger rightly protests against the mistaken idea that in this case the celebrating priest is facing “towards the altar”, “towards the tabernacle”, or even “towards the wall”.27 The catchphrase often heard nowadays that the priest is “turning his back on the people” is a classic example of confounding theology and topography, for the crucial point is that the Mass is a common act of worship where priest and people together, representing the pilgrim Church, reach out for the transcendent God.
If 1966 opinions are considered too long ago, then examine what he says in his recent hot-selling book, Spirit of the Liturgy.
*In Chapter Three, presented here, Cardinal Ratzinger lays out the case for reconsidering the direction the priest faces during the celebration of Mass – toward the liturgical East (“ad orientem”). *Please note that this was a pre-publication preview, exclusively available to Adoremus members. This was posted while the translation of Cardinal Ratzinger’s text was still being edited, so…(click me to read what Ratzinger says in the book)
My continued response follows in the next post due to length.*
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
Since ad orientem* is a valid manner for a priest to celebrate the Mass, it is a valid preference for the people to desire this stance. I find it uncharitable to deny Catholics a valid discussion about a valid preference.
Joysong said:
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
Joysong said:
I don’t recall dumpsirospero saying any of these things were illicit. Actually, it is factual that many innovations occured without prompting from Vatican 2. People within the church took liberties in the name of Vatican 2. This is called out by members of the Church hierarchy so apparently they are wrong for calling it out too?
Cardinal Arinze in a recent talk:
“So there are problems. However, some of the problems were not caused by Vatican II, but they were caused by children of the Church after Vatican II. Some of them talking of Vatican II push their own agenda. We have to watch that. People pushing their own agenda, justifying it as the ‘spirit of Vatican II.’”
Communion in the hand began with a disobedient action because there was nothing written that allowed people to from kneeling ot standing and from communion on the tongue to communion in the hand.
Sure, these things are here now, but they were born out of defiance until they were too big to squelch. They are here now and they are considered valid, but people have a right to yearn for, and desire those things which are considered valid. We should be able to so this without the kind of criticism and accusations that we are stirring up helpless people. This is just a way to push one agenda over another, all cloaked in “charity”, without regard for those who are been alienated because of the few parishes that celebrate using these more traditional, and valid options.
D
dumspirospero
Guest
J
Joysong
Guest
Diane,
I’m not at all surprised that you responded to every point I brought up. All I can do is to repeat my affirmation that if the Pope permits it, these practices are not illicit, nor invalid, for the present time, until and if he decides to change things.
No one is disputing his personal preference. The fact that he has a preference, as do all of us, is not proof that these present usages in liturgy are wrong. I have preferences, too, that I have avoided expressing here on the forum, for it serves no purpose whether I publicly uphold or complain about any of them, because the Church has already spoken. And again, if it’s good enough for the pope “at present,” it’s good enough for me.
Amen,
Carole
I’m not at all surprised that you responded to every point I brought up. All I can do is to repeat my affirmation that if the Pope permits it, these practices are not illicit, nor invalid, for the present time, until and if he decides to change things.
No one is disputing his personal preference. The fact that he has a preference, as do all of us, is not proof that these present usages in liturgy are wrong. I have preferences, too, that I have avoided expressing here on the forum, for it serves no purpose whether I publicly uphold or complain about any of them, because the Church has already spoken. And again, if it’s good enough for the pope “at present,” it’s good enough for me.
Amen,
Carole
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
Since I made the statement that I didn’t think dumspirospero stated anything was illicit or invalid, I’m just requoting that post here for reference. It is true that post vatican 2 people innovated things we see in the Mass today.
Because someone has a preference to have a Mass without these innovations, doesn’t mean that they are somehow harming others in discussing those preferences. In fact, I find it rather obtuse to even suggest this.
I can’t vouch for the entire list, but do recognize many of the things on here as changes that were made that were not written in to any Vatican 2 documentation, yet got rammed down everyone’s throats.
My sister tells me about how her school priest was sweating and in tears when he was forced by the bishop to begin delivering Holy Communion in the hand. She said he sobbed as he delivered Holy Communion to them in the hand because he was being obedient to his bishop. And, there was no mandate to every change it at the time. In fact, it was a violation at the time. It was not written into the instructions. People just went crazy and started tearing down the rails, forcing people to stand, and making them receive in the hand. Now that’s a real exercise in charity towards people who had been taught all their life to not even touch the altar rail, let alone the Host. It was really charitable towards priests who were taught only their consecrated hands should touch the Host to be forced to do something that was never written in to Vatican 2 documentation or mass instructions.
Now, because people still yearn for these things that were never formally declared wrong, illicit, invalid, or otherwise, they are suppose to just let go out of what? Charity?
I was born in 1962 but it seems to me it is far more charitable to accomodate our alienated brethren who underwent such traumatic experiences that were never sanctioned. It seems strange that an entire young generation now is beginning to see the beauty of these traditions that progressives have tried to trash.
Here is just one of many examples of that changing trend.
Roman Catholicism: ‘Hail Mary’ Is More Than a Football Play
Raised in the era of John Paul II, these young people are resurrecting old rituals and hewing to strict doctrine.
dumspirospero:
Because someone has a preference to have a Mass without these innovations, doesn’t mean that they are somehow harming others in discussing those preferences. In fact, I find it rather obtuse to even suggest this.
I can’t vouch for the entire list, but do recognize many of the things on here as changes that were made that were not written in to any Vatican 2 documentation, yet got rammed down everyone’s throats.
My sister tells me about how her school priest was sweating and in tears when he was forced by the bishop to begin delivering Holy Communion in the hand. She said he sobbed as he delivered Holy Communion to them in the hand because he was being obedient to his bishop. And, there was no mandate to every change it at the time. In fact, it was a violation at the time. It was not written into the instructions. People just went crazy and started tearing down the rails, forcing people to stand, and making them receive in the hand. Now that’s a real exercise in charity towards people who had been taught all their life to not even touch the altar rail, let alone the Host. It was really charitable towards priests who were taught only their consecrated hands should touch the Host to be forced to do something that was never written in to Vatican 2 documentation or mass instructions.
Now, because people still yearn for these things that were never formally declared wrong, illicit, invalid, or otherwise, they are suppose to just let go out of what? Charity?
I was born in 1962 but it seems to me it is far more charitable to accomodate our alienated brethren who underwent such traumatic experiences that were never sanctioned. It seems strange that an entire young generation now is beginning to see the beauty of these traditions that progressives have tried to trash.
Here is just one of many examples of that changing trend.
Roman Catholicism: ‘Hail Mary’ Is More Than a Football Play
Raised in the era of John Paul II, these young people are resurrecting old rituals and hewing to strict doctrine.
D
dumspirospero
Guest
Joysong said:Dear dumspirospero
You probably did not read back far enough when I began to report on what I observed at the papal mass 1/1/06. Your itemized list contained some things that are valid and licit within the Church today, irregardless of where or when they were initiated. I’m not disputing that. I’m only saying that if a person continues to call them abuses, when they are not, this spreads error to innocent people inadvertently.
**First off…I never claimed these things to make a mass or certain gestures invalid or illicit…You are mistaken though when you claim they are not abuses…just because some of these things take place in presence of the Pope (i.e. Liturgical Dancers and JPII)…and just because they have been taking place for 30+ years does not make them proper…just merely acceptable by Catholics who are indifferent to the facts. **
Yet, the innovations are something that we are suppose to accept, like them or not.
THESE INNOVATIONS ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PART OF THE LITURGY…I DON’T HAVE TO LIKE THEM OR ACCEPT THEM.
Unfortunately, that is a part of life, and a fact that exists within any organization as long as there are people in it.
This isn’t AA this is the Holy Catholic Church…there is a difference…we have a responsibility to seek the truth unlike any other…we are not merely an organization run by people.
As for accepting, sometimes that is a road to peace in any situation, provided we heed the last words – the wisdom to know the difference! When things are obviously wrong, we have a duty to report them, and we should do so through the proper channels. That is to wisely “change the things we can.”
we are trying to change the things that are wrong…however there are people out there like you that try to convince us that these innovations are proper.
In humility, it does not hurt to try and speak privately with the priest to become informed. I suggest you do this
Many times there are good valid reasons for what one perceives as error. If there is no satisfaction, we take it to higher eccesial authority. A casual reading of the GIRM without the thorough education the clergy receive in workshops about it, does not give most of us sufficient background to begin a verbal assault against them.
Carole
D
dumspirospero
Guest
Excellent Post my friend…as always, you are right on the money 
Lux_et_veritas:
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
And this is where you continue to be obtusely wrong EDIT as it is leading others to believe we are claiming such false things. We are stating our personal preferences and we are stating why we have these preferences while you continue to accuse us of calling the Mass illicit or invalid when we discuss them.
Before you continue with further misleading statements of people with traditional preferences:
Show me where we, aside from a radical traditionalist who even denies the validity of the NO Mass, called orans position of the hands, or Communion in the hand as “wrong” or “invalid”
Show me where we said standing to recieve communion is wrong or invalid.
Show me where we said versus populum stance for the priest is wrong or invalid.
It is not us who is mixing up preference for requirement, it is you who is doing so and it is causing a great deal of harm to fellow Catholics with traditional preferences, all of which are validly acceptable contrary to what some believe.
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
I can’t help but think that attitude some have, it’s as if the Catholic Church is big enough for all kinds of people, as long as they don’t have traditional preferences. Even parishes that have programs for gays and lesbians (that is all the programs except those that promote chastity and abstinence, like Courage) are more accepted than Catholics with traditional preferences. It’s as if those with traditional preferences should simply check them at the door for charity sake. Give me a break!
It’s time the members of the faithful recognize fellow Catholics with valid, traditional, liturgical preferences and stop treating us like we are being uncharitable for discussing those preferences.
Furthermore, there are plenty of posters worldwide in these forums. There are actual and sometimes severe liturgical abuses happening out there and stifling them from discussing it “so no harm may come to others” is just misplaced charity. One cannot learn what is true abuse from things that are less than pious or revernetial if they are prevented from discussing it because it makes some uncomfortable.
Just think, with all these liturgical innovations the Church is now what? 1/8th of what it was 40 years ago? Time for experimentation to end and the solid sermons to come back so that people realize they are sinful creatures who need frequent confession. Maybe then they will realize that they are not the good Catholics they think they are by sitting home watching football instead of going to Mass or not having the time for Church because they had to go to the show or the Mall.
It’s time the members of the faithful recognize fellow Catholics with valid, traditional, liturgical preferences and stop treating us like we are being uncharitable for discussing those preferences.
Furthermore, there are plenty of posters worldwide in these forums. There are actual and sometimes severe liturgical abuses happening out there and stifling them from discussing it “so no harm may come to others” is just misplaced charity. One cannot learn what is true abuse from things that are less than pious or revernetial if they are prevented from discussing it because it makes some uncomfortable.
Just think, with all these liturgical innovations the Church is now what? 1/8th of what it was 40 years ago? Time for experimentation to end and the solid sermons to come back so that people realize they are sinful creatures who need frequent confession. Maybe then they will realize that they are not the good Catholics they think they are by sitting home watching football instead of going to Mass or not having the time for Church because they had to go to the show or the Mall.
J
Joysong
Guest
Diane,
Kindly re-read my post #93, where I wrote:
I can only comment on those liturgical complaints which have threads of many pages, and which were not avoided by the Pope as he celebrated.
If you continue in discreting me **EDIT ** and attributing motives to me that I did not type or infer, I will report it. Enough already.
Never did I say one is not allowed to discuss these things with a view to learning. You need to read my words as written, not as you hoped they would be to discredit me.
Kindly re-read my post #93, where I wrote:
I can only comment on those liturgical complaints which have threads of many pages, and which were not avoided by the Pope as he celebrated.
If you continue in discreting me **EDIT ** and attributing motives to me that I did not type or infer, I will report it. Enough already.
Never did I say one is not allowed to discuss these things with a view to learning. You need to read my words as written, not as you hoped they would be to discredit me.
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
Carole,
Rather than quote your last post, I will requote this one. If this doesn’t infer exactly what I felt it inferred, then dogs don’t have tails.
My comments are in red:
Joysong:
Rather than quote your last post, I will requote this one. If this doesn’t infer exactly what I felt it inferred, then dogs don’t have tails.
My comments are in red:
N
netmilsmom
Guest
Exactly what I said in post 94.
I can’t tell you the times that I was looked at with wide eyes when I genuflected!
Jesus is everywhere, you know! /sarcasm off/
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
Carole: Since you raise post 93…my responses in red:
Joysong:
N
netmilsmom
Guest
Joysong said:****
Dear Netmil(name removed by moderator)
Yet, the innovations are something that we are suppose to accept, like them or not.
Unfortunately, that is a part of life, and a fact that exists within any organization as long as there are people in it.
As for accepting, sometimes that is a road to peace in any situation, provided we heed the last words – the wisdom to know the difference! When things are obviously wrong, we have a duty to report them, and we should do so through the proper channels. That is to wisely “change the things we can.”
In humility, it does not hurt to try and speak privately with the priest to become informed. Many times there are good valid reasons for what one perceives as error. If there is no satisfaction, we take it to higher eccesial authority. A casual reading of the GIRM without the thorough education the clergy receive in workshops about it, does not give most of us sufficient background to begin a verbal assault against them.
Practically speaking, many may be entirely correct with their observations, but wrong in their application of bringing it to the eye of the public, without valid reason. If one is trying to learn, perhaps it can be excused…but if one is simply reporting the matter to shock and awe the reader/listener or get it off their chest, then I take exception to that. It is very easy to spot the difference to anyone who is discerning, no matter how hard these persons try to mask their real intention.
I hope you realize, Net, that I am speaking generally, and not to anyone specifically.
Carole
I don’t mean this as an insult, but I do have to say that you sound pretty self-righteous in this thread.
In all humility, I have spoken to my Priest about these innovations and he has informed me that there is no place for things like Handholding, laity assuming the role of the Priest with the Orans position at the Our Father or guitars and drums in the Holy Mass.
Those are innovations. We do NOT have to accept any of them. If one is at a parish that looks down on those things historically Catholic and revels in innovation, leave and find a new parish. Things have gotten to this point because we accepted this for too long.
M
Marian_Carroll
Guest
**Please step back and take a deep breath: then depersonalize future posts, and edit rigorously for tone and content prior to placing remarks on the board.
If the thread continues to deteriorate and returns to “personalization” it will be closed.**
Cor 3:9. For we are God’s fellowworkers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
If the thread continues to deteriorate and returns to “personalization” it will be closed.**
Cor 3:9. For we are God’s fellowworkers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
M
MrS
Guest
Awwww, come on M C. They still have the gloves on, and no blood has been spilt.
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/18/18_9_3.gif If the gloves come off (and I am sure they will once the Pope has written on this subject and given instructions to stop all the innovations), then perhaps the more “vocal” posters will be put into the
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/18/18_9_4.gif
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/18/18_9_3.gif If the gloves come off (and I am sure they will once the Pope has written on this subject and given instructions to stop all the innovations), then perhaps the more “vocal” posters will be put into the
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/18/18_9_4.gif
- Status