"Oh but it wasn't how it was done at the last supper and in the early church"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jason_Matthew
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it comes down to this…

I believe there are too many Catholics who choose to believe that Rome does not have their best interest at heart. Their ego’s lead them to believe, “My Way’s Better”. Catholics need to accept the teachings and decisions handed down from the Pope and get over their ego’s and pride. After all, we as Roman Catholics must follow, without question, the Pope.
 
I agree with TimothyH read “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Dr. Brant Pitre. This is an excellent book!
 
Jason_Matthew said:
Someone I know said to me that because the Tridentine Mass is not how it was done at the Last Supper and in the early church, it is not how mass should be celebrated. He further went on and said that Jesus did not have his back faced towards the disciples during the Last Supper and therefore, ad orientem should not be used

I tried to explain to him that the mass developed and evolved as a result of increased theological understanding and the changing of circumstances but he is still reluctant.

How do you counter his argument?
Click to expand...
And I am sure this individual also wears sandals,walks everywhere,wears a tunic, and speaks Aramaic-right?
 
Rich_C said:
The traditional Latin Mass has lasted almost 1,500 years, it must be doing something right. Besides, the Ordinary Form isn’t as true to the liturgy of the early Church as it’s proponents like to believe. Both forms of the Roman Rite are several steps removed from the liturgy of St. Justin Martyrs’ time.
Click to expand...
Correct. This link (“provided for purposes of disinformation only”) has a rather tongue-in-cheek look at things. For example:
FACT: The traditional Roman Mass was celebrated in catacombs, NOT churches!!!
Above ground churches are a LATE development in the Roman church which date to the legalization of Christianity by Constantine. They were NEVER part of the original Roman rite!
Click to expand...
 
Erich said:
Correct. This link (“provided for purposes of disinformation only”) has a rather tongue-in-cheek look at things. For example:
Click to expand...
Well if imitating the first-century Christians wasn’t good enough for the second-century Christians…
 
T_More said:
Are you referring to going back to the EF? How did the Church “move away” from something that was never abrogated? It’s precisely because we "moved away" from the most beautiful thing side of heaven that we have the turmoil in the Church today. Why do you think that the Holy Father issued the motu propio?

It really makes no sense why you would say that the Church is “not going back”, unless you’re saying that in a remorseful way. What do you think the “new” translation was all about? Almost everything we typically see in a “normal” Novus Ordo Mass was never intended by VII or His Holiness Paul VI, so what pray tell should we not be going back to? Better Mass attendance? More of the laity believing in the Real Presence instead of less? More vocations? No parish churches closing? A greater devotion to Our Lady? The belief in Hell? That the Mass is a sacrifice? If that’s “going back”, where do I sign…

I’m not trying to pick on you, Jim, but I really don’t understand why there are so many that can’t just admit that the Mass should have never been tampered with to the degree that it was tampered with in the 1960’s and '70’s. This doesn’t fall under the infallibility of the pope, so what’s the big deal? Did anyone ever stop to consider the possibility that we the Church have been paying the price the last 40 years for all this?

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi
Click to expand...
No you are not picking on Jim, you are picking on the OF, which is a perfectly VALID Mass…and one that some think has a lot of beauty.

All you have submitted is YOUR opinions. Please do NOT pitt the two VALID forms of the Mass against each other:mad:. That is a violation of the forumn rules.

As far as the OP…I like it the way Fr. Driscoll puts it. Both have significance and can show great beauty. The priest facing the back altar is a stand in for Christ who address his Father, with his family behind him (us). The priest facing the people is also a stand in for Christ gathering his family together in prayer as the Body of Christ (us). Both equally valid and equally beautiful when he explains it.
 
GRATEFULONEjim said:
I think it comes down to this…

I believe there are too many Catholics who choose to believe that Rome does not have their best interest at heart. Their ego’s lead them to believe, “My Way’s Better”. Catholics need to accept the teachings and decisions handed down from the Pope and get over their ego’s and pride. After all, we as Roman Catholics must follow, without question, the Pope.
Click to expand...
👍

That and some people like to play liturgical police even though they may not know what they are talking about but think they do.
 
Annabelle_Marie said:
No you are not picking on Jim, you are picking on the OF, which is a perfectly VALID Mass…and one that some think has a lot of beauty.

All you have submitted is YOUR opinions. Please do NOT pitt the two VALID forms of the Mass against each other:mad:. That is a violation of the forumn rules.

As far as the OP…I like it the way Fr. Driscoll puts it. Both have significance and can show great beauty. The priest facing the back altar is a stand in for Christ who address his Father, with his family behind him (us). The priest facing the people is also a stand in for Christ gathering his family together in prayer as the Body of Christ (us). Both equally valid and equally beautiful when he explains it.
Click to expand...
The Mass of Pope Paul VI is a valid form, yes. That doesn’t mean it’s as good as the Tridentine form. Think about it; if there is no appraisal to be made because their quality is allegedly exactly the same (stemming from both being valid), why was there a change to be made in the first place at all? Clearly Sacrosanctum Concilium was authorized to address perceived issues in the Church. Well, those issues haven’t been addressed. The Novus Ordo experiment is almost unarguably less reverent than the Tridentine form, at least in the way it was practically manifested (the Church assuredly didn’t intend all these liturgical abuses and breakdown of catechesis, but it’s time to address them).
 
EphelDuath said:
The Mass of Pope Paul VI is a valid form, yes. That doesn’t mean it’s as good as the Tridentine form. Think about it; if there is no appraisal to be made because their quality is allegedly exactly the same (stemming from both being valid), why was there a change to be made in the first place at all? Clearly Sacrosanctum Concilium was authorized to address perceived issues in the Church. Well, those issues haven’t been addressed. The Novus Ordo experiment is almost unarguably less reverent than the Tridentine form, at least in the way it was practically manifested (the Church assuredly didn’t intend all these liturgical abuses and breakdown of catechesis, but it’s time to address them).
Click to expand...
One purpose for the change as stated in a previous post was to have the congregation more active and engaged in the Mass. Another, to have the Mass celebrated in the vernacular. The OF is less reverent than the Tridentine form…Ridiculous! The breakdown of catechisis is do to the fact that people have filled each and every second of there lives with hedonistic pleasures and have not taken the time to educate themselves. Don’t blame the Church for peoples laziness and lack of desire to learn the faith.
 
GRATEFULONEjim said:
One purpose for the change as stated in a previous post was to have the congregation more active and engaged in the Mass. Another, to have the Mass celebrated in the vernacular. The OF is less reverent than the Tridentine form…Ridiculous! The breakdown of catechisis is do to the fact that people have filled each and every second of there lives with hedonistic pleasures and have not taken the time to educate themselves. Don’t blame the Church for peoples laziness and lack of desire to learn the faith.
Click to expand...
👍 or as the USCCB says…“we can not just be pew potatoes”…

I don’t know why everything must become a put down of the OF:shrug:
 
EphelDuath said:
The Mass of Pope Paul VI is a valid form, yes. That doesn’t mean it’s as good as the Tridentine form. Think about it; if there is no appraisal to be made because their quality is allegedly exactly the same (stemming from both being valid), why was there a change to be made in the first place at all? Clearly Sacrosanctum Concilium was authorized to address perceived issues in the Church. Well, those issues haven’t been addressed. The Novus Ordo experiment is almost unarguably less reverent than the Tridentine form, at least in the way it was practically manifested (the Church assuredly didn’t intend all these liturgical abuses and breakdown of catechesis, but it’s time to address them).
Click to expand...
Here is a quote about the rules of this forumn…

It is unfortunate that we are unable to discuss the liturgy and speak charitably to each other or about others. In other words, it seems that every time this subject comes up, it eventually ends up in arguing, labeling people, and labeling the forms of the mass as if they can be pitted against each other like football teams.

Such behavior is beneath the intentions of this forum, the reverence due to the subject and the respect due to others. Therefore, all threads about the OF and EF that derail into name calling, labeling people or dishonor the liturgy by pitting one form over the other shall be closed and the posters run the risk of having their accounts moderated or even closed.

If you want to discuss this topic:
  1. speak about the liturgy with due honor, regardless of what form you prefer;
  2. DO NOT pit one form against the other;
  3. Refrain from labeling either the form or the individuals who appreciate one or the other.
  4. Bullying will not be tolerated.
If you encounter any problem of this sort in future discussions, please inform me ASAP.

In the unlikely event that it is too difficult to observe these rules, we can always place a moratorium on all discussions about EF and OF, on the TC forum, until cooler heads prevail.

Thank you

Thomas Casey
Moderator
 
EphelDuath said:
The Mass of Pope Paul VI is a valid form, yes. That doesn’t mean it’s** as good as **the Tridentine form. Think about it; if there is no appraisal to be made because their quality is allegedly exactly the same (stemming from both being valid), why was there a change to be made in the first place at all? Clearly Sacrosanctum Concilium was authorized to address perceived issues in the Church. Well, those issues haven’t been addressed. The Novus Ordo experiment is almost unarguably less reverent than the Tridentine form, at least in the way it was practically manifested (the Church assuredly didn’t intend all these liturgical abuses and breakdown of catechesis, but it’s time to address them).
Click to expand...
Where I come from, there is hardly a breakdown in Catechesis, quite the opposite. Teaching is the best it’s been in the 40 or so years I have been able to hear it and relay it to others. Catechesis was awful when we grew up. It emphasized form over living faith, the “membership” aspect of Catholicism, and merely living rigidly within the commandments…in other words minimalist Catholicism… asking “which directives am I required to satisfy?”, rather than giving everything to God’s Church AND our brothers and sisters. This approach led legions of Catholics to run screaming from the Church in the 60’s and 70’s. Talk to some of them, they will tell you how they were told that all protestants were going to hell. (people instinctively know better, they will leave if you lie to them, and they did leave in large numbers.)

YOU are responsible for reverence at Mass. Don’t blame lack of reverence on the Church or the form of Mass you are attending. Again, the culture we live in is irreverent, not the Church.

Satan (the accuser) must love this sort of thing, as he creates chaos and then stands there pointing at the Church , hoping some of the faithful will take up his cause, “look it’s the Church’s fault” " this Mass is not AS GOOD", “look at the shabby clothes at Mass” “your church is a mess!!!”.
 
Annabelle_Marie said:
Here is a quote about the rules of this forumn…

It is unfortunate that we are unable to discuss the liturgy and speak charitably to each other or about others. In other words, it seems that every time this subject comes up, it eventually ends up in arguing, labeling people, and labeling the forms of the mass as if they can be pitted against each other like football teams.

Such behavior is beneath the intentions of this forum, the reverence due to the subject and the respect due to others. Therefore, all threads about the OF and EF that derail into name calling, labeling people or dishonor the liturgy by pitting one form over the other shall be closed and the posters run the risk of having their accounts moderated or even closed.

If you want to discuss this topic:
  1. speak about the liturgy with due honor, regardless of what form you prefer;
  2. DO NOT pit one form against the other;
  3. Refrain from labeling either the form or the individuals who appreciate one or the other.
  4. Bullying will not be tolerated.
If you encounter any problem of this sort in future discussions, please inform me ASAP.

In the unlikely event that it is too difficult to observe these rules, we can always place a moratorium on all discussions about EF and OF, on the TC forum, until cooler heads prevail.

Thank you

Thomas Casey
Moderator
Click to expand...
I’m uncomfortable seeing a post by a normal poster that looks like it is signed by a moderator.
 
GRATEFULONEjim said:
The Church may revisit tradition, but does it by moving forward. The new translation was not the Church moving backward. It fixed a flawed translation, and by doing that has moved on (forward)
Click to expand...
Don’t mean to pick on you personally, but how is it that translations were flawed? They were approved and accepted by the bishops and the Vatican the late 60’s for liturgical purposes, the greatest prayer, were they not?
 
ProVobis said:
Don’t mean to pick on you personally, but how is it that translations were flawed? They were approved and accepted by the bishops and the Vatican the late 60’s for liturgical purposes, the greatest prayer, were they not?
Click to expand...
The Latin to English translation used words that were not exactly true to their meaning. For example cup instead of chalice for one.That was the whole reasoning behind what was rolled out at Advent was to do a more exact translation. Hope this helps.
 
GRATEFULONEjim said:
I think it comes down to this…

I believe there are too many Catholics who choose to believe that Rome does not have their best interest at heart. Their ego’s lead them to believe, “My Way’s Better”. Catholics need to accept the teachings and decisions handed down from the Pope and get over their ego’s and pride. After all, we as Roman Catholics must follow, without question, the Pope.
Click to expand...
The Pope and Rome, AFAIK, have never promoted novelties in diocesan Masses like altar girls, CITH, versus-populum and an all-vernacular mass. They have allowed them to be done, that’s all, after they were started by progressive clergy. They have also never said, AFAIK, that Catholics may not request that their masses be free from these things.

That is to say, arguing for a mass to said to the old Tridentine norm, whether OF or EF, is not disobedience.
 
RogerDeCourcy said:
The Pope and Rome, AFAIK, have never promoted novelties in diocesan Masses like altar girls, CITH, versus-populum and an all-vernacular mass. They have allowed them to be done, that’s all, after they were started by progressive clergy. They have also never said, AFAIK, that Catholics may not request that their masses be free from these things.

That is to say, arguing for a mass to said to the old Tridentine norm, whether OF or EF, is not disobedience.
Click to expand...
Show me in any of my posts where I said a Tridentene Mass is Wrong, Bad, or attending or asking for a Tridentine Mass is disobedient. A letter, dated July 27, 2001, of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in Rome gave permission for the bishops of the Diocese to utilize Altar Girls if they wished. You are also correct that a parish can ask their pastor for an all Latin Mass, which he can not deny. The fundamental basis for the legitimacy of the use of English in the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is to be found in Article 6 of Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio:

Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognized by the Apostolic See.
 
GRATEFULONEjim said:
The Latin to English translation used words that were not exactly true to their meaning. For example cup instead of chalice for one.That was the whole reasoning behind what was rolled out at Advent was to do a more exact translation. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Again don’t take this personally but I think you missed my point and the point of the thread. If the translations (and the liturgy by implication) were flawed as you say, how are we to know early Church liturgies were not also flawed because they changed them later? I’m not concerned at the moment whether calix is a cup or a chalice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top