S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
I will have to remember that, thanks.
- Status
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
Yep!
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
Was there something that was definitely contrary to Church teaching in what was posted?
Is the ‘does not sound right’ simply an in YOUR opinion situation?
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
Not well.
How does the use of the Baltimore Catechism quote match up with the instruction “Do this in memory of me”?
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
What does “This is my beloved Son, listen to him.” have to do with Holy Mass?
A
Aramis
Guest
During the Anaphora, the Priest speaks in persona Christi.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
why?? was vatican II not infallible?? is it not permissible to use the norvus ordo?
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
Thanks, I understand that. When the priest offers the sacrifice to God is not that about God. Are not the ends of Mass about God. "A. The ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered were:
1st. To honor and glorify God;
2nd. To thank Him for all the graces bestowed on the whole world;
3rd. To satisfy God’s justice for the sins of men;
4th. To obtain all graces and blessings."
It seems to me that the AOL priest thinks that Mass is all for man but is not the Mass for both God and man? God does not need it ,but the Mass is still for him, too?
M
mangy_dog
Guest
A little known detail about VII is that there were six protestant representatives present who were in fact invited to be there.
I’m sure they were counting on the changes being of infallible nature also since I am sure that their “(name removed by moderator)ut” was a consideration for the changes - with hopes of a future re-unification in lieu of the changes.
A lot of good came from VII. But not all the good that was intended from VII was put into effect.
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
It sets the stage for the instruction at the Last Supper to “Do this in memory of me”.
P
pnewton
Guest
This is not little known here. It comes up almost every time Vatican II is mentioned along with all sorts of conspiracy theories and speculation.
C
cam100
Guest
Did you also know that protestants were invited to every general council since protestantism began? That includes Trent, Vat I & Vat II. As I recall, however, they refused to attend both Trent and Vat I.
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
What is your souce for this information? I had heard that Queen Elizabeth I was invited to Council of Trent. What you state is very interesting. I have never heard that before about Trent and Vatican I. All I heard about is Queen Elizabeth I.
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
Exactly!
Hmmm, isn’t every Sacrifice of the Mass done in His memory? Don’t we commemorate his sacrifice at every mass?
And?
C
cam100
Guest
The info on Trent came from A History of the Council of Trent by Hubert Jedin. I read it a while ago, so I don’t recall the volume or page #s, but it was probably in Vol I or II. I’ve read so many books on Vatican I that I can’t recall the specific source for the info on Vat I, but I’ll try to find it later.
M
Mickey_Jackson
Guest
Of course it is permissible to use the Novus Ordo. One thing many anti-conciliarists (I refuse to use the word Traditionalist for those who, like the priests and bishops of the SSPX, have separated themselves from the Pope) forget is that there are not different Masses. The Tridentine Mass is the same as the Novus Ordo Mass, because there is really only one Mass: the eternal Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, made present upon the altar at the words of Consecration.
That said, in many parishes the NO is not celebrated correctly. When you have priests changing the words of the missal as they see fit and introducing all manner of abusive liturgical innovation, something is wrong. Part of the problem is the fact that when the priest faces the people, it can give both him and his congregation the misconception that he is up there to “perform,” so to speak. When a priest celebrates Mass ad orientum, he is not really facing away from the people; rather, everyone in the church is facing in the same direction, toward something that is greater than themselves. This is why it is easier to get a sense of the sacred in an ad orientum Mass. For this reason, I think that ad orientum should be made the norm for every Mass celebrated upon a fixed altar.
Also, to address something else that has been brought up, the argument that Protestants helped design the Novus Ordo is a red herring. Protestants were invited to V2, as they were to Trent and V1; this was the first time that they attended. But the Holy Office stated shortly after the advent of the Novus Ordo that the Protestants had not had a hand in its construction.
M
Mickey_Jackson
Guest
Continuing the pattern of teaching established by his predecessor, John Paul the Great, Benedict XVI is doing a great job of explaining to the Church that Vatican II was NOT a break with Tradition. Liberals and anti-conciliarists alike need to read the Council documents (and not the cherrypicked-to-fit-your-agenda Cliffs Notes provided by both sides’ spokespersons).
S
stmaria
Guest
The truth is that we don’t really know how much the Protestants that attended the meeting of the Commisson actuallly contributed.
According to Annibale’s Bugnini’s book *Reform of the Liturgy *the Protestants that attended the meetings of the Consilium that wrote the Liturgy were Anglican Canon Jasper, Reverend Massey Shepherd professor at the Church divinity School of the Pacific, Methodist Professor Raymond George, Lutheran Pastor Friedrich Kunneth, Lutheran Reverend Eugene Brand and Calvinist Frere Max Thurian of the Taize community.
There are conflicting quotes as to what their role was.
Bugnini says this about the Protestants, “Their attitude at the meetings of the Consilium was one of great reserve and unobtrusiveness. They never took part in the discussions, never asked to speak. They were the first to arrive at the meetings, the last to leave the hall. They were always affable, polite, sparing of words, and ready to engage in a friendly way in any conversation that might be requested.”
Here is a quote that shows a different involvement.
"They (the Protestant ministers) were not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed.”
(Monsignor Baum, quoted in “The Detroit News”, June 27, 1967)
Protestant observer Canon Ronald Jasper was interviewed by Michael Davies in 1977 and he explained that the observers received all the documents from the drafters in the same way as did other members of the Consilium. They were present at the debates , but the observer were not allowed to join in the debate. In the afternoon they always had an informal meeting with the periti who had prepared the drafts and at these meetings they were allowed to comment and criticize and make suggestions. The informal meetings were a complete free-for-all, and there was a frank exchange of views.
In my opinion the Protestant observers had a hand in changing the words of Consecration to one that was used by Luther and Cranmer.
Luther removed the words, “Mystery of Faith” as did the Commission and Luther added " which is given up for you" which the Commission also added
Also it is no accident that in the Novus Ordo the words, " for thine is the kingdom etc.". were added to the Our Father. Even though this prayer dates back to the 2nd century it was added to the Our Father in Luther’s catechism and was added to the Lords’s Prayer in Cranmer’s Mass.
And let us not forget that communion in the hand, priest facing the people, all vernacular mass, popular music were all part of the Mass of the Protestant reformers.
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
- Status