Question about the Confiteor at mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter HolySpirit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not sure what @otjm’s problem is @semper_catholicus.

He seems to be of the mind that the OF is perfect and has no need of reform.

I get the feeling he’s the type who would defend a clown mass and liturgical puppets…
 
Last edited:
I believe you asked why some thing were eliminated. It seems strange, if you are that familiar with the document, that you would ask the question, as the document answers it.

In any event, not everyone has read the document, and some who have read it did so years or decades ago.

“Wreckovated” is a personal opinion with which others can disagree. I went, in 1998, to a parish which I personally would consider garish. Somewhere aftr the consecration I caught myself counting the multitude of statues up above in the sanctuary - I was up well over 40, when I realized my attention had seriously wandered.

Recently I went to a funeral at that parish; they had at least one subsequent pastor since I had been there, and someone had finally reduced the number of statues by somewhere between 80% and 90%. I did not and do not consider that a wreckovation; perhaps some of the long-time parishioners did.

I have been repeatedly to the Trappist Abbey in Oregon, and it is both beautiful and without much art work. I find it truly beautiful; some might disagree.

Having been around 72 years, I find that opinions vary all over the place as to what constitutes beauty. Some prefer a very plain, simple church; others want ornate decorations. Both seem to have their place, and both have those who praise it, and those who can’t stand it.

The pendulum seems to be back to center, where it belongs.
 
I am of the mind that the Church promulgated the OF and they did not ask my opinion, nor have they asked it since then. I am also of the mind that when 2,147 bishops of the world voted “yes” for Sacrosanctum Concillium, and 4 voted “no”, that there were a multitude of reasons why they voted the way they did, and that there were varying opinions as to what they wanted in the end. Interestingly, the vast majority of them still appear to approve what we have as the OF.

I have seen far too many Masses in the 1950’s through the early 1960’s to know what a liturgical abuse is; and in spite of all of that, and well before the OF was promulgated, I entered the seminary and spent by first two years there.You know nothing of what I think of either the EF (for which I had every position a boy could have, up to and including Master of Ceremonies) or the OF, and I find your snide comment about clown masses and liturgical puppets to be a rather transparent example into your other comments.

I learned to respect my pastor from the 50’s in spite of the fact that he had a raging problem with alcohol, and I have respect for the EF in spite of the fact that he said any number of 6:30 a.m. Masses either inebriated from the night before, or having started early. He could, and did say that early morning Mass in under 15 minutes.

Your comments are a reflection of your character. You might want to keep that in mind.
 
Wrong. There are several places where the officiai Novus Ordo rubrics grant permission to use “similar words” or to make remarks not in prescribed texts.
 
There is strikingly little in common between Sacrosanctum Concilium and what Bugnini’s Consilium did.
 
You are making a claim. It is up to you to provide supporting documentation.
If you cannot, then all you are spouting is an opinion, which is fine. Just own it and admit that it is your opinion and not fact.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
And my point was some Churches were wreckovated after the Council because in the decades after VII, there was a heavy current of iconoclasm that swept through the Church.
Click to expand...
It is true. I saw a beautiful church scheduled to be demolished.
 
And there was a culture of deliberate mendacity, of saying churches had to be wreckovated because “the Council ordered it.”
 
Questioning why certain reforms were done the way they were, or wanting to see certain reforms reformed again, does not mean that you don’t accept the OF.

In fact, I believe that as they stand, the 1970 Missal is superior to the 1962 Missal in many ways, and I prefer the OF over the EF.

However, there ARE certain elements of the OF which I feel were revised in a questionable manner.

I understand the Council called for the Rites to be simplified, etc. But to me that is calling mainly for simplified Rubrics and simplified forms when necessary.

Was it really necessary to edit the Confiteor and remove the confession to Mary and the angels, when EVERY SINGLE Confiteor - TLM Roman, Sarum, Dominican, Ambrosian, Mozarabic - contains a variant of that Confession? Was it really necessary to edit, and in some cases totally rewrite the ancient Collects which in some cases had been unchanged for 1500 years?

There are certain changes which happened, and also ways the new Missal was implemented, which I am highly skeptical and critical of. If that makes me a bad Catholic in your estimation, so be it. Honestly, I don’t care what your opinion of me is - it means less than nothing to me.

Lastly, @otjm - haven’t we been down this road before? Haven’t I made posts in the past spitballing ways the OF could be improved and you vehemently opposed me then?

If you believe the OF is the penultimate and perfect Rite which would be impossible to improve upon, fine. But many Catholics don’t feel that way, and feel the OF could be improved with general reform. It doesn’t make them less Catholic to feel that way. It doesn’t mean they reject the OF. It doesn’t mean they prefer the EF. All it means is they see ways the OF could be improved, and IMO it’s wrong of you to jump down their throats and judge them for having those opinions.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
What things did priests deliberately do that were not prescribed?
Click to expand...
Removed certain prayers, prayed the prayers extremely fast, disregarded certain ritual rubrics like the way they were to hold their hands or fingers, not made the correct number of signs of the Cross, never gave a homily… Just a few of the ways the EF was abused.

The nature of the abuse was different, however. To my knowledge, there were never liturgical dancers, puppets, or clown mass charades in the EF - the abuses in the EF tended to be “subtraction,” removing things from the Mass or not doing things in the Rubrics, whereas the major abuses of the OF tended to be “addition,” adding in things which were never there or even intended to be there to begin with.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
Again, when the EF was normative priests deliberately did things that were not prescribed.
Click to expand...
What things did priests deliberately do that were not prescribed?
Click to expand...
Same sorts of things you see today. From my understanding lots of skipping things they didn’t want to do, using made-up postures, substituting prayers, not allowing the faithful a chance to receive(which was apparently so common in some areas they were surprised when they could) and not adhering to liturgical colors/readings/etc.
 
Funny how there’s never any call on these fora for “documentation” and “proof” to defend slurs against the classical liturgy. Only criticisms of the modern liturgy require footnotes for every assertion.
 
KMG said:
Funny how there’s never any call on these fora for “documentation” and “proof” to defend slurs against the classical liturgy. Only criticisms of the modern liturgy require footnotes for every assertion.
Click to expand...
People on this forum shouldn’t be insulting any licit liturgy of the Church. That includes you and your insults against the OF. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Indicating a preference is not an insult. But making claims without proof that the new liturgy was designed to be “Protestant” is not only a grave insult but it is calumny against members of the Consilium that designed it, many of whom are now long dead.
 
KMG said:
Bugnini’s actions were indefensible. I wholeheartedly concur with Bouyer’s assessment of Buginini as dishonest.
Click to expand...
There’s no shortage of intrigue and salacious gossip about insiders in the Vatican. I prefer not to get into that, as I never met Abp. Bugnini. What matters to me is that:
  1. The OF Mass is licit and can be celebrated beautifully with the same reverence as the EF;
  2. The OF Mass was not designed to be “Protestant”, contrary to your assertion for which you have not provided proof.
You asserted that Bugnini’s book made that affirmation. It did not, and in fact made the opposite affirmation.

Then you trotted out a paraphrased quote out of context and that is a favourite meme of the radical traditionalists as being from his book, and applied it to the Mass, when in reality the quote was about the 7th Good Friday petition emoving the notions of “heretics” and “schismatics”, taken from a 1965 newspaper article and not his book.

Lastly you quote a book that provides salacious gossip about Bugnini being a two-faced schemer, but still nothing to assert your claim that Bugnini himself said that the Mass was designed to be Protestant.

For shame.
 
Last edited:
I am well aware that questioning does not mean that one rejects what is questioned.
However, there are many ways of asking a question; one is from curiosity. Others can come across in a multitude of other ways, some of which are negative to a lesser or greater degree.
You ask about the Confiteor. I don’t have an answer, and I am not sure if anyone today has an answer, although I suspect there are reasons it was done.
The Anglicans started research into the fathers of the Church, and that research soon spilled over into the Catholic Church. And that, as best I can determine, either started research into early liturgy, or fueled it. I have no clue as to why the confession to Mary and the saints was removed, although the date you suggest – back to 500 give or take some may have been where that was added in. I have no objection to it being taken out, nor would I to having it put back in. It does not concern me.
And as to the Collects, again, I have no dog in the fight – as-is does not disturb me, nor would adding them back in bother me in the least.
I don’t recall that I have expressed an opinion of you, although you have felt necessary to make a slur about me in your posting, which I find… interesting.
I do not oppose – vehemently or otherwise, someone who asks questions out of curiosity. I am opposed to people who cannot say enough about their opinions of the Mass in a way that comes across as having superior knowledge of “how it should be”. And frankly, the bone I was picking was far less with you than with who you were responding to.
No, I do not think the OF is the second to the last of all possibilities (penultimate) nor the last (ultimate). I most seriously doubt that we will ever go back from the vernacular to all Latin. I have no problem with some of the prayers being said in Latin, although it is exceedingly rare out here on the West Coast. I also have no problem with saying them in the vernacular.
What I want to see is people listening to the prayers of the priest and silently joining in with him – and not returning to the days where people said the rosary during Mass or read from booklets of novenas. I want to see the active participation in the Mass (and no, that is not hand waving).
And yes, some Catholics feel the Mass could be improved upon; and I would encourage them to address that with those who actually may have some (name removed by moderator)ut – which largely means getting those opinions to Rome, since that is whence changes will come
 
No, you are the individual who “quoted” and you are the individual who, when requested to make a citation, apparently cannot do so. It is not my job to prove your point; it is your job to back up your statements, and I say they are false statements and you cannot do so.

So prove me wrong. Book, chapter and page.
 
KMG said:
Not playing this game.
Click to expand...
Why’s it a game when it’s convenient to you? You’re making a huge accusation of a priest. This isn’t reliant on people’s memories or experience. It’s a major thing.

People telling of their experiences with bad TLM in it’s day is just that people’s experiences. Today people’s experiences are aided by technology, but 99.9% of the stuff we hear about the NOM errors are just that- hearsay.

What you’re doing is stating that a very, very important person said something at a time and place and that is repeated in a book—not “quoted by a friend”. I’ve had co-workers repeat me thinking they know what they are talking about, but they don’t and they sound totally idiotic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top