Quo Primum

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmorgan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Timothysis said:
I suspect that it is because it doesn’t fit their agenda.
Click to expand...
That’s the best I’ve seen from you Tim. Freudian slip perhaps?

The hidden agenda in our Church is from the modernists who’ve broken our liturgy down to the point of being more like a Protestant service than the majesty of 2,000 year old Holy Sacrafice of the Mass. If the ‘spirit of V2’ crowd had full control we’d have married gay priests giving their ‘testimony’ on Sunday mornings by now.

These sophist arguments are sad testiments to the division and decay in the faithful: St. Joseph got added to the Canon therefore we can have dancing puppets during the Offeratory. St. Cyril said to ‘make your palm a throne’ therefore we should all have Communion in hand. Ad orientum means the priest turns his back on the congregation. Latin in a foreign language, etc, etc, etc.

If the Catholic Church of two thousand years isn’t right for some people then the honourable thing to do is leave rather than change it to their agenda.
 
Ockham said:
That’s the best I’ve seen from you Tim. Freudian slip perhaps?

The hidden agenda in our Church is from the modernists who’ve broken our liturgy down to the point of being more like a Protestant service than the majesty of 2,000 year old Holy Sacrafice of the Mass.
Click to expand...
So any one who does not agree with your preference of Mass is a “modernist”?

I see that the lie that the EF Mass is 2000 years old is still alive and strong.
 
Ockham said:
These sophist arguments are sad testiments to the division and decay in the faithful: St. Joseph got added to the Canon therefore we can have dancing puppets during the Offeratory.
Click to expand...
Yes, the pope can order giant puppets to dance at Mass. He shouldn’t, though. Those are quite separate issues that require totally different analyses. Too often people try to argue for what they think should be done by pretending that it must be done: e.g., by claiming that Church documents require average parishes to use Latin, that the Code of Canon Law secretly still mandates headcovering for women, etc. I’ve seen all of those arguments here, and they all stink, even if I agree with what the person is ultimately trying to get at. So yes, if Benedict XIII can add Stabat Mater to Our Lady of Sorrows, or John XXIII can add St. Joseph to the Canon, then the next pope can add puppets to the Offertory. You’re just wasting your breath if you try to claim that this is somehow a conceptual impossibility. Spend your time arguing that it shouldn’t be done.
St. Cyril said to ‘make your palm a throne’ therefore we should all have Communion in hand. Ad orientum means the priest turns his back on the congregation. Latin in a foreign language, etc, etc, etc.
Click to expand...
That would be more convincing if you had declined the accusative singular of oriens correctly.
 
Ockham said:
That’s the best I’ve seen from you Tim. Freudian slip perhaps?

The hidden agenda in our Church is from the modernists who’ve broken our liturgy down to the point of being more like a Protestant service than the majesty of 2,000 year old Holy Sacrafice of the Mass. If the ‘spirit of V2’ crowd had full control we’d have married gay priests giving their ‘testimony’ on Sunday mornings by now.
Click to expand...
In the time of St. Francis the Roman Rite was not even used in the diocese of Rome; the Gallican Rite was the liturgy of choice. To suggest that the latin liturgy has been the same for 2,000 years is, at best, naive and uninformed, or, at worst, a deliberate attempt at muddying the waters. If you are so misinformed about this point, what are we to make of your suggestion that something as distinctly catholic as the Eucharistic liturgy approaches “the point of being more like a Protestant service?”
 
Timothysis said:
To suggest that the latin liturgy has been the same for 2,000 years is, at best, naive and uninformed, or, at worst, a deliberate attempt at muddying the waters
Click to expand...
Trouble is…I never suggested that.

Compare a typical Lutheran service with the Novus Ordo and TLM then tell me which one doesn’t belong.
 
Ockham said:
Trouble is…I never suggested that.

Compare a typical Lutheran service with the Novus Ordo and TLM then tell me which one doesn’t belong.
Click to expand...
I have said this all along…the lutherans revised their liturgy in the late 1970s and based their revision on the Pauline Missal. This fact has nothing to do with the integrity of the Pauline Missal.

Had the lutherans revised their liturgy based on the Tridentine Missal, would you still whistle the same tune???
 
40.png
justme:
That evolved organically unlike Bugnini’s ‘reform’. Nice try.
 
Timothysis said:
I have said this all along…the lutherans revised their liturgy in the late 1970s and based their revision on the Pauline Missal. This fact has nothing to do with the integrity of the Pauline Missal.

Had the lutherans revised their liturgy based on the Tridentine Missal, would you still whistle the same tune???
Click to expand...
My understanding is Luther had several issues with the OF of the day so I doubt his descendents would alter their services to match. The Novus Ordo gave them something along their own misguided beliefs.

As the Catholic Church is the only way into heaven I prefer to support the Mass of Ages rather than neo-protestantism. Luther advocated CITH, table rather than altar, and the venacular.

Based on the frequency of changes, options and abuse I don’t think “integrity” should be mentioned in the same sentence as the Pauline Missal.
 
Ockham said:
My understanding is Luther had several issues with the OF of the day so I doubt his descendents would alter their services to match. The Novus Ordo gave them something along their own misguided beliefs.

As the Catholic Church is the only way into heaven I prefer to support the Mass of Ages rather than neo-protestantism. Luther advocated CITH, table rather than altar, and the venacular.

Based on the frequency of changes, options and abuse I don’t think “integrity” should be mentioned in the same sentence as the Pauline Missal.
Click to expand...
:yawn:

I think this whole matter can be resolved with a timeless phrase. Whenever you feel the urge to question the authority of Holy Mother Church to regulate the Liturgy, just ask yourself:

Who died and made you Pope?!
 
Ockham said:
My understanding is Luther had several issues with the OF of the day so I doubt his descendents would alter their services to match. The Novus Ordo gave them something along their own misguided beliefs.

As the Catholic Church is the only way into heaven I prefer to support the Mass of Ages rather than neo-protestantism. Luther advocated CITH, table rather than altar, and the venacular.

Based on the frequency of changes, options and abuse I don’t think “integrity” should be mentioned in the same sentence as the Pauline Missal.
Click to expand...
Right, so 400 years after Luther the Lutheran church finally decided to "alter their services to match" the Pauline Missal because “Luther advocated CITH, table rather than altar, and the venacular,” all of which are disciplines of the Church and have nothing to do with the missal. Apparently, the minor issues of Christ truly present in the Eucharist and the Mass as a sacrifice, things that Lutherans don’t accept, were simply glanced over as unimportant, huh???:rolleyes:

You are grasping at straws and the fact that you still use the misnomer “Mass of the Ages” suggest that you are less concerned about fact and more concerned with your particular partisanship.

Also, do you suppose that you may be placing yourself outside of the Church by insisting on calling the Ordinary Form of the Mass (you know, the form the Holy Father celebrates) “neo-protestantism?”
 
In finance, organic growth is the process of business expansion due to increased output, sales, or both, as opposed to mergers, acquisitions, or take-overs.
Click to expand...
I could not find a definition of organic growth in the religion environment but I fail to see how Quo Primum is anywhere close to a religion equivalent of a merger, acquisition, or take-over.
 
What is not apparent to everyone is that the “form” of liturgy is a discipline that may always be changed. That which is NOT subject to change is the “essence” of the mass. The Holy Sacrifice may be celebrated within varying rites and disciplinary forms, while still being valid. It seems almost blasphemous to proclaim that any of the Church’s rites, however distasteful they may seem to some, are unworthy in the sight of Almighty God. We are talking about … THE MASS! :heaven:
  1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance,
    the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.
Click to expand...
Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
Click to expand...
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
Click to expand...
Source: [First Vatican Council](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter 2 On revelation)
 
Sirach2 said:
What is not apparent to everyone is that the “form” of liturgy is a discipline that may always be changed. That which is NOT subject to change is the “essence” of the mass. The Holy Sacrifice may be celebrated within varying rites and disciplinary forms, while still being valid. It seems almost blasphemous to proclaim that any of the Church’s rites, however distasteful they may seem to some, are unworthy in the sight of Almighty God. We are talking about … THE MASS! :heaven:
  1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance
Click to expand...
Also from the 22nd session of the Council of Trent.
CANON IV.–If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.

Especially the “that iti s thereby derogated from”, I believe this covers calling the OF protestant in nature.
Click to expand...
 
ByzCath said:
Also from the 22nd session of the Council of Trent.
CANON IV.–If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.

Especially the “that iti s thereby derogated from”, I believe this covers calling the OF protestant in nature.
Click to expand...
Very interesting, indeed. Kinda blows a hole in the whole “more efficacious/less efficacious” argument, doesn’t it?!?!?
 
Timothysis said:
Kinda blows a hole in the whole “more efficacious/less efficacious” argument, doesn’t it?!?!?
Click to expand...
Time for my unsolicited :twocents:

The so-called more efficacious/less efficacious" argument really doesn’t much exist any longer, except, perhaps, in the minds of some diehards. At least not objectively. What does exist, however, is the subjective argument that some people prefer the EF since they find it more spiritually fulfilling. The subjective is just that: people are entitled to their own preference. Oh sure, I suppose some folks (not the diehards) may express that preference using the word “efficacious” (which is incorrect) but there is a big difference between an error in terms and an error in thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top