Reform or Revolt?

[AJV]

The Roman Rite, had an almost 1500 year history before the council of Trent and so, that is what was set as the, if you’ll excuse the term, the normative rite for the Western Church, with exceptions being made for other rites that had existed for at least a specific amount of time.

Wouldn’t you agree that the 1500 year old statement needs some qualification? One can definitely say that it was 1500 years of organic developement. But, for example, if one were to go back in time 1500 years they would find:

Everything up to the Introit not there.
The Gloria said less often
3 readings including the Gospel and a psalm
Extremely limited or no use of the Credo (depending which scholarly opinion one regards as more probable- I think most usually agree that the Credo was introduced at the request of Henry II in the 11th century)
No Offertory prayers except for the Secret (also sometimes titled Prayer over the oblations)
A certain part of the Canon omitted on feast days and Sundays
Prayers of the priest before communion and certain ones at communion (e.g. Preceptio corporis tui and Quid retribuam Domino) and at the ablutions are not there
The Last Gospel (and the blessing) not there

---

whosebob, could you ask him which proposition of the Synod of Pistoia was for Mass facing the people? I have read that most of the bishops at that synod did not even support the entire thing such as only one mass being said once a day and one altar in one church (which was only put forward but an extremely small minority and got introduced only because it was the idea of the Grand Duke and Scipio di Ricci) many of them pointing out that the Grand Duke himself was constructing churches with multiple altars. It would also be slightly strange since the rubrics of the Roman Missal do not actually AFAIK determine the direction the celebrant should face. Ritus Servandus XII, 2 and V, 3 both contain directions for when the celebrant faces the people.

And regarding Edward Pusey he was not really associated with the Ritualist movement in the Church of England. He celebrated in a tippet and suplice til the day he died.

A small difference(at least it seems to me) about Ellard’s quotes and Luther’s is that Luther did not believe that the Mass was a Sacriifice at all. The very excerpt provided in the video- Ellard proposes perfect procession of love because “that is what a ritual Sacrifice is”.

Many proposals of Ellards cited are not bad at all. Concelebration i an ancient custom except that it dropped out. The Our Father was originally prayed by both priest and people. The second Confiteor made its way into the Mass from the Rituale for Communion outside of Mass. It is not illogical to put Ite Missa Est at the end.

I’m also throughly opposed to that little statement of “the Mass should represent the Calvinist service” attributed to Paul VI. Simply because nobody can even show that with the Anglican and Lutheran books which are much closer let alone the Calvinists. And if it did indeed represent the Calvinist service we wouldn’t even have the Eucharist every week.

Undoubtedly St. Pius X was a doctrinal conservative. But not so with the liturgy. In Divino Afflatu he clearly indicated that the reforms he carried out for the breviary and the additions to the rubrics in both the breviary and missal were but Phase 1 of his overall reform.

 

[TradyDaddy]

The point of the film is to show the side by side differences between the Mass that organically developed over 1500 years as opposed to the Mass that was fabricated in the 1960’s. If you truly want to give the Pauline Mass any antiquity you have to look to the foundations laid down by the Protestant Revolt leaders and their ideas which Popes and counsils up to Vat II denied time after time.

 

[netmilsmom]

The point of the film is to show the side by side differences between the Mass that organically developed over 1500 years as opposed to the Mass that was fabricated in the 1960’s. If you truly want to give the Pauline Mass any antiquity you have to look to the foundations laid down by the Protestant Revolt leaders and their ideas which Popes and counsils up to Vat II denied time after time.

I’m glad the second part was posted. I have to think about it a while before I can make a decision about it. I grew up with the NO and I don’t like the innovations. I am not sure of anything except that those who want to attend a TLM should be allowed to with no restrictions.

 

[Damascus]

I’m glad the second part was posted. I have to think about it a while before I can make a decision about it. I grew up with the NO and I don’t like the innovations. I am not sure of anything except that those who want to attend a TLM should be allowed to with no restrictions.

If Charasmatics can do their “thing” why is this under scrutiny?

I am so confused thanks to that INNOVATION!

Yet, I am off point here.

OR am I?

 

[netmilsmom]

Damascus:


If Charasmatics can do their “thing” why is this under scrutiny?

I am so confused thanks to that INNOVATION!

Yet, I am off point here.

OR am I?

Well actually, I agree with you fully. Why can’t we all be accomodated. Let the “free market” decide which mass will fly in an area.

Works for me.

 

[Joysong]

If Charismatics can do their “thing” why is this under scrutiny?

It is my understanding from another thread that their liturgical celebrations take place once a month, providing a priest is willing to accomodate them, and these are usually done in an evening weekday mass.

The example you gave is not similar, for you are speaking about a TLM in comparison. Would you be accepting of this limitation as being equally limiting as the “charismatic thing”? i.e., once a month at a weekday evening mass? I get the feeling these worshippers want a separate Sunday liturgy every week, within a normal congregation, which may not always be possible.

 

[Damascus]

Always a Joy to see you Joysong!

Umm, I dunno. Let me ask the holy spirit what it thinks and I will get back to you on that. So, if I dont - dont get mad. sometimes the spirit whisks me away and I speak stuff no one can make out…

It is my understanding from another thread that their liturgical celebrations take place once a month, providing a priest is willing to accomodate them, and these are usually done in an evening weekday mass.

The example you gave is not similar, for you are speaking about a TLM in comparison. Would you be accepting of this limitation as being equally limiting as the “charismatic thing”? i.e., once a month at a weekday evening mass? I get the feeling these worshippers want a separate Sunday liturgy every week, within a normal congregation, which may not always be possible.

 

[Walking_Home]

Well actually, I agree with you fully. Why can’t we all be accomodated. Let the “free market” decide which mass will fly in an area.

Works for me.

---

I’m still waiting for the Mass of Vat II ( like the one at the Grotto) to make it to my church. Maybe I’ll have to wait a few more decades.

 

[Joysong]

Damascus,

Umm, I dunno. Let me ask the holy spirit what it thinks and I will get back to you on that. So, if I dont - dont get mad. sometimes the spirit whisks me away and I speak stuff no one can make out…

Now that you’ve en"joy"ed insulting the charismatics, perhaps I can receive an answer to my question, please. I’ll ask the Lord for an “interpretation” of your “stuff.”

 

[Damascus]

Damascus,

Now that you’ve en"joy"ed insulting the charismatics, perhaps I can receive an answer to my question, please. I’ll ask the Lord for an “interpretation” of your “stuff.”

Joysong, I am not insulting the Charasmatics, I dont Understand it and I do insist its an innovation. A protestant one. It doesnt matter what I think because its approved.

This thread is not about Charasmatics anyway. I brought it up because I think once any dramatic innovative changes become accepted it opens up a pandoras box and then where does one draw the line?

There is so much division over all these topics regarding these issues and a lot of confusion. I think anything that causes this kind of controversy is dividing the body and therefore has the potential to be destructive. Certainly you would agree that just because you or I think or feel great about something does not mean it should be accepted by all.

I think you really dont want to see my point because you are too defensive about your feelings, and that’s emotional. Sorry.

I understand you would like to share the joy you find in your way but you really need to be open minded to the fact that not all innovations are a good thing in regard to the entire body.

 

[Joysong]

Damascus,

To be honest, I felt certain you would not reply, because you did not like the question. Truth is hard to hear sometimes, yes?

I understand you would like to share the joy you find in your **way **but you really need to be open minded to the fact that not all innovations are a good thing in regard to the entire body

How do you make these rationalizations and assumptions from the few basic words in my post? The charismatic movement is NOT my “way.” I merely commented on a post I saw elsewhere, saying “it is my understanding that…” If I was a charismatic, I would not have relied on others’ information, but would put forth my own assertions based upon personal experience.

You apparently delight in reading into peoples’ words what is not there, [as was evident in another thread] and demonstrating a spirit of contention. Enjoy it if you will, but at least reprint what is truly spoken by another, not what you “think” they said. If your doubt remains as to what was meant, it is courteous to ask for further explanation, is it not?

It doesnt matter what I think because its approved.

Yet in spite of approval, you still insult those who belong to it with your demeaning word “innovation.” Would you think it derogatory if I called your movement “innovation?” even though it’s approved? The forum rules do not permit denigration of any approved group in the Church. You may want to review them.

There is so much division over all these topics regarding these issues and a lot of confusion. I think anything that causes this kind of controversy is dividing the body and therefore has the potential to be destructive.

Whoa, Damascus, I believe the sequence will show that it was you who “divided the body.” I merely posted and you jumped in with division by injecting an insulting remark. Better sweep your own back porch first.

 

[AJV]

The point of the film is to show the side by side differences between the Mass that organically developed over 1500 years as opposed to the Mass that was fabricated in the 1960’s. If you truly want to give the Pauline Mass any antiquity you have to look to the foundations laid down by the Protestant Revolt leaders and their ideas which Popes and counsils up to Vat II denied time after time.

Could you elaborate, please?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Do you have a link of the documentation from the 1611 KJV that says there were whole complete bibles translated into English? Please provide it as would like to see where you are drawing your conclusions from as opposed to my history of the catholic church classwork.

Oh, and when the 1611 version was written, there WAS a complete translation there might have been many of them, especially since almost 200 years had past since Wycliffe did the first full english translation of the entire bible, not just parts.

Pax tecum!

Go and look in a 1611 KJV translation yourself, if you don’t believe me. Or search online…I think the whole preface is available. It’s about 11 pages long, I believe. If you don’t believe St. Thomas More either, that’s not my problem. The Salus Animae was translated before Wycliffe, as Wycliffe was not alive in 1250.

I guess your history of the Catholic Church classwork didn’t cover that it’s not ok to deny the authority of the pope and go off and start your own church, though. “Primitive Catholic”…

In Christ,
Rand

 

[gelsbern]

Perhaps we’re both looking at this in different ways.

Let’s say that 45 people each translated 1 book of the OT, and 27 people each translated 1 book each of the NT. Then one could say that indeed the entire bible had been translated. But each of the works you have stated as translations of the Bible, were all partial translations of certain books, or sections, or gospels. John Wycliffe was the first to translate the Bible in its entirety to English.

So, yes before Wycliffe, if one took all of the partial translations and put them all together, one would end up with a fully translated Bible

But that is not what is being said in the video, what is being said is Wycliffe was the first to translated the Bible which is exactly what he did, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:12, he was the first to translate it all from front to back.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

My observation and opinion:

1.)off-topic
2.) I saw nothing irreverent about either Mass in the first 15 minutes of Part I, EXCEPTING Priest #1 rattling off the Latin as if he had to say it quickly or he would not remember it (reminded me of that priest with the fast Mass in grade school I once described); and Priest #2 changing a word here or there.
3.) For 90 minutes or so worth of footage, it was not all that scholarly. Even if it was on film and not written, citations beyond a book cover or photo of an author with ellipsed words superimposed would have been nice (such as page numbers; whether or not Mass of the Future had imprimatur or nihil obstat; little things such as those).
4.) There was too much jumping from one millenia to another without so much as a by-your-leave.
5.) There were too many “apples and oranges” comparisons. Lay missals in the same breath as communion in the hand?
6.) While I wouldn’t say Steve Mahowald is the Lyndon LaRoche of TLM, there was some far-fetched thinking and poor conclusions, to my mind. One minute Pope Paul VI has left the Holy Spirit and reason behind the back door, then the protestant pastors are wily connivers, then His Holiness is being convinced by progressives who have his ear.
7.) The midi soundtrack made it hard to concentrate on what was being said.
8.) To state apriori that the Mass did not change for 1500 years is poor scholarship. He proved it himself.
9.) Didn’t Matt 1618 take something similar to task in freeyellow.com?

If anything, I would say the only proved thing is that the Mass can and did evolve.

But yes, the “new” parish church he showed (the one built in 1967) was ugly. I’ve seen cheerier pictures of prisons.

 

[gelsbern]

Oh yeah, in regards to those who say the priest spoke the Latin too fast, have you ever listened to french speaking people, or spanish speaking people? They speak fast in their language.

You ask a foreigner when they come to an english Mass, and they will tell you the priest spoke the english too fast.

It’s a matter of perspective. I personally understood everything the priest said in latin.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Oh yeah, in regards to those who say the priest spoke the Latin too fast, have you ever listened to french speaking people, or spanish speaking people? They speak fast in their language.

You ask a foreigner when they come to an english Mass, and they will tell you the priest spoke the english too fast.

It’s a matter of perspective. I personally understood everything the priest said in latin.

I understood what he said. He was rattling.

 

[Damascus]

What is demeaning about calling the Charasmatic movement an innovation?

Amoung other things here you are so angry about which we can PM for further discussion.

You ARE NOT the same “Joysong” who blasted many forum members here on a Charasmatic thread in the past? I must have you confused with another charasmatic poster with another “joy” ish name.

PS- I am not involved in any “movement” .

I DID not denigrate anything. Report my post if you dont like it.

No one else has. Frankly I am tempted to start a thread on the charasmatic movement that has protestant roots.

Damascus,

To be honest, I felt certain you would not reply, because you did not like the question. Truth is hard to hear sometimes, yes?

How do you make these rationalizations and assumptions from the few basic words in my post? The charismatic movement is NOT my “way.” I merely commented on a post I saw elsewhere, saying “it is my understanding that…” If I was a charismatic, I would not have relied on others’ information, but would put forth my own assertions based upon personal experience.

You apparently delight in reading into peoples’ words what is not there, [as was evident in another thread] and demonstrating a spirit of contention. Enjoy it if you will, but at least reprint what is truly spoken by another, not what you “think” they said. If your doubt remains as to what was meant, it is courteous to ask for further explanation, is it not?

Yet in spite of approval, you still insult those who belong to it with your demeaning word “innovation.” Would you think it derogatory if I called your movement “innovation?” even though it’s approved? The forum rules do not permit denigration of any approved group in the Church. You may want to review them.

Whoa, Damascus, I believe the sequence will show that it was you who “divided the body.” I merely posted and you jumped in with division by injecting an insulting remark. Better sweep your own back porch first.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Oh yeah, in regards to those who say the priest spoke the Latin too fast, have you ever listened to french speaking people, or spanish speaking people? They speak fast in their language.

You ask a foreigner when they come to an english Mass, and they will tell you the priest spoke the english too fast.

It’s a matter of perspective. I personally understood everything the priest said in latin.

Pax tecum!

I said he spoke too fast, and I speak Spanish. I understood what he said, but it was not that the language was just fast, it was that there were no pauses at all. It was like this: “In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti introibo ad altare Dei ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam…” rather than “In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Introibo ad altare Dei. Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam…” I have heard and spoken Spanish fast myself, and attended Mass in Spanish by native speaking priests. While I realize that languages like Spanish are spoken faster than English, they don’t speak like the entire prayer is one big sentance.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Damascus]

Were the priests really speaking fast? I thought the narrator said it was an annotated version? Maybe they sped it up a bit - obvioulsy the Mass would have been much much longer otherwise?