Reform or Revolt?

  • Thread starter Thread starter whosebob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Damascus,

Your choice of words is really inviting of an amicable discussion. :rolleyes: šŸ˜¦

If you remember my past posts so well, kindly cite one where I said in any way, shape or form that I am a charismatic. Not a single post will you find. My words were true that I have heard they only celebrate mass once a month. I am not a participant.

What you will find, though, is that I defended others in this group who are lawfully permitted within the Church to their type of worship. It is no different for the tridentines, who have an indult to do likewise, whereas the charismatics do not need an indult whatsoever. Maybe that is your very bone of contention that causes you to be indignant.
 
Read my profile, Damascus. I am a secular discalced Carmelite ā€¦ not a charismatic. I am flattered that you observed my previous posts; however, you may also remember that I never stated in a single one of them that I was a charismatic.

What you may remember though, is that I defended their legitimate status within the Church, giving them a right to worship. This right is not by indult as it is for the Tridentines, and that may be your bone of contention that causes you so much anger.

You are free to attack them anew in yet another thread, if that helps you feel better. Remember, these are sons and daughters in the faith, your brothers and sisters, temples of the Most High God, just as are the Tridentines. Consider well that I can be just as defensive about nonCatholics who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, yet are considered by some to be ā€œhereticsā€ and unworthy of dignity and respect. That doesnā€™t mean I am a protestant because I defend them. Surely you see my point?

This is the underlying reason I defend the N.O. people, because of the disrespect and blatant lack of charity displayed towards them by some traditionists. Never would I say that these are not entitled to worship as they feel inclined, but I defend the right of others to do likewise. Most likely, you will see thinking like this in my posts. That was the premise for which I defended a fellow in Spirituality, which bothered you greatly.
 
Joysong said:
What you may remember though, is that I defended their legitimate status within the Church, giving them a right to worship. This right is not by indult as it is for the Tridentines, and that may be your bone of contention that causes you so much anger.

##Why are you defending the Charasmatics? I noted they are approved. Who cares why or how.
Dont accuse people of anger. I said I was confused about that innovation.

You are free to attack them anew in yet another thread, if that helps you feel better.

##How so? How would it be an attack? Its the truth, as you say it can hurt.

Remember, these are sons and daughters in the faith, your brothers and sisters, temples of the Most High God, just as are the Tridentines.

##Why are you reminding me of this? They are approved I said. What more can I say to make it clear for you?

Consider well that I can be just as defensive about nonCatholics who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, yet are considered by some to be ā€œhereticsā€ and unworthy of dignity and respect. That doesnā€™t mean I am a protestant because I defend them. Surely you see my point?

##I noticed you like my signature line, and even tried to stop traffic to get it removed. That is why you bring up the word heretic here right?
So, yes I see your point and your agenda. Who is angry? Who but you used the word HERETIC?

This is the underlying reason I defend the N.O. people, because of the disrespect and blatant lack of charity displayed towards them by some traditionists. Never would I say that these are not entitled to worship as they feel inclined, but I defend the right of others to do likewise. Most likely, you will see thinking like this in my posts. That was the premise for which I defended a fellow in Spirituality, which bothered you greatly.
Click to expand...
##Why do the N.O. ā€œpeopleā€ need your defense? My parish is a N.O.

**I have not said ANY of the 3 disscussed should not have the right to worship as they feel inclined. **
Are you seeing something that does not exist?

I can see stuff too when the spirit sweeps me off my feet.

But then I dont post.
 
I noticed you like my signature line, and even tried to stop traffic to get it removed. That is why you bring up the word heretic here right?
So, yes I see your point and your agenda. Who is angry? Who but you used the word HERETIC?
Click to expand...
I have no clue what you are talking about your signature???
You are a member with nearly 1500 posts, and have never seen the word heretic asserted towards protestants? Amazing!

Now letā€™s take a look at my signature, if you will. The gate is closed.
 
How long do youā€™ll think until the mod closes this thread for being off topic?
 
AJV said:
How long do youā€™ll think until the mod closes this thread for being off topic?
Click to expand...
I was thinking that these women are sounding petty, sorry ladies, but no one on this thread sounds very Christlike. Iā€™d advise reading the Book of St James for advise.

Joysong, trying to disguise your disdain for your sister with flowery speech is like covering venom with syrupy honey, laced with saccharine. You shouldnā€™t go boasting of belonging to your order and then behave thusly. Shame on you!

Damsacus, let it go and shake the dust from your feet.
 
This thread has been significantly pruned to delete a series of non-contributory and off-topic posts that were encumbering a reasonable and charitable discussion and debate over the videos which are the subject of the thread.

While I have not viewed the videos, it is clear from the comments posted by those who have that there were a variety of points made in those. Accordingly, the material being discussed is very wide-ranging, spanning a spectrum that encompasses vernacular Bible translations, liturgical languages, rites, rubrics, liturgical development, etc. That continuum, in itself, assures that the thread has the potential to be difficult to follow - without becoming bogged down in tangential discussion, such as the validity of the charismatic movement or personal tete-a-tetes which are better left to PM - or to being abandoned as non-productive and likely to result in uncharitable exchanges.

The thread is being reopened. Discussion is expected to focus on the topic at hand. Further off-topic meandering is likely to disrupt the posting privileges of those responsible.

As a side note, relative to the discussion of Rites: the Latin Church uses several Rites, predominantly that termed the Latin Rite. The other extant Rites within the Latin Church are the Ambrosian, Bragan, and Mozarabic, as well as certain of the so-called Religious Order Rites. For a good explanation, see:

Western or Latin Church and Rites

Joe Monahan
 
I thought it was a very informative video. The only part I did not like was the fact that at the end, the narrator kinda made Pope Paul VI look responsible for the ā€œliturgical messā€ weā€™re in.
 
The video educated me. I thought the Mass was the same for about 1500 years (that is, the traditional Roman Rite) until Vatican II, then all the changes were implemented at once. I now realize that some of the modern liturgical innovations were suggested or used hundreds of years ago. It seems that after Vatican II the changes were put on the ā€œfast trackā€.
 
TomS said:
The video educated me. I thought the Mass was the same for about 1500 years (that is, the traditional Roman Rite) until Vatican II, then all the changes were implemented at once. I now realize that some of the modern liturgical innovations were suggested or used hundreds of years ago. It seems that after Vatican II the changes were put on the ā€œfast trackā€.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the innovations that were suggested or used were by people who were outside of union with Rome.

It would be like me suggesting that a red carpet be rolled down the isle so that people can feel like they are kings while in line for communion. Then Rome calls me an idiot, puts an anathema on me and anyone else who suggests anything like I did, and 200 years later at Vatican III they introduce rolling out a red carpet for the communion line.

If the people who were anathematized for these innovations way back then were wrong, how is it that somehow they are right now?
 
TomS said:
The video educated me. I thought the Mass was the same for about 1500 years (that is, the traditional Roman Rite) until Vatican II, then all the changes were implemented at once. I now realize that some of the modern liturgical innovations were suggested or used hundreds of years ago. It seems that after Vatican II the changes were put on the ā€œfast trackā€.
Click to expand...
The Mass has been the same. These ā€˜innovationsā€™ were brought about by disobedience and deviance from the rubrics, and now are the norm.
 
CatholicNick said:
The Mass has been the same. These ā€˜innovationsā€™ were brought about by disobedience and deviance from the rubrics, and now are the norm.
Click to expand...
Nope. It has organically evolved for 1500 years. It is not the same as 1500 years ago (post 20)
 
gelsbern said:
The problem is that the innovations that were suggested or used were by people who were outside of union with Rome.

It would be like me suggesting that a red carpet be rolled down the isle so that people can feel like they are kings while in line for communion. Then Rome calls me an idiot, puts an anathema on me and anyone else who suggests anything like I did, and 200 years later at Vatican III they introduce rolling out a red carpet for the communion line.

If the people who were anathematized for these innovations way back then were wrong, how is it that somehow they are right now?
Click to expand...
What innovations are you referring to?
 
AJV said:
What innovations are you referring to?
Click to expand...
The innovations have been listed many times on these forums, I donā€™t feel it is neccessary to list them all again. But if youā€™d like, Iā€™ll list a couple.
  • Saying the Roman Rite in the vernacular.
  • Saying the Roman Rite Ad populum (towards the people) instead of Ad orientum.
  • Congregational responses.
 
gelsbern said:
The innovations have been listed many times on these forums, I donā€™t feel it is neccessary to list them all again. But if youā€™d like, Iā€™ll list a couple.
  • Saying the Roman Rite in the vernacular.
  • Saying the Roman Rite Ad populum (towards the people) instead of Ad orientum.
  • Congregational responses.
Click to expand...
Couldnā€™t one easily say the congregational responses were a custom that fell out?

Regarding celebration toward the people, the old Roman Missal did have directions should the celebrant face the people under the section Ritus Servandus. I would think that it was just never contemplated, any more than most priests nowadays would contemplate versus apsidem.

I also learnt something relatively recently : there was, for the Pope, the erroneous opinion that he faced the people. That is why occasionally, you will find paintings of Popes celebrating Mass toward the people. If IIRC CAF poster Caesar posted one in one of his first threads he started when he joined. Thereā€™s another by Guardi on the occasion of Pius VIā€™s visit to Venice in 1782, showing Pius VI celebrating Mass, with the High Altar covered and a second altar in front of it.

I would say that the vernacular was never used from the Offertory onward in the Roman rite but it was not until the 13th century that it was also used in most places for certain parts of the Mass of the Catechumens which had previously been in the vernacular. Nevertheless, there are the cases for vernacular celebration occasionally in the 800ā€™s and there is also the isolated case of Glagolitic used for the entire Mass and Divine Office in the Roman rite.
 
gelsbern said:
The innovations have been listed many times on these forums, I donā€™t feel it is neccessary to list them all again. But if youā€™d like, Iā€™ll list a couple.
  • Saying the Roman Rite in the vernacular.
  • Saying the Roman Rite Ad populum (towards the people) instead of Ad orientum.
  • Congregational responses.
Click to expand...
Couldnā€™t one easily say the congregational responses was an custom that fell out?

Regarding celebration toward the people, the old Roman Missal did have directions should the celebrant face the people under the section Ritus Servandus in celebratione Missae. I would think that it was just never contemplated, any more than most priests nowadays would contemplate versus apsidem.

I also learnt something relatively recently : there was, for the Pope, the erroneous opinion that he faced the people. That is why occasionally, you will find paintings of Popes celebrating Mass toward the people. If IIRC CAF poster Caesar posted one in one of his first threads he started when he joined. Thereā€™s another by Guardi on the occasion of Pius VIā€™s visit to Venice in 1782, showing Pius VI celebrating Mass, with the High Altar covered and a second altar in front of it.

I would say that the vernacular was never used from the Offertory onward in the Roman rite but it was not until the 13th century that it was also used in most places for certain parts of the Mass of the Catechumens which had previously been in the vernacular. Nevertheless, there are the cases for vernacular celebration occasionally in the 800ā€™s and there is also the isolated case of Glagolitic used for the entire Mass and Divine Office in the Roman rite.
 
Damascus said:
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?:confused:
Click to expand...
You are correct. The way the editing was done does make it seem like there are no pauses between lines. Itā€™s a straw dog argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top