W
Walking_Home
Guest
While you admit the OF is valid --It looks like your mind has gone the way of looking at the OF as protestant.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
You’ve said enough.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
All very true. Even today many older individuals choose Masses based on their length due to this legacy. “I hear you can get through Fr. XYZ’s in 35 minutes.”The EF is not the norm, and thus it will be celebrated with a little more formality.
If you go back to when the EF was the only Mass and talk to people who were adults then you will hear all sorts of stories about rushed, mumbled Masses.
In fact, my great uncles preferred the 7:30 am Mass on Sundays because they would be home by 8am, and that included the 7 minute walk to and from home.
True again. The Church however dropped the ball big-time when it implemented (or rather failed to implement) the OF Mass. A huge, huge mistake! Those responsible really blew it – I cannot overemphasize that. In 2011 when minor refinements were made to the OF Mass, my diocese made rigorous efforts to ensure everyone was trained and knew what was going on. Had that happened before the promulgation of the OF Mass, most of the “traditional latin rite” silliness we see today wouldn’t exist.The Church, in her wisdom, changed the Mass. It is wrong for anyone to insinuate that she did so to appease Protestants.
It’s also quite false.If you prefer the EF, by all means, attend. Do not say that the OF is deficient. That is about as far from “traditional” as you can get, as you are accusing the Church of something nefarious.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Of course – the “traditionalists” don’t hold a disdain for the OF and the people who attend - right. If anyone believes that – there is swamp land with their name on it.
And now it’s being “advertised” at a toxic site – where a bunch of banned people landed. I guess we “modernists/neo-cons” will be seeing them back.
And now it’s being “advertised” at a toxic site – where a bunch of banned people landed. I guess we “modernists/neo-cons” will be seeing them back.
I don’t know if anyone here is aware (or cares), but the Catholic Answers forums have been completely revamped and so far traditionalists have been allowed to post without fear of censure, ban, or moderation. I don’t want to steer traffic away from FE, but I know many of you who post here are intelligent, articulate, and cool-headed when speaking about issues important to traditional Catholics. That said, I think that you could do a great service to the Church by making your voices heard on CAF. They have such a large reading audience, and many posters who come inquiring about tradition are often discouraged from it by a handful of modernist or neo-con leaning posters who seem to patrol the Traditional Catholic sub-forum. Please consider making your voice heard on CAF! God bless you all!
Last edited:
A
An1OrthodoxChristian
Guest
You said Catholics should “learn” from us. What exactly do you mean?
You should know that we have had vernacular Liturgies for centuries. We also have Ecclesial Greek and Church Slavonic so we have “Church languages” covered too.
I would say the issue is much deeper than what language the Liturgy is said.
You should know that we have had vernacular Liturgies for centuries. We also have Ecclesial Greek and Church Slavonic so we have “Church languages” covered too.
I would say the issue is much deeper than what language the Liturgy is said.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
That post came from a “traditionalist” site. Some of the trouble maker (toxic) trads that were banned from CA – moved over to that site. And now they may be coming back.
We wouldn’t be arguing – if trads didn’t come on throwing stones at the OF and the people who attend.
Last edited:
L
LaetificetJuventutem
Guest
I just register here, what a surprise, on a Catholic forum, an argument over the “Latin Mass”. I hate to kick off a first post here on such controversy, but yes, the Traditional Latin Mass per the Tridentine Missal, most recently promulgated by Pope St. John XXIII in 1962, should again be the “ordinary” form of the Latin-rite of the Mass- as much as I think the English adjectives “ordinary” & “extraordinary” quite accurately describe what each form is like.
I am cautiously optimistic since as noted in this thread it is young people who clamor for its return while older folks are invested in the “reforms” their generations pioneered which failed to deliver anything but empty pews, mass confusion about what the Mass is & the faith in general, widespread liturgical abuse, and of course sadly the mass iconoclastic destruction of so many altars, tabernacles, & sanctuaries (by Neo-Vandals WITHIN the Church) to be replaced with cold sterile LOW-CHURCH Protestant-like round temples with tables plopped in the middle, finding the tabernacle is like playing Where’s Waldo. It’s not just a matter of aesthetic preferences finding post-V2 churches ugly, it has unsurprisingly caused serious theological confusion, & ornate altars & artwork were not just beautiful, they were exterior expressions of inner desire to exalt God which is what Church is supposed to be about.
I could go on forever with reasons why the TLM should be restored to ‘ordinary’ form & refute attacks on it, but my 24k character post blew way past the 3200 limit, so will just start with 2 points.
One must be either woefully or willfully ignorant to think the Mass of Paul VI was not, deliberately, in the name of ecumenism, made to resemble a Protestant service. If you have functioning eyes & ears, go to a high-church Anglican/Episcopalian service, a Catholic Ordinary Form, and a Catholic Extraordinary Form- your senses do not deceive you that one of these stands out as totally not like the others. But sadly it’s not the one that should. The OF is a valid Mass while the Anglican service is not, but they are VERY similar in form. It’s actually still common for Episcopalians to kneel for their bread & wine, while Catholic pastors seem to take delight in tearing out those altar rails ASAP in the “Spirit of Vatican II”, laypeople casually handing out hosts in the hand as people wait on the conveyor belt. (If the Extraordinary Form is ever restored as THE “Latin Rite” Mass, perhaps the Ordinary Form can be kept around renamed the “Anglican Rite”, for those who prefer it…)
Returning the tabernacle to its place of primacy in the center of the high altar & offering Mass ad orientem are no-brainers. The priest is offering a sacrifice before God, the sacrifice made at Calvary- not re-enacting the Last Supper, “do this in remembrance of me”. Even Catholics who know what the Mass is supposed to be can’t avoid the “sharing a meal together” atmosphere, complete with jumping all over to wish everyone “signs of peace”; no wonder most ordinary Catholics are confused, don’t know what Mass is, don’t believe in Real Presence, don’t know they are even supposed to believe in Real Presence…don’t go to Mass.
I am cautiously optimistic since as noted in this thread it is young people who clamor for its return while older folks are invested in the “reforms” their generations pioneered which failed to deliver anything but empty pews, mass confusion about what the Mass is & the faith in general, widespread liturgical abuse, and of course sadly the mass iconoclastic destruction of so many altars, tabernacles, & sanctuaries (by Neo-Vandals WITHIN the Church) to be replaced with cold sterile LOW-CHURCH Protestant-like round temples with tables plopped in the middle, finding the tabernacle is like playing Where’s Waldo. It’s not just a matter of aesthetic preferences finding post-V2 churches ugly, it has unsurprisingly caused serious theological confusion, & ornate altars & artwork were not just beautiful, they were exterior expressions of inner desire to exalt God which is what Church is supposed to be about.
I could go on forever with reasons why the TLM should be restored to ‘ordinary’ form & refute attacks on it, but my 24k character post blew way past the 3200 limit, so will just start with 2 points.
One must be either woefully or willfully ignorant to think the Mass of Paul VI was not, deliberately, in the name of ecumenism, made to resemble a Protestant service. If you have functioning eyes & ears, go to a high-church Anglican/Episcopalian service, a Catholic Ordinary Form, and a Catholic Extraordinary Form- your senses do not deceive you that one of these stands out as totally not like the others. But sadly it’s not the one that should. The OF is a valid Mass while the Anglican service is not, but they are VERY similar in form. It’s actually still common for Episcopalians to kneel for their bread & wine, while Catholic pastors seem to take delight in tearing out those altar rails ASAP in the “Spirit of Vatican II”, laypeople casually handing out hosts in the hand as people wait on the conveyor belt. (If the Extraordinary Form is ever restored as THE “Latin Rite” Mass, perhaps the Ordinary Form can be kept around renamed the “Anglican Rite”, for those who prefer it…)
Returning the tabernacle to its place of primacy in the center of the high altar & offering Mass ad orientem are no-brainers. The priest is offering a sacrifice before God, the sacrifice made at Calvary- not re-enacting the Last Supper, “do this in remembrance of me”. Even Catholics who know what the Mass is supposed to be can’t avoid the “sharing a meal together” atmosphere, complete with jumping all over to wish everyone “signs of peace”; no wonder most ordinary Catholics are confused, don’t know what Mass is, don’t believe in Real Presence, don’t know they are even supposed to believe in Real Presence…don’t go to Mass.
L
LaetificetJuventutem
Guest
“Young people don’t know what they’re talking about, before Vatican II some priests used to mumble through the Mass!” So the solution was throw the baby out with the bath water, to replace the Mass with a whole New Mass? Sorry, but that is a TOTAL logical non-sequitur. Certainly there were priests before Vatican II who did not do justice to the reverence of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, an issue which should have been addressed. But it is laughable to imply that the New Mass of Paul VI in any way solved that problem. To imply that ALL Novus Ordo Masses are celebrated with the utmost reverence, priests never rush & mumble their way through the New Mass; to deny that in fact MUCH WORSE genuine liturgical ABUSES are widespread & considered acceptable in many Ordinary Form Masses? The most irreverently offered Masses pre-Vatican II don’t even come close to the kinds of liturgical abuses in the most irreverently offered Novus Ordo Masses. And there are very seldom consequences for even the worst liturgical abuses performed each Sunday by rogue pastors.
Think things through and I think those who put forth the “Hey kiddies before Vatican II the Latin Mass wasn’t always offered reverently!” is not in any way a logical argument in favor of the New Mass is over the TLM.
“Jesus spoke Aramaic, there’s nothing special about Latin!” Sad to see Catholics now using centuries-old Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church’s use of Latin in the liturgy. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the Gospels & entire New Testament were written in Greek, the language of the early Church. Few Jews, never mind Gentiles, knew Aramaic in the eastern Mediterranean in the first centuries A.D. as the message of Christ spread- in Greek; do recall that all of St. Paul’s Epistles to all different early Christian communities were written in Greek, from which grew the Greek Catholic Eastern-rites. Then Christianity spread to the Latin-speaking west toward Rome, in the days of persecution the sacrifice of the Mass offered on the tombs of the martyrs; but then by the grace of God the pagan Roman Empire which had persecuted Christians so harshly fell- and Rome was converted into the capital of a spiritual ‘empire’, the Apostolic See of St. Peter, Rome and her language chosen for primacy over the universal Church, from which grew the Latin-rite to this day the primary rite of the Catholic Church.
Ancient Eastern Churches have their own rites passed down, but Latin as the literally catholic, prime, universal liturgical language of the Roman Catholic Church spread globally brought every people together. No press 1 for English, press 2 for Spanish, press 3 for Polish. It is a tragedy that if you are Anglophone Catholic and your neighbors are Hispanic Catholics, never will your paths cross at the Church you supposedly share, going to 2 different Masses at 2 different times. With Latin, Catholics of all ethnic backgrounds regardless of personal vernacular were brought together as one with the sacred liturgical language of the Church. If you were traveling abroad in a foreign country and went to attend Mass, the Mass was still in your language as a Catholic, Latin.
Think things through and I think those who put forth the “Hey kiddies before Vatican II the Latin Mass wasn’t always offered reverently!” is not in any way a logical argument in favor of the New Mass is over the TLM.
“Jesus spoke Aramaic, there’s nothing special about Latin!” Sad to see Catholics now using centuries-old Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church’s use of Latin in the liturgy. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the Gospels & entire New Testament were written in Greek, the language of the early Church. Few Jews, never mind Gentiles, knew Aramaic in the eastern Mediterranean in the first centuries A.D. as the message of Christ spread- in Greek; do recall that all of St. Paul’s Epistles to all different early Christian communities were written in Greek, from which grew the Greek Catholic Eastern-rites. Then Christianity spread to the Latin-speaking west toward Rome, in the days of persecution the sacrifice of the Mass offered on the tombs of the martyrs; but then by the grace of God the pagan Roman Empire which had persecuted Christians so harshly fell- and Rome was converted into the capital of a spiritual ‘empire’, the Apostolic See of St. Peter, Rome and her language chosen for primacy over the universal Church, from which grew the Latin-rite to this day the primary rite of the Catholic Church.
Ancient Eastern Churches have their own rites passed down, but Latin as the literally catholic, prime, universal liturgical language of the Roman Catholic Church spread globally brought every people together. No press 1 for English, press 2 for Spanish, press 3 for Polish. It is a tragedy that if you are Anglophone Catholic and your neighbors are Hispanic Catholics, never will your paths cross at the Church you supposedly share, going to 2 different Masses at 2 different times. With Latin, Catholics of all ethnic backgrounds regardless of personal vernacular were brought together as one with the sacred liturgical language of the Church. If you were traveling abroad in a foreign country and went to attend Mass, the Mass was still in your language as a Catholic, Latin.
L
LaetificetJuventutem
Guest
Everything I said was summed up far more eloquently by Pope St. John XXIII:
Veterum Sapientia
Venerable languages The Church values especially the Greek & Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.
And since in God’s special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire — and that for so many centuries — it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See. Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.
Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all & is equally acceptable to all. Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.
For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws.” She further requires her sacred ministers to use it.
Thus the knowledge and use of this language so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as religious reasons. These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, & indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.” The Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.
In addition, the Latin language “can be called truly catholic.” It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother & teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure … of incomparable worth.”. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.
Bishops…shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.
Veterum Sapientia
Venerable languages The Church values especially the Greek & Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.
And since in God’s special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire — and that for so many centuries — it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See. Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.
Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all & is equally acceptable to all. Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.
For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws.” She further requires her sacred ministers to use it.
Thus the knowledge and use of this language so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as religious reasons. These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, & indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.” The Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.
In addition, the Latin language “can be called truly catholic.” It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother & teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure … of incomparable worth.”. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.
Bishops…shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.
Last edited:
G
graciew
Guest
Welcome!extraordinary
I do not mean to dispute your own language,but given the description you provide later on," standing out",sounds like you associate " extraordinary" with something super,stunning,wonderful,sensational, and I do not think it is what it means in this context. Or better say,all Masses are wonderful.
For instance,Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion,doesn’t t mean that we / they/ whoever is,are better or super, in any way. At all.
Extra- ordinary. Added to what is normal.
But it is your language,so…
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
And by H.H. Pope Paul VI, Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969, L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English - 4 December 1969.Everything I said was summed up far more eloquently by Pope St. John XXIII:
…
Bishops…shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.
CHANGES IN MASS FOR GREATER APOSTOLATE:
8. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.
9. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?
10. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.
11. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Jesus is at every Mass, all Roman Catholic styles, all languages, all churches, through all Priests.
Jesus doesn’t discriminate.
Neither should we
Jesus doesn’t discriminate.
Neither should we
D
Duesenberg
Guest
“Fisheaters” is an amusing site. I thought it was a parody when I first visited. When I realized they were being serious, I quite visiting.
One thing the administrators of CAF should do is FORBID the EF/OF “comparisons.” That’s a toxic subject. I think the self-described “traditional Catholics” do as much harm to the Church as those “liberals” they hold such disdain for. Extremists are extremists in the end.
One thing the administrators of CAF should do is FORBID the EF/OF “comparisons.” That’s a toxic subject. I think the self-described “traditional Catholics” do as much harm to the Church as those “liberals” they hold such disdain for. Extremists are extremists in the end.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
That’s never going to happen…I just register here, what a surprise, on a Catholic forum, an argument over the “Latin Mass”. I hate to kick off a first post here on such controversy, but yes, the Traditional Latin Mass per the Tridentine Missal, most recently promulgated by Pope St. John XXIII in 1962, should again be the “ordinary” form of the Latin-rite of the Mass- as much as I think the English adjectives “ordinary” & “extraordinary” quite accurately describe what each form is like.
J
JoeVig
Guest
From childhood thru high school all i ever heard was latin. That is the way it should be. The church should not change with the times or alter its course for popularity and to make us more affable.
And bring back the Communion Rail too.
And bring back the Communion Rail too.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Not really. Standpoints are just opinions that can be changed. My issue is having a negative opinion towards a matter the church as spoken on. Not accepting changes is simply having a temper tantrum that the Church allows something you don’t like.
I’m not so sure it’d work out the way you think. The OF is considerably more “work” than the EF when it comes to the parishoner. I think people would be more “go back to the old way, we like praying the rosary through a mass we can’t understand.” Because, let’s face it, knowing Latin was rare and difficult. I know many men who were not allowed to be altar boys because they couldn’t master even the language during Mass.
Again you’re launching a platform of “the feels” and perceived injustices and rights. Trying to make anecdotal arguments against the OF that may or may not have just as many arguments to the contrary. TLM is offered. Can we not leave it at that?
I’ve BEEN to TLM services–more than once. I am quite familiar. It did not impress upon me ANY greater sacredness even though at the time I had near fluency in Latin. I am one who finds great spiritual benefit out of contemporary songs and who likes the less grand Churches. It adds to my spiritual life. It would be silly for me to neglect what works best for me for years on end in order to make myself into something I am not. Especially since the church has allowed for what fits me best.
You don’t appear insane BECAUSE of your like TLM but because you deny the good that comes from the OF. And I don’t think that Traddies are abhorrent nutjobs–I do think that many have gone down a harmful rabbit hole pursuing something that doesn’t really exist–a “perfect” Mass.
And see, this is part of the issue. People get polarized and can’t see past the end of their own nose. Those who love TLM stop their “offense” so to speak and start constantly being in “defense” mode—bashing everything from the decor of a church to the clothes women wear as “evidence” they are better.
Rather than constantly pitting two equally valid Masses, it might behoove those who like TLM to reflect on the astounding generosity of a Church that meets people where they are at.
I’m not so sure it’d work out the way you think. The OF is considerably more “work” than the EF when it comes to the parishoner. I think people would be more “go back to the old way, we like praying the rosary through a mass we can’t understand.” Because, let’s face it, knowing Latin was rare and difficult. I know many men who were not allowed to be altar boys because they couldn’t master even the language during Mass.
Again you’re launching a platform of “the feels” and perceived injustices and rights. Trying to make anecdotal arguments against the OF that may or may not have just as many arguments to the contrary. TLM is offered. Can we not leave it at that?
I’ve BEEN to TLM services–more than once. I am quite familiar. It did not impress upon me ANY greater sacredness even though at the time I had near fluency in Latin. I am one who finds great spiritual benefit out of contemporary songs and who likes the less grand Churches. It adds to my spiritual life. It would be silly for me to neglect what works best for me for years on end in order to make myself into something I am not. Especially since the church has allowed for what fits me best.
You don’t appear insane BECAUSE of your like TLM but because you deny the good that comes from the OF. And I don’t think that Traddies are abhorrent nutjobs–I do think that many have gone down a harmful rabbit hole pursuing something that doesn’t really exist–a “perfect” Mass.
And see, this is part of the issue. People get polarized and can’t see past the end of their own nose. Those who love TLM stop their “offense” so to speak and start constantly being in “defense” mode—bashing everything from the decor of a church to the clothes women wear as “evidence” they are better.
Rather than constantly pitting two equally valid Masses, it might behoove those who like TLM to reflect on the astounding generosity of a Church that meets people where they are at.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
It’s not a numbers game, but consider how the attendance at Mass has so sharply declined since the “changes”.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
You’d have to only look at what happened in America to have that number make sense…and then you’d still have to account for the cultural changes taking place. Correlation does not equal causation.It’s not a numbers game, but consider how the attendance at Mass has so sharply declined since the “changes”.
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
Correlation does not equal causation.It’s not a numbers game, but consider how the attendance at Mass has so sharply declined since the “changes”.
E
exnihilo
Guest
This seems obviously true. When I as a Protestant was exploring I visited a Lutheran church several times. Their service was not very different from my parish’s Mass. The most Catholic parish in my city is an Episcopal church. What I mean is if you want to go to a service that most resembles traditional Catholicism that is the place you’d go. That service has more in continuity with the Catholic Mass as it wasn’t practiced for hundreds of years than does my parish’s Mass.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.