should we stick to traditional catholicism?

[Phyllo]

I have no problem with folks that wish to follow the OF, additions to the Rosary or the “new” Breviary. I choose to follow the older forms. My choice and preference.

Me too and we are not alone.

 

[edwest2]

You should understand that the tradition of the church is to change as lead by the Holy Spirit. If this were not the case we would still have house churchs and following a more Jewish form of worship.
The church is not stagnet set in stone and should not be viewed as such. Christ sent us an advocate in the form of the Holy Spirit, because as he told the apostles they could not know or understand everything. We are no different and the same still applies. The Church continues to grow and change in it’s understanding of God’s message and will continue to do so.
Christ told us that new wine cannot be put into old wine skins, in the same way we as Catholics are called to follow todays bishops and todays guidance as recieved through Spirit. We cannot put our hand to the plow to take the church into the future by looking backword, this the Lord has taught us.

Deacon Frank

Future? What future? Right and wrong are still black and white.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I think the addition of the luminous mysteries suddenly to a traditional prayer like the rosary was a little odd—but I do enjoy the meditation on them, so it’s okay with me. I think over all that’s a plus.

The changes in the Mass post V2 were definitely off-putting for many—infact, I fell away from the church at exactly the time they changed to English. I was raised with the Latin mass and loved and understood it. Frankly I prefer the Mass in Latin. My parish does the Mass in Latin about once a month and I love to go to that Mass—but I don’t feel strongly enough about it to specifically look for a church that says only Latin Masses, though there are some out there that do offer the Mass in Latin.

The one thing that I specifically detest that is “new” as in since V2, is most of the new music used. I find that most of the new songs, accompanied by a guitar are a little lame and lack the solemnity and beauty of the older hymns, but again, I just don’t sing along if I hate the song and use that time for silent prayer. Some of the new songs are just daft and there’s no other way to put it—but again, whatever.

I also don’t particularly care for what they did to the Our Father–adding the protestant “For thine is the kingdom and the power, etc” at the end basically. I think V2 wasted a whole lot of time trying to dumb down the Mass and make the Mass more like a protestant service and that is just one example. Same thing is true with the whole offering each other a sign of peace—it turns into a free-for-all at my parish. Some people will actually insist on leaving their seats and walking all around the church greeting people and to me, that’s a little ridiculous.

Anyway, i am not sure what everyone means by “traditional”. I don’t really think we get much vote on the issue. I love the Mass and certainly will continue to attend and receive communion as to me, that far exceeds any silliness that they come up with about the liturgy. I hope the pope keeps busy enough now, however, that he doesn’t feel the same need as John 23 did with V2 again—to steam roll through the liturgy and make everything conform to some new “vision” of his or the church hierarchy or however you choose to call it

None of the changes commonly associated with Vatican II were not even suggested by Vatican II.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

There were dissidents inside the Church trying to make a mess.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Starrsmother]

None of the changes commonly associated with Vatican II were not even suggested by Vatican II.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

There were dissidents inside the Church trying to make a mess.

Peace,
Ed

I understand your point—but the fact is they came into use post V2 and that was my reference point–thank you though-

 

[SuperLuigi]

should the changes in our faith like the mass and the rosary be followed or should we stick to the old ones.?

I just think we need to be creative with the flexibility that we have. If the Church really wants to reach out the marginal folks in society, using certain practices and hymns that are there just for nostalgia is frankly kind of selfish.

 

[otjm]

i mean the addition of five more mysteries to the holy rosary

What we know now as the Rosary started off as 150 Our Fathers, in a lay attempt to mimic (as best they could) the monks who said the Psalms.

Over the centuries, it changed; not dramatically, but at various times it looked different than what we have now.

What I can’t understand is why people are so stuck on 15 mysteries instead of more (20); it is almost as if they try to life the Rosary, a private devotion, to a dogmatic statement that is solidified in the hardest of stone.

The Rosary should help us to grow closer to Christ; the mysteries are of Christ’s life and death, and resurrection. What is wrong with more mysteries? Why do people get so up in arms about it?

 

[otjm]

I also don’t particularly care for what they did to the Our Father–adding the protestant “For thine is the kingdom and the power, etc” at the end basically.

Here is the news - it wasn’t and isn’t Protestant. It is extremely Catholic, and extremely traditional, as it is from a Catholic source - the Didache, written in the 2nd century.

The charge that it is “Protestant” is one used by those who don’t know the source of the prayer.

I think V2 wasted a whole lot of time trying to dumb down the Mass and make the Mass more like a protestant service and that is just one example.

And again, not a Protestant service; but closer to what the Mass (and the other sacraments, and the process of entry into the Church by those who have not been baptized) looked like in the early Church.

I hope the pope keeps busy enough now, however, that he doesn’t feel the same need as John 23 did with V2 again—to steam roll through the liturgy and make everything conform to some new “vision” of his or the church hierarchy or however you choose to call it

Actually, John 23rd didn’t steam roll the liturgy; he died well before the Ordinary Form was released; that was done during Paul 6th’s time. And we can all agree it did not look like what the bishops of the world had in mind in particular during Vatican 2. So neither Vatican 2 nor John 23 are to blame.

 

[ray_anthony]

thanks everyone!!

 

[Phyllo]

The charge that it is “Protestant” is one used by those who don’t know the source of the prayer.
And again, not a Protestant service; but closer to what the Mass (and the other sacraments, and the process of entry into the Church by those who have not been baptized) looked like in the early Church.

The Mass is more Protestant than you realize. Read the book “Pope Paul’s New Mass”
Liturgical Revolution by Michael Davies. It is a real eye opener.

After reading the book you might seek in earnest for a TLM.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The Mass is more Protestant than you realize. Read the book “Pope Paul’s New Mass”
Liturgical Revolution by Michael Davies. It is a real eye opener.

After reading the book you might seek in earnest for a TLM.

WOW! Just WOW!!

It’s statements like that that make people who are traditional leaning look bad.

You have just told everyone who grew up with the MIssal of Paul VI that their Mass is “Protestant” and that the only real “Catholic Mass” is the TLM.

Again, all I can say is WOW!!

 

[Phyllo]

WOW! Just WOW!!

It’s statements like that that make people who are traditional leaning look bad.

You have just told everyone who grew up with the MIssal of Paul VI that their Mass is “Protestant” and that the only real “Catholic Mass” is the TLM.

Again, all I can say is WOW!!

I am sorry you feel that way.

Before you yell at me read the book for yourself. I didn’t say that the Mass is Protestant but it resembles more a Protestant service than the TLM that I grew up with.

I would also hope that on this site we are all entitled to our opinion.

 

[agnes_therese]

I have no problem with folks that wish to follow the OF, additions to the Rosary or the “new” Breviary. I choose to follow the older forms. My choice and preference.

And that’s how it should be.

 

[Walking_Home]

Phyllo:

The Mass is more Protestant than you realize. Read the book “Pope Paul’s New Mass”
Liturgical Revolution by Michael Davies. It is a real eye opener.

After reading the book you might seek in earnest for a TLM.

WOW! Just WOW!!

It’s statements like that that make people who are traditional leaning look bad.

You have just told everyone who grew up with the MIssal of Paul VI that their Mass is “Protestant” and that the only real “Catholic Mass” is the TLM.

Again, all I can say is WOW!!

---

Agree.

 

[Sirach2]

Why should any of us accept Michael Davies opinion over that of the Magisterium? He himself was a Protestant.
From Wikipedia:

Davies was a Baptist who converted to Catholicism while still a student in the 1950s Initially he was a supporter of the Second Vatican Council. He later supported the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre**,** founder of the Society of St. Pius X, and declined to retract that support after Lefebvre illicitly consecrated four bishops in 1988 against the wishes of Pope John Paul II, which some said “sanitised” Lefebvre.

Enough said.

 

[Cat]

I am sorry you feel that way.

Before you yell at me read the book for yourself. I didn’t say that the Mass is Protestant but it resembles more a Protestant service than the TLM that I grew up with.

I would also hope that on this site we are all entitled to our opinion.

What kind of Protestant, please? There are quite a few Protestant denominations–did Michael Davies specify which kind of Protestant worship service the Mass supposedly looks like to him? Also, was Mr. Davies raised a Protestant, and if so, which kind? If not, how is he familiar with Protestant worship services?

I doubt I will purchase a book like this, as the last thing I need is a critique of the Mass that may cast doubts into my mind and soul.

But I am very curious–my husband and I converted from Evangelical Protestantism, which is the largest Protestant population in the United States (and possibly the world by now), and **we can testify that even the most “happy-clappy” liberal guitar-style Mass does not in any way at all not in a million years no way nada resemble ANY Evangelical Protestant worship service! ** I hope I’ve made that last sentence clear enough.

I’m guessing that Mr. Davies is talking about “mainline” Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, Episcopal/Anglican, Congregational, United Methodist, United Church of Christ, etc.)

First, always remember that these denominations used the Catholic Mass as their model for their worship service, so it is more accurate to say that the “mainline church worship service resembles the Catholic Mass” rather than the other way around.

Frankly, I don’t see the point of worrying about whether the Mass looks like the worship services at these mainline churches. Their days are numbered, and if they continue on the path that they have chosen, they will not exist through the end of the century.

Attendance in these denominations is dwindling exponentially. Many of them are attempting to re-capture a few members (and of course, some more funding) for their tiny congregations by eliminating traditional practices and liturgical-type worship services in an attempt to look more like Evangelical Protestant churches, It’s not working–most Protestants who are interested in Evangelical Protestant churches are pro-life and anti-gay marriage/lifestyle, and many are also opposed to women clergy, so they would never bother to even try a theologically/socially liberal mainline church.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

The Mass is more Protestant than you realize. Read the book “Pope Paul’s New Mass”
Liturgical Revolution by Michael Davies. It is a real eye opener.

After reading the book you might seek in earnest for a TLM.

To my knowledge, no Protestant church uses the Catholic words of consecration.
Please share with us how the OF is “Protestant”.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Why should any of us accept Michael Davies opinion over that of the Magisterium? He himself was a Protestant.
From Wikipedia:

Davies was a Baptist who converted to Catholicism while still a student in the 1950s Initially he was a supporter of the Second Vatican Council. He later supported the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre**,** founder of the Society of St. Pius X, and declined to retract that support after Lefebvre illicitly consecrated four bishops in 1988 against the wishes of Pope John Paul II, which some said “sanitised” Lefebvre.

Enough said.

A few years ago I purchased, online, the Davies book in question. Disposed of it later. Despite many good passages and points, it ultimately doesn’t convince. Stripping away all he claims that make the OF “defective”, it appears, to him, to come down to the removal of the “Offertory Prayers” that is the most serious. The problem is, that argument does not come from a liturgist, but a lay commentator. And he fails to prove how the removal of those prayers make the Consecration “defective”.
There are many other parts of the book that come off as tabloid reporting (the infamous “clown Mass chapter”) and not scholarly.
In short, the book itself leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.

 

[Phyllo]

I am not going to respond to you all individually. A specific Protestant sect was not mentioned.

If any one here has had the privilege of attending a TLM you will realize the difference for yourselves.

Acquire a copy of a pre Vatican II missal and compare the prayers to the NO for your selves.
The old missals have both the Latin and the English translations.

The book has many foot notes and references to where he got his material from. , I don’t feel it is fair to the author to dismiss his work because he is a convert to Catholicism.
Read the book or not but don’t condemn it unless you have read it.

Many Protestant converts are extremely Catholic and highly honored. Scott Hahn comes to mind.

I have nothing else to say.

One final thing. Mr. Davies is defending the TLM and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

My prayers go out to all
God Bless

 

[Son_of_Niall]

I am not going to respond to you all individually. A specific Protestant sect was not mentioned.

If any one here has had the privilege of attending a TLM you will realize the difference for yourselves.

Acquire a copy of a pre Vatican II missal and compare the prayers to the NO for your selves.
The old missals have both the Latin and the English translations.

The book has many foot notes and references to where he got his material from. , I don’t feel it is fair to the author to dismiss his work because he is a convert to Catholicism.
Read the book or not but don’t condemn it unless you have read it.

Many Protestant converts are extremely Catholic and highly honored. Scott Hahn comes to mind.

I have nothing else to say.

My prayers go out to all
God Bless

You said:

The Mass is more Protestant than you realize.

Again:
Please share with us how the OF is “Protestant”.

 

[EphelDuath]

I’ve read the Michael Davies book, it’s really posh. As a faithful attendant of both the EF and OF, I can tell you with certainty that the OF is not “Protestantized”, as its detractors like to claim. Albeit the language is less clear and less emphasized, it is still the case that the Mass of Paul VI includes prayers for the Pope, confesses faith in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, and bends the knee at the sacrifice at Calvary at the Words of Consecration. Because of all of these elements it is preposterous to actually say that the OF is “Protestant”.