M
maryjk
Guest
Actually he is attacking the Ordinary Form (OF). And I DO see a problem with that.
- Status
F
FAB
Guest
In your statement I assume you believe the Magisterium of the Church is wrong. I find that to be in error and against the teaching of the canon.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
I am studying Theology & Pastoral Ministry on a “graduate level”.
I have taken 3 different classes in “Sacramental Theology”, and have read numerous books on the subject. I have also attended the TLM on quite a few occaisions.
You made a gross mischaracterization of the ordinary form of the Mass. It is attitudes like this are are dividing our Church. As far as I can tell, no one is “dismissing” Mr. Davies because he is a convert, but because his ideas & opinions do not match those of the Magisterium.
E
edwest2
Guest
How do you know why the Church does certain things? Obedience among the laity should come first. Who are these marginal folks? How do you identify them?
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Only posts like this are attempting to create division. The Church is not divided. It gives us the EF and OF. Assuming differently and painting many Catholics with a broad brush are both wrong. Unless you’ve polled every Catholic, there is no way to know if the alleged division extends to only a handful of people or not. The last thing we need is “I’m offended! And I will stay offended forever!” Because that doesn’t help.
Peace,
Ed
L
Lormar
Guest
F
FAB
Guest
The Church is always moving into the future. I once had a priest describe the church not as a stagnate structure stuck in time and history, but as being alive.
It changes however slowly to meet the needs of every generation. It has to be able to address issues of the world today and to continue to bring the Kingdom of God.
If we are not always working to bring the Kingdom of God to earth, then we are not following Christ word.
We continue to build the Church to bring the Kingdom upon our traditions of our doctrine and on God’s word.
When those persons get stuck at a point in time such as what is called “traditional Catholic”, they seem to me not to working to bring the Kingdom, but are only working to meet their own personal preference and desire.
I run into this with parish work. The pastor makes changes to improve a program, to add new programs or even to eliminate programs. There are those in every parish who will complain, and create issues, not because what has change is not good for the parish, but because they personally don’t like the changes. Often they create such turmoil , that it delays the start of programs, for no better reason than it is different from what was done before. They always want to see what they perceive as what is wrong and can never recognize what is right.
The OP spoke about the rosary. A beautiful tradition, but one that didn’t always exist. I can imagine the “traditionalist” of that time complaining about about praying this new way, what’s wrong with our old ways? A new decade was added by JPII that builds upon that tradition, adds addition reflection for us to consider but because it was added after a certain point in time, someone has a problem with using it.
The Divine Mercy can be considered modern in terms of Church History. It has given us a new way to pray, based on the tradition of the rosary beads, should it not be used for the same reason.
If people insist on focusing in the past, then they cannot see the beauty and graces we are receiving today and will receive in the future.
T
TimothyH
Guest
C
Cat
Guest
I’m going to challenge you to think critically about this book. Mr. Davies does not mention a specific Protestant sect–that should give you the clue that perhaps he is making a claim that he cannot support in the hopes that others won’t have the experience and knowledge to challenge his claim.
Were I to meet Mr. Davies in person, I would challenge his claim that the OF Mass resembles a Protestant service. I see little to no resemblance. For the first few months that my husband and I attended Catholic Mass (OF at a very contemporary Catholic parish), we were utterly lost, and it was only when we visited the priest and asked for an explanation of the Mass that we finally started understanding what the Mass was all about and what people were doing.
If you have ever visited Protestant churches, you will know that there is a huge difference between a Lutheran worship service, an Assemblies of God worship service, and a DIsciples of Christ worship service. And although the Lutheran worship service resembles the Catholic Mass (OF and TLM), there are many differences. The other two bear little resemblance to any Catholic Mass.
I don’t think Catholics dismiss works by converts. On the contrary, they tend to elevate these authors, sometimes a little too much (and I’m guessing that many of the converts who have achieved celebrity as Catholics would agree with my statement).
Finally, you certainly have every right to bow out of any discussion. But why do you want to bow out of this one? If your ideas are correct, then they will withstand scrutiny and criticism from others.
P
ProVobis
Guest
He was their defender, to be sure. (And he bore the brunt of some of their attacks as well.) But he also lectured a few times at St. Mary’s Oratory in Rockford, an ICRSS parish. He was more of a historian than a theologian, at least at the talks I attended. And, yes, the parish did sell his books there.
St. John Cantius sells the Angelus Missals as well; are you going to hold that against them?
P
Phyllo
Guest
I have been threatened with banning because of my stated views and opinions and I wouldn’t want to be officially banned. I do enjoy the site.
In reading Mr. Davies book, which I found to be well documented, I have found a sincere love for the TLM. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.
The council never banned the TLM so I don’t know why some parishes absolutely refuse to allow the Mass to be said.
Also the changes to the Mass came about" in the spirit of Vatican II "whatever that means.
I just found his book enlightening. He brought out the differences in some translations of the Latin into English which were not quite right.
Also which is true that once the Latin was translated into the vernacular abuses could take place and he mentions some of these is his book. ( which I returned to the lender)
If you have a pre Vatican II missal it might behoove you to read it and today’s missal critically side by side to see the difference than you can make up your own mind. But then you said that you are a convert. Welcome Home!!! I was raised with the TLM and to me there is a big difference between the two .
I have been to Protestant services, on rare family occasions. Baptisms and confirmations.
I feel bad that the person is being confirmed into a Protestant religion. Protestants by their very name are protesting against the One True Faith.
As with similar threads/conversations this one is going to go in a circular motion. And in all honesty, I am amazed that this thread has remained open this long.
God Bless
P
ProVobis
Guest
To be fair, I have found others to be critical of the old missal’s Latin-English translations as well. One claimed that “hostia” should have been translated as “Victim” and not “host” in the Offertory, for example. Translation wars never die, it seems. Look at all the English Bibles out there.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Regarding the bold/red, no priest can be forced to do what is extraordinary and no priest can refuse to do what is ordinary. It has little or nothing to do with the parish.
The EF is the Extraordinary Form. Extraordinary means that it is not what is normal and expected. It is beyond what is normal and expected. No priest can be forced to do what is beyond ordinary. The OF is the Ordinary Form. Ordinary means that that it is what is normal and expected. No priest may refuse to do what is ordinary.
A priest has a right to say that he will not celebrate the EF for whatever reason and nobody can force him to do so. We have no say in the matter and must respect that. It is the priest’s right to do so for any reason. Similarly, no priest may refuse to say the OF if his ordinary (Bishop) commands that he do so.
It is about what is ordinary and extraordinary. A priest may choose to do what is extraordinary but may not be forced. If all priests at a parish say they prefer not to say the EF then that is the end of it.
-Tim-
T
TimothyH
Guest
Again, regarding the red/bold…
People born into the Protestant faith, those never exposed to the Catholic faith, are not protesting against anything regardless of what name they bear. Just because someone is “Protestant” doesn’t mean they are protesting anything.
Most of the Evangelicals I know here in the deep south would distance themselves from the mainline Protestant denominations as fast as they would from Catholicism.
-Tim-
F
FAB
Guest
Phyllo,
Although I can appreciate your enthusiasm for the Church, in you opposition to the reforms brought about by Vatican II you are harming the institution you claim to love.
Your book author I am suspicious of because of his stated appreciation of the SSPX a group who it is well known opposes the authority of the pope. No matter how well documented it may be, it is pushing a certain agenda based on person preference.
It is in error to say that the OF was as a result of the 'Spirit of VII" it came about after the council, but the mass, as indeed most of changes brought about by the were being discussed over a period of the previous 100 years and in some case even further. The need for the mass in the vernacular and to be able to be adjusted based on local custom was around for much longer length of time.
The structure of the mass is historically correct based on how it was celebrated in the early centuries of the Church. The EF could be said to less traditional that the OF. Any resemblance to a protestant service is that that their services were modeled after ours.
As far as the translation, the bible was translated from Greek into Latin and now into English. It is not a direct translation, are you going to stop reading or using yours because of that fact?
I also remember the EF and also remember the change to the OF. For the first time I remember being able to fully participate in the mass through prayer and song and it open up a new world and a new appreciation for mass. In the EF we were observers, and make no mistake that is what we were. Being able to participate in my own language fully in the sacrifice of the mass I truly treasure, and that sacrifice is not found in any Protestant service.
F
FAB
Guest
You need to remember that the term protestant come from protestant meaning to protest
P
ProVobis
Guest
In defense of Phyllo, it perhaps might be reminded that many bishops and parishes were not that open to the 1970 Missal when it was promulgated. It was only becoming ordinary because the old missal EVEN IN THE VERNACULAR was reportedly being “forbidden.”
T
TimothyH
Guest
It’s ordinary because those acting with the authority of the Pope say it is ordinary. What others are open to or not open to is besides the point.
When the Vatican declared the Ordinary Form to be ordinary, that was the end of it. When the Vatican allowed the Tridentine Mass and said it was extraordinary, that was the end of it - it was extraordinary because the Vatican said it was.
The OF is ordinary. The EF is extraordinary. It’s not difficult. When the Vatican said so, that was the end of it. If the Vatican reversed that tomorrow, then it would be reversed and that would be the end of it.
-Tim-
T
TimothyH
Guest
That might have been true in the years after 1522 but most Protestants are not protesting anything. They are simply going to Church as they have always gone to Church and believing what they have always believed, “Through no fault of their own.”
My mom is a Methodist. You can call her whatever you want but she will be the first to tell you that she never protested against the Catholic Church in all her life. All the protestants married to Catholics are not “Protesting against the Catholic Church” just because they are Protestants.
-Tim-
- Status