The difficulties we have with the NO Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter maurin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
maurin said:
The reason I said what I did is because I’m sincerely curious how closely you have read the documents of Vatican II. You know about collegiality, and you classify the disobedience of bishops today as a product of collegiality, but you don’t provide an explanation against the Council’s definition and explanation of it. I guess I’m curious how much you know of the Church’s “theory” is in this matter. Does the “theory” necessitate the bad “practice”?
Click to expand...
I suppose so. I’d put it this way:

The documents of Vatican II say X about topic Z, but after the Council, people (including bishops) do Y about Z instead. Is this the fault of Vatican II? Of the documents? Of the very topic Z?
Click to expand...
 
japhy said:
I suppose so. I’d put it this way:

The documents of Vatican II say X about topic Z, but after the Council, people (including bishops) do Y about Z instead. Is this the fault of Vatican II? Of the documents? Of the very topic Z?
Click to expand...
If the Bishops of the world and the priests of the world and the lay people of the world are supposed to be in Communion with the Pope, why is it that so many of them don’t act as if they are? Why is the Pope unable (or is unwilling) to discipline those who act in this Y fashion–except of course for those Bishops and Priests who conform themselves, in the midst of all this near-deadly confusion, to that which always was?

I think that’s a better question to be asking.
 
authenticity said:
The main difference I see is that the NO is more of a memorable celebration of the Paschal Mystery and the EF is participation in that Mystery. I agree with the priest’s response to this article. It isn’t appropriate to pose Christ Sacrifice against the Paschal Mystery in it’s entirety. Which is I think what you are pointing at here as well.

The real difference-- to use a literary device-- is between a simile and a metaphor. As you know, a simile is like something and a metaphor is something. The Mass is not like the Gospel, the Last Supper, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. It is the Mystery itself, the Living Word. This presents a very different attitude. The essential point of that attitude is that the Mass is not something we created to remember God, but something that was given to us to participate in God’s glory. We didn’t create the Mass any more than we created trees and birds.

That isn’t entirely lost in the NO, but it certainly has been diluted.
Click to expand...
Yes, diluted and streamlined.
 
japhy said:
I suppose so. I’d put it this way:

The documents of Vatican II say X about topic Z, but after the Council, people (including bishops) do Y about Z instead. Is this the fault of Vatican II? Of the documents? Of the very topic Z?
Click to expand...
Hi Japhy,
Thats the million dollar question isn’t it? Why they changed x to z?
I mean, if x was always x then Bishops wouldn’t have had a z to change into a y.
It would have just been the constant x which had never been changed into anything, so how could the Bishops change x? By first changing it into a z, then once its changed into a z you can change it into a y or a k or a L. Thats what we have today, nearly every letter of the alphabet, except x. And x is illegal. Or, not 'cannonically …something or other…
maurin said:
If the Bishops of the world and the priests of the world and the lay people of the world are supposed to be in Communion with the Pope, why is it that so many of them don’t act as if they are? Why is the Pope unable (or is unwilling) to discipline those who act in this Y fashion–except of course for those Bishops and Priests who conform themselves, in the midst of all this near-deadly confusion, to that which always was?

I think that’s a better question to be asking.
Click to expand...
Exactly. thats what everyone wants to know - why?
 
Lisa44 said:
Hi Japhy,
Thats the million dollar question isn’t it? Why they changed x to z?
Click to expand...
Japhy did not say VII changed x to z. Reread. She said that it said x about topic z, not that it changed x to z.

As to your question, the Council met for the same reason councils have been meeting for the last 2000 years: to address the challenges of the time. The sixties were a revolutionary time in the world. Since then, world events have accelerated at an unprecedented level.
 
pnewton said:
Japhy did not say VII changed x to z. Reread. She said that it said x about topic z, not that it changed x to z.

As to your question, the Council met for the same reason councils have been meeting for the last 2000 years: to address the challenges of the time. The sixties were a revolutionary time in the world. Since then, world events have accelerated at an unprecedented level.
Click to expand...
Did the change to the Mass undo the spiritual underpinnings to some extent? Did it alter that which held things together, thus causing so many problems both directly from within the Church and indirectly, within our world? Or did it have nothing to do with it all? Was it all a mere coincidence?
 
See, I really believe that the Mass holds things together–or not. If it’s not done right.
 
pnewton said:
Japhy did not say VII changed x to z. Reread. She said that it said x about topic z, not that it changed x to z.

As to your question, the Council met for the same reason councils have been meeting for the last 2000 years: to address the challenges of the time. The sixties were a revolutionary time in the world. Since then, world events have accelerated at an unprecedented level.
Click to expand...
I think japhy’s a man…he mentioned something about his wife somewhere sometime back aways…

Let’s not forget that in the 60’s the “biggest challenge of the time” was Communism. For some reason the Council was oddly silent on the topic.

I’m not sure lisa “meant” to say that VII changed x to z–except of course in the cases we’ve already been discusing on this and other threads-- so Lisa can either confim or deny. I read her as meaning why, if the Council docs said one x, then why did the priests and bishops do y? (why? because we like you…m-o-u-s-e!!!)

The reason why is because the documents’ ambiguity’s. And the fact that Paul VI and JPII, instead of insisting on their own teachings (Paul VI affirmed the reception of the Blessed on the tongue while kneeling, JPII had a decent run in Dominici Cenae) but caved and allowed the exact opposite to become the norm.
 
maurin said:
I think japhy’s a man…he mentioned something about his wife somewhere sometime back aways…

Let’s not forget that in the 60’s the “biggest challenge of the time” was Communism. For some reason the Council was oddly silent on the topic.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification. I do not know that Communism was the biggest problem, but it was a biggie of course VII did not end every thing. The Church’s social doctrine illuminates with an unchanging light the new problems that are constantly emerging. The process goes on.

BTW - So no one thinks I am trying to trip anyone, “the Church’s social doctrine illuminates with an unchanging light the new problems that are constantly emerging,” is a phrase from the Holy Father’s newest encyclical.
 
pnewton said:
Thank you for the clarification. I do not know that Communism was the biggest problem, but it was a biggie of course VII did not end every thing. The Church’s social doctrine illuminates with an unchanging light the new problems that are constantly emerging. The process goes on.
Click to expand...
I remember something about some Bay of Pigs, and the 2 world superpowers with their fingers poised above those nasty red buttons, but probably not the most immediate of the biggie proplems from the late 50’s until the “Detente” of my adolescence.
BTW - So no one thinks I am trying to trip anyone, “the Church’s social doctrine illuminates with an unchanging light the new problems that are constantly emerging,” is a phrase from the Holy Father’s newest encyclical.
Click to expand...
no, don’t worry, noone would think you were trying to trip anyone else up, pnewton (sincerely). But we all were suitably impressed!😛
 
It is good for me when I’m ignored in threads like this. It’s OK, really it’s much better that way.

But it’s not a bad thread. Who gave it the one star? I tried to even things out a bit by voting “excellent” to compensate a little…
 
Jacafamala said:
It is good for me when I’m ignored in threads like this. It’s OK, really it’s much better that way…
Click to expand...
I apologize if you took it personally. It is just that I believe when I posted what I intended, if a response does not open new lines of inquiry, I do not respond. I have found one good way to keep balance between arguing and debating is knowing when to stop. I did not answer because I have none. I consider all your questions ultimately unknowable and speculative. Surely it is possible, but there remains no way of knowing how much, when and what. I deemed our use of the phrase “mere coincidence” to be indicative that you have a strong opinion on the matter and I do not.

I never intended ill will by not responding, only peace.
 
Jacafamala said:
See, I really believe that the Mass holds things together–or not. If it’s not done right.
Click to expand...
pnewton said:
I consider all your questions ultimately unknowable and speculative. Surely it is possible, but there remains no way of knowing how much, when and what…
Click to expand...
In light of Jacafamala’s statement above and your response (I realize it is a statement and not a question, but a statement made in order to clarify what she said previously), It is not clear if you are saying whether or not you believe that it is unknowable that the Mass (I’m not referring here to any particular Form), the public prayer of the Church, is unifying. Clarification would help, I think.
 
pnewton said:
I apologize if you took it personally. It is just that I believe when I posted what I intended, if a response does not open new lines of inquiry, I do not respond. I have found one good way to keep balance between arguing and debating is knowing when to stop. I did not answer because I have none. I consider all your questions ultimately unknowable and speculative. Surely it is possible, but there remains no way of knowing how much, when and what. I deemed our use of the phrase “mere coincidence” to be indicative that you have a strong opinion on the matter and I do not.

I never intended ill will by not responding, only peace.
Click to expand...
No, it’s OK no offense taken. 🙂

I guess more to the point is how these things couldn’t be connected. If the Mass really is all that it claims to be; all that it really is, I mean. But it’s alright; I don’t really want to pull you off onto some tangent regarding the difficulties of the new Mass that you don’t want to delve into. To my mind, it all hinges on the Mass, mess up the Mass and everything gets messed with as a direct result.

I’m just thinkin’…
 
maurin said:
In light of Jacafamala’s statement above and your response (I realize it is a statement and not a question, but a statement made in order to clarify what she said previously), It is not clear if you are saying whether or not you believe that it is unknowable that the Mass (I’m not referring here to any particular Form), the public prayer of the Church, is unifying. Clarification would help, I think.
Click to expand...
Simply that change in a society are too complex to assign blame or credit to. Even when a correlation can be shown to exist, it is hard to know which is the cause and which is the effect. As was said
To my mind, it all hinges on the Mass, mess up the Mass and everything gets messed with as a direct result
Click to expand...
Yes, a messed up Mass will result in messed up beliefs. However, messed up beliefs can also give us a messed up Mass.

In theory. I am not conceding one way or another an opinion on the Mass today.
 
pnewton said:
Simply that change in a society are too complex to assign blame or credit to. Even when a correlation can be shown to exist, it is hard to know which is the cause and which is the effect. As was said
Click to expand...
so then it isn’t “unknowable” as you said, but you are of the opinion that it’s difficult to know? If that is correct, I couldn’t really offer you any argument, p. (as much as I enjoy arguing with you!!! :p)
Yes, a messed up Mass will result in messed up beliefs. However, messed up beliefs can also give us a messed up Mass.

In theory. I am not conceding one way or another an opinion on the Mass today.
Click to expand...
I think we can all agree *to some degree *with that statement.

Thanks for responding to my questions!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top