The difficulties we have with the NO Mass

[pnewton]

you’re right it does…which Traditions are you preserving, pnewton? the 40 years of confusion or the almost 2 millenia of knowing who we are? That’s all I’m trying figure out, all I’m asking for an answer to.

I will list a few:

The articles of the Nicene Creed
The value of life
The authority of the Bishop of Rome
Obedience to the Church
Authority of the local Ordinary

And how about the laity just following where our Holy Father leads instead of the Protestant tradition of allowing every individual to determine for themselves what Scripture says, or in the case of Tradition, what Tradition says.

It is the Holy Father, not a French Bishop who is given the guardianship of Tradition. I hold to the same Tradition that our leader holds.

 

[maurin]

I will list a few:

The articles of the Nicene Creed
The value of life
The authority of the Bishop of Rome
Obedience to the Church
Authority of the local Ordinary

And how about the laity just following where our Holy Father leads instead of the Protestant tradition of allowing every individual to determine for themselves what Scripture says, or in the case of Tradition, what Tradition says.

It is the Holy Father, not a French Bishop who is given the guardianship of Tradition. I hold to the same Tradition that our leader holds.

so that’s just what I thought…conserving the confusion. Hey, it took a little Italian nun to get the Papacy out of Avignon and back to Rome. The nerve of that…Saint.

 

[maurin]

Good luck, pnewton. This is a rhetorical question that maurin uses as a bludgeon when someone wants to call themselves something that he disapproves of.

I’m going to start using “orthodox” myself, and see if I have any better luck with that.

nice try Paul…yup…nice try. It’s a swing, but a miss.

 

[maurin]

I addressed it, I think, in my previous post.

you’re right you did…I meant to mention that but was typing fast. Sorry about that japhy. What I meant to say is that you are the only one who has. That’s why I said that we’re not so far apart.

The so-called “spirit” is, in my estimation, the “sense of the 60’s”, if you know what I mean. It’s the freewheeling attitude of the 1960’s applied to the Church.

The modernists, japhy, we already had with us…why else would St. Pius X feel the need to promulgate Pascendi? I don’t blame it on the '60’s, I blame it on laxity of the hierarchy. I am oversimplifying, I know, and I also know that I could be wrong.

I do distinguish between the usurper “spirit” and the Church’s Tradition and its organic development. But Pope John XXIII didn’t really intend on “developing” doctrine at the Council, I thought:

I suppose you do…but you appear, or maybe seem, to just “let it slide” (that "spirit"of the Council). And yes, it was a Pastoral Council. No arguments here.

The manner in which sacred doctrine is spread, this having been established, it becomes clear how much is expected from the Council in regard to doctrine. That is, the Twenty-first Ecumenical Council, which will draw upon the effective and important wealth of juridical, liturgical, apostolic, and administrative experiences, wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will. {decent premise}

…

The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. {faulty assumption, I guess}

For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.
I’m sure you’ve read that before. I just wanted to bring it up for context. I believe John XXIII meant what he said. The Council, then, must must MUST be received and interpreted through that lens.

japhy, i’m just a peasant, like I pointed out before. I don’t have the education you and some others have (and that some other ones pretend they have), so when it gets down to it, my arguments are from a prole out in the trenches trying to shed my old man disordered soul and to put on Christ…

 

[japhy]

The modernists, japhy, we already had with us…why else would St. Pius X feel the need to promulgate Pascendi? I don’t blame it on the '60’s, I blame it on laxity of the hierarchy.

Ok, it was a combination, then. The modernist agenda and the opportunity the 1960’s provided.

I suppose you do…but you appear, or maybe seem, to just “let it slide” (that "spirit"of the Council).

Can you tell me how I seem to you to be letting it slide? I suppose it could be the fact that I don’t attend an SSPX chapel, or the Extraordinary Form regularly or even exclusively. (I’ve only been to a half-dozen EF Masses. I’d like to go more often, but right now it’s not feasible.) My parish celebrates the Ordinary Form exclusively, and sometimes not very well. I’ve been called a liturgical policeman by my pastor for emailing him about visiting priests pouring the Precious Blood from one chalice to another. I eschew the terms “lector” and “Eucharistic minister” (and get funny looks for it some of the time, I would bet). I am a lay reader at Mass once every two months or so. I do it because if someone’s going to do it, it should be done well and reverently, and I’ve been told I do it well and reverently. (It’s nice to know people are paying attention to the Scriptures proclaimed at Mass.)

I long for Latin and Gregorian chant and ad orientem worship. I under one species on the tongue (standing); I receive from the Chalice only on very rare special occasions when, in my estimation, the enhanced sign value truly is beneficial for my soul. The last such time was on Corpus Christi. Before then, it had been several months. (My bishop requires both forms be offered at every Mass. I’m not a fan.)

That’s just a bit of where I’m coming from.

japhy, i’m just a peasant, like I pointed out before. I don’t have the education you and some others have

What education do you think I have? I’m a computer science major without a college degree yet (but that’s partly because my college seems to have a thing for not working well with me). My “Praying the Mass” book is written by a layman without funny letters after his name… as if those alone assure a reader that the author knows what he’s talking about.

Apart from “standard” catechesis growing up (I was born in 1981) through my parish and through my parents, the vast majority of my catechesis has been self-taught over the past 3 years or so. I find Church documents and I read them. Almost 100% of my reading list over the past 3 years has been either Magisterial documents or religious books. And every now and then I get an insight, thanks be to God. No “education” required.

I don’t know if I’m classified as a “prole”… I have an essentially 9-to-5 job five days a week, writing code and doing database stuff. I’ve taken one college course on religion in my life, and that was an elective in New Testament literature at a local secular university (where I ended up defending the Church’s teaching on the inspiration and inerrancy of the whole of Scripture, including the Gospels, in my two exams).

 

[Lisa44]

(this is just an aside, Japhy- what do you do when people reach out to hold your hand?)

 

[pnewton]

Good luck, pnewton. This is a rhetorical question that maurin uses as a bludgeon when someone wants to call themselves something that he disapproves of.

Put the popcorn away. I will let my post and his be sufficient.

 

[maurin]

Ok, it was a combination, then. The modernist agenda and the opportunity the 1960’s provided.

the opportunity John XXIII and Paul VI provided: John XXIII allowed a few years of preparatory schema (is that the right word?) to be cast aside…

Can you tell me how I seem to you to be letting it slide?

it goes back to the comment I made a couple of posts ago which said “noone is shocked” by the abuses anymore. It’s as if they are par for the course. And many of them are. And some of them, eventually, became the norm.

I suppose it could be the fact that I don’t attend an SSPX chapel, or the Extraordinary Form regularly or even exclusively. (I’ve only been to a half-dozen EF Masses. I’d like to go more often, but right now it’s not feasible.) My parish celebrates the Ordinary Form exclusively, and sometimes not very well. I’ve been called a liturgical policeman by my pastor for emailing him about visiting priests pouring the Precious Blood from one chalice to another. I eschew the terms “lector” and “Eucharistic minister” (and get funny looks for it some of the time, I would bet). I am a lay reader at Mass once every two months or so. I do it because if someone’s going to do it, it should be done well and reverently, and I’ve been told I do it well and reverently. (It’s nice to know people are paying attention to the Scriptures proclaimed at Mass.)

I long for Latin and Gregorian chant and ad orientem worship. I under one species on the tongue (standing); I receive from the Chalice only on very rare special occasions when, in my estimation, the enhanced sign value truly is beneficial for my soul. The last such time was on Corpus Christi. Before then, it had been several months. (My bishop requires both forms be offered at every Mass. I’m not a fan.)

That’s just a bit of where I’m coming from.

What education do you think I have? I’m a computer science major without a college degree yet (but that’s partly because my college seems to have a thing for not working well with me). My “Praying the Mass” book is written by a layman without funny letters after his name… as if those alone assure a reader that the author knows what he’s talking about.

most of us peasants have never attempted a book, japhy. And education doesn’t, as I’m sure you know, mean someone has an intellect.

Apart from “standard” catechesis growing up (I was born in 1981)

(I graduated HS in '81! I thought you were at least my age, japhy. Your intellect and ‘e’-verbal skills come across as more advanced in years!)

through my parish and through my parents, the vast majority of my catechesis has been self-taught over the past 3 years or so. I find Church documents and I read them. Almost 100% of my reading list over the past 3 years has been either Magisterial documents or religious books. And every now and then I get an insight, thanks be to God. No “education” required.

I don’t know if I’m classified as a “prole”… I have an essentially 9-to-5 job five days a week, writing code and doing database stuff. I’ve taken one college course on religion in my life, and that was an elective in New Testament literature at a local secular university (where I ended up defending the Church’s teaching on the inspiration and inerrancy of the whole of Scripture, including the Gospels, in my two exams).

At the end of the day, japhy, I think what it comes down to–for me, at least–is that Catholics used to be Catholic. And I’m not talking about the Catholic ghettoes. One side of my family lived in them when they came to this country. The other side did not. They had money. Money talked. I was born in '63. I remember my grandmother and her sister and sisters in-law bringing me to the Church once a week for the Rosary–and the CHurch was packed. I remember my grandmother teaching me my prayers while making bread and pasta (homemade, she had this machine with a crank…I loved to crank it), my grandfather coming over before the sun came up on Sunday mornings to bring us to Church (and we’d better been ready to go, or no crumb buns from Mario’s after Mass). All of that was gone by the early 70’s. Both my grandparents were gone by the early 80’s. My grandmother has one sibling left now, she’s in her mid eighties, and I asked her about why we stopped going to Church (for some reason I think it was on Thurs nights, but maybe it was Friday nights?), and she said because the Priest stopped opening up the doors. She said she stopped caring when it seemed like the Priest stopped caring. I wonder how many in my age group and a little older have similar memories?

I’m not quite sure what my point is, but if you look in there real hard, I’m almost sure there’s a point to be found.

 

[maurin]

Put the popcorn away. I will let my post and his be sufficient.

pat yourself on the back much, p?

 

[japhy]

what do you do when people reach out to hold your hand?

Some people do that in my parish, but among themselves (as in, among families). Myself and my wife, our hands our usually simply folded in front of ourselves in prayer. I often have my eyes closed and/or my head bowed at such times.

 

[japhy]

the opportunity John XXIII and Paul VI provided: John XXIII allowed a few years of preparatory schema (is that the right word?) to be cast aside.

I’ll admit, upon reading some documents and speeches of Pope Paul VI, that he was woefully misguided about the liturgical reforms. In two addresses in November of 1969 (here and here… a bit depressing to read, sorry) he first assures us that despite “the introduction of the liturgy of the new rite of the Mass”:
Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result.
And then the next week he laments “this many-sided inconvenience” which touches “our hereditary religious patrimony”:
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.

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?

The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.
So much for the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which said the faithful should continue to use Latin in the common responses and chants, and that Gregorian chant be honored as the proper chant of the Roman Rite. As I’ve said before, it is manifestly clear that the Consilium failed to properly implement the Constitution.

it goes back to the comment I made a couple of posts ago which said “noone is shocked” by the abuses anymore.

I am shocked. Since I am no longer ignorant, it is often difficult for me to prayerfully assist at Mass when I see so many aberrations and abuses.

So, to get back to your claim: do I seem to you to be “letting it slide” because I’m not rousing enough other people to be shocked?

most of us peasants have never attempted a book, japhy.

It takes a lot of hard work, I can tell you that much. (Being furloughed to a four-day work week doesn’t hurt, though.) And, just to be clear, what do you really mean by the word “peasant”? Are you a country bumpkin? Are you crude and uncouth and ill-bred? It might help me to have the right mental image of you as we continue our discussion…

(I graduated HS in '81! I thought you were at least my age, japhy. Your intellect and ‘e’-verbal skills come across as more advanced in years!)

… especially since you had the wrong mental image of me!

I thank God and my parents (and my seven brothers and sisters) for my intellect and writing skills. I realize I might be considered a rare thing among people (or Catholics, specifically) my age.

Catholics used to be Catholic. … Church once a week for the Rosary – and the CHurch was packed. … my grandmother teaching me my prayers while making bread and pasta … All of that was gone by the early 70’s. … the Priest stopped opening up the doors. She said she stopped caring when it seemed like the Priest stopped caring.

To paraphrase Father John Zuhlsdorf, then… the problem is that the Catholic identity has been nearly completely erased and replaced with something else (that may sound and look Catholic to the untrained eye). No more devotions. No more penitence and mortification. No more prayer. No more accepting the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

You and I both want to know: why did “being Catholic” change in appearance (and substance!) so drastically? Is that an accurate distillation of your point?

 

[maurin]

I have to say, I’m beginning to enjoy this conversation, japhy!!!

I am shocked. Since I am no longer ignorant, it is often difficult for me to prayerfully assist at Mass when I see so many aberrations and abuses.

So, to get back to your claim: do I seem to you to be “letting it slide” because I’m not rousing enough other people to be shocked?

Maybe…I’m not sure. But I am sure I wouldn’t express it that way. Something about that quote from someone whose name I’ve forgotten…‘all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to say nothing…’ or whatever the proper quote is. But for all the talking that has been done, from JPII (Dominici Caenae–I know I mispelled it), to Our Present Holiness, Benedict XVI, VERY LITTLE seems to be changing.

It takes a lot of hard work, I can tell you that much. (Being furloughed to a four-day work week doesn’t hurt, though.) And, just to be clear, what do you really mean by the word “peasant”? Are you a country bumpkin? Are you crude and uncouth and ill-bred? It might help me to have the right mental image of you as we continue our discussion…

… especially since you had the wrong mental image of me!

And I’m sure you understand I intended to compliment you! But let’s see, me…crude and uncouth, probably. Ill-bred? no. Both my parents were very well educated, and both well respected in their respective fields. But it should be obvious that I operate more from the gut/heart than from the head. Gets me into some trouble, but most people who get to know me overlook all that. That’s what I meant by peasant. I was raised in the suburbs of NYC, but out of all the places I’ve lived, my favorite is Tyler, Texas–out in the woods and on the lake, no artificial light interfering with the night sky.

Let us be clear on this, japhy: at 45, I know my faults. and if you think I’m “difficult” now, glad you didn’t know me at 35. At 55 I hope to be socially acceptable.

But when it’s all said and done japhy, I repeat I’m glad we’ve taken the time to have this conversation. Although there some important things that separate us, there is much more that does not. I pray fervently every day for a good outcome of the upcoming Doctrinal Talks.

I thank God and my parents (and my seven brothers and sisters) for my intellect and writing skills. I realize I might be considered a rare thing among people (or Catholics, specifically) my age.

To paraphrase Father John Zuhlsdorf, then… the problem is that the Catholic identity has been nearly completely erased and replaced with something else (that may sound and look Catholic to the untrained eye). No more devotions. No more penitence and mortification. No more prayer. No more accepting the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

You and I both want to know: why did “being Catholic” change in appearance (and substance!) so drastically? Is that an accurate distillation of your point?

appearance is fleeting, accidental. Substance–that’s the word that more accurately describes it.

 

[japhy]

Maybe…I’m not sure. But I am sure I wouldn’t express it that way.

Well, please don’t classify me as “letting it slide” until you can articulate why.

But for all the talking that has been done, from JPII … to Our Present Holiness, Benedict XVI, VERY LITTLE seems to be changing.

I am sad that Pope Benedict granted the CITH indult to Poland, after years of Pope John Paul II refusing to do so.

Pope Benedict has been making strategic moves to rein in the liturgical (and doctrinal) madness we have been plagued with for decades. His appointments to the CDWDS are very promising.

But there’s a deeper problem. There are some bishops and many priests who have been accustomed to a Vatican hierarchy which doesn’t require, simply proposes or suggests. They won’t be easily moved. And even in the face of direct orders (like Redemptionis Sacramentum from 2004), these bishops and priests flat-out refuse to obey the Supreme Pontiff. (This is not because of Vatican II… I’m sure these disobedient clergy have not read Lumen Gentium 25, for example.)

So even if the Pope were to make some universal decree concerning the liturgy, many bishops, priests, religious, and laity would disregard it. Indeed, such things have been happening for decades.

(An optimistic guess of mine is that the Pope is trying to do this pastorally, to avoid simply driving ignorant Catholics away from the one true Church of Jesus Christ. The Church’s mission is the salvation of souls, and I must believe that the Pope’s concerns about a “leaner” Church in the future do not spring from a recognition of the inevitability of driving out millions and millions of decent, albeit ignorant, Catholics.)

I operate more from the gut/heart than from the head. Gets me into some trouble, but most people who get to know me overlook all that. That’s what I meant by peasant.

Okay.

I’m glad we’ve taken the time to have this conversation. Although there some important things that separate us, there is much more that does not. I pray fervently every day for a good outcome of the upcoming Doctrinal Talks.

Thank you, I think. (I beg your pardon, but I got a feeling reading those words that there’s some “separated brethren” – in Vatican II terminology – business between us, as if you’re a Catholic and I’m a Protestant. If I’m mistaken, I apologize for bringing it up.)

 

[maurin]

Well, please don’t classify me as “letting it slide” until you can articulate why.

then don’t selectively quote…I did write more, didn’t I? wait,let me scroll back and check. yup, uh huh, I did! (let’s get past selectively quoting, what do you say japh–is it a deal?)

I am sad that Pope Benedict granted the CITH indult to Poland, after years of Pope John Paul II refusing to do so.

I’m sadder Paul VI didn’t stick to his guns and JPII basically allowed it to be the law of the land.

Pope Benedict has been making strategic moves to rein in the liturgical (and doctrinal) madness we have been plagued with for decades. His appointments to the CDWDS are very promising.

But there’s a deeper problem. There are some bishops and many priests who have been accustomed to a Vatican hierarchy which doesn’t require, simply proposes or suggests. They won’t be easily moved. And even in the face of direct orders (like Redemptionis Sacramentum from 2004), these bishops and priests flat-out refuse to obey the Supreme Pontiff. (This is not because of Vatican II… I’m sure these disobedient clergy have not read Lumen Gentium 25, for example.)

what do they call it…ahhhh yes–collegiality! it’s wonderfully crippling, isn’t it?

So even if the Pope were to make some universal decree concerning the liturgy, many bishops, priests, religious, and laity would disregard it. Indeed, such things have been happening for decades.

well, the Popes have made it easy to do so…afterall, the Council disregarded 2 millenia of solid Teaching when it changed the definition of the Church, among other things. Monkey see, monkey do, monkey get in trouble too…My mother was fond of quoting that to my brothers and me. When we were little of course. It’d be silly now.

(An optimistic guess of mine is that the Pope is trying to do this pastorally, to avoid simply driving ignorant Catholics away from the one true Church of Jesus Christ. The Church’s mission is the salvation of souls, and I must believe that the Pope’s concerns about a “leaner” Church in the future do not spring from a recognition of the inevitability of driving out millions and millions of decent, albeit ignorant, Catholics.)

(yes, but the reality still stands…many of the Parishes are empty, which is why they’re being sold off–among other reasons.)

Okay.

ok, now that we’ve got that settled!

Thank you, I think. (I beg your pardon, but I got a feeling reading those words that there’s some “separated brethren” – in Vatican II terminology – business between us, as if you’re a Catholic and I’m a Protestant. If I’m mistaken, I apologize for bringing it up.)

you’re mistaken. maybe there’s a bit of a peasant inside ole japhy too! (no apology necessary, japhy. except for up above in that first paragraph.)

 

[japhy]

then don’t selectively quote…I did write more, didn’t I? wait,let me scroll back and check. yup, uh huh, I did! (let’s get past selectively quoting, what do you say japh–is it a deal?)

"maurin:

Something about that quote from someone whose name I’ve forgotten… ‘all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to say nothing…’ or whatever the proper quote is. But for all the talking that has been done, from JPII (Dominici Caenae–I know I mispelled it), to Our Present Holiness, Benedict XVI, VERY LITTLE seems to be changing.

When I first read that, I didn’t see you as speaking of me. I read it as a critique of current and previous popes. Now I see that you were applying the quote to me.

ahhhh yes–collegiality! it’s wonderfully crippling, isn’t it?

Could you explain your dissatisfaction with the Council’s definition of collegiality? One-liners aren’t good for discussion.

 

[maurin]

But there’s a deeper problem. There are some bishops and many priests who have been accustomed to a Vatican hierarchy which doesn’t require, simply proposes or suggests. They won’t be easily moved. And even in the face of direct orders (like Redemptionis Sacramentum from 2004), these bishops and priests flat-out refuse to obey the Supreme Pontiff. (This is not because of Vatican II… I’m sure these disobedient clergy have not read Lumen Gentium 25, for example.)

So even if the Pope were to make some universal decree concerning the liturgy, many bishops, priests, religious, and laity would disregard it. Indeed, such things have been happening for decades.

what do they call it…ahhhh yes–collegiality! it’s wonderfully crippling, isn’t it?

Could you explain your dissatisfaction with the Council’s definition of collegiality? One-liners aren’t good for discussion.

Actually, I still don’t see the need, japhy. I think you had already made the argument against it–and if not the theory, then certainly the practice. But that’s the problem, isn’t it in the Modern Church? It’s not necessarily Her theories, but her practices. And the practices have come close to devestating the Faith.

 

[maurin]

One-liners aren’t good for discussion.

(as an aside, you’ve never read Peter Maurin’s “Easy Essays”–or have you, and just didn’t like them?) (I should add that I do realize that I am no** Peter Maurin.)

 

[japhy]

(as an aside, you’ve never read Peter Maurin’s “Easy Essays”–or have you, and just didn’t like them?) (I should add that I do realize that I am no** Peter Maurin.)

I don’t know who Peter Maurin is (nor do I know who you are, for that matter) and I have never read his “Easy Essays”. (I just looked him up… I’d heard of Dorothy Day, but not – to my recollection – of Peter Maurin. His “Easy Essays” are interesting.)

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”?

 

[authenticity]

Generally speaking, I see the “Paschal Mystery” theology as encompassing the other one. It doesn’t take away from Jesus’s sacrificial act, but it recognizes that the Passion wasn’t the end of his work. “[Jesus Christ] was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” (Rom. 4:25)

No resurrection, no justification. What good would that have done us?

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.

 

[maurin]

I don’t know who Peter Maurin is (nor do I know who you are, for that matter) and I have never read his “Easy Essays”. (I just looked him up… I’d heard of Dorothy Day, but not – to my recollection – of Peter Maurin. His “Easy Essays” are interesting.)

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”?

You’re asking me if we ought to throw the baby out with the bath water, if (to borrow one of your phrases) your question can be distilled that way. Is this correct?

Peter Maurin, in my opinion, is amazing. If your local library carries the book (my edition is by Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, 1984) and you have the inclination, read it. Peter wrote the Essays for the Catholic Worker Newspaper between the 30’s and 40’s, and the edition I have was originally published in '61.

The Angelus (SSPX magazine) did a feature on him sometime in the early 90’s.