B
bear06
Guest
I hear it quite often in the 2 churches I attend. Both Masses are “Novus Ordo”.
- Status
B
bear06
Guest
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Andreas Hofer:
As you note, the rite itself is fine, so why not just do what Pope Benedict is doing - get it right?
What I’m hearing from Rome via Relevant Radio is that Pope Benedict and many of the original Vatican II participants still believe in the reforms of Vatican II but they acknowledge the execution of the changes have not been taking place as intended these past 40 years and enough is enough. It seems the focus from the Synod will be directed more toward cleaning house, so to speak, reeducation everyone about the original intent of the reforms and making sure they get taught in the seminaries correctly this time, as well as seeing to it that parishes fix things.
To me, this is clear evidence of Jesus’ promise, that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from teaching error in faith and morals. Apparently the Spirit is revealing to the powers that be just how off track things have gone. The Spirit has not indicated things need to be reversed, but it clearly indicates things need to be corrected. Thanks to Pope Benedict, I have faith this will happen.
I also have faith that what the traditionalists seek, the release from the condition of approval by local bishops in order to offer the TLM, will take place with this Pope. And that, too, is clear evidence to me of the Spirit’s guiding hand in matters because the TLM is an absolutely beautiful service which is living history for so many faithful, I can’t imagine it would ever be eliminated completely (just look at JPIIs funeral)…it runs the risk of being practiced only by an elite group of priests under unique circumstances, but it’s so rich in tradition, I just don’t believe Mother Church would take that opportunity away from us and guard it to herself.
I’m hoping that once Pope Benedict lifts that restriction and issues serious reforms for the NO the conflict between the traditionalists and moderate liberals will lessen significantly. The radical liberals of the faith, however, will never be happy or quiet because they are seeking changes from the Church which are not within Her power to change.
Then my question becomes, why revert back to pre-vatican II if the problem lies in its celebration?
As you note, the rite itself is fine, so why not just do what Pope Benedict is doing - get it right?
What I’m hearing from Rome via Relevant Radio is that Pope Benedict and many of the original Vatican II participants still believe in the reforms of Vatican II but they acknowledge the execution of the changes have not been taking place as intended these past 40 years and enough is enough. It seems the focus from the Synod will be directed more toward cleaning house, so to speak, reeducation everyone about the original intent of the reforms and making sure they get taught in the seminaries correctly this time, as well as seeing to it that parishes fix things.
To me, this is clear evidence of Jesus’ promise, that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from teaching error in faith and morals. Apparently the Spirit is revealing to the powers that be just how off track things have gone. The Spirit has not indicated things need to be reversed, but it clearly indicates things need to be corrected. Thanks to Pope Benedict, I have faith this will happen.
I also have faith that what the traditionalists seek, the release from the condition of approval by local bishops in order to offer the TLM, will take place with this Pope. And that, too, is clear evidence to me of the Spirit’s guiding hand in matters because the TLM is an absolutely beautiful service which is living history for so many faithful, I can’t imagine it would ever be eliminated completely (just look at JPIIs funeral)…it runs the risk of being practiced only by an elite group of priests under unique circumstances, but it’s so rich in tradition, I just don’t believe Mother Church would take that opportunity away from us and guard it to herself.
I’m hoping that once Pope Benedict lifts that restriction and issues serious reforms for the NO the conflict between the traditionalists and moderate liberals will lessen significantly. The radical liberals of the faith, however, will never be happy or quiet because they are seeking changes from the Church which are not within Her power to change.
T
thistle
Guest
hilde the dog:
Forgive me if I am reading you the wrong way but are you saying I have pained your Saturday. I opened this thread to find out the overall arguments for and against the two Masses because of all the heated exchanges I had seen in other threads. This is not supposed to be a provocative thread. I am 57 and became a Catholic 14 years ago. I want to learn as much as possible so if there are debates I can understand the issues and emotions of the posters.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
hilde the dog:
Every family has fights a disagreements. It doesn’t mean we don’t love each other.
I am amazed that people come here and have their outside lives disrupted by a website. When things look down go hug a real person. We are going to debate, understand that none of it is personal.
I think you need to understand that CA is like a big holiday dinner. We say things here to other Catholics that we would never say outside our family.
Every family has fights a disagreements. It doesn’t mean we don’t love each other.
I am amazed that people come here and have their outside lives disrupted by a website. When things look down go hug a real person. We are going to debate, understand that none of it is personal.
T
thistle
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
I think I’ll try the hug thing. I’ll call my daughter. It just upsets me when instead of debating people tend to get nasty and also use bad language. For me that’s not real debating. Why can’t folks make their point strongly but politely? I can’t imagine Jesus would approve of some of the things that get said in these threads. Okay! Time to call my daughter for a hug - she’s upstairs!
H
harinkj
Guest
Although the Tridentine Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass in the vernacular are often labeled as conservative versus liberal, there are some of us who might be liberal in some aspects of life, yet like the Tridentine Mass. 
It would be nice if both masses were available to all people. :clapping:
It would be nice if both masses were available to all people. :clapping:
- Kathie :bowdown:
T
thistle
Guest
I have no problem with that. I have not experienced a Latin Mass so it would be interesting to attend such a Mass for the first time.Although the Tridentine Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass in the vernacular are often labeled as conservative versus liberal, there are some of us who might be liberal in some aspects of life, yet like the Tridentine Mass.
It would be nice if both masses were available to all people. :clapping:
- Kathie :bowdown:
By the way, while I remember I don’t know if anyone saw the interview on EWTN with Mike Arroyo interviewing then Cardinal Ratzinger. It was some time ago but they replayed it shortly after he became Pope. Mike asked him outright about the Latin Mass. He was not in favour of the Latin Mass per se but said he felt a Mass could have something in Latin in it but he said people should be able to hear Mass in their own language.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
When you are perfect…
We all have our ways of debating. Some get nasty, better to handle that with humor. Nothing better to lighten up a nasty person than to smile at them and be light.
I think you are taking this too seriously. Hug your daughter, she loves you. Actually, and this is not meant to be mean, just honest. No one here loves you. They may love you as a Christian but really no one loves you for you.
Real people beat the internet anytime.
T
thistle
Guest
netmil(name removed by moderator):
N
netmilsmom
Guest
thistle said:
S
Servus_Pio_XII
Guest
Yes, but do think about this for a second: who in the Church to-day were the apostles equivicable to? Not laity, not even priests, but Bishops and a Pope. Therefore, the way in which they received is no model for the way which we should receive.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Servus Pio XII:
Not so. In the early Church, it was given to the LAITY. Until the 12th Century, it was given to the LAITY. It’s been given to the LAITY for far longer than it hasn’t been. You need, once again, to read Church history.
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
And what significance does that have, Kirk? None, doctrinally speaking.
Just because a discipline existed in the Church for X number of centuries does not mean it’s superior to another. You don’t really want to go down that path, do you? Could lead you to all sorts of nasty places. :bigyikes:
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
For one, my diocese does not offer the rite of Paul VI. Only the rite of Fr. X. My college experience was roughly the same. So I went where at least the execution was good.
As to the actual rite, though, I prefer the reverence that is built into the Tridentine rite. The “simplification” which was called for by the council and which one might say is legitimately represented in the PR, eliminated many of the physical signs of reverence like the genuflections, signs of the cross, bowings, kneeling, restriction of the sanctuary, restriction of persons who may touch the Eucharist and sacred vessels, etc., which I feel retain their value in today’s society which has no little to no understanding of the sacred.
Many people who criticize the PR point out the lack of X number of genuflections as some objective inferiority of the rite. I think this is just plain silly. However, I do still feel that the elimination or transformation of our outward signs of reverence did not address the needs of the culture of the 70s and onward. In fact, I think we removed much of what would have been a genuine help in combating the false notions of modernity.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Dr. Bombay:
To receive the Chalice is no denial that the fullness of Christ’s Presence, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, is present in Both and in Either Sacred Species. So, doctrinally, no. But the argument that only the Apostle’s received the Sacred Blood under It’s seperate species OR that only the Apostles (and thus those who succeed them, ie, bishops and priests) can receive the Most Sacred Body in their hands is a specious one and one that would perplex the Patristic Church, since they received Both Sacred Species and they received the Sacred Body in their hands. I wasn’t being an antiquarian, I was answering the charge that the Mass has become Protestantized and that one sign of that is the reception of the Chalice by the laity (Michael Davies’ assertion) and that reception in the hand was another sign. A reading of history shows that both practices predate by CENTURIES the “Reformation.” The young man then made his assertion (see Servo Pio XII’s last post) and I answered it. If “traditionalists” (I put that in quotes because I think it’s a relative term) don’t want anyone invoking “antiqurianism,” then they ought not do it themselves. The Church has good reason for the disciplines she imposes surrounding the Sacraments. I don’t question that. There are times when the Chalice shouldn’t be offered (mega Masses, for example). If tomorrow the Holy Father banned reception in the hand, I would bend to his will. The same with the Chalice. I also didn’t intend to hijack the thread.
T
thistle
Guest
I understand the Novos Ordo Mass was introduced after Vatican II. To bring me up to speed was the Tridentine Mass gradually phased out or was there a cut-off date after which only the NO Mass applied?
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
There was a transitional reform missal promulgated in 1964/65. That became the normative missal, esentially meaning that the earlier missal was suppressed. This missal was, from what I know, a genuine middle ground between what was and what was to come, although I believe it represents a more healthy pace and mode of development - but I haven’t taken the time to study it that much so don’t quote me on that.
The new rite took effect in 1970, once again essentially suppressing the earlier missal. I use essentially on purpose because some, including high ranking prelates, are of the opinion that the missal of 1962 was never forbidden. It’s existence was, however, confined mainly to groups with irregular ecclesiastical status (such as the at-one-time suppressed Society of St. Pius X). There were still a few older priests of great sanctity, including St. Pio of Pietrelcina, who were allowed to continue celebrating the old rite due to their age (they were not expected to have to learn a new missal in their later years), so the 1962 was not used entirely illicitly.
But it only returned to general licit use with a limited indult in 1984 followed by a broader (and the current) indult of 1988 which corresponded with the excommunication of Marcel Lefebvre and the bishops he ordained. So for roughly 14-18 years the 1962 missal was de facto forbidden, although perhaps not entirely de jure.
- Status