Right, but the die hard advocates will constantly remind you that Trent codified this Mass, which had been in use, more or less, for a 1000 years, depending on which one you talked to. Plus, the racing through the Mass is a charge I myself have heard from pre-VII Catholics. So it is as subject to abuse as anything a man can lay hold of! Cheers!
Way to go on that reminder of the continuity of the Pian missal, and also thank you for pointing out in different words that, as Reginald Cardinal Pole stated at Trent, “Just because Luther said it doesn’t make it wrong.”
I have no problem with the Gloria, the Sanctus, the Memorial Acclamation, the Amen, and the Agnus Dei being in Latin. I still believe it important that the rest of the Mass be offered in the vernacular so that people can understand it, remember it, have it resonate in their language. It can be an instrument of evangelization (I know it was for me) as a by product of it’s intended function, the offering of the Sacrifice. Now, if you’re talking “thee” and “thou,” such as the Anglican Use Mass uses, that’s great. It’s “sanctified” and seperate from daily speech, but not removed from understanding.
Won’t see what?
Posting inane followups to one’s own inane posts is really bad form, and does nothing to help further the discussion. Please refrain from making such posts.
While I would prefer Latin as it is the traditional sacred language of the Latin Church (go figure), I might accept a more Elizabethan flavored English as a compromise position.
Actually it is a well known order of sisters in the USA, and they say it was their anniversary mass.
Very well put. It is a problem found in numerous threads here where personal preferences give way to demonizing of anyone who praises God in a different way. Imputing evil motives or lack of devotion or pieety over how one expresses their devotion to God goes well beyond sowing divisiveness.
We have a standard, unifying liturgy, a unifying Mass, where certain things are supposed to take place, in a certain order. There is a purpose to this. Should the priest be allowed to paraphrase the cannon of the Mass? No, it isn’t allowed within the context and sense of Catholic worship. Liturgical dance (I assume you’re making some small reference to another thread) is also not allowed, the laity fractioning the Most Precious Blood into chalices from a flagon, not allowed, consecration of the Most Precious Blood in a flagon, not allowed, lay sermons, not allowed. All of those things COULD be excused as “praising God in a different way.” They are not, however, permitted within the context of the Mass. It boils down to simple obedience, either an attitude of “I will obey the legitimate authority” or " I will not obey."
The discussion on this thread was about something entirely different anyway, ie., the presence of the young at a TLM, the desireablity of it being genrously available to those who are attached to it, the point that it is "more reverent" being entirely subjective in nature, the alleged propensity of the Mass of Paul VI (the NO Mass) to abuse, the posited argument that it is no more subject to abuse than the TLM and that there is nothing inherently wrong with the NO Mass, etc.
No, my post is referencing exactly the quote I showed and has nothing to do with any other thread, nor does it in any way address any other topic. It has simply to do with people slicing and dicing each other over whether they are superior in prefering either the TLM or the NO Mass. I agree entirely with you that it is “…entirely subjective in nature…” and that is why it upsets me to see people arguing about it. The phrase about demonizing people who praise God in a different way was nothing more than distinguishing between the preferences for one or the other Mass. I believe that is exactly what this thread is about.
I don’t think you get it. Ask yourself a question. What was the purpose of this Anathema?.. Why did Trent Anathema anyone that held this position?.. these positions embodied a whole new theology. Cranmer, Luther et al. had specific reasons, not mere whims of liturgical inspiration, for changing the things they changed. The changes made by the reformers to the Mass were for specific reasons related to their new theology which needed to be expressed in their lex orandi lex credendi. You seem to scoff at the anathemas of Trent as if the errors that the Council was against do not still exist today. The last I checked their still are lutherans and calvinists. The point is Cranmer had very specific reasons for making the changes in liturgy that he made and the reasons were to usher in a new theology. A theology which he believed and a theology which the Church condemned. The reformers knew that if they could change the way these Catholics worshiped they could change the way they believed. Cranmer’s ordering of the communion service to be said “playnly and distinctly” was not for mere preference. It was one part of a bundle of deviously devised changes to the liturgy. All of them done in order to alter the way Catholics believed and shape them into his new theology. The fact that Trent bothered to address this point with an anathema proves my point.
I think your a bit confused here. What many call the silent Canon is actually the Canon said in a low tone.
Not to be confrontational in anyway but I find many of your posts of great interest – however typing them in long sections without any white space or paragraphing makes them really difficult to read. It would really be helpful if you could “spread parts out” a bit. :yup:
Do you know this bunch? How did you hear of the their story?
It sure isn’t, I always enjoy attending the Tridentine Mass. The majority of people there are young couple with like 8 kids!!!