Melman, you will have to make your objections more clear before I can respond to them. I don’t know which part of what I wrote was confusing to you.
Ditto on that one. HUH?
Elizabeth said:
The Liturgy of the Word (or, as we traditionalists like to call it, the Mass of the Catechumens) is analogous to the worship of the synagogue.
I quoted what I was objecting to:
I find both of these assertions simply baffling. One, that we don’t need to understand the prayers at Mass. And two, that many don’t understand them even when said in their own language.
I’m not sure what you find “baffling” about them. Of course we should understand as much of the Mass as our human limitations allow, but these limitations are different for different people. Some are incapable of comprehending the prayers of the Mass at all, hence the recommendation by some Popes to pray the Rosary during Mass. By “needed” I meant that it is not strictly necessary for our salvation to understand the prayers of the Mass.
I was wondering the same thing Melman. It is completely opposite of the teachings of the church that it kind of hit like a dong! Did I read that correctly?
Well, who knows, maybe I will become a priest to serve God, and to make a difference(especially with regards to all the noise).:whistle: :wave:
Sound like a quote from Crisis magazine. That publication that has tried to discredit Michael S. Rose and made the term “neo-Catholic” seem plausible.I was wondering the same thing Melman. It is completely opposite of the teachings of the church that it kind of hit like a dong! Did I read that correctly?
One of the main reasons for the Vatican II reforms was that over the centuries, literally and figuratively, lay people became distanced from the public worship of the Church. The priest did virtually everything. Most Catholics did not understand that the Church is not just an institution but an evangelical movement. The world was slipping away from religious belief, and Catholics themselves needed a new conversion if they were to bring it back.
By the mid- 20th century there were warning signs, especially in Europe, the cradle of Catholicism, that all was not well. In France after World War II, the alarming decline in church attendance and a nominal Catholicism had prompted two young priests in 1943 to publish a book asking if France had not become a mission territory. The Church had lost the allegiance of almost every segment of society, from the workers to the intellectuals, and the remnant of loyal Catholics included a few too many monarchists whose faith had more than a whiff of Jansenism.
The rites were in a language unknown to most. The accumulation of ritual actions, many of which had their origins in the royal courts of Europe, made the meaning of rites even less accessible to the common person. The people were reduced to passive attendance as silent spectators.
As a result, the sacramental life of the Church was no longer, at least in practice, the primary source of nourishment for the spiritual life of people. Instead of relying on the transforming power of the Eucharist as the source of their spiritual lives, people did their best to find nourishment in individualistic piety and personal devotions.
In view of this, the council called for a renewal of the liturgical life of the Church that would lead to the full, active and conscious participation of the faithful. This would require both reform and restoration. The reform began with the call for a return to the noble simplicity of the Roman rite. Those features that had crept in over time had to be removed so that the rites would be short, clear, not weighed down by useless repetitions.
The aim was to make sure that ordinary people could understand what is going on without much explanation. But, it was also important to return to those forms of worship which the Church had in its rich treasury of liturgical tradition of the Roman rite. These forms and aspects of the Roman rite served the Church well over the ages as a perennial source of nourishment for the spiritual lives of believers and needed to be restored. As a result, when the renewal as reform and restoration took place, the Church was able to honestly say that the reformed Mass was both a witness to an unbroken tradition of the Roman rite and an improvement on the former one. (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 2000, #6.)
And is there anything inherently wrong with monarchy? BTW, the protestant counterpart to Jansenism (Puritanism for people like me still handicapped by a public school education) was opposed to monarchy
Not that I know of…but then I do have lots of word documents I refer to from time to time.
I don’t get Crisis Magazine and I don’t know Michael Rose. If that is where it came from it must be ok…at least in theory because I was taught that long ago. I was referring to this quote by a poster.They certainly encouraged saying it before or after Mass, but never during mass.
And calling someone Neo-Catholic sounds like someone who is not very Catholic in spirit and in heart btw. Where ever do young people come up with such distasteful and un-Catholic terminology.
Oh Yes!
I like Latin also. I still attend a TLM whenever possible. Joe Omlor is a sedevacant - one who believes JPII is not Pope because he is, according to sedevacants, a heretic. If the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium have all gone over to the dark side as Joe Omlor & the “vacants” believe, there’s no real reason to believe anything.
On the contrary, there is every reason to believe what the True Church has always taught.
Nothing is more useful than to see things as they really are Pope Leo XIIIThis is REALLY worth reading!
Joe Omlor said:
Here is the end of defacto Father Somerville’s Letter. Know your source people.Doe’s it never end the conspiracy theories and the wanna be Popes who promote them? :tsktsk:Just another wanna be Pope who is trying to decieve. :banghead: