Validity of None-Tridentine Mass

[ProVobis]

Confusing enough for ya??? I had to ask also, So you are in good company. At least I try to be.
Prayers & blessings
Deaco Ed B

Prayers and blessings to you too, Deaco.

 

[LilyM]

What about the Anglican Rite? If you choose that rite would it be a rejection of the Latin Rite? Oh, not explicitly…right? We couldn’t really tell if you rejected anything…is that your position?

SFD

Reductio ad absurdam. Of course I’m not disagreeing that you can figure out that a person is condemning, disrespecting or what-have-you towards the silent canon or the TLM. I’m disagreeing with your definition of what would constitute that disrespect or condemnation. And giving my opinion (which is obviously also the opinion of the Pope who celebrates both forms, and the many priests and bishops who do likewise) that a simple choice to celebrate other than the TLM, does NOT constitute such disdain, disgust or disrespect.

You mentioned an “Anglican Rite”? There’s no such thing within the Catholic church. If you mean choosing an actual Anglican service, exclusively, well that’s a choice for positive heresy - no way around that. It goes beyond selecting from among options which are equally valid and permissible to choosing something that for a Catholic is always invalid.

If you mean the “Anglican Use”, which as a help to converting Anglicans has been OK’d by Rome as a valid Catholic use, then my response is as below.

Pauline Mass and TLM are both valid and approved options for Latin Rite Catholics, per Summorum Pontificum among other documents. That means precisely that we of the Latin Rite, both priests and laity, are permitted to choose to say or attend either or both of them, without prejudice to either. As in similar fashion we have the options of being married either within a Nuptial Mass or in a separate ceremony not constituting a Mass.

More than that, it may surprise you to know that we Latins are in fact permitted to attend any valid Catholic liturgy, including the Anglican Use as well as those of our Eastern Catholic brothers, without losing our canonical status as Latin Rite Catholics.

As an example, firstly I have attended Maronite Divine Liturgy, it doesnt constitute a rejection of the Latin Rite. Secondly, if I chose to exclusively attend Maronite or any other non-Latin-but-still-Catholic Liturgy for the rest of my life I STILL would not lose my canonical status as a Latin Rite Catholic.

Rejection of the Latin Rite is something I would have to do through the official means of applying for a transfer of canonical status. I state this to show the general principle that one’s behaviour would have to go pretty far before one is considered to be ‘rejecting’ the Latin Rite.

As a Latin I’d have problems if I sought to marry or (if I were a man) receive religious orders within the Eastern Rite, but even those are hardly insurmountable - there are numerous bi-ritual priests and deacons, Fr Pacwa of EWTN is one who can celebrate both Maronite liturgy and Latin Rite Masses.

The moral of all this is to disabuse you of the notion that we must restrict ourselves to one form of Mass or Liturgy and that to move on to other forms (always providing they are valid Catholic liturgies) certainly is far from being viewed by Rome as a rejection of the Latin Rite or any form within it.

 

[LilyM]

The only “abuse” I have ever heard about the Old Mass is that some Priests said it fast. This is repeated by virtually everyone who prefers the Novus Ordo Mass in an attempt to pretend that the regular and outrageous abuses that take place in the New Mass are nothing new.

Here’s my questions: How is it an abuse to say the prayers fast? It may be irreverent, but is it an abuse? Do the rubrics specify how long that Mass should take, or how slowly the prayers should be annunciated? If not, then saying the prayers quickly is not an abuse.

Priests of the TLM in fact did not even pray the proper words of consecration at times - one possible disadvantage of a silent canon (having said which, let me make clear that I do not in any way condemn or have any disrespect at all for a silent canon, however all forms of liturgy, composed as it is by human beings, will have imperfections and the forms can always legitimately be critiqued for such).

In proof of which I offer the following quote from St Bernardine of Siena which you can find at fordham.edu/halsall/source/bernardino-2sermons.html . I may possibly have already posted the same quote in this thread, but I repeat in any event for the benefit of those who think there were never abuses of the TLM:

"There were two priests who spake together, and one said unto the other, “How do you say the words of consecration for Christ’s Body? “I” (said the other) “I say Hoc est Corpus meum” Then began they to dispute one with other: “You say not well”-“Nay, it is you who says ill”-and, as they disputed thus, there came another priest to whom they told the whole matter, and who said: “Neither one of you says well, nor the other, for the true words Hoc est corpusso meusso”: and proceeded by demonstration: “You see how he says corpusso, wherefore the adjective should be meusso; therefore (I say) henceforth say you nothing else but: Hoc est corpusso meusso.” To which speech the others consented not: wherefore they accorded together to a parish priest near by, going to him of set purpose and laying the case before him. Then the parish priest answering "Ha, what needs all this ado? I go to it right simply; I say an Ave Maria over the Host!"”

Is this not an abuse every bit as grave as anything which goes on in our Novus Ordos today?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

To borrow a phrase from traditionalist, how can it be reverent when done that way? No we did not have cakes consecrated, we did not have liturgical or clown masses. I have seen seme of these with more reverence. That does not by any means excuse the abuse.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

But lack of reverence is different than a liturgical abuse. Yet, as I’m sure you have noticed, people attempt to justify the outrageous liturgical abuses that take place today as being “normal” since, after all, some Priests before Vatican II said the prayers of the Mass quickly. They attempt to equate clown masses, and the attempt to consecrate cakes, as you pointed out, with a priest saying the prayers at a fast pace. One is a mortal sin while the other is an imperfection.

When ever I hear someone complain about the “abuse” of a Priest saying the Mass too fast, I always wonder how slowly and reverently they say their Rosary, or their morning and night prayers. Do they say them with deep reflection as they should? Or do they sometimes say them too quickly due to routine? That is a question they will be faced with on judgment day since they have criticized Priests for saying Mass too quick.

Matthew 7: “For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again”.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Priests of the TLM in fact did not even pray the proper words of consecration at times - one possible disadvantage of a silent canon (having said which, let me make clear that I do not in any way condemn or have any disrespect at all for a silent canon, however all forms of liturgy, composed as it is by human beings, will have imperfections and the forms can always legitimately be critiqued for such).

In proof of which I offer the following quote from St Bernardine of Siena which you can find at fordham.edu/halsall/source/bernardino-2sermons.html . I may possibly have already posted the same quote in this thread, but I repeat in any event for the benefit of those who think there were never abuses of the TLM:

"There were two priests who spake together, and one said unto the other, “How do you say the words of consecration for Christ’s Body? “I” (said the other) “I say Hoc est Corpus meum” Then began they to dispute one with other: “You say not well”-“Nay, it is you who says ill”-and, as they disputed thus, there came another priest to whom they told the whole matter, and who said: “Neither one of you says well, nor the other, for the true words Hoc est corpusso meusso”: and proceeded by demonstration: “You see how he says corpusso, wherefore the adjective should be meusso; therefore (I say) henceforth say you nothing else but: Hoc est corpusso meusso.” To which speech the others consented not: wherefore they accorded together to a parish priest near by, going to him of set purpose and laying the case before him. Then the parish priest answering "Ha, what needs all this ado? I go to it right simply; I say an Ave Maria over the Host!"”

Is this not an abuse every bit as grave as anything which goes on in our Novus Ordos today?

If the memory of this old deacon “who does not know Latin” is correct, the words of consecration for the Tridentine mass were, "Hoc est enim corpus meum. "
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

That is a question they will be faced with on judgment day since they have criticized Priests for saying Mass too quick.

Matthew 7: “For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again”.

I do believe this can cut both ways. But then again, who am I to say?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ProVobis]

Priests of the TLM in fact did not even pray the proper words of consecration at times - one possible disadvantage of a silent canon (having said which, let me make clear that I do not in any way condemn or have any disrespect at all for a silent canon, however all forms of liturgy, composed as it is by human beings, will have imperfections and the forms can always legitimately be critiqued for such).

I can see where this may be a problem for some. Fr.Z has an interesting discussion on the audibility of the EF.

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/08/quaeritur-audibility-of-prayers-during-a-tlm/#comments

 

[Mary_of_Egypt]

First let me say of your departed friend, May his memory be eternal. Also, pray for my friend Doug who passed away about this time last year. Doug was not Catholic, but when I went down to the parish to practice the organ in the evenings when we were in high school, I would often find Doug seated a few feet from the Tabernacle! I believed he felf called to be there and I think perhaps he had a “Baptism of desire” perhaps because he had absolutely no information about the church. I always felt “led” just to let him be because God was obviously having a relationship with Him.
Re-the validity of the New Mass. As Catholics we accept in obedience the imprimatur of the Church which the missal has. It becomes the moral responsibility of the magesterium if an error of a non-infallible nature creeps into the liturgy. The one and only real worry I have about the New Order is the alternate Eucharistic Prayers toward the rear of the altar missal. One of them in particular is very unspecific regarding invoking the change over the gifts of bread and wine into the body…ect. It does not use those words and I am afraid that there may be a situation of incorrect form…but I have never seen that Canon used at mass and as I say, we have to trust God and realize that the magesterium alone bears the responsibtlity of making certain the right is OK.
The New Mass has the interssessions of the faithful after the creed which the tridentine did not…and the new mass restores Holy Week to its original glory with the triduum, eliminating the old “extra” week of passion week before Holy Week. Also, the new right has a comunal act of pennance—not just for the acolytes and servers and priests. In the old rite the faithful said the confetior close to the time of communion if they wished to recieve and were not in a state of mortal sin requiring individual absolution. I would personally like to see the tridentine mass used regularly and the new mass used with greater care. I really think that the tabernacle belongs on the gradine of the altar and I think that the current use of our priests sitting to one side is ackward and confussing, (since most churches do not have chancels anymore). The Priests should sit near the east wall and should face eastward during certain parts of the liturgy as certain Episcopalians do, who then face the congregation for the communion rite. The nice thing about a free standing altar is the priest can approach from either side, still have an epistle and gospel side, and a deacon step. The new liturgy is to be very flexible in the least confusing way, the most particiation by the congreagation, and the greatest excellence in translation if the vernacular is used. We are lucky, We have two great liturgical approaches in the west and many more in the East—but most importantly—there is one, and only one Mass.
In Jesus And Mary,
Mary of Egypt

 

[SFD]

MaryofEgypt:

Re-the validity of the New Mass. As Catholics we accept in obedience the imprimatur of the Church which the missal has.

Okay, I understand you here.

It becomes the moral responsibility of the magesterium if an error of a non-infallible nature creeps into the liturgy.

I believe that every and any “error” is of a “non-infallible nature”. That said, are you claiming that errors in faith and morals can not only “creep into” the liturgy…but actually be promulgated into it?

The one and only real worry I have about the New Order is the alternate Eucharistic Prayers toward the rear of the altar missal. One of them in particular is very unspecific regarding invoking the change over the gifts of bread and wine into the body…ect. It does not use those words and I am afraid that there may be a situation of incorrect form

An incorrect form promulgated by the Church? This is an incredible admission…I’m not sure you understand the gravity of it.

…but I have never seen that Canon used at mass

That is not important…whether you have ever seen it or not.

and as I say, we have to trust God and realize that the magesterium alone bears the responsibtlity of making certain the right is OK.

The magisterium cannot contain errors against faith and morals…She cannot issue false or impious disciplines; that much is theologically certain and may not be willfully denied without mortal sin. You and I are responsible for what we submit to…obedience is a moral virtue and as such is of a lesser value that Faith, which is a theological virtue. The object of obedience must be a proper object.

SFD

 

[ProVobis]

The one and only real worry I have about the New Order is the alternate Eucharistic Prayers toward the rear of the altar missal. One of them in particular is very unspecific regarding invoking the change over the gifts of bread and wine into the body…ect. It does not use those words and I am afraid that there may be a situation of incorrect form…

I thought there were only four. Could you point us to the text?

 

[ethelzguy]

The only “abuse” I have ever heard about the Old Mass is that some Priests said it fast. This is repeated by virtually everyone who prefers the Novus Ordo Mass in an attempt to pretend that the regular and outrageous abuses that take place in the New Mass are nothing new.

Here’s my questions: How is it an abuse to say the prayers fast? It may be irreverent, but is it an abuse? Do the rubrics specify how long that Mass should take, or how slowly the prayers should be annunciated? If not, then saying the prayers quickly is not an abuse.

Have you studied the Middle Ages and the Church?

 

[AlexV]

Again, let’s remember that fine day in 1967 when the Vatican published a lovely book, red and with gold stamp on cover, entitled “Novus Ordo Missae”. The book contained only the Ordinary and new Canons.

One Canon was a fabricated one: “Prex Eucharistica IV”. The Latin text…approved by Paul VI’s authority…contained the words, “Pater, tu us solus Deus”.

The first English translation read, “Father, you alone are God.” Accurate indeed! No complaints here!

Alas, that’s called the Arian heresy. It took 1500 years, but finally the Church reverted to the error of Arius. Of course the book was discontinued and corrected:

“Pater, tu es unus Deus.”

See what happens when committees in Swiss hotels write Canons? Even “expert” committees. And no, I don’t think for a minute the committee was deliberately trying to be Arian. I think they were arrogant fools who presumed to rewrite the Roman Rite of centuries.

Paul approved it. Incidentally, if you read Bugnini, there are places where it records Paul would approve something he hadn’t read, giving a cover note that said he had faith and trust in his liturgy consilium.

So one could argue the pope indeed can’t promulgate error…but maybe the pope should read what he puts his name on.

 

[CradleCath]

WOW. First let me apologize. I gather by the tone of your post I quoted that you are having a bad or stressful day. For this I am sorry, and will hold you in prayer. If you are not and are just irked at me, I am also sorrow and will still hold you in prayer. If you are not irked with me, thats OK too, as I will still hold you in prayer.

No, Deacon Ed, I wasn’t having a “stressful day” I was simply having a busy day with no time to fine-tune my posts…AND…I find that those who criticize spelling or format, etc. usually do so to objuscate.

I printed out your post # 85 so as to be able to address your questions and or comments. I will simply list your questions and then answer them .
This one may be touchy because you seem to be making assumptions about that which you have no knowledge. You doubt I’ve attended a real Novus Ordo Mass???

There was no mention in my post of a “REAL” Novus Ordo Mass. I said that I doubted that you attend a Novus Ordo Mass prayed as it called to be prayed by the council. Most of us don’t & haven’t.

You know I don’t like questions??? ( I answer questions all the time.)

And, you DON’T answer questions “all the time”.

ANS: I have attended the mass where it has been in Latin and English, contrary to your conclusions. It has been some time, but I do prefer the **all English mass, which is also our option. **

My only point was, by attending an all-English Novus Ordo, you are in defiance of very heart of the council’s Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy…Sacrosanctum Conciliam. This document tells us that the vernacular was not intended to be the language of the new Mass:, “since the use of the mother tongue … frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its (the vernacular) employment may be extended,” AND “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” (36) Redemptionis Sacramentum, 112 confirms an option to use Latin, An “option” is not & should not be the norm.

Concerning the Gregorian Chant that I mentioned in my OP.** “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place** in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action”

Your conclusion that I don’t understand Latin is both right and wrong… I do however prefer my mother tongue, i.e., English. What you call “My Novus Ordo Mass” is now in English. At times Gregorian Chant is used, most of the time not.

Again, what I actually said is that, according to your own posts…you are not comfortable with Latin. I made no “conclusions” simply took you at your word.

1. You speak of binding discipline here and the fact that you think Pope John Paul II was so completely against the wishes of another pope???

Actually, I asked you if you had ever seen one pope (& I was speaking of Paul VI, not JPII) who disagreed with another Pope…Pius V…to such an extreme.

ans: Nothing of dogma has changed. Discipline and practice has. This is perfectly within the GOD GIVEN authority of any pope. I for one will not be one to question a popes legitimate and lawful practice of his authority. Simply stated, I totally respect his acting within the God given authority which he has by virtue of being the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

Once again I ask…Have you ever seen another disagreement of this magnitude (between Paul VI & PiusV) regarding the Mass.

3. You correctly state both masses are equally valid and then question or wonder whether one produces more grace and then list the fact that mass attendance is lower, that only 30 % of Catholics believe in the real presence, confession is down, priests abusing children, seminaries being pink etc. and ask whether it is because graces produced by the “valid” masses are unequal in quality and power because if "inferior liturgy.
ans: The only correct part here is when you say both forms of the mass are equally valid. The graces produced by a mass are infinite. It is Metaphysically impossible for one mass to produce more grace than the other, as infinity has no degrees.

I don’t think that we can use Metaphysics to measure grace. Nor can we depend on the phrase “infinite grace” as humankind defines it… subject to no limitation or external determination. We all know that we can take ourselves away from the graces given to us by God, Himself.

The different things which you list are not caused by Vatican II, nor the Novus Ordo mass, but by our society in general. As I have listed in other posts. we have had the Cultural and sexual revolution here in the 60’s. Certainly not caused by Vatican II, but occurring at the same time.

This dog just doesn’t hunt anymore, Deacon Ed.
Catholics, living as God wished for them to live, aren’t OF the world. They never have been. The vocation, if you will, of the Church built by Christ, Himself, is not only to “Go & Teach” but, to LEAD the world, not follow it. Therefore your claim that “culture, society, etc.” is the cause of the current state of the Catholic Church…verifies my thoughts, rather than negating them.

You question pre Vatican II abuses and documentation. I have no book references for you, only lived experiences of 12-15 minute masses, which I personally served as the altar boy

.

If you count “lived experiences” as documentation, then I will give you mine: From 1941, until 1969 I attended the Tridentine Rite Mass every day of the week except Sat. That’s 28 years of Masses. I attended this Mass in several different diocese, My parents diocese, my Grandparents diocese, the diocese where I attended high school, & my own diocese…after my husband & I married. That’s a lot of Masses. I have NEVER seen ONE 12-15 minute Mass. Most took an hour, a solemn high Mass took longer. So we have your experiences & we have mine. Where do we go from here.

This post is way too long, so I’ll just end it by saying, I still wonder if the graces produced by the Novus Ordo somehow left us open to slide into the abyss of child molestation by priests, lack of fidelity shown by Catholic institutions of learning, lack of faith shown by most Catholics, etc. I do not know.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

May I politely suggest you print out your post #85. See what it says and then compare it to what you just said. If you wish to communicate, stand by what you printed in your post. Until then you will remain in my prayers. Oh, one more thing, whether you understand it or not, it is metaphysically impossible for one mass to produce more grace than another mass as again, infinity has no degrees. Do you think we can agree at least on that?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[CradleCath]

My only point was, by attending an all-English Novus Ordo, you are in defiance of very heart of the council’s Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy…Sacrosanctum Conciliam. This document tells us that the vernacular was not intended to be the language of the new Mass:, “since the use of the mother tongue … frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its (the vernacular) employment may be extended,”

 

[CradleCath]

May I politely suggest you print out your post #85. See what it says and then compare it to what you just said. If you wish to communicate, stand by what you printed in your post. Until then you will remain in my prayers. Oh, one more thing, whether you understand it or not, it is metaphysically impossible for one mass to produce more grace than another mass as again, infinity has no degrees. Do you think we can agree at least on that?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Originally Posted by Deacon Ed B

Here is post #85. This way those on the forum can see for themselves what I wrote & what I DIDN’T write. Now, I hate to claim “busy day” again, but I won’t be back to this forum today. Have a good one, eveybody.
DEACON ED:I jump in having read only the first few pages. Just some thoughts:

1. The Novus Ordo Mass is Valid

CRADLECATH:Yes, it is. Though I doubt you’ve really attended the Novus Ordo Mass as called for in Vatican II. I know that you do not like questions & usually don’t answer them…however, I’m going to try. Is your Mass a combination of the vernacular & Latin?? If so, I’ve seen you say several times that you don’t understand Latin & I find that strange if you have for 40 yrs. attended a Mass partly prayed in Latin. Your Novus Ordo Mass in order to be true to the council must give pride of place to Gregorian Chant. Does it?

Quote:
dEACON ED:2. Popes are not bound by decisions of prior popes on discipline. Remember: "What ever you bind…Whatever you loose. That does have meaning.

CRADLECATH:I’m assuming you are referring to Quo Primum. You are correct.
St. Pius V’s bull Quo Primum is above all a legal document although it also contains some doctrinal elements. As such it is not intended to be definitive in the same way as a doctrinal definition, such as the Papal Bull… Ineffabilis Deus… that defines the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. So, no it was not binding for Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI or any other Pope. However, I cannot find, in the complete 2,000 yr. history of the Church…where one Pope went so completely against the wishes of another Pope.

Quote:
dEACON ED:Holy Mother church gives us an option of the two forms of mass. Both are equally valid and efficacious. Neither is better than the other.

CRADLECATH:While I agree that both Masses are equally valid, I wonder if one Mass produces more graces. The question that matters is, are
both Masses equally pleasing to God?? I’m not sure that I agree that they are. His Church has suffered a tremendous decline during the years that the Novus Ordo has been offered, almost exclusively.

Mass attendance at the lowest percentage ever.
Only 30% of Catholics believing in the Real Presence.
Attendance at he Sacrament of Confession down tremendously.
Priests abusing children.
Seminaries turned into “pink palaces”.

Could it be because the graces produced by one of the two canonically valid Masses, are unequal in quanitity & power because of an inferior liturgy. This is a profound question & I don’t have the answer, but I wonder??

Quote:
DEACON ED:Abuses took and take place under either form. All abuses are wrong. I remember pre Vatican II masses, the Tridentine Mass, where mass was celebrated in less than 15 minutes. Some as short of 12. I heard of some shorter, but did not witness them. it was not the form of the mass that caused the abuses, it was the individual priest, just as those with the Novus Ordo

CRADLECATH:I disagree totally that abuses in the Mass & of the Mass were common pre-Vatican II. I know, I attended them. daily, in different parishes & diocese. Do you have verification re these “15 min.” Masses. Do you have a credible source? If so, please post it. The documents on the New Mass were/are so amgiguous that it lends itself to abuse.

Quote:
DEACON EDray for priests. Do so daily. They all need our prayers greatly.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

CRADLECATH: I do & for Pope Benedict, also.

---

Le Coeur de Jésus
Source de l’Amour
Watch over the children. For the sake of one child, I would have founded the Society.
St. Madeleine Sophie Barat

---

 

[Mary_of_Egypt]

Hello everybody, and hello ProVobis!
The Eucharistic Canon I refer to is located on page 1129 or the Sacramentary published by the Catholic Book Publishing Company in 1985. The Eucharistic prayer I refer to is R (reconscilliation) II. After the Holy, Holy, Holy is said or sung the Priest begins the Canon: “God of power and might, we praise you through your Son, Jesus Christ, who comes in your name. He is the word that brings salvation. He is the hand you stretch out to sinners. He is the way that leads to your peace. God our Father, we had wandered far from you, but through your Son you have brought us back. You gave him up to death so that we might turn again to you and find our way to one another. There we celebrate the reconciliation Christ has gained for us.” (Now here is the invocation of the Holy Spirit over the gifts of bread and wine) " 'WE ASK YOU TO SANCTIFY THESE GIFTS BY THE POWER OF YOUR SPIRIT, AS WE NOW FULFILL YOUR+SON’S COMMAND. WHILE HE WAS AT SUPPER ON THE NIGHT BEFORE HE DIED FOR US HE TOOK BREAD…" and it continues pretty much as the other Eucharistic prayers.
You will notice that the ( my caps) invocation of the Holy Spirit over the gifts of bread and wine only asks that we “fullfil you Son’s command”. It DOES NOT ASK THAT THE BREAD AND WINE BE CHANGED INTO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST–nor does it even hint of it. If you don’t have an altar missal please go to your Catholic Book store and check out the reference that I gave above. These are supplemental Canons for reconcilliation. I noticed this canon in my years as a Church musician and it struck me as an odd formula for a Catholic Missal.
When I say error creeping in to the missal–I mean that mistakes can be made in judgement by those who post the “imprimatur” The Church has removed the imprimatur from some publications. I am also saying that, the church would not deliberately publiish an error—but if a bad decision occurs in allowing a prayer that is not Orthodox, then it is the responsiblity of the magesterium alone. If a priest makes a mistake it does not affect the faithful. God is always faithful to His word. But the texts of the Missal do need to be Orthodox so that we do not teach error. You and I are Catholic and we know that the consecration prayer is asking for the change of the bread and wine–but it should always be stated that way. So. Thanks. And I hope that you have a great weekend.
God Bless,
Mary of Egypt

 

[ProVobis]

Mary, thanks and you are entirely right. Christ made a lot of commands; which specific one they referring to should be mentioned. Some entities within the Church are getting very sloppy with their new rhetoric.

 

[ProVobis]

So one could argue the pope indeed can’t promulgate error…but maybe the pope should read what he puts his name on.

Very good point.

 

[Mary_of_Egypt]

I think that Deacon Ed makes a good point and so does CradleCath. The mass is the mass—but there has been this huge decline in our American Church. One of the things that really delineates our American culture’s affect on the church is to compare the two communities that comprise the parish I attend. A very good point was made earlier by one of you in this thread that there should be a world of difference between practicing Catholics and the world. Our parish brings that home. Half our congregation are essentially “Americanized” Catholics, and the other greater half of our parish are from Viet-Nam.
On Satufday afternoon, on the English side of the church’s confessionals there are NO LAYPEOPLE and one or two nuns from one of the local Villas. On the Vietnamies side of the confessionals there are HUGE LINES almost every Satufday. At the combination VN and English Masses, you see mantillas, scapulars, rosaries, all reflected in the VN portion of our communities. They have huge masses in their mother tongue and tons of paraliturgical devotions, and are usually in the majority on Tuesday adoration.
At our principle high Mass with deacon and insence that is for English speaking only, we have:
LOUD CONVERSATION before mass (You cannot even hear the organ and the tower carrillons). You have Women in HALTER AND STRAPLESS sundresses. On Ash Wedsday I set next to a woman wearing fife inch espacrills and capris with a tank top and I wondered if she knew mardis gras was over! I have seen people talk on cellphones during the consecration(Father finally instituted a 100.00 fine!) and people look at you like you are trying to be self important if you stay behind to pray. Also, when people leave they sound like they are leaving Yankee stadium.
Anyway—The VN parishioners are using the New Mass in their language----but they lived under persecution in their homeland, and they are grateful for their faith and they show it. And we American Catholics are subscribing to the culture and it should not be so. We should still be known for eating fish on Friday. It is the suggested rule of faith outside of lent. We are not grateful for being Catholic–and that is one of the reasons I come here to you because I can see that this disscussion is one of people who are serious about their faith and fidelity to the magesterium and the enourmous privilege we have being Catholics.
I usually go to the earliest Mass in the morning and it is pretty reverent—but if I go to the VN mass–well—it won’t be Latin but it will be another tongue other than my own–and more to the point–it will be gratefull praying of The most Holy Mass.
Praised be Jesus Christ and His most Blessed Virgin Mother on this the day of her glorious Assumtion.
Mary of Egypt