D
daughteroftruth
Guest
Why not? Many Saints made time for this.
- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
The majority of them have been priests and religious, though - which gives 'em an unfair advantage over the rest of us in this regard, you have to admit
D
daughteroftruth
Guest
True, but not all were cloistered either, they had duties that couldn’t be ignored. It’s not always practical, that’s for sure, but is certainly a blessing if one is able to do it. I’d be greatful to have the time to do it *once *a day, everyday.The majority of them have been priests and religious, though - which gives 'em an unfair advantage over the rest of us in this regard, you have to admit
T
Thomas58
Guest
Could you kindly submit a source for this?
The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper,Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.
In 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, and some other theologians wrote to Paul VI about the new mass. Their study is known as the Ottaviani Intervention. In part it states: “The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details,a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”
At this time the Cardinals were writing about the Latin Version, of the New Mas, the so-called “most pure” version, you know, before it had been prefected with clown noses and floppy shoes or “cheese heads”.
** Lumen Gentium *# 16: “But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the Moslems are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us they worship the one merciful God who will judge humanity on the last day.” *
According to sacred Scripture and the Nicene Creed that we hear in Mass everyday, who will judge humanity on the last day?
Still waiting for an answer for this one.
L
LilyM
Guest
Apologies, not Luther, but the Protestant princes of Germany were indeed invited. To be accurate, this was some years before Trent actually started.
newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm
“**On 2 June, Paul III published the Bull calling all patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, and abbots to assemble at Mantua on 23 May, 1537, for a general council. **Cardinal legates were sent with an invitation to the council to the emperor, the King of the Romans, the King of France, while a number of other nuncios carried the invitation to the other Christian countries. The Netherlander Peter van der Vorst was sent to Germany to persuade the German ruling princes to take part. **The Protestant rulers received the ambassador most ungraciously; at Smalkald they refused the invitation curtly, **although in 1530 they had demanded a council. Francis I took advantage of the war that had broken out between himself and Charles in 1536 to declare the journey of the French bishops to the council impossible.”
Very interesting that it was at least partly the calls of these Protestant rulers for a council that led to Trent being held in the first place!!!
A
adstrinity
Guest
Because, what besides Mass would they go for? Vespers? Complines? I couldn’t imagine until Rosary and lighting a candle was explained to me et al.
I
I_Believe
Guest
They were delighted.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
People went to church more than once a day for vespers, compline, visiting the Blessed Sacrament, the rosary, making the Stations of the Cross, and just prayer and meditation.
Never said it automatically made them holier than those who didn't visit more than once a day, it's just that it was not at all an uncommon practice.
C
CradleCath
Guest
Sorry, but you have it backwards. King Charles V insisted that Protestant leaders be invited to the Council of Trent. (BTW., since the council was convened in 1545 & closed in 1562, it’s doubtful that Martin Luther attended. He died in 1546 &, by that time his Scruples, his OCD, his anxiety disorder, & his hatred of the Jews had rendered him pretty much home-bound).You know Luther and other Protestant leaders were offered the option of participating in the Council of Trent, if I remember correctly? The only reason they didn’t is that the Emperor of the time was less tolerant than the Pope and wouldn’t have let them pass through his lands.
It’s not and has never been the Church’s habit to ignore people of other faiths and pretend they don’t exist
geonius.com/ocd/religion.html#MartinLuther
Different factions had been calling for another council. since the ending of the Council of Constance. One thing & another always seemed to intervene. Sometimes it was the Pope who balked, sometimes Charles V. King Francis I in France was totally against a Council & forbid “his” Bishops to attend if It were held. It was a difficult time for the Church…plus… Conciliarism, as a reforming movement, had reached its high water mark at the Council of Constance & councils were said by some to have an authority higher than the Pope. However, by the time of Trent that notion had been scrapped as part of the Protestant “reformation”. Anything to deny the influence of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Pope. They liked the “let’s vote on it way” better.
IMO., there was a valid reason to call the council of Trent. The Protestants had brought forth issues that required answers for the sake of the Catholic laity. Among these, first & foremost was Luther’s doctrine of Justification. There were also questions about indulgences, of course, the question of Authority…as in Scripture & Tradition being equally important, etc., etc.
OTOH, I have not yet found any heresies that Vatican II denounced, nor any Church doctrine that it defined. Plus, it is as Wholly Roamin’ said in his post…Catholicism in the U.S. was THRIVING, but dissident Theologians in Europe were also thriving. Hans Kung, Yves Congar · Karl Rahner (with his “universal Christian” & theology of the Cosmos)· Edward Schillebeeckx …were chomping at the bit to declare their own “Theology for MODERN man” as gospel. Pius XII, though he was knee deep in the second world war & it’s aftermath, managed to hold the dissidents at bay.
Pope John XXIII, true to his loving & holy & expansive nature wanted to deal with it openly…expose the problems to “fresh air”. IMO., the reasons behind the calling of the Council were internal & should/could have been resolved without Vatican II. But, to blame John XXIII…no. Had everything gone as he (& some of the hierarchy who were present) planned, all would have probably worked out. However, when it convened these very men were present to take possession of it & they did. What I find ironic, is that most of these dissident “experts” were from the same countries who are causing trouble now…Austria, Switzerland, Germany, the countries around the Rhine river. .
However, to those of you who say that the council was called because a few old women prayed their rosary during Mass…or…the priests rushed through the Liturgy…or any of the other silly reasons that I hear…you’re wrong.
B
brigid12
Guest
As a post-VII convert, none of whose family had been Catholic, I can only speak to my own experience since that time, on the West Coast. Much of what I had read about the social support in Catholic parishes was pre-VII so converting wasn’t as scary as it might have been. It turned out that, due to mobility, change in economics, and a change in priorities, I was no longer able to find the neighborhood support systems that I had counted on. What Catholics there were that were fully practicing were (the majority of them that I ran across, at least) living in mixed marriages, spread out in the suburbs (where I’ve lived) one Catholic/ten streets (the ones that spoke the same language as I, anyway), were trying to be ecumenical to their friends/neighbors so they wouldn’t be ostracized or shut-out; basically not showing they were Catholic let alone being support to a new Catholic! It was hard, harder than I had imagined - and few seemed to be there to counter that. I’m still an avidly devout Catholic, but due to His Grace that I’ve been able to receive in the Eucharist, in Confession and prayer (plus EWTN and some websites).
Am I bitter? Some. I don’t blame any one person but it sure made it harder than a ready-made family (albeit extended) who were obviously Catholic.
Am I bitter? Some. I don’t blame any one person but it sure made it harder than a ready-made family (albeit extended) who were obviously Catholic.
C
CradleCath
Guest
I think that many, in their rush to ecumenicism were far more worried that non-Catholics found them “distasteful”. After all, the man who wrote the new Mass, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, actually said: **“We must strip from our Catholic prayers everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren.” **[Ugh.]
M
malphono
Guest
The shame is that Paul VI didn’t strip Bugnini of his position.The damage wrought by the not-so-well-known conglomerate of Villot, Bugnini, & Co. will take many more years to correct.
C
CradleCath
Guest
You’re probably right, but ten years ago I didn’t think I’d EVER get to pray the Latin Mass regularly, again. Now, I can do so every Sunday. The hour isn’t so great (12:30 PM.) but our group is growing & I’ll rejoice in that for a while. :clapping:
D
daughteroftruth
Guest
Okay, so why not go in the morning for Mass, and later in the evening for Vespers or Compline? If it’s not a huge inconvenience, and doesn’t interfere with one’s duties, why not?
D
daughteroftruth
Guest
Actually, didn’t Paul VI excommunicate Bugnini later?
Y
Yours_Truly
Guest
According to Bugnini’s own autobiography, Paul VI was presented with a dosier that “proved” (Bugnini’s own words) that he (Bugnini) was a Freemason (an infiltrator whose goal was to destroy the Church). Presented with such undeniable “proof”, Paul VI had him shipped off to another diocese (I think in Iran), but he never excommunicated him. But by then the damage was done, and his creation (the New Mass) was born. Let us pray for the day when Bugnini’s Mass is merely a bad memory.
T
Timothysis
Guest
"According to Bugnini, a cardinal told him in the summer of 1975 that a “dossier” proving him to be a Freemason had been brought to the Pope’s desk.[10] The allegations became public in April 1976, shortly after Bugnini’s appointment as nuncio to Iran, and were reported in the Italian press.[11]
*The Vatican made no immediate denial of the rumours.[12] Two months later, in June 1976, claims were made publicly that Bugnini, together with over 100 other Vatican officials, were Masons. In October 1976, the Vatican affirmed that “not one of the accused Vatican prelates has ever had anything to do with Freemasonry”.[13]"
“The conservative Vatican prelate Cardinal Silvio Oddi was quoted as commenting: “I can swear that [Bugnini] was not a Freemason… I remain convinced that these accusations were made up by someone in his office… who wanted to eliminate him”.[1]”*
Not content with just slandering an Archbishop with charges that have never been proven, you also slander the Sacrifice of the Mass as a “bad memory.” Why would masons need to try and destroy the Church when people like you are doing such a fine job?
Y
Yours_Truly
Guest
M
malphono
Guest
No. He was moved laterally.
When the Congregation for Divine Worship was merged with the Congregation for the Sacraments, and to me it is interesting that he wasn’t kept in the combined Congregation. Rather, Bugnini was reassigned. He remained an Archbishop and was named pro-nuncio to Iran in 1976. Not exactly a disciplinary action.
Whether there was a formal conspiracy or not (and I absolutely refuse to get involved in any of the usual “Freemasaon conspiracy” theories), the very fact that Bugnini was not put out to pasture is testament to the power Villot, Bugnini, & Co. wielded over Paul VI at the time. They were truly an éminance grise.
If it ever happens, as I said earlier, it will be many years before the Church is totally free of the legacy of that group.
B
brigid12
Guest
I’m acquainted with who Bugnini was, but who were Villot & Co.?
- Status