M
malphono
Guest
Villot was the Secretary of State. The “Co.” is the entire cabal.
- Status
B
brigid12
Guest
Thanks.
Although the Freemasonry conspiracy theory (among others) is intriguing and I have found myself pondering it at times, I wonder if Jesus would be happy with us doing that? Not judgment (except possibly of myself), but truly wondering - on one hand St. Paul asks us that we need to judge our brethren (their actions, at least) and on the other hand we’re told in Scripture that we should leave the tares in with the wheat until harvesttime.
T
treba
Guest
Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, widow of famed philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand, is an internationally known philosopher and author of numerous books. Among other insights in this compelling interview, which was originally published in The Latin Mass magazine (Summer 2001), we find confirmation of the systematic infiltration of the Church by “diabolical enemies” throughout the last century, and its baleful impact at the highest levels. christianorder.com/features/features_2007/features_mar07.html
P
pnewton
Guest
Perhaps it is this very statement that addressed one need for Vatican II. Often the Church in the past has needed to change in order to emphasize something of importance that has lost its meaning. The Mass is the representation of the sacrifice of Calvary. For whom was that sacrifce made? For us. Of course the Mass is for the people. The Holy Eucharist is a gift of God given to we who need it most.
I have been impressed this last year as I have been reading the Church Fathers and other Saints that are presented in the Liturgy of the Hours. They spoke as often of the people of God as the Body of Christ as any liberal priest today. It does not take away one bit from the worship due Christ to appreciate the beauty of His bride. I am all for ad orientum and a return to that, but as I hear from some self-styled traditionalis, I wonder if the whole Church was some what out of balance on understanding the importance of the Church as the Body of Christ.
O
Ottaviani
Guest
Forgive me here, but the Mass IS the sacrifice of Calvary, not merely a “representation” the use of such a word smacks a bit too much of Protestantism, but I have the feeling you didn’t mean it that way. I just figured it was worth pointing out.
As well, the concept “for the people” I think gets misconstrued. certainly the Mass is for the people, those people being Catholic faithful in the state of grace. What is problematic about the radical reforms of the 60’s is the emphasis has been downplayed from meditative silence focused on the supreme sacrifice towards “active participation”. that is, the people wanted their Mass to be more about them, than about God.
And perhaps that might be taken as a radical comment. So be it, in the NO, you’ll see hand holding, Mass in the round, the priest facing the people (with his back to God), and any number of things that have been ordered around the human person instead of the divine presence.
so, the long and short of my point is yes, the Mass is for the people, so long as we don’t let our own shortcomings infiltrate it. That is why Catholics follow scripture and tradition, that is also why the Mass changed through history (before Vatican II) organically, most additions were there to combat heresies. Until, of course, the pauline Mass. There was no organic development but instead a complete reinvention of the Mass.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. Without a doubt aberrations that in no way resemble Catholic faith have been allowed since Vatican II. Why have they not been condemned? Certainly the faith hasn’t changed, but yet our liturgy has.
P
pnewton
Guest
I meant the way I said it, not the way it was reworded. I did not use the word “merely”. That would be a limitation I would prefer not to add. My use of the word “representation” is very Catholic, not Protestant. From Mysterium Fidei:
I am sorry if the word tripped you up, but it is a theologically sound word when refering to the Mass.
On the rest of your post, you rightly point out the danger of emphasis on the community to the exclusion of worship of God, especially when all meditative worship is squeezed out. Our diocese had to have the bishop step in and order silence following communion to restore some time for this contemplative worship. But he did and we have reserved more time without activity, as it were.
G
Genesis315
Guest
This isn’t quite true. It began in the decade or two preceding the Council. It was motivated by a desire for “singularity of image.” Here’s a section of an article focusing on a certain priest who was very influential in the Liturgical Movement in the 1940s and 1950s. Notice especially the section and pictures dealing with the wrecko…errr…renovation.
usml.edu/liturgicalinstitute/exhibits/hillenbrand%20exhibit/sacred%20heart%20parish.html
G
Genesis315
Guest
It’s interesting you mention this. I was very surprised to learn that Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis was considered a kind of Magna Carta of the “Liturgical Movement.”
E
eichenb2
Guest
With a show of hands, who feels that Vatican II was, in retrospect, a mistake. Can a Catholic even say that and remain in good standing?
S
Seamus_L
Guest
I’d ask, Why was it even necessary ?
O
Ottaviani
Guest
I stand corrected, my apologies. I’m a little puzzled by Paul VI’s use of that word, but the other matters in my post were certainly more important, and it appears we’re more or less eye to to eye on that stuff:thumbsup:
P
pnewton
Guest
Use a hyphen, and pronounce the first “e” with a long vowel sound.
re-presented.
That is how I first heard this said from Fr. Corapi.
B
brigid12
Guest
She is one of my very favorite philosophers/authors. I will value being able to read this - thank you.
B
brigid12
Guest
Really agree with all that you’ve said here, and, in fact, on reading the early Church Fathers I was sometimes surprised at the very same thing that you speak about.
B
brigid12
Guest
I believe that Jews (in the time of the OT and when the NT was written/lived) meant something very different when speaking of “representation” or “in memory of” than we do today.
E
Extempore
Guest
I agree with the idea that the Mass is for the people (that is, we benefit immeasurably from attending one) but at the same time, I think that many of the changes that have occurred over the years have led people to believe that they “contribute” something to the Mass by being present. That they make it “more” of a Mass.
Not so. A Mass said privately by a priest has the same significance as a giant Mass with thousands of attendees. There is no difference, none, nada, zilch.
Not so. A Mass said privately by a priest has the same significance as a giant Mass with thousands of attendees. There is no difference, none, nada, zilch.
B
brigid12
Guest
There is a difference (or should be, at least) in the amount of love shown to God. Not that that negates the Mass said privately at all (in fact, there may be more love from that one priest than from 100s of people attending simply to look righteous to their brethren). And not that God needs our love, however love is/can be a difference.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, the Holy Oblation is efficacious with or without a congregation. The difference is not in the Mass itself, but that those who assist derive the immeasurable benefit noted from having done so.
E
Extempore
Guest
I agree that there are (theoretically at least) more prayers being offered to God simultaenously at a heavily attended Mass. This does not, however, change the importance of the Mass or make the one with more people in any way better than the one without people.
We benefit from the Mass. The Mass does not benefit from us being present at it.
I agree with malphono’s statement below:
B
brigid12
Guest
:yup:
- Status