K
- Status
R
ravenonthecross
Guest
Hopefully this combined with a reverent chanting of the mass, traditional-style vestments that invoke the holiness that is Christ in the Priest who is “in Persona Christi”,some incense, and some simple plainchant, and hymns (perhaps the Adoremus Hymnal), this would suite well for the English/ vernacular mass, with the Latin High Novus Ordo Mass, having just the Ordinary of the Mass with Latin Gregorian Chant in Latin, to preserved, fostered, and maintained, and encouraged as promulgated the Second Vatican council. I may have been a little unrealistic, in my posts regarding the missal of 1965, or TLM for the time being, however like I’ve repeated before, if our Novus Ordo Priest celebrate the Holy Novus Ordo Missae in the same Reverent Vernacular and Latin Masses that St. Agnes Parish in ST. Paul, Minnesota, then the Church will blossom. If folks get annoyed at my reiterating myself, just let me know.
R
ravenonthecross
Guest
sorry, I also, refrequently forget if I’ve posted something, or whether I just though of it, so that also, might have something to do with mulitplicity of my post re-iterating one another.
R
Rabbititus
Guest
Oh yeah, and I think the variation of the Agnus Dei specific to requiem masses should be restored to the NO, along with the Dies Irae sequence (at least make it optional).
A
Arwen037
Guest
Actually I’m Catholic. I joined the forum while I was converting. I just forgot that that was in my profile. Now what’s wrong with the picture? Besides, I was the only one planning the masses for a year. Again, no one else was willing. Plus I had been to a Catholic grade school. I knew the rules, and I worked while a priest who made sure no mistakes were made. And yes, I called you morons. You aren’t looking at practicality. I’ve begged guys to serve (like at our Baccalaureate mass) and it was nearly impossible to get any. And as for the time, it takes more than 5 minutes even with 3 other people giving out the host. And you plan to deny people the blood of Christ?
R
ravenonthecross
Guest
Uhm, since the full body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is present in both species of the Eucharist, receiving just either would be receiving all of Christ’s full body, blood, soul, and divinity. Besides, it is up to the invidual priest to determine whether or not he would choose observe the tradition of communion reception under one species, presumbably to prevent spilling of the sacred Blood, or both. Either way have been valid, Bothmethods for the Church for centuries. It is really up to the Holy Mother Church, who in this case, sought fit, to leave such a choice up to the local priest.
Pax Christi,
Matthew
A
Arwen037
Guest
And I talked to my local priest and he said that you aren’t allowed to deny people the reception of body and blood for convenience.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
With all due respect to your priest, that’s not actually so. The Most Precious Blood is NOT offered under its seperate species, for example, at papal masses in St. Peter’s square to reduce the risk of profanation. It’s not about convenience, it’s about using common sense to protect the Blessed Sacrament.
S
Sure
Guest
You might want to pass this portion of the GIRM onto your pastor:
So, yes Communion MAY be offered under both species under the right circumstances and with permission from the Bishop. But in no way is it required to offer both species to the people.
B
bkovacs
Guest
Unfortunately your probably right!. The Roman Catholic Church has become to Protestant!. We will have a Protestant Roman Catholic Church, and a Traditional Roman Catholic Chuch. With the majority being part of the PRCC.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Patent falsehood. The Church cannot protest against Herself. There’s nothing Protestant about her. We have things in common from Protestants because they derive many of their beliefs and practices from ours.
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
I think we have been through this already on other threads. Church does not Protest against herself, I definitely agree ( when of course we speak of the truly Universal Church, that is the Catholic Church and not the ideology that he Universal Church subsists in the Catholic Church).
The NO service is definitely Protestantized.
**
For example, the similarities with Thomas Cranmer’s 1549 Anglican (PROTESTANT) book of prayer is undeniable.** For examples, and there are plenty, someone should start another thread.
The Best thing to do, and it is recommended for all NO service participants, is to read the Anglican Prayer Book for yourself.
Also ***1552 Anglican Prayer Book instructed that Communion was to be given in the hand ***to signify that the Eucharist was merely everyday bread and in addition, the priest and laity are essentially on par, when considering the distribution of the Eucharist.
In addition, go to your local Masonic Lodge (FreeMasons) and you will immediately identify that the set up of the NO service and the Freemason Lodge are exact. Table, chairs, podium, and all. Please investigate for yourself as I have, the resemblance is shocking.
Yes, they have branched out from the Universal Church, but the NO service has attributed things to itself that are not from the Universal Church, but of things that are originations of PROTESTANTISM (or other).
BTW, nice to have you back.
S
Sure
Guest
Ummm…since the Anglican Prayer Book was based on 1500 years of Catholic tradition one would expect some similiarity to Catholic prayers. They both have the same roots ultimately in Catholicism, so it makes sense.I think we have been through this already on other threads. Church does not Protest against herself, I definitely agree ( when of course we speak of the truly Universal Church, that is the Catholic Church and not the ideology that he Universal Church subsists in the Catholic Church).
The NO service is definitely Protestantized.
**
For example, the similarities with Thomas Cranmer’s 1549 Anglican (PROTESTANT) book of prayer is undeniable.** For examples, and there are plenty, someone should start another thread.
The Best thing to do, and it is recommended for all NO service participants, is to read the Anglican Prayer Book for yourself.
Also ***1552 Anglican Prayer Book instructed that Communion was to be given in the hand ***to signify that the Eucharist was merely everyday bread and in addition, the priest and laity are essentially on par, when considering the distribution of the Eucharist.
In addition, go to your local Masonic Lodge (FreeMasons) and you will immediately identify that the set up of the NO service and the Freemason Lodge are exact. Table, chairs, podium, and all. Please investigate for yourself as I have, the resemblance is shocking.
Yes, they have branched out from the Universal Church, but the NO service has attributed things to itself that are not from the Universal Church, but of things that are originations of PROTESTANTISM (or other).
BTW, nice to have you back.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Yes, it’s not so much good to be back, but it IS important to be back. We have to do all in our poor power to help correct some of the falsehoods being spread in these fora.I think we have been through this already on other threads. Church does not Protest against herself, I definitely agree ( when of course we speak of the truly Universal Church, that is the Catholic Church and not the ideology that he Universal Church subsists in the Catholic Church).
The NO service is definitely Protestantized.
**
For example, the similarities with Thomas Cranmer’s 1549 Anglican (PROTESTANT) book of prayer is undeniable.** For examples, and there are plenty, someone should start another thread.
The Best thing to do, and it is recommended for all NO service participants, is to read the Anglican Prayer Book for yourself.
Also ***1552 Anglican Prayer Book instructed that Communion was to be given in the hand ***to signify that the Eucharist was merely everyday bread and in addition, the priest and laity are essentially on par, when considering the distribution of the Eucharist.
In addition, go to your local Masonic Lodge (FreeMasons) and you will immediately identify that the set up of the NO service and the Freemason Lodge are exact. Table, chairs, podium, and all. Please investigate for yourself as I have, the resemblance is shocking.
Yes, they have branched out from the Universal Church, but the NO service has attributed things to itself that are not from the Universal Church, but of things that are originations of PROTESTANTISM (or other).
BTW, nice to have you back.
The charge that the NO Mass is, of itself, ontologically, Protestantized is just such a complete falsehood perpetrated by some “traditionalists.” Yes, the NO Mass (and the TLM, if you read the vernacular translation) have some similarities to the Anglican service. Go to a source as simple as Wikipedia and you’ll find out why. It explains how Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry V and Edward VI, largely created it himself and the sources that he drew on, such as the Sarum Usage, similar to other western liturgies predating Trent. The Tridentine, the Sarum Usage, the NO, etc., have common liturgical roots. THAT’s why they are similar. We say the same Nicene Creed at about the same time, the offeratory is about the same. They have common antededents. The Anglican drifted into heresy and schism, but the NO, of itself, has not (we still believe that the Holy Sacrifice must be confected, Anglicans generally do not). Remember that Trent laid an anathema on anyone who alledged that the disciplines with which the Church governed her sacraments might lead the faithful into impiety.
As for a Masonic temple, I’ve no idea, I don’t attend them, though I’ve seen the picture you are apparently talking about. However, most NO Masses I’ve been to simply look like an extremely simplified version of Saint Peter’s in terms of lay out, the centrality of the altar, the location of the ambo, chairs, etc. Is the Holy Father also a Mason? There are those who assert that the Eucharist and Holy Communion of the Same are a direct derivation from Mithraism. Your assertion regarding the NO and the Masons is just as false.
L
lak611
Guest
Do you believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid?I think we have been through this already on other threads. Church does not Protest against herself, I definitely agree ( when of course we speak of the truly Universal Church, that is the Catholic Church and not the ideology that he Universal Church subsists in the Catholic Church).
The NO service is definitely Protestantized.
**
For example, the similarities with Thomas Cranmer’s 1549 Anglican (PROTESTANT) book of prayer is undeniable.** For examples, and there are plenty, someone should start another thread.
The Best thing to do, and it is recommended for all NO service participants, is to read the Anglican Prayer Book for yourself.
Also ***1552 Anglican Prayer Book instructed that Communion was to be given in the hand ***to signify that the Eucharist was merely everyday bread and in addition, the priest and laity are essentially on par, when considering the distribution of the Eucharist.
In addition, go to your local Masonic Lodge (FreeMasons) and you will immediately identify that the set up of the NO service and the Freemason Lodge are exact. Table, chairs, podium, and all. Please investigate for yourself as I have, the resemblance is shocking.
Yes, they have branched out from the Universal Church, but the NO service has attributed things to itself that are not from the Universal Church, but of things that are originations of PROTESTANTISM (or other).
BTW, nice to have you back.
B
BobP123
Guest
L
lak611
Guest
Which one?
I do not understand your question. Please elaborate.
B
BobP123
Guest
Please wait before I finish editting. My, you guys are quick tonight.
Watch, bear will probably add something now too.
B
bear06
Guest
It’s raining.Please wait before I finish editting. My, you guys are quick tonight.
J
Jakub
Guest
**The development of doctrine **
photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/5798/1838/320/vincentlerins.jpg~by St. Vincent of Lerins
Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale.
Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.
The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.
The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were. There is a great difference between the flower of childhood and the maturity of age, but those who become old are the very same people who were once young. Though the condition and appearance of one and the same individual may change, it is one and the same nature, one and the same person.
The tiny members of unweaned children and the grown members of young men are still the same members. Men have the same number of limbs as children. Whatever develops at a later age was already present in seminal form; there is nothing new in old age that was not already latent in childhood.
There is no doubt, then, that the legitimate and correct rule of development, the established and wonderful order of growth, is this: in older people the fullness of years always brings to completion those members and forms that the wisdom of the Creator fashioned beforehand in their earlier years.
If, however, the human form were to turn into some shape that did not belong to its own nature, or even if something were added to the sum of its members or subtracted from it, the whole body would necessarily perish or become grotesque or at least be enfeebled. In the same way, the doctrine of the Christian religion should properly follow these laws of development, that is, by becoming firmer over the years, more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age.
In ancient times our ancestors sowed the good seed in the harvest field of the Church. It would be very wrong and unfitting if we, their descendants, were to reap, not the genuine wheat of truth but the intrusive growth of error.
On the contrary, what is right and fitting is this: there should be no inconsistency between first and last, but we should reap true doctrine from the growth of true teaching, so that when, in the course of time, those first sowings yield an increase it may flourish and be tended in our day also.
Courtesy of Argent by the Tiber, Today’s Office of Readings,
Could you apply it to the Liturgy ? Yes
james
- Status