Your interpretaton wasn’t a misquote. It just showed I needed to clarify a bit. That’s OK!I’m sorry to have misquoted or misunderstood you (seems to be a lot of that going on today). However, I do hold to this idea that in an age of narcissism and rebelliousness that a secondary liturgy was created in order to protect the original.
What a bizarre scenario. It is the interior condition of the soul that is of main importance to those involved; I doubt, therefore, that a “den of thieves” would seriously have the interior disposition to celebrate the liturgy as a form of worship pleasing to God or for the good of their own souls. For the same reason that one should not receive the Eucharist while in a unworthy state, a “den of thieves” would (I personally believe) find themselves in the same predicament.Would you say a valid Mass celebrated in a “den of thieves” is equally pleasing to God as a valid Mass celebrated in a Church?
I don’t understand the first paragraph - I used “den of thieves” to refer to an evil / non-holy place.I don’t know what this has to do with the difference between the OF and the EF. The thefts that happen in the bank and in the street are different, but exterior appearance of safety hardly means that a crime can’t take place. If anything, the banker has the opportunity to steal far more than the one who is not in a position of trust.
Another very imperfect analogy, but just to say that while the violations will differ, there is no Mass that is secure from any violations. The distinction God made between Cain and Abel was not the difference between what a farmer has to offer and what a shepherd has to offer. The difference God judged was in the heart.
My point is that validity isn’t the be all or end all when it comes to the liturgy. I think its safe to say that a valid Mass celebrated amidst a strip club isn’t as pleasing or meritorious as one celebrated in a Church. The surrounding prayers, rubrics, setting of the Mass matter.What a bizarre scenario. It is the interior condition of the soul that is of main importance to those involved; I doubt, therefore, that a “den of thieves” would seriously have the interior disposition to celebrate the liturgy as a form of worship pleasing to God or for the good of their own souls. For the same reason that one should not receive the Eucharist while in a unworthy state, a “den of thieves” would (I personally believe) find themselves in the same predicament.
All things being equal, I do not believe that God has a preference of one form of the liturgy over another. To say that He does is to apply human characteristics to Him.
In that case, if a participant was in a state of grace, with perfect contrition for their sins and a true desire of God’s love and mercy then I guess I would say, yes, it is just as pleasing to God since His desire is to see that none of His children are lost. (Please keep in mind that I say this simply by accepting the extremities of your argument…Mass should always be celebrated in a reverent, proper place within the proper context and settings.)My point is that validity isn’t the be all or end all when it comes to the liturgy. I think its safe to say that a valid Mass celebrated amidst a strip club isn’t as pleasing or meritorious as one celebrated in a Church. The surrounding prayers, rubrics, setting of the Mass matter.
Yes its bizarre, but I am just trying to use an extreme argument to make a point.
EDIT: What has led you to believe that God doesn’t have a preference for the form of liturgy? That seems a little off.
Then I must ask, what do you have to show that God does, indeed, prefer the Roman Rite (as an example) over any of the other rites in the history of the Catholic faith?What has led you to believe that God doesn’t have a preference for the form of liturgy? That seems a little off.
Fair enough. I was thinking in a more general sense. For example, Catholic rites preferred over some random form.Then I must ask, what do you have to show that God does, indeed, prefer the Roman Rite (as an example) over any of the other rites in the history of the Catholic faith?
In this case, I would certainly agree with you. Catholic rites are part of the Church of Christ.Fair enough. I was thinking in a more general sense. For example, Catholic rites preferred over some random form.
Seems as if Protestantism was born the same day Christ was.beginning of the Church (which of course predates Protestantism).
Yes and antiquarianism was condemned by Pius XII.that argument represents antiquarianism
The difference isn’t between a farmer and a shepherd but the fact that they are both able to offer the same sacrifice and also in the best way they can. Once a time-tested method of pleasing God is found, why look for shortcuts and dumb-downs?The distinction God made between Cain and Abel was not the difference between what a farmer has to offer and what a shepherd has to offer.
You know I keep hearing this. SInce antiquarianism is in general the love of anything old, it is scarcely sinful. If so, shopping for antiques would be sinful. I keep wanting to find what this means, but am having a hard time finding source documents (not traditional site opinions).Yes and antiquarianism was condemned by Pius XII.
Not to mention undermining the inspiration of the Mass had on helping build Western civilization altogether.
How would your statement even make sense then if we know God prefers the Catholic Church (the one He started) over other denominations?What a bizarre scenario. It is the interior condition of the soul that is of main importance to those involved; I doubt, therefore, that a “den of thieves” would seriously have the interior disposition to celebrate the liturgy as a form of worship pleasing to God or for the good of their own souls. For the same reason that one should not receive the Eucharist while in a unworthy state, a “den of thieves” would (I personally believe) find themselves in the same predicament.
All things being equal, I do not believe that God has a preference of one form of the liturgy over another. To say that He does is to apply human characteristics to Him.
If that is your argument to promote the TLM, good luck.The difference isn’t between a farmer and a shepherd but the fact that they are both able to offer the same sacrifice and also in the best way they can. Once a time-tested method of pleasing God is found, why look for shortcuts and dumb-downs?
I didn’t catch the point you were going after.I don’t understand the first paragraph - I used “den of thieves” to refer to an evil / non-holy place.
It has nothing to do with the difference between the OF and the EF. Timothysis made a point of including “valid” in his response. My point is that validity isn’t end all. We shouldn’t merely settle for what is valid, but rather what is most efficacious, pleasing to God, etc.
Is “good luck” the best you can do to counter? You don’t deny the basically untested aspects of the new rite but just hope it hangs in there for another 40 years?If that is your argument to promote the TLM, good luck.
How about this:cfnews.org/kramer.htmIf that is your argument to promote the TLM, good luck.
“And as we go through them one by one, we see that the changes made in the liturgy reflect exactly those changes undertaken by the Protestant Reformers in the 16th Century. Does it not seem to be more than coincidence that all the changes made in the liturgy were precisely those made by the Protestant Reformers? And whatever was found to be offensive to the Protestants, whatever was most dear to traditional Catholic Eucharistic doctrine and the doctrine of the Holy Mass, was either toned down or removed altogether from the liturgy, so that one of the Protestant observers at Vatican II, who helped and gave advice in making the new liturgy, said that “Evangelical Protestants with all tranquility may use this new Rite of Mass.” The “new foundation” of Eucharistic theology is clearly Protestant.”the OF is not a protestantization; it is a paring down of a lot of things that were tacked on over the centuries, and additions to the readings. We can all agree it was abrupt in its changes, not organically changed, and that it is going to see further work.