- Status
But I don’t believe all that’s recorded in the history books .
S
Saxum
Guest
At least you’ve read them critically. This is more than I can say for people who dismiss things with the cry “conspiracy theory.”
S
Saxum
Guest
Rome granted an indult to the traditional societies. As a result of this indult, the second confiteor is said by the vast majority of traditional priests.
T
Theo2
Guest
Certainly not. God does not listen to the words but what is in our hearts. God will give us what we need not necessarily what we ask for. Prayer is all about conforming our will to God’s will. In the end our words don’t matter.
What percentage would that be ?
S
Saxum
Guest
Every traditional Mass I have attended since I first began in 2007. Don’t ask for percentages when you know I couldn’t possibly give them. All I can say is that I’ve seen the FSSP, the SSPX and the local diocesan priests celebrate Masses with the second confiteor. I was also the local rep for the LMS and I know that all of the priests included it. It is routine practice.
Last edited:
T
Theo2
Guest
Like I said what words we use do not matter. However, if the changes in the mass are making it easier for protestants to convert, I think that is a very good thing. We used to get a hand full of converts a year, now it is dozens. Also, praise God for all the ministers we have received. Now, we have a lot of fallen away but were they doing the church much good if they can be scattered so easily. I served mass in Latin so I have lived through the changes.
E
Entwhistler
Guest
My FSSP parish says the second confiteor. Just FYI.
O
Onthisrock84
Guest
Well the second Vatican council didn’t really reform the Mass. Really a Mass done during and even following the council was a mass said in Latin except the propers of the day could be said in the vernacular. The priest still was facing the altar. I believe the Leonine Prayers were suppressed and also the last Gospel. But besides that the mass was really the same. It was five years later the new Mass of Paul Vl was introduced.
Last edited:
O
Onthisrock84
Guest
Yes it’s interesting most do however I have never found a Missal that has the second confeitor present. Even the strictly 1962 ones. Maybe they just assume people can go back or know it was to be said. Or maybe it wasn’t mandatory. I don’t know.
M
Maximilian75
Guest
You’re creating a false dichotomy.
We can accept the good principles of Luther and Calvin while rejecting their heresy/unorthodoxy
We can accept the good principles of Luther and Calvin while rejecting their heresy/unorthodoxy
G
giuseppe96
Guest
I say the old form after examining my conscience before night prayers at bedtime.
O
Onthisrock84
Guest
Well the last which is the official Extraordinary Form is the 1962 missal propagated by Saint John XXlll. I believe the only thing which changed in the Mass was the invocation of Saint Joseph into the Canon of Mass. Or known in the Novus Ordo as Eucharistic Prayer 1. That was the only one used.
S
Saxum
Guest
No we should not have done this. The liturgical reform was a disaster because it was a false interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The problems of the reform are well-known. That’s why Pope Benedict XVI called for a new liturgical movement and liberated the Old Mass in the hopes to encourage organic development of the new liturgy.
BUT…
The OF is a valid Mass that can be celebrated very beautifully. I’ve received many graces at the OF and still attend it regularly.
Last edited:
K
kill051
Guest
The seemingly endless reworking of the time-honored Catholic prayers is, for me, one of the strongest arguments in favor of a move away from the vernacular and back to the use of liturgical Latin.
K
kill051
Guest
I remember once being in a bookshop and standing near a woman and her daughter who were in the same row as I. They had evidently lighted on a volume entitled Mischievous Meg, and I’ll never forget the mother’s cry: ‘Oh, look! It’s MIS - CHEE - VEE - US MEG!’ Even at that age(I couldn’t have been older than twelve), that pronunciation was like fingernails on a blackboard to my ear. I was so tempted to correct her!As long as people don’t say “greiv-ee-ous”, instead of “grievous”, I’m happy.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I could research it all day. I do not doubt it may have been done to appeal to Protestants, but the substantive effect of the prayer is the same - or even better with the new prayer because it includes more angels.
When I write a contract, the other party might want something worded differently because they like it better. If the legal effect of the new wording is the same or even better for me, I’ll agree to their wording.
Same thing.
P
Peeps
Guest
Saxum, if it makes you feel any better, my husband and I, both born and raised in Evangelical Protestant churches (my husband Pentecostal, and me Baptist), found the Ordinary Form of the Mass utterly foreign to everything that we had grown up with, and extremely old-fashioned and staid and quiet and mysterious and very confusing.
Other than one Catholic wedding (done in the Extraordinary Form back in the early 1980s), we had never attended a Mass before. We started going to Mass in 2002 after a major falling-out with our church that drove us away from involvement with Protestant churches forever. It took us over a year to realize that we really needed to obey God’s teaching in Hebrews about not neglecting to associate with believers. We decided to attend the Catholic church down the street from us because it was the closest Christian church to our house.
We had no idea that there are 2 forms of the Latin Rite (Ordinary and Extraordinary). We knew little to nothing about Catholic history, and didn’t know that for centuries, the Mass had been done in Latin (we thought that was just for weddings.) We assumed that the Mass we were sitting at was the same Mass that the Catholic Church had always done, and thought it was really cool that we were doing the same things that our ancestors had done centuries earlier!
And yes, we found it completely, totally, absolutely different than ANY of the Protestant churches we had been part of. NOTHING other than the Lord’s Prayer (the Our Father) was familiar to us, and also the Bible readings (we had our own Protestant Bibles with us and compared the readings to what our Bibles said, and we were surprised that they were the same readings!)
We didn’t know any of the hymns (Haugan, Haas, etc.), but we liked them because they were pretty and had good words. (Keep in mind that we were coming out of churches with big P and W bands and music, so of course Haugan songs sounded pretty to us.)
We didn’t know any of the prayers or recitations. We shook hands during Sign of Peace, but we thought it seemed extremely restrained and very short. And everythin throughout the Mass was so quiet compared to what we were used to in the Protestant churches.
And the sermon was sooooo short! We were used to at least 45 minutes for a sermon!
So to us, the Mass did not seem at all “Protestant.” It was very different. I can assure you that if the goal of the Vatican 2 reformers was to make the Mass more “comfortable” for Protestants. they failed big-time.
Since then, we’ve learned all about the Mass, and we realize that mainline Protestants would be a lot more familiar with a lot of the Ordinary Form rubrics. But not Evangelical Protestants, which make up the vast majority of Protestants in the U.S. To them, the Mass is really different.
I hope this makes you feel a little better about the Ordinary Form.
Other than one Catholic wedding (done in the Extraordinary Form back in the early 1980s), we had never attended a Mass before. We started going to Mass in 2002 after a major falling-out with our church that drove us away from involvement with Protestant churches forever. It took us over a year to realize that we really needed to obey God’s teaching in Hebrews about not neglecting to associate with believers. We decided to attend the Catholic church down the street from us because it was the closest Christian church to our house.
We had no idea that there are 2 forms of the Latin Rite (Ordinary and Extraordinary). We knew little to nothing about Catholic history, and didn’t know that for centuries, the Mass had been done in Latin (we thought that was just for weddings.) We assumed that the Mass we were sitting at was the same Mass that the Catholic Church had always done, and thought it was really cool that we were doing the same things that our ancestors had done centuries earlier!
And yes, we found it completely, totally, absolutely different than ANY of the Protestant churches we had been part of. NOTHING other than the Lord’s Prayer (the Our Father) was familiar to us, and also the Bible readings (we had our own Protestant Bibles with us and compared the readings to what our Bibles said, and we were surprised that they were the same readings!)
We didn’t know any of the hymns (Haugan, Haas, etc.), but we liked them because they were pretty and had good words. (Keep in mind that we were coming out of churches with big P and W bands and music, so of course Haugan songs sounded pretty to us.)
We didn’t know any of the prayers or recitations. We shook hands during Sign of Peace, but we thought it seemed extremely restrained and very short. And everythin throughout the Mass was so quiet compared to what we were used to in the Protestant churches.
And the sermon was sooooo short! We were used to at least 45 minutes for a sermon!
So to us, the Mass did not seem at all “Protestant.” It was very different. I can assure you that if the goal of the Vatican 2 reformers was to make the Mass more “comfortable” for Protestants. they failed big-time.
Since then, we’ve learned all about the Mass, and we realize that mainline Protestants would be a lot more familiar with a lot of the Ordinary Form rubrics. But not Evangelical Protestants, which make up the vast majority of Protestants in the U.S. To them, the Mass is really different.
I hope this makes you feel a little better about the Ordinary Form.
Last edited:
S
Saxum
Guest
I definitely see your point but I cannot agree. As a conservative, I believe in preserving the treasures that have been handed down to us; changes should be made incrementally and only when they are needed to secure the existence of the thing. Radical changes should never be made without a very good reason. The EF Mass is one of the most beautiful ceremonies known to man. An entire culture was built around this Mass: beautiful architecture, art, music, vestments. It was a priceless heirloom that connected Catholics with their past and united them in a common language and heritage. Changes were needed but I feel that Bugnini went too far. Benedict XVI greatly influenced my thinking in this area and I totally agree with his plans for mutual enrichment of the two Masses.
Last edited:
- Status