B
Brian777
Guest
prove it! i want the proof that it was written by Catholic priests who were solid orthodox members of the Church.
Would you like to see a phasing out of the Novus Ordo Missae leading to a return to only the TLM?
- Status
S
Spiller
Guest
Stop the spin! The burden of proof is on you.
You make wild and unsubstantiated claims that the Pauline Mass is the product of Protestants and a Catholic “cardinal” who was also a Freemason. That’s a horrid non-truth.
To burden of proof is on you to substantiate your position – which you cannot of course in this case.
I
Ignatius
Guest
No.
L
luvlife
Guest
I vote no.
The mass, as it is today is the only mass I know.
I don’t get the appeal of a mass in a different language? (Latin?) I don’t speak/understand Latin.
Even the parts I have heard enough to repeat…
parche domine… parche popolutuooooo…nay nay terrooo…
(totally mangling this aren’t I?
)
Anyhow, even though I can sort of say those words, I have no clue what they mean. I think I speak for the masses. (ha - no pun intended!)
The mass, as it is today is the only mass I know.
I don’t get the appeal of a mass in a different language? (Latin?) I don’t speak/understand Latin.
Even the parts I have heard enough to repeat…
parche domine… parche popolutuooooo…nay nay terrooo…
(totally mangling this aren’t I?
)Anyhow, even though I can sort of say those words, I have no clue what they mean. I think I speak for the masses. (ha - no pun intended!)
S
Saint_Gemma
Guest
I remain Catholic because I realize that the Church is infallible, but the Bishops and Cardinals who allowed Protestants to have (name removed by moderator)ut on the Order of the Mass for the Ordinary Form of the Mass were not acting infallibly when they did so.
S
Spiller
Guest
To be blunt, I am guessing you have absolutely no accurate insight on what you are commenting on.
Do you have any Church documents that actually described what (name removed by moderator)ut the attending Protestants had on the Pauline Mass. No, I’m not asking for people opinions or hearsay, I would really like to read something from the Church that describes their (name removed by moderator)ut.
As it is your view of the Pauline Mass appears to be built largely on your acceptance of misinformation and that’s very unfortunate. Following half-baked conspiracy theories and not God and His Church can really take a toll on one’s soul.
S
Spiller
Guest
I don’t know everything about anything, but ultimately I place my trust in God and His Church. These time-worn conspiracy theories just don’t pass the smell test.
I’m still waiting to read Church documents that describe how the non-Catholic participation in the formulation of the Pauline Mass corrupted its construction.
S
Saint_Gemma
Guest
Have you ever even attended the Extraordinary Form of the Mass of the Roman Rite? If not, how would you know whether or not you like it?I vote no.
The mass, as it is today is the only mass I know.
I don’t get the appeal of a mass in a different language? (Latin?) I don’t speak/understand Latin.
Even the parts I have heard enough to repeat…
parche domine… parche popolutuooooo…nay nay terrooo…
(totally mangling this aren’t I?
Anyhow, even though I can sort of say those words, I have no clue what they mean. I think I speak for the masses. (ha - no pun intended!)
Anyhow, you do not need to able to understand Latin to understand the traditional Mass of the Roman Rite. As Padre Pio said, only the priest needs a missal, the faithful only need to understand that the Mass is the offering of Christ Crucified to God the Father, and that they receive Him in Holy Communion.
During the Mass of the Catechumens ( the Liturgy of the Word) you should meditate on your own sinfulness, while during the Mass of the Faithful (the Liturgy of the Eucharist) you should meditate on the Passion of Jesus Christ and the Eucharist that you are about to receive/have received.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Why would I meditate only on my own sinfulness during the Liturgy of the Word, something I can do any time, when instead I could listen to the Word of God proclaimed within the setting of the Mass? Why even read the readings out loud, if no one is expected to hear and understand them? It is not as if hearing the Scriptures precludes a full appreciation of one’s sinfulness. To fully understand how we are to live in God and how we have failed in that is the whole point of publicly proclaiming the Scriptures!Have you ever even attended the Extraordinary Form of the Mass of the Roman Rite? If not, how would you know whether or not you like it?
Anyhow, you do not need to able to understand Latin to understand the traditional Mass of the Roman Rite. As Padre Pio said, only the priest needs a missal, the faithful only need to understand that the Mass is the offering of Christ Crucified to God the Father, and that they receive Him in Holy Communion.
And why would I be content with anything short of fully understanding the Liturgy of the Eucharist? Can I not simultaneously hear and understand the Eucharistic Prayer and even more deeply reflect upon the Sacrifice being offered than if I did not hear or understand? What kind of ritual does not intensify one’s deep interior appreciation of the reality it signifies? It wouldn’t be much of a ritual that is not far better when it is understood than when it is not.
I cannot see how the Mass can be fully understood when what is being said is not understood. If you do not understand, then fine, you can still profit, but it is as a eight-year-old profits from hearing adult language before reaching maturity. You wouldn’t stay there on purpose. Now maybe you didn’t mean it that way at all–I cannot believe Padre Pio did!–but “there, there, honey, you don’t have to understand” sells the faithful far short. Not that a person has to be fluent in Latin to fully understand a Latin Mass, but you need to have a very good idea what is being said and when.
If the TLM is going to be re-introduced in a spirit of “don’t worry, you don’t have to understand it” rather than the fully-attainable “don’t worry, if you apply yourself you will understand it before long”, I would rather it not be widely re-introduced.
I also say this so that those who hear the EF once won’t give up on it right off the bat. Rituals that are not even understood at first can become intensely meaningful as understanding of their meaning increases…even if many of the rituals are out of one’s direct line of sight. The Latin of the EF can be learned well enough to understand. It doesn’t happen in a day, but it doesn’t take linguistic brilliance to do it, either.
H
HashemEchad
Guest
Thing is, it was not only the language that was changed. They also changed parts of the form of the Mass, esp. the words of consecration (“pro vobis et pro multis” to “pro vobis et pro omnis”.)I vote no.
The mass, as it is today is the only mass I know.
I don’t get the appeal of a mass in a different language? (Latin?) I don’t speak/understand Latin.
Even the parts I have heard enough to repeat…
parche domine… parche popolutuooooo…nay nay terrooo…
(totally mangling this aren’t I?
Anyhow, even though I can sort of say those words, I have no clue what they mean. I think I speak for the masses. (ha - no pun intended!)
That might not seem on the surface like a major difference, but according to traditional Catholic theology, it IS.
You might find this book interesting: “How Christ Said the First Mass” (TAN Publishers).
P
ProVobis
Guest
I did an extensive search but couldn’t find the Protestant names without some Freemason mention but here’s something from the Detroit News about the Protestant influence.
books.google.com/books?id=KSEePYkCaRwC&pg=RA2-PA396&lpg=RA2-PA396&dq=bugnini+six+protestants&source=web&ots=ZPxijYlh3i&sig=75votjWdGJ1FTpnfqBjuS9yjA_g&hl=en
But keep in mind again, even if atheists had written the Mass, they wouldn’t have the authority to promulgate it.
G
Grace_Angel
Guest
St Rafael, I wish you hadnt quoted statistics. I get edgy when this happens. You see the stats you quoted whilst real, carry behind them a huge history.
in 1965 the family was still intact. Then in 1968 Humane Vitae was released to counter the burgeoning sexual revolution, and guess what? HV was rejected virtually en amsse by the whole world and especially by the Catholic world, who should have embraced this great gift from God.
As a result of rejection of HV, and the sexual revolution, and the development of contraceptive mentality, a new mentality began emerging, ABORTION. If conception was refused, then God the Holy Spirit “The Lord and Giver of Life” was rejected, and guess what the Holy Spirit was shut out from the bedroom and He left “Marriage” Now we have marriage breakdown, abortion, NO to family. No to children. No to God. No to Life.
In a 35 year time span we have gone from a society whose value of the family was never in question to a society where the family is mostly imperiled. And guess what St Rafael? Where do seminarians and priests come from? the family.
Today we have sortage of priests/religious because of wounds against life. Because of offence against the Third person of the Blessed Trinity. Because of sins against the communion of beings (family). The final assault against family, life, will be euthanasia, now that abortion (killing of new life, new seminarians, new priests) is a “right”
So, I am sorry the style of Mass is not the problem, the problem is deeper and the wounds are against God the Holy Spirit.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t think you’re being objective when you say it that way. I think you know that there is plenty of documentation (try a google search on “Bugnini six Protestants”) but you’re ready to discredit all sources which you don’t like, and you should based upon your convictions. But I for one will not take the bait.
P
pnewton
Guest
Objectivity is the issue at hand. I do not doubt the credibility of the Catholic Church. I do doubt the credibility of many of Her detractors. You are right that much of the so-called evidence produced by enemies of Bugnini would not be viewed with the same credibility of Vatican documents, or even disinterested news sources.
C
Conservative
Guest
WOW! I didn’t know the numbers / statistics were that drastic.
Sadly, in addition to a break from Tradition, I do believe that we’re in whatever era one chooses to call it: “end times”, “Great Apostasy”; whatever. People have abandoned their Faith - and centered everything on money, pleasures, themselves, etc. - Everything is scheduled, except worshipping God, which people seem to need an alternate Sabbath appointed just in case they’re too busy to make it on Sunday. That’s putting everything else before God, and we’re paying for it.
The irony is that I haven’t heard Traditional seminaries having a problem keeping up with/providing Traditional priests for parishes who want them.
Praise God !
J
JReducation
Guest
Be careful that you are not unfair to the secular clergy. They have been called by God to the deaconate, priesthood and episcopacy. They have not been called by God to the consecrated life. There is no reason to expect them to live and work as do consecrated religious. They are not religious. God and the Church does not want them to be religious. They are mean to remain in the secular world and to bring the faith through the functions that are proper to those in Holy Orders.
Just as religious are not necessarily called to both Holy Orders and and the consecrated life. Those who are called to the Consecrated life are called to place their religious commitment to their order before their ministry to the laity, unless the founder included minisry in his charism. Not all founders did.
For example, St. Bernard did not include ministry in the consecrated life. Therefore, Cistercians are not allowed to minister to the liaty, unless they approach them at the monastery and even there, it is with limits.
In fairness, let’s not compare those who are diocesan priests and priests who are religious. Priests who are religious are first and foremost Consecrated Men and then priests. Diocesan priests are first and foremost priests, then secular men. Very different callings for specific reasons. Both can lead others to great holiness. Also, it it not the duty of clerics or religioius to run ministries that the laity should run. It is their job to oversee that it is faithful to the Church. Eventually, they pull back to allow the ministry to grow without being dependent on one person. Ministries that are dependent on one person tend to suffer when that person is not longer there.
Yes, secular priests do take a day off, like all secular men and women. They do go home at night, like all secular men and women. They live independent lives, like all secular men and women. Christ called them to Holy Orders, not to live the Consecrated Life. They make a promise of obedience to the local bishop, not to a community and this promise only binds them in matters regarding ministry, not their personal life. They take no vow of poverty and they take no vow of chastity, so they are not bound to a community. They make a promise of celibacy, which binds them to the single life. Big difference between a solemn vow of chastity and a promise of celibacy.
JR
S
Spiller
Guest
Still waiting – and please, no Chick comics…
C
Channy
Guest
I am an Old Catholic and have studied a great variety of liturgies, and what constitues valid sacraments and Orders and such. I think that It would be of a great service to all Catholics if we held on a little tighter to the historic Church, including the TLM. But the Church also has to be able to continue to grow in its magistrum. If we truly are obedient to Christ we will obey the Bishops and priests who are our spiritual leaders. The TLM is probably the most beautiful prayer ever spoken other than some of Christs, but I hear alot of disrespect for the NO, not hear per se, and personally I find it to be a very powerful, orthodox liturgy that feeds us the body and blood of our savior Jesus Christ. Both should be treasured for their role in our salvation.
V
vocatio
Guest
I love the Pre-Vatican Liturgy, however can you visualize just how much more lost Catholics would be without hearing it in their native tongue. It would be even more mass chaos. I for one would love to go to the East for the Divin Liturgy. There we would recieve both species without fail. None of this separating them and disallowing it for centuries.
But I do see the value in returning to more traditional Catholicism, just leave the crazy stuff home please. I had enough of that from my dad. Tranditional Catholicism can be even more cruel than Fundamentalism and I’ve had enough of that in my life time. I’m thrilled that the TLM has be allowed. Now we just need to get it rolling again. I would like to see us able to confess sins before mass and kneeling at the front if not a rail. The rail made good sense just to prop yourself up. I remember going up front, kneeling as the priest made his pass. It was quick and orderly.
I’d like to see an ancient tradition that reflects the Divine Liturgy of the East. If I’m not mistaken, they do not kneel or genuflect. They bow profoundly. And I’d like to go to the orginal language of the early church…Greek.
N
nannygirl
Guest
Here is an interesting link pertaining to this subject for any who are interested:
institute-christ-king.org/ResourcesHome/Documents.htm#AgathaChristie
institute-christ-king.org/ResourcesHome/Documents.htm#AgathaChristie
- Status