You must not challenge the NO Mass

[pickguard1]

Since you are new, let me in on the fact that most of us know the difference between truth and opinion. Shout your opinion all you want, but you will deceive ot this difference no one by using bold text.

What about her post was deceptive?
[/quote]

 

[pnewton]

What about her post was deceptive?

Not deceptive as in a lie, but rather an error. She claimed as truth something that was her opinion. It is entirely possible that there is simply a lack of understanding of the concept of objective truth.

 

[pnewton]

but rather re-translating the varnacular to fit more closely with what the missal of 1962 had, such as responding “and with thy spirit” instead of “and also with you”, or the words of consecration returning to “for many” ranther than “for all.” So in that sense, there is a return.

There was also a desire for him to restore the priest facing liturgical East.

 

[Ockham]

I don’t assert the Pope’s intentions to be the elimination of the NO. I have read his words and very encouraged by his deeds. It may take generations to get our liturgy back to where it once was as I’m sure the Holy Father is aware. Just look at what happened in Austria when he tried to appoint a “conservative” bishop. The “liberal” bishops nearly went into schism and the appointee had to withdraw. It’s much harder to smarten up then dumb down so I’m accepting the OF being in its current state for at least the years I have left on this side of heaven. As long as the TLM doesn’t get restricted again my spiritual needs will be met.

 

[MarthaTherese]

Since you are new, let me in on the fact that most of us know the difference between truth and opinion. Shout your opinion all you want, but you will deceive ot this difference no one by using bold text.

Other than the fact that you have a very cute little boy, I’m not at all sure what you just said. I try to base my “opinions” on doctrine and dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. I will not bore you by citing any. Yes, I’m “new” here. I was a regular some 8 years ago, but then did not have access to the internet for quite some time. In my “opinion” you would do well to refrain from personal attacks that attempt to demean others. It only makes you look hateful.

 

[pnewton]

I could not agree more with this post. This is the only explanation anyone should need to know that all the abusive changes made in the NO are in error**.**

I will explain. This comment was made in response to another posts about the legitimate and licit changes in the Mass. Love it or hate it, unless one rejects the authority of the papacy, one can nod deny that the Holy Father is in charge of liturgical discipline. Therefore the statement you made can not possibly be “truth” since the concept can no apply to prudential judgment. You can say they were imprudent, ill-advised or any such thing, but such an opinion can never be “truth.”

BTW, this site has only been here five years. I also should not have made the post personal. You might have forgotten nuances like the use of bold type.

 

[MarthaTherese]

I will explain. This comment was made in response to another posts about the legitimate and licit changes in the Mass. Love it or hate it, unless one rejects the authority of the papacy, one can nod deny that the Holy Father is in charge of liturgical discipline. Therefore the statement you made can not possibly be “truth” since the concept can no apply to prudential judgment. You can say they were imprudent, ill-advised or any such thing, but such an opinion can never be “truth.”

BTW, this site has only been here five years. I also should not have made the post personal. You might have forgotten nuances like the use of bold type.

Ok, so you were not upset by the use of bold type on one sentence. You were actually upset that I had agreed with another writer who cited prior papal authority. Thanks for the sidways “apology.”
You are obviously hurt and offended by anyone who sees the Tridentine Mass as the only one they wish to attend. Forget about licit and illicit, I will leave that judgment to the Almighty in His Own Time. It may have been another Catholic Forum I was involved in; no matter, as the slight you intended to impart to me was misplaced.
Our Holy Father is very dear to my heart. As Cardinal Ratzinger he was a lion for the restoration of the ligurgy and the main authority on it. A Traditionalist at heart, he is very sad for the abuses in local parishes.
I know from personal experience it is very difficult to find a church that does not practice these abuses, but that doesn’t make it ok to defend the abuses. It just places a wonderful sacrifice in your hands to do the work to find a church that truly feeds your spiritual needs, instead of the social gathering and chatting that goes on in most NO churches.
You should go back to the original post that I had agreed with and please read it fully. That is an authoritative Papal TRUTH. VII never gave the go-ahead to any parish or priest to:
change the liturgy, thereby changing it’s meaning, to remove kneelers thereby removing reverence, to hand out the Holy Eucharist into unconsecrated hands, to remove the tabernacle from the sanctuary, so the genuflection or bow toward the altar is meaningless, to remove the corpus from the main crucifix in the sanctuary. I could go on and on, but obviously you would disagree.
Once someone thinks they’ve been told that they have permission so sin, many will do so.

 

[rfpapcun]

Everyone dances around so gently, let me be contrary. A lie is at the heart of NO Mass (in English) according to far wiser minds than mine.

This is the pro vobis, pro multis matter. During the consecration of the wine, the priest says that on the night He was betrayed Jesus said: “. . . for you and for all.” In fact, He didn’t say that. He said “. . . for you and for many”, a fact which any informed Catholic knows to be true – because all the Bibles – Catholic, Protestant, comic-strip, etc. – all record His words as “for you and for many.”

For years, the neo-cons in the Church attempted to defend this translation. They even attempted to argue that “many” and “all” meant the same thing. However, this was indefensible as the Catechism of the Council of Trent specifically considered this very point and taught that Jesus intended to say for many, and not for all. St. Alphonus Liguori in his treatise on the Eucharist and Msgr. Claus Gamber taught the same thing.

Rather than not being able to challenge the NO Mass, I would suggest every Catholic has a duty to challenge a religious service in which a lie is embedded in its most solemn part.

 

[pnewton]

You are obviously hurt and offended by anyone who sees the Tridentine Mass as the only one they wish to attend.

You are so incredibly mistaken with this assumption of yours.

 

[pnewton]

This is the pro vobis, pro multis matter. During the consecration of the wine, the priest says that on the night He was betrayed Jesus said: “. . . for you and for all.” In fact, He didn’t say that. He said “. . . for you and for many”, a fact which any informed Catholic knows to be true – because all the Bibles – Catholic, Protestant, comic-strip, etc. – all record His words as “for you and for many.”

You are totally correct. However, the error is only in English and it is being corrected. I am not sure that this is not on of the few cases that the charge of modernism is correct, again, only in the English translation. I am not a fan of dynamic translation anyway, but I see in this case an attempt to sacrifice accuracy for inclusiveness.

 

[Ockham]

I feel a pad lock coming. Any chance you two can take your flame war outside?

 

[pickguard1]

You are totally correct. However, the error is only in English and it is being corrected. I am not sure that this is not on of the few cases that the charge of modernism is correct, again, only in the English translation. I am not a fan of dynamic translation anyway, but I see in this case an attempt to sacrifice accuracy for inclusiveness.

Actually the Spanish also has the rendering “or all” (por todos) as opposed to “for many” (por muchos)

Here is what the Mexican Episcopal Conference said regarding the “pro multis” matter:

"En cuanto a las palabras de consagración del vino, nuestra tercera edición del Misal Romano traerá una variante. La Santa Sede ha establecido que la frase “pro multis” del
texto latino debe ser traducida como “por muchos” en todas las nuevas traducciones de las plegarias eucarísticas.
Aunque “por muchos” es la traducción literal de la frase latina, la traducción utilizada en México después del Concilio Vaticano II, es la frase “por todos”.

Here is my Spanish translation of this.
"Regarding the words of consecration of the wine, our Third Edition of the Roman Missal will bring a variant. The Holy See has esablished the the phrase ‘pro multis’ from the Latin text should be translated as ‘for many’ in all the new translations of the Eucharistic prayers. Even though “for many” is the literal translation of the Latin phrase, the translation utilized in Mexico after the Second Vatican Council is the phrase ‘for all.’ "

I quoted Benedictgal and myself from this thread here

 

[EnchantedEve]

From what I understand, ALL modern translations, with the sole exceptions of Polish & Portuguese, render the same error in the consecration.

 

[pnewton]

Actually the Spanish also has the rendering “or all” (por todos) as opposed to “for many” (por muchos)

That is interesting. I knew that the Spanish didn’t have all of the errors the English did. I did not know they had this error. It is good it is being corrected. When I read the part the quote you translated, every fiber of my intellect screamed, “It is not a translation of the word!” ARGHH!!

 

[MarthaTherese]

Everyone dances around so gently, let me be contrary. A lie is at the heart of NO Mass (in English) according to far wiser minds than mine.

This is the pro vobis, pro multis matter. During the consecration of the wine, the priest says that on the night He was betrayed Jesus said: “. . . for you and for all.” In fact, He didn’t say that. He said “. . . for you and for many”, a fact which any informed Catholic knows to be true – because all the Bibles – Catholic, Protestant, comic-strip, etc. – all record His words as “for you and for many.”

For years, the neo-cons in the Church attempted to defend this translation. They even attempted to argue that “many” and “all” meant the same thing. However, this was indefensible as the Catechism of the Council of Trent specifically considered this very point and taught that Jesus intended to say for many, and not for all. St. Alphonus Liguori in his treatise on the Eucharist and Msgr. Claus Gamber taught the same thing.

Rather than not being able to challenge the NO Mass, I would suggest every Catholic has a duty to challenge a religious service in which a lie is embedded in its most solemn part.

I do agree with this post. The problem, though, other than a knock-down drag-out fight here which would be innefective and counter-productive, is to resign from any parish that makes the “ecumenical” error(for all). Write the pastor and explain why you are sick at heart for the abuses occurring in the Mass and then leave. Google Tridentine or Latin Mas and find one. Sit in the back till you learn all solemnities and you will soon come to love the fact that you are actually Participating in offering the Mass. I travel 75 miles one way to attend a Tridentine Mass at a cemetary chapel. It is packed every week. The sacrament of Reconciliation is offered and the Rosary is said in unison before every Mass. There you can also be enrollled in the Brown Scapular in a quiet and reverent ceremony after Mass. The thing about changing the liturgy during the consecration is what makes many of the faithful wonder if they are receiving the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist, leads to confusion, conflict and falling away from Faith. If His Sacrifice was “for all”, why are we here, we who have chosen to hear and follow His Word?
The fact that our Universal Church is no longer “Universal” is very troubling. One used to be able to visit another parish, go to Mass, and participate in the same Mass they have at home. This is now impossible, except for the Tridentine. I really have nothing against the English language, if it is translated correctly. I have no bone to pick with anyone here, just offering ideas of how to deal with the conflicts of spirit that occur around this problem.

 

[jack8888]

For most of our history, Americans have felt relatively safe and isolated from violence as they went about their daily work and leisure activities. Certainly there were inner-city areas where higher crime rates produced headlines in daily newspapers, and isolated events throughout the country often focused national attention on horrific violence for a few days. But fortunately, most Americans took the position that “it can’t happen here, or to me” and continued on with their lives. king of fighters flash Play Free Online Games

Then came the 1999 shooting spree at Columbine High School in Colorado and in a matter of hours, our illusions about personal safety and security were shattered. If the unthinkable could occur on a high school campus in the heartland of America, it could happen anywhere, anytime to anyone. When the terrible events of Sept. 11 occurred, which were soon followed by the anthrax attacks by mail, America’s vulnerability to terror and violence were exposed and the entire country began an immediate transformation to a much higher state of security awareness.

Nowhere has the concern for personal protection hit home more than on the campuses of our colleges and universities. As security breaches became almost commonplace in virtually every area of the country, officials of public educational institutions, especially those located in gang-infested inner cities, were quick to add security measures ranging from metal detectors in their lobbies and in-school security forces to police-manned perimeters.

 

[Eucharisted]

I was watching a video of Cardinal Arinze discussing the Traditional Latin Mass, and he said (I’m paraphrasing):

My question to some of you traditionalists, and I know this will sound very argumentative (but not intended to be) is: some of you openly criticize Vatican II and the NO Mass, which is in direct contradiction to what Pope Benedict XVI set forth as a condition to allow TLM. How do you reconcile that? Am I misunderstanding something? I’m a new Catholic and I really don’t understand.

Again, I’m not trying to start a fight. I consider myself a “conservative” or a “traditionalist” but I do not challenge Vatican II or the new Mass but it really makes me wonder how other traditionalists can be so open with their criticisms.

Thank you for your time.

It’s the spirit of hypocrisy and self-righteousness. Catholics who believe they are holier than others by clinging to the Latin Mass while attacking the Ordinary Form of the Mass, and who lash out at Vatican Council II for supposedly breaking Tradition and splitting the history of the Church into two (pre-VCII and post-VCII) while loving the other ecclesial councils, are very similar to the Pharisees whom Jesus condemned. But they are so blinded by their own pride and their own false understanding of theology that they cannot even see their sins, and some of them even regard these sins as virtues. It is a horrible nightmare that gives birth to heresy, schism, disobedience, and damnation. We are commanded by God to honor the Church and the Pope, our mother and our father, and Jesus has said if we follow His commandments we will be friends.

Ask a Traditionalist what he loves more, Jesus or the form of the Mass, and he will inevitable say the form of the Mass, for, if he loved Jesus more, he would not nickpick over the form but joyously celebrate the Mass according to whatever Catholic rite.

Ask a Traditionalist what he loves more, the truth or his opinions, and he will inevitably say his opinions, for, if he loved the truth more, he would not condemn the Second Vatican Council but rejoice in the deepening of the Faith that came out of the council.

Ask a Traditionalist what he loves more, the Pope or his misunderstanding of the Papacy, and he will inevitavbly say his misunderstanding, for, he if loved the Pope more, he would not speak ill of the Holy Father nor reject him, even if said man was a wretched sinner.

 

[Sr_Sally]

Sad but true.

There are those who will be chiming in to disagree and vehemently dispute your observation. You may be described as an extremist, divisive, outside the Church, or a host of other characterizations. Although I’m sure the devout who prefer the NO Mass and see Vatican II as a marvelous event are solid in their faith, it’s the apathetic and lapsed Catholics I’m worried about.

During the Offeratory hymn at my NO parish I started thinking about externals. This parish is running a deficit of $40K/a yet the altar table is overwhelmed by Easter flowers. I started wondering how much the florist’s bill was for this unnecessary expense. Then I realized the two side altars were full of potted flowers as well. Even the unused high back altar was adorned with lillies and moms.

Why have our altars become nothing more than plant holders? Does the average parishioner know what those altars were used for pre-Bugnini’s Novus Ordo? Incremental steps like these remove the external forms of worship and chip away at the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine.

The old churches cloak the tabernacle, the new ones push it off to the side or hide it in the back, children are only taught to receive Communion in hand while standing, EMHCs hold the same prominence as priests while “As We Gather Round Your Table” is belted out by a folk group in the Santuary.

Martin Luther posted his objections on the church door. Today’s protestors have more patience yet share his original intentions.

What concerns me is your statements about problems you see in your local parishes stated as though every parish every where has those same problems. I do not doubt that people have seen crazy things and had bad experiences. I just want to be sure we do not then conclude that every parish is the same.

There are many reverent, beautiful parishes that celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I belong to a diocese chock-full of them. Parishes where the ordinary is chanted in Latin on Sundays, with organ music and choirs singing, where the altar boys wear cassocks and surplices. But also, the lectionary is in a 3-year cycle and the Eucharistic prayers are audible. Parishes with Adoration and statues.

I love my parish and don’t like to think that it is being lumped in other places that did not escape the excesses that swept all parts of life in the US in the 70s.

 

[Seamus_L]

The faithful have a right to the Latin Mass, and it has nothing to do with what someone considers our good behaviour. Seriously, if some liberal parishes or dioceses defy Church teaching, or criticize the Latin Mass, will they be punished by having there mass in the vernacular taken away ?
I don't challenge the NO mass, I just avoid it, and I believe the Roman Catholic Church's future lies most definitely with the Latin Mass.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Ask a Traditionalist what he loves more, Jesus or the form of the Mass, and he will inevitable say the form of the Mass, for, if he loved Jesus more, he would not nickpick over the form but joyously celebrate the Mass according to whatever Catholic rite.

Ask a Traditionalist what he loves more, the truth or his opinions, and he will inevitably say his opinions, for, if he loved the truth more, he would not condemn the Second Vatican Council but rejoice in the deepening of the Faith that came out of the council.

Ask a Traditionalist what he loves more, the Pope or his misunderstanding of the Papacy, and he will inevitavbly say his misunderstanding, for, he if loved the Pope more, he would not speak ill of the Holy Father nor reject him, even if said man was a wretched sinner.

Well, that’s a cheery assessment if ever I’ve read one. What about us Traditionalists who grew up with the Latin Mass; submitted to the magesterium for the last forty-five years or so; and have prayed that that which we knew would be restored? As Jesus submitted to His Father, did we not submit to the magesterium of HMC?

“Nitpick over the form?” Nitpick as in having to endure liturgical dancers wafting bowls of incense down the aisle and during the Offertory? Ear-splitting drums and rocking guitars singing pop hits and Protestant praise music? People talking about hemhorroid medicine before Mass when you are trying to pray? Seems to me I recall Jesus casting out the money changers…

The deepening of the faith that came out of the Second Vatican Council… Lets see…I have been alive for 57 almost 58 years. I believe that I have the “been there, done that award” in that I went to Catholic school both before, during, and just after Vatican II. I beg to disagree with you on that point. I’d also like to point out that what the Second Vatican Council said to do and what was actually done are two entirely different things. I direct your attention to the 1965 missal. I have one. Never used it because what was in the missal and what was being done in my parish were two entirely different things.

Neither I nor my parents nor my relatives nor my neighbors ever rejected the Holy Father. It would have been inconceivable to do so (see submission to the Magesterium).

With a little brushing up on the rubrics, I could serve a TLM to this day. I’ve sung in the cathedral choir for twenty years. We sang chant and Latin motets. We always wanted to be able to sing for a Missa Cantata and had high hopes for the Motu Proprio. Our bishop merely “acknowledged” the MP and instructed the chancellor to write a scathing editiorial against the MP in the diocesan newspaper the following week. What was that about following the Holy Father?

So when you label “Traditionalists” with such broad strokes are you any different from those traditionalists who label the NO with such broad strokes?