Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

02/19/2013 new

(Quote) Joseph-2737 said: +JMJ+ As is often said in this room, John ... no worries. In good time, the admiss...
(Quote) Joseph-2737 said:

+JMJ+

As is often said in this room, John ... no worries. In good time, the admission of the failure will come from a future pontif, and the Novus Ordo will be allowed to die on the vine. It's less than 200 years old, the standard set by St. Pius V, and sans its valid consecration, the Novus Ordo can only trace it's heritage back to late 1969. The % of priests who are ordained to celebrate the TLM continues to rise while the converse is true for the modern mass. There is also a grwoing number of priests ordained to say the NO that are switching. I've personally met 3 this year. One was diocesan and the other two from a religious order. All three informed their superiors that they could not in good conscience say the NO any more. All three are being accomodated by the local ordinary, and in one case the bishop canonically erected a personal parish for the priest where only the TLM is offered. I'm quite certain there are many stories like this around the world but you simply won't read about it in the "main stream" Catholic press.

--hide--

First off, I am no fan of the Novus Ordo. I do like some of its features like the extra added readings. Nor am I a fan of the revised Liturgical Calendar.

However, you have a few misconceptions.

The Novus Ordo traces its heritage, just like the TLM, back to the Apostles. if you believe differnetly, you are mistaken.

Every priest ordained is ordained to celebrate any authorized liturgy of the rite in which he is ordained. A Roman Catholic priest is, therefore, ordained to celebrate either the TLM or the NO. There Is no such thing as ordaining a priest for one or the other liturgies.

Any Parishes set aside for the TLM are announced in the local Catholic Paper.

A priest who is a member of a religious order has no say to choose what form of the Mass he offers. He may request of his superiors to be allowed to offer only one or the other, but he would have to obey his superior if he said no. A diocesan priest, who is not a pastor can only celebrate the Mass in the form allowed by his pastor. A pastor can freely celebrate or have celebratedm in his parish either form of the Mass.

In short, you are misinformed about everything you said.

02/19/2013 new
(Quote) Paul-866591 said: First off, I am no fan of the Novus Ordo. I do like some of its features like the extra added re...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:



First off, I am no fan of the Novus Ordo. I do like some of its features like the extra added readings. Nor am I a fan of the revised Liturgical Calendar.



However, you have a few misconceptions.



The Novus Ordo traces its heritage, just like the TLM, back to the Apostles. if you believe differnetly, you are mistaken.



Every priest ordained is ordained to celebrate any authorized liturgy of the rite in which he is ordained. A Roman Catholic priest is, therefore, ordained to celebrate either the TLM or the NO. There Is no such thing as ordaining a priest for one or the other liturgies.



Any Parishes set aside for the TLM are announced in the local Catholic Paper.



A priest who is a member of a religious order has no say to choose what form of the Mass he offers. He may request of his superiors to be allowed to offer only one or the other, but he would have to obey his superior if he said no. A diocesan priest, who is not a pastor can only celebrate the Mass in the form allowed by his pastor. A pastor can freely celebrate or have celebratedm in his parish either form of the Mass.



In short, you are misinformed about everything you said.

--hide--


The Novus Ordo is a synthetic liturgy. If you read Abp. Annibale Bugnini's book on the reform of the liturgy you will see that fact. He talks about how certain parts of the traditional Roman liturgy were removed for P.C. reasons rather than spiritual ones. www.amazon.com
02/19/2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: The Novus Ordo is a synthetic liturgy. If you read Abp. Annibale Bugnini's book on the reform...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

The Novus Ordo is a synthetic liturgy. If you read Abp. Annibale Bugnini's book on the reform of the liturgy you will see that fact. He talks about how certain parts of the traditional Roman liturgy were removed for P.C. reasons rather than spiritual ones. www.amazon.com
--hide--

The purpose that may have existed for removing or putting in a part of the mass is entirely beside the point and has nothing to say about the validity or value of the liturgy. As such, it has no value to tell us anything about the heritage of that form of the Mass.

What is important is whether or not the three main and required parts of the Mass are present, the Offertory, the Consecration and the Communion. All three are present in the Novus Ordo.

The basic structure is the same in both the NO and TLM as it is with the Mass as celebrated in every rite of the Church.

To argue that this or that form is artificial is utter nonsense, even if that statement were made by anyone, even an Archbishop. One could make that argument about any form of the Mass. Unless you want to insist the Mass be exactly the same as the last supper down to its final detail. No prayers to Satan were introduced or any other element that does violence to the faith.


Now if one wants to argue that the "staging" is one thing or another is a different matter. I have made that argument myself, saying that it is silly. If one wants to argue whether it accomplishes what it was meant to do in making the Mass more meaningful to the Faithful, it is pretty self evident that it has failed miserably in that.

But if you lay each form side by side, you find that in essence, they are the same as they are the same as the mass is said in every rite.

If you want to argue that the introduction of all the insipid hymns and caterwauling by the congregation was a mistake; I am with you. But it was never the intention to rid the Mass of Gregorian Chant or other fine music.

If you want to argue that it provided an opening for all kinds of innovation to be experimented with; it is self evident that it is exactly what happened. But where and when it did it was because the celebrant himself did so and not approved by competent authority.

If you want to argue that too often the NO is celebrated with a lack of reverence, I won't argue. But at the same time, I will point out to you that it also happened frequently with the TLM.

All liturgy is synthetic in the sense that it is constructed by men and not something that arises from itself. And I will again reiterate that the essential parts, as given to us by Jesus Himself, are there. To argue otherwise is unadulterated nonsense.

If you want to argue that the English version is not true to the Latin, I can agree. And even after the latest translation, it is evident that those who performed the translation are still too concerned with political correctness and inclusive language. But even there, they have not done violence in changing the basic meaning.

02/19/2013 new
(Quote) Paul-866591 said: The purpose that may have existed for removing or putting in a part of the mass is entirely besi...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:



The purpose that may have existed for removing or putting in a part of the mass is entirely beside the point and has nothing to say about the validity or value of the liturgy. As such, it has no value to tell us anything about the heritage of that form of the Mass.



What is important is whether or not the three main and required parts of the Mass are present, the Offertory, the Consecration and the Communion. All three are present in the Novus Ordo.



The basic structure is the same in both the NO and TLM as it is with the Mass as celebrated in every rite of the Church.



To argue that this or that form is artificial is utter nonsense, even if that statement were made by anyone, even an Archbishop. One could make that argument about any form of the Mass. Unless you want to insist the Mass be exactly the same as the last supper down to its final detail. No prayers to Satan were introduced or any other element that does violence to the faith.




Now if one wants to argue that the "staging" is one thing or another is a different matter. I have made that argument myself, saying that it is silly. If one wants to argue whether it accomplishes what it was meant to do in making the Mass more meaningful to the Faithful, it is pretty self evident that it has failed miserably in that.



But if you lay each form side by side, you find that in essence, they are the same as they are the same as the mass is said in every rite.



If you want to argue that the introduction of all the insipid hymns and caterwauling by the congregation was a mistake; I am with you. But it was never the intention to rid the Mass of Gregorian Chant or other fine music.



If you want to argue that it provided an opening for all kinds of innovation to be experimented with; it is self evident that it is exactly what happened. But where and when it did it was because the celebrant himself did so and not approved by competent authority.



If you want to argue that too often the NO is celebrated with a lack of reverence, I won't argue. But at the same time, I will point out to you that it also happened frequently with the TLM.



All liturgy is synthetic in the sense that it is constructed by men and not something that arises from itself. And I will again reiterate that the essential parts, as given to us by Jesus Himself, are there. To argue otherwise is unadulterated nonsense.



If you want to argue that the English version is not true to the Latin, I can agree. And even after the latest translation, it is evident that those who performed the translation are still too concerned with political correctness and inclusive language. But even there, they have not done violence in changing the basic meaning.

--hide--


I'm not arguing validity here. It's synthetic in the same sense as Abp. Cranmer's liturgy, which has since been accepted by the Catholic Church abiet with modifications.

Abp. Bugnini led the consilium that wrote the new liturgy. Most of the prayers are new compositions.

The older liturgy was the development of an organic development over some 1,500 years rather than a committee that hastily composed a new liturgy.
02/19/2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: The Novus Ordo is an ecumenical stumbling block for unity with the Orthodox who view it as eviden...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

The Novus Ordo is an ecumenical stumbling block for unity with the Orthodox who view it as evidence that the Western Church has lost the faith.

But Joseph the older generation still controls the levers of power in the Vatican and in the College of Cardinals. Most of them came of age during and just after Vatican II.
--hide--

+JMJ+

John - I'm swamped but I'll get back to you with some more concrete examples of an ongoing reform which I believe will lead to a restoration ... but yes, I agree with you completely.

02/19/2013 new

(Quote) Michael-944685 said: Hey Joe I truly admire your optimism and appreciate your knowledgeable post to allay m...
(Quote) Michael-944685 said:

Hey Joe I truly admire your optimism and appreciate your knowledgeable post to allay my (and johns) worries. I pray that you are right. The stakes are high. If one is to believe Pope Benedict has been quoted accurately then their appears to be an enemy within. I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means and am totally disintersted in what the secular press has to say,however I listen and read very carefully what the brilliant Pope Benedict has to say. 600 yrs since the last pope abdicated and people want to convince me that it is only because this holy and good man is ill? My dearly departed grandmother use to say, when I was a young boy and I tried to pull a fast one on her. " I just didn't roll over here on the mayflower". I am a simple man. It doesn't take a doctorate in theology to recognize we live in tumultuous times. You said in good time. Well, my friend It is my opinion the good time must be now.

--hide--

+JMJ+

Hi Michael,

I actually believe in most "conspiracy theories." Critical thinking is a good and necessary thing and it's important to be aware of - but not be obsessed with - what's going on in the "dark side." Those who slander people who recognize the reality of so-called "conspiracy theories" are either very naive and/or immature in their formation, intellectually lazy, fearful of dealing with reality, whatever. I grew up with an uncle who was ordained before Vatican II. I recall his proclaiming that the church was being over run by Masons, Communists, Marxists, homosexuals, etc. At the time most people made fun of him. He was even belittled by his confreres for wearing his priestly garb. History has already proven that this happened and we are in the midst of the clean up.

Recognizing the truth of evil movements and people, even inside Holy Mother Church, does not in the least mean that one is not confident in the knowledge of Who wins in the end biggrin

An article of interest from a personal friend of mine who has had private audiences with three popes. I can assure everyone, she does not wear a tin foil hat wink Cheers!

www.latinmassmagazine.com

02/19/2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: First off, I am no fan of the Novus Ordo. I do like some of its features like the extra a...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

First off, I am no fan of the Novus Ordo. I do like some of its features like the extra added readings. Nor am I a fan of the revised Liturgical Calendar.

However, you have a few misconceptions.

The Novus Ordo traces its heritage, just like the TLM, back to the Apostles. if you believe differnetly, you are mistaken.

Every priest ordained is ordained to celebrate any authorized liturgy of the rite in which he is ordained. A Roman Catholic priest is, therefore, ordained to celebrate either the TLM or the NO. There Is no such thing as ordaining a priest for one or the other liturgies.

Any Parishes set aside for the TLM are announced in the local Catholic Paper.

A priest who is a member of a religious order has no say to choose what form of the Mass he offers. He may request of his superiors to be allowed to offer only one or the other, but he would have to obey his superior if he said no. A diocesan priest, who is not a pastor can only celebrate the Mass in the form allowed by his pastor. A pastor can freely celebrate or have celebratedm in his parish either form of the Mass.

In short, you are misinformed about everything you said.

--hide--

+JMJ+

Paul,

No I am not misinformed about everything I said. You might want to re-read my post in proper context.

02/19/2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: The Novus Ordo is a synthetic liturgy. If you read Abp. Annibale Bugnini's book on the reform...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

The Novus Ordo is a synthetic liturgy. If you read Abp. Annibale Bugnini's book on the reform of the liturgy you will see that fact. He talks about how certain parts of the traditional Roman liturgy were removed for P.C. reasons rather than spiritual ones. www.amazon.com
--hide--

+JMJ+

You are correct again Paul. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend the book by Monsignor Klause Gamber on the reform of the liturgy. The forward or preface is by Cardinal Ratzinger who himself has said numerous times that the Novus Ordo was a "fabrication."

02/19/2013 new

(Quote) Joseph-2737 said: +JMJ+ Paul, No I am not misinformed about everything I said. You might want...
(Quote) Joseph-2737 said:

+JMJ+

Paul,

No I am not misinformed about everything I said. You might want to re-read my post in proper context.

--hide--

I read in several times before I answered. I stand by my response.

I will reiterate again, no Latin Priest is ordained (your word not mine) for a particular liturgy. They may celebrtae either liturgy within the context of obedience to superiors.

Of course, every priest must learn how to celebrate whatever form of the liturgy he is celebrating. But that has nothing to do with his ordination per se.

A member of a religious order or Congregation is under strict obedience to His superiors. Even Benedict's Modus Propria does not change that. He can ask, but his request may or may not be granted and his conscience has nothing to do with it. If he believed that in conscience he could not celebrate the NO Mass, his superiors decision that he must would absolve him from any problem with his conscience. The fact that you know of instances where an individual member of an order may have been given permission by is superiors to say the TLM does not change the facts I stated.

A diocesan priest is a horse of a different color. To the extent he has the authority to do so, he may celebrate the Mass in either form he prefers and no Bishop may legitimately prohibit him from doing so, even though the priest may owe obedience to him because Bendict's modus removes the Bishops authority to do so. But still, unless he is a Pastor he cannot choose as he is under the authority of the Pastor.

So again, you are misinformed and have an incorrect understading of the facts does not change becausde you isist differently.

02/19/2013 new

(Quote) Joseph-2737 said: +JMJ+ You are correct again Paul. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend t...
(Quote) Joseph-2737 said:

+JMJ+

You are correct again Paul. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend the book by Monsignor Klause Gamber on the reform of the liturgy. The forward or preface is by Cardinal Ratzinger who himself has said numerous times that the Novus Ordo was a "fabrication."

--hide--

All liturgies are fabricated. Christ DID NOT present the liturgy of the Mass as it is practised in every or any rite of the Church. They all developed over time. Some were dramatically "fabricated", i.e may have been a major departure from what was the practice previously and some more evolutionary.

Sit down with anm old TLM missal and one for the Novus Ordo. The prayers are not dramatically different.

And although you did not mean your first sentence as you obviously left out a word. Obvious because you disagree with me. But I have compared the two., and they are both in the same tradition and compare, in their essence, very closely with each other.

Mind you, I still think the "staging" (the gestures, etc.) of the NO in their totality are silly and fail to accomplish what the "fabricators" were trying to accomplish.

Nevertheless, the essence of the Mass is there and follows from the long tradition of the Church as manifested in all its approved liturgies.

Posts 11 - 20 of 32