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

Feb 19th 2013 new
(Quote) Paul-866591 said: All liturgies are fabricated. Christ DID NOT present the liturgy of the Mass as it is practised ...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:



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.

--hide--


But the ancient rites of the Church were not put together by a committee to conform to the tastes of the spirit of the age, which is precisely what Abp. Bugnini said he did in directing the committee that wrote the post-Vatican II liturgies.

The Eucharistic prayers 2,3,4,etc. are synthetic. The liturgical calendar of the Novus Ordo completely threw away over 1,000 years of liturgical evolution. Ember Days and so forth were discarded. For what reason?

The Novus Ordo was completely unnecessary.
Feb 19th 2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: But the ancient rites of the Church were not put together by a committee to conform to the tastes...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

But the ancient rites of the Church were not put together by a committee to conform to the tastes of the spirit of the age, which is precisely what Abp. Bugnini said he did in directing the committee that wrote the post-Vatican II liturgies.

The Eucharistic prayers 2,3,4,etc. are synthetic. The liturgical calendar of the Novus Ordo completely threw away over 1,000 years of liturgical evolution. Ember Days and so forth were discarded. For what reason?

The Novus Ordo was completely unnecessary.
--hide--




My opinion is that the Mass was deliberately screwed up in order to cause problems in the Church. I have read that PVI was upset about what Bugnini was doing but was powerless to stop him. Was PVI being blackmailed? The revision of the Mass coincided with drastic changes elsewhere in the Church. The whole Vatican II project reeks of a psychological warfare operation. The media were there bolstering the progressives and attacking everyone else as reactionaries and prophets of doom. Today we have older priests and religious who still are true believers and really do believe that Vatican II "renewed" the Church. Also poking around are those who claim that the Council documents were misused, despite the fact that Karl Rahner had a huge influence on Lumen Gentium and liturgical innovators such as Godfrey Diekmann wrote Sacrosanctum Concilium. It is amazing to watch Catholics try to jump through hoops to claim that Vatican II was not what it really was.

Feb 19th 2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: But the ancient rites of the Church were not put together by a committee to conform to the tastes...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

But the ancient rites of the Church were not put together by a committee to conform to the tastes of the spirit of the age, which is precisely what Abp. Bugnini said he did in directing the committee that wrote the post-Vatican II liturgies.

The Eucharistic prayers 2,3,4,etc. are synthetic. The liturgical calendar of the Novus Ordo completely threw away over 1,000 years of liturgical evolution. Ember Days and so forth were discarded. For what reason?

The Novus Ordo was completely unnecessary.
--hide--

You were there when the ancient liturgies were developed?

Even the liturgies of the East attributed to ST. John C; do you believe he sat down and thought it all up by himself, wrote it up and said here do it my way? His sermons were long. Took me up to over an hour to read just one of them and my reading speed is over 600 WPM. Are the sermons in the Eastern rites as long today?

According to the Scriptures, the original liturgy was part of a communal meal. Not just the receiving of the body and blood of Christ, but a regular feast with drinking of wine along with the meal. Have you forgotten the fellow who drank too much and fell out of a window to his death described in Acts?

As a result of that, and probably similar occurrences, the celebration of the Eucharist was separated from communal meals. So that step in the development of the mass was, in fact, a response to the tastes of the age, in this case, in a negative sense.

As time went on, further development introduced more pomp and circumstances precisely to satisfy the needs of people of the age for pomp and circumstances or to make the Mass MORE MEANINGFUL to the people. Exactly a couple of the purposes of some of the changes in the NO.

You were not around to hear and be part of the complaints about the TLM that existed from the time I started school in 1939. What were those complaints? The mass is in Latin and we can't understand it. The priest does not face us and we can't really see what is going on. There are too many Holy Days. What do the sermons have to do with the readings or anything else for that matter? Its ridiculous for the Christmas season to last until February. We can't stand the chant, why don't we sing hymns we understand? and on and on.

All prayers are synthetic until they are accepted and used. Or do you believe, Christ came down and dictated each and every prayer ever used in the Mass to some Saint He used as His scribe? As far as I know He only specified one prayer. All others attributed to Him came from Private revelations that even when approved, the Church says we don't have to pay attention to them.

Get real and grow up. I don't care for the NO any more than all those complaining here. But I refuse to take the position that because I don't like it, there must be something fundamentally wrong in the theological sense. Did it accomplish the purpose for its creation. Obviously no. The developers failed to take into account any potential unintended consequences, especially in light of the turmoil both inside and outside of the Church.

Even Pope Benedict XVI who feels strongly that the reform requires reform, never went so far as to say the NO should be thrown out. He did say it needed to be brought into a state of more intrinsic reverence to it; to more clearly illustrate the ties to the past that are there.

Feb 20th 2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: But the ancient rites of the Church were not put together by a committee to conform to the tastes...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

But the ancient rites of the Church were not put together by a committee to conform to the tastes of the spirit of the age, which is precisely what Abp. Bugnini said he did in directing the committee that wrote the post-Vatican II liturgies.

The Eucharistic prayers 2,3,4,etc. are synthetic. The liturgical calendar of the Novus Ordo completely threw away over 1,000 years of liturgical evolution. Ember Days and so forth were discarded. For what reason?

The Novus Ordo was completely unnecessary.
--hide--



Yes...the old Mass developed over a period of millennia. The new Mass was put together hastily over a few years. If the sole goal had been intelligibility, the old Mass simply could've been translated into English, similar to the Anglican English Missal or even the 1964 Roman missal. The real goal was new Mass, new theology, new Church.

Feb 20th 2013 new
(Quote) Sean-851370 said: Yes...the old Mass developed over a period of millennia. The new Mass was put together hastily over...
(Quote) Sean-851370 said:




Yes...the old Mass developed over a period of millennia. The new Mass was put together hastily over a few years. If the sole goal had been intelligibility, the old Mass simply could've been translated into English, similar to the Anglican English Missal or even the 1964 Roman missal. The real goal was new Mass, new theology, new Church.

--hide--


I own a copy of an interim 1966 Missal, which is substantially the 1962 Missal with comparatively minor rubrical changes. It is far superior to the Novus Ordo or today in my personal opinion.
Feb 20th 2013 new


How Christ Said the First Mass
"Shows how the traditional Mass sums up the entire Old Testament worship from the time of Adam to the time of Christ, how even minute details of the present Mass were used by Christ in the very First Mass, and how they have come down to our day with the same symbolic meaning they originally had. The author delves into the history and tradition of every aspect of Hebrew worship and shows clearly how Our Lord blended and wove them all together into the beautiful liturgy we call the Mass. Imprimator. " 438 pgs, PB

By: Rev. Fr. James L. Meagher D.D. www.tanbooks.com


Feb 21st 2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: I own a copy of an interim 1966 Missal, which is substantially the 1962 Missal with comparatively...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

I own a copy of an interim 1966 Missal, which is substantially the 1962 Missal with comparatively minor rubrical changes. It is far superior to the Novus Ordo or today in my personal opinion.
--hide--

How ironic. I dislike the Novus Ordo and think it is silly with its "staging" which reminds me of Italian Comic Opera. And here I am defending it from mistaken attacks.

I own 3 misssls older than yours as well as a copy of the 1962 revisioin. There is no doubt that the TLM is elegant in its simplicity and PROPERLY said by a devout Priest a reverent offering of the Church's greatest prayer.

But saying that or using the words you did above in no way changes the fact that the various attacks hurled at the NO so far in this thread, have no basis in fact or reality.

Lay the text of both the TLM and the NO side by side and compare them and in essence they are the same. In the NO some prayers were simplified, the Confiteor for example, but it is the same confiteor. The same with all the prayers.

And everything in the NO has its roots in historical liturgies used by the church and all its rites since day one. Labeling them synthetic is utter nonsense.

Feb 21st 2013 new

(Quote) David-364112 said: The speculations of various talking heads are meaningless. They have to fill the air...
(Quote) David-364112 said:


The speculations of various talking heads are meaningless. They have to fill the airtime with words and that's what they're doing. Just ignore the learned commentators.


The next Pope will be none other than the Holy father whom GOD selects for us. His actions will be those which God has ordained for him to carry out. Our job is to pray and obey. No "what if's".

--hide--

Men do the electing and as such can choose a man not in accord with Gods will, hence why we need to pray so much. Do some investigating into the elections of John XXIII and Paul VI who both had very unusual circumstances around their elections.

Feb 21st 2013 new

(Quote) John-324285 said: Men do the electing and as such can choose a man not in accord with Gods will, h...
(Quote) John-324285 said:

Men do the electing and as such can choose a man not in accord with Gods will, hence why we need to pray so much. Do some investigating into the elections of John XXIII and Paul VI who both had very unusual circumstances around their elections.

--hide--

Enlighten us about these supposed unusual circumstances.

There is only one unusual circumstance in John XXII case was whether he should be considered John XXIII or XIV because of the confusion of the existence of an Anti Pope who called himself John XXIII back in the middle ages. And Roncalli as Pope resolved the problem by saying he was XXIII.

The only unusual circumstance in Paul VI's election was the fact that he had been considered the leading candidate to succeed Pius XII because of his close association with him. Alas he was still only an Archbishop at the time of Pius death and the Cardinals decided to elect another Cardinal. He was close to John XXIII too. So when John XXIII died, he automatically became the leading candidate to replace him. He did. One of the few times when the leading candidate going in actually came out a Pope.

All kinds of moronic nonsense was concocted by the schematics of the SSPX stripe claiming that in both cases, the Cardinals had actually elected someone else. Of course they could never explain why the majority who lived after those two elections never said a word.

Amazing that you can come up with these silly, meaningless innuendos that have no basis in fact or reality.

Feb 21st 2013 new

(Quote) John-324285 said: Men do the electing and as such can choose a man not in accord with Gods will, h...
(Quote) John-324285 said:

Men do the electing and as such can choose a man not in accord with Gods will, hence why we need to pray so much. Do some investigating into the elections of John XXIII and Paul VI who both had very unusual circumstances around their elections.

--hide--


Of course we must pray. But in our prayers we'd be best off to ask God to give us the Holy Father who's best for us rather than write out a prescription for the the qualities we feel the next Pope should posess.


You're correct in saying that men elect the Pope and yes there may have been and perhaps will be "irregularities" with the selection process, but so what? The newly elected Pope who walks out of that conclave awestuck and in tears will nonethess be the man God wants for the job. No matter what rout the election process takes, we must always remember that none other than the Holy Spirit works through these imperfect and badly flawed men whom God has chosen to lead his Church. The choice is always God's.


Citing such irregularities is a roundabout way of delegitimizing the papacies of both John XXII and Paul VI in order to justify ignoring them. People on the other end of the spectrum say the same things about JPII and Benedict XVI. I wouldn't recommend this. The Church is following the path God set out for it. Pius XII said that the devil always has his was with the Church during the 35 years after a council. I'm old enough to have lived through those years. But the tide is turning. One of the enemy's greatest weapons is discouragement. Why see the last half century as the Church being on the wrong path? That only estranges us from it and stokes the poison of resentment in our hearts. I spent decades feeling this way and it's not only WRONG but HARMFUL as well. God's plan unfolds across centuries. What comes of this brief period of disorder may be an era of renewed piety. The Church has cyclked through all sorts of disasters in its past. Some of them lasted for centuries. We must have faith, trust, God, live right, and pray. Be full of Hope. God is running things.





Posts 21 - 30 of 32