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

Jul 31st 2013 new
(quote) Lynea-297530 said: "Without reference or trying to argue one form of the Mass being better (there is no such thing of one form being inherently better thn another one theologically speaking)"

No way! That is absolutely incorrect. Higher reverence that more reflect our Catholic truths is objectively always more efficacious worship.

I disagree with you entirely. Fr. Chad Ripperger is one of the highest regarded theologians not just still living, but in the past century and including today, and yet he would whole-heartedly disagree with you, based on the teachings of the Church.

On a theological level, one expresses more clearly our beliefs and the other waters that expression down purposely with the intention to "welcome our absent brethren." At least, that was the repeated slogan by those that first introduced and pushed the New Order Missae. By that very motive, the theology has a tinge of immanentism, because it caters to unbelievers, rather than towards the end of worship itself, which is to be oriented first and lastly to God and HIS Sacrifice.

Did you hear me mention aesthetics? That is another story altogether, but then, to say that a campfire hymn is as efficacious as liturgical Gregorian chant is not a discussion pertaining to the liturgical FORM, but it is a matter of understanding theology. If you think everything has equal holiness based on one's intention for its application and context, then you are wrong, theologically speaking.

The Offertory WAS changed with the Novus Ordo Mass, from the words that were believed by tradition to be the words that St. John the Apostle. Whether or not one believe that, the main point is that the prayer was very, very ancient and proven to be from the earliest origins of the Church.

Calling an argument "inane" doesn't give credence to your point of view.

Pope Benedict, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, made the distinction between the Novus Ordo Missae and the traditional Mass (of the saints) as the difference between milk for babies and steak for adults (respectively) in "Salt and Light", back circa 1984.








Pope Paul VI established and ordered the Commission that created the Novuis ordo and HE, as Pope, promulgated it and made it the preferred rite for the celebration of the Mass.

There is no doubt that a reverently celbrated Mass does more for the attendees than one not reverently celebrated. But there is nothing inherent in either the Novus Ordo or the TLM that makes either more reverent than the other.

How well and reverently the mass is celebrated in either rite is solely the fault of the Priest celebrating as well as the people in attendance.

And there is a parish in Chicago that, the US HQ of the Order of Sts Peter and Paul that proves that point every time when one of their priests celebrate the Mass in either form.

Which proves that any criticism leveled at the Novus as somehow being inherently less reverent than the TLM from whatever source is utter nonsense.
Jul 31st 2013 new
(quote) John-971967 said: I do follow your logic, Lynea, but you need to be careful not to oversimplify what actually transpired. What I recollect is that Rome had set up varied commissions to deal with various aspects. One such commission was the ICEL, which dealt with all the liturgical changes. For better or worse, that commission for example carried a lot of weight in the halls of the Vatican Curia and it pushed through the CDF a lot of changes under the pope's delegated authority during Pope Paul VI's reign as the Vicar of Christ. In a way, after Vatican II, much of the previous papal involvements were set aside or better put, were "delegated", to commissions.

Whether this was done properly and with true authority was then and is still now being debated, discussed, researched, etc.

Taking rigid and inflexible positions prematurely is what gets some Traditionalists in trouble. Radical reformists have also suffered going so far off the path that they are lost in the wilderness now.
WHOA!

I am going to be rigid where something is objectively a fact. Do not insult me and say I am a "traditionalist" as if I am separate from being Catholic. If you are Catholic, in fact, YOU TOO are a "traditionalist" for the fact that you are Catholic. There are two forms of tradition: extrinisic and intrinsic, and they both serve a purpose. The Church does not need to hang onto tradition for sake of tradition, but some things infact are SACRED and have a purpose in the Church, even what modernists wish to disguise that fact to one degree or another.

www.latinmassmagazine.com

www.latinmassmagazine.com

You are men, so please, be gentlemen as well. Do not say that I am in some sort of group of people who may or may not be Catholic. Do not infer that I am a schismatic on a public forum even and then try to act as if you mean well and are playing nice. I don't respect that one iota. Rash judgment and detraction, even implied, is still a sin.

So I'll say it again: Do not call me a "traditionalist", thank you. I am a Catholic.

I was purposely trying to distill what happened with the promulgation of the new missal. I'm not sure how you came to believe that I was thinking that I was telling the whole story. I was simply stating a single fact regarding the matter.

Please read, "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber". It's written by someone who was for the new Mass and who was THERE at the council.


And for the person who said that there is no theological difference between the two liturgies, wow. I really would like you to prove this. Start with the "Sign of Peace".







Jul 31st 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: How well and reverently the mass is celebrated in either rite is solely the fault of the Priest celebrating as well as the people in attendance.
So Pope Benedict was wrong?

Also, Pope St. Pius the X, wrong? Pope St. Pius V, wrong as well?

OK. That's your opinion. You are entitled to it, but why not discuss it in terms of theology. Let's talk about the differences and then you can defend how equal they are in your opinion.

Kiss of peace. Really. Come on now. It has nothing to do with the spiritual lives of people, but it is completely to make the person next to you feel good and welcome. It is nothing to do with worship. It is absolutely NOT the same kiss of peace from ancient times.


"

The second restored rite is that of the Sign of Peace. The instructions for the New Roman Missal say: Before they share in the same bread, the faithful implore peace and unity for the Church and for the whole human family and offer some sign of their love for each other.13 This is a ritual which has a tripartite significance: (1) The faithful exchange a sign (2) for peace and unity in the Church and the human family (3) indicating love for one-another. Yet what is the reality in every Catholic Church in the world? (1) The faithful and non-Catholics always exchange the Sign of Peace within the new Mass. No document has forbidden, or even suggested, that this is erroneous. (2) The current sign is therefore one of greeting and welcoming, but does not imply in the least a spiritual peace between persons present. (3) If you consider love the same as being friendly, the third objective is attained. There is not any evidence that the peace offered is considered by the faithful as an agape. Hence there is no reticence in offering it to those in mortal sin, nor will an official document be found to order, or even suggest, that the state of grace is necessary for the exchange of agape/love/charity.

I make these observations because supposedly the sign of peace is a restored rite from the Tradition of the Fathers. It must be said that the rite exists in all the liturgies of Christendom.14 The Apostolic Tradition, The Constitutions of the Twelve Apostles, Ordines Romani and countless Fathers bear unanimous witness to this practice. Its significance, however, is in the expression of communion. The exchange of peace could be given only by orthodox Catholics in good standing in the patristic Church. In fact, there were several different ranks within the Church itself. First were the pagans outside the Church. Not being baptized, they could not share in Christs peace. They could not even be admitted into the Church during the sacred mysteries (as in the Roman Missal of Pius Vs dismissal of the catechumens at the Creed, they would be forced to exit with the catechumens), so that they could not receive the peace.

Secondly, the unbaptized catechumens were unable to exchange a holy kiss of peace in the Holy Spirit until the Easter vigil.15 In fact, they could not even pray with baptized Christians until they themselves were baptized.16

Next were the heretics and schismatics. Although baptized, they were denied Communion and the Sign of Christs peace since they were cut off from the bosom of the Church. They too would not be allowed to witness the sacred mysteries.

Yet the list of personae non gratis does not stop there! Those having committed mortal sin were relegated to a closedoff place in the back of the church, or even outside of the building, and so too were always denied the Sign of Peace.17 In the Roman Rite, only after the completion of formal canonical Penance during Lent could they receive absolution on Holy Thursday in order to once again take their place with the congregation and so exchange the bond of communion and love which they had lost through the commission of mortal sin.18

This noble reality of communion and love is expressed in the new Roman Missal, but it is adulterated since its application does not take into account the historical context of the Sign of Peace. Nor has there been implemented a proper way to restore the ritual while retaining its rich significance.

Lost are the days of the sixth century Roman Rite where everyone but baptized and grace-filled orthodox Catholics are herded out of the Church following the Mass of the Catechumens. Gone, too, are the patristic prohibitions of men and women sitting together in the congregation and only exchanging peace among their own gender (still practiced in Judaism and by some Orientals). These universal practices from at least the third to the eighth centuries are all intimately bound up with the kiss of peace, which is to be pure and holy. The so-called restoration, purported to have been accomplished by the Consilium, reintroduced only a handshake and a smile. This is a result of the lack of context being achieved on the part of the Consilium. Ultimately, it must be admitted frankly that the Sign of Peace in the Novus Ordo is a meaningless liturgical gesture."

www.latinmassmagazine.com



Jul 31st 2013 new
Paul, would you care to explain your opinion as to why the Novus Ordo Mass was created in the first place?
Aug 1st 2013 new
(quote) Lynea-297530 said: WHOA!

I am going to be rigid where something is objectively a fact. Do not insult me and say I am a "traditionalist" as if I am separate from being Catholic. If you are Catholic, in fact, YOU TOO are a "traditionalist" for the fact that you are Catholic. There are two forms of tradition: extrinisic and intrinsic, and they both serve a purpose. The Church does not need to hang onto tradition for sake of tradition, but some things infact are SACRED and have a purpose in the Church, even what modernists wish to disguise that fact to one degree or another.

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SU_Ripperger.html

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_FA_Ripperger.html

You are men, so please, be gentlemen as well. Do not say that I am in some sort of group of people who may or may not be Catholic. Do not infer that I am a schismatic on a public forum even and then try to act as if you mean well and are playing nice. I don't respect that one iota. Rash judgment and detraction, even implied, is still a sin.

So I'll say it again: Do not call me a "traditionalist", thank you. I am a Catholic.

I was purposely trying to distill what happened with the promulgation of the new missal. I'm not sure how you came to believe that I was thinking that I was telling the whole story. I was simply stating a single fact regarding the matter.

Please read, "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber". It's written by someone who was for the new Mass and who was THERE at the council.


And for the person who said that there is no theological difference between the two liturgies, wow. I really would like you to prove this. Start with the "Sign of Peace".







The sign of peace IS NOT NOW NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN a theological norm.

It has always been part of the Mass from ancient times.

Its use by the laity fell out of use. Its reintroduction for use by the laity was modified to fit with modern norms.

I am sure most women would object to actually being kissed even with the modified kiss that was the standard by any man who happened to be sitting beside them or immediately in front of behind them.
Aug 1st 2013 new
(quote) Lynea-297530 said: So Pope Benedict was wrong?

Also, Pope St. Pius the X, wrong? Pope St. Pius V, wrong as well?

OK. That's your opinion. You are entitled to it, but why not discuss it in terms of theology. Let's talk about the differences and then you can defend how equal they are in your opinion.

Kiss of peace. Really. Come on now. It has nothing to do with the spiritual lives of people, but it is completely to make the person next to you feel good and welcome. It is nothing to do with worship. It is absolutely NOT the same kiss of peace from ancient times.


"

The second restored rite is that of the Sign of Peace. The instructions for the New Roman Missal say: Before they share in the same bread, the faithful implore peace and unity for the Church and for the whole human family and offer some sign of their love for each other.13 This is a ritual which has a tripartite significance: (1) The faithful exchange a sign (2) for peace and unity in the Church and the human family (3) indicating love for one-another. Yet what is the reality in every Catholic Church in the world? (1) The faithful and non-Catholics always exchange the Sign of Peace within the new Mass. No document has forbidden, or even suggested, that this is erroneous. (2) The current sign is therefore one of greeting and welcoming, but does not imply in the least a spiritual peace between persons present. (3) If you consider love the same as being friendly, the third objective is attained. There is not any evidence that the peace offered is considered by the faithful as an agape. Hence there is no reticence in offering it to those in mortal sin, nor will an official document be found to order, or even suggest, that the state of grace is necessary for the exchange of agape/love/charity.

I make these observations because supposedly the sign of peace is a restored rite from the Tradition of the Fathers. It must be said that the rite exists in all the liturgies of Christendom.14 The Apostolic Tradition, The Constitutions of the Twelve Apostles, Ordines Romani and countless Fathers bear unanimous witness to this practice. Its significance, however, is in the expression of communion. The exchange of peace could be given only by orthodox Catholics in good standing in the patristic Church. In fact, there were several different ranks within the Church itself. First were the pagans outside the Church. Not being baptized, they could not share in Christs peace. They could not even be admitted into the Church during the sacred mysteries (as in the Roman Missal of Pius Vs dismissal of the catechumens at the Creed, they would be forced to exit with the catechumens), so that they could not receive the peace.

Secondly, the unbaptized catechumens were unable to exchange a holy kiss of peace in the Holy Spirit until the Easter vigil.15 In fact, they could not even pray with baptized Christians until they themselves were baptized.16

Next were the heretics and schismatics. Although baptized, they were denied Communion and the Sign of Christs peace since they were cut off from the bosom of the Church. They too would not be allowed to witness the sacred mysteries.

Yet the list of personae non gratis does not stop there! Those having committed mortal sin were relegated to a closedoff place in the back of the church, or even outside of the building, and so too were always denied the Sign of Peace.17 In the Roman Rite, only after the completion of formal canonical Penance during Lent could they receive absolution on Holy Thursday in order to once again take their place with the congregation and so exchange the bond of communion and love which they had lost through the commission of mortal sin.18

This noble reality of communion and love is expressed in the new Roman Missal, but it is adulterated since its application does not take into account the historical context of the Sign of Peace. Nor has there been implemented a proper way to restore the ritual while retaining its rich significance.

Lost are the days of the sixth century Roman Rite where everyone but baptized and grace-filled orthodox Catholics are herded out of the Church following the Mass of the Catechumens. Gone, too, are the patristic prohibitions of men and women sitting together in the congregation and only exchanging peace among their own gender (still practiced in Judaism and by some Orientals). These universal practices from at least the third to the eighth centuries are all intimately bound up with the kiss of peace, which is to be pure and holy. The so-called restoration, purported to have been accomplished by the Consilium, reintroduced only a handshake and a smile. This is a result of the lack of context being achieved on the part of the Consilium. Ultimately, it must be admitted frankly that the Sign of Peace in the Novus Ordo is a meaningless liturgical gesture."

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2002_SU_Tomassi.html



SPope Benedict said nothing about the Mass itself being less reverant. He did say that the reverent celebration of the Mass had to be restored. There is a definite differnce between what he actually said to what you imply he said.

As to your discussion of the sign of peace. Read the norms again. The fact that ther vast majority of Catholics do not know or understand its significance does not change its nature. That is a failure in teaching by those responsible for teaching the faithful, not some kind of error in the Mass.

I have neither said not implied that any Pope you named was wrong. That is the strawman you are creating to try to destroy my factual statement.

As to the place of the catechumens and their attendance at Mass, those practices disappeared from the Church hundreds of years before Vatican II and the Novus Ordo.

Heretics and schismatics (as well as those in mortal sin aside from those two biggies) are stilled barred from Communion. The fact that in most cases the priests do not know who falls into that category a unknowingly gives it to them does not change the fact. The Church for a couple of hundred years lays the first responsibility on sinner themselves to refrain from receiving. So the sin falls on them for presenting themselves for Communion. In the case where a priest knows that a specific person should not receive yet gives it to them brings the onus of sin on Him but does not change in any way the Church's stand on the matter.

As to denying these people the sign of peace the understanding of the Church has developed, not changed, consistent with the past that as Christians we extend the love of Christ to all men because of their inherent dignity as human beings, creatures of God.

In other words, although apparently different, the practice is a natural and consistent development of the Church's teachings and practices. In the words of Benedict XVI, the Nolvus as well as the teachings and practices of the Church and Vatican II must be looked at in the light of the, "Heuristics of Continuity."


Aug 1st 2013 new
(quote) Lynea-297530 said: Paul, would you care to explain your opinion as to why the Novus Ordo Mass was created in the first place?
Vatican II laid down overall norms of what should be achieved by the celebration of the Mass. It did not specifically order any changes as such. But they decreed, for example, that greater participation by the laity in the celebration was a goal.

Pope Paul VI took those goals and personally decided to create a commission to overhaul the Mass those goals. He set the goals and objectives, named the members, directed its work a finally approved it and promulgated the resulting Novus as the Standard rite to be used in the Latin Church.

Could the overall goals and objectives been made with only some minor changes to the Tridentine rite? Possibly. But that is not what Paul VI wanted or approved and promulgated.

I still, challenge anyone to actually point out any errors of faith and morals in the Novus. I further challenge anyone to actually demonstrate any changes inn the Novus that is not consistent with all previous approved rites in the Church.

Answers which merely point out abuses that they have observed or things they don't like don't count as they have nothing to do with the Mass.
Aug 1st 2013 new
(quote) Lynea-297530 said: WHOA!

I am going to be rigid where something is objectively a fact. Do not insult me and say I am a "traditionalist" as if I am separate from being Catholic. If you are Catholic, in fact, YOU TOO are a "traditionalist" for the fact that you are Catholic. There are two forms of tradition: extrinisic and intrinsic, and they both serve a purpose. The Church does not need to hang onto tradition for sake of tradition, but some things infact are SACRED and have a purpose in the Church, even what modernists wish to disguise that fact to one degree or another.

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SU_Ripperger.html

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_FA_Ripperger.html

You are men, so please, be gentlemen as well. Do not say that I am in some sort of group of people who may or may not be Catholic. Do not infer that I am a schismatic on a public forum even and then try to act as if you mean well and are playing nice. I don't respect that one iota. Rash judgment and detraction, even implied, is still a sin.

So I'll say it again: Do not call me a "traditionalist", thank you. I am a Catholic.

I was purposely trying to distill what happened with the promulgation of the new missal. I'm not sure how you came to believe that I was thinking that I was telling the whole story. I was simply stating a single fact regarding the matter.

Please read, "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber". It's written by someone who was for the new Mass and who was THERE at the council.


And for the person who said that there is no theological difference between the two liturgies, wow. I really would like you to prove this. Start with the "Sign of Peace".







You are not being objective in your post, Lynea. Your entire post is fueled by an emotional response and I am at a loss to understand why.

Much of what you assume from my post is just in your head. I am sorry but please re-read what you wrote and what I wrote.

Just the fact that Traditionalist and Catholic are mutually inclusive and both should suffice to complement who we are (and you acknowledge it) yet you turn around and then reject the "traditionalist" label as if it is plagued, just baffles me. Why?

I am both a traditionalist and a Catholic and make no apology for it. Nor do I shy away from being labeled a Traditionalist. If some (or most) don't get it now I figure in time they will. There is no way of escaping judgment day.

My point about you oversimplifying is correct. It caused you to derive a flawed outcome and your comments could lead others to a wrong conclusion.

I know you were "distilling" and I have no problems with that, per se, I just think that you oversimplified too much, having omitted relevant information that puts quite a different take and leaves your wrong conclusion as if "objective". It's not. The omissions prevent it. That is why I raised the CAUTION sign.

Aug 1st 2013 new
(quote) John-971967 said: You are not being objective in your post, Lynea. Your entire post is fueled by an emotional response and I am at a loss to understand why.

Much of what you assume from my post is just in your head. I am sorry but please re-read what you wrote and what I wrote.

Just the fact that Traditionalist and Catholic are mutually inclusive and both should suffice to complement who we are (and you acknowledge it) yet you turn around and then reject the "traditionalist" label as if it is plagued, just baffles me. Why?

I am both a traditionalist and a Catholic and make no apology for it. Nor do I shy away from being labeled a Traditionalist. If some (or most) don't get it now I figure in time they will. There is no way of escaping judgment day.

My point about you oversimplifying is correct. It caused you to derive a flawed outcome and your comments could lead others to a wrong conclusion.

I know you were "distilling" and I have no problems with that, per se, I just think that you oversimplified too much, having omitted relevant information that puts quite a different take and leaves your wrong conclusion as if "objective". It's not. The omissions prevent it. That is why I raised the CAUTION sign.

It is in my head? What? You keep calling me a traditionalist. I asked you to stop.

I am not a "traditionalist". I am a Catholic. You want to keep separating me from the Church in this conversation, but no matter how you try to present it, it is contentious.

I mention intrinsic vs. extrinsic tradition and posted links explaining them, and you accuse me of being all emotional and not objective. Seriously, your attacks are not objective.

Catholicism has tradition, both intrinsic and extrinsic, but being Catholic doesn't mean you are a "traditionalist", that we hold onto tradition for the sake of tradition.
Aug 1st 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: Vatican II laid down overall norms of what should be achieved by the celebration of the Mass. It did not specifically order any changes as such. But they decreed, for example, that greater participation by the laity in the celebration was a goal.

Pope Paul VI took those goals and personally decided to create a commission to overhaul the Mass those goals. He set the goals and objectives, named the members, directed its work a finally approved it and promulgated the resulting Novus as the Standard rite to be used in the Latin Church.

Could the overall goals and objectives been made with only some minor changes to the Tridentine rite? Possibly. But that is not what Paul VI wanted or approved and promulgated.

I still, challenge anyone to actually point out any errors of faith and morals in the Novus. I further challenge anyone to actually demonstrate any changes inn the Novus that is not consistent with all previous approved rites in the Church.

Answers which merely point out abuses that they have observed or things they don't like don't count as they have nothing to do with the Mass.
So do you believe that this outward participation increased the inward devotion of Catholics? How do you explain the statistics that show this not to be the case?


www.catholicherald.co.uk.


www.telegraph.co.uk.


Which is the highest good : How we feel and participate --- the good we can do for one another, and even for God, or God Himself?

Posts 41 - 50 of 51