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 related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Nov 25th 2013 new
(quote) Gabor-19025 said: I do not believe I made any such comment? The point I was clearly making was that the Eucharist is not somehow hidden or obscured by the priest in the TLM. If anything, to the contrary, the focus is very firmly on the Eucharist. and not the priest.
And the point she made was exactly the same thing.

As much as you would like to believe otherwise, the Eucharist is not obscured or hidden by the priest in the Novus. As a matter of fact, the Host is on full display to the Congregatyion from the beginning of the Consecration until it beomes the Eucharist.

Since you feel it neccessary to talk about something that does not happen in the Novus, I will point out to you that in the TLM 1) the host is obscured from the congregation during the entire Mass until after the Consecxration has taken place and then it only displayed for a very brief time. and 2. in addition, the congregation does not even hear the words.

The only way someone attending the TLM can tell what is happening is if they have a missal, which in itself can be a distraction or if one is a Latin scholar and has memorized all the prayers and instinctively knows the meaning of those words.

Now my accurate rendering of what takes place in the TLM may be objectionable to you. Just remember that your constant inaccurate, complaining about something you don't like is just as objectionable to anyone who finds the Novus fulfilling.

I personally prefer the TLM, but I know with a moral certainty that the Novus is just as reverent, historical, Catholic, Holy and all the other adjectives you might like to apply to the TLM. And if you don't see or understand that, I maintain you really do not understand the Mass is general or either of the forms in particular.
Nov 26th 2013 new
Thanks for your kind and learned feedback.
Nov 27th 2013 new
This Blog
This Blog

Speaking of strange altars ...

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com
Nov 27th 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said:

 in the TLM 1) the host is obscured from the congregation during the entire Mass until after the Consecxration has taken place and then it only displayed for a very brief time. and 2. in addition, the congregation does not even hear the words.


In regards to what the congregation sees and hears....isn't it true that what the priest says is spoken to God and is not necessarily intended for the people to hear? And isn't the only audience at Mass God the Father?

Another questions for you...this was mentioned earlier in the posts..when the curtain of the temple was torn in two, wasn't that God leaving the temple? Do you know if that was pretty much the end of temple worship? Or do you think it continued up until the destruction of the temple? With all the tearing of garments that went on when bad things happened back then, I can't imagine that someone would interpret the tearing of the curtain to be a sign of God's pleasure with the people. Seems to me more like a sign of the end of the old covenant. What do you think?
Nov 27th 2013 new
Re this topic, a great book that might be of interest:
By What Authority by Msgr Robert Hugh Benson (Pope Francis just recently mentioned Msgr Benson's book Lord of the World--last week I think).
Happy Thanksgiving!
Nov 28th 2013 new
(quote) Linda-982758 said: Hi Evie
I would love to go to mass with you. It is St Catherine of Siena in Wake Forest!
The Bishop is having a special first mass this Saturday at 10 am. Long one though could be two hours.
Please let me know!
Hugs
Linda
Linda the next time I am in Raleigh I am going to get in touch as I would definitely love to come and see your church. Members of my parish went and said your dedication was absolutely beautiful, as well as your new church. We are building a new one down here and our dedication will be in February.
Evie
Nov 28th 2013 new
Please do I would love to go to Mass wit you. Yes the dedication was everything that we Catholics should be proud of- our faith rocks! It was so beautiful! Joy and Blessing Linda
Nov 28th 2013 new
(quote) Ginia-1026653 said: In regards to what the congregation sees and hears....isn't it true that what the priest says is spoken to God and is not necessarily intended for the people to hear? And isn't the only audience at Mass God the Father?

Another questions for you...this was mentioned earlier in the posts..when the curtain of the temple was torn in two, wasn't that God leaving the temple? Do you know if that was pretty much the end of temple worship? Or do you think it continued up until the destruction of the temple? With all the tearing of garments that went on when bad things happened back then, I can't imagine that someone would interpret the tearing of the curtain to be a sign of God's pleasure with the people. Seems to me more like a sign of the end of the old covenant. What do you think?
ircYes, the prayers the priest recites are all spoken to God. And in the TLM he does so on behalf of the people. Where appropriate, the alter respond for the people.

But the simple fact is, the Mass is a corporate act. That is, it is worship by all, the Priest, the Alter Boys and the Congregation.

In the TLM, the congregation plays essentially a passive part except for the reception of the Eucharist. Even if the lay person in the pew s properly using a missal, praying all the prays along with the priest, they are still passive.

One of the main purposes Vatican II had for ordering a revision of the Mass was to have the congregation take a more active part in the celebration. How well that aim was achieved can be argued from now until doomsday with no resolution.

Those who are sincerely "traditional" can rightly argue that there was no need to make such a drastic change. And they could be considered accurate. After all, the Council could just as easily have ordered that most of the extraordinary form be done in the vernacular, thereby removing the language barrier. It could also authorize the Mass to be said either facing or not facing the people. Actually they did exactly that. They could also have added all the extra readings, without changing so much more.

But the simple fact is they did not do all those things. Instead they ordered, very simply, that the Mass be redone to achieve the norms for it that they laid down and left it to a committee they created and the Pope staffed to achieve the aims.

Good, bad or indifferent, the Pope, who is the final decider of what is in the matter of how the Mass is celebrated, accepted the work of the committee and promulgated it to be used in the Latin Church. Unlike he Pope at the time of Trent, he did not suppress the TLM. Probably because he believed that everyone would accept the new form and forget the old since the new did all the things the laity had been complaining about for so long and so loud.

From strictly a "housekeeping" point of view he should have suppressed it. But that is neither here or there. He didn't and, therefore, set the stage for the silliness we have now. Those who think of themselves as "traditional" (most of them really aren't in my opinion) saying one thing and those who have accepted the new saying another.

What I object to is not those who sincerely love the TLM, especially since I am one myself, but those who say they do and try to make their case by denigrated the Novus and its creators with all kinds of nonsense. In the process they show themselves to be very unchristian, demonstrate their ignorance of the Mass in general and both forms; the TLM and the Novus, in particular.

As to the last part of your note. I don't know what it has to do with the subject under discussion. But to answer your question. When the Curtain to the Holy of Holies was torn in two at Christ's death on the cross, it was the signal that the old Covenant and the law was fulfilled. So in that sense they ended. But it does not mean that the Jews lost there place as God's Chosen people. They still are. Its just that all the rest of us who freely and unconditionally accept the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church, are added to the ranks of God's chosen people.

The sacrifices in the Temple of Jerusalem continued until its destruction by the Roman Army in the 70s. But they no longer carried the weight they did before Christ' death. Remember, though, sincere Jews who did not know or understand who Jesus Christ is still gained whatever merit those sacrifices had before Christ's death.

Remember, Jews were spread throughout the world at the time of Christ. And just like most people today, most of them never traveled to Jerusalem to offer their sacrifices. They practiced their faith and prayer life in their local synagogs where no sacrifices were offered. And they still do so today.

Today, they no longer have an organized priesthood, although any male Jew alive today whose ancestry is of the tribe of Levi and Aaron have a claim to that priesthood. Instead, all religious functions except the sacrifices, are led by teachers - Rabbis. There are no sacrifices, because under Jewish law, sacrifices can only be done at the Temple where the Ark of The Covenant and, therefore, God is located. The Ark no longer exists. Even if it did, God would not be there because he can now only be where the Mass is offered. Obviously, here we are speaking of God's presence as He was in the Old Testament in the Temple and under the New Testament in the Eucharist.


Nov 28th 2013 new
The mass can be done pre or post Vatican II, but if you don't pay attention and don't allow yourself to be spiritually moved and know that is is a sacrifice of the Lamb, then you will never "get " it.

I go to TLM and I don't have to use the missal to know what is going on and to feel Christ's love and the Sacrifice he has made for me. And I feel I am participating in just the way Jesus meant for us to participate in His Holy Sacrifice.

The first Holy mass at the last supper, was Christ's way of teaching His disciples the way of the mass, so of course they had to participate in that way, in a different way than the rest of the congregation.

We shouldn't begin to tell God how He wants things done. God is in charge. Just being present at the mass IS our participation. rose theheart


Posts 51 - 59 of 59