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 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

Dec 31st 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: Restoring the sacred is what Pope Benedict XVI was doing with Summorum Pontificum. The point was to allow the use of the EF to reform the OF.

Even Benedict said that the OF was an "artificial product" not in keeping with authentic tradition. Even those who wrote the liturgy of Paul VI agreed, such as Fr. Gelineau.

What sacred thing was lost in the EF that suddenly arrived in the OF?
Why do you insist on distorting the purpose for which Pope Benedict issued Summorum and even worse insist on distorting what he said.

Contrary to your statement Bendict did not say the the Novus was an artificial product. In fact, in Summorum, he goes out of his way to say that the Novus as well as the TLM both enlightmen us to the traditions upon which both forms are based.
LOCKED
Dec 31st 2013 new
(quote) Jane-933948 said: Marina,

"I also remember Latin Masses in front of bored or mystified parishioners who couldn't participate fully even if they wanted to. Do you? What is the sense of the sacred when people are dozing off, praying the rosary, discussing last night's movie in between snatches of explanation of where we are now in the Missalette? When the celebrant says to me in my native language, "This is My body........." I am transformed by the words. I don't need the sound of a traditional bell to remind me to pay attention. "

I have to differ with your opinion for the above quote and the modern views you have written about. I tend different masses for different reasons and I prefer the TLM. When I was a little girl the TLM was said until I was 7 years old in my Parish. And I do remember it. And now when I attend the TLM, sometimes I use a missel and sometimes I do not. I have never participated or felt more close to Jesus and His mass as I do now. One may follow the meaning right along with the priest. I have seen more of what you describe above in the non TLM masses I attend. In the TLM masses there is more quiet reflection, reverence and respect of the parishioners then at the post Vatican II masses I attend. It is God's will not ours how to conduct mass. And there are certain parts of the mass that are to be shared with God and the priest only and not include the congregation directly . We need to respect God's wishes, after all He made the "rules". And the bell is rung on the alter for a reason, if we are dosing or fading off into our own thoughts or even in thoughts and prayer of Jesus, we are reminded that the transubstantiation is happening and to pay attention and respect it. You may not need it but most of the rest of us do. And it is up to Jesus to nudge us if need be. In my parish we have priests that do embrace the problems and issues of the modern world whole heartedly as they can. And they are traditional priests that are bringing back the sacred. The problems we are all having are dealt with beautifully, perhaps you need to find a parish that will. God bless you.

I'm thinking much along these line, too, although I love latin myself and am
old enough to remember all those lovely hymns.


Backward or forwards isn't the point, but heavenward is the goal!
LOCKED
Dec 31st 2013 new
(quote) Greg-902815 said: The dogmas are still the same, including "outside the Church there is no salvation".
You are quite correct. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.


LOCKED
Dec 31st 2013 new
(quote) Jane-933948 said: Marina,

"I also remember Latin Masses in front of bored or mystified parishioners who couldn't participate fully even if they wanted to. Do you? What is the sense of the sacred when people are dozing off, praying the rosary, discussing last night's movie in between snatches of explanation of where we are now in the Missalette? When the celebrant says to me in my native language, "This is My body........." I am transformed by the words. I don't need the sound of a traditional bell to remind me to pay attention. "

I have to differ with your opinion for the above quote and the modern views you have written about. I tend different masses for different reasons and I prefer the TLM. When I was a little girl the TLM was said until I was 7 years old in my Parish. And I do remember it. And now when I attend the TLM, sometimes I use a missel and sometimes I do not. I have never participated or felt more close to Jesus and His mass as I do now. One may follow the meaning right along with the priest. I have seen more of what you describe above in the non TLM masses I attend. In the TLM masses there is more quiet reflection, reverence and respect of the parishioners then at the post Vatican II masses I attend. It is God's will not ours how to conduct mass. And there are certain parts of the mass that are to be shared with God and the priest only and not include the congregation directly . We need to respect God's wishes, after all He made the "rules". And the bell is rung on the alter for a reason, if we are dosing or fading off into our own thoughts or even in thoughts and prayer of Jesus, we are reminded that the transubstantiation is happening and to pay attention and respect it. You may not need it but most of the rest of us do. And it is up to Jesus to nudge us if need be. In my parish we have priests that do embrace the problems and issues of the modern world whole heartedly as they can. And they are traditional priests that are bringing back the sacred. The problems we are all having are dealt with beautifully, perhaps you need to find a parish that will. God bless you.

It should also be noted that during the time before VII not all of the good efforts of the Liturgical Movement had taken hold throughout the Church. This is particularly because of issues with the Solemes Chants that impeded their widespread distribution for a long time.

Sancrosanctum Concilium called for greater efforts at education in the gestures and prayers of the mass to enhance our prayerful assistance at Mass, what it called actuoso participatio (actual participation) which was most effectively interior.
LOCKED
Dec 31st 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: Restoring the sacred is what Pope Benedict XVI was doing with Summorum Pontificum. The point was to allow the use of the EF to reform the OF.

Even Benedict said that the OF was an "artificial product" not in keeping with authentic tradition. Even those who wrote the liturgy of Paul VI agreed, such as Fr. Gelineau.

What sacred thing was lost in the EF that suddenly arrived in the OF?
Summorum is a very interesting document. It is short, just 29 separate, comparatively short paragraphs that occupy less than 4 typewritten pages.

The first 7 paragraphs provide a short concise history of the Mass and the Pontiffs who were instrumental in making changes.

He states the purpose for publishing Summorum in paragraphs 8 and 9. In neither does he say anything about, in your words, "Restoring the Sacred... ." In paragraph 8 he gives the background for his decision for issuing Summorum. Simply summarized he says that because, "... no small number of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier Liturgical forms." so Pope JPII issued his special indult (Quattuor abhinc anno) granted permission for the use of the 1962 MIssal.

Note carefully the fact that although the TLM was never suppressed nor abrogated, it still required a special indult by Pope John Paull II for the 1962 missal to be used.

Then in paragraph 9 he states his purpose, "Following the insistent prayers of these faithful (those who prefer to adhere to the Extraordinary form), long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March, 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these letters we establish the following:"

Note that nowhere does he even hint that his purpose was to restore the sacred and is insistent that his purpose is the satisfy the craving of , "... no small number of the faithful... ."

Obviously then, your statement of his purpose has no basis in fact or reality.

Your next statement that, "The point was to allow the use of the EF to reform the OF." has even less basis in fact or reality in Summorum. IN FACT the only statement that can possibly be interpreted as addressing any reform is exactly 180 degress opposite of your statement and is not found in Summorum itself but in the letter he issued to the Bishops commenting on Summorum. In paragraph 8 of that document he states, "For that matter, the two forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces CAN AND SHOULKD BE INSERTED IN THE OLD MISSAL." (Empahsis added)

As I noted in another note I wrote responding to some erroneous statements you made about Summorum in another thread where you maintained that Pope Benedict made derogatory comments about the Novus in Summorum no such statements appear in Summorum and in his letter to the Bishops on Summorum he specifically states, "It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman MIssal as if they were "two Rites." Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite."

That statement is clear that he equates the two and cannot rationally be interpreted as being derogatory of the Novus.

Continuing to make false claims about what Pope Benedict said in Summorumg or any where else about The Novus does the cause for those who prefer the TLM no good whatsoever. It even casts the motives and the preference of those TLM supporters and lovers in a bad light which they do not deserve.

I have said it before and I will repeat it here again, loving or preferring the TLM does not in itself make a person a traditionalist. Nor does loving or preferring the Novus, in itself make someone a heretical modernist.
LOCKED
Dec 31st 2013 new
Marina, first welcome to the forums~ healthy debate is good for everyone. Second, don't be intimidated by the stick-in-the-muds among us. You are preaching (mostly) to the choir!
LOCKED
Dec 31st 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: Summorum is a very interesting document. It is short, just 29 separate, comparatively short paragraphs that occupy less than 4 typewritten pages.


Pope Benedict's concern for the Latin Rite was the reform of the reform in which sacredness was restored. That may have been my memory of the purpose from interviews and commentary given later; my apologies for that.

As for additional saint's days, that isn't a big deal; afterall the Church has done this for 1500 years, right? For most memorials, the only thing you'd have to determine is the typical form to be used (Martyr, Priest, Bishop Confessor, Penitent, Pope, etc - typical forms are found in the Missal), and whether prayers should be used instead of the typical ones - more often than not that would be with the Collect, Super Oblata (prayer over the gifts, or the Secret in the EF), and the Post-Communion prayer.

For example, the memorial for Bl. John Henry Newman, celebrated in the Archdiocese of Birmingham. If he becomes a saint and that is in the EF Missal, it would likely use the collect already used for the OF which is very lovely because it points to a beloved hymn he wrote, "Lead Kindly Light."

Deus, qui betum Ionnem Henrcum, presbterum,
lumen bengnum tuum sequntem
pacem in Ecclsia tua invenre contulsti,
concde proptius,
ut, eius intercessine et exmplo,
ex umbris et imagnibus
in plenitdinem verittis tuae perducmur.
In English:
O God, who granted blessed John Henry,
a priest following Your kindly light,
to find peace in Your Church,
graciously vouchsafe,
by his intercession and example,
that we may be drawn from shadows and shades
into the fullness of Your truth.

wdtprs.com



LOCKED
Dec 31st 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: English consists of a lot of Latin root words due to the Norman influence on the language.

You know...1066 and all that!

http://www.amazon.com/1066-All-That-memorable-history/dp/0750917164

Steven,

Seems you are hell bent on trying to ~ I will put it nicely ~debate with me. Let's just agree to disagree.
I prefer the TLM that is all I am saying in this thread. And It doesn't have anything to do with weather I am a conservative or not, or a prude or not or a stick in the mud or not. Etc. etc. etc.
LOCKED
Dec 31st 2013 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: Summorum is a very interesting document. It is short, just 29 separate, comparatively short paragraphs that occupy less than 4 typewritten pages.

The first 7 paragraphs provide a short concise history of the Mass and the Pontiffs who were instrumental in making changes.

He states the purpose for publishing Summorum in paragraphs 8 and 9. In neither does he say anything about, in your words, "Restoring the Sacred... ." In paragraph 8 he gives the background for his decision for issuing Summorum. Simply summarized he says that because, "... no small number of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier Liturgical forms." so Pope JPII issued his special indult (Quattuor abhinc anno) granted permission for the use of the 1962 MIssal.

Note carefully the fact that although the TLM was never suppressed nor abrogated, it still required a special indult by Pope John Paull II for the 1962 missal to be used.

Then in paragraph 9 he states his purpose, "Following the insistent prayers of these faithful (those who prefer to adhere to the Extraordinary form), long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March, 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these letters we establish the following:"

Note that nowhere does he even hint that his purpose was to restore the sacred and is insistent that his purpose is the satisfy the craving of , "... no small number of the faithful... ."

Obviously then, your statement of his purpose has no basis in fact or reality.

Your next statement that, "The point was to allow the use of the EF to reform the OF." has even less basis in fact or reality in Summorum. IN FACT the only statement that can possibly be interpreted as addressing any reform is exactly 180 degress opposite of your statement and is not found in Summorum itself but in the letter he issued to the Bishops commenting on Summorum. In paragraph 8 of that document he states, "For that matter, the two forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces CAN AND SHOULKD BE INSERTED IN THE OLD MISSAL." (Empahsis added)

As I noted in another note I wrote responding to some erroneous statements you made about Summorum in another thread where you maintained that Pope Benedict made derogatory comments about the Novus in Summorum no such statements appear in Summorum and in his letter to the Bishops on Summorum he specifically states, "It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman MIssal as if they were "two Rites." Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite."

That statement is clear that he equates the two and cannot rationally be interpreted as being derogatory of the Novus.

Continuing to make false claims about what Pope Benedict said in Summorumg or any where else about The Novus does the cause for those who prefer the TLM no good whatsoever. It even casts the motives and the preference of those TLM supporters and lovers in a bad light which they do not deserve.

I have said it before and I will repeat it here again, loving or preferring the TLM does not in itself make a person a traditionalist. Nor does loving or preferring the Novus, in itself make someone a heretical modernist.
Well, I'm glad you took the time to read the document.

If it seems like I am denigrating the OF, as you imply, I am only pointing out the absurdity of solving the issues with the EF as it was said in the 60's by replacing it with a mass where it almost seems like "anything goes." For the one issue I've heard on this thread about the EF, I can relate three or four I've seen including one that made me almost walk out of mass that day.

Take a listen to Micheal Voris' commentary that Bernard linked to. Listen to the litany of issues mentioned in the OF.

I've endured a parish where hand-holding was mandatory, as well as the inevitable "squeeze," (if you haven't, consider yourself blessed).

Army of Eucharistic Ministers where two priests and deacons are available and can distribute? Check!

Protestant or broadway themed hymns from the big three music producers? Check!

Boring or even heretical homilies? Check! (I even heard a priest give one about Judas climbing up to heaven. The demoniacs in the Gospel being simply mentally ill because we know better than the inspired authors? Yep, that too)

Churches where our Eucharistic Lord is placed in the back, or in a closet? We got those in Dayton. I was in one church which looked very traditional, with old style stained glass. Problem was there was no tabernacle either in the front or the back. Where did they take Our Lord? Who knows?

Check on that.

Some of the bad liturgical abuses, such as people being brought into the sanctuary? Had that happen.

There was even a mass where the priest brought his dog along into the sanctuary!

Come to think of it, I've just shown how banal and man-made the OF is (as Benedict XVI and Cardinal Burke have said) just from my own experiences.

Your mileage may vary, Paul, but surely you've seen your share of it too.



LOCKED
Dec 31st 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: Pope Benedict's concern for the Latin Rite was the reform of the reform in which sacredness was restored. That may have been my memory of the purpose from interviews and commentary given later; my apologies for that.

As for additional saint's days, that isn't a big deal; afterall the Church has done this for 1500 years, right? For most memorials, the only thing you'd have to determine is the typical form to be used (Martyr, Priest, Bishop Confessor, Penitent, Pope, etc - typical forms are found in the Missal), and whether prayers should be used instead of the typical ones - more often than not that would be with the Collect, Super Oblata (prayer over the gifts, or the Secret in the EF), and the Post-Communion prayer.

For example, the memorial for Bl. John Henry Newman, celebrated in the Archdiocese of Birmingham. If he becomes a saint and that is in the EF Missal, it would likely use the collect already used for the OF which is very lovely because it points to a beloved hymn he wrote, "Lead Kindly Light."

Deus, qui betum Ionnem Henrcum, presbterum,
lumen bengnum tuum sequntem
pacem in Ecclsia tua invenre contulsti,
concde proptius,
ut, eius intercessine et exmplo,
ex umbris et imagnibus
in plenitdinem verittis tuae perducmur.
In English:
O God, who granted blessed John Henry,
a priest following Your kindly light,
to find peace in Your Church,
graciously vouchsafe,
by his intercession and example,
that we may be drawn from shadows and shades
into the fullness of Your truth.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/06/wdtprs-collect-for-bl-john-henry-newman-and-lead-kindly-light/



The only reference I can find of Benedict commenting on the,"reform of the reform" was to dismiss it as nonsense.

"As for additional saint's days, that isn't a big deal; afterall the Church has done this for 1500 years, right? For most memorials, the only thing you'd have to determine is the typical form to be used (Martyr, Priest, Bishop Confessor, Penitent, Pope, etc - typical forms are found in the Missal), and whether prayers should be used instead of the typical ones - more often than not that would be with the Collect, Super Oblata (prayer over the gifts, or the Secret in the EF), and the Post-Communion prayer."

Yet you completely ignore the fact that the only example he gives for changes is changes to the TLM from the Novus.
By no means am I implying that he is implying that the only changes should flow from the Novus to the TLM. After all he did say that they could enrich each other. Totally contrary to your statement that he wants to reform the reform by only making changes to the Novus to restore reverence to the Mass. For which there is no evidence in fact or reality that he ever made such an assertion.

Finally you continue to attribute derogatory statements about the Novus to him that I can find no evidence he ever made. To wit " the assertion you, as well as others who believe as you do,that he says the Novus was an artifiical construct. Not only have I been unable to find that he made that statement, but all the comments I can find of his about the Novus are all positive in nature. While doing the research to pin the sourcedown, the only sites where I find this less that accurate statement are those of radical traditionalitsand none of them attribute it to Pope Benedict.

Unless yoiu have evidence to the contrary by referencing any document in which he made that statement with Title, page Number, paragraph number, etc. you should stop saying such as it amounts to a gross calumny against him.

LOCKED
Posts 21 - 30 of 63