Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Back To Life | Main | Lay Initiatives »

October 27, 2006

Comments

Charlie

Jimmy: Need your inout to the following which has naugh to do with the Latin Mass but I believe is related. This week a Bishop was addressing his priests and he made the comment..indeed he repeated it many times..that Mohammed is a real prophet because he unified his people...had them believe in One God, etc...I believe he was not a prophet as he performed no miracles as did the prophets of the OT and the One God he spoke of is not the God of our Redemption..but...I need to have more info..I'm afraid some of the priests will begin to preach this from the pulpits...what do you suggest?
Thanks and sorry to confuse this with the Tridentine Mass but did not know of another way to ask.
Thanks

Arieh

I just don't understand the French. Why would you want to restrict the celebration of a Rite of mass that has fed 15 centuries of saints? Does the French episcopacy actually think that the spiritual condition of France could possibly get any worse by the introduction of the TLM?

Inocencio

Arieh,

a Rite of mass that has fed 15 centuries of saints?

Could you give your understanding of the history of the Tridentine Rite and I would greatly appreciate if you could cite your sources.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

SDG

Thanks and sorry to confuse this with the Tridentine Mass but did not know of another way to ask.

Next time try email. Jimmy has his address posted in the upper left corner of his blog to make it really easy. And he's written in the past that he can't keep up with the goings-on in the comboxes.

BillyHW

Hey, that article mentions that all English-speaking countries except India will be using the new translation. Awesome.

Arieh

Inocencio,

One resource I would lead you to is Msgr. Gamber's book "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy", a book that was lavishly praised by Cardinal Ratzinger in the preface. He states that it is a mistake to call the Tridentine mass "Tridentine" primarily because Pope St. Pius V made very insignificant changes to the missal of the Roman Curia after the council of Trent. He goes on to further state that the TLM is virtually the same as the Roman Rite of mass celebrated since the 6th century. There are obvious organic development, but they are substantially similar in form and aesthetics.

Esau

... Mohammed is a real prophet ...

Charlie:
Mohammed is NOT a prophet. Look in the Quran, in Sura 9 verse 29 in the Quran, a very famous text where Mohammed has some words about Christians in particular. He says: ‘Fight against those who say that God is the Messiah, the Son of Mary and Fight against those who say God is one of Three.’ Of course, the 2nd part of that is incorrect. We don’t say ‘God is one of three’ as if there were 3 gods. Would a true prophet say anything like that and spur folks to violence?

When you read the Quran, it’s obvious that Mohammed didn’t even understand Christianity itself; he misrepresented what we really teach and so in that respect, he was condemning what we don’t teach. But, at any rate, that text, when you look at the Arabic, it’s much stronger than it is in the English translation. It doesn’t just say fight against them; it says kill them, so sometimes the English translations are actually watered-down and they’re not quite right. It’s helpful to go to someone who knows Arabic.

Just reading the Quran sometime is positively mind-pummeling. Mohammed – some honest Muslims will frequently point out – Mohammed was illiterate, he didn’t know how to write, he just dictated the Quran. And the fact that he didn’t know how to write really shows. If you go through the Quran, it is incredibly repetitious; it makes claims that are contradicted by other historical sources frequently, and some of the revelations that Mohammed allegedly received are amazingly self-serving. I mean, they get down to things like ‘do not…’ – this is allegedly God talking to the Muslim believers – ‘do not raise your voice too loud when you are outside calling for the prophet to come out of his house’ and ‘do not stay too long after dinner when you’re eating with the prophet because he may have other stuff he wants to do’ and ‘do not try to stand in the back and sneak out of meetings with the prophet because the Lord sees what you do’. There’s just a lot of stuff in it that just doesn’t sound consistent with the majesty of God; it sounds more like this is a guy who is trying to keep his gravy train rolling rather than a prophet.

Steve Cavanaugh

I don't think Fr. Harbert's guess that a more faithful translation of the Missal will lead to a dampening of demand for the Tridentine Mass will come to pass.

First, there will be those who prefer the Tridentine rite to the Novus Ordo not because of translation issues but because the rites are quite different, and they are attached to the greater sense of mystery inclucated by greater silence, a more frequent use of genuflection, signs of the cross, etc., all of which can lend a greater sense of prayerfulness to the Tridentine rite.

Second, unless there are clear directives about the suitability of choices presented to the priest (e.g., not using the second Eucharistic prayer on Sundays), we will still have many choices made by our clergy on the basis of expediency rather than on what conduces to holiness.

Third, a better translation will not lead to more Latin or more chant, both of which are required by Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Fourth (and likely not last) the improved translation will not see a return to ad orientam prayer by the priest.

In fact, points 2-4 above could have been rectified already by a better General Instruction. The IGMR has been out for several years now, and is in force, but did not address these points in a way forceful enough to make any changes. What changes did get pushed through, at least here in the U.S., had to do with the posture of the laity, an area that the Roman Missal traditionally paid very little attention to.

BillyHW: Actually, the article by John Allen said that all English speaking countries except India had approved the new translation. India may well do so also...it could simply be that the Indian Bishops Conference hasn't met yet to vote on this. I suspect they will approve this as well.

sky

Arieh, I don't understand the American and British bishops either, since most of them are also pretty cool to a return of the TLM... It's not just a French problem unfortunately.

Phil M.

My first reaction to the rumored indult was “Hooray! More Tridentine Masses!” Then I remembered that my favorite Mass is a proper, reverent Novus Ordo Mass, said mainly in Latin, with the instructional parts in English, with the use of chant, communion rails, without EM’s wandering around the alter, etc. I’ve just been to so few of them, it slipped my mind how beautiful they can be. Anyone in the NY City area want to know what I’m talking about, go to a high Mass with the Franciscans of the renewal (I especially recommend their Easter vigil).

So, I think that more Masses like these would decrease the desire for the Tridentine. Unfortunately, I think Steve is correct. The updated translation, by itself, will not necessarily lead to a proper Novus Ordo.

Beau

I attend a Novus Ordo Mass for the most part, but get the opportunity to go to the Tridentine Mass on occasion - mostly because it's a 2 1/2 hour drive to the nearest parish that offers one.

The thing I've noticed about the Tridentine Mass, is that it's not that it's in Latin, and it's not the music, or the increased use of genuflection, or really anything about the rite itself - it's the people (the Priests and the parishioners). The parishioners tend to be much more orthodox in their faith. The Priests tend to give a much more orthodox homily.

I think the fact that the Tridentine Mass was *the* Mass for so long is very appealing to those seeking orthodoxy in their faith. Couple that with the message being presented in the homily, and the other items mentioned above (Latin, genuflection, etc.) and the whole Mass takes on a greater sense of reverence and holiness.

I for one enjoy the Tridentine Mass, but I don't speak Latin, and I get lost trying to follow along in the missal. I enjoy the Novus Ordo as well, and I walk away from just about every Mass with a fresh outlook on the week. However, only rarely do I walk away from the Novus Ordo Mass and dwell on what was said for any length of time. Conversely, when I leave the Tridentine Mass, my wife and I often discuss the homily for days.

Ironically, that's the real difference for me. Jesus is present at either Mass, so that's not the deciding factor. I live in a very Baptist area, and occasionally I hear folks say something like "we got a new pastor, but I don't like his preaching so now we're going to a different church". I guess I'm not so different :)

Mary

I'm just learning how to blog, believe it or not, and came across this blog site(is that the right phrase?) I was just wondering if anyone has heard of the new children's book series called "The Adventures of Sister Regina Marie?" Where can you get it? I've heard such beautiful things about it - it shows children what a nun's life is like, but don't know where to find it. Can anyone help? I'm not too good with computers, as you probably can tell :-) so I don't know where to begin to find this book series. Thanks!

JW

Since here in England congregations are being warned that it will not be possible to continue the celebration of Mass every Sunday when the current (predominantly) aged priests retire or die, the language and/or style of the "approved" local Mass will be immaterial.

Go back to Latin: that's the quick tidy way of eliminating the so-far persevering faithful from the parishes. Then the dioceses will be able to sell off the Church property; they need the cash to support the liturgy "reformers" and to house the Child Protection records. (Of course most of the people from whom the children are to be protected are already "vulnerable adults," but hey - who cares?

Charles R. Williams

I think the big story here is the schismatic mentality displayed by the French clergy. Schism is to refuse to be in communion with the Pope or with those who are in communion with the Pope. (from memory)

The reality is that for a large part of the European and North American clergy the faith expressed in the traditional mass is not the faith they hold in their hearts and express through the new mass as they wish to celebrate it. They reject the Council in the name of the "spirit" of the Council.

These people do not want an authentic expression of the Catholic faith in their midst that might suggest to the world that their religion is something other than Catholicism.

The "party of discontinuity" are the true schismatics.

Ed Peters

Why does almost no avert to the power and dignity of the new rite, celebrated in Latin?

btw, Innocencio's question still stands: that many elements of what became known as the Tridentine rite pre-date by far Trent is not at issue; that those elements were very widely dispersed is, as is that France knew basically only one rite. People might be surprised to learn what rite, say, John Vianney routinely celebrated.

Dr. Eric

Ed,

Pray tell, what Rite did St. Jean Vianney celebrate?

Jordan Potter

St. Jean Vianney celebrated Mass using the Lyonese Rite.

Arieh

The Lyonese Rite (or Lyonese Use) is just a local variant of the Roman Rite, and it did not vary much.

Michael

Covering the Vatican can also be an exercise in the “observer effect,” in that the mere fact of bringing a story to public attention can sometimes alter its outcome.

Considering Mr. Allen's outlook and association with the National Catholic Distorter, I mean Reporter, that is probably the purpose of his series of articles - to build a backlash in hopes of heading off the document or restricting its impact. Hopes for a freeing of the TLM have been raised and dashed so many times in the past, those who hope for it will believe it when they see it. Meanwhile all the excitement is seems to be coming from the 'Spirit of VCII' guys. Is that a good sign or just more of the same?

John

Groundswell of support will revive the Latin Mass.

No matter how much the Bishops and Cardinals hate it, it is the only thing that can revive our church. This goes back to my question on indefectibility-If the church's primary responsibility is to save souls as instituted on earth by Christ-Why would the clergy hate a mass which at least worships God and not Man and has the backing of the Pope. The latest crybaby antics by the French Cardinal and Bishops and his mad dash to Rome to protest the Good Shepherd Indult institute is just another sign these men in Red are not true Catholics but the wolf in sheeps clothing

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5latinmass-boxoct29,0,4736130.story

Inocencio

John(jtnova),

Because the Church is indefectable it cannot lead us astray (period)

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

bill912

"Because the Church is indefectable, it cannot lead us astray (period)."

Amen, Inocencio. To believe otherwise (and I used to!)is, ultimately, a denial of the Divinity of Christ (the realization of which is what instantly cured me of believing otherwise).

Inocencio

Good Morning bill912,

I also used to believe otherwise and used it as an excuse to live as I pleased. I am so thankful for the mercy and justice of God.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

JV

Why does almost no avert to the power and dignity of the new rite, celebrated in Latin?

Ed, this problem is far, far bigger than Latin.

Every aspect of Catholic life in America (and, for that matter, in Europe and many other parts of the world) has declined to an astounding and tragic degree in the 37 years since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae.

There is simply no way of disputing. Adult baptisms have declined about 55%, priestly ordinations are down almost 70%, seminarian numbers are down over 90% (!), actual seminaries have declined 66.7%, belief in the Real Presence among Catholics catechized aged 22-48 (so, the post VII crowd) is at an all-time low in Church history (70% do NOT believe in the source and summit of the Catholic Faith), Mass attendance has reversed itself (75% used to attend, 75% now do NOT attend), religious orders are dying out, Catholic marriages have gone down and annulments up, cohabitation, divorce, abortion, and contraception rates among Catholics equal or exceed that of pagan or unbelieving fellow Americans...this is, quite literally, a veritable crisis!

And where is the one place, the one common factor that every practical Catholic, no matter where they live or what their life's state is, shares by obligation on a weekly basis?

The Mass. The references to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Sts. Michael, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, Andrew, Thomas, Matthew, Ignatius, Barnabas, and so many others, once prominent throughout many parts of the Mass, are now gone. It as though someone decided modern man no longer had use for them.

The pleas for forgiveness for sins, a constant refrain in the TLM, the references to the Holy Sacrifice about to occur, the petitions for deliverance from final damnation, the descriptions of the Essence of God and the distinction of Persons in the Holy Trinity, the prayers throughout the Mass from the psalms, the stupendous beauty of Gregorian and Ambrosian chant, the prayers at the foot of the altar, the Last Gospel, the Lavabo, the careful holding of the canonical fingers together after the Consecration, ther versus Deus orientation of the priest, constant references to the Real Presence, the saints, sin, Purgatory, Hell...all of this was BUILT INTO the Traditional Mass, much of it was stripped by Annibale Bugnini in the very RARELY offered Latin Novus Ordo, and still more was hideously effaced and deformed by those who opted to butcher the Latin translations in the ICEL.

And St. John Vianney probably celebrated the Lyonese Rite, as someone mentioned, which is merely a local variant of the Tridentine Mass.

An enormous number of the greatest saints of all time--St. Francis de Sales, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Theres of Lisieux, St. Maximilian, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Aloysius Gonzaga, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Pio of Pietrelcina, St. Peter Julian Eymard, St. John of the Cross, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Francis Xavier, St. Bonaventure, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Pius V, St. Pius X, St. Francis, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Anthony of Padua (and on and on and on) all partook of the life-giving waters of the Traditional Latin Mass.

I use "Traditional Latin Mass" deliberately, rather than "Tridentine," because, while St. Pius V CODIFIED the Mass in 1570 following the Council of Trent, the Roman Canon dates back to St. Gregory the Great in the early 7th century (1400 years ago!) and the Mass as we knew it until 1962 changed and developed ORGANICALLY along the same lines (the Medieval Mass, for instance, had something like 25 Collects and 10 Secrets, and took 6 hours).

John

Inocencio and Bill

You are incorrect entirely-the church can not ever defect-but the clergy who are clearly impeccable (able to sin) surely can-or else how could one explain 3 men claming the papacy at once until a council was convened and Pope Martin was elected as the rightful pope (with none other than the "first Pope John XXIII running for his life", or the Aryan heresy of the 4th century, or the error of the Jansenists which was taught as church doctrine by the Bishops and Cardinals alike until condemned in a Decr. of the Holy Office, Dec. 7, 1690 Error of the Jansenists
Condemned in a Decr. of the Holy Office, Dec. 7, 1690 where in the above, the assertion of the Jansenists taught that the intention of the minister is irrelevant to a valid baptism, is condemned as error by the Roman Catholic Church-but took CENTURIES to do so

1318 28. Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and form of baptizing, but with his heart resolves, I do not intend what the Church does.
One could go on with examples. Selling of indulgences for salvation ordered by Pope Leo to help pay for the Sistene chapel after he squandered the money? Teaching that heaven can be "purchased"?

To feel the present state of church affairs is not error is to teach that the church and her mission has been changed and that CANT be possible-as you yourself stated

Inocencio

John(jtnova),

Please look up the word impeccable. Your understanding of this word and Church teaching is completely wrong.

You are obligated to honor and be obedient to the pope.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio

JV,

I use "Traditional Latin Mass" deliberately, rather than "Tridentine," because, while St. Pius V CODIFIED the Mass in 1570 following the Council of Trent

Pius V called it "new rite" in QUO PRIMUM so it is rightly called the Tridentine Rite.

I ask both you and John if the pope does not have the authority to bind and loose who gave it to you?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Arieh

Inocencio,

From Quo Primum:

"Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers."

The "new rite" was a restoration not an innovation.

Ed Peters

Arieh, Hi. You know, of course, that QP cannot possibly mean what it literally says (albeit in translation), for there simply was no "original form and rite" of the holy Fathers, or of anyone else, pace the Last Supper. Thus, everyone knows to understand QP in attenuated senses, which is where all the debating has been since.

My comment on Vianney (who did use the Lyonese rite) was to show that it is a mistake to attribute the rite that we rememebr from the early 1960s to all the great saints of post-Trent periods. The variations between the MIssal fo 1962 and Lyon are "not much" only to those of us who became used to to wide discrepacnies in Sunday Mass as the norm. Finally, I do know the problems are more than Latin. That is my point, though: people are attributing too much to the reform (or deform, if you prefer) of the rites. The problems are much deeper than that, and so are the solutions.

Arieh

Ed,

Lets not go to hyperbolic extremes, where did the quote I posted say that the TLM was a restoration of the Last Supper? Some traditional liturgists (like Msgr. Gamber) have stated that the TLM should more properly be call the mass of St Gregory (like the Orthodox have the divine liturgy of St John Chrysostom). The TLM shows a continuity that stretches back centuries. Sure there is organic developments that happened over the centuries, but they were slight and gradual.

Also, the Western Rites are extremely similar. I find more similarities between the Dominican Rite and the TLM than I do the NO to the TLM (as a matter of fact when I do get to attend a Dominican mass I can use my TLM missal with no problem). That I why I said earlier the the TLM has fed 15 centuries of saints.

I am not disparaging the NO mass, I was just posting my frustrations as to why on earth would bishops not want to promote a mass that has such beauty, history, and stability.

franklyn

Some high Anglican churches that use the Missale Anglicanum,which is the Tridentine mass ,refer to it as the Mass of Gregory the Great.

Ed Peters

Arieh, if you really think I said that you said that, etc....

Anyway, debating liturgical history in comboxes is a never-win situation. I have no idea of the background of responders, and they have little to no idea of mine. And neither of us have any control over what Rome will do anyway. In short, a waste of time. Best wishes.

Inocencio

Arieh,

I never said it was an innovation only that Pius V called it a new rite so it is rightly called the Tridentine Rite.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

JV

Pius V called it "new rite" in QUO PRIMUM so it is rightly called the Tridentine Rite.The TLM was around in its same form at least a century before Quo Primum, and the Roman Canon dates to St. Gregory in the early 600's.

So yes, it's much, much older than Trent, and no one can make the argument that the NO, even in Latin, is "organic development." If you disagree, read the frightening book penned by Archbishop Bugnini. It strikes me that this man won the good favor of the Holy Father for quite a while, while a sincere (but, with regard to the consecrations, misguided) Archbishop Lefebvre was generally treated like dog meat by many around the Vatican.
I ask both you and John if the pope does not have the authority to bind and loose who gave it to you?

I said nothing about the pope. This has to do with which Mass is the theological and aesthetic superior, and there's no way to dispute that with a straight face.

The stats bear out the obvious conclusion, and the idea that bishops deny this right to their parishioners is more than troubling.

Inocencio

JV,

I said nothing about the pope.

I am sorry that I included you in the question to John. I was incorrect to do that.

This has to do with which Mass is the theological and aesthetic superior, and there's no way to dispute that with a straight face.

I agree that the Tridentine Rite, as it is correctly called, is beautiful but I disagree with you that it is superior.

Ed Peters made an excellent point about this discussion, so I will follow his lead end my comments here.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Arieh

Ed,

I did misread what you said, I should be a little more careful.

Anyway, all I was trying to get across was that the rites of the western church vary so little that it is silly to say to bring up the fact that St Vianney celebrated the Lyonese Rite as if it were completely different from the TLM. Like I said before, I have never been to a Lyonese mass (I have only read about it) but I have been to a Dominican mass and I can tell you that I had a hard time spotting the differences between it and the TLM.

I was also trying to point out that contrary to Inocencio's erroneous opinion the TLM wasn't cut out of whole cloth after the council of Trent. Like I said before, many traditional liturgists say that the name "Tridentine" is a mistake because its history goes back much farther (by the way, I read works by authors loyal to the Church, never schismatics). Compare this to how the NO was developed, the order of mass was chopped to bits and rearranged with many new prayers added and many old prayers dropped. Never before in the history of the Church has anything like this happened. That is why I object to people trying to compare what Paul VI did to what Pius V did--they just don't compare.

Please keep in mind that I don't doubt the validity of the NO (I go to an NO parish 2-3 Sundays a month, a TLM the remainder), I just don't like it and if there were a TLM in my diocese I would go to a TLM exclusively.

G.Alex Benziger

Sir,
I am sending herewith a letter which is sent to THE ARCHBISHOP OF MADRAS_MYLAPORE for your reference.This is the development of the post Vatican2. Thank you.
........... ...........
3.2.2006
From

G. Alex Benziger
Advocate,
No.18, Pidariyar Koil Lane,
Chennai – 600 001.
Ph : 044-2528 0333, Mobile : 94440 22733
To

His Grace Dr.M. Chinnappa, D.D.,
Archbishop of Madras - Mylapore,
Archbishop’s House,
21, Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.

May it please Your Grace,

1. Let me introduce myself as a member of the St. Francis Xavier’s Parish Church, Broadway, Chennai –1, I am an advocate of Madras High Court with a practice of 21 years. Usually I have a practice to read Canon Law, `Missale Romanum’ (Tamil as well as English) and other Church’s doctrines and documents and I would bring to the notice to Your Grace, certain innovative presentations of the rituals at the Christmas mid-night Mass (25.12.2005) in our Parish Church, consecrated by the Parish Priest, Rev. Fr.Vincent Dorai Raj.

2. The Holy sacrifice of Liturgy of Mass was started as usual in all spirit of gay and joy to celebrate the “Redemptive Incarnation” of our Lord. The congregation then was asked to take their seat when the first and second readings and even the Gospel message that were pre-tape –recorded being played to the congregation through the audio –system. At the time of this type of broadcasting of the Reading of the message – while going on – some of the members of the congregation got into the (so called) ALTAR OF GOD and made dramatic movements of their hands and legs –of –course with shaking of their bodies, to make a cheap attraction, not quite worthy of the sacredness of the Holy place. Of course, it was very attractive, no doubt in a theatrical approach.

3. Later at the time of Doxology, some of the ladies, from the congregation got into the ALTAR OF GOD, and exhibited themselves, with shaky movement of dancing, which was very attractive – sure enough in a theatrical approach.

4. Now, the great doubt gets into our mind :if such a type of tape recorded message of the readings and gospel in the Liturgy of word (soon to be automatically extended to the liturgy of sacrifies, as in the present trend of innovations being adapted in the [modern] Church) is to be innovated into the sacrifice of the Mass, does it need a Church at all or a consecrated priest, when the Catholic population can jolly-well sit at ease at home, before their T.V. Sets to look into the recorded version of the Mass and get the full benefit of in “SACRED” Mass. Here one question will arise that, hereafter the priests are not necessary, nor churches / the constructed churches.

5. The Canon 846 (i) says :
"The Liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments. Accordingly no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those”.
Hence, when the consecrator is taking up such innovative deviations, is he or is he not violating the canon law? And as such are we – the congregation – still to carry the faith that transubstantiation, the main heart-beat of our faith in this Eucharistic celebration, is taking place? Or, are we still to have this dilemma in this Holy Mass, when certain solid rituals, as approved by the Canon Law, can be maintained with all sacredness and serenity, to provide us with the true faith on the Mass that is the Holy of the Holy things in the Catholic church.

6. It can also be clearly noted that nowhere in the book of the Missal, as approved by the Bishops of Tamilnadu in 1979 or 1993, such types of stage play and Dancing by men or women (or together) has been permitted or even suggested by them and even if the Church Authorities want to take shelter for such innovation of stage play or dancing, under the adaptation in the name of “Inculturation or Hinduisation” nowhere, you can presently come across this type of dirty dancing inside the Hindu Temples in India. In the Hindu Temple there is an iron partisan to keep away the people straight, face to face with the Deity and more so nobody enter into the sanctum sanctorum of the Hindu Temple except the Hindu Priests.

7. By such innovations, I can only come to the easy conclusion that we are in; the process of Martin Luthers’ Prediction, four and a half centuries ago : - “Tolle Missam – Tolle Ecclesiam”. Well, I could only feel that we are very well at it, unless the Church Authorities understand it, in this correct sense of its danger and bring back the basic factors of sacredness and serenity that are imbibed in the Holy Liturgy of the Mass that was taught by the Church in the early days, as the “Re-presentation” of Calvary.

Therefore, the Vatican’s doctrines and directions should be implemented faithfully by the priests or Authorities. We want only the authentic liturgy and its prayers and doctrines of Holy see without any ambiguity or dilution or distortion or deviation. We are not just fools and do not want to be fooled by the priests.


Yours devotedly in
Our Lord Jesus Christ

(G. ALEX BENZIGER)

Copy to : 1. The Apostolic Pro-Nuncio to India,
50-C, Niti Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi – 110 021.

2. All the Catholic Archbishops / Bishops of Tamil Nadu.

John

Inocencio

Obedient to the Pope I am-Obedient to teachings promulated by a warped group of clergy who infiltrated the church, took the council and its intentions to a place it was never intended to go and then pushed forth their homosexual and liberal agenda on us I refuse to obey

Maybe you should tell these horrible group of clergy and Bishops-who have the gall to coverup for abusers and pedophiles but REFUSE a reverent mass to be said-that THEY should be obedient to the Gospel they preach where our Lord states "better a millstone be tied around ones neck than harm the innocent children".

B16 is getting all kinds of flack and abuse from these Cardinals who refuse to even allow this universal Indult, which I think is useless anyway but at least a step in the right direction. Having read much of what he has wrote, I know he would throw out 50-75% of what is going on today including change the liturgy if he was not so old and if he was not afraid of losing half or more of his Cardinals and Bishops in open revolt

Maybe they should be obedient

Pseudomodo

I think the Trads should have thier indult...

I also suggest they be held to the 1917 code of canon law with all its obligations and penalties in all fairness and justice.

A Simple Sinner

I am going to weigh in as a radical moderate here.

I rather like the TLM and wish it were more widely available. More specifically I like the spirituality and dedication of the priests and laity that attend and offer the old rite. Many would disagree, but I think these faithful are not so much attached to a single form, as they are interested in a style of worship that reflects in its prayers and solemnity their own deep love of the faith. Many of them, having been scandalized by liberties taken up to and including "clown Mass" and liturgical dancing, have sought refuge therein. In talking to them, I feel a lot of them have placed their hope in the old rite for protection and safe haven from these abuses. Were it the case that they found sanctity and sanity elsewhere, I don't know how strong the particular affection is for that particular rite.

I rather dislike the way the revised vernacular Mass is celebrated most places, and wish the prayers would be restored to the more traditional prayers in line with proper translations. The more you conemplate the Holiness of God and the sacred nature of the Mass, the willy-nilly low-church celebration of our GREATEST Catholic treasure - the Eucharist - does not seem to add up. Shouldn't it be more solemn than this? A reform of the reform!

I would be completely happy with a Mass in the vernacular that is traditional and dignified. I have seen video of Anglicans celebrating in the old "Anglican Missal" a rite that is very near an English translation of the TLM. It made me sad. It was so beautiful, so reverant, and it was outside Rome.

The German and Austiran Catholic faithful had a "Singmesse" before the liturgical reform. This was a vernacular choral arrangemnt sung by the people that corresponded to the actions and prayers of the priest.

I am not "married" to Latin, I AM disappointed with how plain and "low church" the modern rite is. If chant, better translations, and a Mass facing Jesus in the tabernacle were the norm, I don't think we woudl have half the abuses we have today. (Why DO we have to look at the priest like it is HIS show? He is there leading us in prayer and when he on the same side of the altar it feels much more like he is leading the faithful - not entertaining them, IMO.)

Several disjointed posts... but just some thoughts.

Esau

John (jtnova),
Although I have the greatest respect for the Tridentine Rite and would prefer to attend it if only it were offered in nearby Catholic churches, but because of your spiteful prejudiced view of things, I shall need to address your previous post regarding the commission in order to provide a more balanced view of the circumstances.

You conveniently left out in your post any mention of the great Orthodox figure who was anything but a modernist. After Vatican II ended in 1965, the Commission formed by Pope Paul VI was headed up by the brilliant and utterly Orthodox Benedictine Theologian named Fr. Cipriano Vagaggini. Vagaggini was a Commodelese Monk who had taught at Sant'Anselmo for decades. He was sort of like what GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE was for the Dominicans, Vagaggini was for the Benedictines - their senior patriarchal leader.

Not just an intellectual, but a real mystic and a great historian. He was the one who helped prepare the revised lectionary that came out in 1970. That was the work of the Commission and, largely, Vagaggini’s efforts.

{He was also the one who delved into the traditions of the early church and not just the East and the West but looking at the Liturgy of St. Mark and other things too, showing how the Church can be enriched by this legitimate plurality of options (e.g., the Eucharistic Prayers). Further, there were actually other canons that existed at the time of Trent that were recognized by the Church. In fact, Canon 6 in the 22nd session of Trent deals with not only the Roman canon but other canons as well. This was issued in 1563. The canon that overrode all other canons was not issued until 1571.}

At any rate, the greatest work of all was the revised lectionary itself that came out first in '69 and then '70; it was officially promulgated in '71 where the number of Scripture passages that were read on any given Sunday or holy day increased by over 300% so that every part of Scripture, every stage in salvation history, is now drawn from. We now have year A, B and
C for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke as well with John sprinkled throughout all three years.

More importantly, you go back to the Didache and the description that Justin Martyr gives us and then you would ultimately realize that the Liturgy in the early church is essentially the same in the 21st Century as it was in the 1st Century.

I would love to go on to discuss in greater detail elements in the Synaxis, the Trisagion, the Anaphora, the epiklesis, etc.

However, out of great respect for Jimmy, I do not want to post an extremely long and detailed comment that ends up becoming an actual book!

If you would like to know of the defects in the Canon of the Old Roman Rite though, below is a website that shows in detail such points and even draws comparisons between other canons as well:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/palm.html

John

Esau

Your argument lost all water when you stated that the liturgy of the 21st century is essentiallyt the same as it was in the 1st century as even the TRIDENTINE mass, which was organic in its development over the years as it ADDED prayers to fend off threats to the church (Instead of the New Mass which gutted the mass and canon and is about 50%-75% in length as compared side by side)

If you knew what the Catholic liturgy was like in the 1st century than please share it with the Pope and the rest of us

Next please?

Inocencio

John,

Did you even read the Esau's post? We suffer through you long post the least you could do is read Esau's and point out where you think his information is incorrect.

But of course you just know you are right about everything, except of what the word impeccable means.

Did you finally look up the definition of impeccable so you will stop using incorrectly?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

John (jtnova),

For your convenience, here is what I posted in the other thread (Jimmy, feel free to delete and I greatly apologize for its length):

...About your claim that the Novus Ordo missae has created a greater division between East and West, you do know that there were serious defects even in the Roman canon used in the Tridentine mass, don't you, and had greatly differed with the ancient canons? I shall list them for your convenience so that you may see for yourself. Although, as I've mentioned, I wouldn't hesitate attending the Tridentine Mass over the Novus Ordo, you, again, have presented matters with such gloss and prejudice, these need to be addressed:

1) The impression given of an agglomeration of features with no apparent unity.
This is the first and most serious defect that is immediately evident when it is compared with the anaphoras of Hippolytus or the Eastern Churches, especially with those of the Antioch type. The modern canon stands out as a patchwork of a number of prayers put into some sort of order, but it is an order where unity and logical connections are not easily found, even by specialists. This impression is heightened by the four occurrences of ‘Per Christum Dominum nostrum.’ ‘Amen’, not to mention that at the end of the ‘Nobis quoque,’ which indicate the apparently independent prayers they conclude. [1]

2) The lack of a logical connection of ideas.
This follows from the first fault. The connection of the te igatur with either what comes before or what follows is anything but clear. The Sanctus is finished by Pleni sunt...Benedictus... Hosanna in excelsis, and then follows Te Igitur rogamus acceptimus ut accepta habeas et benedicas haec dona... For the ideas to follow logically it would be necessary for the Sanctus, for at least the preface, to make some mention of the offering of the gifts or of the fact that God blesses and sanctifies.... In the anaphoras of other traditions the passage from the Sanctus to what follows is a great deal clearer. After the Sanctus they refer back to what has just been said and continued the idea:” Truly you are holy, who...” (Thus the Antiochene tradition, as well as the Gallican and Palaeo-Hispanic) The transition from the Memento of the living to the Communicantes presents another well-known difficulty in the Roman canon. In the present text the participle Communicates is suspended in mid-air, since it is not at all clear to what it refers. [2]

3) An exaggerated emphasis on the idea of the offering and acceptance of the gifts.
The Roman Mass, particularly the Roman canon insists on it in an exaggerated and disorderly manner, with much useless repetition....

It is difficult to avoid the impression that this same idea of offering gifts underlies the first part of the Supplices te rogamus (iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui). Here again there is the idea of commercium: we offer the gifts to God;...

Finally, the idea is once more implied, at least in the present practice of the Roman rite (Remember, this is speaking of the Tridentine canon, prior to the Pauline Rite Mass canons, not the three new canons in use), by the saying of the Per quem haec omnia at every Mass, even though there is no longer any food present to be blessed. The haec omnia that God creates vivifies, sanctifies and gives us are obviously the oblata as well.

As the canon stands, therefore, a theme that in itself is excellent has been rendered clumsy and unwieldy; the result is anything but a model of liturgical composition....

The disordered insistence upon the idea of the offering of the oblata obscures the idea that what we offer above all in the Mass is Christ our Lord himself, and ourselves with him. We lose sight of the fact that the real and primary offering of the Mass takes place after the institution with the Unde et memores. I do not say that there is no such idea in the canon; on the contrary, it is an underlying one throughout, but it is given no prominence and is therefore not easily seen, notwithstanding its primary importance. Convincing proof of this lies in the well-known fact that our people have sadly lost the essential idea of the offertory. [3]

4) The lack of a theology of the part played by the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.
In spite of the numerous fragments in the Roman canon that follow the pattern of an epiclesis, there is absolutely no theology of the part proper to the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist. And this theology is of prime importance. One need only reflect on the biblical and traditional character of this doctrine to realize immediately that this is a serious deficiency. [4]

5) Deficiencies in the Institution narrative
a) The greatest defect is that Hoc est enim corpus meum stands alone; no attempt is made to follow it up with any of the phrases: quod Pro vobis tradetur, given in 1 Cor. 11:24 by the Vulgate;... After Hoc est enim corpus meum, all of the Eastern liturgies continue with the Pauline or Lucan sequel in one of the variant readings. This is done in the Palaeo-Hispanic rite too. [5]

6. The lack of an overall presentation of the history of salvation
This is a failing of the Roman canon and of the whole anaphora tradition in the West. Quite apart from the defects already mentioned, when looked at from this point of view the Roman canon inevitably appears at a disadvantage if compared with the anaphoras of the East. Certainly there are the movable prefaces, with all their merits, but when put side by side with the Eastern anaphoras (those of Antioch, for instance) the present canon is found wanting. [8]

If you should like more information:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/palm.html

John

Inocencio

Why so nasty?

I read his post and his statement that an Orthodox Benedictine Theologian named Fr. Cipriano Vagaggini-Instead of Bugnini-Was responsible for the New Mass is news to the Catholic world

Please issue a press release!

And if he was so "Orthodox"-Why did Cardinal Ottavini and so many other Cardinals and Bishops protest such a Protestant Mass such as is the present "norm".

He could not have been to "Orthodox"-can he?

Esau

John (jtnova),
The fact that you failed to bring down each point I raised in the above post but rather engage in ad hominem attacks against Vagaggini just all the more demonstrates your ill will and lack of support for your arguments and that you would rather wallow in your ignorance and blindness than open your eyes!

I had, for your convenience, listed each point in elaborate plain detail per my references and yet you fail to muster any substantial argument against these. Do you even have knowledge of any ancient canon? If so, please, proceed and enlighten me of such details and we shall see to what extent your knowledge (or ignorance) goes!

My apologies but you have repeatedly attacked with such prejudice and, furthermore, without any just cause the present pope and our Catholic Church itself.

If you cannot do so, I believe then it is, thus, my distinct right and pleasure to say:

NEXT PLEASE!

Inocencio

John,

Why so nasty?

Please point out what you consider so "nasty" in my comments?

It couldn't be me pointing out your incorrect definition of impeccable could it? Because that would mean you want to reamin in your ignorance or is that the case?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Jeff

One thing Msgr. Harbert doesn't mention...

I go to the Tridentine Mass every Sunday at St. Mary, Mother of God church in Washington, DC. A frequent celebrant of these very well attended 1963 Masses is...one of the priests in residence at the rectory at St. Mary's: none other than Msgr. Bruce Harbert himself. He does it beautifully and is an excellent homilist, to boot.

He likes quiet in the sacristy while he's vesting, BTW, if you're ever an altar boy at one of his celebrations!

JV

An exaggerated emphasis on the idea of the offering and acceptance of the gifts.
The Roman Mass, particularly the Roman canon insists on it in an exaggerated and disorderly manner, with much useless repetition

Esau--

I must point out the above quote of yours as one of a number of examples in your post which speak to a flawed understanding of the Roman Canon.

As Jimmy has prohibited long and drawn out discussions, I can only suggest 3 things:

1. Consider very carefully your choice of words directed at a Canon which was considered so sacred, having been passed down from St. Gregory the Great in the early 600's, that Blessed Pope Pius IX, when pressed to add the name of St. Joseph to the latter portion of the Canon, protested "How can I do this? I am only a pope!"

In other words, phrases faulting the Canon for "useless repetition" are unwarranted and betray an ignorance of the deeply symbolic elements present, for instance, for each set of the sign of the Cross. Likewise, your comment about an "exaggerated emphasis" on the offering is unwarranted.

The frequent reference to the sacrificial nature of the Holy Sacrifice present in the TLM is sorely, sorely needed today. Most priests give little notice that the Holy Mass is, indeed, the holiest of Sacrifices, preferring instead to emphasize the "Community meal." The catastrophic decline in Mass attendance and Eucharistic faith bears this out.

2. I suggest for you the book "Development of the Liturgy," which offers an exhaustive look at the truly organic development of the liturgy.

3. Finally, whoever it was that said that the 21st century Novus Ordo more closely resembles the 1st century Mass...I apologize, but there's no polite way to diminish the stupidity of such a statement.

You have taken far too much liberty with St. Justin Martyr's writings there.

JV

2 more small notes:

1. Jeff, it appears we attend the same Mass. St. Mary's is indeed a blessing and an oasis for Catholics in Washington D.C.

2. The story of the lectionary, at least in the United States, is a tragic one.

I cannot speak about the Benedictine monk that was referenced, bur the Sunday readings used in the NO lectionary have systematically and indisputably stricken from the lectionary countless references to sin, judgment, Hell, miracles of Christ which cannot be explained by natural causes, and unfavorable references to Jews.

Jacob Michael has performed a fascinating study on this issue at lumengentleman.com

There is the additional issue of having to deal with the New American Bible, an often poorly translated document with footnotes which are--do not mistake me--full of GROTESQUE heresy.

Unless you are highly well-formed in your faith and wish to read them only for apologetics purposes, steer clear.

Esau

JV,
Kindly visit the following website before you jump to any hasty judgments:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/palm.html

If you do have anything concrete to argue, then kindly provide a detailed account of your argument point-by-point as laid out in the subject post.

Esau

There is the additional issue of having to deal with the New American Bible, an often poorly translated document with footnotes which are--do not mistake me--full of GROTESQUE heresy.

This we can agree on, at least.
Also, as I've mentioned, I do have respect for the TLM and would prefer to attend it over the Novus Ordo. However, I will not have our Catholic Church be spitted upon by the likes of those who would rather have their authority followed rather than that of petrine authority which Christ had established here on earth.

Inocencio

I have a great deal of respect, as we all should, for all the rites of our Catholic Church.

I hope that this discussion will continue in great charity because I think all involved can learn something about the Holy Mass, most of all me.

Have a blessed All Hallows' Eve!

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Mary Kay

JV,

the Sunday readings used in the NO lectionary have systematically and indisputably stricken from the lectionary countless references to sin, judgment, Hell, miracles of Christ which cannot be explained by natural causes, and unfavorable references to Jews.

Please give specific examples where you claim the Lectionary for the Novus Ordo Mass does any of the above.

bill912

Oh, MaryKay! How gauche! (Wink, wink)

JV

Please give specific examples where you claim the Lectionary for the Novus Ordo Mass does any of the above.

As I alluded to earlier, Jacob Michael has performed the relevant study.

He has written a small book available for $5.00.

I include here a link to a sample of this stripping of the Lectionary. I do not, of course, advise probing the site to which this article is linked for its schismatic affiliations, but the article itself is quite legitimate (and how could one expect to find such a piece on the USCCB site, land of NAB heresies and thumbs up movie reviews for productions featuring positive portrayals of sodomites?):

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04Apr/qdsprevu.htm


Also, to Esau; I do not now have time, nor will there be sufficient space on this message board to refute the numerous errors contained in the article to which you linked.

Suffice it to say that the author needs to take up a bit of Church history about the origins and organic development of the Holy Mass, and he would do well to look into purchasing a good Roman Missal and attending a Tridentine Mass.

John

JV

Exactly-In reading Esau's post I really did not and still do not understand what he was trying to state. He first stated that the Novus Ordo Mass is no different than if one was standing in a temple (as that is where for the most part the "jesus jews" worshipped until they were "excommunicated" by the Jews of the day) which I find difficult

One just needs to look at where V2 and where the new mass came from to know to stay away from it. In 1962, the year John XXIII opened Vatican II, he was named 'Man of the Year' by Time Magazine, the first religious leader since Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi in 1930 and of course John Paul II was awarded the title in 1994.

Freemason Yves Marsaudon (Supreme Council of France, Scottish Rite) said: "The sense of universalism that is rampant in Rome these days is very close to our purpose for existence . . . with all our hearts we support the revolution of John XXIII."

John XXIII, who died during Vatican II, is listed as a saint in the Lutheran Church. His feast day is June 3.

Freemason Yves Marsaudon commenting on Paul VI said: "Born in our Masonic Lodges, freedom of expression has now spreading beautifully over the Dome of St. Peter's . . . This is the Revolution of Paul VI. It is clear that Paul VI, not content merely to follow the policy of his predecessor, does in fact intend to go much further."

During Vatican II, exactly 66 non-Catholic ministers from other faiths attended the Council and were even allowed to vote on and help write the ecumenical decrees and then A total of 35 prayers or about 70% of the Tridentine Mass was replaced or discarded.

Mary Kay

JV, you're the second person who has simply linked a website when asked for specific examples.

I would really appreciate that the people making pronouncements be able to put forth their argument without requiring the rest of the world to have to comb through lengthy websites and guess which part of the linked site they actually agree with.

You have twice made statements about the current lectionary and indicated that the statement reflected your thoughts and/or belief. You've said that Michael's article is "legitimate."

I randomly checked examples in that article and none of them held water.

So... if you believe the claims that you made, please choose one or two examples for discussion.


It seems that you've accepted someone else's careless work.

Mary Kay

Esau, he's really nailed it with that phrase of Sola Traditio!

John, you do the best example of picking and choosing random items out of context and using them to support your prejudice - bending the facts to fit your opinion. You seem to know a lot of what Freemasons said (and yet you chide the rest of us!). How 'bout spending some of that time and energy reading the Catholic documents of Vatican II instead of reading up on Freemasons?

bill912

"During Vatican II, exactly 66 non-Catholic ministers from other faiths attended the council"--Correct. I don't know about the exact #, but ministers from other faiths did attend the council as observers--"and were even allowed to vote on..." Wrong. Only Catholic bishops were allowed to vote.

Inocencio

John,

"One just needs to look at where V2 and where the new mass came from to know to stay away from it."

It came from the same God-given authority that gave us ALL the councils, the papacy.

When you "stay away" from that authority you risk your salvation as I have documented for you many times.

The papacy does not get its authority from you and you CANNOT take it away or ignore it. God will judge the popes not you. And God will judge our obedience to His established hierarchy.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

He first stated that the Novus Ordo Mass is no different than if one was standing in a temple (as that is where for the most part the "jesus jews" worshipped until they were "excommunicated" by the Jews of the day) which I find difficult John/jtnovo

When did I ever state this! You are indeed much like the Father of lies who twist the truth to suit his needs. In this case, you went as far as to completely fabricate a statement I never even made just to undermine folks and advance your hideous anti-Catholic agenda! Yes, "anti-Catholic" and yours is the worse kind since you rely on deceit and your selfish want to shape things not according to the Will of Christ, who himself established the Church and founded it upon the Rock of Peter, but rather would much desire things according to the designs of your own selfish will and not our Father in Heaven (Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven probably means to you as: My will be done on earth as it is in Heaven)!

Suffice it to say that the author needs to take up a bit of Church history about the origins and organic development of the Holy Mass, and he would do well to look into purchasing a good Roman Missal and attending a Tridentine Mass. JV

Truly, you and your cohort, John (jtnovo), are ignorant of any Church history yourselves and indeed any of the historic canons in the Catholic Church, both East and West. You couldn't even address the arguments put forth in plain sight before you regardless of their elaborate detail but would prefer to remain in your blindness (reminds me of the Pharisees!) and, instead, resort to ad hominem attacks against certain individuals such as Vagaggini (whom you do not even know, might I add, as you've pointed out in your posts; still, you insist on attacking their character without any actual knowledge of them) all because of your incredible lack of knowledge in the ancient rites of the Church so, therefore, you attempt to compensate for this amazing ignorance and deficiency in your arguments by these pathetic means.

By the way, the guy who said: More importantly, you go back to the Didache and the description that Justin Martyr gives us and then you would ultimately realize that the Liturgy in the early church is essentially the same in the 21st Century as it was in the 1st Century.

He actually holds the position of The Pope Benedict XVI Chair of Biblical Theology and Liturgical Proclamation. Ya, I think I would much rather trust the so-called stupidity of this individual (as you had implied in your remarks) than the high intelligence you and John seem to so nobly possess!

Inocencio

JV,

"I do not now have time, nor will there be sufficient space on this message board to refute the numerous errors contained in the article to which you linked."

May I ask you to pick one error of the numerous in the article? That wouldn't require that much time or space.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

Esau, he's really nailed it with that phrase of Sola Traditio!

Mary Kay,
What's strange about his statement (if he means with respect to canon) is that then he would abandon the Roman canon all together (which is used in the Tridentine rite) and prefer the Eastern rite over the Tridentine. It is they who have the most ancient anaphora that dates back to the 12 Apostles. Mind you, this is of the Antiochene Tradition, the very Church at Antioch mentioned in the New Testament! Thus, they surpass the Roman canon by far! In fact, the Maronite Church preserves this way of worship of the Apostles and their earliest disciples.

Even Fr. Mitch Pacwa had mentioned something of this when he had a show done on Ecclesia de Eucharistia, and I would defer to his expertise on the matter since he celebrates masses for the Maronites and is fluent in Middle Eastern languages as well as profoundly knowledgeable about church history, to say the least. Plus, he's a traditional Jesuit -- enough said!

God Bless!

John

Inocencio

Are you aka "Ben Yachov the 4th" or whatever as I have seen elsewhere as you seem to post and have the same nasty tone as this person

Just asking-and why do you keep posting "jtnova" next to my name-is not giving out posters personal e-mails on blogs such as this against the rules and even the law?

John

Bill

Read the book "The Rhine flows into the Tiber" a great account of the council and then tell me that these "observers" did not get to vote.

If they were only there as "observers"-what exactly were they there for then if they had no say or could vote??

Your logic makes no sense

bill912

"If they were only 'observers'-what exactly were they there for then if they had no say or could not vote??" They were there to observe.

"Your logic makes no sense." Uh-huh.

Esau

...same nasty tone as this person...

Have you read any of your posts??? You have displayed tremendous prejudice toward our separated brethren and even fellow Catholics; you even went as far as insulting our fellow clergy here who, in fact, were just trying to answer your question with much charity!

Look at the exchange and how you nastily responded to Fr. Martin Fox in it:
John:
The Bible is our book; as Scott Hahn says, when Catholics talk about Scripture, that's a home (not away) game for us.

Posted by: Fr Martin Fox | Oct 26, 2006 7:11:49 PM

Yes-Scott Hahn a "former" Protestant
Posted by: John | Oct 27, 2006 7:27:18 AM


Now, about your remark about Innocencio's supposed devious, ulterior motives as implied in your statement:

...and why do you keep posting "jtnova" next to my name-is not giving out posters personal e-mails on blogs such as this against the rules and even the law

Innocencio was doing that because there was another 'John' on the blog and didn't want him thinking that Inocencio was addressing him and not you -- there was no hostile intention on Innocencio's part!

Mary Kay

Esau, I'll have to go back and read it more carefully - something you've done and I haven't :) I'm not sure about the rest of his writing but the phrase Sola Traditio just seems to capture the views of some.

Esau

John (jtnova):
I will attempt to refrain from answering your posts in the same manner as you have ours.

But, would you kindly refrain from your condescending tone?

Look at how you have put everyone here down:

I cant help but laugh at some of these posts-even looking into scripture for the answer to this simple question that most traditionally catechised second graders are all versed in the Baltimore Catechism know the answer to...
Posted by: John | Oct 26, 2006 4:55:45 PM


And, again, how you insulted even the clergy on these matters (the one who, in fact, even tried to speak to you with charity, too):

We all know there are times when we have encounters with people, and we realize, after being drawn into a heated argument, that the truly charitable thing would have been not to engage. When I was a boy, my parents had a friend who got so worked up about certain subjects. It was a good lesson for me to realize that I ought not to engage with him on those subjects, however fun it could be, otherwise, to debate them. But in his case, it was uncharitable, and even a little bit cruel.
Well, it occurs to me that happens in comment threads, doesn't it? Perhaps here, quite a bit

Posted by: Fr Martin Fox | Oct 28, 2006 7:30:54 AM

Father
You have failed to answer the question...Next?

Posted by: John | Oct 28, 2006 8:15:26 AM


You even seemed to imply that converts such as Scott Hahn and Jimmy Akin are not to be trusted since they were Protestant converts!

Why do you do this?

Would you rather that the Catholic Church ensure that only a select group is within the Church while all the rest of the folks who you believe are the 'undesireables' to stay out?

Mind you, Christ came for all and not for just the few!

Inocencio

John,

"Are you aka "Ben Yachov the 4th" or whatever as I have seen elsewhere'

No, I am not.

"as you seem to post and have the same nasty tone as this person"

Please, I beg of you (as this is the second time I ask you) to document what you think was nasty in my tone.

"Just asking-and why do you keep posting "jtnova" next to my name-"

As Esau correctly pointed out I was distinguishing between you and another poster named John who asked not to be confused with you.

is not giving out posters personal e-mails on blogs such as this against the rules and even the law?

You are the only one who has given out your email address by putting it in the comment box. If you don't want your address in the comment box then you need to remove it.

Now back to our regularly scheduled post...

Have a wonderful and holy All Saints' Day!

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J


Esau

Inocencio,

Don't mind John (jtnovo).

You have often been charitable to him in certainly more than one occasion; if not, in all!

I greatly admire you in this regard and the way you seemed to have maintained this gracefully pursuant to true Christian virtue.

(In fact, I would say that even bill912 has acted as charitably as well in his post. Did you see his reply above to John?)

I mean, given how he has put others down on this blog (including Jimmy, mind you -- Jimmy's also a Protestant Convert to the Catholic Faith) just to raise himself up above them as well in addition to his ceaselessly attacking the current and previous Pope with such vehement accusations and the entire Catholic Church itself; all this without presenting even the slightest hard evidence to support his arguments but, rather, resorting to the same 'anti-Catholic'-type rhetoric which almost rises to the same level of grotesque twisting of truth that some of the most notorious anti-Catholics out there exhibit.

Inocencio

Esau,

Thank you for your kind words.

I try to be concise, per Jimmy's rules, and if that comes across as nasty it is not my intent. I have no problem apologizing if I have been rude.

I really hope this discussion continues because I think it will be of great benefit to all involved.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John

Bill

"Observe what"? The council? Are you saying they were invited, these Protestants and Orthodox schismatics for their charm and good looks-or to influence each of the 10 council commissions?

John

Inocencio

Please refrain from using my e-mail address I ask you once again

And yes I think you are the wife of Ben Yachov as his posts as seen on Mark Shea whom he basically mimics is exactly like yours, with your anti Traditional -Neo Con Bashing non-stop taking little snippets from my posts and then baiting me because you have no knowledge of the church or its teachings except to use slander

As far as what Esau posted-I stand by my posts and what he posted were REPLIES to those who also were nasty to me

Sorry but nice try, I must have hit a nerve!

bill912

"'Observe what'? The council?" Yes.

"Are you saying they were invited, these Protestants and Orthodox schismatics for their charm and good looks-or to influence each of the 10 council commissions?" No. They were invited to observe.

bill912

"Sorry, but nice try, I must have hit a nerve!" No, you gave others the opportunity to practice patience and charity in dealing with you.

Esau

And yes I think you are the wife of Ben Yachov as his posts as seen on Mark Shea whom he basically mimics is exactly like yours, with your anti Traditional -Neo Con Bashing non-stop taking little snippets from my posts and then baiting me because you have no knowledge of the church or its teachings except to use slander

John,
Just when did Inocencio do this? Could you cite specific posts that even demonstrate this?

I stand by my posts and what he posted were REPLIES to those who also were nasty to me

When were folks nasty to you? It all happened just lately because of the abusive language in your posts to them. From the earlier posts I read, they tried very hard to put up with you and responded quite charitably with their answers to you, trying to provide the proper responses and even attempted to help you out by referring you to specific sources for their various references. Even specific citations were rendered for your benefit!

Also, when was Fr. Martin nasty to you?

I don't know the guy but his first post to you simply read:

"John: The Bible is our book; as Scott Hahn says, when Catholics talk about Scripture, that's a home (not away) game for us."

You were the one who nastily said in reply:
"Yes-Scott Hahn a 'former' Protestant"

And that is an example of just one nasty post you put out there!

Bill912 rightly stated above that these are in fact opportunities with which to practice patience and charity in dealing with folks like yourself.

Unfortunately, in your case, it becomes severely difficult.

JV

Inocencio:

May I ask you to pick one error of the numerous in the article? That wouldn't require that much time or space.

Certainly, there's room here for at least one. I'll take one of the more egregious examples:

3) An exaggerated emphasis on the idea of the offering and acceptance of the gifts.

The author goes on to point out some instances, which will be addressed here:

The Roman Mass, particularly the Roman canon insists on it in an exaggerated and disorderly manner, with much useless repetition....

He’s already steering an errant course here. Repetition is the heart of the Sacrifice. It’s the greatest prayer, and this prayer, to be part of a truly CATHOLIC, universal Church, must incorporate a CONSTANT emphasis on the grave, unspeakably transcendent nature of what will occur on the altar, namely, the priest offering to God the Father the Holy Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of His Son, Jesus Christ, on our behalf.

The author here employs his own arbitrary standard as regards “useless repetition.” Popes from St. Gregory the Great to Blessed Pope John XXIII disagreed with him, so I’m going here to defer to those holy and saintly defenders of the liturgy rather than a guy on the Internet who tosses out an unsubstantiated accusation about there being “much useless repetition.”

These offertory prayers, particularly the “Te igitur” with which he takes issue, occur right after the Sanctus and are an immediate preparation for the Consecration. No one with a fully functioning Catholic brain would fail to understand that “sacrificia” does not, in fact, refer explicitly to what has not yet been consecrated.

And I dare not waste Mr. Akin’s bandwidth with the fun little debate we could have about what black hole all those mentions of “sacrifice” disappeared into in the Novus Ordo Missae.

St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Albertus Magnus also explain this far better than I can, which is why I said it is not possible to address this in any sufficient length here, but suffice it to say that this fellow’s criticisms are off the mark.

In addition, his source for much of this criticism is Father Vagaggini who, if I recall, was the innovator in some part responsible for the infamous “Arian Canon” (“Pater, tu es solus Deus”) which the 80 year old Cardinal Ottaviani, who was going blind at the time, spotted. The 1969 Missal was therefore recalled. That’s what happens when you try to erase the venerable history of the liturgy in a Swiss hotel room.

JV

For the rest I suggest picking up a book called "The Organic Development of the Liturgy" as well as watching Archbishop Sheen's narration of the Immemorial Tridentine Mass: http://fisheaters.com/massvideo.html

The famous Dietrich von Hildebrand also has much of value to say about this: http://www.latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SU_Ripperger.html
http://www.latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

Jacob Michael is also an excellent source. The man knows his Scripture like few others and has a nice comparative and fair study between the two Missals: http://lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=15

Another side-by-side of the Missals, with no commentary (this is a rather striking view, also including the Dominican Missal): http://www.execulink.com/~dtribe/blog/Missals_Comparison2.html

Some notes on Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the man who was given such sweeping control over the reform, who was suspected of Freemasonry, and who provides an instance of a polar opposite to the great saint (St. Pius V) who codified the TLM:
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1989/jun1989p17_640.html

And a nice personal testimony about the Mass: http://drbo.org/conversion.htm

JV

Mary Kay:

JV, you're the second person who has simply linked a website when asked for specific examples.

I would really appreciate that the people making pronouncements be able to put forth their argument without requiring the rest of the world to have to comb through lengthy websites and guess which part of the linked site they actually agree with.

You have twice made statements about the current lectionary and indicated that the statement reflected your thoughts and/or belief. You've said that Michael's article is "legitimate."

I randomly checked examples in that article and none of them held water.

So... if you believe the claims that you made, please choose one or two examples for discussion.


It seems that you've accepted someone else's careless work.

I know Jacob, and he went through the Lectionary to construct that list.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying they "don't hold water."

I've been to Masses many, many times over the course of several months where at SUNDAY MASSES (and this is the key; the majority of Catholics do not attend daily Mass) these readings are indeed omitted, precisely as Jacob says.

I suggest shelling out the $5 to actually get the whole book.

But, with due respect, I can't do your homework for you.

I'm never quite sure why some Catholics--we might call them "neo-conservatives" if you'll pardon the expression--have such a vested interest in defending a series of changes which have resulted in the catastrophic decline of all indicators of Catholic Faith in every area of import (religious orders, vocations, Mass attendance, belief in the Catholic dogmas, and on and on).

Traditionalists call a spade a spade, nicht?

JV

Esau:

Truly, you and your cohort, John (jtnovo), are ignorant of any Church history yourselves and indeed any of the historic canons in the Catholic Church, both East and West.

John and I are not cohorts. I am speaking here of my own volition.

Please, enough with the baiting.

I'm well familiar with the references to the Canons you mentioned. I've read about the Coptic anaphoras and the prayers of St. Hippolytus.

I've also read on numerous occasions and with some amusement the statement that the Novus Ordo was ripped out of the middle of St. Justin's writings.

That's simply a self-serving statement and bears no basis in historical fact.

No one knows what the liturgy was like in the 1st century, and even if we did, returning to that form merely on the basis of its antiquity would be a poor idea indeed given the rather drastic differences between 1st and 21st century Catholic Christians.

With that said, let's hope that 1st century Christians did not treat the Mass as they do today, because none of them would have been catechized well enough to have been such willing martyrs.

You couldn't even address the arguments put forth in plain sight before you regardless of their elaborate detail but would prefer to remain in your blindness (reminds me of the Pharisees!) and, instead, resort to ad hominem attacks against certain individuals such as Vagaggini (whom you do not even know, might I add, as you've pointed out in your posts; still, you insist on attacking their character without any actual knowledge of them) all because of your incredible lack of knowledge in the ancient rites of the Church so, therefore, you attempt to compensate for this amazing ignorance and deficiency in your arguments by these pathetic means.

Thanks Esau.

You've just explained to me why I'm such a mean guy for using ad hominem attacks (where, exactly?) before going on to point out how I'm "pathetic," "ignorant," "blind," "reminding you of the Pharisees," "deficient," and "ignorant" again.

Charitable stuff, that.

Must be those warm fuzzies one gathers while reciting the "Our Parent" around the table of plenty before sitting down to enjoy a nice liturgical dance or two.

We all know how that nurtures the Catholic Faith in America, what with 7 out of 10 denying its source and summit.


By the way, the guy who said: More importantly, you go back to the Didache and the description that Justin Martyr gives us and then you would ultimately realize that the Liturgy in the early church is essentially the same in the 21st Century as it was in the 1st Century.

A self-serving argument, Esau.

Here's the Didache: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

Please show me how the Novus Ordo is the same, and I'll concede the point

Inocencio

John,

Please refrain from using my e-mail address I ask you once again

If you would take the time to read slowly you would see that:
1. I never wrote your email address
2. In my previous post I only wrote John and no other distinguishing point.
3. You are the only one who has used your email address.
4. Again, remove it if you don't want it linked to your name. You can post without it.

And yes I think you are the wife of Ben Yachov

Considering I am a husband and father of seven children so far you could not be more wrong except when you talk about Church teaching.

as his posts as seen on Mark Shea whom he basically mimics is exactly like yours, with your anti Traditional -Neo Con Bashing non-stop taking little snippets from my posts

I purposely do not read Mark Shea's blog.

and then baiting me because you have no knowledge of the church

And yet I cite all my quotes on Church teaching.

or its teachings except to use slander

Please, please document where I have done so. Since this the third time I have asked for you to document my "nasty" or "slanderous" comments.

If you cannot then please have the decency to admit you are wrong.

Sorry but nice try, I must have hit a nerve!

Again, I have seven children so far and when it comes to hitting nerves you are a lightweight.

All you have done so far is rant and rave...yawn...my two year-old has you beat at that too.

But at least I know you have now learned the definition of impeccable! So all of this has not been a complete waste of time.

A very blessed All Saints' Day to everyone.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio

JV,

Thank you for answering my request. It is hard when you mention popes but don't cite a source.

Again, thank you I am really enjoying this post.

I just got home and it is late for me, I will look at your comments more closely later.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John

Inocencio

Lets move forward-though we agree to disagree, that is what makes this country great and I do have respect for you and love

I will try to be less whatever it is that bothers you as I hate to bicker with anyone as it is a drain on ones thoughts and energy

God bless

Mary Kay

JV,

But, with due respect, I can't do your homework for you.

How funny coming from someone who has taken someone else's word rather than looking up the lectionary for himself.

I have done my homework. However, since you are the one who made the ridiculous claim about the Lectionary, it's up to you to provide a specific example or two.

At least this time you've specified that you are referring to Sunday Mass. That's a start. Your friend seems to have gone through the Lectionary, not to learn what Scripture has to teach, but with an agenda of bashing the current normative Mass.

Jordan Potter

JV said: "the Sunday readings used in the NO lectionary have systematically and indisputably stricken from the lectionary countless references to sin, judgment, Hell, miracles of Christ which cannot be explained by natural causes, and unfavorable references to Jews."

Mary Kay replied: "Please give specific examples where you claim the Lectionary for the Novus Ordo Mass does any of the above."

I don't know about any miracles of Christ being stricken from the Lectionary as JV has claimed -- I'm not aware of the Incarnation and Resurrection being capable of natural explanation -- but otherwise JV is correct that certain lections have been eliminated or truncated out of a concern that they contain "unfavorable references to Jews" or include references to judgment and hell. That is hardly a secret. In particular, the Imprecatory Psalms were eliminated from the Liturgy of the Hours, and in the Lectionary sometimes a reference to judgment or hell is omitted or skipped over. It's not a complete elimination of such references, but it is a matter of record that in reforming the liturgy, there was an intention to try to avoid the appearance of anti-Semitism or harsh anti-Judaism, and to avoid any emphasis on divine curses for the wicked.

Here is an analysis of Johannine lections by Fr. Felix Just, SJ, that classifies passages of St. John's writings that do not appear in the lectionary or are not used on Sundays.

http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/John-Gospel-Omissions.htm

As Fr. Just says, one of the reasons certain lections were omitted is because they "were considered theologically or pastorally difficult, esp. due to their harsh polemic against 'the Jews.'"

In fact, Fr. Just's lectionary website is an excellent resource for detailed study and comparison of the old lectionary with the new lectionary.

http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/

bill912

"Mary Kay replied: 'Please give specific examples where you claim the Lectionary for the Novus Ordo Mass does any of the above.'"

"Specific". I can't speak for Mary Kay, but, for me, "specific" would include which verses were eliminated.

Mary Kay

Bill, these folks are talking about whole readings being taken out, although maybe they mean verses also. That's why I have been asking for a specific example or two because you and I should not have to guess or mindread to see what their objection is.

Jordan, thanks for the link to the website with both lectionaries. I'll have to save his section on John's gospel until I have time to read and compare the two lectionaries. A quick look at the back of my lectionary shows little or none of John's gospel omitted, but of course that includes weekdays as well as Sundays.

I absolutely love John's gospel and other writings. John's gospel is direct and blunt, two qualities that I can understand and appreciate. In fact, John's gospel is the one predominantly read at the highest points of the liturgical year.

A superficial reading of John's writings can be seen as anti-semitic and some Christians did take a harsh view (pogroms, anyone?). To "soften" such overly harshness is not a bad thing IMHO and does not diminish John's message.

I'm sure this discussion will be continued....

Mary Kay

Jordan, the link you provided provided some basis for discussion, but at the risk of sounding like a broken record, it would be helpful to have specific examples to work with. Initially, let's leave John's gospel out of the discussion of the sweeping generalization that JV made or your own comment that references to judgment or hell were omitted. What other readings do you say were omitted?

The reform Liturgy of the Hours has a separate history. Again, you'll have to tell me which specific psalms have been left out. I had to look up "imprecatory psalms" and so that others don't have to, they are psalms which "invoke curses upon enemies." That opens another whole discussion which again, will have to wait till another time.

Inocencio

Jordan Potter,

Just taking a quick look at your link. Fr. Just list 17 verses/sections of John's Gospel not used in the Lectionary:

2:12; 4:1-4; 5:4; 6:70-71; 7:3-9, 11-24, 31-36; 8:43-50; 10:19-21; 11:57; 12:17-19, 34-43; 13:33b; 14:31b; 15:22-25; 16:4b; 20:10

Then Fr. Just list that these verses do appear in the previous Lectionary:

5:4; 7:1-39; 8:46-59; 12:1-36; 14:31b; 15:22-25; and 16:4b

Comparing the two lists it appears that there are 10 verses/sections that are not used in either Lectionary. It seems odd to include verses that are not used in either Lectionary as proof of "eliminated or truncated" verses.

Now I accept that it is Fr. Just's opinion that these verses were "eliminated" because they are "passages that were considered theological or pastorally difficult, esp. due to their harsh polemic against "the Jews" and you state "it is a matter of record that in reforming the liturgy, there was an intention to try to avoid the appearance of anti-Semitism or harsh anti-Judaism, and to avoid any emphasis on divine curses for the wicked.

May I ask you to cite your documentation of the intention being a "matter of record."

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio

John,

You remain in my prayers, please keep me in yours.

Have a joyful and holy All Souls' Day!

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Jordan Potter

Pardon the length of this comment . . .

“Bill, these folks are talking about whole readings being taken out, although maybe they mean verses also.”

Yes, it is correct that when the new lectionary was compiled, for “pastoral” reasons some “whole readings” were left out, and other times it was just some verses that were skipped over.

“That's why I have been asking for a specific example or two because you and I should not have to guess or mindread to see what their objection is.”

I did not make any objection. I merely affirmed that when the new lectionary was compiled, certain passages were omitted out of a concern to avoid an undue emphasis on certain things. However, it is not at all true that every single reference to hell or judgment or God punishing the wicked has been deleted from the lectionary – not even close. Nor have all the texts that might be capable of being twisted to support anti-Semitism been omitted – again, not even close. Anyone who makes such claims is grossly misrepresenting the content of the new lectionary and the method by which texts were selected for the new lectionary.

Let me say right away that I love the new lectionary. It is by far a major improvement over the old lectionary, which however had its innate strengths too, particularly in the area of catechetical effectiveness. But I say the more Bible, especially Old Testament, the better.

“Jordan, thanks for the link to the website with both lectionaries. I'll have to save his section on John's gospel until I have time to read and compare the two lectionaries. A quick look at the back of my lectionary shows little or none of John's gospel omitted, but of course that includes weekdays as well as Sundays.”

One of the great things about the new lectionary is that practically all of St. John’s Gospel is used.

“A superficial reading of John's writings can be seen as anti-semitic and some Christians did take a harsh view (pogroms, anyone?). To ‘soften’ such overly harshness is not a bad thing IMHO and does not diminish John's message.”

I agree. Especially in light of the sad, troubled history of the interaction of Christians and Jews, it was only appropriate that the Church look at her liturgy and make certain adjustments. I think there is a time and a place for things like imprecatory psalms or the Good Friday Reproaches, and the Church shouldn't be fearful of them, but in today’s climate, and especially after the Holocaust, who could blame the Church for addressing the liturgical use of “difficult” texts?

“What other readings do you say were omitted?”

Perhaps the best way to illustrate this would be to look at just one example -- in this case, how Psalm 97 is used in the current lectionary. There are 10 occasions when that psalm is used, and only one of those times is a Sunday: the 7th Sunday of Easter during Year C. However, it should be observed that in most parts of the United States, the 7th Sunday of Easter is now celebrated as the Feast of the Ascension, many if not most of us will never hear any of the readings for the 7th Sunday of Easter. That was not the design of the composers of the lectionary, of course, because when the new lectionary was composed Ascension Thursday was still a universal custom of the Church. In any event, assuming one might hear the readings for 7th Sunday of Easter during Year C, he still will not hear Psalm 97:3-5, which says, “Cloud and darkness surround the Lord; justice and right are the foundation of his throne. Fire goes before him; everywhere it consumes the foes. Lightning illumines the world; the earth sees and trembles.” The lectionary skips from Psalm 97:2 to Psalm 97:6.

Psalm 97 is also the psalm for the Feast of the Transfiguration, but again we find that the lectionary skips from verse 2 to verse 5 -- so in that case, we get to hear “lightning illumines the world; the earth sees and trembles,” a fitting text for the Transfiguration.

Psalm 97 is again used on the Feast of St. John, Dec. 27, but once again it skips from verse 2 to verse 5, omitting the Psalmist’s reference to God burning up His enemies.

During the two-year cycle of readings for Daily Mass, Psalm 97 is used three times in Year One (Monday of Week 1, Friday of Week 21, and Saturday of Week 27), but each time the lectionary skips from verse 2 to verse 5 or verse 6. In Year Two, Psalm 97 is used only once, on Thursday of Week 11, and that is the one and only time in the regular readings when the lectionary includes verses 3-4 or verse 3-5. In that case, Psalm 97 is coupled with Sirach 48:1-14, a text regarding the Prophet Elijah, who called fire down from heaven to burn up God’s foes, so one can see why the lectionary compilers decided to leave those verses in that time.

There are, however, three other special occasions when Psalm 97 is (or may be) used during the liturgical year: the Feast of St. Barnabas the Apostle, the Memorial of the Dedication of the St. Peter’s Basilica, and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. On each of those occasions, verses 3-4 or verses 3-5 are included.

The net effect, then, is that Psalm 97’s reference to God’s fire burning up His enemies is usually left out: six out of ten times it is omitted, and the four times it is included are usually extraordinary occasions when most Catholics don’t go to Mass (Daily Mass, St. Barnabas’ Day, Dedication of St. Peter’s Basilica) or when there are option readings (St. Barnabas Day).

Now, whether or not you think it is a good thing that Catholics rarely hear the words of Psalm 97:3-4, the fact remains that the composers of the lectionary thought it appropriate or best that we rarely hear those words. This is but one example of the lectionary's tendency of avoiding texts that mention punishment of the wicked. (It is, however, but a tendency: there has not been a complete or even a near-complete suppression of all texts that refer to God’s punishment, and anyone who says so is either ignorant or a liar.) I could supply other examples, but as you can see, it tends to be a tedious and lengthy affair that clutters up internet commentboxes.

“May I ask you to cite your documentation of the intention being a ‘matter of record.’”

Oh I knew you were going to ask for that! *Rummage, rummage, rummage* Rats, can’t find it . . . . Well, the introductory section of the lectionary explains the basic principles by which the readings were selected and arranged. That probably isn’t the “record” I’m talking about. But perhaps this, on the omission/editing of the imprecatory psalms, might help to explain what I’m talking about (bearing in mind what Mary Kay said about the Liturgy of the Hours being a somewhat different animal from the lectionary, still it can illustrate the thinking of the Church in creating a new lectionary):

http://minutiae.stblogs.org/archives/2004/03/jp2_on_the_impr.html

Esau

JV,
When someone insults your family (which is what the Catholic Church is to some, at least, as the New Covenant that Jesus established, just like in the Old, involves the whole family of God -- which is one of the very reasons why we Catholics baptize our infants); initially, you might be able to stomach and tolerate the insults hurled at your family.

However, when it occurs repeatedly and without actual just cause, there is only so much you can take.

This applies primarily with John (jtnova) above. He had consistently done this in a majority of his posts with such remarks as UNIVERSAL INDULT dahhh humbug and Whether we believe it or not, and whether it seems possible to us or not, what is abundantly clear is, that after V2 the Catholic religion has been changed. In the practical order, it has been replaced by another religion, an evolving religion, a religion greatly influenced by Freemasonry and Marxism... and other such statements made against the current and previous pontiff as well as our Catholic Church itself (be it viewed by a Traditionalist or Novus Ordo, it's nevertheless the Church).

Some of the remarks you appear to have made seemed to agree and second his sentiments, and, unfortunately, this impression of him may have rubbed off on you. When I referred to both you and he, the 'you' there was a collective you (unfortunately, unlike the Latin-based languages, there is no plural 'you').

My apologies if it appeared so harsh. Much of that was focussed more so on John than on you.

But, how could you have made such remarks like, for example:

...the Sunday readings used in the NO lectionary have systematically and indisputably stricken from the lectionary countless references to sin, judgment, Hell, miracles of Christ which cannot be explained by natural causes, and unfavorable references to Jews.

This is not so. In fact, the proportion of the Bible read at Mass was greatly increased. Prior to the reforms of Pius XII (which reduced the proportions further), 1% of the Old Testament and 16.5% of the New Testament had been read at Mass. Since 1970, the equivalent proportions for Sundays and weekdays (leaving aside major feasts) have been 13.5% of the Old Testament and 71.5% of the New Testament.

For an exact table that actually cites and compares the actual bibilical readings read in both Pre-Vatican II and Post-Vatican II masses, go to:
http://catholicresources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

This was made possible through an increase in the number of readings at Mass and the introduction of a three-year cycle of readings on Sundays and a two-year cycle on weekdays.

Mind you, your Tridentine Mass only had one cycle of readings. The very reason why there is now three cycle of readings was in order that we may cover most of Scripture in the Liturgical life of the Catholic Church!

I would like to attempt to cover most of the items we've raised here. But, since this is such a rich topic, let's attempt, at least, to hit it point-by-point. Since this is the most pressing, I would like you to address this first.

Also, I would advise you unless you know the individual you are speaking of to refrain from such statements as Suffice it to say that the author needs to take up a bit of Church history about the origins and organic development of the Holy Mass, and he would do well to look into purchasing a good Roman Missal and attending a Tridentine Mass.

In the case of this particular individual you were referring to in my post (whom, it appears, you actually do not know), it is the equivalent of telling a doctor to go back to medical school.

Though I've got to admit, there are some items in your post I agree with. The fact, as I've mentioned countless times, that in some masses, there have been more of an entertainment value that's sought rather than an actual reverent worship of our Lord is one of the very reasons I would prefer to attend regularly the Tridentine Mass.

God bless and I apologize to you for my prior remarks and hope you might understand what brought them about.

Esau

The actual website that compares the readings utilized from Scripture in both the Pre-Vatican II and Post-Vatican II mass:

http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm

In this particular website it clearly shows that most of Scripture (the Bible) is read in the Post-Vatican II mass (Novus Ordo) than in the Tridentine.

JV

How funny coming from someone who has taken someone else's word rather than looking up the lectionary for himself.

I'm seeing a certain orientation among several respondents to this thread who want to pick fights.

In case I did not make it clear the first time, Mary Kay, yes, I've paid close attention to the Lectionary readings at SUNDAY Masses, which are the relevant cases here, as most do not attend daily Mass, and yes, they have indeed excised many readings referring to sin, judgment, Hell, miracles outside the realm of natural explanation, etc.

That's simple fact.

I have done my homework. However, since you are the one who made the ridiculous claim about the Lectionary, it's up to you to provide a specific example or two.

Anyone with a computer and a link to the USCCB can find their own examples. Your requesting an example is a bit like me requesting a copy of a Scripture verse. Look it up.

At least this time you've specified that you are referring to Sunday Mass. That's a start. Your friend seems to have gone through the Lectionary, not to learn what Scripture has to teach, but with an agenda of bashing the current normative Mass.

You could not be more mistaken. He is one of the most balanced traditionalists, I know, actually, and will often give the benefit of the doubt to very shaky incidents, such as the case where Pope Benedict appeared to say that the Jews may wait for another Messiah.

But it seems you do not wish to let facts stand in the way of Internet animosity, so have at it.

Mary Kay

JV,

But it seems you do not wish to let facts stand in the way of Internet animosity, so have at it.

It's a sure sign that you don't have a leg to stand on when you resort to insults and personal attacks.

You're the only one who has introduced animosity in this attempt at a discussion. No one is picking a fight with you, only making repeated requests that you back up your allegations.

You left yourself wide open to the perception that you have relied on others rather than yourself when you have refused to give an example when asked.

What is your problem with providing an example of an allegation that you initiated? You made the claim that the current lectionary has "indeed excised many readings referring to sin, judgment, Hell, miracles outside the realm of natural explanation, etc."

Maybe you are new to discussions and debates, but when a person makes a statement like that, it is that person's responsibility to give an example of what they mean. It is NOT the responsibility of others to attempt to read your mind or guess at what you meant.

You tell me that I'm mistaken about your friend but that is yet another claim that you make without backing it up.

If you want to be taken seriously, please play by the basic rules of discussion.

Mary Kay

Jordan, "making an objection" didn't pertain to any of your posts. You sound like you have an accurate and balanced view of the change in the lectionary.

There is much in your post that I agree with.

I appreciate your example of psalm 97. I have to admit though, that I was hoping for a major reading since the psalms at Mass tend to be overshadowed by the readings. I do see your point that those verses are read only once, and that in only a few states. (I have a similar grump about John's prologue not being read even though it's in the lectionary.)

Overall, though, I would say that the idea of justice hasn't been dropped by the lectionary. It's mentioned in other readings, which off the top of my head include the sheep and goats, wheat and chaff, burning of weeds.

The topic may be missing from homilies, but the reason for that lies outside the lectionary.

Personally, I had come to an understanding of the imprecatory psalms as part of the full picture of God without being pelted with fire and brimstone, so that's probably why I don't think it's necessary to beat people over the head with them.

The Good Friday Reproaches probably do have a place. There's so much on Good Friday, it's hard to know where that place would be. The idea expressed is familar because of being mentioned several places in Scripture, but that particular form is new to me, seems to be someone's writing based on Scripture.

Your post was thought provoking and good ideas to mull over on one of my favorite topics. Thanks for your thoughts!

Esau, oooh, I like that chart!

John

You as well Inocencio

I think we both want the same thing


My father always said that with any argument the truth lies somewhere in the middle....

God bless

JV

Mary Kay,

Here's the example you requested: Pick up a USCCB lectionary calendar and look them up yourself.

I've done it, I've looked through the calendar, I've listened to the readings at the Masses, and I've verified that what Jacob said was correct.

As I said the first time, I'm not going to do someone else's homework for them.

I will interpret a similarly acidic reply as evidence that you haven't the willingness to take up the investigation yourself.

For my part, I don't have time to pick through the lectionary and give you chapter and verse of each omission, because there are many.

I'll give you the first one that comes to mind, though, which we can find for the Sunday Mass on November 12, over a week from today.

Two reading options are given.

The shorter form is Matthew 12:41-44.

The longer form is Matthew 12:38-44, and--wouldn't you know!--the excised version finds the Lord criticizing the Jewish scribes and telling them that they will be damned.

Now which reading will you find at your parish? I know at just about every parish around my large metropolitan area, priests will offer the shorter, more "PC" form.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31