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

« There Ain't Anything You Can't Fix With Duct Tape! | Main | Converting From Islam In Malaysia »

June 06, 2007

Comments

Monica

If there are any problems, they can fix it with duct tape.

BillyHW

Real Soon Now.

Nellie

Will the motu proprio change anything in the NO mass? Namely, will I still be forced to receive Holy Communion from extraordinary ministers?

thetimman

Jimmy, the PCED already has clarified, in response to a query from Archbishop Burke, that those who receive the Ecclesia Dei indult from their local ordinary have also the ability to celebrate all of the sacraments according to the 1962 books. I can't put my finger on the link, but I know your crack team can. I think I first read about in on the renew america site, Brian Mershon.

thetimman

here it is: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/060511

Patrick Kinsale

I wonder whether the accompanying "letter" will be an encyclical?

Rick

Good points, Jimmy.

Anita Moore OPL

It's not just the identity marker factor that gives rise to the need to cushion the effect of the motu proprio. There is rabid hostility out there to the Tridentine Mass, to Latin, to Gregorian chant, or anything that has a whiff of pre-Vatican II about it -- even though Vatican II teaches that the Tridentine Mass is to be preserved, Latin is still the language of the liturgy, and Gregorian chant is still to have pride of place in the liturgy.

Mary Kay

Literally LOL at Monica. :)

pees

Mr Akin,
Our Holy Father is expending his life for the Catholic Church.
He is releasing this Motu Proprio because it is the imperative thing to do anD it has been to long in coming,but it seems that the uncalled for resistance to it, especially within the Curia and the Church itself, is extremely taxing on His Holiness.
Let us renew, with great vigor and sacrifice the prayer for the Supreme Pontiff, that God doth give might and health to him during this most arduous of times, when even his own servants are diabolically attempting to undermine and sabotage His Holiness salutary measures to sanctify and save souls.
God bless Pope Benedict XVI!

Mark

The decision by the Council Fathers to abandon the centuries old TML altogether instead of reforming it was unfortunate. It is clear that after centuries of accretions, the TLM was in need of reform. Instead we have a novel liturgy, the NO, which the Cardinal Ratzinger describes as the Mass of the "experts".

Now that the Holy Father has chosen to broaden the indult for the TLM, it seems we are back to square one. Instead of a reformed TLM we are back to the 1962 Missal and the Mass which the Council Fathers elected to "chuck". Is this progress?

Truefaith

In all reality, I think all of the frenzied foaming at the mouth reactions against the issuance of the motu proprio, are just plain ridiculous! For 99% of Catholics, liturgical life will go on as usual--with no changes. If anything, this motu proprio, will just help a very small group of folks, in which ever diocese, get a Tridentine Mass--PERIOD!! The excessive whining, complaining, and hand-wringing, coming from those that would begrudge a few people something so harmless, is absolutely sickening! To the various media folks and clergy who are trying to whip this motu proprio into taking on a life of it's own--I say give it a break, and get a life!!

rose

Well, Mark, I think it's more progress than if the Vatican came out with a reformed Tridentine rite. That would neither please nor help anyone--people attached to the old rite would loathe it as yet another sabotage, while people attached to the Novus Ordo would probably see it as just the old rite in different clothing.

Personally, I think that the Motu Proprio, accompanied by a strong push for revent celebration of the Novus Ordo (with Gregorian Chant and Latin!) is the best way to go. The people who like the Tridentine rite get to celebrate it without jumping through hoops, while the people who like the Novus Ordo will see an example of tradition that could hopefully inspire them to a more reverent celebration of their own rite.

A.Williams

I look forward to the Motu Propio, but would be even happier if songs that required hand clapping were eternally forbidden from any Catholic liturgy. And I'm not even advocating Gregorian Chant...but just normal, truly loving and devout songs. Someone needs to weed out ALL of the liberal or wacky songs ..including Kum-bay-ya, Morning has broken and On Eagles wings.

But will the Motu Propio in anyway affect this?? When music is reformed, it will be real and substantial liturgical reform! I pray for the day when the Lord will be honored at the N.O. liturgy with truly holy music!

BobCatholic

I look forward to the Motu Proprio too.

But remember, in Vatican language: "Real soon" means something different than what its ordinary use is.

Remember, after Vatican I, didn't they say they'd get back to the council "real soon now" :) (only until just before V2 did they officially close out V1)

Now, I'm not saying that it will take almost a century for the MP to take place.

I'm an optimist. I think it will take place sometime in the pontificate of the next Pope :)


Inocencio

A. Williams,

"I pray for the day when the Lord will be honored at the N.O. liturgy with truly holy music!"

I also hope for the same. There is some movement in that direction.

The USCCB has to put together a Music Directory per Liturgiam authenticam which states:

Within five years from the publication of this Instruction, the Conferences of Bishops, necessarily in collaboration with the national and diocesan Commissions and with other experts, shall provide for the publication of a directory or repertory of texts intended for liturgical singing. This document shall be transmitted for the necessary recognitio to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

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

Randy

It is interesting only because of the signal it sends. Delaying the document does not change that. Much of the church wants to keep making the liturgy more liberal. Much of it wants to move the other direction thinking the NO reform went to far. This just lets people know where the Pope stands. He sees the Tridentine as a gift to be cherished rather than a annoyance or even an evil.

Esau

Is there even any hope that anybody would actually heed the Pope's Motu Proprio???

You have the liberals on the one end who already doesn't give a darn about what the 'ultra-conservative' Pope has to say and will continue with their litany of liturgical abuses while on the other hand, the Rad Trads continue to proclaim that the Pope (like his predecessor) is nothing but an Apostate who shouldn't be obeyed either.

The only hope genuine Catholics have at this point is Our Lord, who will hopefully help drive back the darkness that envelopes His Church from not only the secular forces of the world but those that exist from within.

Frank L

"Identy marker" hits the sore spot.

Let's grow up and not use this as an identity marker - 'Traditionalists' should not be triumphalist nor 'Progressives' despondent - it should be liturgical diversity.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to live in a peaceful diocese where this 'minor administrative change' brings relief to a minority and ocassional variety to the majority.

Any discomfort with the 'perfides' words of the Good Friday prayers for the Jews
http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/1962_missal.htm
could perhaps be resolved by substituting the Latin NO wording.

But not all dioceses are relatively calm regarding this matter. I am told that a possible reason for the delay is that some French bishops have had a few church buildings taken over by unreconciled Lefebrvists supported by the racist Front National (prayer wording and translation?).

Those bishops are concerned that universally allowing the use of the Tridentine rite would not have the intended effect of reconciliation but of undermning the authority of the local bishops.

Mark

Rose said,

" ... I think it's more progress than if the Vatican came out with a reformed Tridentine rite. That would neither please nor help anyone ..."

Rose,

The TLM should be reformed because it's the right thing to do, not to please one side or the other. The TLM, as Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out, is the result of centuries of organic development. The TLM should be supject to the same "aggiornamento" as other facets of Catholic life were at the Council.

rose

I guess "please" was not the word I should have used. My point was that I think such a move would be pastorally unhelpful. Honestly, I think that at this point we really need to move *away* from the idea of the liturgy as something we can continually tinker with. I think that coming out with a third rite would simply encourage liturgical experimenters to keep playing around, because they would feel that "everybody's doing it."

Such a move would also fail to accomplish the secondary aim of the Motu Proprio, which would be to give better treatment to Traditionalist Catholics and start to simmer down the tensions between them and the rest of the Church.

Esau

Mark and Rose:

Actually, you both have a point in your above comments.

For one, Mark's comment:

The TLM, as Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out, is the result of centuries of organic development. The TLM should be supject to the same "aggiornamento" as other facets of Catholic life were at the Council.

...begs the question, wasn't that the whole point of the Novus Ordo Missae?

Yet, one cannot help but wonder if the Novus Ordo Missae can actually be described as an organic development.


Yet, Rose has a point her comments as well:
Honestly, I think that at this point we really need to move *away* from the idea of the liturgy as something we can continually tinker with.

At this point, to complicate matters even further with a third missae which those of the Novus Ordo Missae and the Tridentine may both come to despise, thus, creating even greater divisions in the Church would merely exacerbate the crisis already in the Church.

Alex Benziger. G

Sir,
In the Novus Ordo Mass, no one rubric, each priest has his own style of celebrating the Mass. No two priests celebrate the Mass in the same manner, so much so, the general comment of the faithful is always that "Fr.'X's Mass is much better than Fr.'Y's Mass or is not as good as the other".
It is rightly pointed out by the Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on October 24, 1998 as, "the differences in the liturgy according to the new rite, as it is actually practised in many places, are often greater than the difference between the new and the old liturgy, when both are celebrated according to the prescribed liturgical books".
Therefore we want the TLM is to come.

Mark

Esau says,

"Yet, one cannot help but wonder if the Novus Ordo Missae can actually be described as an organic development."

Bulls-eye Esau! The Novus Ordo is NOT an organic development of the TLM. It is a complete innovation academic and liturgical "experts" in the wake of the Council: liturgical "flubber". Their expressed intention was to go back to the Biblical and Patristic roots of the liturgy. So, by intention, it is closer to the 1st century Didache then to the 1962 Missal.

The problem is that the TLM was locked in the attic like a crazed relative and not subjected to the pastoral and theological reforms of the Council. For example, the Good Friday liturgy according to the Tridentine missal, contains this gem: "Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ."


tau gamma pi

There's a church nearby where I live that does traditional Latin Masses once a week and I've been trying to go. I listen to Gregorian chant and Palestrina while doing my homework. I'm seriously considering taking Latin next year at college. It's all beautiful stuff.

But remember that the TLM is not a panacea. We know our church well enough to know that she doesn't make drastic changes without good reason. The NO isn't perfect either, but it isn't worthless.

As my pastor's Irish mother used to say, "I've known many a jack--- priest, but he could give me Christ on the altar."

And isn't that really what it's about?

Esau

The problem is that the TLM was locked in the attic like a crazed relative and not subjected to the pastoral and theological reforms of the Council.


Mark,

As mentioned, I can see your point.

However, just as I said, we will only exacerbate the situation if we were to subject people in the Church to yet another missae.

There, you would have potential disdain not only from Liberals and the Rad Trads, but also perhaps others in the Church as well.

You would essentially be creating further disaster and division rather than allaying the one that's already been brewing in the Church for quite some time now since the Novus Ordo came into being.

In other words, you don't complicate matters by making yet another liturgical change when the chaos that had resulted after (notice I chose after rather than due to) the previous liturgical change (i.e., the Novus Ordo Missae) is yet to be resolved.

That would simply be just a recipe for disaster.

Mark

Esau,

You need to take the long view on this. If there are unnecessary accretions in the TLM they need to be removed - just as the NO is being "tweaked" by Cardinal Arinze's Congregation.

The TLM is the ORGANIC Roman Rite. It should continue to be ORGANIC and not frozen in time because some traditionalist curmudgeons would blow a gasket!

Esau

The TLM is the ORGANIC Roman Rite. It should continue to be ORGANIC and not frozen in time because some traditionalist curmudgeons would blow a gasket!


Mark,

You're taking a very narrow-minded view of this.

Yes, it should be, but not at this time.

Right now, the Pope must deal with those very elements that are creating divisions in the Church.

It would be an irreponsible and thoughtless act to introduce yet another destabilizing variable that could end up creating further turmoil and division in the Church -- especially since the destabilizing variable you propose is exactly on the same level as that of the Novus Ordo to those of the TLM mindset.

Even further, as I have mentioned, not only would such a third missae be distasteful to the zealous followers of the TLM, but most likely to the Liberals as well and even perhaps those who are faithful adherents of the Novus Ordo.

In other words, you would merely be breeding further chaos in an already chaotic situation.

JoAnna

A. Williams --

What's wrong with "On Eagle's Wings"? It's taken directly from Scripture, and I think it's a beautiful, reverent song, suited to the liturgy. Not after the Eucharist, perhaps, but maybe as a closing hymn. Just my opinion.

Back on topic -- since converting to Catholicism in 2003, I haven't had the opportunity to attend a Latin mass. If my dicoese does offer a Latin Mass after the Motu Proprio is issued, I'd definitely attend to see what it was like.

Beechwood

A couple of questions...

Why would bishops who ignored the motu proprio in Ecclesia Dei heed this one?

Will this new motu proprio on the TLM bring the SSPX any closer to reconciliation? Or does this set the stage for a firm condemnation of the SSPX confirming their schismatic status? It seems like this is a challenge to them saying "okay, we're giving you something, now come back...or else."

Mark

Esau,

So you're OK with jeopardizing Jewish relations by leaving the demeaning and outdated language about the Jews in the TLM? Have you heard of "lex orandi, lex credendi" (the Church believes as she prays)? Are you hoping the Jews won't notice because it's in Latin.

With all due respect, the Holy Father should have called for an analysis of the 1962 Missal before issuing the MP.

The "narrow-minded" position here would seem to be resisting the living, breathing development of the TLM ...

Vince

"Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ."

Why is that a problem? God is doing exactly that now and if this is prayed every Good Friday more will be converted.

Esau

Why is that a problem? God is doing exactly that now and if this is prayed every Good Friday more will be converted.


Vince,

I'm so appreciative of your presence here!

What a wonderful way of putting it!

I hope this "fire" in you for your Catholic Faith never dies!

God bless you, brutha!

Jordan Potter

"Why is that a problem?"

Because it's not nice to say that the Catholic faith is true and that therefore adherents to other faiths have a veil on their hearts.

Seriously, though, there isn't anything doctrinally or theologically wrong with the pre-Vatican II prayer for the Jews -- it's thoroughly biblical and motivated by profound charity. What people are concerned about is that when Jews hear Catholics praying for their conversion, they immediately remember the long shameful and very regrettable history of Catholics harassing and demeaning and killing them. Jews notice how Catholics who favor the pre-Vatican II Mass far too often tend to be anti-Semitic. So their concern about the old prayer for the Jews is very understandable.

However, the prayer itself is not demeaning or inappropriate. It's the old anti-Semitic culture that is the problem, and the prayer can and should be understood in isolation from the painful history of the past. After all, the Church had been praying for God to remove the veil from the Jewish people for a long, long time before anti-Semitism began to infect Catholics.

Mark

Vince,

Whether you find it persuasive or not, the argument posed by The Center for Jewish-Christian Learning is that "references to "even the Jews," "their darkness," and "blindness" and for their conversion runs counter to the respect for ongoing Jewish covenantal life throughout historic time that was expressed in Nostra Aetate, 4."

I use the Jewish issue merely as an example of how the 1962 suffers from the "Austin Powers" syndrome: it is frozen in a set of attitutes and understandings which are uninformed by the last 60 years of interreligious dialogue and theological development.

Angie

Do Jews have any more of a veil than many Catholics sitting in the pews? Than any of us?

Esau

Jordan Potter:

A lot of what you say in your comments has some truth in it.

However, it would be a distortion of the facts if one were to single out Catholics as far as being solely responsible for the many injustices committed against Jews. Protestants have similarly mistreated Jews as well throughout history.

Need I mind you that during the days of our founding fathers here in America, Jews were looked down upon and were treated as 2nd class citizens, not even possessing full rights. Even in Protestant dominated regions in Europe, Jews were also mistreated.

A.Williams

JoAnna,

I included On Eagles Wings more as a known symbol of modern Church Music, rather than on it's own particular merits..but I still don't like it much. But overall I'm protesting against any music that promotes a "horizontal" liturgy, one wherein Eucharistic devotion and profound contemplative prayer are not encouraged...but rather, continual distraction and/or liturgical entertainment.

Now, I can mention that a Mass that I have participated in more than 150 times in the past few years has songs which incorporate about 75 percent hand clapping rhythms. They also dance around the altar after the closing prayers, and singing and hand clapping continues. It is in my wifes parish which is 'Neocatecumenal'.

What can I say?? The pope is on the verge of recognizing this group!? This June, yes..this month, is the month when the 5 year experimental period for the approval of the Statutes expires. And wil the dancing around the altar continue? Will they need to submit their songs to the Vatican, as does the USCCB?

The great problem with all of this is that Eucharistic devotion is attacted by these abuses! Dancing in the Sanctuary is an abuse of the respect due to the holiness of the same Sanctuary! And moreover, there is not a Tabernacle to be seen anywhere nearby...it's completely in another room, not even under the same roof! Dancing, it seems is preferred to a holy Tabernacle containing the Body of Christ!

But what I see is war! War between those who love Jesus in the Tabernacle, and those who love themselves in the Community! As Pope B16 says..horizontal versus vertical worship! And isn't this the great problem in the Church these days?

But will the NCW still be permitted to continue all of their horizontal practices? Will all of the Liberal Bishops continue..and just ignore the Pope, just hoping for a future liberal pope to legitimize for good all of their 'horizontal' liturgical ways??

I only hope any liturgical reform has at least SOME teeth. Otherwise nothing will change and the liberals will become more embolden than ever.

Oh Lord, I pray that make this reform real! So that your Kingdom may come, and Your will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven! Amen!

Snowman

I've typically stayed out of the music discussions, but to be honest, I like a lot of the music that is often criticized here, including On Eagle's Wings. It's not for me to say whether it should be used in Mass, or just listened as spiritual music outside Mass, but I like it.

I'd have to agree with Esau, that another Rite in between the NO and TLM would add confusion and probably not solve any problems. And I don't see the problem with the prayer for the Jewish people. As Catholics, if we truly believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, then anybody short of that (especially those who won't acknowledge Jesus at all) would seem, to some extent at least, to have a veil over their hearts. I don't consider that racist or even an insult; it's just a logical conclusion from our beliefs. We should certainly want the Jews to accept Jesus as Savior, as so many did in the first century.

Also, it's not helpful in that discussion to bring up the mistreatment of Jews by Catholics. Jews mistreated Catholics just as badly (or worse) in the first century (or two, or more) of Christianity. People mistreat people; it's a sad fact of life, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't pray for people's conversion if we honestly believe we have spiritual truths we could be sharing with them.

Esau

As Catholics, if we truly believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, then anybody short of that (especially those who won't acknowledge Jesus at all) would seem, to some extent at least, to have a veil over their hearts. I don't consider that racist or even an insult; it's just a logical conclusion from our beliefs. We should certainly want the Jews to accept Jesus as Savior, as so many did in the first century.

Also, it's not helpful in that discussion to bring up the mistreatment of Jews by Catholics. Jews mistreated Catholics just as badly (or worse) in the first century (or two, or more) of Christianity. People mistreat people; it's a sad fact of life, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't pray for people's conversion if we honestly believe we have spiritual truths we could be sharing with them.


Snowman,

You preach the Truth, brutha!

Keep preachin'!

JoAnna

A. Williams --

I am quite fortunate to belong to a parish with a very reverent NO mass. It is a college Newman Center so we occasionally have guitars accompanying the cantor, and I suppose some of the more "modern" hymns, but overall it is a very reverent service. No handclapping, a homily always grounded in Church teaching and Scripture, and a priest who has a true love for the Eucharist (and who is not afraid to expound upon the evils of abortion, artificial birth control, etc. loudly and often!).

Our priest has just been recalled to active duty in Iraq, though, (please pray for Fr. C!) so I'm hoping his temporary replacement will be just as good. It's going to be one of the priests from our local cathedral, so I'm confident he will be.

Brian Day

I'm a little late to the party, but I do want to comment on Mark's first comment.
The decision by the Council Fathers to abandon the centuries old TML altogether instead of reforming it was unfortunate.

The Council Fathers did no such thing. Go re-read SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM. It called for certain reforms, not for a new rite.
I am finishing up reading Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber. Both Monsignor Gamber in this book, and the Cardinal Ratzinger in his book, Spirit of the Liturgy, would disagree with your assertion.

John

Mark posted:

"I use the Jewish issue merely as an example of how the 1962 suffers from the "Austin Powers" syndrome: it is frozen in a set of attitutes and understandings which are uninformed by the last 60 years of interreligious dialogue and theological development"

Ahhhh comparing the liturgy and the never changing deposit of faith to Austin powers and Hollywood. What a catechesis you have Mark! Wow, what an uninformed bunch of Catholics we are trying to convert those who are Jewish and DENY our Lord in his entirety and per the Gospels and every inch of Catholic teaching one who denies our Lord and savior as God (Esau can even check his Bible which he is so good at quoting) can not be saved!

Gee praying for their conversion is so antisemitic!!

John

Mark posted:

"I use the Jewish issue merely as an example of how the 1962 suffers from the "Austin Powers" syndrome: it is frozen in a set of attitutes and understandings which are uninformed by the last 60 years of interreligious dialogue and theological development"

Ahhhh comparing the liturgy and the never changing deposit of faith to Austin powers and Hollywood. What a catechesis you have Mark! Wow, what an uninformed bunch of Catholics we are trying to convert those who are Jewish and DENY our Lord in his entirety and per the Gospels and every inch of Catholic teaching one who denies our Lord and savior as God (Esau can even check his Bible which he is so good at quoting) can not be saved!

Gee praying for their conversion is so antisemitic!!

Jordan Potter

"A lot of what you say in your comments has some truth in it."

That's another way of saying that some of what I say in my comments has some error in it. (By analogy, compare the prayer for the Jews in the pre-Vatican II Good Friday liturgy with the prayer for the Jews in the post-Vatican II liturgy.) However, I'm not aware of any error or inaccuracy in what I said.

"However, it would be a distortion of the facts if one were to single out Catholics as far as being solely responsible for the many injustices committed against Jews. Protestants have similarly mistreated Jews as well throughout history."

But we're not talking about Protestant attitudes towards the Jews. We're talking about why Jews today react the way they do to the knowledge of Catholics praying the pre-Vatican II Good Friday Prayers of the Faithful.

"Need I mind you that during the days of our founding fathers here in America, Jews were looked down upon and were treated as 2nd class citizens, not even possessing full rights. Even in Protestant dominated regions in Europe, Jews were also mistreated."

Again, it's really not relevant to bring up what non-Catholics have done to the Jews, since the Tridentine Mass is a Catholic thing, not a non-Catholic thing. Sure, Catholics aren't the only people to have mistreated Jews, and yes, Jews have also mistreated Catholics. But if we want to understand why Jews don't like the idea of Catholics praying that God would have mercy "even on the Jews" (suggesting to many that it would be harder for him to have mercy on a Jew than it would be to have mercy on a Gentile), then we have to look at the Catholic history of harassing Jews, not non-Catholic history of harassing Jews.

That being said, it is somewhat misleading for The Center for Jewish-Christian Learning to portray Nostra Aetate 4 as speaking of "respect for ongoing Jewish covenantal life throughout historic time," if by that is meant the Sinaitic Covenant, which was rendered obsolete when God gave the Jewish People a New Covenant in Christ. Some think the Catholic Church is open to the Judaising notion that because God's covenant with the Jews is never revoked, that means the former covenant is salvific for the Jews, and that all a Jew needs to do to be saved is to faithfully observe the Law of Moses, apart from faith in Christ. Nostra Aetate says no such thing, and that notion is repeatedly rejected in the New Testament, by the Fathers of the Church, by the Popes, and by the Councils of the Church.

Esau

Jordan Potter:

I just wanted to clarify on your comments for the benefit of 'others' in order to make clear that it wasn't only Catholics that were the ones who have committed such injustices against the Jews.

The reason for the subsequent clarification is because there are actually those individuals who operate on the mistaken notion that it was only Catholics responsible for such while Protestants on the other hand aren't. This is not true at all.

As for your concluding comments:

That being said, it is somewhat misleading for The Center for Jewish-Christian Learning to portray Nostra Aetate 4 as speaking of "respect for ongoing Jewish covenantal life throughout historic time," if by that is meant the Sinaitic Covenant, which was rendered obsolete when God gave the Jewish People a New Covenant in Christ. Some think the Catholic Church is open to the Judaising notion that because God's covenant with the Jews is never revoked, that means the former covenant is salvific for the Jews, and that all a Jew needs to do to be saved is to faithfully observe the Law of Moses, apart from faith in Christ. Nostra Aetate says no such thing, and that notion is repeatedly rejected in the New Testament, by the Fathers of the Church, by the Popes, and by the Councils of the Church.

I have no idea what you're talking about here since I did not even bring up such things in my comments.

Jordan Potter

"I have no idea what you're talking about here since I did not even bring up such things in my comments."

I know. I should have made clear that I was responding to comments "Posted by: Mark | Jun 6, 2007 1:36:11 PM"

Esau

Jordan Potter:

No prob!

I think Snowman said it best:

"As Catholics, if we truly believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, then anybody short of that (especially those who won't acknowledge Jesus at all) would seem, to some extent at least, to have a veil over their hearts. I don't consider that racist or even an insult; it's just a logical conclusion from our beliefs. We should certainly want the Jews to accept Jesus as Savior, as so many did in the first century.

Also, it's not helpful in that discussion to bring up the mistreatment of Jews by Catholics. Jews mistreated Catholics just as badly (or worse) in the first century (or two, or more) of Christianity. People mistreat people; it's a sad fact of life, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't pray for people's conversion if we honestly believe we have spiritual truths we could be sharing with them."

John

Esau posted:

"You would essentially be creating further disaster and division rather than allaying the one that's already been brewing in the Church for quite some time now since the Novus Ordo came into being."

I actually agree with you-=but you fail to realize that this has been going on for years within the church whose enemies always wanted to destroy the liturgy

In the eighteenth century modernists were dissatisfied with the liturgy because they felt it did not correspond with the problems of the times with the bishops of France, and some bishops of Italy, meeting together for the Synod of Pistoia, and they carried out reforms and liturgical experiments back them which resemble the newmass of today


Liturgical reform , considered heresy back then but not today, was now taken up again in the 1920s and 30s by liturgists Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960) in Belgium and France, and by Dom Pius Parsch and Romano Guardini in Austria and Germany.

The "reformers" of the 1930s and 1940s introduced the "Dialogue Mass," because they wanted "to participate" They went out to students and they were successful in introducing Mass in the
vernacular, the celebration of Mass on a table facing the faithful, and even concelebration.

One young priest loved this experiment back then in 1933 named Father Giovanni Battista Montini who was later Paul VI

Pius XII in 1947 condemned liturgical reform but reforms took place all throughout the next decades with a modified mass that appeased John XXIII and ecumenism but lasted only another 7 years until Paul VI did the final deathblow

So looking at liturgical reform, you have to look at a problem much deeper in the church as it has promoted a climate of rebellion. Was this wave of rebellion because of V2 (I dont think so) or was this already taking place but always suppressed by strong popes before V2. Obviously JPII is no Pius X so I guess the church will always want reformers but we had popes in the past who took the teachings, liturgy and deposit of faith seriously and knew it was not supposed to change, but eventually yielded to what we have today

Jordan Potter

"Also, it's not helpful in that discussion to bring up the mistreatment of Jews by Catholics."

I agree it's not helpful for people to wallow in past hurts, to dredge up sins of past centuries and fling them in people's faces. But it is helpful for us to consider history if we want to understand why people do and say the things they do today. And in that respect, if we want to know why Jews have a problem with the old Good Friday prayers, we have to consider the wider context of some very painful and at times dark pages of our shared history with the Jews.

Personally I find the old prayer for the Jews to be very meaningful and powerful, and not at all essentially an anti-Semitic thing. But I understand perfectly why many think it is.

Esau

Jordan Potter:

But it is helpful for us to consider history if we want to understand why people do and say the things they do today. And in that respect, if we want to know why Jews have a problem with the old Good Friday prayers, we have to consider the wider context of some very painful and at times dark pages of our shared history with the Jews.

Personally I find the old prayer for the Jews to be very meaningful and powerful, and not at all essentially an anti-Semitic thing. But I understand perfectly why many think it is.


Actually, I'm very much in agreement with the psychological take of your original comments, further explained here.

The prayer, though innocent and benign in nature, would seem to provoke an almost psychosomatic episode (much like when a person hears the sound of a drill that's similar to that of a dentist's, which causes him/her to shrink at the sound) where the prayer arouses such painful memories of the past, causing the person to have such a terrible opinion of it.

Esquire

...you have to look at a problem much deeper in the church as it has promoted a climate of rebellion.

Now what would you, John, know about a climate of rebellion?

Eileen R

What's wrong with "On Eagle's Wings"?

I like it as a song. My own problem with it and a lot of other songs sung in church is that they're not very good for congregation-singing. You get the music leader and two or three women who can master the song properly, and everyone else mumbling along or just staring into the distance.

I say women because the songs are usually sang at an insanely high pitch.

Theocoid

I don't know if anyone has mentioned yet, but depending on the type of letter, it may make a statement more or less forcefully. In any case, what the accompanying letter (be it an apostolic exhortation or an encyclical, most likely the former) says is, "This MP has more magisterial import than an edict or disciplinary change alone." It ups the ante magisterially, so to speak, more than the MP alone would do.

The Holy Father has repeatedly made reference to the state of the liturgy, the use of Latin, and the need for a refocus on the Eucharist. That he's likely to do it again amplifies the point and increases its authority. While a typical change in discipline would not merit such emphasis, this one apparently does (John Allen's opinion, notwithstanding).

Bill B.

Mark

Brian Day says,

(About the statement: The decision by the Council Fathers to abandon the centuries old TML altogether instead of reforming it was unfortunate).

"The Council Fathers did no such thing. Go re-read SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM. It called for certain reforms, not for a new rite..."

Brian, Sacrocactum Concilium was promulgeted in 1963. The final edition of the Tridentine missal was issued by John XXIII in 1962. So, none of the liturgical reforms outlined by the Council Fathers in SC were incorporated into the TLM. That is unfortunate. The organic development of the TLM, a la Austin Powers (and our very dear friend John) is frozen in 1962!

Brian

Just a thought of mine... is it possible to imagine that several generatons after the motu proprio when the two masses have openly existed side by side for a long time, that a hybrid mass will organically evolve from the best qualities of both masses and once again unite the Latin Rite liturgy?

This would truly be the work of the Holy Spirit, for the work of man results in the mass I went to at my parents' church this weekend - the crucifix had been moved from over the altar to the entrance of the church because it blocked the view of the organ, after an ear-tickling introduction by the priest the homily was given by two high school girls, and while we were singing the Lamb of God one of the EMHCs took hosts from the tabernacle and passed them out to a platoon of EMHCs who then held our Lord in their hands through the rest of the prayers (Lord I am not worthy..., etc) and popped Him into their mouths just milliseconds after the priest took communion. I think I grinded all the enamel off my teeth; thankfully I don't have high blood pressure because I would have had a stroke. I can't believe I ever found my way back to the Church after growing up in that parish.

Jordan Potter

"So, none of the liturgical reforms outlined by the Council Fathers in SC were incorporated into the TLM. That is unfortunate."

You forget the ephemeral 1965 Missal. That was an TLM that incorporated some of the reforms of SC. But it was quickly scrapped in favor of the massive, unprecedented overhaul of the 1969 Missal.

Joey

Esquire, you said that 'these songs are usually sung in an insanely high pitch," just try singing along with the compositions of Palestrina. I'm afraid it's going to drive you crazy.

Vince

John said, "Obviously JPII is no Pius X so I guess the church will always want reformers but we had popes in the past who took the teachings, liturgy and deposit of faith seriously and knew it was not supposed to change, but eventually yielded to what we have today"

You still need to distinguish between discipline which can change and Dogma that can't. That is were most people get confused. From you above statement I infer that you think Dogma has changed in some fashion.

Certain doctrines (teachings) not dogmatically held (De Fide) are able to change as the Holy Spirit leads the Church for a further understanding. Liturgy falls under discipline and can change and is within the Church's discretion to do so.

You tone has been tempered from the other day but you still are trying to influence people with your leanings which are incorrect.

Most devote Catholics agree the liturgy is a mess in much of the US (I can't speak for anywhere else). It will get better only if the laity correspond with obedience and charity to the new "tweaks".

Obey the POPE! He is Jesus’ Prime Minister for the Kingdom of God.

John

Vince posted:

"You tone has been tempered from the other day but you still are trying to influence people with your leanings which are incorrect. "

Such as?????????????

Mark

Brian Day said,

"I'm a little late to the party, but I do want to comment on Mark's first comment.
The decision by the Council Fathers to abandon the centuries old TML altogether instead of reforming it was unfortunate.

The Council Fathers did no such thing. Go re-read SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM. It called for certain reforms, not for a new rite..."

Brian, I might find your argument persuasive except the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) was promulgated in 1963; one year after the Roman Missal of the TLM. The TLM has been cryogenically frozen, al a Austin Powers, since 1962 and so untouched by the pastoral and theological developments of the last 60 years (including those outlined by the Council Fathers in SC).


Inocencio


motu proprio signed; document being translated

Sure would be nice if this is true.

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

John


Vince posted:

"Certain doctrines (teachings) not dogmatically held (De Fide) are able to change as the Holy Spirit leads the Church for a further understanding. Liturgy falls under discipline and can change and is within the Church's discretion to do so. "

Infallibly taught in the council of Trent . decreed, which stated that "the reason and the purpose of the liturgy is for the ceremonies of Holy Mass to be designed in order to promote the reverence of the faithful". Does the new mass do this? Was it the intention or to promote "participation"?

Pope for centuries have battled innovators, but they clearly fought for the faith and for the preservation of a pure Liturgy, a Liturgy which had been entrusted to them as conservators and custodians by the Apostles themselves, to safeguard and defend Tradition as eventually taught infallibly at Vatican I

Enemies always have attacked the liturgy for centuries with heretics corrupting the liturgy in order to attack and destroy the faith, which they have basically done to date. What is the first thing the Protestant schismatics did when they broke away from the church? Lutheranism and Anglicanism in the 16th century, then with
the Illuminist and Jansenist reforms in the 18th century, and finally
with the Modernism, they change the Mass itself!!! So the church in formulating the NO mass at the hands of Fr. Bugnini, who started his destruction in the 1950’s and 1960’s only to be exiled later as a FreeMason was the architect of the New Mass. Not a saint, not the apostles, but a freemason.

If that is organic development-or if you dont consider the liturgy part of Tradition to be safeguarded by the Pope, not destroyed-then I guess like everything else you don’t believe that anything is “off limits”! And that is because like most Modernists, you believe the church is supposed to conform to sinful modern man/woman instead of holding fast to her tried and true teachings

John


Vince posted:

"Certain doctrines (teachings) not dogmatically held (De Fide) are able to change as the Holy Spirit leads the Church for a further understanding. Liturgy falls under discipline and can change and is within the Church's discretion to do so. "

Infallibly taught in the council of Trent . decreed, which stated that "the reason and the purpose of the liturgy is for the ceremonies of Holy Mass to be designed in order to promote the reverence of the faithful". Does the new mass do this? Was it the intention or to promote "participation"?

Pope for centuries have battled innovators, but they clearly fought for the faith and for the preservation of a pure Liturgy, a Liturgy which had been entrusted to them as conservators and custodians by the Apostles themselves, to safeguard and defend Tradition as eventually taught infallibly at Vatican I

Enemies always have attacked the liturgy for centuries with heretics corrupting the liturgy in order to attack and destroy the faith, which they have basically done to date. What is the first thing the Protestant schismatics did when they broke away from the church? Lutheranism and Anglicanism in the 16th century, then with
the Illuminist and Jansenist reforms in the 18th century, and finally
with the Modernism, they change the Mass itself!!! So the church in formulating the NO mass at the hands of Fr. Bugnini, who started his destruction in the 1950’s and 1960’s only to be exiled later as a FreeMason was the architect of the New Mass. Not a saint, not the apostles, but a freemason.

If that is organic development-or if you dont consider the liturgy part of Tradition to be safeguarded by the Pope, not destroyed-then I guess like everything else you don’t believe that anything is “off limits”! And that is because like most Modernists, you believe the church is supposed to conform to sinful modern man/woman instead of holding fast to her tried and true teachings

Jordan Potter

"Sure would be nice if this is true."

We can be confident about that information. Fr. Zuhlsdorf is a reliable source. In addition, what he reports fits in perfectly with the recent comments of Cardinal Bertone, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, and Cardinal Kasper. It was Cardinal Kasper who commented a while back that the decision the Pope has made cannot now be unmade, which can only mean the Motu Proprio had been signed (only if it were still unsigned would the Pope change it or decide not to publish it). Then, I think it was last week that Fr. Zuhlsdorf was informed that the MP had been signed -- now another source has told him the same thing, adding that the MP is being translated.

The post-synodal apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis was greatly delayed by translation problems. Looks like the same thing might be happening to the MP.

Jordan Potter

"only to be exiled later as a FreeMason"

Exiled as an ALLEGED Freemason. He denied being a Freemason, although it seems Pope Paul VI did believe the allegations.

Esau

Inocencio and Jordan Potter:

I've been keeping a vigilant watch for the Motu Proprio at Fr. Z's blog for quite some time now.

It would be nice if this were true, but the arrival of the MP had been predicted so many times at his blog, it's to a point where one tires of 'wolf' being cried out far too many a time.

I'll only hope this is true, but am holding my breath.

Jordan Potter

If what Fr. Zuhlsdorf reports is true, then that means we could have a while yet to wait. I'm being patient, and I don't put any stock in rumors and speculations about the date it will be promulgated. There's no point in guessing which feast day would be the most likely. The Pope told Alice von Hildebrand that something would happen "in May," but there have been delays . . . as usual. It will happen when it happens. But it will happen.

Vince

John said, "Infallibly taught in the council of Trent . decreed, which stated that "the reason and the purpose of the liturgy is for the ceremonies of Holy Mass to be designed in order to promote the reverence of the faithful". Does the new mass do this? Was it the intention or to promote "participation"?"

My Mass is quite reverent all in English with the Priest looking out at us. Show me infallibly again. I am not convinced with this reference here.

I agree with you that the irreverent liberal priests are doing their best to slaughter the liturgy, the abuses make me sick. But to scream Apostasy and Heresy which you do at all occasions is a bigger joke than the liberals.

You have gone too far to one side John(Traditionalist) and are no longer inside the Church. I am sure there are Traditionalist websites you can rant at.

True change (reform) for OUR Holy Mother the Church must happen from within. The body of Christ is a living breathing entity, taking in good along with the bad. Eventually bad will be expelled but for you to stay outside and not work for actual change is sad and counter-productive.

I will stay inside and pray for the reforms to happen, which they are. They won't happen as quickly as we like but then again we are not the center of the Church history just because it affects us. Lose your egocentric ways and become Christ centered.

Vince

Just to let everyone know - Everything is an infallible teaching according to John!

Vince

Just to let everyone know - Everything is an infallible teaching according to John!

Esau

True change (reform) for OUR Holy Mother the Church must happen from within. The body of Christ is a living breathing entity, taking in good along with the bad. Eventually bad will be expelled but for you to stay outside and not work for actual change is sad and counter-productive.


Vince,

Great point!

I think what you mentioned above is what distinguishes Saint Francis from Martin Luther.

Had Martin Luther remained in the Church to reform it from within for its greater good, who knows? He might have ended up a saint if only he had humility enough to recognize the authority of the Successor of Peter, as St. Thomas More did, resulting in the sacrifice of his very life all for the Glory of God and His Church and the authority given to its Vicar, the Pope, the Successor of Peter.

Also, you are right, Vince, in your distinction between dogma and discipline.

It's amazing that Converts should know more about the Catholic Faith than a supposed 'traditional Catholic'.

God continue to bless you in your journey!

bill912

Vince, I admire your patience, but you are trying to reason with one who is not reasonable. One who has his own reality cannot be reached by us. I wish Jimmy would ban the one who hijacks every thread on which he comments. Until Jimmy does, we should ignore him. If we don't respond to him, he will have nothing to which he can react.

Vince

I think it is important to read up on all of the tougher questions from Protestants and Traditionalist alike regarding their problems with the Church. Typically there is a level of understanding within me for their confusion; something reasonable for their difficulty -whatever it be. Just like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the schismatics who followed him.

But when you read the Church's documents or independent theologian (Cardinal Dulles) to counter that difficulty; it only adds to my faith.

I am off to Adoration now, John you may want to get back to Jesus in the Eucharist. It really solidifies your faith to be in His presence.

John

Esau and Vince posted:

"Had Martin Luther remained in the Church to reform it from within for its greater good, who knows? He might have ended up a saint if only he had humility enough to recognize the authority of the Successor of Peter, as St. Thomas More did, resulting in the sacrifice of his very life all for the Glory of God and His Church and the authority given to its Vicar, the Pope, the Successor of Peter."


Finally they have come out, true admirers of Luther and their intent to REFORM the church, as every Modernist has always intended to do under the guise of adhering to the sacred deposit of faith!

The wolf in sheeps clothing has been exposed!!

Jordan Potter

You're such a goofball, John. You would object to somebody wishing that Martin Luther hadn't lapsed into heresy and riven the Church in Europe, but instead had remained a faithful Catholic committed to reforming the things that very desperately needed reforming??? There had been numerous abortive attempts at reform in those days, leading right up to the eve of Luther's revolt. Even after the rise of the Protestants, it took a long time to convene and complete the reforming Council of Trent, and even longer actually to implement that council. Were the Council Fathers of Trent modernistic pseudoreformers too?

Vince

At least I NOW know not to bother responding to any of John's statements. He is completely out there. I will continue to pray for him though as we all should.


John

Ahhh, your trying to cover up your true feelings, as you respect a Protestant like Luther, who failed to bring down the church from outside, but the Modernists learned from that and as Leo XIII and Pius X warned, and made all clergy take the "Oath against Modernism", the church's enemies who demanded reform were now WITHIN!!

You admire Saint Luther, your hero who though he failed to accomplish what you so desire from without, you and many like you are doing so from within

Pray for our church, for the modernists, pantheists, and all those who want to appease secular society and worship man instead of God be within the church when we are blessed with a Pope like Pius X we shall see how "obedient" they are then or will they scat for the hills!

You have been exposed

Vince

Never once did I say I admired Luther, IMO he was more deceived by Satan than most of the other Reformers because he truly believed he was reforming the Church.

Kind of reminds me of the Traditionalist point of view - interesting.

Yes, let's make it better by breaking away from it. Try that with your finger if it gets broken. Rip it off and see where that gets you.

There is a reason these verses are in the Bible Matt. 23:2-3. And a reason Jesus chose Judas as an Apostle. Even when things looks bad, to your own particular short-sightedness, our leaders are to be obeyed. This is the everlasting covenant and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. No matter how hard you try John.

From now on our replies to John's posts need to be as follows (everyone cut and paste for the future):

DON'T LISTEN TO JOHN (HE DOESN"T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT CATHOLICISM)

"We all pray for you John, we really do
However much pain you have put us through.
We love Jimmy's site and hate to see
It run into the ground by the likes of thee."

Snowman

John, it's fine to argue and debate, but now you're just being stupid. Nobody said they admired Luther or considered him a saint, they said IF he had stayed faithful to the Church and worked from within to correct the abuses that were happening, THEN he might well have been recognized as a saint.

When you attribute things to people that they never said, you not only show yourself as lacking in integrity, but you leave yourself open to charges that you bear a resemblance to the father of lies, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to be looked at as one of his followers.

Mark

Jordan Potter said,

"That being said, it is somewhat misleading for The Center for Jewish-Christian Learning to portray Nostra Aetate 4 as speaking of "respect for ongoing Jewish covenantal life throughout historic time," if by that is meant the Sinaitic Covenant, which was rendered obsolete when God gave the Jewish People a New Covenant in Christ."

Jordan,

I thing it's more accurate to view the Sinaitic Covenant as having been broadened/fulfilled/superceded rather than "rendered obsolete".

Consider our Lord's own words, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them." Matthew 5. Or Paul's own formulation, "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."

Cardinal Ratzinger himself wrote, "It is evident that dialogue of us Christians with the Jews stands on a different level with regard to the dialogue with the other religions. The faith witnessed in the Bible of the Jews, the Old Testament of Christians, is for us not a different religion but the foundation of our own faith.” “L’eredità di Abramo” (The Heritage of Abraham), appeared in L’Osservatore Romano, on December 29, 2000.

Look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 839:

“When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, the first to hear the Word of God. The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ,’ (Rom 9:4) for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”

Or Nostra Aetate,

“Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.”

None of this theolgical development is reflected in the 1962 Missal of the TLM ...



John

Here is Esau's post for all to see:

"Had Martin Luther remained in the Church to reform it from within for its greater good, who knows? "

Esau desired that the greatest of all reformers stayed within the church and REFORMED it-THOSE ARE HIS OWN WORDS!!!!


But you dont have to worry as those who hated the church learned that they could not tear it down as there were mighty popes like Pius V and a might council in Trent to counter-not EMBRACE those views of Luther, but then came the infiltration and the changing of everything the church once stood for, and Pius X saw this was at the highest level but the Evil one may have his way today working through this very men but they and he shall be defeated as Our Lady stepped on the head of the serpent, so shall she crush the Modernists as though they are now WITHIN as ESAU said in his own words above, how he wished that Luther had stayed in the church and REFORMED it, he could have be a SAINT!

Vince

Mark said, "I thing (think) it's more accurate to view the Sinaitic Covenant as having been broadened/fulfilled/superceded rather than "rendered obsolete"."

You are correct here, the new Covenant transformed and fulfilled all of the previous Covenants perfectly in Christ.

The Eucharist is the celebration and renewal of that Covenant at every Mass. Until ALL are receiving our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, in a state of grace, we have to pray for the conversion of all people.

The Jews have a special place in our hearts regarding Salvation History (much more so than pagans & protestants) and are to be looked upon with respect but TLM doesn't insult them with the prayer you cited regarding Good Friday. It exalts them to a place of preeminence IMO.

Vince

DON'T LISTEN TO JOHN (HE DOESN"T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT CATHOLICISM)

"We all pray for you John, we really do
However much pain you have put us through.
We love Jimmy's site and hate to see
It run into the ground by the likes of thee."


Joey

Anybody wants to get back to music in the Tridentine Rite? I can't imagine my poor rural parish having to purchase a pipe organ, maintian it, find a professional organist (he or she will ask for a salary comparable to what the methodists and anglicans pay), a degree'd and then certified in Gregorian Chant choir master (who will also ask for a professional salary) for the sake of aesthetics. Jesus did not institute the mass in Latin nor did he have a pipe organ. It seems if we throw out non-liturgical instruments; we in small rural parishes will be no different (in terms of music, but we will have the Lord truely present under the species of bread and wine) than my friends in the "Church of Christ" who sing a-capella. Anyone want to send us $250,000 for our organ once the Motu Proprio is given? And an endowment for its maintenance and yearly salary for the organist and choirmaster?

Erin

find a professional organist (he or she will ask for a salary comparable to what the methodists and anglicans pay)

What ever happened to volunteers?

David B.

John,

Listen up. You are twisting words like a pretzel maker. Esau wished that Martin Luther had not left the church, but had obeyed the pope and reformed the church from the inside. Luther was right to be angry at the corruption within the church in his day. However, like you, he revolted, and condemned both the good and the bad practices and people within the church.

You Know that you are distorting Esau's and Vince's words. Because of your hatred for Esau, you are committing calumney against them both. That is a grave sin, John. Cease posting such scandalous things for all to see!!!

Joey

That's exactly why we are in such a sorry state of music in our Church. We don't want to pay professionals who work hard for their degrees in organ performance and choral direction. I'm not a musician but it seems to me that volunteers play the guitar. Vive la modernite e la Soeur Sourire!

John

Destroy and Reform the church from Within Luther and Vince say, just like St Pope Pius X warned us about! I am amazed this actually came out, never saw this said before on any blog, that Luther should have stayed in the church and reformed from within!!

So prophetic!!

Saint Luther!! Esau and anyone who supports him has been exposed!!

Esau

Thank-you David B., Snowman, Jordan Potter for interpreting my comments in the rightful spirit in which they were intended.

I think Vince is right in that all we can do is pray.

Keep Up the Faith & God Bless You All!!!


"But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear." Mt 13:16

Erin

We don't want to pay professionals who work hard for their degrees in organ performance and choral direction.

You might try CDs. They're cheap and easier to find. And often more appealing to the ear than the lady down the street.

David B.

Do you think that ML was destined the start the revolt? Their was the possibility that he could've become a saint, correct? (unless you believe in predestination.)


ML's sin wasn't that he hated the rampant simony, bribery, etc. His sin was rejecting the entire church. If ML had only done like the saints and obeyed the church and the pope, all the while encouraging him to thrust these corruptions out, then he would be a saint. John, No one said ML's condemnation of Church teaching was right. Only that he should've rejected his prideful inclinations and driven corruption. (like homosexual priests adultery, etc. You know, all of the things that you say you oppose.)

Stop hyperventilating. try to comprehend what you're reading.

Hiawatha

Because of your hatred for Esau, you are committing calumney against them both. That is a grave sin, John.

And what are you committing?

Joey

I think that the Mass or Liturgy as "ritual" should be static. Can we remember when Rome finally said that the period of experimentation had ended. What? Then we got more changes. And, more options. In San Antonio, Texas, Roman Catholics can attend Mass at Our Lady of the Atonement (Roman Catholics of Anglican Use). Our Latin Rite children are being instructed in a (can I say) Liturgical Style created by their Pastor Fr. Phillips (who lives with his wife, as a blood sister, and children)? When is the period of experimentation really going to end. The "Missae Romanus" is a ritual and should be static; otherwise we will always wonder what new thing will happen at Mass when we attend.

Esau

Anybody wants to get back to music in the Tridentine Rite? I can't imagine my poor rural parish having to purchase a pipe organ, maintian it, find a professional organist (he or she will ask for a salary comparable to what the methodists and anglicans pay), a degree'd and then certified in Gregorian Chant choir master (who will also ask for a professional salary) for the sake of aesthetics. Jesus did not institute the mass in Latin nor did he have a pipe organ. It seems if we throw out non-liturgical instruments; we in small rural parishes will be no different (in terms of music, but we will have the Lord truely present under the species of bread and wine) than my friends in the "Church of Christ" who sing a-capella. Anyone want to send us $250,000 for our organ once the Motu Proprio is given? And an endowment for its maintenance and yearly salary for the organist and choirmaster?

Posted by: Joey | Jun 7, 2007 1:56:57 PM


Joey,

You're very mistaken in your notions here.

In fact, the Tridentine can be celebrated without any music if need be.

Also, don't forget, the chaplains in the World Wars celebrated the Tridentine rite not in Church but in open area -- and I'm guessing they did so without such musical accompaniments.


Link:
Using a canvas tarpaulin for a church and packing cases for an altar, a Catholic Navy chaplain holds mass for Marines at Saipan in memory of those who lost their lives during the initial landings. June 1944.

Joey

Great Esau, I'm going to ask my pastor to play a Palestrina CD at the TLM. Did I misunderstand you?

David B.

"And what are you committing?"

Hiawatha,

One of the spiritual works of mercy: Admonish the sinner.

Esau

Great Esau, I'm going to ask my pastor to play a Palestrina CD at the TLM. Did I misunderstand you?

Huh???

Also, about your comment here:

I think that the Mass or Liturgy as "ritual" should be static.

I would encourage you to learn about Liturgy.

Jordan Potter

"Esau and anyone who supports him has been exposed!!"

Yee haw!!! Who needs this loincloth anyway!!!

Esau

Great Esau, I'm going to ask my pastor to play a Palestrina CD at the TLM. Did I misunderstand you?


Joey,

Allow me to elaborate on my comments to you since it appears you have a difficult time understanding them:


Joey,

You're very mistaken in your notions here.

In fact, the Tridentine can be celebrated without any music if need be.


Translation:

I am saying that you don't have to have music at a Tridentine Mass. There have been Tridentine Masses celebrated where no music is even played.

Please note: No mention of a Palestrina CD.


Also, don't forget, the chaplains in the World Wars celebrated the Tridentine rite not in Church but in open area -- and I'm guessing they did so without such musical accompaniments.

Link:
Using a canvas tarpaulin for a church and packing cases for an altar, a Catholic Navy chaplain holds mass for Marines at Saipan in memory of those who lost their lives during the initial landings. June 1944.

Translation: There have been Tridentine Masses celebrated even outside of Church where musical accompaniments such as an organ would likely be absent. Yet, the Mass has been celebrated even without the presence of such a luxury.

Please note again: No mention of a Palestrina CD.

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