Have things where you are changed since the MP took effect?

[quote="Pax et Caritas]If you like a mass in the vernacular, with the Priest facing the people, with communion under both forms, with the Altar replaced with a table, you would have loved Luther, Cranmer and the other heretics of the 16th century, for these are the exact same changes they made.

I guess, in your opinion, the heretics of the 16th century (who hated the Mass and whose stated goal was to destroy it by gradualy changing it) were just a little ahead of their time.
[/quote]

I can see why you would not like what I wrote, but it si true. All of the external changes that we find in the Novus Ordo, are the changes that the heretics of the 16th century employed - every one of them.

So, my questions is, were these excommunicated heretics just a little ahead of their time? Is there any chance that a sizeable part of Catholic liturgists today (the ones in the key positions) consider that Luther, and not Trent, was right in the 16th century debate? Is that why so many Bishops are against the Traditional Mass? Let’s ask Cardinal Ratzinger…

Cardinal Ratzinger: “A sizeable party of Catholic liturgists seems to have practically arrived at the conclusion that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the sixteenth century debate… It is only against this background of the effective denial of the authority of Trent, that the bitterness of the struggle against allowing the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Missal, after the Liturgical reform, can be understood.”

Never forget: Lex orandi, lex credendi.

And there are multitudes of people who simply stopped going to Mass altogether because they couldn’t bear the radical changes and novelties that crept in. Neither are they few and far between. So I am equally sorry that you cannot understand how someone would not fall in love with the new Mass.

by Father Bugnini:

Pg 233. “The problem of translation was the first and most troublesome of the liturgical reform.” Footnote 18. “ Translations should not always be word for word, since this can obscure the overall sense of the message…in Latin an accumulation of words reinforces the meaning…in modern languages such a use …may have the opposite effect.”

Pg 241 “On October 11, 1972 eight members of the International Theological Commission wrote directly to the Pope of their concern…certain translations they regarded as “inadequate and even seriously defective on essential points of the Catholic faith.”

Here is how Bugnini describes the problems in Japan. “ The congregation’s prayer “Susipiat” in response to the celebrant’s “Orate,frates” should be replaced by a silent prayer, since it is very difficult to translate the “Susipiat” into Japanese… The Domine, non sum dignus” should be replaced by “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. You are the Christ, the Son of God.” The reason is that all attempts at a tolerable translation of the “Domine, non sum dignus” have been unsatisfactory.”
The Liturgical Commissions goal was to insure that “ the vernacular forms must not only be completely correct theologically but must also agree fully with the Latin text .”

No, it actually isn’t. It might be difficult in some languages, but the fact that the translation exists in the missal right next to the Latin rather prooves the opposite of your assertion.
[/quote]

You’re way too offensive in general. If you think I took your “tone” incorrectly, I can only plead guilty to having followed the invective in your postings for some time.

I’d like to commission a study on how many threads in which you participate end up being shut down. It seems like every single one. You get catty and off-topic with incredible regularity.

I don’t know, given what you’[ve quoted above, the context of what the Holy Father said here and I’d like to read that context, but IF you’re accusing those who like the Mass in the vernacular of the heresies of Protestantism (really, heresy isn’t the accurate word, as none of the things you mentioned fall into the deposit of faith handed down or defined), then the same Cardinal seems to be guilty of those same “heresies.” From a letter he wrote to a Dr. Barth:

“I believe, however, that in the long run the Roman Church must again have a single Roman rite: the existence of two official rites in practice is for the bishops and priests quite hard to “manage.” The Roman rite of the future ought to be a single rite, **celebrated in Latin or in the language of the country, but completely based on the tradition of the [old] handed-down rite; it could take in some new elements that have proven themselves, such as new feasts, some new prefaces in the Mass, a wider order of readings – more choices than before, but not too many – an “Oratio fidelium,” i.e., a fixed litany of prayers after the Oremus before the Offertory, where it earlier had its place.” (latinmassjax.org/augustnewsletter.htm)

I would also point you to an interview that Cardinal Ratzinger gave to Raymond Arroyo in which he stated that the vernacular Mass was a useful thing. I’m afraid I’ve no link, but I actually saw the videotaped footage and I’m sure EWTN has it, perhaps you could look there. So if we’re loading up the boat to hell with people you regard as heretics based on their preference for the vernacular, well, we’d best save room for the Pope.

Scotty: I don’t claim not to get carried away, but I think even you would admit that a reading of those threads would find that USUALLY it’s cattiness that I’m answering cattiness WITH. Doesn’t make it right and it would be childish to say “You started it,” but I do attempt to keep charity to the forefront. AND I could point out some of your recent posts that went on the attach without warrant, so it becomes a question of “pot, meet kettle.”

And here’s the thing: “traditionalists”:rolleyes: think they can attack the Church with every ounce of their bitterness, their “invective,” if that words not becoming overused and anyone who defends it is a heretic, a liberal, a hippy, etc. My advice to them would be to stop attacking the Church, the Council, the Pope, the Mass, etc., if they don’t want to get jumped in return. I’m on the same page as they are on a great number of issues. Just because, as an example, I prefer the vernacular Mass doesn’t mean I’m suddenly Joan Chichester, OSB. But you wouldn’t know it to read some “traditionalists.”

I dunno - it just seems to me like you come out with your guns blazing, looking for the slightest statement to pounce on and accuse the “traditionalists” (whom you seem to really dislike) of not being faithful to the Magisterium, lacking charity, etc., etc.

When someone is critical of a modern day practice in the Church, or a regrettable statement issued by a bishop or his office or some whacky layperson, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are schismatics. But it seems like you want to stifle (sometimes rudely) any discussion which contains even the slightest tint of dissatisfaction with the current state of Church affairs.

BTW - I won’t deny being a bit stiff in my posting style, but I don’t “attack” people “without warrant.” I try to call it like I see it and shine the light on nonsense.

I have not noticed any changes in my home parish. Then again, the Mass has always been a matter of great precision and majesty at Ottawa’s Cathedral Basilica, in my experience. Though the excision of masculine pronouns in reference to God in the CBW3 is a bit distracting sometimes!

With respect, I can point out threads which you are currently participating in where you do the same, so really it does become the difference between the mote and the beam (for both of us).

I have nothing against traditionalists. If one has to find a word to hang one’s hat on, I’m closer to a traditionalist than anything else in, though I simply prefer “orthodox.” The trouble is, there are “traditionalists” who confuse orthdoxy with their “traditionalism.” They confuse Tradition with tradition. You mention shining the light on the nonsense. That’s all I’m doing as well.

Certainly, there are problems within the Church. I don’t mind discussing those. But I’m not going to stand by and let people heap abuse on my Church, on my Pope (particularly the Servant of God Pope John Paul II, he takes a lot of pot shots in these fora), or on legitimate practices of the Church. AND there is SO much ignorance! Take this “4th Secret of Fatima,” nonsense as an example. Do people think the Church is going to LIE to the faithful?!!?!? Why do “traditionalists” so easily buy into conspiracy theories? Why do they listen to Fr. Grunner instead of the Magisterium of the Church? Fr. Grunner in one hand, Joseph Ratzinger in the other. Who ya gonna call?
**It’s absurd and it should be treated as the absurdity that it is. It’s ignorance on both sides, as well. The idea that the Mass can ONLY be in Latin is as absurd as the idea that it can NEVER be in Latin. The idea that the laity MUST receive from both Sacred Species is as absurd as the idea that they may NEVER receive from both Sacred Species, etc., etc. And when either camp tries to browbeat others, yup, I’m going to say something. **

And yes, you do attack without warrant. If you think differently, I refer you to this:

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=2739201&postcount=136

AND

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=2724920&postcount=32

You can also click on your name, then go to all of your posts. “Attack without warrant” is indeed an apt way to put it.

Thanks, Kettle. Nice work.

No problem, Pot!:wink:

A majority of you are taking it personal, instead of staying with the topic which is way of course…

My comment to JKirk was off topic, but I was only making a point…

I will confess my Latin use and knowledge (from 1959-61) is lacking, but I am trying to aquire it again…

Pax tecum

And I hope you didn’t find my answer flip. Contrary to what some may imagine, I don’t hate Latin. I simply prefer the Mass in the vernacular.

I do like this quote by Fr. Richsteig of Orthometer…

Liturgy is first and foremost concerned with the worship of God. It is about God.

Corollary to the First Principal:

Liturgy is not about us; our needs, desires, and/or identities.

If something does change in the parishes around me I will gladly post the info…

I agree with the first principal, but not so much with the corollary:
It is, indeed, about us. It’s what WE offer to HIM, our worship. And it IS about our needs, because we take things away from worship that we need, both large and small, the large being the reception of the Most Sacred Body and the Most Precious Blood of Christ, as well as any other graces. The Mass is supposed to take root in our hearts and bear fruit. I think it is intended to be about both God and us and the intimate, covenant that exists between us (due entirely to grace of God) and about our identity as the Sons and Daughters of God in that covenant. So I would respectfully disagree with Fr. Richsteig.

JKirk,

The Liturgy may be for us/you but not about us/you, and it’s not what we/you get, it’s what we/you give …

Pax

So we’re supposed to get nothing out of the Mass? I very, very seriously doubt that that is the teaching of the Church. We’re supposed to get grace and strength from it, at the very least.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.