Posted on 01/05/2015 10:25:43 AM PST by CedarDave
Although I agree with your sentiment, I’m not sure why you’re blaming the changes on Benedict. That was all John XXIII’s and Paul VI’s doing. John XXIII paved the way and Paul VI executed it. And the changes he made to the Mass were just the tip of the iceberg.
That is basically word for word what the priest has always said in the Latin Mass (in Latin of course). In fact, he would say it three times. So actually, in this case, the change was an attempt to return to some semblance of Tradition.
Good grief. Did he make sure to include some Muslim cardinals?
So, would that be 14 “diverse” Modernists?
That is so not true. The change of the mass was done under the worst pope in history Benedict.
I know what you are saying, go back to the source. But too many of us out here have never learned to speak Latin. It would be even worse for engaging young people than the gobbeldy-gook we are throwing at them now.
The number of Catholics who understand Latin is likely under 20%, and dropping by hundreds each day via the obituary column.
Actually everything I said is true. However, perhaps we are talking about different things. What change of the mass are you talking about? The relatively recent translation word/phrase changes?
Oh, please, get over yourself. "I am not worthy ... soul shall be healed" is the correct, accurate, word-for-word translation of the Latin text of the missal, which is exactly the same text that has appeared, word for word, in the Roman Missal for at least 500 years, and probably more like 1500 years.
In the old rite, it was repeated three times; in the new, it's said only once. That's the only difference.
"Lord, not I am worthy"
"ut intres sub tectum meum:"
"such that you should come under roof mine"
"sed tantum dic verbo,"
"but only say [the] word
"et sanabitur anima mea"
"and shall be healed soul mine"
A “cardinal” isn’t a Biblical church office.
Very beautiful costumes though.
Certainly that was not necessary. I can empathize with Buckeye in that if the Mass was never changed in the first place (you know by Paul VI in the 60's), all Catholics would be still be on the same page and this wouldn't even be an issue. If it was never changed, Buckeye would know that the "under my roof" was fully Catholic and traditional. Now, most Catholics are clueless.
Of course it's true, as a cursory examination of any pre-Paul VI missal would reveal.
Saving that for next year. :)
Neither have I. Following a Latin Missal (with English translations) isn't really all that hard. Not knowing Latin is just an excuse for most.
“I wish the Pope would allow us to go back to the Mass I grew up with.”
Already happened. I go to the Latin Mass (1962). You might not live near where one is offered.
“Go back to Vatican II already.”
That would be the Mass of 1962 (the Latin Mass). There really was no “Vatican II” Mass other than that one.
“I went through 13 years of Catholic School and memorized every word of the Mass and went to Mass every week for 40 years and that horrible Pope Benedict had to screw it up.”
Actually the CORRECT TRANSLATION was ordered by Pope JHohn Paul II - years before Benedict became pope.
“No wonder people are leaving the church.......”
You mean no one left before November 2012? Really?
“what made him change the entire Mass?????????”
He loves the Mass enough to want it to be correctly translated.
“Even yesterday I was mumbling how dumb a move it was as I say every Sunday.”
Murmuring, mumbling, grumbling. None of that is going to change anything.
“Pope Benedict was the worst Pope we have ever had....and quit his post to boot.”
Worst pope we ever had??? Man, do you ever need to read a history book or two.
I wouldn’t worry about that bit, there’s not anything biblical about the entire RC religion.
Read your bible objectively and compare it with their teachings, you’ll see.
“I know what you are saying, go back to the source. But too many of us out here have never learned to speak Latin.”
You don’t need to speak it. All you have to do is be able to read English.
“It would be even worse for engaging young people than the gobbeldy-gook we are throwing at them now.”
Actually, no. Young Catholics LOVE the Latin Mass. This is often a big surprise to them. They often show up thinking it will be interesting in some way, but that they won’t particularly like it. After three visits they already know what to do and when in Mass (they’re kids, they pick up everything fast). It’s not unusual for my parish to have a dozen of more altar boys at a low Mass (and as 26 for some big celebration and that must be only half the altar boys they can count on for Mass). Don’t tell me kids aren’t attracted to the old Mass. They are. I’ve seen it.
“The number of Catholics who understand Latin is likely under 20%, and dropping by hundreds each day via the obituary column.”
Actually the number is smaller than 20% - and probably growing rather than getting smaller. Plenty of people studied Latin in school - and then forgot it afterward. Home schoolers are changing that, however. The growth in the Latin Mass is changing that too.
“The one that gets me is the last piece of the Eucharistic Prayer. “I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” Not even biblical. In Matthew 8:8 the centurion was clearly asking fro a physical healing. In changing this the Church is trying to deny they take place. We must not monkey with the text of Scripture.”
Your comment is bizarre. Your body receives the Eucharist, but your soul receives the Grace! Do you even realize that the 1970 way of saying it...
“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and ****I**** shall be healed.”
...still includes the SOUL too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.