Posted on 11/29/2004 10:05:10 AM PST by heyheyhey
Edited on 11/29/2004 8:30:17 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WHile all of that is true and good (good ol' St. Justin! have a peek at CCC 1345), in THIS day and age the Eucharist is terribly profaned by lukewarm, or sadly, non-believeing Catholics (and we'll use that term gingerly), clergy and laity alike. This would NOT have been so to the degree it is today back then (especially with the development of the doctrine on the Eucharist).
I do accept the new Mass but I do not believe the council Fathers intentions were to "go back" to the first century Church's way of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice.
It is quite apparent, given the documents coming out of Rome in the last 10-15 years, that the Pope and his Curia are greatly concerned about how the Sacred Liturgy is being celebrated.
A good start would be for EVERY diocese in this country to implement Redemptionis Sacramentum. Then we should all get on our faces and beg our heavenly Father for mercy for the grevious way His Son and His sacrifice has been handled/conducted since the close of the council at the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
At least SOME Latin in the Novus Ordo would be very welcomed (maybe some of you are priviledged to have this in your local N.O. parish).
Peace, Sinky
Sorry for the seeming pedantry, but sometimes the details matter.
I believe the term was "ephebophilia", and it's just mod psychobabble for what the fags themselves call "chickenhawking" (homosexual predation on 10-15 y/o boys) and what an earlier age called "pederasty".
That's right!
The scandal was more about homosexuals than pedophiles.
Genderless and misguiding term "pedophilia" was adopted by the media to conceal the very root of the problem.
You'll never hear from television that Michael Jackson likes to sleep with little boys, instead he always sleeps with "children."
And before that, there were early "churches" that observed Mosaic law, rites, and heirarchy. Do you advocate a "return" to those practices? The "historical" excuses for the abuses introduced by Vatican II are not only on shaky factual ground, but a slippery slope leading nowhere, meant for no other purpose but to intriduce the protestant rite that is the Novus Ordo.
Of course, this is probably not the place to have this discussion...
Again, all of the elements of the Mass are unchanged in the Novus Ordo. The sacrificial language is still there, and the communal nature of the Mass is stressed as well.
I can understand your desire for the Tridentine Mass, and every bishop should generously allow for its celebration.
Problem is, VII, even when read charitably, allows vernacular variation from the Tridentine Mass. Once you allow variation, you introduce novelty. You may prefer some Latin, another may prefer something else. The bottom line is that when you you no longer have a universal Church. There is no denying "lex orandi, lex credendi."
By not dealing with the real problems, the bishops become party to the self-destruction of the church. It's disgusting. When I actually still worked at a Jesuit university, I felt like throwing up at the treason and anti-Catholic intrigues I witnessed.
IHS+
Are you sure about it?
Here are links to St. Justin's texts, would you be able to find a quote?
Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks
Justin on the Sole Government of God.
I think the "apostolicity" of the liturgy is important too. For example, the Eastern rites of Church could be considered to be "variation" too.
Why don't you quote something from VII documents you don't agree with?
But they don't. My supposedly "conservative" bishop expressly refuses to permit it at all. His actually conservative predecessor also refused to permit it. In no diocese that I'm aware of is the Tridentine Mass allowed "generously" by the local Ordinary. Have you ever expressed your displeasure to these disobedient bishops?
Only in the ranks of so-called "conservatives." After electing a very liberal president, more "conservative" bishops were slated for director of liturgy. But instead the ultra-liberal Trautman who was already in charge of liturgy back in the nineties was nominated from the floor, and won the vote. Sounds like the liberals still know how to put together enough votes to win whenever they feel like it.
Brave men like Chaput, and many of the new Bishops (Rhoades of Harrisburg is one) espouse Father Haley's ideals.
Dead wrong. Read again what Fr. Haley said. Not one bishop has supported him. Not one bishop has come to his defense. Not one bishop high-ranking official has been penalized for gross malfeasance, while a good priest like Fr. Haley suffers for year after year.
The fag bishops are on their way out--and they know it.
It would seem that Fr. Haley has a much better view of the matter than you do. And he disagrees emphatically. The fag bishops have a hammerlock on all ecclesial power, and they are not letting go anytime soon.
In the early days of the Church the faithful frequently carried the Blessed Eucharist with them to their homes (cf. Tertullian, "Ad uxor.", II, v; Cyprian, "De lapsis", xxvi) or upon long journeys (Ambrose, De excessu fratris, I, 43, 46), while the deacons were accustomed to take the Blessed Sacrament to those who did not attend Divine service (cf. Justin, Apol., I, n. 67), as well as to the martyrs, the incarcerated, and the infirm (cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xliv). The deacons were also obliged to transfer the particles that remained to specially prepared repositories called Pastophoria (cf. Apostolic Constitutions, VIII, xiii). [1]
Far from being "that which is most holy in the Church," the New Mass is a sacrilege which is destroying the holy Catholic Church. Apparently the total devastation experienced for the past 35 years hasn't been enough to convince you, but don't worry, the evidence of corruption and degradation and God's anger will continue to pour in for as long as the New Mass continues to be offered. Perhaps there will come a time when you will finally wake up.
Well put. But "who will bell the cat?" No one within the current hierarchy, that's for sure. They are all in on the program. Reform can only come from outside pressure.
Mine does. But he puts the threshold at a minimum of 100 people, since he has to import a priest from Dallas to celebrate it. We have one Tridentine Mass, on Sunday, that draws 200 people.
Have you ever expressed your displeasure to these disobedient bishops?
No. I'm not personally inclined to attend a Tridentine Mass again, ever.
His magnanimity is staggering ... Words fail me ...
Catholics should pray with Protestants (Unitatis Redintegratio, §§4,8). The Church of Christ "subsists in" (not is) the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium, §8), and is thus also in “separated Churches” (Ut Unum Sint,3 §11). All the baptized are in Christ’s Church (Ut Unum Sint, §42)which ought to be as sisters (Unitatis Redintegratio, §14).
How's that for a start?
In other words, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." You want us to believe that the Catholic Church had the biggest revolution in its 2000-year history, and then everything that we have experienced since then has no connection to the fact that we have a New Mass, and a New Faith, and a New Morality. But there is no cause and effect relationship. Right.
I suppose you also want us to believe that it is simply a post hoc ergo propter hoc error to believe that any of the atrocities in the Soviet Union had anything to do with the Bolshevik Revolution.
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.