Posted on 06/04/2002 3:03:30 AM PDT by maryz
I'm laughing with you. And I must say that it's probably not nice, even though laughter is mostly uncontrollable (especially when home alone and reading FR forum posts), to laugh at what amounts to another person's delusions.
My God we could sure use her here right now. Seems like nobody has the fortitude to really address this problem right now in the Church?
The question stands...
That's a false statement. The Novus Ordo Mass has become so altered and distorted, thanks to extreme interpretations and liberties taken by priests and bishops, that it varies greatly from parish to parish within the same diocese. I know of many Catholics who search out different churches to find a more "respectful" Novus Ordo Mass than that which is geographically closest to them.
Examples: Some congregations stand, some sit and some kneel during the Eucharistic Prayers, some chuches have the tabernacle front and center on the altar,(if there even is an altar remaining), others have it hidden in a "day chapel", out of view.
Your captioned statement was true in the 1950's, when the only difference in the Mass was what local language the sermon was spoken in. It's not true anymore.
Why are you asking me that question? Are you confused? I have never said that Pope Paul VI promulgated a mass contrary to the faith. I don't appreciate your insinuation that I have...
Charity is the highest of virtues...
You're ignorant of "the infallibility thing". Lurk on some Roman Catholic threads and you'll see plenty of criticism of priests, bishops and yes, even the Pope.
Notice, I didn't say that you were not Catholic. I said IF YOU THINK THAT, you aren't Catholic. Big difference.
Yes, I do know a modicum of history and I have seen that particular quote of Bellarmine's used incessantly by both schismatics and sedevacantists.
I also know that Bellarmine would rhetorically bitch-slap anyone who appropriated his thoughts to defend either schism or sedevacantism.
If you have ever seen the normative Mass celebrated on EWTN, I doubt you would think it was "radically changed." I used to drive 90 miles, one way, to St. Robert Bellarmine in Miami to attend the Indult Mass. I also like the 1962 Roman Missal but hee Mass of Pope Paul VI is supposed to be the normative Mass for every single Catholic. A special motu proprio was issued for those with an attachment to the 1962 Roman Missal and it is a mistake to think that will be the Liturgy one hundred years from now.
Liturgies change but the Mass remains. The Roman Canon itself was changed over the years. Prior to Pope Siricius, Mass was in Greek. Ought the Catholics of 400 a.d. to have started rebelling and establish a specific order in opposition to Rome - the Society of Pope Hyacinth - to celebrate the "mass of all times" the Greek Mass?
Hey, it sounds good to me. But then to us "change" is a bad word.
It is delightful to find something here which makes you laugh aloud. I am glad you did.
I don't think your statement that the canon has changed over time is specific enough. The Roman Canon was fixed at the time of Gregory the Great. It remained unchanged until Pope John XXIII inserted St. Joseph's name into the Canon, causing a great uproar. Of course now, the canon no longer exists. You can't have multiple canons, it denies the meaning of the word.
I have seen the Mass on EWTN, and I must say that I disagree with you. I do see it as a radical change. Aside from the smells and bells, and the Latin, it is no different from the most outlandish charismatic mass. I have attended very reverent Novus Ordo masses, even in Latin, and they depress me just as much as the worst Novus Ordo masses. As to what the mass will look like in 100 years, who knows?
Let me not mince words. A priest occupies a position of trust to be true to moral behavior and a Christ-like model for all to follow. A homosexual priest using his position to carry out his base desires upon an innocent adolescent and to then be protected by his superiors is the lowest evil.
I believe the proper penalty for these corruptors of youths is not removal from the priesthood but life in prison. Were a homosexual priest to molest any member of my family and be set free or protected because it's a first offense, neither he nor his superiors would ever be seen again. Guaranteed!
You appear to have a difficult time following my points. This has happened on this thread before. My comments, AGAIN, were directed specifically to the question as to whether a Pope can promulgate an invalid Mass
I don't think your statement that the canon has changed over time is specific enough. The Roman Canon was fixed at the time of Gregory the Great. It remained unchanged until Pope John XXIII inserted St. Joseph's name into the Canon, causing a great uproar. Of course now, the canon no longer exists. You can't have multiple canons, it denies the meaning of the word.
I will have to go and look it up but, yes, the Roman Canon has been changed frequently throughout history. Jungmann speaks of "thousands of changes" in the Liturgy but I don't have his book before me.
Of course you can have multiple canons - we have them now, and we have had them previously throughout the history of the Church.
I have seen the Mass on EWTN, and I must say that I disagree with you. I do see it as a radical change. Aside from the smells and bells, and the Latin, it is no different from the most outlandish charismatic mass. I have attended very reverent Novus Ordo masses, even in Latin, and they depress me just as much as the worst Novus Ordo masses. As to what the mass will look like in 100 years, who knows?
If a reverent Mass "depresses" you, then I suggest the problem isn't Liturgical
I, personally, find even a "very reverent Novus Ordo mass", although licit and valid, inferior to the Tridentine Mass. I wish the cardinals, bishops and priests obeyed the Pope's "Eccelsia Dei" and made the Tridentine Mass more available to all those that yearn for it.
Almost all my reading was from sources opposed to the Mass of Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council. It was only when I began to read other sources that I realised the poor quality of the histories I had been reading, the errors I had been imbibing, and the schism I was courting.
Since that time, I have reread Vatican Two, Jungmann's Roman Rite History and many other orthodox works. I came to realise I had been lied to in tendentious works meant to supplant Divinely-Constituted authority with private judgement, special pleading, emergency situations etc etc.
I now go to a reverent normative Mass celebrated by a convert from So. Baptism; and, yes, I think Paul's Liturgy is every bit as good as the 1962 Roman Missal.
I do think the Pope ought to be obeyed in ALL things; including a wide and generous application of Ecclesia Dei and I think folks ought to be able to worship in peace in union with the local Bishop and the Pope
Look, I am one who spends an inordinate amount of time dealing with Chancellors in various Dioceses concerning Liturgical anomie I have witnessed. I am not defending Liturgical anomie. I was just trying to make the point that the Mass of Paul VI is what the vast majority have available to them.
The Mass is still the Mass however irreverently it is celebrated. The Pope has done what he can to eliminate the abuses - but our Bishops won't comply and we allow our Bishops to get away with it.
We have got to STOP expecting others to fight our fights. We can nip this anomie in the bud with collective action and witholding our tithes. Make it public. Picket. Call the Media; you don't think they wouldn't LOVE photos of Catholics picketing their Chancery?
The Pope has apologised to us in an Encyclical for the abuses in the Liturgy we have sufferred. He has done what he can and now we must act
This is just unreal. This one's not about the PCness of tolerating homosexuals. They are tolerating plain ole fornication without even trying to put up a veneer of any kind. I can't get over it. How can this young man be considered a serious candidate for the priesthood at ALL? What is the rationale for letting this occur? I think these guys, the practicing gays and openly fornicating heteros see the whole vocation of the priesthood as nothing but a glorifed social worker.
Dominicae Cenae, Feb 24, 1980 "As I bring these considerations to an end, I would like to ask forgiveness - in my own name and in the name of all of you for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, and at times partial erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, mayhave caused scandal concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due this great Sacrament."
We can't always demand others act when we won't
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.