Where Have All the FR Protestants Gone? [A Month Later]

drstevej

[drstevej]

Thread from last month...

------------

Where Have All the FR Protestants Gone?
drstevej

Posted on 04/08/2003 12:29 PM CDT by drstevej

OBSERVATIONS:

[1] There seems to be a significantly reduced number of Protestant Threads (KJV Only being the exception for sure) in the FR Religion Forum.

[2] There seems to be a reduced number of FR Protestant posts in the Religion Forum.

This thread is a place to discuss these observations.

------------

Now the transformation to a Catholic Religion Forum is almost complete. Must be a Marian miracle or an answer to Jim Robinson's prayer, "Can't we all just get along?" Now all the dissent is within the RC fold ... NO Mass vs. Tridentine Mass. Boredom has descended, the moderators are free to nap without fear of an **** awakening them.

Could someone arrange for a funeral mass? (a clown mass in this case might be in order).

 

-- Pope Piel  I (thinking of abdicating prior to even assuming the Chair of Peter)

[SoothingDave]

You list legitimate abuses. I'm glad I don't have those kinds of things going on.

a drunk priest trying to get me to go into the confessional during Mass (that's what I get for standing in the back during Mass - but hey, that's OK at the Novus Ordo);

What do you think is "hey, that's OK"?

SD

[Aloysius]

hey, that's OK"?

Standing in the back of Church during Mass.

[Aloysius]

Do you like the Novus Ordo on EWTN?

Never seen it. I don't have cable.

[SoothingDave]

Standing in the back of Church during Mass.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Is this forbidden in the Tridentine Rite? If too many people show up do the ushers just tell them to go home?

What point are you making?

SD

[Aloysius]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Is this forbidden in the Tridentine Rite? If too many people show up do the ushers just tell them to go home?

I was just poking fun at myself for standing in the back of Church during Mass (not because there weren't enough seats, but because I was a kid and didn't like sitting next to anybody). Then I indicated that it was acceptable to stand during the Novus Ordo (which was another attempt at hunor). I should have been more clear. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[SoothingDave]

All right. I understand. The problem with attempting humor in a thread like this is that people will, in all seriousness, say some outrageous things about the NO. So it is hard to parody.

SD

[ultima ratio]

You need lecturing. You show a lot of ignorance in addition to having a penchant for responding in an aggressive, surly way. You didn't have a clue about the nature of the sacrifice of the Mass and know even less about the radical changes imposed by the Novus Ordo. You ask me continuously to prove the obvious, such as the fact that the priest's role has been converted to that of a "presider" in the Lutheran fashion, or that the Real Presence is ignored in the Novus Ordo in favor of the Virtual Presence of Christ in the Word and in the assembly.

Let's begin with the latter. The Consecration of the bread and wine has just taken place in the Novus Ordo. Then what happens? Does the priest turn to the Father Almighty with a prayer of propitiation or supplication as he offers to Him the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ? Far from it. With the Real Presence on the altar, he turns to the ASSEMBLY to ask it to RECALL that Christ has died, has risen, and WILL COME again--totally ignoring what had just happened. And so it goes, thoroughly protestantizing the liturgical action from that point on. Does he even ask the assembly to show adoration? Not on your life. Communion is distributed in the hand by lay ministers placed on an equal footing with the priest--in other words, in the Protestant way--kneeling is prohibited, no external expression of acknowledging the Divine Presence is permitted. Our wonderful selves, singing something innane such as One Bread One Body, become the focus of our attention. And all this is only one part of the corruption of the whole. These little protestantizing touches permeate the new Mass, starting with the dumping of the Offertory and proceeding to emulate the commemorative meal that was specifically condemned by Trent.

As for your claim that I rant, that I have marginalized myself, that I don't prove what I say--you are fairly new to these threads if you think that I have not provided proof after proof until my fingers are numb from typing--and refuted not only you--but twenty others as clueless as you at the same time. Nor am I at all marginalized as you seem to believe since I am a drop in a rising tide of a flood which is sweeping the world and which the Vatican is having a dickens of a time opposing. It is having a rough time because it has departed from Catholic Tradition and took millions of Catholics along for its modernist ride. Now it is having misgivings--as it views the wreckage of its own fecklessness the past forty years.

[SoothingDave]

You need lecturing. You show a lot of ignorance in addition to having a penchant for responding in an aggressive, surly way. You didn't have a clue about the nature of the sacrifice of the Mass and know even less about the radical changes imposed by the Novus Ordo.

You keep saying. Have you any proof?

I don't need to listen to you. The ridiculousness of schismatic scholarship was on display yesterday. They can't go 2 paragraphs without missing the entire meaning of a text. It's comical.

You ask me continuously to prove the obvious, such as the fact that the priest's role has been converted to that of a "presider" in the Lutheran fashion, or that the Real Presence is ignored in the Novus Ordo in favor of the Virtual Presence of Christ in the Word and in the assembly.

Duh. Maybe it's not "obvious" and that's why proof is required. You are so far turned inward you can't see how silly you sound.

Let's begin with the latter. The Consecration of the bread and wine has just taken place in the Novus Ordo. Then what happens? Does the priest turn to the Father Almighty with a prayer of propitiation or supplication as he offers to Him the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ? Far from it. With the Real Presence on the altar, he turns to the ASSEMBLY to ask it to RECALL that Christ has died, has risen, and WILL COME again--totally ignoring what had just happened. And so it goes, thoroughly protestantizing the liturgical action from that point on.

Yeah, you don't like the liturgy. It's coming through loud and clear. Because your favorite buzzwords aren't there, it must be a sinister plot. LOL

Does he even ask the assembly to show adoration? Not on your life.

Come to my parish. While we are "totally ignoring" what is happening we are on our knees. We do this as a sign of faith in the True Presence of Christ in the transubstantiated Body and Blood on the altar.

Ooops, I'm not supposed to know that. LOL

Communion is distributed in the hand by lay ministers placed on an equal footing with the priest--in other words, in the Protestant way--kneeling is prohibited, no external expression of acknowledging the Divine Presence is permitted.

Kneeling is not prohibited, neither is "external expression" of the Presence. If you have to lie to make you point, that speaks for itself.

Good day, dont' lecture me again.

SD

[Aloysius]

Kneeling is not prohibited,

In some places it is prohibited (despite the Vatican's directives)and in many places it is strongly discouraged.

[SoothingDave]

In some places it is prohibited (despite the Vatican's directives)and in many places it is strongly discouraged.

Depends on how much you want to kneel, doesn't it?

I don't question that there are dissidents who do such things, but that is not the result of "vatican II" or the NO Mass. It is the result of disobedience.

SD

[Aloysius]

but that is not the result of "vatican II" or the NO Mass.

I disagree. Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass have de-emphasized the Real Presence. When this is done, it makes it much easier for a priest to convince the faithful that kneeling is inappropriate. It also make the faithful less likely to challenge the priest who forbids the kneeling. Vatican II and the Novus Ordo create an atmosphere of ambivalence. I know this because I experienced it.

[SoothingDave]

I disagree. It's all about who is running the diocese and parishes. I experienced a lifetime of NO Masses and it did not lead to my parish lacking a respect for the Real Presence.

We kneel, we genuflect, we have Adoration. You can't post hoc ergo propter hoc everything.

Why your parish and not mine? It's not the Mass, it's the leaders.

SD

[Aloysius]

You can't post hoc ergo propter hoc everything.

The new Mass, said according to the rubrics, de-emphasizes the Real Presence relative to the Tridentine Mass. This you cannot argue against with a straight face.

[SoothingDave]

The new Mass, said according to the rubrics, de-emphasizes the Real Presence relative to the Tridentine Mass.

Relatively, I would agree. But that is not to say the emphasis is completely removed, which is the usual argument.

We genuflect on the way into the pew. We kneel after the Sanctus until after the Amen. The priest genuflects after consecrating each element.

We kneel again after the Agnus Dei. The only thing missing is the Communion Rail. But you can't say that people are missing the idea that God is present from our posture.

SD

[drstevej]

Protestant

[SoothingDave]

Careful with that image -- kinda looks like a Communion wafer.

SD

[wideawake]

I disagree with this completely. If you read the schismatics carefully, most of them will accept nothing short of the restoration of the Tridentine Mass, the suppression of the Novus Ordo (GIRM or otherwise), and the complete repudiation of Vatican II.

This is the belief of the hardest of the hardcore.

Remember that there were those who schismatized over the First Vatican Council, as well as those who schismatized over Pope Pius XII's new Psalter and the changes in the liturgy of Holy Week.

If 95% of traditionalists knew that they were guaranteed a proper Tridentine Mass in their local parish, they would come back.

Not many would insist on banning the NO because they believe, as I do, that the NO would gradually wither on the vine if the Tridentine were widely available.

Besides, it is unCatholic to suppress approved rites.

I don't think bishops would stigmatize priests who want to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. I really don't.

I disagree. My own pastor has a kind of understanding with the local ordinary - he will allow the Tridentine Mass in our parish as long as my pastor doesn't "proselytize" for it. He has been forbidden from inviting the NO attendees to Tridentine Masses and from suggesting Tridentine baptisms, weddings or burials - he only baptized my daughter according to the Tridentine Rite because I specifically requested: he would not have brought it up to me for fear of angering the ordinary.

The Tridentine Mass should be offered, but not jammed down anybody's throat.

Precisely. I believe the merits of the Tridentine Rite are self-evident. It is inappropriate to try to "sell" it to Catholics.

[drstevej]

Vatican II                Trent

                    

[Longshanks]

Am I to assume there were no saints for the first 600 or so years until Gregory I instituted the Tridentine Mass as the "standard"? Prior to that time the Mass was in the vernacular.

Before then, Latin was the vernacular in the West. Popes Gregory and Pius V only codified existing practices. They did not create a "new order" as did Pope Paul VI.

[pegleg]

Before then, Latin was the vernacular in the West.

Yes it was and here is an interesting tidbit from the from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Until the middle of the third century the Christian community at Rome was in the main a Greek speaking one. The Liturgy was celebrated in Greek, and the apologists and theologians wrote in Greek until the time of St. Hippolytus, who died in 235. … Greek was the chosen language of the clerics, to begin with, but Latin was the more familiar speech for the majority of the faithful, and it must have soon taken the lead in the Church, since Tertullian, who wrote some of his earlier works in Greek, ended by employing Latin only. ….But even before these writers various local Churches must have seen the necessity of rendering into Latin the texts of the Old and New Testaments, the reading of which formed a main portion of the Liturgy. This necessity arose as soon as the Latin speaking faithful became numerous,"

I wonder if there was an uproar from the traditionalists when Greek was abandoned in favor of the more popular Latin?