[sinkspur]

What I want is a more strict interpretation of the rubrics as laid down in the Vatican II documentation. It's the "do it yourself" mass I want gone.

Well, I disagree here. I like the options provided by the current GIRM rubrics, which includes a variety of Eucharistic Prayers. I like the English liturgy; if somebody wants to sprinkle in some Latin on occasion, fine.

I also like the three-year cycle of Scripture readings.

I don't care for the administration of the sacrament of Baptism during Sunday liturgies, but I know which Masses to avoid where this is regularly done.

[SoothingDave]

What I want is a more strict interpretation of the rubrics as laid down in the Vatican II documentation. It's the "do it yourself" mass I want gone.

Well, I disagree here. I like the options provided by the current GIRM rubrics, which includes a variety of Eucharistic Prayers. I like the English liturgy; if somebody wants to sprinkle in some Latin on occasion, fine.

Apples and oranges, Sinky. Apples and oranges.

If the priests in this country and the bishops would just say the Mass according to the GIRM, we would be in a fine state. No one is against legitimate options that are provided for in the rubrics.

What we abhor is the "make it up yourself" things that are allowed to happen.

Surely you can tell the difference between an authorized option to use Eucharistic prayers 1 or 2 or 3 or 4, and a bishop ripping out kneelers so people are discuoraged from doing what the rubrics say? Can you tell the difference between the legitimate option of doing the Confeitor or doing the Kyrie and the practice of the preist leaving words out of the Creed that he doesn't agree with?

SD