Posted on 01/18/2002 1:10:57 PM PST by Notwithstanding
Jesus is in both places.
Hey, Catholics just got called "Not true Christians" as a FACT over on the site I was just on. Now that is something we can disagree on!
This statistic alone speaks volumes about the fruitfulness of the Novus Ordo. Having only 6 out of 10 parishoners attending Mass weekly would considered disgraceful before Vatican 2.
Let me ask you something: how many vocations has your parish produced since 1970?
The Catholic Church is in severe decline throughout the Western world. Scant vocations, Scant conversions, and a majority of people calling themselves Catholic no longer attend Mass on Sunday. Many Parishes in the US and Europe don't even have a priest. In some parts of the country, there's one priest to a dozen parishes, so parishoners only get to assist at Mass every 2 weeks or more. The situation is not good. I do have faith that things will get better, however.
In Asia and Africa, I hear, things are better, but then I also hear that the faith is being polluted by tribal superstition. I've seen newstories of Africans trying to incorporate animal sacrifices and witch doctors into the Mass. But then again, I haven't seen any of this first hand, so I take it all with a grain of salt.
Speaking only for myself, I have doubts that I would have begun the process of converting to Catholicism if it had been solely in Latin.
The sermon and the readings were in the vernacular, and the Church encouraged people to follow the Mass in Missals which had Latin and the vernacular side by side, so people did know what was being said.
In my opinion, however, changing to the vernacular is the change to which I object the least. It is the deletion of so many beautifull centuries-old prayers and rubrics, and their replacement with the concoctions of some committee, that I disagree with most. Even if both were said in the vernacular, there is a world of difference between the old Mass and the New.
Of course, the New Mass is still a valid Mass, so the most important thing remains unchanged.
Anyone in the Chicago area wanting choices of BOTH the two Novus Ordo Masses (English, Latin) AND the Tridentine Mass should visit the dynamic Parish Church of Saint John Cantius in the Windy City.
When a person not only violates a basic teaching of the church but used their position of public authority to undermine the position, shouldn't you at least consider suspending their church membership (i.e. their claim to wrap themselves in the cloth of Catholicism while opposing the the moral teachings of the church) . . . or, in extreme cases, excommunication?
Continued tolerance for this sort of behavior will eventually lead the Catholic church down the same path as Liberal Mainline sects-- i.e. Christianity becomes nothing more than a cover to do whatever one's "social conscience" tells them to-- including handouts for winos while making no attempt to reach their soul because Christianity "might" offend them, performing homosexual marriages and all the other garbarge.
I say this not to be critical of your church (I think your Pope is a hell of a good moral influence on Christiandom and its refreshing to have someone come out foursquare against this feel-good do-it-yourself social gospel nonsense), but maybe so you could ask your priest. I'd be interested in what he has to say.
Our Church had already become a very active agency for the left-wing, nihilistic, socialist schemes of the federal government-accepting & dispersing vast sums of TAX money to carry out social engineering of the worst sort. Prior to the horrid attacks on the altar-boys, we already had great difficulty with these left-wing policies. The Church aids & assists the very invasion of this country by criminal aliens-& heartily approves of their behavior.
We have looked into the Old Rites, hoping to find the more conservative vein of the Church, but find the policy 'allowing' the celebration of the Rite to be so discriminatory as to appear like a punishment of those who seek to follow in tradition.
Obviously, the Church will endure, but, in Its current state, without our support.
As easy as it may be, please don't check out. We need real Catholics in the pews. Remember, your suffering is not going unnoticed by Rome or unrewarded by God.
www.unavoce.org www.rcf.org
The so-called Tridentine Mass is that rite of Mass promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in his 1570 declaration Quo Primum. In promulgating this rite, St. Pius V was following the directives of the Council of Trent (the Latin word for Trent is "Tridentum" -- that's where the name comes from), which hoped to better maintain Church unity through a uniform practice of worship. Nevertheless, St. Pius V allowed the co-existence of a few other rites (e.g., the Dominican, Ambrosian, Carthusian, Oriental, etc.) because they had been in continuous use for over 200 years.
The rite of Mass that St. Pius V applied to the whole Church was actually the rite of Mass as then celebrated in the Diocese of Rome. In fact, in all its essentials, it was the way that Mass was celebrated in Rome by the 4th Century. Therefore, it is better to call it the "Classical Mass" rather than the "Tridentine Mass," since its pre-dates the Council of Trent by many centuries.
In October of 1962, the Fathers of Vatican Council II re-examined the rite of Mass in response to long-standing criticisms of some of the complexities that had come to mark Catholic rituals over the centuries. The Fathers suggested that some minor changes be made to the rite of Mass, and that some vernacular language could be used in place of Latin if pastoral reasons so indicated.
The rite of Mass produced by Pope Paul VI's Consilium in 1969 bore little or no resemblance to the Mass envisioned by the Fathers of Vatican Council II. In essence, while the Vatican II Fathers had endorsed the idea of organic (i.e., slow, well-considered) changes naturally following the progress of previous developments in the rite, Pope Paul's Consilium produced an entirely new rite out of whole cloth. Worse yet, this new rite was created by a committee of bureaucrats.
Recent statements by confidantes of Paul VI suggest that he intended his new rite as an ecumencial sop to the most radical of Protestants. But, of course, the Prots weren't interested in window-dressing -- they wanted doctrinal change, and, even under Paul VI, they weren't gonna get it. The gates of hell won't prevail. Rather than satisfying the most radical of Protestants, Pope Paul seems only to have satisfied the most bourgeois of bourgeois Catholics, since the "New Rite," in all its bland, non-threatening comfort poses no intellectual or spiritual challenge to even the most indolent of the couch potato set.
Even non-Catholic artists and intellectuals were incensed with the New Rite, seeing in it a triumph of mediocrity over beauty. To compare the Classical Rite with the New Rite is to compare the Pantheon with a suburban strip mall.
The validity of the New Rite cannot be questioned -- after Paul VI heeded Cardinal Ottaviani's intervention that in its original Consilum-produced form, it was doctrinally unsound. On the other hand, the manner in which the New Rite was imposed on the Church and the outrageous mistranslations of presently used vernacular texts from the Latin are two of the great scandals of Christian history. And while Archbishop Lefebvre certainly should not have consecrated new bishops and provoked a schism, the brutal, dishonest, and back-stabbing treatment he received from both Vatican functionaries and the French bishops certainly mitigates his moral culpability.
In sum, the New Rite can be likened to a tragic pregnancy. In its conception, the New Rite is like a Down's Syndrome baby. In its imposition on the Catholic world, it is like a disastrously malpractice-ridden breech delivery. With the exception of those rare places where it is more-or-less celebrated according to the rules, the New Mass is like a Down's Syndrome child with several neurological palsies secondary to a problem delivery.
"With the exception of those rare places where it is more-or-less celebrated according to the rules..."
and assume that many of us are in parishes where the Novus Ordo is done correctly OR where we constantly and tirelessly lobby to correct the errors that exist in our parishes. (I have fallen intoboth categories during the last 5 years.) Otherwise you end up criticizing those who are actually on your side (people like me).
Communion in the hand is permitted in the United States by papal indult only -- i.e.an exception from the norm given by the Pope (with the implication that the Pope would rather not give it). The normative practice in the Universal Church remains reception directly on the tongue.
I have not been able to verify a related story that appeared in the Catholic press some years ago. In any event, after Mother Teresa had given an address, she was supposedly asked "What is the greatest tragedy in the world today?" The questioner, who was expecting an answer like "abortion" or "hunger," was somewhat surprised to hear the response, "the greatest tragedy in the world today is Communion in the hand." As I said, I haven't been able to verify the story, but I can definitely believe that a saint might say something like that.
What a strange and incomprehensible statement!
Since when is liturgical celebration supposed to be "challenging"?
the New Mass is like a Down's Syndrome child with several neurological palsies secondary to a problem delivery.
Another bit of blather that makes no sense.
You best stop using Down's Syndrome as an insult; some mother whose child has it might punch you in the nose.
I have not been able to verify a related story that appeared in the Catholic press some years ago. In any event, after Mother Teresa had given an address, she was supposedly asked "What is the greatest tragedy in the world today?" The questioner, who was expecting an answer like "abortion" or "hunger," was somewhat surprised to hear the response, "the greatest tragedy in the world today is Communion in the hand." As I said, I haven't been able to verify the story, but I can definitely believe that a saint might say something like that.
This sounds like something an SSPXer would attribute to Mother Teresa.
It's not true, of course. She said "abortion" in response to the question, but, hey, anything that serves the SSPX cause is OK, right?
Even putting lies in Mother Teresa's mouth.
You wanna say "abortion", I know, but just don't have the cajones to withstand the hell you'd catch if you did.
If the manner in which you express your contempt for the Novus Ordo is reflective of the SSPX in general, it's best that you stay right where you are.
You're just full of smears today, aren't you?
Who are these "confidants" (I suspect there aren't any) and could you provide links to their statements?
Or did you just make this up?
My comments about Paul VI's intentions were not an attempt at calumny, but, to the contrary, were an attempt to explain the thinking behind his otherwise inexplicable actions. My evidence for this is statements by assistants to Archbishop Bugnini, as well as an interview given in France by his former confessor (discussing matter other than that of the internal forum, of course). The priest definitely had a French-sounding name, but I don't remember it off-hand. If you'd like, you could "Google" on "Paul VI's confessor" or something like that and look for an interview that occurred one-to-two years ago.
Prayer is work, and as Paul VI himself said, "the Mass is the greatest form of prayer." Ideally, all work (and, therefore, prayer) challenges us so that we perform at our best. The greatness of the Classical Rite is that it challenges us to meditate on the great mystery of faith -- that of transubstantiation, God coming down upon the altar under the appearances of bread and wine. The sense of that great gift is something lost in the typical Novus Ordo celebration.
My use of a Down's Syndrome baby was meant to highlight the tragic nature of the liturgical reform and nothing more. But I'm sure you knew that.
Sorry to further inflame your chronically hyperemic constitution, but I do not make things up. Mother Teresa gave many, many addresses, and I'm sure that there are a few for which you don't have the transcript. Having said that, I will not further address your silly ad hominems, as neither I nor others (I'm sure) have the time for them.
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.