Posted on 07/27/2005 1:05:40 PM PDT by GF.Regis
This is a marvelous phrase and spot on descriptive of the dumbed down liturgy.
How old is she?
It's Friday and you said breast.
Greeting people isn't the issue it's the placement during the Sacrifice of the Mass. Putting it right after the Consecration tends to make the congregation think about themselves and; what seems like to conservatives, a veiled attempt to reduce contemplation of the Almighty which has become present to the congregation on the altar. It has nothing what so ever to do with greeting or not greeting our fellow Christians. Logically that should be at the beginning of the Mass. We are wary of this ceremonialistic greeting because, although it is good to have your friends and family in your prayers and to think about them, especially during the Mass, it is too easy for these formalisms to descend into a kind of egotistical trip when placed so close to the Consecration. At that point in the Mass we are suppose to be greeting God both in our hearts and collectively as the congregation.
Now that I think about it (amazing what sleep will do for you), none of the actual hymns listed are all that old.
Amazing Grace is either late 18th century or early 19th depending on who's history you read.
A Mighty Fortress is Luther so that is 16th century.
Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring (Zzzz) is Bach, so that's Baroque.
Compare that to "Tantum Ergo" and "Pange Lingua" which are St. Thomas Aquinas and 13th century. "Veni Veni Emmanuel" or "O Come O Come Emmanuel" is 8th or 9th century. All of that is chant and all have much more than three note up and three note down intervals. And all have text which is not heretical.
Check her out at
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/jp2.htm
Scroll to the bottom photo.
I'm not so sure. One goes to church for some time before Mass to prepare for it in prayer. I have a feeling that put at the beginning of Mass that would be counter-productive. No matter where they put it the way we do the sign of peace right now is disruptive. At the beginning of Mass it would REALLY be disruptive and take people out of the worship mode.
It's been on my profile page for a year. :-D
This is a marvelous phrase and spot on descriptive of the dumbed down liturgy.
Yes, but liturgical minimalism was also way too prevalent in the pre-conciliar years too. If and when the traditional Mass is restored, this matter will have to be rectified as well, because the last thing we need is to "dumb-down" the old Mass too through irreverent, rush-job, non-participatory Masses.
Hence too we see, when comparing the Mass with the sacrifice of our Lord, how aptly the Council declared: "For the Victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who once offered Himself on the Cross, only the manner of offering being different. (ibid.,). For the difference between our offering and the offering of Christ is this, that ours is altogether bloodless, while the offering of Christ on the Cross was in blood in the manner shown. Nevertheless there was not one offering on the Cross and another in the Supper, but it was numerically one same offering: made ritually in the Supper, continued morally on the Cross; all this because of the identity of the Priest and the Victim,a rational Victim whose constant will in suffering unto death was none other than the continued will of the Priest faithful in sacrifice to the end. Moreover in the Supper Christ offered without us, in the Mass He offers through us; hence again the manner of offering is different.In the third place, if we compare the Mass with the Supper, note with what truth Christ said Do this, namely, do what I have done; for apart from the difference of time it is absolutely the same. For the Supper looked to the immolation as future, the Mass looks to it as past. Hence it is that the Supper looked forward to the Passion, which the Mass presupposes. Therefore the sacrifice celebrated in the Supper was not completed immediately upon the consecration (and transubstantiation), but it continued on until Christ died. Our sacrifice of the Mass on the other hand, is completed immediately upon the consecration, because the immolation has already taken place. The difference between the Supper and the Mass therefore, is the difference between the offering of a victim to be immolated and the offering of a victim already immolated. This does not imply any particular excellence of the Mass as compared with the Supper, as if the Mass were in itself more complete as sacrifice than the Supper; for as we have said the Supper looks forward, the Mass presupposes. The Mass presupposes something which the Supper did not presuppose (for it had not yet taken place). The Supper looked forward to something to which the Mass does not look forward (for it has taken place). But each has its own complement in the immolation of the Passionthough differently, because of the difference in time.
Eagles' Wings' text certainly is not heretical.
It's the 91st Psalm
"Eagles' Wings' text certainly is not heretical. It's the 91st Psalm"
What version? Is this from the LXX or from the Protestant Bible? Just curious.
It's a paraphrase in some parts, but the text is the same as any English translation you read. Certainly nothing heretical has been inserted.
They're coming to take you away, uh-huh, they're coming to take you away...
The dissidents are really very scared. Good. Unfortunately, more tripe like this will continue to hit the irrelevant mainline press.
Go to confession instead of writing stupid, misinformed articles, 'K?
FYI, the Psalter is one of the parts of the OT most in error in the King James version of the OT. Even the D-R (translation of the OT into English from the Latin Vulgate), is not free from error. The only canonical Holy Scripture is the LXX and the only canonical translation into English of the LXX that I know of is that published by the Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, MA. If your paraphrase is not from that, how do I know it's not filled with heresies? Who's to say?
Yes, that is what I have been told, I was still a Protestant pre-teen in 1965. We have a very lovely Novus Ordo Mass at our parish in Detroit, Gregorian Chant, Latin, good polyphany and even very good Catholic Church music written in the 20th and 21st centuries. : ) You are correct that bad execution of the Tridentine Mass is something most definately not to be desired.
"You are correct that bad execution of the Tridentine Mass is something most definately not to be desired."
Would not want to go back to the real deal, to the original? Why settle for just Tridentine? How pallid!
Ummnnhhh...thanks.
The part about 'completion of the Sacrifice' would seem to be quite significant.
Your are probably right, I was thinking that if a congregation wanted to continue having this sort of thing it would be better to have it at the beginning than right after the Consecration. Greeting friends and family and visitors should be after Mass and is how it is done at my parish. Seeing pictures of my parish before 1965 ( I was not yet a Catholic), demonstrates quite clearly that they were a friendly bunch despite the lack of a formalized greeting during Mass even back in the "not so friendly" 1940s and 1950s. ;~) And, in fact we still are a friendly bunch of people.
When visiting other parishes the excesses I have witnessed can at times appear comical if it wasn't such a destraction. It always seems that at least some decide it is more important to demonstrate how friendly they are by walking up and down the aisles to meet and greet, rather than greeting God in their hearts.
You are a lucky (blessed rather) soul to have a viable Novus Ordo.
"You are correct that bad execution of the Tridentine Mass is something most definately not to be desired."
Unfortunately, this still exists. Here in Baltimore, we (those of my opinion about this at least) have to suffer one of the worst Indult situations available. There are 2 priests who usually say this Mass (one is the pastor and the other is an elderly retired priest). The pastor rushes the Masses terribly. I can read Latin fluently and if I can't keep up with his pace, I know something is off. He berates the laity with subtle and not so subtle "ad hominem" attacks of "traditionalism". He scorns us about not giving money without ever once thinking to place trust in the hands of God. The people don't even sing (not even the short responses like "Amen" and "Et cum spiritu tuo") at High Mass. Terrible! The pastor could care less. I could go on and on, but you get the picture. It's very sad to see the Tridentine reduced to such a state.
Of course, all the Novus Ordo options are even worse. It's a very unfortunate diocese. Liturgical foolishness abounds in Baltimore.
The consolation in all this...we're moving to New Jersey next year and will be able to attend a real, very much alive Tridentine Mass every Sunday (and daily). In fact, this is why we are moving above all other reasons.
No, what I see is someone who is confused about the nature of Christs promise. When our Lord said, "the gates of hell shall not prevail" he was referring to the fact that there would be no deviance from the TRUTH. He was not assuring us that some very stupid, evil people would not infiltrate the Church; He was telling us that their evil would come to no avail. The form of the mass, the orientation of the priest, the role of the laity are important issues but they do not, in any way come to the core of the faith which is expressed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition (and yes, I agree that the former proceeds from the latter as the latter proceeds from Him who made us) as taught by His Church. The promise of "shall not prevail" was made so that we may have faith in His Church and as a result, confidence in all of His works.
None of the things you listed changed any dogma of the faith any more than the gay "marriage" preformed by an ROC priest changed Orthodox dogma.
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.