Posted on 07/19/2002 4:57:55 PM PDT by Polycarp
As opposed to the Mass in Latin, when, unless one had a missal, no one knew what the hell was being said.
Mass in the vernacular is a good thing. Baptism in the vernacular is a good thing. The Sacrament of Reconciliation in English is a good thing.
I didn't know there was anything amiss until I started reading the Wanderer and found out there were "rubrics" governing the mass. Then I purchased a the CCC which no one around here seemed to have or recommend. It was only then that I realized a lot of things we were doing were different .
Many of them had adult children who weren't practicing the faith. Some had serious problems. I think adults with catholic children who are into serious sin try to rationalize that all is well or will be well.
For awhile, we had rock masses, charismatic masses, ring around the altar masses, altar girls before Rome acquiesced, charismatic masses, and polka masses. They did do away with the rock masses finally. What you were going to deal with at any given mass was up to the priest who presided at that mass. You could have a perfect mass at 9:00 and a totally different one at 10:30, even at the more conservative parish I transferred to.
I didn't care what kind of mass it was so long as they presented it with reasonable conformity to the rules. Mistakes I overlooked like the time the priest lost his place in the book and did a double consecration.
Some of the other sacraments were administered irregularly like reconciliation and anointing. Most catholics don't know they are victims of priests who don't follow the rules.
"One thing I can say about the Novus Ordo I generally attend -- there is no reproach of sin going on there. One of our priests habitually omits the Confiteor (can't have people feeling guilty, now can we?). Rarely do we hear a call to go to Confession. Sexual sins are never addressed from the pulpit, yet economic sins are mentioned constantly."
These are serious failings which occur in many parishes. However, for the life of me, I can't see how one can say they are inherently tied to a particular rite of the Mass. My own pastor, God bless him, includes the Confiteor at every Mass. But he tends to be a bit abstract in most of his homilies, and thus particular sins and practices are seldom mentioned. However, the previous pastor made a point to regularly talk about certain issues: abortion; contraception; sexual morality; non-sexual morality. And he built our parish from 250 families to 1000 families, bringing in many converts and reverts.
The pastor down the street, who is the vicar of our part of the archdiocese, tends toward homilies which address a variety of topics of sin, including sexual sins.
It seems to me absurd to tie this stuff to inherent qualities in a particular rite of the Mass.
sitetest
I've only ever met one Catholic, the daughter of a poor coal miner with 13 children, who did not have a Latin/English missal.
Every single other Catholic I've spoken to, when they talk about the old mass, says they had no trouble following it because everybody always had their own Latin/English missal.
I have 5 just from my grandmother, ranging in dates from the 1910's to 1961. I even have her Easter Week Latin/English missal dating from 1911.
Straw man, sink.
Though you have every right to be angry at the actual miscreants, it doesn't pay to take it out on your friends.
I'm not sure that there are many devout Catholics here who disagree that the Church is in crisis. But you excerpted in one of your posts a small part of the overall review, which struck at least two posters, myself and sinkspur, as nearly unintelligible.
That doesn't mean that sinkspur or I are insulting or denigrating the author. It means that that small part, which you highlighted doesn't make sense to us.
Furthermore, I read it as an attack on the Mass of Paul VI. It's not the harshest attack I've seen, but it seems to be a direct attack. It's perfectly reasonable for a devout Catholic to defend from attack the current rite of the Mass as promulgated by a Supreme Pontiff.
sitetest
I thought God pretty much had a universal purview of everything, all the time.
God is not like a mafia don; you can't turn your back on Him.
I still have mine that I received from my Godmother at my First Communion.
I cherish it (and I've now aged myself here)
But the most important thing, is that the liturgy is sound and there are no abuses; they haven't moved the tabernacle or the crucifix; the church is "modern" in the sense that it is relatively new (about 20 years old), but it's conservative in design.
Anyway, while I agree that there is a definite problem with homosexuality in some dioceses, and I believe that some of the seminaries need to be cleaned up, most parishes are sound.
I heard Michael Rose talking on Catholic Radio (Steven Wood's show on Thursday) and he was very interesting. He talked about his interviews and his observations, but also said that some of the seminaries were being cleaned up, and as the offending priests grow old, they are being replaced with traditional, pious men. Some seminaries (the good ones) are turning men away because they are full.
The difference between the tone of this book (from reading this post) and Rose's book, is that Rose is optimistic and obviously loves the church and the love shines through in his speech and his optimism. The tone of this post is pessimistic and depressing, as if nothing can be done short of tearing down the church and rebuilding it.
I admit, I haven't read either book, only excerpts. I know there is a problem and it must be dealt with, but we must do it with love and respect and faith.
JMHO. God bless.
A conservative and optimistic BUMP!
This is a question I have examined at length and cannot answer. I attend the new mass daily/weekly. I attend the Latin Mass rarely.
The most beautiful, sacred, holy, and moving masses I ever attended were the new masses said in Latin at Mother Angelica's shrine in Alabama.
There I could kneel to receive Holy Eucharist, follow mass completely, and the sense of awe and wonder and sacredness was incredible.
I probably would never attend the Indult Mass if all new masses were said the way they say them there.
But this points out the very real problems of how 99.9% of the new masses are said today.
Few are completely licit, though the vast majority are indeed valid, because so many liberties are taken with the rubrics.
When you read V II you realize that the reform they envisioned should look the mass in Alabama, and the mass most American Catholics know is an aberration, and a sacrilege, compared with what the council mandated and the way it is said in Alabama.
So...the problem is inherent not in the new Mass itself but in the way the new mass is celebrated 99% of the time.
But that raises the question...why is it celebrated illicitly so often???
Is it something endemic to the new mass itself, the post-conciliar church, or something else entirely???
Which is why you need to seriously examine the article that started this thread in the first place!
It is something else entirely, namely sexual licence.
One last point.
If you want to tell me the Church is not rotten to the core in the USA, explain why 85% of married Catholics of childbearing age contracept or are sterilized.
Contraception, done with full knowledge and consent, is MORTAL SIN.
Those in mortal sin may not receive commununion.
Our priests KNOW THIS!
Yet how many of this 85% receive commununion every Sunday?
A priesthood riddles with dissent and sexual avarice does not have the moral authority to call the laity to repentance. To admit those to communion who the priests knows to be in grave sin, is grave sin on the part of the priest.
So both the priesthood, as well as the vast majority of the laity, is de facto living in grave sin in this country. Their culpability is known only to God.
But no one can tell me that Likoudis sees the cup half empty while they see the cup half full.
By my math, 85% aint't half by a long shot.
The Faith is alive and well. Millions of Catholics continue to go to Mass, to work with RCIA candidates, to work with engaged couples, to continue to believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is not confined to pederast clerics.
Yet you would rather insult and denigrate the poster, the reviwer, and the author, than examine the merits of the article.
I didn't say a word about the poster (except that he seemed surly, which he agreed with).
The author and reviewer seem obsessed; obsessed with sex as the fulcrum on which the fate of the Church hinges.
The Church in the USA is rotten to the core, and you think its peaches and cream.
You live in Altoona,Pa. I live in Fort Worth, Texas, where Bishop Delaney eats two meals a day and can pack everything he owns in the trunk of his car.
The Church, where I live, is in pretty good shape.
However, we speak English and there is no problem with the Mass in our language. Provided that there are no liturgical abuses and that the priest is traditional in the sense that he followed the liturgy to the letter, it doesn't really matter what the language. We are worshiping God, and He speaks all languages.
I'm wondering how one knows that the mass one attends is done according to the rubrics? For all I know, I may not have attended a "true" mass for most of my life. Some things false are easy to pick up, but the subtle changing/adding/subtracting of words are difficult to know (and, sadly, almost expected).
Unfortunately, my bishop and his brother bishop next to us refuse to be obedient to the Pope and do not allow the Latin Mass here. I have to drive 95 miles to the nearest Indult Latin Mass.
If you want to tell me the Church is is alive and well in the USA, explain why 85% of married Catholics of childbearing age contracept or are sterilized.
Contraception, done with full knowledge and consent, is MORTAL SIN.
Those in mortal sin may not receive commununion.
Our priests KNOW THIS!
Yet how many of this 85% receive commununion every Sunday?
A priesthood riddles with dissent and sexual avarice does not have the moral authority to call the laity to repentance. To admit those to communion who the priests knows to be in grave sin, is grave sin on the part of the priest.
So both the priesthood, as well as the vast majority of the laity, is de facto living in grave sin in this country. Their culpability is known only to God.
But no one can tell me that Likoudis sees the cup half empty while they see the cup half full.
By my math, 85% aint't half by a long shot.
No one with a straight face and an orthodox understanding of the Faith can see the data on contraception and say The Faith is alive and well.
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.