"If sexual autonomy is one’s goal, one will not want the traditional Mass as the central symbol of the Faith, for the very form it takes will always seem a reproach: one will want a pliable liturgy, something one can shape to one’s whims.
"'What exactly is Wilson trying to say in this statement? I truly find it almost bizarre.'
"You would, Sink. Other Catholics understand it only too well."
Well, I guess I'm not much of a Catholic, my friend. I don't get it either. Is the author suggesting the obverse, then, that the new Mass is not a reproach to those whose goal is sexual autonomy?
sitetest
I think its not so much the new mass itself as the accretions, distortions, and dissent that seem to accompany it in so many places. If it weren't for Rome, we'd have inclusive language texts already.
The blurring of gender at the altar and in all things liturgical IMHO undermines the centrality of the fact that we all relate to God as a bride to the bridegroom.
The words expounding that the mass is a sacrifice, a re presentation of Christ's same passion to God in our day, has been lost in the new mass english translations.
Raised after V II, I didn't even know the mass was a sacrifice until I was 24. Reading the entire text of the english version of the new mass, without proper catechesis, how would I have known?
In the old mass this Truth was quite clear.
why mask the nature of that sacrifice in the new mass, in lieu of substituting the protestant understanding of "table" and "bread" and "wine?"
If there is no original sin, there's no need for a sacrifice. If there is no original sin, we are not fallen.
Our sexuality cannot be deviant if we are not fallen.
It does make sense.
It is not absurd.
I'm disappointed in you, sitetest. I expect this kind of attitude from sinkspur. I didn't expect it from you.