Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2011 20:55:45 GMT
I know most/all? of ye seem to attend the TLM and I don't but please no I told you so's, they're annoying.
I have three questions;
1) Is there any reason why the priest would leave out the Creed? I can't remember if it was a daily Mass but something tells me it was, it was particularly short. Then I remembered we'd not said the Creed. Fr. J never does that so perhaps it was just a mistake but I'd like to know if there was a reason for it. NO mass by the way.
2) Why do ye not have a specific Old Testament reading at the TLM? Now I know it's backwards and ye may say well why have one at the NO but bear with me, I would really like to know why there wasn't one included.
3) The inclusive thing. Apart from "just read what's written" and "as a woman I'm really not offended Fr. when you read what's written" is there any way of explaining to a priest (a man obviously) that I know he means well but is wrong? Ditto for altar girls (I've tried the fostering vocations line on another priest trying to get me to read at Mass but he found it amusing).
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 26, 2011 12:48:19 GMT
(1) When you say "NO" do you mean Novus Ordo =New Rite/Ordinary Form? (2) The NO and the TLM have different readings cycles; the TLM repeats the same passages every year whereas the NO has a three-year cycle. The choice of passages relates to the story of Our Lord and/or the feast of the day. The rationale for the NO arrangement is to cover a wider range of scripture and reflects a greater emphasis on the Mass as catechesis; the one-year cycle of the TLM is meant to be an image of eternity. (3) I suspect a lot of priests have been incultrated into the view that inclusive language, altar girls etc are obviously the right thing and that those who disagree are not merely mistaken but ridiculous and not to be taken seriously. I don't know how you address someone who takes that attitude on anything, though as a woman you obviously have an advantage on this particular point. Hope this is some help
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2011 0:29:59 GMT
1)Yes sorry, I'll write OF to make it clearer in future.
2) So do ye have the same readings every single year then? Would that be one of the reasons we are (not)/were not as familiar with Scripture as we should be (opinion)? Does the OF lend itself to more familiarity and understanding or is the repetitive nature of the TLM deepening the faith each year? (I know opinion only here).
3) Yes I know I should have some sway, unfortunately he finds me hilarious, said his mother would have loved me for my opinions on the matter. At least he has the altar rail still up. I was hoping some of the men here could give me advice on how to get through to him on that matter as well as why I don't want to read. The fostering of vocations is really the only one I can think of but alas... If anybody has any more reasons in the form of apologetics I'd not object to hearing them at all.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Nov 29, 2011 20:14:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 29, 2011 22:29:41 GMT
One problem at present in relation to the EF scripture cycle is that the EF version of the Office is not widely available. Ideally the Office (which incorporates the readings of the day) shoud be used to work towards a deeper understanding of the liturgical cycle. The three-volume OF office is available from Veritas. I certainly do know of trads who argue that the move from an annual to a three-year cycle tends to dilute people's understanding of the Faith. This may be a matter of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 30, 2011 20:18:31 GMT
Some of the relevant issues are raised on this thread from Fr Zuhlsdorf's blog, discussing Cardinal Burke's hope that the OF and EF will eventually fuse into a single hybrid rite. Read the comments as well as the post - the commenters are mostly trads of different stripes. I do not necessarily agree with their views but post this for information. wdtprs.com/blog/2011/11/card-burke-on-mutual-enrichment-fr-z-rants/#comments
|
|
|
Post by shane on Dec 1, 2011 16:00:32 GMT
I believe the Pope wants the two rites to merge. For the life of me, I can't see why. Besides, hasn't the Vatican already done enough damage to the liturgical tradition as it is? I have been to 'reverent' Novus Ordo services in Latin and was not at all impressed. The Novus Ordo (and its progenitor, Sacrosanctum Concilium) is fundamentally flawed. It is committee liturgy. Frankly, it is liturgical shit (let's call a spade a spade).
And does anyone really want to end up with propers for the feast of 'Saint' John Paul 'the Great'? Even the very thought makes me want to puke up my entire internal digestive system.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 1, 2011 17:55:16 GMT
Dear Shane, Please restrain your language when referring to an approved form of the Roman Rite. Reasoned criticism is appreciated - swearwords are not. I think "the Great" is a bit hyperbolic, but I don't see any reason why John Paul II should not be canonised. If you have, feel free to reopen the old "John Paul II - Great or Not" thread in the general Catholic forum, which I have posted on from time to time - but kindly take Immodium first.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Dec 1, 2011 18:07:46 GMT
My apologies -- I have a tendency to go OTT when making criticisms, especially on topics that I am passionate about.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 1, 2011 18:11:52 GMT
Apology accepted - now spell out your objections for the rest of us, and let's everyone keep civil.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2011 18:58:46 GMT
Thanks Mod, appreciated. Shane I have to go out now so only zipped through the MP but nowhere do I see that the Pope wants the two rites to merge. Where did you see this? I saw it on Fr. Z's blog, and that was a bishop's opinion only. I couldn't believe people were running with it as fact. He is generally on the money, but unless he becomes Pope and only then when speaking excathedra, is he infallible. I would love to know is there any factual basis to this?
By the way, one of the things that keeps people away from the TLM is the perception of angry Papists who fly off the handle when questioned. Don't play to the stereotype if you want people to attend (and I'm a bould Novus Ordo woman, so have no reason to give you that tip). ;-)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 2, 2011 22:43:28 GMT
The prediction about a hybrid rite came from Cardinal Burke, but the view that this is what should happen (i.e. that the OF may remain the norm but should be presented as developing from the EF and carrying on its basic assumptions, rather than as something developed ex nihilo and making everything that existed before irrelevant) has been put around by Fr Fessio of Ignatius Press and others for some years - they call it "reform of the reform". It seems to be widely believed that this is what Pope Benedict has in mind, and it would certainly seem to be a logical implication of the "hermeneutic of continuity" interpretation of Vatican II (which implies the Council must be read in the light of what came before, as distinct from the "hermeneutic of rupture, which presents it as a complete break with the past). The reason why SP attracts such hostility from certain "liberals" is that they believe in the "hermeneutic of rupture" theory, and they feel that the continued existence of the EF as a legitimate option implies that it should continue to influence the Rite as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 2, 2011 22:50:59 GMT
Here is an interesting piece in which Fr Zuhlsdorf discusses what "active participation" at MAss actually means: wdtprs.com/blog/2011/12/us-catholic-attacks-the-bishop-of-covington-wherein-fr-z-rants/extract Correctly understood, the “full, conscious and active participation” desired by the Council Fathers is rooted in our baptismal character, which makes it possible to receive graces and the other six sacraments. “Active participation” is first and foremost an interiorly active receptivity to all that God is offering. This interiorly active receptivity requires the person to make acts of will to stay focused and attentive to the mysteries of the sacred action. This interior receptivity at times manifests itself outwardly in physical expression, especially in the words people speak as responses, prescribed prayers recited in common during the liturgical action, certain gestures such as kneeling or standing of making the sign of the Cross, and at times walking in procession, as in the case of going forward to receive Holy Communion. In fact, reception of Holy Communion by a baptized person in the state of grace is the most perfect form of “full, conscious and active participation”, for its is the perfect harmony of the interior and the exterior of the person’s active receptivity. On the other hand, some people – liberal liturgists for example – think that active participation means doing things, such as carrying stuff, clapping, singing every word of everything that could be sung, moving about, etc. They are abetted by clerics who think they are “empowering the laity” and helping their “active participation” by surrendering their own proper roles as clerics to any number of lay people. Liberal liturgists talk of baptism as the foundation of “active participation”. They see baptism as conferring rights, especially the right to do things during the liturgical action. This defective understanding of “active participation” leads to terrible consequences for our Catholic identity and our liturgical worship. The first way in which their false notions of “active participation” (saying everything and doing stuff because it’s my right) distort our worship is that, if some participation is good, then more participation is better. The more people get to carry more things, and the more everyone sings more notes, the more people are thought to be “participating”. The flaw in this approach will be obvious to everyone with half a brain. There is only so much that can be sung or carried. The processional Cross can only be so big and only so many people can carry it at once. The ditties can only be so long, until people grow fatigued and the guitarist’s fingers bleed. The big puppets can only be so high before they can’t be carried. There are only so many clay beakers available and only so much sacramental “wine” to be distributed before other problems manifest. When you have a correct understanding of “active participation” (the will to unite oneself interiorly and receive what is being offered), you can always pray with more intensity, long the more for the graces being offered, ponder more earnestly the mystery we encounter. On the other hand, you can only clap your hands for so long. Therefore, what happens in the next logical move is that lay people have to start doing what the priest does and, if possible, where the priest does it. The distorted and defective notion of “active participation” eventually leads to the false conclusion that people have rights to carry things, say what the priest says, do what the priest does. Thus the herds of “eucharistic ministers” even when they are not really needed, the demand for “the cup”, the sense of empowerment to accept this rubric but not that, or this prayer or pericope, but not that. Hand-holding, entirely outside any traditional liturgical practice of the Church, becomes a right. Because why? Because we’re baptized, damn it! We are the empowered laity who have the right to do what we want to for the sake of “active participation”. And as sure as the night follows the day, when a bishop or priest apply a corrective to their defective practices and distorted notions, they raise cain because they have fallen into the trap of thinking that, just because they are baptized, they have the right to do as they please. They subsequently protest against their priests and bishops with the same techniques as those who habitually create class conflicts. They use even Marxist or Alinskyite tactics of protest against the troglodyte traddy types who trample their baptismal rights... The real problem is a mentality which can be teased into two strands. First, there is a defective notion of “active participation” which devolves into an endless spiral of people thinking they have to do more in order to participate at Mass until there is no longer a distinction between what priests and people say and do. Parallel to this is a defective understanding of rights. This manifests itself in open protest against bishops who try to promote liturgical norms, or who try to correct abuses. END OF EXTRACT This mindset will be recognisable to anyone who has read the Association of Catholic Priests' rants about "clericalism"
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 6, 2011 22:03:12 GMT
Here is the original interview with Cardinal Burke, which touches on a variety of other issues besides a possible hybrid rite: www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-burke-reflects-on-his-first-year-in-the-sacred-college/EXTRACT Cardinal Burke is also responsible for overseeing the Church's liturgy as a member of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship. He is grateful to Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for giving the Church "a font of solid direction" regarding worship, based on the Second Vatican Council's vision of a "God-centered liturgy and not a man-centered liturgy." That intention was not always realized, he said, since the council's call for liturgical reform coincided with a "cultural revolution." Many congregations lost their "fundamental sense that the liturgy is Jesus Christ himself acting, God himself acting in our midst to sanctify us." Cardinal Burke said greater access to the traditional Latin Mass, now know as the "extraordinary form" of the Roman rite, has helped correct the problem. "The celebration of the Mass in the extraordinary form is now less and less contested," he noted, "and people are seeing the great beauty of the rite as it was celebrated practically since the time if Pope Gregory the Great" in the sixth century. Many Catholics now see that the Church's "ordinary form" of Mass, celebrated in modern languages, "could be enriched by elements of that long tradition." In time, Cardinal Burke expects the Western Church's ancient and modern forms of Mass to be combined in one normative rite, a move he suggests the Pope also favors. "It seems to me that is what he has in mind is that this mutual enrichment would seem to naturally produce a new form of the Roman rite – the 'reform of the reform,' if we may – all of which I would welcome and look forward to its advent." END OF EXTRACT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2011 6:28:58 GMT
Thank you Askel, I recognised his voice immediately I bought his dvd years ago from Southwell Books which has now closed down unfortunately. It's infuriating that Miss Coyle is a wannabe Prod, can they not find people like myself, fairly confuddled yet faithful to the Church to discuss the changes? I have found that when I point out that we now share the same Mass with our French counterparts for example (et avec votre esprit) the objections are stopped in their tracks. It's the Anglophones who messed up, this is a correction not a pointless exercise. Can I ask, if you know of his dvd, is that an ordinary EF Mass? It seems so quiet, always... The Sung Latin in the Pro achieves a lovely balance, I find. A lot of prayer and hymns and quiet worship with a titch of lay participation required. Why is there so little dialogue, ye have mentioned this before here, what is the difference with the level of dialogue in the EF Mass pray tell?
|
|