NO MASS ON HOLYDAYS?
Ed Faulk
Michael Mooney <moo...@panix.com> writes:
> My wife attends Mass on Sundays (though habitually late) but not on any
> Holyday of Obligation. She claims the obligations of her part-time job
(until
> 1 p.m.) and the need to attend to everyday chores thereafter, plus getting
the
> evening meal ready.
>
> Is she sinning mortally regarding the Holydays or is she excused from the
Mass
> obligation due to the circumstances stated? She also used to claim the need
> to get home to meet our two children after school. They're now in their
20's,
> BTW.
Mike,
I can't tell if she is sinning mortally or not. There are certainly factors
here that may reduce her knowledge or her commitment to sin. Form an objective
standpoint she is, indeed, sinning. In fact, even if not a mortal sin she is
sinning venially.
Jesus, in the story of Martha and Mary, addressed this issue. The "pressing
needs" of the daily chores can be handled either before or after Mass. Most of
the churches in the United States (Flushing is still in the United State, I
believe), offer an early morning Mass that is probably long before she needs to
be at work. Many offer evening Masses that would be convenient.
Sadly, Holy Days of Obligation seem to be ignored by a large portion of the
Catholic population, at least here in the United States.
Deacon Ed
*******************************************************************************
* Ed Faulk | "If ignorance is bliss, *
* SnailMail: Beckman Instruments, Inc. | 'tis folly to be wise." *
* 3300 Birch St. | Phone: (714) 961-3383 *
* Brea, CA 92621 | FAX: (714) 961-3351 *
* Internet: efa...@shelties.dp.beckman.com | CIS: 75500,2726 *
*******************************************************************************
* Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; *
* cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis. - St. Augustine *
*******************************************************************************
Michael Mooney
My wife attends Mass on Sundays (though habitually late) but not on any
Holyday of Obligation. She claims the obligations of her part-time job (until
1 p.m.) and the need to attend to everyday chores thereafter, plus getting the
evening meal ready.
Is she sinning mortally regarding the Holydays or is she excused from the Mass
obligation due to the circumstances stated? She also used to claim the need
to get home to meet our two children after school. They're now in their 20's,
BTW.
Thanks.
Mike Mooney
P.S. Actually, I see her as a luke-warm Catholic. BTW, her mother
stopped attending Mass some years ago. One of her brothers fell away
from the Church but came back after he married. Her other brother
remains single and is a confirmed atheist. So I wonder if there may be
a connection here?
Michael J. Mooney | Internet:
140-10 Franklin Avenue (B44) | moo...@panix.com
Flushing, New York 11355-2657, USA | 70372...@compuserve.com
Fax: (718) 886-0253 | Compuserve: 70372,2454
Alexander R Pruss
What holy days of obligation are we talking about? I thought that in the
U.S. most of them (except Jan. 1, Easter and Christmas) got moved to the
nearest Sunday? I could be wrong, of course...
Alex.
Ed Faulk
No, most of them still fall where they will. They are moved to Sunday at the
discretion of either the National Conference of Bishops *or* at the discretion
of the local ordinary. This is an exceptional case, and needs to be renewed
each year (with the exception of Ascension Thursday which, in the Western
United States, is moved to Sunday for the remainder of a seven year trial (five
years to go).
David Aldred
In article <53uhhi$9...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Alexander R Pruss
<pru...@PITT.EDU> writes
>What holy days of obligation are we talking about? I thought that in the
>U.S. most of them (except Jan. 1, Easter and Christmas) got moved to the
>nearest Sunday? I could be wrong, of course...
An extremely annoying habit for those of us elsewhere in the world who
ever try to use American liturgy resources!
------------------ -------------------------
|\avid Aldred / Da...@aldred.demon.co.uk \ Nottingham, England
|/ --------------------------------
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
Susan Wilson
Ed Faulk wrote:
>
> Alexander R Pruss <pru...@PITT.EDU> writes:
>
> > What holy days of obligation are we talking about? I thought that in the
> > U.S. most of them (except Jan. 1, Easter and Christmas) got moved to the
> > nearest Sunday? I could be wrong, of course...
>
> discretion of either the National Conference of Bishops *or* at the discretion
> of the local ordinary. This is an exceptional case, and needs to be renewed
> each year (with the exception of Ascension Thursday which, in the Western
> United States, is moved to Sunday for the remainder of a seven year trial
(five
> years to go).
>
such. Who's the local ordinary? And do you mean that the Bishops could
all get together and move (I'm going to make this up since I don't
really know enough about holy days to use a real one) the mass
celebrating the Commemoration of the return of Pope Ohnonotme XLVII's
cat in 327 from the ninth Thursday of the month of Juvember to the
previous Sunday? And that would hold for every parish in the country?
Could the local ordinary say, "no thanks, Your Eminences, not us"? If
the Bishops say that a holy day *won't* be moved nationwide, can the
local folk do it anyway? What if the Bishops don't say anything at all
about a particular holy day?
Sorry. I know that's probably nit-picking, but I'm curious.
Su
who hates to pass up a chance to expose her ignorance!
Bonnie Granat
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, David Aldred wrote:
> In article <53uhhi$9...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Alexander R Pruss
> <pru...@PITT.EDU> writes
> >What holy days of obligation are we talking about? I thought that in the
> >U.S. most of them (except Jan. 1, Easter and Christmas) got moved to the
> >nearest Sunday? I could be wrong, of course...
>
> An extremely annoying habit for those of us elsewhere in the world who
> ever try to use American liturgy resources!
>
> ------------------ -------------------------
> |\avid Aldred / Da...@aldred.demon.co.uk \ Nottingham, England
> |/ --------------------------------
>
>
> Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
>
Gee, wouldn't it be neat to be a single church with a universal
liturgical calendar and a universal liturgy?
_____________________________________________________________________________
Bonnie Granat
** Granat Communications ** 52 Irving St. ** Cambridge, MA 02138 ** USA **
(bgr...@lynx.dac.neu.edu)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Bridge
Bonnie Granat writes:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, David Aldred wrote:
> > An extremely annoying habit for those of us elsewhere in the world who
> > ever try to use American liturgy resources!
> Gee, wouldn't it be neat to be a single church with a universal
> liturgical calendar and a universal liturgy?
Not really - I don't want to celebrate the consecration of the
Cathedral in some African diocese, especially as it would have only
remind me that my diocese has no Cathedral, and anyway if we did, we
wouldn't have time left in the year for Easter and Christmas. Even
for us Latin Catholics there has to be some degree of localisation in
the Calendar.
T.
--
Thomas Bridge - tho...@maths.tcd.ie - WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~thomas/
"Five days shalt thou labour as the bible says ... the sixth is for football."
Anthony Burgess, Inside Mr. Enderby.
Ed Faulk
Susan Wilson <jswi...@EDGE.NET> writes:
> Ed Faulk wrote:
> >
> > Alexander R Pruss <pru...@PITT.EDU> writes:
> >
> > > What holy days of obligation are we talking about? I thought that in the
> > > U.S. most of them (except Jan. 1, Easter and Christmas) got moved to the
> > > nearest Sunday? I could be wrong, of course...
> >
> > No, most of them still fall where they will. They are moved to Sunday at
the
> > discretion of either the National Conference of Bishops *or* at the
discretion
> > of the local ordinary. This is an exceptional case, and needs to be renewed
> > each year (with the exception of Ascension Thursday which, in the Western
> > United States, is moved to Sunday for the remainder of a seven year trial
(five
> > years to go).
> >
> Whoa. Break this down for me a little please, ignorant as I am of
> such. Who's the local ordinary? And do you mean that the Bishops could
> all get together and move (I'm going to make this up since I don't
> really know enough about holy days to use a real one) the mass
> celebrating the Commemoration of the return of Pope Ohnonotme XLVII's
> cat in 327 from the ninth Thursday of the month of Juvember to the
> previous Sunday? And that would hold for every parish in the country?
> Could the local ordinary say, "no thanks, Your Eminences, not us"? If
> the Bishops say that a holy day *won't* be moved nationwide, can the
> local folk do it anyway? What if the Bishops don't say anything at all
> about a particular holy day?
Um, Juvember? Is this a Hassidic holy day?
Anyway, the "local ordinary" is the bishop of the diocese. However, I misspoke
(a polite way of saying I screwed up). The bishop can't *move* a holy day, but
he can remove the obligation to attend Mass on a holyday. However, the National
Conference of Bishops *can* move a holy day. This was done, for example, with
Ascension Thursday which now falls on Sunday (Ascension Sunday nee Thursday) in
the Western United States.
Now, a holy day of obligation *can* be moved to a Sunday, but a regular feast
(such as that of the much loved and sainted cat's return in 327) can not be
moved to a Sunday.
To understand that we have to look at the kinds of feast days us Catholics (or
is that Cat-licks?) have. We have Solemnities, Memorials, Commemorations and
Optional Memorials (and this is a lot better than before Trent when we had
about 20 different levels of feast days). Sunday ranks as a Solemnity because
it is a "little Easter". Only another Solemnity can replace a Sunday. Anything
below that cannot be moved.
For example, today (10/16) is the Optional Memorial of St. Hedwig and also of
St. Margaret Mary Alacoque. Their feast day could not be moved to a Sunday
(although, technically, it could be moved to a day not ending in "y").
Is that more than you ever wanted to know?
Martin Fontenot
The old header was Re: NO MASS ON HOLYDAYS? !
> >What holy days of obligation are we talking about? I thought that in the
> >U.S. most of them (except Jan. 1, Easter and Christmas) got moved to the
> >nearest Sunday? I could be wrong, of course...
>
> An extremely annoying habit for those of us elsewhere in the world who
> ever try to use American liturgy resources!
>
> |\avid Aldred / Da...@aldred.demon.co.uk \ Nottingham, England
>
In> Gee, wouldn't it be neat to be a single church with a universal
In> liturgical calendar and a universal liturgy?
In> ______ Bonnie Granat
Uhhhhh....no....my church has a different liturgy
and a different calendar. We like it that
way....<g>
Holy God IC | XC Martin Fontenot
Holy and Mighty ---|--- Friar Gordo
Holy and Immortal NI | KA fr...@helix.xiii.com
Have mercy on us
... Liferule #7 - no combustibles in nostrils ...
David Aldred
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.96101...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
Bonnie Granat <bgr...@LYNX.DAC.NEU.EDU> writes
>On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, David Aldred wrote:
>
>> <pru...@PITT.EDU> writes
>> >What holy days of obligation are we talking about? I thought that in the
>> >U.S. most of them (except Jan. 1, Easter and Christmas) got moved to the
>> >nearest Sunday? I could be wrong, of course...
>>
>> An extremely annoying habit for those of us elsewhere in the world who
>> ever try to use American liturgy resources!
>
Could be. But OTOH, I suppose at least we have the liturgical resources
of other cultures to use and learn from. Even if they do tend to leave
out some of the Sundays!
------------------ -------------------------
|\avid Aldred / Da...@aldred.demon.co.uk \ Nottingham, England
Bonnie Granat
On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Thomas Bridge wrote:
> Bonnie Granat writes:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, David Aldred wrote:
>
> > > An extremely annoying habit for those of us elsewhere in the world who
> > > ever try to use American liturgy resources!
>
> > Gee, wouldn't it be neat to be a single church with a universal
> > liturgical calendar and a universal liturgy?
>
> Not really - I don't want to celebrate the consecration of the
> Cathedral in some African diocese, especially as it would have only
> remind me that my diocese has no Cathedral, and anyway if we did, we
> wouldn't have time left in the year for Easter and Christmas. Even
> for us Latin Catholics there has to be some degree of localisation in
> the Calendar.
>
> T.
I didn't mean it that way!!! I meant the main feasts and Holy Days!
I was also trying to make a joke.
Kevin R Fritts
>> An extremely annoying habit for those of us elsewhere in the world who
>> ever try to use American liturgy resources!
>Gee, wouldn't it be neat to be a single church with a universal
>liturgical calendar and a universal liturgy?
Having some experience with our Eastern brothers and sisters, i can say
emphatically, "NO!" Would it be easy? Possibly. Would it be boring?
Probably. Would it ignore the diversity of the Church's talents and
diminish her universality by ignoring differences of culture?
Definitely.
pax, amor, et concordia ecclesia
kevin
_____________
kevin robert fritts
krob....@juno.com
ad majorem dei gloriam -- St. Ignatius of Loyola
"Truth does not depend on me." -- King's X
Dwayne K. Lanclos
In article <Pine.SUN.3.94.961014...@panix2.panix.com>, Michael
Mooney <moo...@PANIX.COM> wrote:
> One of her brothers fell away
> from the Church but came back after he married. Her other brother
> remains single and is a confirmed atheist. So I wonder if there may be
> a connection here?
Yes, there is. Single people are notorious atheists. Once they get married
and have kids, they settle down.
----
dwayne lanc...@flash.net
"Minds are like parachutes; they do not work unless they are open."
Ed Sayre
On Sun, 20 Oct 1996, Dwayne K. Lanclos wrote:
> > One of her brothers fell away
> > from the Church but came back after he married. Her other brother
> > remains single and is a confirmed atheist. So I wonder if there may be
> > a connection here?
>
> Yes, there is. Single people are notorious atheists. Once they get married
> and have kids, they settle down.
Reminds me of my married friend today, whom I asked to join me and some
single friends in going out. He had to back out of activities for the
nth time that month and half-jokingly stated "I'm not sure where I lost
control, Ed." "I don't think you it to begin with." :) Methinks the
married vocation reflects the Divine love affair: surrendering your will
to the one you love. :)
Peace,
Ed Sayre e-mail: ejs...@u.cc.utah.edu
page: http://www.cc.utah.edu/~ejs7398
Jim Groark
>Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 04:58:58 GMT
>From: "Dwayne K. Lanclos" <lanc...@FLASH.NET>
>Sender: Free Catholic Mailing List <CATH...@AMERICAN.EDU>
>To: Multiple recipients of list CATHOLIC <CATH...@AMERICAN.EDU>
>Subject: Re: NO MASS ON HOLYDAYS?
>
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.94.961014...@panix2.panix.com>,
> Michael Mooney <moo...@PANIX.COM>wrote:
>> One of her brothers fell away
>> from the Church but came back after he married. Her other brother
>> remains single and is a confirmed atheist. So I wonder if there
>> may be a connection here?
>
>Yes, there is. Single people are notorious atheists. Once they get
>married and have kids, they settle down.
>
> dwayne lanc...@flash.net
Gee, Dwayne! I guess I'll have to be more discerning regarding atheist
priests!<g>
VR
Jim Groark
Pope Pius XIII
Bonnie Granat <bgr...@LYNX.DAC.NEU.EDU> wrote:
>> >What holy days of obligation are we talking about? I thought that in the
>> >U.S. most of them (except Jan. 1, Easter and Christmas) got moved to the
>> >nearest Sunday? I could be wrong, of course...
>>
>> An extremely annoying habit for those of us elsewhere in the world who
>> ever try to use American liturgy resources!
>Gee, wouldn't it be neat to be a single church with a universal
>liturgical calendar and a universal liturgy?
A chance for those who advocate a return to the Pre 1962 calendar and
liturgy to speak up..... *grin*
Pope Pius XIII
Formerly Patriarch of Constantinople.
Primate of the West, Bishop of Rome,
Servant of the Servants of God,
Vicar of Christ, Chocolate lover.
Holding court in Avignon at ky...@pacific.net.sg
Ken Dawe
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Pope Pius XIII wrote:
> A chance for those who advocate a return to the Pre 1962 calendar and
> liturgy to speak up..... *grin*
>
>
> Pope Pius XIII
> Formerly Patriarch of Constantinople.
> Primate of the West, Bishop of Rome,
> Servant of the Servants of God,
> Vicar of Christ, Chocolate lover.
>
>
> Holding court in Avignon at ky...@pacific.net.sg
There must be a mistake here...it's commonly known that the next Pope
will come from Australia and will be known as Pope Fee Fee La Fluff.
Dharma Bum -----------------------------------------------------
| A truth that is merely handed on, without being |
| thought anew from its very foundations, has lost |
| its vital power. - Hans Urs von Balthasar |
-----------------------------------------------------
Rick Lugari
Pope Pius XIII wrote:
>
> Bonnie Granat <bgr...@LYNX.DAC.NEU.EDU> wrote:
>
> >> >What holy days of obligation are we talking about? I thought that in the
> >> >U.S. most of them (except Jan. 1, Easter and Christmas) got moved to the
> >> >nearest Sunday? I could be wrong, of course...
> >>
> >> An extremely annoying habit for those of us elsewhere in the world who
> >> ever try to use American liturgy resources!
>
> >Gee, wouldn't it be neat to be a single church with a universal
> >liturgical calendar and a universal liturgy?
>
> liturgy to speak up..... *grin*
>
> Pope Pius XIII
> Formerly Patriarch of Constantinople.
> Primate of the West, Bishop of Rome,
> Servant of the Servants of God,
> Vicar of Christ, Chocolate lover.
>
> Holding court in Avignon at ky...@pacific.net.sg
Oh, one who hath been anointed in milk and cacao,
Vivere Roman Missae!
I'll take that cue. Being fairly new to the list, I am interested in
how many Traditionalists are here. It would be nice to hear the
different views on the subject. Providing of course, I would not be
starting World War III.
To start: I am fortunate enough to participate in the Tridentine Mass.
It is by far the most reverent and Holy experience I can think of. I
love it so much I drive past well over a dozen Catholic Churches, and
into another country (US to Canada).
Well, lets hear it! Does anybody else dislike the Novus Ordo Missae, or
am I just the voice of one crying in the wilderness?
God Bless,
Rick Lugari
Dominus Vobiscum
Kevin R Fritts
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 12:24:38 GMT Pope Pius XIII <ky...@PACIFIC.NET.SG>
writes:
>>Gee, wouldn't it be neat to be a single church with a universal
>>liturgical calendar and a universal liturgy?
>
>A chance for those who advocate a return to the Pre 1962 calendar and
>liturgy to speak up..... *grin*
Does anyone remember what i said earlier regarding this? How it would be
a diminuition of the Church's universality and extremely boring? Well,
it's still true. There are many rites and many local celebrations for a
reason. If a return to the "Pre 1962 calendar and liturgy" will be the
establishment of a universal rite, you can have it. And obviously, you
will. The question is: will the Church have you?
>Pope Pius XIII
>Formerly Patriarch of Constantinople.
>Primate of the West, Bishop of Rome,
>Servant of the Servants of God,
>Vicar of Christ, Chocolate lover.
>Holding court in Avignon at ky...@pacific.net.sg
What is all this b.s.? Is this a joke, or are you the new LeFebvrist
"Pope"? (i know there's been rumors of such a thing. Has it actually
gone so far? Do they no longer care for reconciliation?) And what's
with the "Formerly Patriarch of Constantinople"?
pax amor et concordia ecclesia
John Lagrue
On Wed, 23 Oct 1996 00:34:19 PDT, Kevin R Fritts wrote:
>
> What is all this b.s.? Is this a joke, or are you the new LeFebvrist
> "Pope"? (i know there's been rumors of such a thing. Has it actually
> gone so far? Do they no longer care for reconciliation?) And what's
> with the "Formerly Patriarch of Constantinople"?
>
> pax amor et concordia ecclesia
> kevin
>
Yes Kevin, the word we are looking for here is indeed "joke".
I would have thought that the line "Vicar of Christ, Chocolate lover" was a
bit of a giveaway myself :-)
JDL
--
Azhural raised his staff. "It's fifteen hundred miles to Ankh-Morpork," he
said. "We've got three hundred and sixty-three elephants, fifty carts of
forage, the monsoon's about to break and we're wearing... we're wearing...
sort of things, like glass, only dark... dark glass things on our eyes..."
-- (Terry Pratchett, Moving Pictures)
Angela Geremia
Rick Lugari wrote:
>
> Well, lets hear it! Does anybody else dislike the Novus Ordo Missae, or
> am I just the voice of one crying in the wilderness?>
Dear Rick,
"I consistently remind people that there is no such thing as a
"Novus ordo Missae" There is only an "ordo Missae," one from the
Council of Trent and one from Vatican II. It was a mischievous attempt
on the part of some reactionaries to tag the adjective "novus" (new)
onto the title of the liturgy, in an effort to discredit it as modern-
istic invention."
"while I am no strong devotee of the so-called Tridentine Mass,
neither am I a basher of it. As I have written on numerous occasions,
when it was celebrated well, it provided marvelous access to the divine,
on the other hand, when poorly or irreverently done (and that happened
with sad regularity), it was no more edigying than today's aberrations.
The solution to our liturgical problems is not in recapturing a former
rite but in responding to the call to worship God in spirit and truth,
with obedience, love, and faith. Those sentiments are needed, regardless
of the rite we use."
Thank you and God Bless,
Jill
Trefor John Heywood M.Theol
Rick Lugari writes:
>Well, lets hear it! Does anybody else dislike the Novus Ordo Missae, or
>am I just the voice of one crying in the wilderness?
There are several of us who will have no recollection of the Tridentine,
having either been born or converted to the Church since Vatican II.
I have only been to one Latin Mass (in Westminster Cathedral) which was
obviously in Novus Ordo Latin and was only spoken anyway.
So how are we expected to compare in order to be able to like or dislike?
Trefor John Ignatius Heywood-Brewer
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Ein Harglwyddoes, Gymorth Christnogion,
*Gweddia Dros Gymru.
*Dewi Sant, Gweddia Dros Gymru.
*Santes Winfrewi, Gweddia Dros Gymru.
*Yn Enw Tad, Ac ai Fab, ac ai Ysbrid Glan.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Kevin R Fritts
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:50:37 -0400 Rick Lugari <rlu...@GCNNET.COM>
writes:
>Pope Pius XIII wrote:
>> >Gee, wouldn't it be neat to be a single church with a universal
>> >liturgical calendar and a universal liturgy?
>>
>> A chance for those who advocate a return to the Pre 1962 calendar
>and
>> liturgy to speak up..... *grin*
>>
>> Pope Pius XIII
>> Formerly Patriarch of Constantinople.
>> Primate of the West, Bishop of Rome,
>> Servant of the Servants of God,
>> Vicar of Christ, Chocolate lover.
>>
>> Holding court in Avignon at ky...@pacific.net.sg
>I'll take that cue. Being fairly new to the list, I am interested in
>how many Traditionalists are here. It would be nice to hear the
>different views on the subject. Providing of course, I would not be
>starting World War III.
>Well, lets hear it! Does anybody else dislike the Novus Ordo Missae,
>or
>am I just the voice of one crying in the wilderness?
Well, i am by no means a traditionalist. i take the cue of Adoremus, The
Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy, for the most part. i do
not want to see a return to the Tridentine Mass; however, the Novus Ordo
really sucks (to use a colloquialism of my generation). Especially in
its English translation, it is simple-minded, banal, and conspicuously
absent of significant aesthetic value.
With the Scholastics, i hold that Beauty is a transcendental. This means
that, like Truth and Goodness, Beauty has its root in Being. Beauty is
an objective reality, not, as aestheticians since Kant have held, a mode
of relating to an object which we cannot know in itself (i.e., modern
thinkers since Kant hold that reality as a whole cannot be known as it
is). So, if aspects of the Liturgy are ugly (which the experience of
many seems to say that there are such aspects), it is a sin against God,
who is the ground of Being and therefore the source of Beauty, as he is
the source of Truth and Goodness.
OTOH, in contrast to much of Adoremus' writings, i do believe that much
of the Mass should be in the language of the people. i think that Latin
will, and should, always be the universal language of the Latin rite, but
i wonder whether the Fathers' instruction that "the use of the Latin
language is to be preserved in all the Latin rites" really means keeping
any of the Mass in a language not understood by the majority of the
populis.
The Fathers also state that "a suitable place may be alotted to the
vernacular... especially in the readings and the 'common prayer,' and
also, as local conditions may warrant, in those parts of the Mass which
pertain to the people." 1) i think a broad discussion is needed on what
these two passages in SC together mean, and 2) it seems to me that only
the prayers said secreto by the priest do not pertain to the people (i
could, of course, be wrong). In any case, i am uncomfortable with any
part of the Mass spoken audibly being in a tongue incomprehensible to the
populis.
It could be that the practice of the Church for the past 30 years has led
to some insights unavailable to the Council Fathers; a broad discussion
is needed to determine where we are to proceed from here. i also think
that Masses in Latin should be available broadly for as many who are
interested; this would preferably in the same Ordo as the vernacular
Masses, not an older Ordo which, through many centuries, had come to be
in need of serious reformation.
In any case, the current Ordo is not, IMHO, the reformation needed. It
takes too much liberty in changing the Ordo that has been used, in
essence, since Gregory the Great. (i can't remember where i read this,
but i'm not making it up. The revisions of Trent and the revisions
preceding Trent were minor compared to the revision following Vatican
II.)
pax amor et concordia ecclesia
kevin
P.S. -- ICEL is the spawn of Satan.
Rick Lugari
Trefor John Heywood M.Theol wrote:
>
> Rick Lugari writes:
>
> >Well, lets hear it! Does anybody else dislike the Novus Ordo Missae, or
> >am I just the voice of one crying in the wilderness?
>
> having either been born or converted to the Church since Vatican II.
>
> I have only been to one Latin Mass (in Westminster Cathedral) which was
> obviously in Novus Ordo Latin and was only spoken anyway.
>
> So how are we expected to compare in order to be able to like or dislike?
Obviously, my question was directed to those people that can make the
comparison.
> Trefor John Ignatius Heywood-Brewer
Rick
Rick Lugari
Angela Geremia wrote:
>
> Rick Lugari wrote:
> >
> > Well, lets hear it! Does anybody else dislike the Novus Ordo Missae, or
> > am I just the voice of one crying in the wilderness?>
>
> "I consistently remind people that there is no such thing as a
> "Novus ordo Missae" There is only an "ordo Missae," one from the
> Council of Trent and one from Vatican II. It was a mischievous attempt
> on the part of some reactionaries to tag the adjective "novus" (new)
> onto the title of the liturgy, in an effort to discredit it as modern-
> istic invention."
> "while I am no strong devotee of the so-called Tridentine Mass,
> neither am I a basher of it. As I have written on numerous occasions,
> when it was celebrated well, it provided marvelous access to the divine,
> on the other hand, when poorly or irreverently done (and that happened
> with sad regularity), it was no more edigying than today's aberrations.
> The solution to our liturgical problems is not in recapturing a former
> rite but in responding to the call to worship God in spirit and truth,
> with obedience, love, and faith. Those sentiments are needed, regardless
> of the rite we use."
> Thank you and God Bless,
> Jill
Jill,
Thank you for your input, I like discussing this subject with people
that remember the way it was before Vatican II. I have been trying to
develop a clearer understanding of the debates on the Liturgy (which of
course, always returns to the bigger debate on the direction of the
faith).
I was born during Vatican II, so I never experienced the Tridentine Mass
until this year. I am sure that many priests in the last 150 years or
so did not celebrate the Mass reverently. However, I have read that
some of the reasons St Pius V codified the Mass were to prevent that
type of abuse and to preserve the Roman Rite for perpetuity. I am still
looking into that, but so far it does appear to be the case.
I could be wrong (it does happen more than it should):-), but didn't
Pope Paul VI refer to the New Mass as Novus Ordo? I would hardly call
him a *reactionary*. BTW it is a term I totally reject. If you want to
consider St Pius IX, St Pius X and Pope Leo XIII reactionaries, so be
it. I consider them to be true defenders of the faith, not
*reactionaries*. I know that it may seem that I took a big leap from
what you had written; it is just that we are dealing with the same
arguments of 100 years ago. This argument between Modernists and
Traditionalists, at the lowest common denominator, is over relativism.
I agree with your last statement to an extent. I think the Rite that
was handed down by the Fathers of the Church has proven to be a powerful
tool in bringing the faithful closer to Our Lord; not only in practice,
but in the dispensation of Grace. Our goal should be to bring as many
souls to the Lord as possible. IMHO the *Ordo Missae* of Pope Paul VI
is failing in that mission.
Respectfully,
Rick Lugari
Dominus Vobiscum
Kevin R Fritts
On Wed, 23 Oct 1996 23:59:52 -0400 Rick Lugari <rlu...@GCNNET.COM>
writes:
>This argument between Modernists and
>Traditionalists, at the lowest common denominator, is over relativism.
Then put me down as a traditionalist. Except that i'm also a
modernist. So, the argument over relativism is between Realists and
Antirealists. Much of what is decried as "Modernist," "Liberal," and
"Radical" is actually Antirealist, in the sense that those decried have,
at base, the fundamental belief that they can construct a reality -- and
it will be a reality *for them*.
In opposition, i believe (as i hope many others do) that reality
exists apart from me. i don't construct it, i perceive it, interact with
it, and receive it. This is also preeminently true for the Liturgy. The
Liturgy is not a reality we construct (contra many contemporary
liturgists), but a reality we receive. It, like Christian notions of
Truth (Faith) and Goodness (Morals), has been passed down (traditio) to
us from the Fathers (and Mothers?) of our faith.
pax amor et concordia ecclesia
kevin
_____________
Marida Ignacio
Angela Geremia wrote:
>
> Rick Lugari wrote:
> >
> > Well, lets hear it! Does anybody else dislike the Novus Ordo Missae, or
> > am I just the voice of one crying in the wilderness?>
>
> Dear Rick,
> "I consistently remind people that there is no such thing as a
> "Novus ordo Missae" There is only an "ordo Missae," one from the
> Council of Trent and one from Vatican II. It was a mischievous attempt
> on the part of some reactionaries to tag the adjective "novus" (new)
> onto the title of the liturgy, in an effort to discredit it as modern-
> istic invention."
> "while I am no strong devotee of the so-called Tridentine Mass,
> neither am I a basher of it. As I have written on numerous occasions,
> when it was celebrated well, it provided marvelous access to the divine,
> on the other hand, when poorly or irreverently done (and that happened
> with sad regularity), it was no more edigying than today's aberrations.
> The solution to our liturgical problems is not in recapturing a former
> rite but in responding to the call to worship God in spirit and truth,
> with obedience, love, and faith. Those sentiments are needed, regardless
> of the rite we use."
> Thank you and God Bless,
> Jill
---
>Jill,
>Thank you for your input, I like discussing this subject with >people
>that remember the way it was before Vatican II. I have been trying >to
>develop a clearer understanding of the debates on the Liturgy >(which of
>course, always returns to the bigger debate on the direction of the
>faith).
(O-oh...Serafin, where are you?)
Really, Rick, you are better off not bothering comparing
to much. Just examine your conscience and your motives
deeply. I mean, what's the point? What would it bring
to you or others? Is it going to make others stop going
to Novus Ordo Mass and thus, stop receiving the Eucharist
which we all need? Is it going to make others look for
hulabaloos of dispensable aesthetic, good-feelys, for
themselves, forgetting about the fact that in the very
first Mass, instituted by Jesus Christ - the Last Supper -
there were no such "hulabaloos", for "feel-effects",
and Jesus Christ only went directly to the "business"
of confecting the Eucharist and distributing it to
others.
What? What's the point? Is it for the "Latin" language
linguistic practise and elitisms? For the sake of
misunderstanding and "elitism" (O, I do Latin too, you
know), etc? while the rest of God's ignorant-of-Latin
people are left with just misunderstandings?
And take note, have you been to weekday Masses where
there is no procession, no choir to boot, no offertory
processions and such, in 20 minutes, it's done?
Is there anything misplaced there? Is there no Real
Presence of Christ there? Should people stop going
daily to Mass because of such missing "hulabaloos"?
Jill very well sums up what to expect from going to
Mass. That's all we need for our soul and for our
faith.
I tell you, there would be no other contribution
to the faith of God's people when other people resort
to the "superficialities" of comparing the shell-dispensable
external parts of the Mass.
We are all better off not coming after them "shell-dispensable"
superficial parts. Just consider, in cases of emergencies,
or how about those who do not even have church buildings to
hold Mass into, or how about those in wars?, in the mountains,
etc? The "form" of the Mass is clearly irrelevant here.
The "Last Supper" type of basic Mass is all we need to
receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
And I tell you, we must be prepared well for that time when
no such "long" Masses can be held, that we all just go back
to "upper room" Last Supper type of Mass.
---
___ ___
(__ \/ ) His Peace through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Marida
* )XxXx/
* | / "Human-kind: Where protection of valuable life starts and
* ) / takes off."
* \/ Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you..."
* [http://www.netcom.com/~mdmiguel/simonpure.html]
Ed Faulk
Rick Lugari <rlu...@gcnnet.com> writes:
> Ed Faulk wrote:
> >
> > Rick Lugari <rlu...@GCNNET.COM> writes:
>
> > >
> > > I was born during Vatican II, so I never experienced the Tridentine Mass
> > > until this year. I am sure that many priests in the last 150 years or
> > > so did not celebrate the Mass reverently. However, I have read that
> > > some of the reasons St Pius V codified the Mass were to prevent that
> > > type of abuse and to preserve the Roman Rite for perpetuity. I am still
> > > looking into that, but so far it does appear to be the case.
> >
> > Well, there were numerous reasons for the codification of the Mass,
especially
> > in light of the abuses then prevalent and of the Reformation. However, it
would
> > be incorrect to think that the Mass of St Pius V was the only Mass said in
the
> > Latin Rite from the time of its codification until Vatican II. At least
three
> > other Masses were permissible (the Ambrosian Rite used in Milan is the most
> > commonly cited exception, but there are others).
>
> Were these Rites in existence before Trent?
Yes, the Ambrosian Rite dates from the time of St. Ambrose, while the Spanish
Rites that continued (and are still found today) date form the 1200s.
> > As for the "perpetuity" question, that is resolved by understanding that
the
> > format of the Mass is a disciplinary factor, and no pope can bind a future
pope
> > on matters of discipline. What the directive in Quo Primus does do, at
least in
> > theory, is to prevent the local priests and bishops from making changes to
the
> > liturgy as had been the custom up until that point.
>
> Yes, on matters of discipline (i.e. having married priests), things can
> be changed from time to time. I don't dispute that. I could be wrong,
> but... :-) As I have come to understand this issue so far, the defined
> Liturgy was a product of Trent (a Dogmatic Council). This Liturgy was
> then codified by St. Pius V and several Canons were issued regarding
> it. Part of Quo Primum reads:
>
> "Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic
> authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or
> reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter
> to
> be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of
> incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully
> be
> used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other
> secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to
> celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise
> declare
> and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this
> Missal,
> and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain
> always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous
> constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or
> special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and
> notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches,
> established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if
> more
> than two hundred years' standing."
>
> This is one of the areas of the debate that I'm trying to reach a solid
> conclusion on. It appears to me, with my somewhat limited understanding
> of Canon Law and Papal Infallibility, that we are not merely discussing
> documents on a Discipline or Pastoral Direction. Could you, or anyone
> else for that matter, instruct me as to why my view on this is right or
> wrong?
This is a disciplinary document. Quo Primum is an apostolic constitution which
is used for disciplinary matters. This is, indeed, the case for the Mass of
Pius V. There are several reasons for this. The format of the Mass is not a
matter of faith or morals, while the Sacrament celebrated within the context of
the Mass is. That is, the matter and form of the Eucharist is a matter of
faith, but the rituals surrounding it are not. This is why one can receive the
Eucharist outside of Mass. One cannot, however, confect the Eucharist outside
of Mass (except under unusual circumstances) because the matter and form
require the participation of the faithful (at least in spirit for a private
Mass). Under the guidance of the pope, a Mass can be promulgated because that
is an act that is disciplinary in form (you must use this form of the Mass) and
relies on the promise of obedience given by clerics at their ordination.
Note, also, that the list of those who could not change the Mass does *not*
include the pope! It precludes synodal councils (a local council), a bishop or
priest from changing the Mass, but does not preclude Ecumenical Councils or the
pope himself from making those changes.
> > > I could be wrong (it does happen more than it should):-), but didn't
> > > Pope Paul VI refer to the New Mass as Novus Ordo? I would hardly call
> >
> > Yes, during its development it was called the "Novus Ordo" to distinguish
it
> > from the Mass of Pius V. However, upon its promulgation it became the "Mass
of
> > Paul VI" or simply the Ordo Missae. With the indult permitting the Mass of
Pius
> > V (also called the Tridentine Mass), it is necessary to distinguish them,
but
> > the term "Novus" in association with the Mass has come to be a derogatory
term.
>
> > > him a *reactionary*. BTW it is a term I totally reject. If you want to
> > > consider St Pius IX, St Pius X and Pope Leo XIII reactionaries, so be
> > > it. I consider them to be true defenders of the faith, not
> > > *reactionaries*. I know that it may seem that I took a big leap from
> > > what you had written; it is just that we are dealing with the same
> > > arguments of 100 years ago. This argument between Modernists and
> > > Traditionalists, at the lowest common denominator, is over relativism.
> >
> > Would you care to define how you are using the term "Modernist"? I have
seen it
> > bandied about quite a bit, but rarely by people who actually understand
what
> > the heresy of Modernism is (it is *not* "making things modern" as one wag
put
> > it).
>
> I agree. The word "Traditionalist" has taken on quite a different
> meaning over the years also. "Liberals" may be a more appropriate
> word. The underlying substance of these arguments appears to me to
> remain the same. The Modernists of old (those whom St Pius X directed
> Pascendi Dominici Gregis toward) picked and chose which matters of faith
> and tradition fit their arguments, disregarding all others; the liberals
> of today do essentially the same thing. In a sense, both put their
> personal beliefs above the "Deposit of Faith," demonstrating a prideful
> and pragmatic attitude (look at the heat our Holy Father took for
> "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis"). Pope John Paul II held true to Scripture,
> Dogma and tradition. He admitted that he could not ordain women, even
> if he wanted to. Despite this, many still attempt to construct an
> argument for the ordination of women.
Okay, but while these actions of certain individuals may have fallen into the
realm of Modernism, that is not, strictly speaking, what Modernism is all
about. In a nutshell, Modernism says that there is a rational explanation for
everything and this includes the teachings of the Church. Thus, certain
traditions were discarded because they depended upon a non-rational (read
faith-filled) explanation or because they were inconsistent with a rational
understanding of the underlying reality. In a sense, the pope was quite correct
when he called Modernism the "synthesis of all heresies" because it attempted
to offer explanations that were naturalistic in nature. This, by the approach
it required, virtually assumed every prior heresy. From a naturalistic approach
one can find both Arianism and Pelagianism as being attractive. Monothelitism
is equally embracable. Although these were not specifically taught by the
Modernists, it's easy to see how that could have been the next "logical" step
in the process.
What I find today is *not* Modernism, but a cafeteria approach to Catholicism
in which people pick and choose what they will believe. There is no attempt to
rationalize or to understand the teachings of the Church in this area, but
rather an attempt to synthesize a "system" that allows them to be "cultural
Catholics" without all the baggage that goes along with being a Catholic.
> > > I agree with your last statement to an extent. I think the Rite that
> > > was handed down by the Fathers of the Church has proven to be a powerful
> > > tool in bringing the faithful closer to Our Lord; not only in practice,
> > > but in the dispensation of Grace. Our goal should be to bring as many
> > > souls to the Lord as possible. IMHO the *Ordo Missae* of Pope Paul VI
> > > is failing in that mission.
> >
> > I wonder if this is true. I look at the number of conversions to the faith
> > since Vatican II and find that the numbers are up over those before Vatican
II.
> > At the same time, I find that defections from the Church are also up.
However,
> > I wonder if there are significant social factors that contribute to the
latter,
> > i.e., greater acceptance of divorce among Catholics, etc.
>
> The number of people attending Mass seems to have declined considerably
> since Vatican II. In the US, the number of seminarians is down, with
> the exception of The Fraternity of St. Peter and possibly a few others.
> I believe social factors play a major role in the dilution of the
> faith. Personally I think the Church has failed to address these issues
> properly.
Actually, it's not the numbers attending that have gone down, but rather the
percentage attending. In the past there was not real way of presenting what
percentage of the parish was attending Mass so as to get a realistic picture. I
recall a school project dealing with statistics that I undertook in 1958. We
took the number of families registered in the parish and multiplied by 4.2 (a
reasonable number at the time) to get the number of people in the family. We
then did a count of people attending Mass. At the time, the parish had (numbers
are fuzzy, but close) about 800 registered families. This amounted to 3,360
people in the parish. Of this number, we came up with 67% attending Mass
(2,218). Now, this seems pretty good until one does the rest of the math. At
the time, the Catholic percentage of the population was 27%. The population in
this city was such that the estimated number of Catholics was 9,820. Thus, we
were really seeing only 22% of the "suspected" Catholic population. Today we
are seeing about 33% in my parish, and a little less than that (31%)
nationally.
> > > Dominus Vobiscum
> >
> > Um, did you intend that to be in the plural? If not, the singular is
"Dominus
> > tecum."
>
> Yes, I did. I intend it as a general Blessing to all who read it.
> OTOH, only by accident did I get it in the right tense. I have not been
> educated in the Latin language, I am merely learning it from Mass.
Deacon Ed
*******************************************************************************
* Ed Faulk | "If ignorance is bliss, *
* SnailMail: Beckman Instruments, Inc. | 'tis folly to be wise." *
* 3300 Birch St. | Phone: (714) 961-3383 *
* Brea, CA 92621 | FAX: (714) 961-3351 *
* Internet: efa...@shelties.dp.beckman.com | CIS: 75500,2726 *
*******************************************************************************
* Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend, *
* Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -G. Marx *
*******************************************************************************
Ed Faulk
Rick Lugari <rlu...@GCNNET.COM> writes:
> Angela Geremia wrote:
> >
> > Rick Lugari wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, lets hear it! Does anybody else dislike the Novus Ordo Missae, or
> > > am I just the voice of one crying in the wilderness?>
> >
> > Dear Rick,
> > "I consistently remind people that there is no such thing as a
> > "Novus ordo Missae" There is only an "ordo Missae," one from the
> > Council of Trent and one from Vatican II. It was a mischievous attempt
> > on the part of some reactionaries to tag the adjective "novus" (new)
> > onto the title of the liturgy, in an effort to discredit it as modern-
> > istic invention."
> > "while I am no strong devotee of the so-called Tridentine Mass,
> > neither am I a basher of it. As I have written on numerous occasions,
> > when it was celebrated well, it provided marvelous access to the divine,
> > on the other hand, when poorly or irreverently done (and that happened
> > with sad regularity), it was no more edigying than today's aberrations.
> > The solution to our liturgical problems is not in recapturing a former
> > rite but in responding to the call to worship God in spirit and truth,
> > with obedience, love, and faith. Those sentiments are needed, regardless
> > of the rite we use."
> > Thank you and God Bless,
> > Jill
>
> Jill,
>
> Thank you for your input, I like discussing this subject with people
> that remember the way it was before Vatican II. I have been trying to
> develop a clearer understanding of the debates on the Liturgy (which of
> course, always returns to the bigger debate on the direction of the
> faith).
>
> I was born during Vatican II, so I never experienced the Tridentine Mass
> until this year. I am sure that many priests in the last 150 years or
> so did not celebrate the Mass reverently. However, I have read that
> some of the reasons St Pius V codified the Mass were to prevent that
> type of abuse and to preserve the Roman Rite for perpetuity. I am still
> looking into that, but so far it does appear to be the case.
Well, there were numerous reasons for the codification of the Mass, especially
in light of the abuses then prevalent and of the Reformation. However, it would
be incorrect to think that the Mass of St. Pius V was the only Mass said in the
Latin Rite from the time of its codification until Vatican II. At least three
other Masses were permissible (the Ambrosian Rite used in Milan is the most
commonly cited exception, but there are others).
As for the "perpetuity" question, that is resolved by understanding that the
format of the Mass is a disciplinary factor, and no pope can bind a future pope
on matters of discipline. What the directive in Quo Primus does do, at least in
theory, is to prevent the local priests and bishops from making changes to the
liturgy as had been the custom up until that point.
> I could be wrong (it does happen more than it should):-), but didn't
> Pope Paul VI refer to the New Mass as Novus Ordo? I would hardly call
Yes, during its development it was called the "Novus Ordo" to distinguish it
from the Mass of Pius V. However, upon its promulgation it became the "Mass of
Paul VI" or simply the Ordo Missae. With the indult permitting the Mass of Pius
V (also called the Tridentine Mass), it is necessary to distinguish them, but
the term "Novus" in association with the Mass has come to be a derogatory term.
> him a *reactionary*. BTW it is a term I totally reject. If you want to
> consider St Pius IX, St Pius X and Pope Leo XIII reactionaries, so be
> it. I consider them to be true defenders of the faith, not
> *reactionaries*. I know that it may seem that I took a big leap from
> what you had written; it is just that we are dealing with the same
> arguments of 100 years ago. This argument between Modernists and
> Traditionalists, at the lowest common denominator, is over relativism.
Would you care to define how you are using the term "Modernist"? I have seen it
bandied about quite a bit, but rarely by people who actually understand what
the heresy of Modernism is (it is *not* "making things modern" as one wag put
it).
> I agree with your last statement to an extent. I think the Rite that
> was handed down by the Fathers of the Church has proven to be a powerful
> tool in bringing the faithful closer to Our Lord; not only in practice,
> but in the dispensation of Grace. Our goal should be to bring as many
> souls to the Lord as possible. IMHO the *Ordo Missae* of Pope Paul VI
> is failing in that mission.
I wonder if this is true. I look at the number of conversions to the faith
since Vatican II and find that the numbers are up over those before Vatican II.
At the same time, I find that defections from the Church are also up. However,
I wonder if there are significant social factors that contribute to the latter,
i.e., greater acceptance of divorce among Catholics, etc.
> Dominus Vobiscum
Um, did you intend that to be in the plural? If not, the singular is "Dominus
tecum."
Deacon Ed
*******************************************************************************
* Ed Faulk | "If ignorance is bliss, *
* SnailMail: Beckman Instruments, Inc. | 'tis folly to be wise." *
* 3300 Birch St. | Phone: (714) 961-3383 *
* Brea, CA 92621 | FAX: (714) 961-3351 *
* Internet: efa...@shelties.dp.beckman.com | CIS: 75500,2726 *
*******************************************************************************
Angela Geremia
Rick Lugari wrote:
>
>
>
> Jill,
>
> Thank you for your input, I like discussing this subject with people
> that remember the way it was before Vatican II. I have been trying to
> develop a clearer understanding of the debates on the Liturgy (which of
> course, always returns to the bigger debate on the direction of the
> faith).
>
> I was born during Vatican II, so I never experienced the Tridentine Mass
> until this year. I am sure that many priests in the last 150 years or
> so did not celebrate the Mass reverently. However, I have read that
> some of the reasons St Pius V codified the Mass were to prevent that
> type of abuse and to preserve the Roman Rite for perpetuity. I am still
> looking into that, but so far it does appear to be the case.
>
> I could be wrong (it does happen more than it should):-), but didn't
> Pope Paul VI refer to the New Mass as Novus Ordo? I would hardly call
> him a *reactionary*. BTW it is a term I totally reject. If you want to
> consider St Pius IX, St Pius X and Pope Leo XIII reactionaries, so be
> it. I consider them to be true defenders of the faith, not
> *reactionaries*. I know that it may seem that I took a big leap from
> what you had written; it is just that we are dealing with the same
> arguments of 100 years ago. This argument between Modernists and
> Traditionalists, at the lowest common denominator, is over relativism.
Dear Rick,
I agree with you 100% about these Popes. St. Pius X was my favorite.
I remember him well.
Well, I am not a Modernist and I am not a Traditionalist...but I
would call myself a Traditional Catholic. After living through the
Church and all the changes I feel that the Church is moving ahead.
There seems to be a coming home within the Church and its members.
There is a change in the relationship Catholics have with our
beloved Church, instead of seeing the demanding Father we are now
seeing the Nurturing Mother.
The Church is now undergoing its purification and it will eventual
be cleansed and purified. And we know that it will survive. I
sure hope I live to see that day!!
Thank you and God Bless,
Jill
Saving Souls "is" the most important role each one of us has.
> I agree with your last statement to an extent. I think the Rite that
> was handed down by the Fathers of the Church has proven to be a powerful
> tool in bringing the faithful closer to Our Lord; not only in practice,
> but in the dispensation of Grace. Our goal should be to bring as many
> souls to the Lord as possible. IMHO the *Ordo Missae* of Pope Paul VI
> is failing in that mission.
>
Pope Pius XIII
"Trefor John Heywood M.Theol" <tre...@MAG5.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote:
>There are several of us who will have no recollection of the Tridentine,
>having either been born or converted to the Church since Vatican II.
>I have only been to one Latin Mass (in Westminster Cathedral) which was
>obviously in Novus Ordo Latin and was only spoken anyway.
>So how are we expected to compare in order to be able to like or dislike?
Trefor,
Try the 10.00 Tridentine Mass in the Little Oratory in Brompton
Oratory on Sunday mornings. Very nice. Also, St James's at Spanish
Place has a Trid Mass on Holydays of Obligation at 11.00.
Both of the Masses are very reverently celebrated, and extremely
uplifting.
Edward C. Yong
ky...@pacific.net.sg
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~kyrie
----------------------------------------
Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo.
Resolutely in action, gently in manner
----------------------------------------
Pope Pius XIII
Kevin R Fritts <krob....@JUNO.COM> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 12:24:38 GMT Pope Pius XIII <ky...@PACIFIC.NET.SG>
>writes:
>>Pope Pius XIII
>>Formerly Patriarch of Constantinople.
>>Primate of the West, Bishop of Rome,
>>Servant of the Servants of God,
>>Vicar of Christ, Chocolate lover.
>>Holding court in Avignon at ky...@pacific.net.sg
>What is all this b.s.? Is this a joke, or are you the new LeFebvrist
>"Pope"? (i know there's been rumors of such a thing. Has it actually
>gone so far? Do they no longer care for reconciliation?) And what's
>with the "Formerly Patriarch of Constantinople"?
Have we lost our sense of humour on this list? Good grief, Lefebvrist
Pope? The bit of "Formerly Patriarch of Constantinople" is a sort of
hope for a Pope from the Eastern Rites/ a hope of a Pope in the near
future presiding over a reunified East and West..... I do hope no one
takes offence at the Avignon bit...
JP Ronan
Rick Lugari <rlu...@GCNNET.COM> wrote:
>To start: I am fortunate enough to participate in the Tridentine Mass.
>It is by far the most reverent and Holy experience I can think of. I
>love it so much I drive past well over a dozen Catholic Churches, and
>into another country (US to Canada).
>Well, lets hear it! Does anybody else dislike the Novus Ordo Missae, or
>am I just the voice of one crying in the wilderness?
Well, I remember attending Latin Mass of the newer type until the mid
seventies, (and I'm 'only' mid thirties now) and I still love the
older music and traditions of the Church which I grew up with.
I was lucky enough to attend University in London, a few hundred yards
from the Brompton Oratory, still one of the most traditional churches
in the UK. I found it very helpful to attend there sometimes, but I
also have warm memories of the much more informal masses at the
chaplaincy, and at the college in study rooms or wherever we could
find a space.
The beauty of the Mass is its flexibility and the deepness of its
meaning whether it is said in a Cathedral with full choirs, or a front
line mud soaked trench in wartime. House Masses are a great tradition
too!
Different settings and ways of expressing the Mass are one of the joys
of Catholicism, lets use them all in the right ways at the appropriate
times.
Joe Ronan
Rick Lugari
> (O-oh...Serafin, where are you?)
>
> Really, Rick, you are better off not bothering comparing
> to much. Just examine your conscience and your motives
> deeply. I mean, what's the point? What would it bring
> to you or others? Is it going to make others stop going
> to Novus Ordo Mass and thus, stop receiving the Eucharist
> which we all need? Is it going to make others look for
> hulabaloos of dispensable aesthetic, good-feelys, for
> themselves, forgetting about the fact that in the very
> first Mass, instituted by Jesus Christ - the Last Supper -
> there were no such "hulabaloos", for "feel-effects",
> and Jesus Christ only went directly to the "business"
> of confecting the Eucharist and distributing it to
> others.
As a Catholic, one should know his/her faith. I am trying to find out
the truth on a very important aspect of our faith. You are probably
aware that there is an argument amongst the faithful regarding the
Mass. From what I have found, there are three major positions taken on
it. To summarize:
1. The New Mass is invalid.
2. The New Mass is valid, but not necessarily a good reform.
3. The New Mass is valid and a wonderful reform.
First of all, I personally don't think the New Mass is a good reform.
At the very least I think the latitude given to the clergy and lay
people opens the door for many abuses. The important argument is on the
validity of the New Mass. If the New Mass is invalid I don't want any
part of it, nor do I want to see my brethren partake in it. I am not
sure what to believe on this issue, for there are good arguments on both
sides. Deacon Ed has been doing a good job helping me understand the
argument for the New Mass. ** BTW, thank you, Deacon Ed. **
> What? What's the point? Is it for the "Latin" language
> linguistic practice and elitisms? For the sake of
> misunderstanding and "elitism" (O, I do Latin too, you
> know), etc? while the rest of God's ignorant-of-Latin
> people are left with just misunderstandings?
"Elitism"...Get Real! If you think the reason the Old Mass is in Latin
is to boost the ego of those who know the language and keep the rest of
us ignorant, you couldn't be further from the truth. Am I a
semi-elitist because I can speak Pig Latin? <ringe>
> And take note, have you been to weekday Masses where
> there is no procession, no choir to boot, no offertory
> processions and such, in 20 minutes, it's done?
> Is there anything misplaced there? Is there no Real
> Presence of Christ there? Should people stop going
> daily to Mass because of such missing "hulabaloos"?
Hulabaloos! Is that a post-Vatican II term?
> Jill very well sums up what to expect from going to
> Mass. That's all we need for our soul and for our
> faith.
>
> I tell you, there would be no other contribution
> to the faith of God's people when other people resort
> to the "superficialities" of comparing the shell-dispensable
> external parts of the Mass.
My mistake, I didn't know the Church instituted "shell-dispensable"
parts of the Mass. I thought that there were formulas for the different
types of the Mass. I think you miss the point; the debate is not over
"superficialities."
> We are all better off not coming after them "shell-dispensable"
> superficial parts. Just consider, in cases of emergencies,
> or how about those who do not even have church buildings to
> hold Mass into, or how about those in wars?, in the mountains,
> etc? The "form" of the Mass is clearly irrelevant here.
> The "Last Supper" type of basic Mass is all we need to
> receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
> And I tell you, we must be prepared well for that time when
> no such "long" Masses can be held, that we all just go back
> to "upper room" Last Supper type of Mass.
I think you have stumbled upon one of the problems that I have with the
New Mass. The Mass that I participate in is an unbloody Sacrifice of
our Lord; the reliving of the Passion of our Lord. It is not a
commemoration of the Last Supper. The New Mass may seem like a "Last
Supper" type of basic Mass to some, but I assure you that it was not
intended to be. ** Deacon Ed, could you please explain what is
happening in the Mass? ** Once again, I don't think you understand the
issues at hand. The argument is not between people who want "long
Masses" and those who don't. The Sacraments are a means by which God's
Grace flows. I don't know of anybody from the traditional point of view
that wants to trivialize this or any other Sacrament. To the contrary,
I see people trying to preserve the appreciation and Sanctity of the
Sacraments.
There are arguments about the Mass beyond what has been stated on this
thread. I am hesitant to mention them because of my own ignorance of the
subject. Besides, my wife instructs me that I am spending too much time
here on the list.
Peace,
Rick Lugari
Dominus Vobiscum
Rick Lugari
Ed Faulk wrote:
>
> Rick Lugari <rlu...@gcnnet.com> writes:
> > Were these Rites in existence before Trent?
>
> Yes, the Ambrosian Rite dates from the time of St. Ambrose, while the Spanish
> Rites that continued (and are still found today) date form the 1200s.
So, these Rites were more than 200 years old and *grandfathered* in.
They
were not introduced after St Pius V.
Isn't the consecration of the wine changed in the New Mass?
I'm not sure if the omission of the Pope and Ecumenical Councils
demonstrates a will to allow them to make changes or institute a new
liturgy. Quo Primum states, "notwithstanding the previous constitutions
and decrees of the Holy See..." Note that future constitutions and
decrees are not mentioned. Also, this statement shows a desire to
uphold previous constitutions and decrees. Perhaps St. Pius V was
following an established precedent (so to speak), or he was setting one
and expected the same respect from future popes and councils. Is this a
possibility?
We are pretty much in agreement here. You described what I see in many
of the lay persons. However, there are many clergy and to a lesser
extent lay persons that try to concoct a justification for their
predefined personal beliefs. Both of these examples and that of the
Modernist Heresy reflect a relativist approach; which is the comparison
I made to begin with. Once again, I think you very eloquently described
a big problem amongst the faithful. I think in part Vatican II is
responsible for the belief system you refer to.
Deacon Ed, I believe this dialog is of a valid and important nature,
thanks for not flaming me. I appreciate your rational approach.
Rick Lugari
Dominus Vobiscum
Rick Lugari
Kevin R Fritts wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:50:37 -0400 Rick Lugari <rlu...@GCNNET.COM>
> writes:
> >Pope Pius XIII wrote:
>
> >> >Gee, wouldn't it be neat to be a single church with a universal
> >> >liturgical calendar and a universal liturgy?
> >>
> >> A chance for those who advocate a return to the Pre 1962 calendar
> >and
> >> liturgy to speak up..... *grin*
> >>
> >> Formerly Patriarch of Constantinople.
> >> Primate of the West, Bishop of Rome,
> >> Servant of the Servants of God,
> >> Vicar of Christ, Chocolate lover.
> >>
> >> Holding court in Avignon at ky...@pacific.net.sg
>
> >how many Traditionalists are here. It would be nice to hear the
> >different views on the subject. Providing of course, I would not be
> >starting World War III.
>
> >or
> >am I just the voice of one crying in the wilderness?
>
> kevin
Kevin,
Thanks for your reply. I have not been ignoring you, or anyone else for
that matter. You have brought up some good points; that unfortunately I
cannot address at this time. I have limited time to spend with the
group and am trying to focus on one or two conversations at a time.
BTW, I have the Adoremus web site bookmarked and I like a lot of what
they say.
God Bless,
Rick
Ed Faulk
Rick Lugari <rlu...@GCNNET.COM> writes:
> Isn't the consecration of the wine changed in the New Mass?
No, the wine is consecrated in the same way: ex opere operato, or through=
the
workings of Christ. The essential words of the consecration, the only wor=
ds
found in common with the Mass down through the ages, is "This is my body"=
and
"This is my blood". All the rest is a teaching amplification. According t=
o
Jungmann in his "The Mass of the Roman Rite":
"In all known liturgies (except the East Syrian anaphora of the Apostles)=
the
core of the eucharistia, and therefore of the Mass, is formed by the narr=
ative
of institution and the words of consecration. Our very first observation =
in
this regard is the remarkable fact that the texts of the account of
institution, among them in particular the most ancient (whether as handed=
down
or as reconstructed by comparative studies), are never simply a Scripture=
text
restated. They go back to pre-biblical tradition. Here we face an outgrow=
th of
the fact that the Eucharist was celebrated long before the evangelists an=
d St.
Paul set out to record the Gospel story. Even the glaring discrepancies i=
n the
biblical texts themselves regarding this very point are explained by this=
fact.
For in them we evidently find segments from the liturgical life of the fi=
rst
generation of Christians.
"Later on, because liturgical texts were still very fluid, the account of=
the
institution was developed along three different lines. First of all, the =
two
sections on the bread and the chalice were refashioned to gain greater
symmetry. Such a symmetrical conformation, undoubtedly introduced in the
interest of a well-balanced audible performance, is seen already in the p=
hrases
of the rather simple account of the institution as recorded by Hippolytus=
: Hoc
est corpus meum quod pro vobis confringetur =97 Hic est sanguis meus qui =
pro
vobis effunditur. [For the Latin-impaired: This is my body which is broke=
n for
you =97 This is my blood which is poured out for you.] The parallelism wa=
s even
more advanced in a liturgy a good hundred years after, namely, the Liturg=
y of
Serapion, where the single account has been broken up into two independen=
t
parallel accounts separated by a prayer. The trend reached a crest before=
the
middle of the fifth century in the basic form of the main oriental liturg=
ies,
the anaphoras of St. Mark, St. James and St. Basil. Here, for example, in=
both
passages we find eucharistesas, eulogesas, agiasas; and the additional ph=
rase
from Matthew 26:28 regarding the chalice, eis aphestn amarton [for forgiv=
eness
of sins], is transferred also to the bread. Then came the second phase, w=
herein
symmetry was abandoned in favor of a word-for-word dependence on the bibl=
ical
accounts, some expressions from the Scriptures being interwoven bit by bi=
t with
the traditional text. And finally, along with these, a third phenomenon
appeared, the effort to refit the phrases in decorative fashion, to under=
score
certain theological concepts, and to make more room for a reverential
participation. In addition, elements of local table etiquette, or element=
s from
the customs of worship were frequently re-projected into the biblical acc=
ount."
I cite this to show that these phrases have changed constantly over the
centuries (at least, up until Trent when, for 400 years, they remained
constant). In fact, Jungmann goes on to say: "The most striking phenomeno=
n in
the Roman text [in reference to the Mass of St. Pius V] is the augmentati=
on of
the words of consecration said over the chalice. The mention of the New
Testament is turned into an acknowledgment of its everlasting duration: n=
ovi et
aeterni testamenti. And then, in the middle of the sacred text, stand the
enigmatic words so frequently discussed: mysterium fidei. [Note, this was
written in the early 1940s!] Unfortunately, the popular explanation (that=
the
words were originally spoken by the deacon to reveal to the congregation =
what
had been performed at the altar, which was screened from view by curtains=
) is
poetry, not history."
So, no, the consecration has not changed -- it continues to be what it ha=
s
always been -- the action of Christ working through the priest to change =
the
bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.
> I'm not sure if the omission of the Pope and Ecumenical Councils
> demonstrates a will to allow them to make changes or institute a new
> liturgy. Quo Primum states, "notwithstanding the previous constitution=
s
> and decrees of the Holy See..." Note that future constitutions and
> decrees are not mentioned. Also, this statement shows a desire to
> uphold previous constitutions and decrees. Perhaps St. Pius V was
> following an established precedent (so to speak), or he was setting one
> and expected the same respect from future popes and councils. Is this =
a
> possibility?
No, it is not. Again, the *only* thing a pope can bind a future pope on i=
s
matters of faith and morals. This is neither. The document is by its very
nature a disciplinary document designed to promulgate a standard througho=
ut the
entire Latin Rite of the Church. Note that it had no effect on the Easter=
n
Church whatsoever. If it had been a matter of faith and morals then it wo=
uld
have been addressed to the *entire* Church, not just to the Latin Rite.
...stuff deleted...
> Deacon Ed, I believe this dialog is of a valid and important nature,
> thanks for not flaming me. I appreciate your rational approach.
You are quite welcome. I am always happy to present the teachings of the =
Church
so that others can understand not only the teaching, but sometimes the
reasoning behind the teaching.
Deacon Ed
*************************************************************************=
******
* Ed Faulk | "If ignorance is bl=
iss, *
* SnailMail: Beckman Instruments, Inc. | 'tis folly to be wi=
se." *
* 3300 Birch St. | Phone: (714) 961-33=
83 *
* Brea, CA 92621 | FAX: (714) 961-33=
51 *
* Internet: efa...@shelties.dp.beckman.com | CIS: 75500,2726 =
*
*************************************************************************=
******
* Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend, =
*
* Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -G. Marx =
*
*************************************************************************=
******
Marida Ignacio
Marida Ignacio wrote:
>
> Rick Lugari <rlu...@GCNNET.COM> writes:
> Subject: Re: NO MASS ON HOLYDAYS?
>
> (O-oh...Serafin, where are you?)
>
> Really, Rick, you are better off not bothering comparing
> to much. Just examine your conscience and your motives
> deeply. I mean, what's the point? What would it bring
> to you or others? Is it going to make others stop going
> to Novus Ordo Mass and thus, stop receiving the Eucharist
> which we all need? Is it going to make others look for
> hulabaloos of dispensable aesthetic, good-feelys, for
> themselves, forgetting about the fact that in the very
> first Mass, instituted by Jesus Christ - the Last Supper -
> there were no such "hulabaloos", for "feel-effects",
> and Jesus Christ only went directly to the "business"
> of confecting the Eucharist and distributing it to
> others.
---
>As a Catholic, one should know his/her faith. I am trying to find >out
>the truth on a very important aspect of our faith. You are >probably
>aware that there is an argument amongst the faithful regarding the
>Mass.
Uh-huh. I knew some "fruits" like these will happen
when someone from the "Trads" starts such "New Mass"
bashings.
Fruits - arguments, prejudices, prejudice-mongerings,
confusions, errors;
even "desolating abomination" because some people
make it excuse to stop going to Mass and so stop
receiving Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
First of all, RickL, I am Catholic indeed and the only
Mass I have attended ever since gradeschool in Catholic
schools is with the "New Mass". And I'm telling you now,
there is nothing erroneous, heretical, misplaced, unreal
at all in this Mass. This Mass is valid, licit and approved
by the Church. We receive the Real Presence, the Most
Blessed Sacrament, in this Mass.
The arguments you "heard" against this Mass are just
prejudices and prejudicial from subjective opinions
with attachments to shell-dispensable parts and aesthetics
from the old Mass.
If by such "prejudices", they can have plenty to say
against the "Last Supper Mass" too which was completely
free of such "Old Mass" hulabaloos and which simply
goes directly to the point.
>From what I have found, there are three major positions >.taken on
>it. To summarize:
>1. The New Mass is invalid.
Wrong. It is valid and approved by the Church.
>2. The New Mass is valid, but not necessarily a good reform.
You can say the same prejudice to Jesus Christ in the
Last Supper Mass He did.
>3. The New Mass is valid and a wonderful reform.
I absolutely do not have an opinion here except for
the fact that I take and go to Mass for other reasons
than "feelings" and "aesthetics". I go to Mass to
adore God and receive the Most Blessed Sacrament and
by the grace from it, be back in communion to God's
Church, proclaiming this together in good faith to
God. With such grace, I can then go forward in life,
belonging to His Church, hopefully much more stronger
everytime, and hopefully more closer to Him as well
in doing His will.
As for whatever "grand hulabaloo" of ceremonial rites
and procedures, I leave that all up to the priest -
that's his job afterall. My relationship with God is
more than these external manifestations that I couldn't
care less if the Mass were to be held in the mountains,
at the upper room or wherever, when "emergency" strikes.
The priest can bring God everywhere by his ordination
"powers" and I leave all these up to God and him to
worry about all that.
>If the New Mass is invalid I don't want any
>part of it, nor do I want to see my brethren partake in it.
Again it is not.
However, there are some "parishes" who abuse any type
of Mass. Take for instance some Newman Center Masses
in some universities. They alter the New Mass to something
else than how it should be. They use different matter
and form for the sacrament and with these, the congregation
can be partaking in invalid Mass and sacrament.
Overall, however, in "obedient" parishes, the New Mass
is valid and the sacrament is valid, considering all
the proper matter and form are undertaken, of course.
> What? What's the point? Is it for the "Latin" language
> linguistic practice and elitisms? For the sake of
> misunderstanding and "elitism" (O, I do Latin too, you
> know), etc? while the rest of God's ignorant-of-Latin
> people are left with just misunderstandings?
>"Elistism" -- get real...
That's just there for perspective. However, some Trads
would indeed be disappointed, because of too much
attachments to such "external" shell-dispensable parts,
that if Adoremus decided to keep the "vernacular"
for the future new Mass.
The point is, those who are promulgating such prejudices
against the New Mass can easily carry over their prejudices
towards Adoremus future Mass because what they really
want is to just go back to the old Mass. That would just
"expose" their attachments indeed to the "shell-dispensable
parts" only.
> And take note, have you been to weekday Masses where
> there is no procession, no choir to boot, no offertory
> processions and such, in 20 minutes, it's done?
> Is there anything misplaced there? Is there no Real
> Presence of Christ there? Should people stop going
> daily to Mass because of such missing "hulabaloos"?
Hulabaloos! Is that a post-Vatican II term?
You tell me. Were the "hulabaloos of the old mass"
present at the Last Supper Mass?
> Jill very well sums up what to expect from going to
> Mass. That's all we need for our soul and for our
> faith.
>
> I tell you, there would be no other contribution
> to the faith of God's people when other people resort
> to the "superficialities" of comparing the shell-dispensable
> external parts of the Mass.
---
>My mistake, I didn't know the Church instituted "shell-dispensable"
>parts of the Mass.
That is in comparison to the Last Supper Mass which
can be considered "pale" in comparison to the
"attachments" of shell-dispensable parts in the so-called
Tridentine Mass.
Really, the New Mass has all that which constitutes
the core essential necessities for a valid and licit
Mass, afterall.
So, basically, what you've got from "Trads" arguments
against the New Mass are just "bad fruits" - prejudices
and prejudice-mongering - on top of merely shell-dispensable
parts; Afterall, the New Mass contains all the basic
core necessities for all of us to receive the grace
from the Most Blessed Sacrament. Just as basically
instructed by Christ to the Apostles - "take this, eat
this, all of you..."
> We are all better off not coming after them "shell-dispensable"
> superficial parts. Just consider, in cases of emergencies,
> or how about those who do not even have church buildings to
> hold Mass into, or how about those in wars?, in the mountains,
> etc? The "form" of the Mass is clearly irrelevant here.
> The "Last Supper" type of basic Mass is all we need to
> receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
> And I tell you, we must be prepared well for that time when
> no such "long" Masses can be held, that we all just go back
> to "upper room" Last Supper type of Mass.
---
>I think you have stumbled upon one of the problems that I have with >the
>New Mass. The Mass that I participate in is an unbloody Sacrifice >of
>our Lord; the reliving of the Passion of our Lord. It is not a
>commemoration of the Last Supper. The New Mass may seem like a >"Last
>Supper" type of basic Mass to some, but I assure you that it was >not
>intended to be.
O yeah? And so let's just forget Christ's statement,
"Do this (again) in memory of Me."? Uh-huh.
And isn't that what the Apostles/priests are doing indeed?
RickL, you missed the point of comparison here between
the Last Supper Mass and the New Mass. This is not
about the sacrifice that goes on because the validity of
the New Mass speaks well for that and upholds that very
well properly.
What I am comparing here is the form of celebration
between the Old Mass and the New Mass.
With the form, the Last Supper Mass form pales well in
comparison to the Tridentine Mass celebration even!
So by using the arguments of "invalid form" towards the
New Mass, you are basically saying the Last Supper
Mass' form is invalid as well - speaking merely in
form.
That's where your argument fails because that is
not true at all. Regardless if the Last Supper Mass or
the New Mass pale in comparison to the Tridentine Mass,
both are valid when it comes to providing the grace
and the Most Blessed Sacrament to God's people.
And RickL, there is indeed sanctity towards us as well
as the Most Blessed Sacrament, whenever we receive
Holy Communion, whether it be in the New Mass or
if it were at the Last Supper Mass.
Be rest assured, except for the utter violations by
some parishes/Newman Center Masses, those who are
obedient in the proper matter and form for the New
Mass provides sanctification and grace to God's
people, giving us the valid Most Blessed Sacrament
indeed.