Catholics condemned for worshiping idols
Erigo
something I read in another newsgroup(soc.culture.malaysia).
The title of the article was "Idolworship in christianity"
It says something about how illogical it is for Catholics to worship
Mother Mary and the Saints. This person just cannot accept the
explanation that we merely ask them to guide us to live the life they
once lived because they are near to God. He further says that we
slouldn't be asking them, instead we should ask God.
He further goes on to say that the Holy Trinity doesn't make sense. He
says "Not content with having one god...they create three
gods.Now....this is bordering on pluralistic gods."
I just don't know how to answer him. I don't think it's a good idea to
ignore him because with Malaysia being a multi racial country he could
damage the Catholic reputation.
Could someone knowledgeable please reply and if possible also reply to
soc.culture.malaysia (Re: Idolworship in christianity)
Thanks.
Erigo
The following is the thread so far.
(1)
str8...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<76kjr2$6hf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
Dear People....
Christians worship idols...in catholic churches you see the figure of
mary...the pray at this figure and ask for various things,
money...child...a
car..a motorbike..and what have you.
In protestant churches...virgin mary idols may be scarce...but the
statues of
"Jesus" are aplenty. They pray at this figure for forgiveness..for a
van, an
electric guitar..and what have you.
Not content with having one god...they create three gods. Now....this
is
bordering on pluralistic gods. Although of course a christian will
always
say..." oh you dont understand...its only one...but three in one" Its
becoming more like shampoo now...2 in 1..shampoo and conditioner..but
the
christians are a step more advance...there 3 in 1..but mind
you...follow me
shampoo has its own version.....6 in 1 !! Now beat that.
Sometimes, especially in the caholic faith, even so called saints are
worshipped....i wonder when they are going to worship lady fatima of
culcutta..or are they already worshipping her.
STR8ihos
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your
Own
(2)
piper wrote in message <368de528...@news.interport.net>...
That's what I used to think, too (in fact, I thought Christians
believed in ghosts because the priest blesses "In the name of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"), but Christians explained to me
what their beliefs actually are. If you want to understand another
religion, you must ask knowledgeable adherents of it to explain it to
you and not prejudge it. You would be very angry with any non-Muslim
who assumed a series of inaccurate, insulting things about Islam!
Don't practice a contemptible double standard in which you get to
judge other religions from a standpoint of ignorance at the same time
as you comdemn others from judging your religion from a standpoint of
ignorance.
Michael
(3)
Alphonsus Sim wrote in message <76ktdi$l5e$1...@news6.jaring.my>...
>
str8...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<76kjr2$6hf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Dear People....
>
>Christians worship idols...in catholic churches you see the figure of
>mary...the pray at this figure and ask for various things,
money...child...a
>car..a motorbike..and what have you.
Hmmm.....worship????Well they are not worshipping and they never ask
worldly
things from those statues!!!!It's only your perceptions!They pray to
those
people who've lived in t his world and is now in Heaven and near to
God.
They ask them to guide them to live the life they once lived so these
people
might go to heaven like them!It's really like...looking up to them as
an
examples!Anyway, it's not wrong to build a statue of a person who once
lived
in this earth...after all they have a face, a body like you!We can
build
statues of great people such as Isaac Newton or National Heroes like
Mandela, why not these people who are most favoured by God>?>>If
Catholics
build statues of mand made gods like err..neptune or uranus or even
God the
Father then you can call them worshipping idols because these are not
human
beings who've lived in this world!
>
>In protestant churches...virgin mary idols may be scarce...but the statues
of
>"Jesus" are aplenty. They pray at this figure for forgiveness..for a van,
an
>electric guitar..and what have you.
hahahaaaa...!!!!hmmm......Jesus is a human being too right???He has a
face
and a body like you!Why not build a statue to remind us of this great
man!!!????They pray to Jesus because he is God!!!Now you can say they
worship Jesus....because He is God and they must worship Him!Pray for
forgiveness...it that wrong to ask from God??
>
>Not content with having one god...they create three gods. Now....this is
>bordering on pluralistic gods. Although of course a christian will always
>say..." oh you dont understand...its only one...but three in one" Its
>becoming more like shampoo now...2 in 1..shampoo and conditioner..but the
>christians are a step more advance...there 3 in 1..but mind you...follow me
>shampoo has its own version.....6 in 1 !! Now beat that.
Well tthe Trinity is still a mystery that our mind still don't
understand!It's like..hmmm...how can I say.....let's say about 10,000
yrs
ago or before Columbus, people in the whole world believed the world
is
square....they don't understand it when some Arabian Scientists showed
them
that the earth is round. And later in the centuries when human mind
had come
to a more advanced state that they understand and could see that the
Earth
is round!It's similar to this!Also well, you can compare the Trinity
to the
3 phases of matter..solid, liquid and gas. It's 3 phases of one kind
of
matter....
>
>Sometimes, especially in the caholic faith, even so called saints are
>worshipped....i wonder when they are going to worship lady fatima of
>culcutta..or are they already worshipping her.
>
Saints are not worshipped but they look up to them as an example and
they(Catholics) believed that the saints are with God now and is close
to
God!Well, sometimes when you want to know how the King or a great
person is
like, would'nt you go and find those of your friends who are closest
to
these persons to get informations???That is why the saints can guide
people
in living what the God wants us because God can work in so many
ways...not
neccesary directly!!!!!
I Hope you understand this.......we must respect all religions which
owrship
God!;)
Alphonsus Sim
(4)
str8...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<76lnqr$2b9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> They ask them to guide them to live the life they once lived so these people
> might go to heaven like them!
This is rather difficult to understand...forst of all you deny that
the
catholics worship human beings...such as virgin mary or saintlike
figure...and now you are saying that what happens after all is that
you ASK
THEM to guide you. How can you ask a dead person to do something for
you. And
furthermore....they have no such powers to bestow upon any man...the
power to
grant wishes is with God...you should be asking God...not a human
being who
is long dead. They cannot do anything ! Its like asking a big tree for
you to
be as tall and strong as the tree. Its useless...or asking
(worshipping) a
boulder or a star..asking that u be big and strong as the boulder. if
you
want to look up to these figures of saintly people..you could read
their
books on their autobiography..and ask God for guidance so that you may
become
like them. You dont go and ask at the satue of mandela to be like
Mandela. If
this is not IDOL worship..what is ?? By the way..the word worship
means..extreme reverence.
> Well tthe Trinity is still a mystery that our mind still don't
> understand!
There ..like i ve said..this is an excuse by the
christians...especially when
such notion does not make sense....to use the phrase..." its a
mystery". All
doors are closed from this point onward because a mystery cannot be
answered.
Why dont just say ONE...not THREE IN ONE.....afterall...the originator
of
"christianity" was a Jew who worhipped ONE god...not a god of 1 in 3
or 3 in
1. Everyone understands this concept of God...the jews...etc and other
religions. Why complicate a matter bordering on pluralistic Gods. Its
bothering on Paganism. Its dangerous to faith.
>!Also well, you can compare the Trinity to 3 phases of matter..solid, liquid
and gas. It's 3 phases of one kind of matter....
>
Well..trinity is different.....the phases of matter cannot exist all
at the
same time...a molecule of water can exist either in solid...liquid or
gas
form. Never can it be 2 at the same time. But when we look at the
trinity in
christianity...we see that...the Holy Ghost can exist when Jesus was
present
at the same instance...and Jesus was there even when god the father
was also
present at the same time....ie...2 GODS at the same time. If this is
not
plurality of Gods...what is ?
>!Well, sometimes when you want to know how the King or a great person is
> like, would'nt you go and find those of your friends who are closest to
> these persons to get informations???That is why the saints can guide people
> in living what the God wants us because God can work in so many ways...not
> neccesary directly!!!!!
>
Are you saying that these Saints can talk to the living adn guide
them? This
is like praying to them. Pray to God..not to Saits ..or Prophets...or
Priests. They cannot do anything. Even if you pray to you dead
father..no
matter how pious he was or how close he was to God...he couldnt do
anything
because first of all he is dead..second of all ..he doesnt hear
you.....only
GOD hears your whispers...so ASK Him. Dont ask a dead individual. Its
futile.
You re just wasting your time. Human beings..how close they are to
God...cannot do anything by themselves...all power is with God.
---mission to rid of paganism,idol worship and associating partners
with
God... in the modern world---
STR8ihos
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your
Own
(5)
On 4 Jan 1999 10:17:39 GMT, comd...@aol.com (COMDCTRL) wrote:
>
>But catholics, now thats a totally different thing. These people are occults
>violating the first rule of being a christian...you cannot make anything that
>is above in heaven. You cannot make a statue of God or jesus or mary of anyone
>thats dead actually...but count on the pope to change the rules...but who is
>the pope but the anti christ him self ?
Theodore M. Seeber
These beliefs you describe are typical of a certian type of anti-Catholic
Christian sect known as Evangelical/Fundamentalist.
It's hard to answer these people, because they each hold to a private
interpretation of scripture that is unknown to Catholicism, and each one
of them holds a DIFFERENT interpretation of scripture.
I suggest challenging him on the following levels:
1. Find out what sect he belongs to and who started it and when. Many
fundamentalist churches trace their beginings only back to the 19th
Century in the United States, this opens the door for "But the Early
Church Fathers, in the 1st century believed...." arguments.
2. Ask the following question: What is the pillar and support of truth?
When he answers "The Bible", point out 1 Tim 3:15 to him. This gives you
support in literalist biblical terms for the Church having authority.
3. Ask who wrote the Bible. Show him that the Catholic Church defined
the Canon in 350 A.D. and that it was the Protestants who threw the
deutrocanonicals out of the Bible. This is neccessary because praying for
the dead can only be found in the deutrocanonicals. Also, a usefull
comparison, to either disprove faith healing or to prove the validity of
the deutrocanonicals to those who don't believe in faith healing is a
comparison between James 5:14-16 and Sirach 38.
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
Click here for your official 1998 IDIC how to be an anarchist spoof:
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert/howto.html
Stephanie Rendino
>I'm a catholic from Malaysia. I wrote this because I feel disturbed by
>something I read in another newsgroup(soc.culture.malaysia).
>The title of the article was "Idolworship in christianity"
>
>It says something about how illogical it is for Catholics to worship
>Mother Mary and the Saints. This person just cannot accept the
>explanation that we merely ask them to guide us to live the life they
>once lived because they are near to God. He further says that we
>slouldn't be asking them, instead we should ask God.
People like this kind which you describe cannot be convinced. You can
tell them every day that we do not worship Mary and the saints and they
will never believe you. They simply do not want to believe you, and they
do not want to respect your point of view either.
>He further goes on to say that the Holy Trinity doesn't make sense. He
>says "Not content with having one god...they create three
>gods.Now....this is bordering on pluralistic gods."
Even though such people don't want to understand, here is something to
point out. There are two instances where the Trinity appear very clearly.
At the baptism of Jesus you have Jesus, the Father's voice coming out of
the clouds, and the Holy Sprit descending. If all these people are God,
then there's a Trinity. In the Transfiguration a similar thing happens
although we don't see the Holy Spirit. Finally, at the end of Matthew,
Jesus tells the apostles to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit."
The person will say, "but the word Trinity doesn't appear in the Bible."
Well, cats don't appear in the Bible either, at least not in the
Protestant one. This does not mean that cats don't exist. (Cats are
mentioned in one verse in the Catholic Bible though, which shows the
Catholic Bible is true...no true Bible would forget cats!) If the person
is Christian, there are many Christian terms they use that do not appear
in the Bible.
>I just don't know how to answer him. I don't think it's a good idea to
>ignore him because with Malaysia being a multi racial country he could
>damage the Catholic reputation.
It's always good to know how to answer these questions, for your own
faith even more than for other peoples' knowledge.
Stephanie
Tom Vick
> tell them every day that we do not worship Mary and the saints and they
> will never believe you. They simply do not want to believe you, and they
> do not want to respect your point of view either.
But we Catholics DO worship Mary and the Saints!!!!! Anybody who says we do not,
does not understand the term 'worship'.
> >I just don't know how to answer him. I don't think it's a good idea to
> >ignore him because with Malaysia being a multi racial country he could
> >damage the Catholic reputation.
>
> It's always good to know how to answer these questions, for your own
> faith even more than for other peoples' knowledge.
>
True!!! Why don't you?
Theodore M. Seeber
> > People like this kind which you describe cannot be convinced. You can
> > tell them every day that we do not worship Mary and the saints and they
> > will never believe you. They simply do not want to believe you, and they
> > do not want to respect your point of view either.
>
> But we Catholics DO worship Mary and the Saints!!!!! Anybody who says we
> do not,
> does not understand the term 'worship'.
Then the Church does not. Worship in Latin is Latia, which according to
Canon Law is reserved for God alone. Honor is dulcia, which is paid to
the saints according to Canon law, with "Hyperdulcia" (much honor?) to the
Blessed Virgin Mary.......
I suggest that you need to take a look at this. Check with your priest,
and PLEASE DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT!!!
Ted
Stephanie Rendino
>> People like this kind which you describe cannot be convinced. You can
>> tell them every day that we do not worship Mary and the saints and they
>> will never believe you. They simply do not want to believe you, and they
>> do not want to respect your point of view either.
>
>does not understand the term 'worship'.
No, we *venerate* Mary and the saints. We *worship* God. Heck, the
church has even got special words for it. "Latria" is the reverence due
only to God. "Dulia" is the reverence due to saints. "Hyper-dulia" is
due to Mary.
>> >I just don't know how to answer him. I don't think it's a good idea to
>> >ignore him because with Malaysia being a multi racial country he could
>> >damage the Catholic reputation.
>>
>> It's always good to know how to answer these questions, for your own
>> faith even more than for other peoples' knowledge.
>>
>True!!! Why don't you?
Answer these questions? What do you mean?
Tom Vick
Stephanie Rendino wrote:
>
> No, we *venerate* Mary and the saints. We *worship* God. Heck, the
> church has even got special words for it. "Latria" is the reverence due
> only to God. "Dulia" is the reverence due to saints. "Hyper-dulia" is
> due to Mary.
>
Nope. You got it wrong again. The three words/terms you mentioned above are all
FORMS of worship.
Latria - That worship/adoration reserved to and due God ALONE.
Dulia - That worship due the Saints.
Hyper-dulia - That worship due the Queen of Saints, Mother Mary.
Tom Vick
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> Then the Church does not. Worship in Latin is Latia,
Do you mean 'latria'?
Tom Vick
to God ALONE. It is adoration/worship in it's purest form. The two other
FORMS of worship are due the Saints. ALL THREE are FORMS of WORSHIP!
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> Darn it, typing too fast does it to me again.........
> Still, yes, and there is a difference in the words used for what we give
> to saints and what is given to God in the Mass.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Stephanie Rendino wrote:
>
> >
> > No, we *venerate* Mary and the saints. We *worship* God. Heck, the
> > church has even got special words for it. "Latria" is the reverence due
> > only to God. "Dulia" is the reverence due to saints. "Hyper-dulia" is
> > due to Mary.
> >
>
> Nope. You got it wrong again. The three words/terms you mentioned above are all
> FORMS of worship.
Then why does the New Catechism call them forms of adoration?
Ted
> Latria - That worship/adoration reserved to and due God ALONE.
>
> Dulia - That worship due the Saints.
>
> Hyper-dulia - That worship due the Queen of Saints, Mother Mary.
>
>
>
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > Then the Church does not. Worship in Latin is Latia,
>
> Do you mean 'latria'?
Darn it, typing too fast does it to me again.........
Still, yes, and there is a difference in the words used for what we give
to saints and what is given to God in the Mass.
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
Tom Vick
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Tom Vick wrote:
>
> > Stephanie Rendino wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > No, we *venerate* Mary and the saints. We *worship* God. Heck, the
> > > church has even got special words for it. "Latria" is the reverence due
> > > only to God. "Dulia" is the reverence due to saints. "Hyper-dulia" is
> > > due to Mary.
> > >
> >
> > Nope. You got it wrong again. The three words/terms you mentioned above are all
> > FORMS of worship.
>
> Then why does the New Catechism call them forms of adoration?
> Ted
>
> > Latria - That worship/adoration reserved to and due God ALONE.
> >
> > Dulia - That worship due the Saints.
> >
> > Hyper-dulia - That worship due the Queen of Saints, Mother Mary.
> >
> >
> >
>
Theodore M. Seeber
> Because the 'new cathecism' is heresey.
Oh, ok. You're one of those.....
So now to determine how far into traditionalism you are.
Was John XXIII a rightfully elected Pope, or is Pope Pius XIII the true
successor to Pius XII?
Should the Mass be said in English or Latin?
Does "For you and for all" mean the same as "For You and for the Many",
due to a recent change in American English, or is the entire New Order
Mass invalid?
At any rate, now I know where the Protestants got thier wierd idea that
Catholics make sacrifices to Mary.
Ted
Tom Vick
of Our Lord and the TRADITIONS handed down from the Apostles, THERE IS THE CHURCH.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Even if, in the last days, there is only one remaining human who keeps all
> the teachings
> of Our Lord and the TRADITIONS handed down from the Apostles, THERE IS
> THE CHURCH.
But we're not talking about Traditions handed down from the Apostles,
we're talking about the traditions built up during the period from the
Council of Trent until Vatican II specifically to help keep people in the
church and combat the heresy of the Protestant Reformation.
Not a single anathema of Trent was rescinded with Vatican II.
All appearances of such are just that, appearances explainable away by
changes in human language since the Council of Trent, not actual changes
to doctrine or dogma.
Worship has been redefined by the Protestants as Prayer alone, not
sacrifice.
Thus, if you agree with the Protestant definition, you're right, we
worship saints, but do not worship God.
Or you can fight back against the Protestant defintion, by describing it
as terms of adoration.
But Please, don't damage the cause of fighting back against the
Protestants changeing the language.
Ted
Tom Vick
"Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
> Not a single anathema of Trent was rescinded with Vatican II.
>
BULL!!!
>
> All appearances of such are just that, appearances explainable away by
> changes in human language since the Council of Trent, not actual changes
> to doctrine or dogma.
>
DOUBLE BULL!!!
>
> Thus, if you agree with the Protestant definition, you're right, we
> worship saints, but do not worship God.
>
> Or you can fight back against the Protestant defintion, by describing it
> as terms of adoration.
>
So you water down what Mother Church has taught for 2000 years to make it more
palitable to Prots. Right.
>
> But Please, don't damage the cause of fighting back against the
> Protestants changeing the language.
> Ted
If the Prots can't accept the Church, that is THEIR problem, not mine. Why
should I have to CHANGE anything? Why should I make allowances for the Prots
interpretation, when I know fuul well what I mean when I say that 'Catholics
worship the Saints'???....WE DO! Always have, always will. We Worship AND
Adore God ALONE! I really can't help it if the Prots don't understand.
Pax Domini!
Theodore M. Seeber
> "Theodore M. Seeber" wrote:
>
> > Not a single anathema of Trent was rescinded with Vatican II.
>
> BULL!!!
Check out statement #46 from the Second Vatican Council. That's what it
says.
> > All appearances of such are just that, appearances explainable away by
> > changes in human language since the Council of Trent, not actual changes
> > to doctrine or dogma.
>
> DOUBLE BULL!!!
No, completely true. But, being older and not conversant with modern
English, I can certainly see how you would mistake it.
> > Thus, if you agree with the Protestant definition, you're right, we
> > worship saints, but do not worship God.
> >
> > Or you can fight back against the Protestant defintion, by describing it
> > as terms of adoration.
>
> So you water down what Mother Church has taught for 2000 years to make it more
> palitable to Prots. Right.
NO. Assert that Mother Church's definition is correct, no matter what
protestant hogwash may have been included in the teachings in the 1950s.
> > But Please, don't damage the cause of fighting back against the
> > Protestants changeing the language.
>
> If the Prots can't accept the Church, that is THEIR problem, not mine.
Apparently, it's not just the Protestants who can't accept the church, but
also "Traditionalist" Catholics who have accepted Protestant definitions
for words rather than that which the Magisterium prounounces who can't
accept the church.
> Why
> should I have to CHANGE anything?
Because the Magisterium says so.
> Why should I make allowances for the Prots
> interpretation, when I know fuul well what I mean when I say that 'Catholics
> worship the Saints'???
Because by doing so, you give feul to the protestants to steal more souls
away from the Church. One begins to wonder, in fact, if you are a
Protestant when you do so.
>....WE DO! Always have, always will. We Worship AND
> Adore God ALONE! I really can't help it if the Prots don't understand.
Yes, you can help it. You can explain it in terms they understand. The
fact that you refuse to help it is only rebellion against the
Magisterium's ability to change definitions in their duty to perform the
great commission.
Robert J Bobic
On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Tom Vick wrote:
>
> > Even if, in the last days, there is only one remaining human who keeps all
> > the teachings
> > of Our Lord and the TRADITIONS handed down from the Apostles, THERE IS
> > THE CHURCH.
SNIP
>
> All appearances of such are just that, appearances explainable away by
> changes in human language since the Council of Trent, not actual changes
> to doctrine or dogma.
Does this explain Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"?
Seems a lot like the philosophy of the Pharasees.
Many years ago, in Latin class, I read, "Omnia Gallia in partes trebus
divisa est."
Then, it meant, "ALL Gaus is divided into three parts."
Now, I suppose it means, "An awful lot of Gaul is divided into three
parts."
Or is Caesar a special case?
Bob Bobic |I love my country, but I fear
rjb...@korrnet.org |a government that lets Horiuchi
|go Freeh
Mike Lipay
> Stephanie Rendino wrote:
>
> >
> > No, we *venerate* Mary and the saints. We *worship* God. Heck, the
> > church has even got special words for it. "Latria" is the reverence due
> > only to God. "Dulia" is the reverence due to saints. "Hyper-dulia" is
> > due to Mary.
> >
>
> Nope. You got it wrong again. The three words/terms you mentioned
above are all
> FORMS of worship.
>
> Latria - That worship/adoration reserved to and due God ALONE.
>
> Dulia - That worship due the Saints.
>
> Hyper-dulia - That worship due the Queen of Saints, Mother Mary.
You are in serious error, and the cause of misunderstanding between
Catholics and Protestants.
Worship is only due to God, to worship any other is pure heresy. The
Theotokos and the Saints are due all glory and honor, adoration as you say
in the RCC. But to worship any other goes against His first commandment.
I suggest you pick up a good latin-english dictionary and you will
discover your error in translation.
--
Christ Is Born!
Glorify Him!
Mike
John Médaille
> I'm a catholic from Malaysia. I wrote this because I feel disturbed by
> something I read in another newsgroup(soc.culture.malaysia).
> The title of the article was "Idolworship in christianity"
>
> It says something about how illogical it is for Catholics to worship
> Mother Mary and the Saints. This person just cannot accept the
> explanation that we merely ask them to guide us to live the life they
> once lived because they are near to God. He further says that we
> slouldn't be asking them, instead we should ask God.
As Christians, we make no distinction between the living and the dead. We
have overcome death. The dead are just as alive as you and I, only
moreso; they have the fullness of life, we have the shadow. Therefore,
when you ask your friends to pray for you, do not discriminate against
those friends who have stopped breathing this earthly air.
>
> He further goes on to say that the Holy Trinity doesn't make sense. He
> says "Not content with having one god...they create three
> gods.Now....this is bordering on pluralistic gods."
Well it doesn't make sense, in the sense that it is not rationalistic.
Rather, it is super-rational. There is only one God, and that God is
love. But love cannot have itself for its object, else it really isn't
love. Therefore, the one god, the god of love, is actually a community of
persons. And this is a fruitful love. That, in a few inadequate lines, is
the Trinity.
The knowledge of the Trinity is given us so that we can model ourselves
on the love of god himself, the love that goes out to the beloved and is
fruitful. God, even in his divine oneness, is nonetheless a community.
We, while fully maintaining our individuality, must also be in communion
with our brothers and sisters, a community that is imaged, first and
foremost, in the family.
--
John C. Médaille
jo...@medaille.com
A dead thing can go with the stream...
but only a living thing can go against it."
-G.K. Chesterton
tz...@my-dejanews.com
Tom Vick <to...@pld.com> wrote:
> Different FORMS of WORSHIP. I agree that latria is that FORM of worship due
> to God ALONE. It is adoration/worship in it's purest form. The two other
> FORMS of worship are due the Saints. ALL THREE are FORMS of WORSHIP!
Impossible. Worship, and Honor (Latria and Dulcia) cannot be the same,
without causing a paradox error in the Ten Commandments. Commandment
#1 Worship God Alone. Commandment #4 Honor your Father and Mother.
And not only just Father and Mother.
Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.
For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have
been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities
resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur
judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.
Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is
good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is Gods servant
for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear
the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on
the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid
Gods wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason
you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending
to this very thing. 7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are
due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor
to whom honor is due.
Sirach 38:1 Honor the physician with the honor due him, according to
your need of him, for the Lord created him; 2 for healing comes from
the Most High, and he will receive a gift from the king.
1 Peter 2:17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
1 Timothy 5:3 Honor widows who are real widows.
1 Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double
honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; 18 for the
scripture says, You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,
and, The laborer deserves his wages.
English is a wonderful language, except when you are discussing
theological arguments. Words evolve, change meaning, become
completely different in a short span of centuries. Words like
Latria, Dulcia, Hyperdulcia can be defined and understood.
English, words, however cannot always be so precisely defined.
Is Worship the same as Latria? Not always, and not even in
modern times, as English Judges are still referred to as
"your worship." (As opposed to America where it is "your
honor.") What about the English word "pray" which originally
meant "to ask?" What about the English word "priest" which
originated from the term "elder" and is wrongly today associated
with the Jewish Kohen. And the termonolgy hop goes on and on.
--
Peace & Good!
Christopher Beattie SFO
KOC, SPEBSQSA, et.al.
Theodore M. Seeber
> > All appearances of such are just that, appearances explainable away by
> > changes in human language since the Council of Trent, not actual changes
> > to doctrine or dogma.
>
> Does this explain Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"?
> Seems a lot like the philosophy of the Pharasees.
Paritally, yes. American English goes through all sorts of gyrations
generation to generation. Have you listened to rap music lately?
> Many years ago, in Latin class, I read, "Omnia Gallia in partes trebus
> divisa est."
>
> Then, it meant, "ALL Gaus is divided into three parts."
>
> Now, I suppose it means, "An awful lot of Gaul is divided into three
> parts."
>
> Or is Caesar a special case?
No, now it means "The totality of Gaul is divided into three parts". It
isn't the latin that's changed meaning, it's the English, especially when
you preface "and for all" with "For you", which in American English
Southern Dialect the whole phrase could be shortened to "For y'all" and
mean the same.
BTW, if you ever get a chance, take a look at the Latin version of the
Novus Ordo. It certainly doesn't have the word Omnis there....
legatus
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Robert J Bobic wrote:
>
> > > All appearances of such are just that, appearances explainable away by
> > > changes in human language since the Council of Trent, not actual changes
> > > to doctrine or dogma.
> >
> > Does this explain Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"?
> > Seems a lot like the philosophy of the Pharasees.
>
> Paritally, yes. American English goes through all sorts of gyrations
> generation to generation. Have you listened to rap music lately?
>
> > Many years ago, in Latin class, I read, "Omnia Gallia in partes trebus
> > divisa est."
> >
> > Then, it meant, "ALL Gaus is divided into three parts."
> >
> > Now, I suppose it means, "An awful lot of Gaul is divided into three
> > parts."
> >
> > Or is Caesar a special case?
>
> No, now it means "The totality of Gaul is divided into three parts".
Actually, you will find high school/college latin "texts" now translate
"Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres" into something so ridiculously
unwieldy that I can't even remember it...The meaning has changed...Gaul is
no longer divided into three parts... I can't remember it, but it's
idiotic... I hate it when pinheads start mussing with perfectly good
translations... mutter, mutter...argh. growl.
--
Steve
"Our chief weapons are fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency
and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope!"
Theodore M. Seeber
Entirely possible. Last time I saw a high school Latin text, or for that
matter, a high school, was a decade ago........
For all I know, the most modern ones are not even translating to English
anymore now that Elbonics is available......
Robert J Bobic
> On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Robert J Bobic wrote:
SNIP
>
>
> Paritally, yes. American English goes through all sorts of gyrations
> generation to generation. Have you listened to rap music lately?
Heavens, no! And isn't that an oxymoron?
Another Snip
>
> No, now it means "The totality of Gaul is divided into three parts". It
> isn't the latin that's changed meaning, it's the English, especially when
> you preface "and for all" with "For you", which in American English
> Southern Dialect the whole phrase could be shortened to "For y'all" and
> mean the same.
> BTW, if you ever get a chance, take a look at the Latin version of the
> Novus Ordo. It certainly doesn't have the word Omnis there....
> Ted
You are correct. It has "pro multis". Why, then, if the priest says the
consecration in Latin, he says, "for many", but if he says it in English
(or American, if you prefer), he says "for all"? And as one who has lived
in the South for many years, I know that "y'all" is an inclusive. I have
never heard anyone say "you and y'all". They say only "you" meaning "you"
or "y'all", meaning "youse guys". Sometimes, they say "you'uns", also
meaning "you all", etc.
tz...@my-dejanews.com
> > Paritally, yes. American English goes through all sorts of gyrations
> > generation to generation. Have you listened to rap music lately?
> Heavens, no! And isn't that an oxymoron?
Actually, in an odd sort of way, the argments which
might be used to suggest that "rap music" is an oxymoron
might equally be used for the proposition that
gregorian chant isn't "music" either. Or that
percussion instuments (with the exception of
wide range percussion instruments such as the
piano) aren't musical instruments.
Gregoran chant is, after all nothing but entoned
speach. It lacks the rythim elements of most
common music. It is, as speach itself, non metered
and freeform, fitting the pattern and the pace of
the actual text itself.
Rap music is the embodyment of pure metered speach.
Syncopated, meter, along the lines of strict metered
text, such as occurs in several types of poetry.
A classical version of "Rap" in multiple parts is
the "Geographical Fuge" the author aludes me at
the moment, I have a copy of it at home, is a four
part word fugue. Not a single entonment element
whatsoever, but a complex fuge of entonement rythym
and meter. It's strict non syncopated meter would
not qualify it as "Rap," however.
Now the contents of "Rap" leave much to be desired.
Yet how many people listen to "Carmina Burina" without
realizing the meanings of the secular latin texts in
the various parts of the work. Sytle and Content should
never be confused.
--
Peace & Good!
Christopher Beattie SFO
KOC, SPEBSQSA, et.al.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Theodore M. Seeber
> On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Robert J Bobic wrote:
> > Paritally, yes. American English goes through all sorts of gyrations
> > generation to generation. Have you listened to rap music lately?
>
> Heavens, no! And isn't that an oxymoron?
I certainly think so. But then again, I'm 28, not 18......
> > No, now it means "The totality of Gaul is divided into three parts". It
> > isn't the latin that's changed meaning, it's the English, especially when
> > you preface "and for all" with "For you", which in American English
> > Southern Dialect the whole phrase could be shortened to "For y'all" and
> > mean the same.
> > BTW, if you ever get a chance, take a look at the Latin version of the
> > Novus Ordo. It certainly doesn't have the word Omnis there....
> > Ted
>
> You are correct. It has "pro multis". Why, then, if the priest says the
> consecration in Latin, he says, "for many", but if he says it in English
> (or American, if you prefer), he says "for all"?
Simply put, to be inclusive of the Total Catholic Church (as opposed to
just those he is currently talking to).
> And as one who has lived
> in the South for many years, I know that "y'all" is an inclusive.
Yes it is, for you and all. for y'all. Inclusive of the entire
congregation, not just those who are able to take communion. But
certainly NOT inclusive of the whole world, the totality of humankind.
> I have
> never heard anyone say "you and y'all". They say only "you" meaning "you"
> or "y'all", meaning "youse guys". Sometimes, they say "you'uns", also
> meaning "you all", etc.
Yes, but does it ever mean the enitre world, or is it a limited
inclusiveness of just those listening to the speaker? As a younger
American, I've taken it to mean the second ever since "The Dukes of
Hazard" was on the air (and yes, I do recognize that this is rather late
in the scheme of things).
jpau...@asapsoftware.com
tz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Actually, in an odd sort of way, the argments which
> might be used to suggest that "rap music" is an oxymoron
> might equally be used for the proposition that
> gregorian chant isn't "music" either. Or that
> percussion instuments (with the exception of
> wide range percussion instruments such as the
> piano) aren't musical instruments.
>
> Gregoran chant is, after all nothing but entoned
> speach. It lacks the rythim elements of most
> common music. It is, as speach itself, non metered
> and freeform, fitting the pattern and the pace of
> the actual text itself.
Edward Foley, among others, has suggested that the ancients
(from whose worship practices Gregorian chant descended)
wouldn't understand our modern distinction between "spoken"
and "chanted" public proclamation.
Jim
Mark Johnson
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.990107...@clarion.korrnet.org>,
> Robert J Bobic <rjb...@korrnet.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
>> > Paritally, yes. American English goes through all sorts of gyrations
>> > generation to generation. Have you listened to rap music lately?
>> Heavens, no! And isn't that an oxymoron?
>Actually, in an odd sort of way, the argments which
>might be used to suggest that "rap music" is an oxymoron
>might equally be used for the proposition that
>gregorian chant isn't "music" either.
But one sings these chants. Rappers don't always sing. It's not
complicated. If one spoke the chants, it wouldn't be song. It might by
lyrical, and musical in the way spoken word can be, broadly. But it
wouldn't be music, as more properly understood. Where's the melody in
a rapper spitting out vile praises about fornication, rape, beatings,
and so on in just 'another party song'? even if you will, apart from
the typically savage lyrics.
>Or that
>percussion instuments (with the exception of
>wide range percussion instruments such as the
>piano) aren't musical instruments.
The piano just tends not to have the expression and tone available in
certain other stringed instruments. But I don't think people would
complain about plucked or hammered stringed instruments, particularly
to the extent of saying they aren't musical instruments, particularly
those who have won chairs with the local symphony orchestra.
>Gregoran chant is, after all nothing but entoned
>speach.
The word you're looking for, rather than tone, is, I think - pitch.
>It lacks the rythim elements of most
>common music.
Of most common . . rhythmical music, you mean. Chant is a melody, and
tone is had particularly by combining the voices. One tend not to
speak in that way about rap music, unless it's a part of the song
where they are actually, singing.
>It is, as speach itself, non metered
>and freeform,
Hardly. It's very measured. That's what all the little marks on the
page mean, the little dots or bars, the figures, and so on. It's very
easy to convert to standard measures. That's what those old Kyriale's
in 'modern notion' were about.
>fitting the pattern and the pace of
>the actual text itself.
>Rap music is the embodyment of pure metered speach.
>Syncopated, meter, along the lines of strict metered
>text, such as occurs in several types of poetry.
Poetry isn't just syncopation and rather crude rhyming schemes. If
that were so, then the 'avante garde' types had better eat their words
concerning the poetry of Edgar Guest when read to the beat of a bongo
drum. Poetry is like music. If you want some good examples, read the
works posted here by 'Enda', on occasion. But . . music is still,
music.
>A classical version of "Rap" in multiple parts is
>the "Geographical Fuge" the author aludes me at
>the moment, I have a copy of it at home, is a four
>part word fugue. Not a single entonment element
>whatsoever, but a complex fuge of entonement rythym
>and meter. It's strict non syncopated meter would
>not qualify it as "Rap," however.
'Rap' is . . . . well. It is. If it's clever to rhyme as you mock
someone in the street, great. It's clever. If it's clever to include
more profanity than the Sex Pistols ever did, and do it to a more R&B
beat, hey - credit where it's due. But rap is rap. Music is music. And
if someone could get decent music out of ragtime, no doubt, some
artist can pull a decent song or two out of this style, as well. That
I haven't heard such is just one of those things. But it seems to me
that there has never been such quickly and cheaply commercialized and
so often derivative 'style' that it would make the Monkees look like
leading edge original artists by comparison.
>Now the contents of "Rap" leave much to be desired.
>Yet how many people listen to "Carmina Burina" without
>realizing the meanings of the secular latin texts in
>the various parts of the work. Sytle and Content should
>never be confused.
Not if you can't understand the words as some lead singer is screaming
them beyond any recognizable pronunciation - Stones, Aerosmith, even
Zep, and whoever else. I can't understand some of what the late SRV
would sing in his cranked blues numbers, but the lyric wasn't so much
what he was about, in certain songs, so much as his instrumental
virtuosity; and he was always in a real on the beat sort of rhythm, at
beats, very rhythmical style of play.
Frankly, if some rapper could recruit Lonnie Brooks, or whoever, to
add a musical track to the thing, I'd call it music. I'd call
Aerosmith's sort of pop rap efforts music, particularly because
there's more than just two guys with a mic on stage, but you can
actually see a drum kit (and no, a drum alone is not, to me,
technically music, either, but then you'll think me Hindemith, or
something, by this point, so . . ).
Anyhow.
Peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nations wandered blindly, and unceasingly proclaimed
that their aimless circlings and uneasy spiralings
meant progress, while materially and morally they meant
only incessant change of direction. . . history shows
that a nation that barters its soul for material ideals
is a nation that is doomed.
[Lockington, The Soul of Ireland,
http://abbey.apana.org.au/Other/Ireland/Ireland.txt ]
tz...@my-dejanews.com
1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
> tz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.990107...@clarion.korrnet.org>,
> > Robert J Bobic <rjb...@korrnet.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
> >> > Paritally, yes. American English goes through all sorts of gyrations
> >> > generation to generation. Have you listened to rap music lately?
> >> Heavens, no! And isn't that an oxymoron?
> >Actually, in an odd sort of way, the argments which
> >might be used to suggest that "rap music" is an oxymoron
> >might equally be used for the proposition that
> >gregorian chant isn't "music" either.
> But one sings these chants. Rappers don't always sing. It's not
> complicated. If one spoke the chants, it wouldn't be song. It might by
> lyrical, and musical in the way spoken word can be, broadly. But it
> wouldn't be music, as more properly understood. Where's the melody in
> a rapper spitting out vile praises about fornication, rape, beatings,
> and so on in just 'another party song'? even if you will, apart from
> the typically savage lyrics.
Technically one intones the chants. And that was my point.
Chant is entoned but with spoken non-meter. Rap is metered
but not always intoned. And some might argue that true
"singing" requires both. And one can argue that various
works which are generally considered a part of "singing"
violates each one at one time or another.
Style should never be confused with content.
> >Or that
> >percussion instuments (with the exception of
> >wide range percussion instruments such as the
> >piano) aren't musical instruments.
> The piano just tends not to have the expression and tone available in
> certain other stringed instruments. But I don't think people would
> complain about plucked or hammered stringed instruments, particularly
> to the extent of saying they aren't musical instruments, particularly
> those who have won chairs with the local symphony orchestra.
The percussion section of an average ochestra is
probably the least understood section to the average
person and the most complex. (How many other instruments
have to be retuned in the middle of a performance?)
> >Gregoran chant is, after all nothing but entoned
> >speach.
> The word you're looking for, rather than tone, is, I think - pitch.
Pitch is typically used as a static element. Oh just noticed I've
been spelling intone wrong. Webster defines intone as "to utter in
musical or prolonged tones : recite in singing tones or in a monotone."
While pitch is defined as "the difference in the relative vibration
frequency of the human voice that contributes to the total meaning
of speech."
> >It lacks the rythim elements of most
> >common music.
> Of most common . . rhythmical music, you mean. Chant is a melody, and
> tone is had particularly by combining the voices. One tend not to
> speak in that way about rap music, unless it's a part of the song
> where they are actually, singing.
It lacks both rythm and meter. It has no "melody" as is commonly
understood. (Although there's wiggle room here. Webster's first
defintion supports chant tones as melody: "a sweet or agreeable
succession or arrangement of sounds" but the second definition
does not: "a rhythmic succession of single tones organized as an
aesthetic whole" since it depends upon rythm.)
"Combining the voices" is the much later invention of polyphany,
and organium. (I'm probably ruining the spellings of these terms.)
Harmony, a basic element in all modern music wasn't for the most
part invented then.
> >It is, as speach itself, non metered
> >and freeform,
> Hardly. It's very measured. That's what all the little marks on the
> page mean, the little dots or bars, the figures, and so on. It's very
> easy to convert to standard measures. That's what those old Kyriale's
> in 'modern notion' were about.
That's a modern interpertation of chant, and not very common
to the style. The "marks" indicate places to move on the chant
line or breathe. There is some general relative notations on
which notes to "hold," but that's more of a later convetion for
those who just don't know how to speak latin at a proper rate.
The acid test for any chant is not in the small "propers" which
is the common thing to hear and sing in churches today. The
acid test is the pslams and canticles of the Divine Office, and
the various prayers for the various seasons and feasts of the
Church year.
Oddly enough when chant is applied to poetry, the appearance
of meter appears. But the meter is merely the result of the
meter of the poetry.
> >fitting the pattern and the pace of
> >the actual text itself.
> >Rap music is the embodyment of pure metered speach.
> >Syncopated, meter, along the lines of strict metered
> >text, such as occurs in several types of poetry.
> Poetry isn't just syncopation and rather crude rhyming schemes. If
> that were so, then the 'avante garde' types had better eat their words
> concerning the poetry of Edgar Guest when read to the beat of a bongo
> drum. Poetry is like music. If you want some good examples, read the
> works posted here by 'Enda', on occasion. But . . music is still,
> music.
I never said that poetry is just syncopation and rhymes.
But then again music is not always metered polyphonic
harmonies either. Diferent things push the envelopes,
define the limits. They may or may not be good even.
> >A classical version of "Rap" in multiple parts is
> >the "Geographical Fuge" the author aludes me at
> >the moment, I have a copy of it at home, is a four
> >part word fugue. Not a single entonment element
> >whatsoever, but a complex fuge of entonement rythym
> >and meter. It's strict non syncopated meter would
> >not qualify it as "Rap," however.
> 'Rap' is . . . . well. It is. If it's clever to rhyme as you mock
> someone in the street, great. It's clever. If it's clever to include
> more profanity than the Sex Pistols ever did, and do it to a more R&B
> beat, hey - credit where it's due. But rap is rap. Music is music. And
> if someone could get decent music out of ragtime, no doubt, some
> artist can pull a decent song or two out of this style, as well. That
> I haven't heard such is just one of those things. But it seems to me
> that there has never been such quickly and cheaply commercialized and
> so often derivative 'style' that it would make the Monkees look like
> leading edge original artists by comparison.
Once again, don't confuse context with style. I'm not
and I never will argue for the context which rappers
use. But the essential elements of Rap, can and do
appear in various "classical" elements which are
generally considered music.
> >Now the contents of "Rap" leave much to be desired.
> >Yet how many people listen to "Carmina Burina" without
> >realizing the meanings of the secular latin texts in
> >the various parts of the work. Sytle and Content should
> >never be confused.
> Not if you can't understand the words as some lead singer is screaming
> them beyond any recognizable pronunciation - Stones, Aerosmith, even
> Zep, and whoever else. I can't understand some of what the late SRV
> would sing in his cranked blues numbers, but the lyric wasn't so much
> what he was about, in certain songs, so much as his instrumental
> virtuosity; and he was always in a real on the beat sort of rhythm, at
> beats, very rhythmical style of play.
Yes, amplifier syndrone, the curse of all modern "music."
Of course musical pronunciation is an entirely different
art alltogether. Some schools go out of their way to
overpronunce so that the gutteral sounds can be properly
heard. Other schools which concentrate on harmony throw
them out completely, and let the human mind provide the
meaning (barbershop style, often drops consenants because
they break up the chord).
> Frankly, if some rapper could recruit Lonnie Brooks, or whoever, to
> add a musical track to the thing, I'd call it music. I'd call
> Aerosmith's sort of pop rap efforts music, particularly because
> there's more than just two guys with a mic on stage, but you can
> actually see a drum kit (and no, a drum alone is not, to me,
> technically music, either, but then you'll think me Hindemith, or
> something, by this point, so . . ).
I've already mentioned "Geographical Fuge" which is set
to no rythm or melody line, save the harminoal tones of
the speaking voices of SATB.
I think we will disagree on the drum. But on the other
hand, I used to have a very bad distaste for the instrument
known as the "guitar" based on how many people normally
play it. Yet the Spanish Guitar style is now one of my
most favorite stringed instrument styles.
Peace & Good!
Christopher Beattie SFO
KOC, SPEBSQSA, et.al.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
jpau...@asapsoftware.com
with, let us know, okay? :-)
I agree with the bot' of ya's that music has to be defined broadly enough to
encompass Gregorian chant, while noting its lack of regular rhythm and
harmony.
I wouldn't exclude rap from the definition, either. In my experience (which
admittedly is as brief as I can manage it with that particular genre), a
melody sometimes lurks in the instrumental accompaniment; however, the
performer more or less disjoins the lyrics from the melody (which is kind of
interesting, isn't it?)
One definition of music that I encounter in some of my liturgical music
journals would be something like this: patterns of alternating sounds and
silence, where the sounds are patterns of regularized pitches.
(The *silence* in music, as in liturgy, is very important, and not often
appreciated).
Jim <-- resisting the urge to put in a plug for more use of Latin in our
liturgies, which in turn would open up myriad possibilities for including
more chant ...
legatus
> Jim <-- resisting the urge to put in a plug for more use of Latin in our
> liturgies, which in turn would open up myriad possibilities for including
> more chant ...
Give in to the temptation! Don't fight it... Come over to the Light side! :)
--
Steve
"Our chief weapons are fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost
fanatical devotion to the pope and nice red uniforms."
tz...@my-dejanews.com
> Jim <-- resisting the urge to put in a plug for more use of Latin in our
> liturgies, which in turn would open up myriad possibilities for including
> more chant ...
Well the general topic of bringing back more Latin is an interesting
one. (I waffle on this subject on a moment by moment basis. I agree
that we need to return to more Latin ... Greek to, my first suggestion
is always adding the "Kyrie Elison" which is Greek ... Of course it's
"Greek" to a lot of young Catholics but that is a side issue. <G>)
But I don't think it's going to solve the problem with chant. Even
when it's not an English word, Americans just don't understand how
the liturgy is even when spoken a sung liturgy. We are the nation
that recites the "Alleluia" before the Gospel, and you can't get
more musically deficient than that! And if we say "Alleluia" how
do you think we can really sing "Gloria?"
There's an old United States joke which was even made into a book,
"Why can't Catholics sing?" But what I want to know is why can't
Catholic Priests sing anymore? Is chant that difficult? Is simple
chant that difficult? (I understand there are some very complex
modes, but no one expects all priests to know them.) Can't they
even chant on a single note? Or a two note chant?
Somewhere I recall someone saying that the liturgy is in essence
meant to be sung. (I've given up scanning the net for the basis
for this, I heard it over ten years ago when I was actively
studying church music & liturgy while a choir director so I
don't have the references memorized.) Liturgy is never meant
to be dully recited. Yet this is what happens often at many
Masses. Latin doesn't help here, and in some ways may make
the situation worse, since the latin words are known but not
known enough to be taken to heart, it becomes more of a recital
than a pure expression of liturgy.
If you want to "reform" the liturgy ... teach the clergy to sing.
Then teach them how and why they should chant.
Then maby we can start working on liturgical silence. <G>
Mark Johnson
>In article <77dcng$tve$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> jpau...@asapsoftware.com wrote:
>Well the general topic of bringing back more Latin is an interesting
>one.
Already been done. Find yourself a Latin Mass, a sung Sunday Mass
even. It's there if you're interesting. There are more than 10
religious orders chartered by the Vatican just for getting out and
saying the Latin Mass.
Short of that, buy the Solesmes CDs, or the singing nuns, or the other
monks. There are hundreds of these listed now in the order books.
>(I waffle on this subject on a moment by moment basis. I agree
>that we need to return to more Latin
Like I say. Been done.
>But I don't think it's going to solve the problem with chant. Even
>when it's not an English word, Americans just don't understand how
>the liturgy is even when spoken a sung liturgy. We are the nation
>that recites the "Alleluia" before the Gospel, and you can't get
>more musically deficient than that! And if we say "Alleluia" how
>do you think we can really sing "Gloria?"
You lost me. The Alleluiah IS sung before the Gospel, least before the
little prayer the priest says before saying or singing the Gospel. And
the Gloria is sung, too. Don't know about 'new order' liturgies. I
can't remember the last time they bothered with even their version of
the Gloria - usually the choir is singing some neo-Prot ditty with
bongo drums, instead.
>There's an old United States joke which was even made into a book,
>"Why can't Catholics sing?"
But they do, and can. You should listen. Get out of those damn trendy
parishes. Find yourself a Latin Mass.
>But what I want to know is why can't
>Catholic Priests sing anymore? Is chant that difficult?
The young guys, the old guys, they do great. Maybe they're not Caruso.
But who is?
>Is simple
>chant that difficult? (I understand there are some very complex
>modes, but no one expects all priests to know them.) Can't they
>even chant on a single note? Or a two note chant?
Yes, they can. I . . have . . heard . . them.
>Somewhere I recall someone saying that the liturgy is in essence
>meant to be sung. (I've given up scanning the net for the basis
>for this, I heard it over ten years ago when I was actively
>studying church music & liturgy while a choir director so I
>don't have the references memorized.) Liturgy is never meant
>to be dully recited.
Sure it is. But never without appreciation. Never 'dully'. They say
Padre Pio, at his best, took hours to offer Holy Mass. I don't think
"dully recited" would have come to mind by way of description, save
for those with no heart.
>Yet this is what happens often at many Masses.
>Latin doesn't help here, and in some ways may make
>the situation worse, since the latin words are known but not
>known enough to be taken to heart, it becomes more of a recital
>than a pure expression of liturgy.
If you're talking the Latin Mass, the vernacular is always on the
facing page or column. If you're talking 'new order' trying to ape
Latin, or whatever, you've prob. got a point. But I'm sure it would be
just as bad if any Prot denomination decided, for the heck of it, to
say its services in Latin.
>If you want to "reform" the liturgy ... teach the clergy to sing.
>Then teach them how and why they should chant.
They already know. Those who don't, probably could care less, and
really have taken up with a virtually schismatic denomination, the
Catholic Reformed. In a way, it _does_ kinna work out.
>Peace & Good!
>Christopher Beattie SFO
Forgive my ignorance. But you're not living at the airport, are you?
Niamh
>In article <77dcng$tve$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> jpau...@asapsoftware.com wrote:
>
>> Jim <-- resisting the urge to put in a plug for more use of Latin in our
>> liturgies, which in turn would open up myriad possibilities for including
>> more chant ...
You don't have to have Latin to have Chant.
>
>Well the general topic of bringing back more Latin is an interesting
>one. (I waffle on this subject on a moment by moment basis. I agree
>that we need to return to more Latin ...
I personally could do without the Latin, but I like the chant when its
done *well.* When I'm in the DC area I go to St. Anselm's Abbey, near the
Basilica, that offers a Latin Mass on the first Sunday of the month. Its
alright (the schola does a great job) but I find it hard to pay attention
and I find the priest that (mostly) does it to be a little lack luster.
When I was in Spain this summer, a friend and I happened upon a Solemn
Mass that was just beautiful. The chant gave me goosebumps. The rest of
the Mass was in the vernacular, Spanish, and that suited me just fine.
Stickin' to the vernacular,
Niamh
JimPauwels
>From: tz...@my-dejanews.com
>Date: Mon, Jan 11, 1999 16:29 EST
>Message-id: <77dqep$aos$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>But I don't think it's going to solve the problem with chant. Even
>when it's not an English word, Americans just don't understand how
>the liturgy is even when spoken a sung liturgy. We are the nation
>that recites the "Alleluia" before the Gospel, and you can't get
>more musically deficient than that!
Speaking from my own limited experience, I haven't heard a spoken Alleluia for
many years. But otoh you may be thinking of weekday masses. I believe the
guiding documents actually say it's better to omit the Gospel Acclamation than
to speak it.
>There's an old United States joke which was even made into a book,
>"Why can't Catholics sing?" But what I want to know is why can't
>Catholic Priests sing anymore? Is chant that difficult? Is simple
>chant that difficult? (I understand there are some very complex
>modes, but no one expects all priests to know them.) Can't they
>even chant on a single note? Or a two note chant?
Asking the hard questions now. :-). I fully agree that the unwillingness of
priests to chant presidential prayers is the single biggest impediment to a
fuller use of chant in the US.
Our priests haven't chanted a single Eucharistic Prayer in the eight years or
so I've been at this parish. They do chant two things consistently: "Let us
proclaim the mystery of faith ..." and "Through Him, with Him, in Him ..." But
a preface or a collect? Ferget it.
I think a lot of them don't chant for the most prosaic of all reasons: it makes
the mass last longer. They're trying to get the 9:00 mass over by 10:00 so the
parking lot can be emptied out in time for the 10:30 crowd. Then, too, a lot
don't sing for the same reason that a lot of folks in the assembly don't sing:
someone influential once told them, long ago, that they couldn't sing. So they
don't.
Cantate Domino canticum novum
JimPauwels
>Date: Mon, Jan 11, 1999 23:08 EST
>Message-id: <wanderer-110...@d230.pm14.sonic.net>
>
>In article <77dqep$aos$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>>In article <77dcng$tve$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> jpau...@asapsoftware.com wrote:
>>
>>> Jim <-- resisting the urge to put in a plug for more use of Latin in our
>>> liturgies, which in turn would open up myriad possibilities for including
>>> more chant ...
>
>You don't have to have Latin to have Chant.
That's true. However, a number of influential folks in the Catholic musical
"establishment" genuinely believe that, whereas the euphony of Latin is
perfectly suited for chant, the terseness of English is less so.
That conviction is not unanimous. There are some talented composers who are
working assiduously on creating esthetically pleasing settings of English texts
to traditional chants, or chants based on traditional ones.
But my original thought is that the church already has a treasury of chants
written to set the liturgical prayers in Latin. If Latin is used, those old
mass settings from the ... um ... whatchacall it ... the old liturgical book
with the old mass settings ... become instantly viable. Some of them would be
difficult for a congregation, but others wouldn't. It's part of the organic,
living liturgical tradition of the Roman Rite. Worth taking off the
respirator, imho.
>>Well the general topic of bringing back more Latin is an interesting
>>one. (I waffle on this subject on a moment by moment basis. I agree
>>that we need to return to more Latin ...
>
>I personally could do without the Latin, but I like the chant when its
>done *well.* When I'm in the DC area I go to St. Anselm's Abbey, near the
>Basilica, that offers a Latin Mass on the first Sunday of the month. Its
>alright (the schola does a great job) but I find it hard to pay attention
>and I find the priest that (mostly) does it to be a little lack luster.
>
>When I was in Spain this summer, a friend and I happened upon a Solemn
>Mass that was just beautiful. The chant gave me goosebumps. The rest of
>the Mass was in the vernacular, Spanish, and that suited me just fine.
>
>Stickin' to the vernacular,
>Niamh
></PRE></HTML>
No reason at all that Latin and vernacular can't coexist. It did, and does, in
the 1962 missal. It would in the 1975 missal if we'd ever make use of it that
way. No reason we can't sing "Gloria in excelsis Deo ..." and "Agnus Dei,
quitolis peccata mundi ...", yet have the readings. homily and "propers" in the
vernacular.
I should warn you: I'm dangerous on these topics. Stop me if you've heard me
spout this stuff before :-)
Jim
Cantate Domino canticum novum
Mark Johnson
Well, chant is very metered. Again, ever seen the old Kyriale's in
'modern notation'? I, myself, easily converted one to MIDI format
(polyphony, to be fair, but basically still the same thing).
>Style should never be confused with content.
They go together, unless as with certain rock tunes the lyric is
superfluous, if just from bad pronunciation.
>> >Or that
>> >percussion instuments (with the exception of
>> >wide range percussion instruments such as the
>> >piano) aren't musical instruments.
>> The piano just tends not to have the expression and tone available in
>> certain other stringed instruments. But I don't think people would
>> complain about plucked or hammered stringed instruments, particularly
>> to the extent of saying they aren't musical instruments, particularly
>> those who have won chairs with the local symphony orchestra.
>The percussion section of an average ochestra is
>probably the least understood section to the average
>person and the most complex. (How many other instruments
>have to be retuned in the middle of a performance?)
All of 'em? I'm missing something, right? I can understand your
comment with all the various timpanis. But the crash cymbals? wooden
slaps? bells? ?
>> >Gregoran chant is, after all nothing but entoned
>> >speach.
>> The word you're looking for, rather than tone, is, I think - pitch.
>Pitch is typically used as a static element. Oh just noticed I've
>been spelling intone wrong. Webster defines intone as "to utter in
>musical or prolonged tones : recite in singing tones or in a monotone."
>While pitch is defined as "the difference in the relative vibration
>frequency of the human voice that contributes to the total meaning
>of speech."
Tone is tone. Pitch is a particular note on a tempered scale.
>> >It lacks the rythim elements of most
>> >common music.
>> Of most common . . rhythmical music, you mean. Chant is a melody, and
>> tone is had particularly by combining the voices. One tend not to
>> speak in that way about rap music, unless it's a part of the song
>> where they are actually, singing.
>It lacks both rythm and meter. It has no "melody" as is commonly
>understood. (Although there's wiggle room here. Webster's first
>defintion supports chant tones as melody: "a sweet or agreeable
>succession or arrangement of sounds" but the second definition
>does not: "a rhythmic succession of single tones organized as an
>aesthetic whole" since it depends upon rythm.)
>"Combining the voices" is the much later invention of polyphany,
No, that's harmony. Chant involves the combination of a number of
voices. It modifies the tone, if you will.
>Harmony, a basic element in all modern music wasn't for the most
>part invented then.
Not for strict chant. But polyphony uses harmonies, unless that's what
you mean by "modern music".
>> >It is, as speach itself, non metered
>> >and freeform,
>> Hardly. It's very measured. That's what all the little marks on the
>> page mean, the little dots or bars, the figures, and so on. It's very
>> easy to convert to standard measures. That's what those old Kyriale's
>> in 'modern notion' were about.
>That's a modern interpertation of chant, and not very common
>to the style. The "marks" indicate places to move on the chant
>line or breathe. There is some general relative notations on
>which notes to "hold," but that's more of a later convetion for
>those who just don't know how to speak latin at a proper rate.
No, that's not it. There are different sorts of chant, one which is
less 'florid', and one which kind of really emphasizes this word or
that. It's not about speaking Latin, but about placing emphasis on
certain words, and so certain notions.
>The acid test for any chant is not in the small "propers" which
>is the common thing to hear and sing in churches today. The
>acid test is the pslams and canticles of the Divine Office, and
>the various prayers for the various seasons and feasts of the
>Church year.
You're right in that these are not typically what I hear at high Mass.
But there are seemingly thousands of chant CDs, not all from Solesmes,
and not a few of which are what you mention.
>Oddly enough when chant is applied to poetry, the appearance
>of meter appears. But the meter is merely the result of the
>meter of the poetry.
One can easily fit chant to a time signature. Again, Kyriale in
'modern notation'? Do you mean something else?
>> >Rap music is the embodyment of pure metered speach.
>> >Syncopated, meter, along the lines of strict metered
>> >text, such as occurs in several types of poetry.
>> Poetry isn't just syncopation and rather crude rhyming schemes. If
>> that were so, then the 'avante garde' types had better eat their words
>> concerning the poetry of Edgar Guest when read to the beat of a bongo
>> drum. Poetry is like music. If you want some good examples, read the
>> works posted here by 'Enda', on occasion. But . . music is still,
>> music.
>I never said that poetry is just syncopation and rhymes.
>But then again music is not always metered polyphonic
>harmonies either. Diferent things push the envelopes,
>define the limits. They may or may not be good even.
I think genuine artists can find a decent song in any form. There may
be decent rap tunes out there, somewhere. I don't know. All I can
think of is what I hear, opiated backing tracks with a vulgar and/or
suggestive 'rap' sunk in behind the drums. If it is music, because of
the generated rhythm, it's not very interesting music. Think I'd
rather listen to disco (and that's . . well).
>> >and meter. It's strict non syncopated meter would
>> >not qualify it as "Rap," however.
>> 'Rap' is . . . . well. It is. If it's clever to rhyme as you mock
>> someone in the street, great. It's clever. If it's clever to include
>> more profanity than the Sex Pistols ever did, and do it to a more R&B
>> beat, hey - credit where it's due. But rap is rap. Music is music. And
>> if someone could get decent music out of ragtime, no doubt, some
>> artist can pull a decent song or two out of this style, as well. That
>> I haven't heard such is just one of those things. But it seems to me
>> that there has never been such quickly and cheaply commercialized and
>> so often derivative 'style' that it would make the Monkees look like
>> leading edge original artists by comparison.
>Once again, don't confuse context with style. I'm not
>and I never will argue for the context which rappers
>use. But the essential elements of Rap, can and do
>appear in various "classical" elements which are
>generally considered music.
I'm sure they do. There were many who probably pointed out the
similarities between the work of the Beatles and classical composers.
But . . .
>> >Now the contents of "Rap" leave much to be desired.
>> >Yet how many people listen to "Carmina Burina" without
>> >realizing the meanings of the secular latin texts in
>> >the various parts of the work. Sytle and Content should
>> >never be confused.
>> Not if you can't understand the words as some lead singer is screaming
>> them beyond any recognizable pronunciation - Stones, Aerosmith, even
>> Zep, and whoever else. I can't understand some of what the late SRV
>> would sing in his cranked blues numbers, but the lyric wasn't so much
>> what he was about, in certain songs, so much as his instrumental
>> virtuosity; and he was always in a real on the beat sort of rhythm, at
>> beats, very rhythmical style of play.
>Yes, amplifier syndrone, the curse of all modern "music."
I sort of agree, generally. But I think people would be a lot more
productive if they tried to find the classical elements in Texas
Flood, rather than in some generic rap . . . tune. Anything can be
used with skill, or without. To listen to SRV play rocking tunes is
only _not_ to be suprized when he immediately shifts into a melodic
jazz improv.
>Of course musical pronunciation is an entirely different
>art alltogether. Some schools go out of their way to
>overpronunce so that the gutteral sounds can be properly
>heard. Other schools which concentrate on harmony throw
>them out completely, and let the human mind provide the
>meaning (barbershop style, often drops consenants because
>they break up the chord).
The irony of 'rap' is that they often so mispronounce the words that
their big, serious . . rap, can't really even be understood, unless
one already knows their . . rap.
>> Frankly, if some rapper could recruit Lonnie Brooks, or whoever, to
>> add a musical track to the thing, I'd call it music. I'd call
>> Aerosmith's sort of pop rap efforts music, particularly because
>> there's more than just two guys with a mic on stage, but you can
>> actually see a drum kit (and no, a drum alone is not, to me,
>> technically music, either, but then you'll think me Hindemith, or
>> something, by this point, so . . ).
>I've already mentioned "Geographical Fuge" which is set
>to no rythm or melody line, save the harminoal tones of
>the speaking voices of SATB.
>I think we will disagree on the drum. But on the other
>hand, I used to have a very bad distaste for the instrument
>known as the "guitar" based on how many people normally
>play it. Yet the Spanish Guitar style is now one of my
>most favorite stringed instrument styles.
Oddly, I find the blues, even reggae, far more interesting than world
Riverdance or Classical Gas. It does seem an influential style,
though.
Peace.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You can catch more flies with honey - but who wants to eat flies?
tz...@my-dejanews.com
jimpa...@aol.comantispam (JimPauwels) wrote:
> I think a lot of them don't chant for the most prosaic of all reasons: it
makes
> the mass last longer. They're trying to get the 9:00 mass over by 10:00 so
the
> parking lot can be emptied out in time for the 10:30 crowd. Then, too, a lot
> don't sing for the same reason that a lot of folks in the assembly don't sing:
> someone influential once told them, long ago, that they couldn't sing. So
they
> don't.
The odd thing is that for the most part it doesn't. Chant of course will
always be longer than quarterback speach, but then quarterback speach is
the bane of liturgy, and should be squashed on the spot.
(Side note: One of these days, I'm going to see that Hourism is
delclared the HERESY that it is. The notion that all liturgies
cannot exceed an hour because of inept planning of Mass schedules
is placing limits on God, and throwing the notion of Progessive
Slemnity right out the window.)
Chant by its very nature goes at the tempo of proper speach.
As for the question of who can sing, I think the only problem for
most priests is not a question of singing, especially if you give
them the most simplest of chants, it is keeping a pitch. And yes
I have met a few tone strange priests, but they are the rarity.
Sure, not every priest is going to be able to tackle the Messiah,
but a two or three note psalm is not that difficult.
You learn by HEARING. (Wait didn't Paul say Faith came that
way also?) So the more they hear it, the more they will have
FAITH that they can sing it.
Peace & Good!
Christopher Beattie SFO
tz...@my-dejanews.com
1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
> tz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >Well the general topic of bringing back more Latin is an interesting
> >one.
> Already been done. Find yourself a Latin Mass, a sung Sunday Mass
> even. It's there if you're interesting. There are more than 10
> religious orders chartered by the Vatican just for getting out and
> saying the Latin Mass.
Yes I know, but the rest of the real world uses the Novus Ordo,
as approved in the Venacular. That's the one used by the Holy
Father ... in Latin. The same one Mother Angelica uses on EWTN,
in Latin.
> >But I don't think it's going to solve the problem with chant. Even
> >when it's not an English word, Americans just don't understand how
> >the liturgy is even when spoken a sung liturgy. We are the nation
> >that recites the "Alleluia" before the Gospel, and you can't get
> >more musically deficient than that! And if we say "Alleluia" how
> >do you think we can really sing "Gloria?"
> You lost me. The Alleluiah IS sung before the Gospel, least before the
> little prayer the priest says before saying or singing the Gospel. And
> the Gloria is sung, too. Don't know about 'new order' liturgies. I
> can't remember the last time they bothered with even their version of
> the Gloria - usually the choir is singing some neo-Prot ditty with
> bongo drums, instead.
Now wait a minute. I did happen to use "Angels we have heard on High"
as the hymnal basis for a Gloria used for Christmas at my parish when
I was choir director, but NEVER with bongo drums.
And the Alleluia is always sung before the Gospel, tridentine and
novus ordo. It's the *beep* americans who went to the pope asking
the question, "what if we don't sing it?", that are the abnormal ones.
> >There's an old United States joke which was even made into a book,
> >"Why can't Catholics sing?"
> But they do, and can. You should listen. Get out of those damn trendy
> parishes. Find yourself a Latin Mass.
Note: I never said that they can't. Traditionally Irish American
Catholics do have a rich tradition of silent participation, especially
since they had a century or two where the Catholic Church had to be
underground because it was illegal in Ireland.
> >Somewhere I recall someone saying that the liturgy is in essence
> >meant to be sung. (I've given up scanning the net for the basis
> >for this, I heard it over ten years ago when I was actively
> >studying church music & liturgy while a choir director so I
> >don't have the references memorized.) Liturgy is never meant
> >to be dully recited.
> Sure it is. But never without appreciation. Never 'dully'. They say
> Padre Pio, at his best, took hours to offer Holy Mass. I don't think
> "dully recited" would have come to mind by way of description, save
> for those with no heart.
Agreed. I think that first and foremost, we need to kindle
the fire of love for the liturgy in many of the priests out
there today. They don't appreciate the depth and magnitude
of the liturgy. No matter what the liturgy is tridentine
or novus ordo, if you don't give it the respect it deserves
it's going to be dry dull and lifeless.
> >Peace & Good!
> >Christopher Beattie SFO
> Forgive my ignorance. But you're not living at the airport, are you?
No, why? I mean airplanes do fly over my house. I don't even know
they are comming over half the time. Turboprops, no jets land at
Key West Airport.
legatus
> In article <369ca881...@news.pacbell.net>,
> 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
> > tz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > >Well the general topic of bringing back more Latin is an interesting
> > >one.
>
> > Already been done. Find yourself a Latin Mass, a sung Sunday Mass
> > even. It's there if you're interesting. There are more than 10
> > religious orders chartered by the Vatican just for getting out and
> > saying the Latin Mass.
>
> Yes I know, but the rest of the real world uses the Novus Ordo,
> as approved in the Venacular. That's the one used by the Holy
> Father ... in Latin. The same one Mother Angelica uses on EWTN,
> in Latin.
Well, this boy from the real world is getting a MAJOR blessing this
afternoon. A legit priest from a legit order (FSSP) is in town...and he's
gotta say Mass. And there is no prohibition against attending as long as
it is not "publicized".
When my wife called to tell me about it this morning I almost broke down.
Mark Johnson
>In article <369ca881...@news.pacbell.net>,
> 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>> tz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >more musically deficient than that! And if we say "Alleluia" how
>> >do you think we can really sing "Gloria?"
>> You lost me. The Alleluiah IS sung before the Gospel, least before the
>> little prayer the priest says before saying or singing the Gospel. And
>> the Gloria is sung, too. Don't know about 'new order' liturgies. I
>> can't remember the last time they bothered with even their version of
>> the Gloria - usually the choir is singing some neo-Prot ditty with
>> bongo drums, instead.
>Now wait a minute. I did happen to use "Angels we have heard on High"
>as the hymnal basis for a Gloria used for Christmas at my parish when
>I was choir director, but NEVER with bongo drums.
Don't know what you are missing. It's funny that these trendoid
parishes often have very nice, large working pipe organs. I mean, even
other Prots routinely use the organ to back the choir.
>And the Alleluia is always sung before the Gospel, tridentine and
>novus ordo. It's the *beep* americans who went to the pope asking
>the question, "what if we don't sing it?", that are the abnormal ones.
Well, at high, solemn Mass is it sung.
>> >There's an old United States joke which was even made into a book,
>> >"Why can't Catholics sing?"
>> But they do, and can. You should listen. Get out of those damn trendy
>> parishes. Find yourself a Latin Mass.
>Note: I never said that they can't. Traditionally Irish American
>Catholics do have a rich tradition of silent participation, especially
>since they had a century or two where the Catholic Church had to be
>underground because it was illegal in Ireland.
You should definitely read the book, below. By the late 19th century,
at least, laws were passed in jolly ole Britain, I believe, pulling
back on the anti-Catholic persecutions of so long in the
'territories', as it were. All I was saying, here, is that while
you'll hear a bunch of throw-away ditties at a neo-Prot 'new order',
you'll hear actual Catholic chant, polyphony and later hymns if you
find yourself an actual Catholic Mass, the Latin Mass. Think of it as
occupied Ireland (no . . . really). You gotta sneak off to the cliffs
to hear the priest. And if they catch you, the archbishop will give
you a real chiding for being something less than 'unified in diversity
in the gathering place', or whatever; until maybe he realizes it could
have been one of his 'indults' (oh - do I have those, here?). Anyhow.
You'd think it would be tough to find an organization more in flux and
more disorganized than the local NFL franchise, the SF football 49ers.
But I think the institutional church, certainly in 'merica, has to
take the honors.
>> Sure it is. But never without appreciation. Never 'dully'. They say
>> Padre Pio, at his best, took hours to offer Holy Mass. I don't think
>> "dully recited" would have come to mind by way of description, save
>> for those with no heart.
>Agreed. I think that first and foremost, we need to kindle
>the fire of love for the liturgy in many of the priests out
>there today. They don't appreciate the depth and magnitude
>of the liturgy.
Why should they? Why should a Baptist preacher get teary eyed over a
Eucharist? I mean . .
This'll make much more sense to you if you realize that we not only
live in times of widespread and unchecked heresy, but that as a
result, among other splits, clearly there is now one between The
Church, the uniform and historical Church, and a church within a
church guided by various archbishops, staffed by trendy priests and
laymen, as is typical of heretics in the past. The latter I called the
Catholic Reformed Church. I think it's a respectful title. But it does
emphasize that where in 'new order', even the feast days are
different, it should dawn on people, eventually, that it all seems so
different because - 'tis. It's two different religions. One has chant,
the other has Michael Joncas. One has The Eucharist, the other has a
'lay priesthood' offering a memorial. One has a devotion to Our
Blessed Mother. The other once ravaged the sanctuary for any hint of
statuary. One understands the two cities, and that we as Catholics are
not primarily concerned with the earthly. The other finds its 'social
justice' entirely in the world and expectations of man. One points to
unscientific opinion polls (because I believe all opinion polls are
necessarily such). The other points to holy tradition and the deposit
of Faith. One is eager to criticize Scriptures, and even dismiss it.
The other understands Scripture to be the inspired Word of God. And so
on. Cover your eyes. Avert your gaze. Go Niners. Whatever. But the
reality will still be there. And here we wuz talkin music.
Theodore M. Seeber
Mark, thank you. You've finally written something that shows me where you
are comming from.
I can believe that living in San Francisco and surrounding areas, where
Dignity and the CTA are so strong, that the polerization you describe here
has in fact occured. In fact, so strong that I would call it an actual
schism. And I agree, now, with your terminology.
However, please try to remember that there are still some parishes, some
archdiocese, where the polerization you describe hasn't happened. Where
the enterence hymm may be on guitar, the meditation song at Eucharist may
be on Organ, and the Lord's Prayer may be done in chant (or Plainsong, or
Gregorian, it all sounds the same to me) and the exit hymm a rap from
SuperTones (if you haven't heard this Christian rap group yet, don't
bother), all in the same Mass. Where due diligence research is done AND a
dispensation from the archbishop is required for any "Trendy" changes.
Where Marian devotion sits and chants rosaries aloud for a dear departed
soul, even as they are carrying in a baptismal font for baptising a new
baby by immersion. Much as it must seem wierd to you, living in a land
where things are either orthodox or not, where the trendy pastor is
indistinguishable from the Protestant, most of the rest of us live in
diocese where, 36 years after Vatican II was called, the changes are still
going on and where we have the Mass in Latin at 6:00 am Christmas Day and
the Mass in English at 10 am Christmas Day.
Perhaps, one day, we will be as polerized as the land where you hail from.
But I personally, hope that we never get there.
Mark Johnson
>On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> This'll make much more sense to you if you realize that we not only
>> live in times of widespread and unchecked heresy, but that as a
>> result, among other splits, clearly there is now one between The
>> Church, the uniform and historical Church, and a church within a
>> church guided by various archbishops, staffed by trendy priests and
>> laymen, as is typical of heretics in the past. The latter I called the
>> Catholic Reformed Church. I think it's a respectful title. But it does
>> emphasize that where in 'new order', even the feast days are
>> different, it should dawn on people, eventually, that it all seems so
>> different because - 'tis. It's two different religions. One has chant,
>> the other has Michael Joncas. One has The Eucharist, the other has a
>> 'lay priesthood' offering a memorial. One has a devotion to Our
>> Blessed Mother. The other once ravaged the sanctuary for any hint of
>> statuary. One understands the two cities, and that we as Catholics are
>> not primarily concerned with the earthly. The other finds its 'social
>> justice' entirely in the world and expectations of man. One points to
>> unscientific opinion polls (because I believe all opinion polls are
>> necessarily such). The other points to holy tradition and the deposit
>> of Faith. One is eager to criticize Scriptures, and even dismiss it.
>> The other understands Scripture to be the inspired Word of God. And so
>> on. Cover your eyes. Avert your gaze. Go Niners. Whatever. But the
>> reality will still be there. And here we wuz talkin music.
>However, please try to remember that there are still some parishes, some
>archdiocese, where the polerization you describe hasn't happened. Where
>the enterence hymm may be on guitar, the meditation song at Eucharist may
>be on Organ, and the Lord's Prayer may be done in chant (or Plainsong, or
>Gregorian, it all sounds the same to me)
Same thing. We've really been over and over this, though, Ted. _I_
have always phrased it as writing from behind enemy lines. That hasn't
changed. But this is a worldwide heresy and a worldwide phenomenon.
The arrogance of the libral crowd out here, the literal persecution of
the traditional and faithful Catholics by their own bishops, merely
helped put things more quickly into perspective. But the problems with
'new order', given that understanding, are problems with . . 'new
order'. _That's_ the problem, and the rest that Davies writes about,
and that von Hildebrand wrote about, and that pop up in articles in
HPR, and of course in the Remnant, and so on. If you are content with
a neo-Prot church, then that's that. But it's not the answer. Beyond
the initial zeal, there is not the lives of the Saints to emulate,
there are not the documents of The Church, there is not the sound
teaching, for such books were written before 1965. Again, when Mgr.
Wrenn considered the problems of the entire lay catechetical
establishment in the US, it wasn't just that of Northern California.
And . . so on. But we've been over all this, before. And again, and
agian, and again. You just keep forgetting what you've read and what
you've written, again, and again, and again.
>bother), all in the same Mass. Where due diligence research is done AND a
>dispensation from the archbishop is required for any "Trendy" changes.
>Where Marian devotion sits and chants rosaries aloud for a dear departed
>soul, even as they are carrying in a baptismal font for baptising a new
>baby by immersion. Much as it must seem wierd to you, living in a land
>where things are either orthodox or not, where the trendy pastor is
>indistinguishable from the Protestant, most of the rest of us live in
>diocese where, 36 years after Vatican II was called, the changes are still
>going on and where we have the Mass in Latin at 6:00 am Christmas Day and
>the Mass in English at 10 am Christmas Day.
What you likely have, I'm going to assume, is a 'new order' . . in
Latin? Again, what you have is a new liturgy for a new religion. This
thing would be no more recognizable to the fathers of Trent, or even
The Vatican Council, frankly, even to the fathers of Vatican II, than
the liturgy of some offshoot sect of the Episcopaleans. Vatican II
never called for 'new order'. At most, it considered some of the
propers and the Epistle and Gospels in the vernacular, and maybe not
_even_ the closing Gospel. But the docs were vague. And the heretics
jumped on that. And no one in authority in the institution wanted to
play the role of adult in the counter-culture 60s. Such is the
history.
>Perhaps, one day, we will be as polerized as the land where you hail from.
>But I personally, hope that we never get there.
You need to reread all your posts, Ted. You're only kiddin yourself.
Theodore M. Seeber
> >However, please try to remember that there are still some parishes, some
> >archdiocese, where the polerization you describe hasn't happened. Where
> >the enterence hymm may be on guitar, the meditation song at Eucharist may
> >be on Organ, and the Lord's Prayer may be done in chant (or Plainsong, or
> >Gregorian, it all sounds the same to me)
>
> Same thing. We've really been over and over this, though, Ted. _I_
> have always phrased it as writing from behind enemy lines. That hasn't
> changed. But this is a worldwide heresy and a worldwide phenomenon.
Not the same thing. There are elements in the non-polerized mass that
you and I would both recognize as being "The Holy Mass". There are NO
such elements in the CTA masses.
A grand example is the difference between the CTA or Dignity and the
orthodox on Sin. Sin exists, to the liberal Catholic. Sin does NOT
exist to the CTA extremeist.
> The arrogance of the libral crowd out here, the literal persecution of
> the traditional and faithful Catholics by their own bishops, merely
> helped put things more quickly into perspective.
And this hasn't happened, except in a few extreme cases. Archbishop
Vlazny, like Leveda before him, here in Oregon, allows the Pius V mass to
be said at any parish at any time that it makes sense to do so.
> But the problems with
> 'new order', given that understanding, are problems with . . 'new
> order'.
No, they are not. They are problems with a CTA interpretation of New
Order, which you seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker. Not
suprising, since RCIA in your parish seems to be CTA anyway "do not read
books before 1965" and all (we're currently, in the RCIA program I'm
involved in with my fiance, studying the differences in language between
Vatican I and Vatican II, showing how there has been no real change in
dogma. To do this, we need to read documents that were written before
1965).
> _That's_ the problem, and the rest that Davies writes about,
> and that von Hildebrand wrote about, and that pop up in articles in
> HPR, and of course in the Remnant, and so on.
What was that which was said on Catholic Answers yesterday? "Those that
place themselves outside of the Church are not authoritative".
> If you are content with
> a neo-Prot church, then that's that.
I'm not. Thank God I don't have one.
> But it's not the answer. Beyond
> the initial zeal, there is not the lives of the Saints to emulate,
> there are not the documents of The Church, there is not the sound
> teaching, for such books were written before 1965.
Agreed. See above where I say that in my RCIA group, we read books
written before 1965.
> Again, when Mgr.
> Wrenn considered the problems of the entire lay catechetical
> establishment in the US, it wasn't just that of Northern California.
True. But dissent is dissent, it's always gone on, and dissent is not
authoritative.
> And . . so on. But we've been over all this, before. And again, and
> agian, and again. You just keep forgetting what you've read and what
> you've written, again, and again, and again.
And you seem not to read what I've written.
> >bother), all in the same Mass. Where due diligence research is done AND a
> >dispensation from the archbishop is required for any "Trendy" changes.
> >Where Marian devotion sits and chants rosaries aloud for a dear departed
> >soul, even as they are carrying in a baptismal font for baptising a new
> >baby by immersion. Much as it must seem wierd to you, living in a land
> >where things are either orthodox or not, where the trendy pastor is
> >indistinguishable from the Protestant, most of the rest of us live in
> >diocese where, 36 years after Vatican II was called, the changes are still
> >going on and where we have the Mass in Latin at 6:00 am Christmas Day and
> >the Mass in English at 10 am Christmas Day.
>
> What you likely have, I'm going to assume, is a 'new order' . . in
> Latin?
Nope, Archbishop Vlazney prefers the missal of Pius V for Latin masses in
the Cathedral.
> Again, what you have is a new liturgy for a new religion.
Assumed because you haven't been in a place where there IS a blending of
the two, where the Novus Ordo is practiced within the limits placed by the
Holy Father.
> This
> thing would be no more recognizable to the fathers of Trent, or even
> The Vatican Council, frankly, even to the fathers of Vatican II, than
> the liturgy of some offshoot sect of the Episcopaleans.
Agreed. What you've said, what you've described, would not. But what
you've described, is not what is happening here in Oregon.
> Vatican II
> never called for 'new order'. At most, it considered some of the
> propers and the Epistle and Gospels in the vernacular, and maybe not
> _even_ the closing Gospel. But the docs were vague. And the heretics
> jumped on that. And no one in authority in the institution wanted to
> play the role of adult in the counter-culture 60s. Such is the
> history.
Except, apparently, the Curia in charge of the liturgy. But then again,
like you say, the counter-culture in California (and elsewhere, while this
is a local phenomena, it isn't limited to California by any stretch of the
immagination) didn't Listen.
> >Perhaps, one day, we will be as polerized as the land where you hail from.
> >But I personally, hope that we never get there.
>
> You need to reread all your posts, Ted. You're only kiddin yourself.
And you have drifted so far to the right, that you've lost sight of the
Magisterium, limiting it somehow to a subset that only includes the Saints
and the Doctors.
Mark Johnson
>On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Same thing. We've really been over and over this, though, Ted. _I_
>> have always phrased it as writing from behind enemy lines. That hasn't
>> changed. But this is a worldwide heresy and a worldwide phenomenon.
>Not the same thing. There are elements in the non-polerized mass that
>you and I would both recognize as being "The Holy Mass". There are NO
>such elements in the CTA masses.
There are elements the Anglicans still borrow from the Catholics, the
priesthood itself not being the least of them. Doesn't mean I
"recognize" their services as being The Holy Mass.
>A grand example is the difference between the CTA or Dignity and the
>orthodox on Sin. Sin exists, to the liberal Catholic. Sin does NOT
>exist to the CTA extremeist.
Sin exists for all librals. It is just that _they_ do not sin. The
evil, awful conservative neo-Nazi-likes do. Hell is reserved for the
Saints, whom the librals consider to be either the most naive and/or
the most unrepentant of scoundrels. Ever read Screwtape?
>> The arrogance of the libral crowd out here, the literal persecution of
>> the traditional and faithful Catholics by their own bishops, merely
>> helped put things more quickly into perspective.
>And this hasn't happened, except in a few extreme cases. Archbishop
>Vlazny, like Leveda before him, here in Oregon, allows the Pius V mass to
>be said at any parish at any time that it makes sense to do so.
Arch. Levada _is_ the arch in this area, and he has _never_ allowed
the FSSP to offer the 'Tridentine' Mass. The FSSP apparently even
visited with him, as soon as he took over for the Mighty
Pope's-too-powerful Quinn. They left. Nothing came of it. There are
still some magnificent cathedrals in the area. They would serve very
well, once the statuary and stained glass are found again or replaced,
for The Holy Mass. What you have is likely a guy who _might_,
possibly, consider an 'indult', but whose pastors, like the librals
bunch in Chitown, are prob. dead set against it. In fact, I believe
the pastor of what had been the city cathedral, before the agitator
was built (St. Mary's, which looks like a wash. machine agitator up
top), once said they'd say The Latin Mass again over his dead body.
Don't know if he's yet to retire.
>> But the problems with
>> 'new order', given that understanding, are problems with . . 'new
>> order'.
>No, they are not. They are problems with a CTA interpretation of New
>Order,
With 'new order'. Again, we've been over this. Ottaviani? Remember?
von Hildebrand? of course, you do. Michael Davies? Guimaraes and de
Oliveria? and so on?
>suprising, since RCIA in your parish seems to be CTA anyway "do not read
>books before 1965" and all (we're currently, in the RCIA program I'm
>involved in with my fiance, studying the differences in language between
>Vatican I and Vatican II, showing how there has been no real change in
>dogma. To do this, we need to read documents that were written before
>1965).
What you're missing is that the 'spirit of' crowd took the name of the
council, and _ignored_ the docs, or at least selectively quoted in a
heterodox fashion, only because the docs were so vague. Of course, as
_I've_ been saying, if interpreted in light of holy tradition, you can
get most of Vat II docs to read in orthodox fashion.
As for problems suggested by the docs, mostly by omission, there's
often a lot of filling in required for Vat II docs to get them to come
out orthodox, that isn't necessary for most anything else you'd have
for comparison. And for those problem passages that just seem wrong,
no matter what, well . . then they're just wrong. Again, Vat II was
not a normal general council. It was deemed a 'pastoral' council. And
we've been over this, too.
>> _That's_ the problem, and the rest that Davies writes about,
>> and that von Hildebrand wrote about, and that pop up in articles in
>> HPR, and of course in the Remnant, and so on.
>What was that which was said on Catholic Answers yesterday? "Those that
>place themselves outside of the Church are not authoritative".
Those who are placing themselves outside of The Church wear collars
and call themselves pastors and bishops. Such is always the case in
times of heresy. You, again, need to review even just the names of
various heresies of the past, many of which are going strong today
thanks to the 'spirit of Vatican II', and track down just who these
heresies were named for.
>> If you are content with
>> a neo-Prot church, then that's that.
>I'm not. Thank God I don't have one.
Catholic Reformed is about as Prot as one can get. The Saints would
never recognize 'new order' as being The Holy Mass. Our Lord didn't
die for all so that the fruits of His Passion would go to all. This is
very much a matter of dogma, contradicted and discarded by ICEL, and
others (the GIRM mentions two other languages, as well).
>> But it's not the answer. Beyond
>> the initial zeal, there is not the lives of the Saints to emulate,
>> there are not the documents of The Church, there is not the sound
>> teaching, for such books were written before 1965.
>Agreed. See above where I say that in my RCIA group, we read books
>written before 1965.
I'm curious as to how your 'facilitator' describes the book of
Genesis, Adam and Eve, the flood, and so on. And I remain curious as
to why she is so deadset against anything 'found on the net', which
may be the sort of parallel cant to 'anything before 1965'.
>> Again, when Mgr.
>> Wrenn considered the problems of the entire lay catechetical
>> establishment in the US, it wasn't just that of Northern California.
>True. But dissent is dissent, it's always gone on, and dissent is not
>authoritative.
It is when the dissenter stands for The Church, against those in the
institution who are heretics and frauds. St. Athanasius upset many who
wore the collar. But he was right. They were wrong. And his standard
was simply - what Catholics believe, what they had believed, what we
always will believe.
>> >diocese where, 36 years after Vatican II was called, the changes are still
>> >going on and where we have the Mass in Latin at 6:00 am Christmas Day and
>> >the Mass in English at 10 am Christmas Day.
>> What you likely have, I'm going to assume, is a 'new order' . . in
>> Latin?
>Nope, Archbishop Vlazney prefers the missal of Pius V for Latin masses in
>the Cathedral.
Good. Second Christmas Mass. Now if only next year the first and third
could be so, you might have something.
>> Again, what you have is a new liturgy for a new religion.
>Assumed because you haven't been in a place where there IS a blending of
>the two, where the Novus Ordo is practiced within the limits placed by the
>Holy Father.
The problem is with 'new order', itself. Perhaps it is a blessing to
be stuck behind enemy lines, as it were. One is forced to see the
reality of things.
>> thing would be no more recognizable to the fathers of Trent, or even
>> The Vatican Council, frankly, even to the fathers of Vatican II, than
>> the liturgy of some offshoot sect of the Episcopaleans.
>Agreed. What you've said, what you've described, would not. But what
>you've described, is not what is happening here in Oregon.
It most certainly seems so, based on all the various things _you_
yourself have written. If this is what you're being taught in RCIA,
it's every bit as heterodox as that I was kicked out of, and those
Mgr. Wrenn considered in his pre-catechism book.
>> Vatican II
>> never called for 'new order'. At most, it considered some of the
>> propers and the Epistle and Gospels in the vernacular, and maybe not
>> _even_ the closing Gospel. But the docs were vague. And the heretics
>> jumped on that. And no one in authority in the institution wanted to
>> play the role of adult in the counter-culture 60s. Such is the
>> history.
>Except, apparently, the Curia in charge of the liturgy. But then again,
>like you say, the counter-culture in California (and elsewhere, while this
>is a local phenomena, it isn't limited to California by any stretch of the
>immagination) didn't Listen.
It was the end run, by use of the Concilium, that took those normally
responsible out of the loop. It was the Curia, it was the Pope,
himself, who ultimately signed off on the thing, ignoring those who
would know better, particularly Ottaviani, and also von Hildebrand,
and many others. That you don't like the memory of these people is
only to suggest to you that you've been most carefully taught. But as
the play shows, you don't have to go along with the script. I pray you
don't.
>> >Perhaps, one day, we will be as polerized as the land where you hail from.
>> >But I personally, hope that we never get there.
>> You need to reread all your posts, Ted. You're only kiddin yourself.
>And you have drifted so far to the right, that you've lost sight of the
>Magisterium, limiting it somehow to a subset that only includes the Saints
>and the Doctors.
Well, God forbid we should follow the example of the Saints, Ted.
I've referred you to http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm ,
for where this is a doctrinal problem which is fatal for 'new order',
which appears little more than a cheap neo-Prot service designed for a
new schismatic 'we are church' within The Church. Open your eyes. Read
what's on 'the net'. Tell your 'facilitator' that self-righteously
sealed glass houses can become an oven, particularly when the sun
starts to shine. Tell her not to worry about the evil, awful and
'patriarchical, heirarchical', but to consider the state of The
Church, today, and how her compromise theology and 'better way' of
seeing things only contributes to that decline and decay, and rather
that orthodoxy is Catholic - and that Catholicism, is orthodox.
Peace. (and tell her to read the book, below - - - cause . . it's
on-line)
Theodore M. Seeber
> >Not the same thing. There are elements in the non-polerized mass that
> >you and I would both recognize as being "The Holy Mass". There are NO
> >such elements in the CTA masses.
>
> There are elements the Anglicans still borrow from the Catholics, the
> priesthood itself not being the least of them. Doesn't mean I
> "recognize" their services as being The Holy Mass.
I see none of these elements being "borrowed" from the Catholics,
especially the priesthood.
> >A grand example is the difference between the CTA or Dignity and the
> >orthodox on Sin. Sin exists, to the liberal Catholic. Sin does NOT
> >exist to the CTA extremeist.
>
> Sin exists for all librals. It is just that _they_ do not sin. The
> evil, awful conservative neo-Nazi-likes do. Hell is reserved for the
> Saints, whom the librals consider to be either the most naive and/or
> the most unrepentant of scoundrels. Ever read Screwtape?
Yes I have. Interesting that all of Screwtape's victims were the awful
conservative neo-Nazi-likes, wasn't it?
But C.S. Lewis is not an authoritative source for the liberal groups I am
associated with. Though he is an authoritative source for the CTA.....
> >And this hasn't happened, except in a few extreme cases. Archbishop
> >Vlazny, like Leveda before him, here in Oregon, allows the Pius V mass to
> >be said at any parish at any time that it makes sense to do so.
>
> Arch. Levada _is_ the arch in this area, and he has _never_ allowed
> the FSSP to offer the 'Tridentine' Mass.
Leveda is the archbishop of North California? I thought it was Mahoney.
And last I heard, Leveda had been transfered to Chicago and made a
Cardinal.
> The FSSP apparently even
> visited with him, as soon as he took over for the Mighty
> Pope's-too-powerful Quinn. They left. Nothing came of it. There are
> still some magnificent cathedrals in the area. They would serve very
> well, once the statuary and stained glass are found again or replaced,
> for The Holy Mass. What you have is likely a guy who _might_,
> possibly, consider an 'indult', but whose pastors, like the librals
> bunch in Chitown, are prob. dead set against it. In fact, I believe
> the pastor of what had been the city cathedral, before the agitator
> was built (St. Mary's, which looks like a wash. machine agitator up
> top), once said they'd say The Latin Mass again over his dead body.
> Don't know if he's yet to retire.
I'm sorry, don't know what the heck you are talking about. Who is the
FSSP?
> >No, they are not. They are problems with a CTA interpretation of New
> >Order,
>
> With 'new order'. Again, we've been over this. Ottaviani? Remember?
> von Hildebrand? of course, you do. Michael Davies? Guimaraes and de
> Oliveria? and so on?
All of which referenced the CTA interpretation of Novus Ordo, NOT what
ICEL or the Curia have actually written.
The fact that the CTA interpretaion is possible.
> >suprising, since RCIA in your parish seems to be CTA anyway "do not read
> >books before 1965" and all (we're currently, in the RCIA program I'm
> >involved in with my fiance, studying the differences in language between
> >Vatican I and Vatican II, showing how there has been no real change in
> >dogma. To do this, we need to read documents that were written before
> >1965).
>
> What you're missing is that the 'spirit of' crowd took the name of the
> council, and _ignored_ the docs, or at least selectively quoted in a
> heterodox fashion, only because the docs were so vague. Of course, as
> _I've_ been saying, if interpreted in light of holy tradition, you can
> get most of Vat II docs to read in orthodox fashion.
I just got done agreeing with that, thank you very much.
> As for problems suggested by the docs, mostly by omission, there's
> often a lot of filling in required for Vat II docs to get them to come
> out orthodox, that isn't necessary for most anything else you'd have
> for comparison. And for those problem passages that just seem wrong,
> no matter what, well . . then they're just wrong. Again, Vat II was
> not a normal general council. It was deemed a 'pastoral' council. And
> we've been over this, too.
And once again, you claim that Vatican II was not ecumenical. But that's
more a difference in our definitions of Magisterium, of which you are
using one that I cannot find even in the 1954 printing of the Catholic
Encyclopedia.
> >What was that which was said on Catholic Answers yesterday? "Those that
> >place themselves outside of the Church are not authoritative".
>
> Those who are placing themselves outside of The Church wear collars
> and call themselves pastors and bishops. Such is always the case in
> times of heresy. You, again, need to review even just the names of
> various heresies of the past, many of which are going strong today
> thanks to the 'spirit of Vatican II', and track down just who these
> heresies were named for.
You have yet to prove to me that they are "going strong today thanks to
the 'spirit of Vatican II'. Heck, you've yet to show me that you
understand Modern English enough to read the writings of Vatican II.
> >> If you are content with
> >> a neo-Prot church, then that's that.
>
> >I'm not. Thank God I don't have one.
>
> Catholic Reformed is about as Prot as one can get.
Agreed.
> The Saints would
> never recognize 'new order' as being The Holy Mass.
Disagreed, but that's only because, near as I can tell, you're "Catholic
Reformed" isn't even following Novus Ordo, but is instead following
whatever the trendy priest has come up with for this week....
> Our Lord didn't
> die for all so that the fruits of His Passion would go to all.
Correct. He died for all so that his passion would go to y'all, to the
many, not to all.
> This is
> very much a matter of dogma, contradicted and discarded by ICEL, and
> others (the GIRM mentions two other languages, as well).
No it isn't, it's just contradicted and discarded by your CTA trendy
pastor who's been misreading and misinterpreting ICEL all along (and far
as I know, allowing such hersies as Liturgical Dance and the whole nine
yards).
> >Agreed. See above where I say that in my RCIA group, we read books
> >written before 1965.
>
> I'm curious as to how your 'facilitator' describes the book of
> Genesis, Adam and Eve, the flood, and so on.
By directing us to the Pope and to Vatican II, of course. Why, is there
another way that your CTA parish does it?
> And I remain curious as
> to why she is so deadset against anything 'found on the net', which
> may be the sort of parallel cant to 'anything before 1965'.
No, it's more of a parallel to "Nothing since 1965". She has a tendency
to distrust that which has not been through Nihil Obstat and the
Imprimature (as right she should, when dealing with converts).
> >True. But dissent is dissent, it's always gone on, and dissent is not
> >authoritative.
>
> It is when the dissenter stands for The Church, against those in the
> institution who are heretics and frauds.
Prove that a disenter can.
> St. Athanasius upset many who
> wore the collar. But he was right.
Athanasius did at that. But his day is not this, and I will not allow you
to make invalid claims to being a present-day Athanasius, any more than I
would give Msgr. Wrenn the benefit of the doubt on the subject.
> They were wrong. And his standard
> was simply - what Catholics believe, what they had believed, what we
> always will believe.
Too bad Msgr. Wrenn's opinion on the subject doesn't reference what they
had believed, and what we have always believed, instead only going back as
far as Trent.
> >Nope, Archbishop Vlazney prefers the missal of Pius V for Latin masses in
> >the Cathedral.
>
> Good. Second Christmas Mass. Now if only next year the first and third
> could be so, you might have something.
I have no idea about the first, I went to St. Clare's for that one. The
third he had a general radio broadcast to do, so it would have rather
defeated the purpose of the radio broadcast to do it in Latin.
> >Assumed because you haven't been in a place where there IS a blending of
> >the two, where the Novus Ordo is practiced within the limits placed by the
> >Holy Father.
>
> The problem is with 'new order', itself. Perhaps it is a blessing to
> be stuck behind enemy lines, as it were. One is forced to see the
> reality of things.
The problem is with being so stuck behind enemy lines that you begin to
think that everybody is your enemy and you begin killing your friends.
> >Agreed. What you've said, what you've described, would not. But what
> >you've described, is not what is happening here in Oregon.
>
> It most certainly seems so, based on all the various things _you_
> yourself have written. If this is what you're being taught in RCIA,
> it's every bit as heterodox as that I was kicked out of, and those
> Mgr. Wrenn considered in his pre-catechism book.
Your "seems so" is missing a lot of data. Why don't you come to mass with
me here in Portland, sometime? You quoted liturgical dance, missing
statues, missing tabernacles, and the Judas shuffle, sure sounds
Protestant to me ( and foreign to how the New Order is supposed to be
practiced).
> >Except, apparently, the Curia in charge of the liturgy. But then again,
> >like you say, the counter-culture in California (and elsewhere, while this
> >is a local phenomena, it isn't limited to California by any stretch of the
> >immagination) didn't Listen.
>
> It was the end run, by use of the Concilium, that took those normally
> responsible out of the loop. It was the Curia, it was the Pope,
> himself, who ultimately signed off on the thing, ignoring those who
> would know better, particularly Ottaviani, and also von Hildebrand,
> and many others.
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit has abandoned his position in choosing
and controling the hierarchy? That you think you could have done better?
> That you don't like the memory of these people is
> only to suggest to you that you've been most carefully taught. But as
> the play shows, you don't have to go along with the script. I pray you
> don't.
I really don't like it when you claim that you could have done a better
job than the third person of the trinity in choosing the leadership of the
church. It seems to be a rather hetrodox position to be taking. Do you
really mean it?
> >And you have drifted so far to the right, that you've lost sight of the
> >Magisterium, limiting it somehow to a subset that only includes the Saints
> >and the Doctors.
>
> Well, God forbid we should follow the example of the Saints, Ted.
You certainly don't, a Saint would never have posted such a monstrosity as
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.com
> I've referred you to http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm ,
> for where this is a doctrinal problem which is fatal for 'new order',
Get your definitions straight. At worst, it's a discipline problem, not a
doctrinal problem.
> which appears little more than a cheap neo-Prot service designed for a
> new schismatic 'we are church' within The Church.
Key word here is once again "appears". Could it possibly be that von
Hildebrand was wrong? Or is he infalible in your eyes, and should have
been Pope rather than Paul VI?
> Open your eyes. Read
> what's on 'the net'. Tell your 'facilitator' that self-righteously
> sealed glass houses can become an oven, particularly when the sun
> starts to shine. Tell her not to worry about the evil, awful and
> 'patriarchical, heirarchical', but to consider the state of The
> Church, today, and how her compromise theology and 'better way' of
> seeing things only contributes to that decline and decay, and rather
> that orthodoxy is Catholic - and that Catholicism, is orthodox.
I have been. Whenever it occurs. Especially when she did do one thing
that was obviously hetrodox (claiming that the Pope was "misguided", like
you do). I hope you don't mind, but I will continue to do likewise with
you when you put forth hetrodox opinions.
> Peace. (and tell her to read the book, below - - - cause . . it's
> on-line)
She has no computer, and based upon what I've seen written about the
Catholic Church online, I don't blame her one bit.
legatus
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Mark Johnson wrote:
> > Arch. Levada _is_ the arch in this area, and he has _never_ allowed
> > the FSSP to offer the 'Tridentine' Mass.
>
> Leveda is the archbishop of North California? I thought it was Mahoney.
>
> And last I heard, Leveda had been transfered to Chicago and made a
> Cardinal.
The Archbishop of Chicago is Francis Cardinal George.
William Levada is the Archbishop of San Francisco (Dec 27, 1995)
Roger Cardinal Mahoney is the Archbishop of Los Angeles (Sept. 5, 1985)
Rembert Weakland is (and has been since 1977) Archbishop of Milwaukee
Spend the $20 and get a copy of the annual Catholic Almanac published by
OSV. The 99 edition should be out now and you will find it an invaluable
resource.
> I'm sorry, don't know what the heck you are talking about. Who is the
> FSSP?
In English..."The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter". Founded Oct 18, 1988
at the order of the Holy Father, John Paul II. They celebrate the Mass
according to the Missal of 1962...exclusively. They are the only order to
begin construction of a seminary in the United States since Vatican II.
The American Province is currently headquartered in PA, but they are
moving to the Diocese of Lincoln and will turn their PA facilities over to
the Society of St. John... ANOTHER "Tridentine" only order.
Thanks be to God for Bishops Timlin (Scranton) and Bruskewitz (Lincoln)
One of their priests was in my town yesterday and I have never heard a
better sermon in my life... And confession was... otherworldly.
> > I've referred you to http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm ,
> > for where this is a doctrinal problem which is fatal for 'new order',
>
> Get your definitions straight. At worst, it's a discipline problem, not a
> doctrinal problem.
Would you wait at LEAST a week before you begin applying new found
information. There is no such thing as a discipline "problem" when a
discipline has been removed.
> > which appears little more than a cheap neo-Prot service designed for a
> > new schismatic 'we are church' within The Church.
>
> Key word here is once again "appears". Could it possibly be that von
> Hildebrand was wrong? Or is he infalible in your eyes, and should have
> been Pope rather than Paul VI?
von Hildebrand was not wrong. I'm not sure what Mark believes vH was
saying, but vH was not in error. And he certainly wasn't Chicken Little.
His predictions all came to pass, luckily he didn't live to see all of
them occur.
John T. Cotton
<see...@teleport.com> wrote:
<snip>
>be on Organ, and the Lord's Prayer may be done in chant (or Plainsong, or
>Gregorian, it all sounds the same to me) and the exit hymm a rap from
>SuperTones (if you haven't heard this Christian rap group yet, don't
>bother), all in the same Mass.
A friendly if irrelevant interjection...the OC Supertones is
contemporary christian band whose music would be best categorized as
"Ska". Personally I would not choose to insult them by refering to
their material as rap. In any event I would leave judgement to the
tastes of the individual. :-)
Mark Johnson
>von Hildebrand was not wrong. I'm not sure what Mark believes vH was
>saying, but vH was not in error.
You're right, he wasn't. And it was basically just this:
. . . it is crucial to a right understanding of Vatican II to remember
what His Holiness Pope John XXIII declared in his opening discourse
(L'Osservatore Romano 10/12/1962), what was reaffirmed by the
Secretariate of the Council (November 16, 1964), by His Holiness Pope
Paul VI at the close of the Council (L'Osservatore Romano, 12/7/1965;
AAS 1967,57; Audience of 1/12/1966 published in L'Osservatore Romano
1/21/1966) namely that the Council did not intend, nor did it in fact
propose any teaching as an infallible, irreformable definition.
His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, addressing the Chilean
Episcopal Conference (cf. Il Sabato 7/30--8/5/1988), reaffirmed the
same when he said, "The truth is that the Council itself did not
define any dogma, and that it consciously wanted to express itself on
a more modest level, simply as a pastoral Council." Vatican II is
then, at most, an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium which is
infallible only inasmuch as it reiterates in the "same sense and
meaning" (St. Vincent of Lerins) that "universal and constant"
faith---and those propositions/teachings---once and forever handed on
to the Apostles by Christ Our Lord.
[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/weight.html]
Peace.
Theodore M. Seeber
> > And last I heard, Leveda had been transfered to Chicago and made a
> > Cardinal.
>
> The Archbishop of Chicago is Francis Cardinal George.
Damn, I knew that if I had them all, I'd get them mixed up....
> In English..."The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter". Founded Oct 18, 1988
> at the order of the Holy Father, John Paul II. They celebrate the Mass
> according to the Missal of 1962...exclusively. They are the only order to
> begin construction of a seminary in the United States since Vatican II.
> The American Province is currently headquartered in PA, but they are
> moving to the Diocese of Lincoln and will turn their PA facilities over to
> the Society of St. John... ANOTHER "Tridentine" only order.
>
> Thanks be to God for Bishops Timlin (Scranton) and Bruskewitz (Lincoln)
>
> One of their priests was in my town yesterday and I have never heard a
> better sermon in my life... And confession was... otherworldly.
Thank you.
> von Hildebrand was not wrong. I'm not sure what Mark believes vH was
> saying, but vH was not in error. And he certainly wasn't Chicken Little.
> His predictions all came to pass, luckily he didn't live to see all of
> them occur.
Mark seems to believe that what vH was saying was that the Novus Ordo
changed dogma.
legatus
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > von Hildebrand was not wrong. I'm not sure what Mark believes vH was
> > saying, but vH was not in error. And he certainly wasn't Chicken Little.
> > His predictions all came to pass, luckily he didn't live to see all of
> > them occur.
>
> Mark seems to believe that what vH was saying was that the Novus Ordo
> changed dogma.
Okay, I guess we'll do this now...prepare to be scandalized. :)
"The new liturgy was simply not formed by saints, honines religiosi, and
artistically gifted men, but has been worked out by so-called experts, who
are not at all aware that in our time there is a lack of talent for such
things. Today is a time of incredible talent for technology and medical
research, but not for the organic shaping of the expression of the
religious world. We live in a world without poetry, and this means that
one should approach the treasures handed on from more fortunate times with
twice as much reverence, and not with the illusion that we can do it
better ourselves.
...
"The new liturgy is without splendor, flattened, and undifferentiated. It
no longer draws us into the true experience of the liturgical year; we are
deprived of this experience through the catastrophic elimination of the
hierarchy of feasts, octaves, many great feasts of saints, and through the
practice, in the remaining feasts of the saints, of remembering the saint
only in the Collect and Postcommunion.
"Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis' 'The Screwtape Letters' had
been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it
better. In place of the deep expression which even makes use of our bodily
postures - sitting for the Epistle and the offertory, standing for the
Gloria, the Gospel, the Credo, and kneeling in adoration - we now have a
continual up and down which works against recollection.
...
"BUT DESPITE THE GRAVE DEFECTS OF THE NEW MASS, IT WOULD OF COURSE BE
COMPLETELY WRONG IN ANY WAY TO QUESTION ITS VALIDITY AS A REENACTMENT OF
THE SACRIFICE OF CALVARY, AS UNFORTUNATELY SOME FEW ORTHODOX CATHOLICS
HAVE. And it goes without saying that it would also be completely wrong to
disobey any of the rulings of the Holy Father regarding the Novus Ordo and
the Tridentine liturgy."
So says Dietrich von Hildebrand. In effect, his words could be boiled down
to "it sucks, it sucks mightily, it blows and it bites, but it's legit and
we're stuck with it thanks be to God." I concur wholeheartedly.
vH's "The Devastated Vineyard" is a wholesale condemnation of the
post-conciliar reform and it is dramatic, bombastic and hysterical in some
places. It is also finally and irrevocably accurate and stands as an
indictment of our futile attempts to outdo our own heritage.
He absolutely clobbers the introduction of false community and what he
calls "harmless religion". Pick up a copy and give him a few pages to make
his case.
Theodore M. Seeber
> "BUT DESPITE THE GRAVE DEFECTS OF THE NEW MASS, IT WOULD OF COURSE BE
> COMPLETELY WRONG IN ANY WAY TO QUESTION ITS VALIDITY AS A REENACTMENT OF
> THE SACRIFICE OF CALVARY, AS UNFORTUNATELY SOME FEW ORTHODOX CATHOLICS
> HAVE. And it goes without saying that it would also be completely wrong to
> disobey any of the rulings of the Holy Father regarding the Novus Ordo and
> the Tridentine liturgy."
To me, he makes his case right here. "Grave defects", certainly.
Especially considering the lack of poetry.
But Valid? Of course it's valid.
> vH's "The Devastated Vineyard" is a wholesale condemnation of the
> post-conciliar reform and it is dramatic, bombastic and hysterical in some
> places. It is also finally and irrevocably accurate and stands as an
> indictment of our futile attempts to outdo our own heritage.
> He absolutely clobbers the introduction of false community and what he
> calls "harmless religion". Pick up a copy and give him a few pages to make
> his case.
I will. I wonder, though, does he reverse the above statement in any way,
shape, or form?
I also agree that Ecumenism has certainly (and we have yet to see, how
correctly) been considered to be "harmless religion" by many groups of
Protestants as well.
legatus
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, legatus wrote:
>
> > "BUT DESPITE THE GRAVE DEFECTS OF THE NEW MASS, IT WOULD OF COURSE BE
> > COMPLETELY WRONG IN ANY WAY TO QUESTION ITS VALIDITY AS A REENACTMENT OF
> > THE SACRIFICE OF CALVARY, AS UNFORTUNATELY SOME FEW ORTHODOX CATHOLICS
> > HAVE. And it goes without saying that it would also be completely wrong to
> > disobey any of the rulings of the Holy Father regarding the Novus Ordo and
> > the Tridentine liturgy."
>
> To me, he makes his case right here. "Grave defects", certainly.
> Especially considering the lack of poetry.
> But Valid? Of course it's valid.
I'm stunned...you agree that the current rite of the Mass, even when
celebrated properly is subject to "grave defects"? Wow.
> > vH's "The Devastated Vineyard" is a wholesale condemnation of the
> > post-conciliar reform and it is dramatic, bombastic and hysterical in some
> > places. It is also finally and irrevocably accurate and stands as an
> > indictment of our futile attempts to outdo our own heritage.
> > He absolutely clobbers the introduction of false community and what he
> > calls "harmless religion". Pick up a copy and give him a few pages to make
> > his case.
>
> I will. I wonder, though, does he reverse the above statement in any way,
> shape, or form?
Of course not. He was what is called a "loyal" Catholic. :)
> I also agree that Ecumenism has certainly (and we have yet to see, how
> correctly) been considered to be "harmless religion" by many groups of
> Protestants as well.
Well, what follows is an explanation of what vH called "Harmless Religion:
"Long before Vatican II there was the danger of religion becoming
harmless, bourgeois, conventional. Opposition to conventionalism in
religion was to be the work of the Council. But unfortunately an effort
was made to overcome this conventionalism and harmlessness by
aggiornamento - by adapting to "modern man." The hope was that especially
in the post-conciliar period, religion could be given new vitality by
being plunged into the rhythm of daily life - but the result was not only
a failure to sanctify daily life, but a deeper and deeper lapse into a
desacralization of religion."
The rest of his comments on this subject are in my own words, so some of
my own opinion seeps into this:
Instead of making the message of the Gospel available to the moderns, we
have made the message of the moderns available to the faithful... And the
people of God seem far more interested in the message of the times than
the message of the ages. We have become "optimistic ostriches" happily
burying our heads in the sands of Process and Participation and leaving
the defense and propagation of the Faith up to God.
He goes on to say that in times past the danger was allowing religion to
take on an "awful mysteriousness, fearful glory and sovereign inflexible
justice". In OUR age the danger is a pleasent, easy benevolence with
bigotry and excess of zeal as the only deadly sins. By making Catholicism
"acceptable" to the modern age we have destroyed the ultimate seriousness
of our situation before God and lapsed into a harmless optimism. We have
surpressed all fear of God, all trembling at the thought of the day of
judgment.
THIS, says vH, is incomparably WORSE than the "conventionalism" of the
pre-conciliar period.
Dietrich von Hildebrand is a perfect example of a "Traditional Catholic"
and I am a poor example of the same... and we are the people you are
constantly slamming.
Theodore M. Seeber
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.99011...@user1.teleport.com>,
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, legatus wrote:
> >
> > > "BUT DESPITE THE GRAVE DEFECTS OF THE NEW MASS, IT WOULD OF COURSE BE
> > > COMPLETELY WRONG IN ANY WAY TO QUESTION ITS VALIDITY AS A REENACTMENT OF
> > > THE SACRIFICE OF CALVARY, AS UNFORTUNATELY SOME FEW ORTHODOX CATHOLICS
> > > HAVE. And it goes without saying that it would also be completely wrong to
> > > disobey any of the rulings of the Holy Father regarding the Novus Ordo and
> > > the Tridentine liturgy."
> >
> > To me, he makes his case right here. "Grave defects", certainly.
> > Especially considering the lack of poetry.
> > But Valid? Of course it's valid.
>
> I'm stunned...you agree that the current rite of the Mass, even when
> celebrated properly is subject to "grave defects"? Wow.
I do go one step further in that the grave defects only seem to appear
when viewed through common language usage of the 1940s. But yes, defects
they are, and defects they will remain.
BTW, I also find grave defects when viewing the traditionalist
translations of the Mass of Pius V.
> > I will. I wonder, though, does he reverse the above statement in any way,
> > shape, or form?
>
> Of course not. He was what is called a "loyal" Catholic. :)
Good. Then he and I can agree to a large extent. Mark, however, by all
appearances is not a loyal Catholic.
> > I also agree that Ecumenism has certainly (and we have yet to see, how
> > correctly) been considered to be "harmless religion" by many groups of
> > Protestants as well.
>
> Well, what follows is an explanation of what vH called "Harmless Religion:
>
> "Long before Vatican II there was the danger of religion becoming
> harmless, bourgeois, conventional. Opposition to conventionalism in
> religion was to be the work of the Council. But unfortunately an effort
> was made to overcome this conventionalism and harmlessness by
> aggiornamento - by adapting to "modern man." The hope was that especially
> in the post-conciliar period, religion could be given new vitality by
> being plunged into the rhythm of daily life - but the result was not only
> a failure to sanctify daily life, but a deeper and deeper lapse into a
> desacralization of religion."
I agree with his contentions, but not as much with his conclusion. I
find, as a person rasied in the post-conciliar period, that my daily life
HAS become sanctified.
But I can't even number the protestants I've run into and even Catholics
belonging to the CTA who not only would agree with the contention, but
wish to expand it.
> The rest of his comments on this subject are in my own words, so some of
> my own opinion seeps into this:
>
> Instead of making the message of the Gospel available to the moderns, we
> have made the message of the moderns available to the faithful... And the
> people of God seem far more interested in the message of the times than
> the message of the ages. We have become "optimistic ostriches" happily
> burying our heads in the sands of Process and Participation and leaving
> the defense and propagation of the Faith up to God.
To a large extent, I agree.
> He goes on to say that in times past the danger was allowing religion to
> take on an "awful mysteriousness, fearful glory and sovereign inflexible
> justice". In OUR age the danger is a pleasent, easy benevolence with
> bigotry and excess of zeal as the only deadly sins. By making Catholicism
> "acceptable" to the modern age we have destroyed the ultimate seriousness
> of our situation before God and lapsed into a harmless optimism. We have
> surpressed all fear of God, all trembling at the thought of the day of
> judgment.
YES! This is a great danger, especially for the Charismatics.
> Dietrich von Hildebrand is a perfect example of a "Traditional Catholic"
> and I am a poor example of the same... and we are the people you are
> constantly slamming.
My problem is not with this version of traditionalism. My problem is with
the older Catholics for whom the Church had become, in DvH's words "awful
mysteriousness, fearful glory and sovereign inflexible justice". Much as
the CTA and the fundamentalists worship the Bible, the set of
traditionalists that I slam worshiped the Church. NEITHER side is
worshiping God.
legatus
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, legatus wrote:
> > I'm stunned...you agree that the current rite of the Mass, even when
> > celebrated properly is subject to "grave defects"? Wow.
>
> I do go one step further in that the grave defects only seem to appear
> when viewed through common language usage of the 1940s. But yes, defects
> they are, and defects they will remain.
The "defects" in question are not necessarily in which words are used in
the typical edition. The defects are the words that are missing.
> BTW, I also find grave defects when viewing the traditionalist
> translations of the Mass of Pius V.
Well harumph. There ARE no "official" translations of the Missal of Pope
St. Pius V. But do please elighten me as to where you see defects.
Ted I know you say you've compared the two, but what I want you to do is
sit down with a missal from each rite and look seriously at the
differences of expression. Obviously the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus and Agnus
Dei haven't changed.
But ask yourself why "May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your
soul unto life everlasting" was changed into "The Body of Christ"... Look
at the old Offertory and try to reconcile it with what we have today.
There is so much that is missing from the new rite...I'd even be happy
with the old rite restored in English.
Got to www.catholicliturgy.org (or com, I never can remember) and do some
serious looking around. The author of that site has really pulled a lot of
info together.
> > > I will. I wonder, though, does he reverse the above statement in any way,
> > > shape, or form?
> >
> > Of course not. He was what is called a "loyal" Catholic. :)
>
> Good. Then he and I can agree to a large extent. Mark, however, by all
> appearances is not a loyal Catholic.
I am disturbed that he appears to deny the validity of the current rite. I
never am sure whether "it appears invalid on its face" means it IS invalid
or it just looks that way.
> I agree with his contentions, but not as much with his conclusion. I
> find, as a person rasied in the post-conciliar period, that my daily life
> HAS become sanctified.
When was the time your parish last offered: Benediction? First Friday
devotions in general? processions? May crowning? A Mission? Communal
Rosary? Liturgy of the Hours? KoC? CYA? is the Church open for Adoration
or are the doors locked outside of Mass? Did you have your car blessed?
How about your home? pets? Have a Holy Water font at the door? Crucifix on
the nightstand so it is the first and last thing you see? Hospital visits?
Does anyone accompany the priest on sick calls?
I could ask if the parish has a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter or a
crisis pregnancy center or a "Mother's Day Out" or all those other good
things. But one of vH's points is that we've given up those things which
build and strengthen us for activities that, while they also increase us,
for the most part they drain us...which is why no one is interested in
doing the good things.
I could also go into a major rant on vocations, but I'll let it go.
I'm NOT accusing (under ANY circumstances!), but my question is what is
the evidence of the sanctification of your daily life? and what does your
parish do to help you?
We have abandoned the "Catholic identity" and are almost indistinguishable
from good atheists. :(
JimPauwels
If I may say so without dissing von Hildebrand, some critiques seem to come
down to aesthetic judgment. Someone with some credibility expresses an
aesthetic judgment (e.g. "there is not enough poetry in the current translation
of the missal"), and everyone who agrees thinks that an irrefutable point has
been made. And in a sense, they're right: there is no way to refute a person's
judgment that a particular piece of poetry sucks. If he says it sucks, then,
for him, it sucks.
Fwiw, I've been to www.catholicliturgy.whichever-it-is. I've read the Roman
Canon in both translations. Here's my aesthetic judgment: I like the ICEL
translation better. More vigor, fewer archaisms, with (istm in my readthrough)
all of the meaning captured. I didn't care for the ornateness of the previous
translation (which of course was not written to be a public, liturgical
proclamation).
If you disagree, then, guess what - you're right, too :-).
Mark Johnson
>> Good. Then he and I can agree to a large extent. Mark, however, by all
>> appearances is not a loyal Catholic.
>I am disturbed that he appears to deny the validity of the current rite.
I most certainly do deny the validity of the 'new order'. That should
be clear. And if one argues the validity, technically, _apart_ from
the English, Italian, and Spanish (I believe), which is worldwide,
then the complaints of Ottaviani, von Hildebrand who you quoted, and
many others still hold. And the question is - can a liturgy which is
'awful', which is bad, which is clearly unholy, still be valid? Just
take the putatively normative Latin (and no, it's not normative). It
can't be argued that it is not, unless one considers the addition of
The Mystery of Faith to be crucial to the form. I'm not sure it is.
But I think the argument can be made that even if celebrated with pomp
and in serious high Anglican fashion, that the intent of 'reform', the
complaints even you allow, are enough to rule against even the 'pure'
'new order', as such. You disagree. Adoremus disagrees. Davies
disagrees. I'm aware of that.
>never am sure whether "it appears invalid on its face" means it IS invalid
>or it just looks that way.
Self-evidently invalid. How's that? Plainly invalid. It makes Our Lord
say what Our Lord would never have said. It makes Our Lord preach
heresy. It's an abomination. Don't run away from it. Look at it. Be
honest.
>I could also go into a major rant on vocations, but I'll let it go.
There are waiting lists for the traditional orders. Maybe it's a _good
thing_ that the trendy diocesan seminaries don't have such, and are
pleased to present the ordination of maybe one or two priests a year.
Maybe we don't _want_ more trendy vicars. Hand of God?
>I'm NOT accusing (under ANY circumstances!), but my question is what is
>the evidence of the sanctification of your daily life? and what does your
>parish do to help you?
>We have abandoned the "Catholic identity" and are almost indistinguishable
>from good atheists. :(
But only if your touchstone is the trendy parish - again, which threw
out the statues, which tore out the stained glass, demolished the
altar rail, and of course stuck that cheap wooden altar at the head of
the sanctuary steps. It ain't Catholic to begin with. It's Catholic
Reformed. It's Prot, plain and simple. The churches have been invaded
by the 'well-intentioned' dupes. This isn't the case for the
underground, or even various 'indult' parishes, more conservative
parishes, and there are all these. The orthodox publishing houses
preserve the written tradition, which the institutional church does
not, at this time. The orthodox newsletters and periodicals keep
people abreast of things, and air comments, which the official
diocesan journals never would do. Like it being a war out there
between the libral Dem and the hated GOP on this Clinton thing, to the
extent the Dem will let Clinton slide for prob. anything short of
starting WWIII, or maybe even that as well, so the trendy 'spirit of'
crowd see themselves at war with orthodox Catholics. There is not only
this church within the institution, this heretical leviathan, but they
are not going to give the least quarter to anything 'pre-Vatican II'.
Please understand that.
Mark Johnson
legatus
jimpa...@aol.comantispam (JimPauwels) wrote:
> Thanks for the warning - I'm scandalized :-).
Yeah right. :)
>If I may say so without dissing von Hildebrand, some critiques seem to come
>down to aesthetic judgment. Someone with some credibility expresses an
>aesthetic judgment (e.g. "there is not enough poetry in the current translation
>of the missal"), and everyone who agrees thinks that an irrefutable point has
>been made. And in a sense, they're right: there is no way to refute a person's
>judgment that a particular piece of poetry sucks. If he says it sucks, then,
>for him, it sucks.
Well, I believe there is such a thing as objectively bad poetry...actually
I mean art in general. All artistic expression is bad (or good)
subjectively AND objectively. Not every expression of human creativity is
worthwhile.
The standard for objective worth is "does it please God?". We have an
example in Genesis where Cain sacrifices the (literal) fruit of his labor
and the Almighty refuses to accept it, favoring instead the offering of
Abel. Biblical experts now run off at the mouth about that incident being
exclusively a reference to the struggle between hunter/gatherer and
agricultural societies...and I think that's a load of hooey. It seems to
me that it shows a very important truth; Not everything that is "good" to
us is acceptable to be offered up to God.
>Fwiw, I've been to www.catholicliturgy.whichever-it-is. I've read the Roman
>Canon in both translations. Here's my aesthetic judgment: I like the ICEL
>translation better. More vigor, fewer archaisms, with (istm in my readthrough)
>all of the meaning captured. I didn't care for the ornateness of the previous
>translation (which of course was not written to be a public, liturgical
>proclamation).
Pardon me while I go into a bit of a snit.
Let's settle this "translation" business first. Whether new rite or old
rite, the Mass is Latin. When we hear English it is a translation, so
comparisions should properly be made between the "typical" texts.
Vigor is objective. A thing can not be more alive than it really is, it
may appear so but it is not. The ICEL translation can not be more vigorous
than the original. Why? Because the ICEL is expressing what is present in
the Latin and if it is MORE vigorous, then it isn't a linguistic
reflection or interpretation it is an actual departure.
As for archaisms, I suppose if you believe in the myth of "the modern man"
you might have a point. But (again) objectively, there is no such
creature; we *appear* different but we are not. The language that speaks
to and of God (now that Revelation is complete) in one century is still
legitimate in the next because man has not fundamentally changed (anymore
than God has).
And the ornateness of the previous translation was not only not written
for public proclamations...it wasn't used by the priest for the Sacrifice
at all.
The final question that MUST be asked is not whether the new rite is good
enough for us...the question is: Is it good enough for God? You know my
answer.
legatus
> leg...@spamless.bellsouth.net (legatus) wrote:
>
> >> Good. Then he and I can agree to a large extent. Mark, however, by all
> >> appearances is not a loyal Catholic.
>
> >I am disturbed that he appears to deny the validity of the current rite.
>
> I most certainly do deny the validity of the 'new order'. That should
> be clear. And if one argues the validity, technically, _apart_ from
> the English, Italian, and Spanish (I believe), which is worldwide,
> then the complaints of Ottaviani, von Hildebrand who you quoted, and
> many others still hold. And the question is - can a liturgy which is
> 'awful', which is bad, which is clearly unholy, still be valid? Just
> take the putatively normative Latin (and no, it's not normative). It
> can't be argued that it is not, unless one considers the addition of
> The Mystery of Faith to be crucial to the form. I'm not sure it is.
> But I think the argument can be made that even if celebrated with pomp
> and in serious high Anglican fashion, that the intent of 'reform', the
> complaints even you allow, are enough to rule against even the 'pure'
> 'new order', as such. You disagree. Adoremus disagrees. Davies
> disagrees. I'm aware of that.
Let's be perfectly clear... You deny the validity of the Mass according to
the Missal of Pope Paul VI without exception? You are in disagreement with
the very Ottaviani and von Hildebrand that you quote to support your
position. If the Mass according to the Paul VI Missal is invalid then it
is also apostate. Which would make John Paul II...what?
> >never am sure whether "it appears invalid on its face" means it IS invalid
> >or it just looks that way.
>
> Self-evidently invalid. How's that? Plainly invalid. It makes Our Lord
> say what Our Lord would never have said. It makes Our Lord preach
> heresy. It's an abomination. Don't run away from it. Look at it. Be
> honest.
Hmmm... Would you draw a connection between the present Mass and "The
abomination of desolation"? I'm gonna have to think, study and pray on
that one.
> >I could also go into a major rant on vocations, but I'll let it go.
>
> There are waiting lists for the traditional orders. Maybe it's a _good
> thing_ that the trendy diocesan seminaries don't have such, and are
> pleased to present the ordination of maybe one or two priests a year.
> Maybe we don't _want_ more trendy vicars. Hand of God?
I am in total agreement with you here.
> >We have abandoned the "Catholic identity" and are almost indistinguishable
> >from good atheists. :(
>
> But only if your touchstone is the trendy parish - again, which threw
> out the statues, which tore out the stained glass, demolished the
> altar rail, and of course stuck that cheap wooden altar at the head of
> the sanctuary steps. It ain't Catholic to begin with. It's Catholic
> Reformed. It's Prot, plain and simple. The churches have been invaded
> by the 'well-intentioned' dupes. This isn't the case for the
> underground, or even various 'indult' parishes, more conservative
> parishes, and there are all these. The orthodox publishing houses
> preserve the written tradition, which the institutional church does
> not, at this time. The orthodox newsletters and periodicals keep
> people abreast of things, and air comments, which the official
> diocesan journals never would do. Like it being a war out there
> between the libral Dem and the hated GOP on this Clinton thing, to the
> extent the Dem will let Clinton slide for prob. anything short of
> starting WWIII, or maybe even that as well, so the trendy 'spirit of'
> crowd see themselves at war with orthodox Catholics. There is not only
> this church within the institution, this heretical leviathan, but they
> are not going to give the least quarter to anything 'pre-Vatican II'.
> Please understand that.
I won't comment on the political points. But I agree with you that the
wholesale acceptance of the externals of the "deformation" have been
catastrophic to the visible Church, to the faithful in general and the
salvation of souls in particular.
tz...@my-dejanews.com
leg...@spamless.bellsouth.net (legatus) wrote:
> When was the time your parish last offered: Benediction? First Friday
> devotions in general? processions? May crowning? A Mission? Communal
> Rosary? Liturgy of the Hours? KoC? CYA? is the Church open for Adoration
> or are the doors locked outside of Mass? Did you have your car blessed?
> How about your home? pets? Have a Holy Water font at the door? Crucifix on
> the nightstand so it is the first and last thing you see? Hospital visits?
> Does anyone accompany the priest on sick calls?
Frankly what has this to do with a discussion of the Novis Ordo?
The Holy Father rides in a pope-mobile ... let's blame the Novus Ordo! <G>
But let's take my parish. And see.
First Friday Devotions? Generally stopped when the perpetual
adoration chapel was in place. There is a first friday Mass,
followed by stations of the Cross in the evening.
Processions? Not common, we probably have a eucharistic procession
from the Chapel to the Church about once or twice a year. The
procession is getting bigger each year.
May Crowning? Usually handled by the local parish school.
Mission? Not recently, which is odd because we do have a
retreat center. The parish down the keys is having one next
month.
Communial Rosary? We just put in a rosary walk, in the clear
area in front of the Grotto. There is going to be a living
Rosary, next Thursday to pray for the unborn who died as a
result of the Roe v Wade decision, the KOC will be sending
an honor guard, who will take the Our Father stations in
their full regallia. Normally the parishioners gather
every Thursday evening for a rosary at the grotto.
LoTH? The local Secular Order of St. Francis, still working
to become a cannonized community, has Evening Prayer every
weekday at 5PM and during ADVENT and LENT Morning Prayer
every weekday after the 7AM Mass (7:30 AM).
KoC. Oh don't get me started. Yes we have one, but we also
have a hall which is struggling our resources and manpower
to maintain. Most if not all of the active members (including
me) spend their time working the BINGO which goes to pay off
the hall, but since the BINGO had to be moved to the Hall, we
don't have the manpower to even clear the hall for our regular
meetings. Some members object to the council becomming the
pay off the morgage through BINGO club, but there is a group
of people who insist on the hall come hell or high water.
CYA. No, we have a major problem with post-confirmation
students, in part because the school stops at the 8th grade.
Adoration? Perpetual.
The next questions are more personal than parish related.
Car blessed? No. I don't know why. My father, used to
get his cars blessed all the time. I've got a sacred heart
and a St. Christopher medal inside.
Home? I rent.
Pets? None. But the local Franciscan priests love to bless
the animals.
Holy Water Font? I have a loft devoted to prayer, so the
font's at the entrance to the loft. The loft is immediately
to the right of the entrance, the fon't is just at the top
of the ladder, not at the bottom.
Curcifix on nightstand? Never heard of that tradition. (First and last
thing I see is the ceiling. <G>)
Back to a parish question, yes we do have an active hospital ministry,
although I don't know our parish's current practices with reguard to
sick calls.
> I could ask if the parish has a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter or a
> crisis pregnancy center or a "Mother's Day Out" or all those other good
> things.
Yes on soup kitchen.
No on homeless shelter, but then again, the community already
stopped another christian church from trying to set up a
homeless shelter.
Crisis pregnancy center, yes.
We have all of these things, and the Novus Ordo Mass as well.
We have these things, despite the fact that the Music Czar's
selections are such that most of the parish never sings along.
We have these things, despite the fact that everyone wants to
hold hands at the Our Father, even in daily masses when the
people are scattered among the pews.
We have these things, despite the fact that one of the Franciscan
Priests tends to ramble on in the Homily and even ask retorical
questions which he expects responses to.
tz...@my-dejanews.com
> >> Good. Then he and I can agree to a large extent. Mark, however, by all
> >> appearances is not a loyal Catholic.
> >I am disturbed that he appears to deny the validity of the current rite.
> I most certainly do deny the validity of the 'new order'. That should
> be clear. And if one argues the validity, technically, _apart_ from
> the English, Italian, and Spanish (I believe), which is worldwide,
> then the complaints of Ottaviani, von Hildebrand who you quoted, and
> many others still hold. And the question is - can a liturgy which is
> 'awful', which is bad, which is clearly unholy, still be valid?
Let's look at that question. In light of solid Catholic teaching
and understanding. I think the question is not only important it
is vital.
Allow me to turn back the clock. During the time of St. Francis,
one of the Hersies du jour was the notion that a "sinful priest"
could not validly administer the sacraments. One day those who
maintained such heresy went to Francis with reguards to a certain
priest who was known to have a mistress. Francis' reaction was
to go to the priest and kiss that priest's hands saying, "I do
not know if these hands are sinful or not, but I do know that
from these hands bread is turned into the most holy body of
our Lord, and wine into his most saving blood, therefore I
reverence these hands from which flows the sacraments of grace."
In the same manner, I will say and proclaim, "I do not know
if this liturgy is 'awful' (which is infinitely ironic, since
awful comes from the expression 'full of awe' or wonder) or
not, but I do know that through this valid liturgy of the
Church the blessed sacrament of the altar is made present to
the people, and therefore it deserves our reverence and
respect." Why I'll even kiss the Sacramentary if that will
make the point any better!
The Novus Ordo is a valid liturgy of the Church.
In the words of my Forefathers, ANATHEMA to those
who think otherwise.
legatus
> In article <legatus-1401...@host-209-214-200-120.gsp.bellsouth.net>,
> leg...@spamless.bellsouth.net (legatus) wrote:
>
> > When was the time your parish last offered: Benediction? First Friday
> > devotions in general? processions? May crowning? A Mission? Communal
> > Rosary? Liturgy of the Hours? KoC? CYA? is the Church open for Adoration
> > or are the doors locked outside of Mass? Did you have your car blessed?
> > How about your home? pets? Have a Holy Water font at the door? Crucifix on
> > the nightstand so it is the first and last thing you see? Hospital visits?
> > Does anyone accompany the priest on sick calls?
>
> Frankly what has this to do with a discussion of the Novis Ordo?
Well, what you quoted was only part of my message. If you recall, Ted said
that he believes the overall effects of the post-conciliar reform have
sanctified his daily life. My point was to ask what the external signs of
this sanctification were.
> The Holy Father rides in a pope-mobile ... let's blame the Novus Ordo! <G>
>
> But let's take my parish. And see.
>
> First Friday Devotions? Generally stopped when the perpetual
> adoration chapel was in place. There is a first friday Mass,
> followed by stations of the Cross in the evening.
So there is no communal adoration of the Blessed Sacrament?
> CYA. No, we have a major problem with post-confirmation
> students, in part because the school stops at the 8th grade.
That seems to indicate a major problem... I'm not sure how to express it
right now, but I'm working on it.
> Adoration? Perpetual.
But individual?
> The next questions are more personal than parish related.
Well I sort of divided the list into what the parish offered the people as
a community and as individuals.
> Car blessed? No. I don't know why. My father, used to
> get his cars blessed all the time. I've got a sacred heart
> and a St. Christopher medal inside.
well, the "I don't know why" is interesting. Did you ever think of it? I
don't want to be confrontational or needlessly argumentative but does it
seem to you AT ALL that certain things have passed out of the daily lives
of the faithful for what appears to be no good reason?
> Home? I rent.
It's still a home isn't it? You do live there after all.
> We have all of these things, and the Novus Ordo Mass as well.
> We have these things, despite the fact that the Music Czar's
> selections are such that most of the parish never sings along.
>
> We have these things, despite the fact that everyone wants to
> hold hands at the Our Father, even in daily masses when the
> people are scattered among the pews.
>
> We have these things, despite the fact that one of the Franciscan
> Priests tends to ramble on in the Homily and even ask retorical
> questions which he expects responses to.
You're making a point rhetorically your own self. :) So in spite of what
you list above your parish still provides external "spiritual goods". Also
you don't "have all of these things", you've got "some of these things".
As I said to Ted, I wasn't accusing, I was asking.
legatus
> In the same manner, I will say and proclaim, "I do not know
> if this liturgy is 'awful' (which is infinitely ironic, since
> awful comes from the expression 'full of awe' or wonder) or
> not, but I do know that through this valid liturgy of the
> Church the blessed sacrament of the altar is made present to
> the people, and therefore it deserves our reverence and
> respect." Why I'll even kiss the Sacramentary if that will
> make the point any better!
In colloquial use "awful" means very bad, ugly or unpleasant. For that
matter "awe" comes from middle english (I hope) and meant "dreadful or
terrifying".
We are like people dying of thirst in the desert and the new Mass brings
us the water that keeps us alive. That being said, I'd like to know why
the chalice was thrown out in favor of this plastic bottle... while I'm
grateful for the plastic bottle of the new Mass I'd really be interested
in knowing why I'm being treated like a second class citizen.
Theodore M. Seeber
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.99011...@user1.teleport.com>,
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, legatus wrote:
>
> > I do go one step further in that the grave defects only seem to appear
> > when viewed through common language usage of the 1940s. But yes, defects
> > they are, and defects they will remain.
>
> The "defects" in question are not necessarily in which words are used in
> the typical edition. The defects are the words that are missing.
In modern english, they are just extra sylables saying the same thing.
But I agree, would be nice to have them, if for nothing else than the
poetry.
> > BTW, I also find grave defects when viewing the traditionalist
> > translations of the Mass of Pius V.
>
> Well harumph. There ARE no "official" translations of the Missal of Pope
> St. Pius V. But do please elighten me as to where you see defects.
Often refers to the people of God as a single sex, especially in the
Gloria. Limits even the possibility of the reference to who Jesus saves
in the Eucharist to the many, meaning the RCC alone (didn't converts
exist in 1955?!?!?!?). Eliminates any reading from the Old Testament
other than Psalms, replacing our current cycle of readings with one
epistle, one responsorial, and two gospels. Very few references to either
God or Christ in the whole thing (no wonder certain people felt that it
lead to a "worship of the Church").
These are grave defects today. But I will admit that for the period of
time when the church was under constant attack from mainline
Protestantism, THESE DEFECTS WERE NECCESSARY TO PROTECT THE CHURCH.
Just as today, when mainline Protestantism and Catholicism have an uneasy
truce while fighting fundamentalism THE CURRENT DEFECTS ARE NECCESSARY TO
PROTECT THE CHURCH.
> Ted I know you say you've compared the two, but what I want you to do is
> sit down with a missal from each rite and look seriously at the
> differences of expression. Obviously the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus and Agnus
> Dei haven't changed.
Actually, translation of the Gloria has (I was wrong earlier, found the
west Coast missal that Mark was talking about, and sure enough "Men of
good will" has been changed to "People of God".)
> But ask yourself why "May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your
> soul unto life everlasting" was changed into "The Body of Christ"... Look
> at the old Offertory and try to reconcile it with what we have today.
> There is so much that is missing from the new rite...I'd even be happy
> with the old rite restored in English.
I'll look into this one. There must be a reason.
> Got to www.catholicliturgy.org (or com, I never can remember) and do some
> serious looking around. The author of that site has really pulled a lot of
> info together.
I will.
> > Good. Then he and I can agree to a large extent. Mark, however, by all
> > appearances is not a loyal Catholic.
>
> I am disturbed that he appears to deny the validity of the current rite. I
> never am sure whether "it appears invalid on its face" means it IS invalid
> or it just looks that way.
I tried to get him to say "it just looks that way", but he refused. I've
offered him that out repeatedly.
> > I agree with his contentions, but not as much with his conclusion. I
> > find, as a person rasied in the post-conciliar period, that my daily life
> > HAS become sanctified.
>
> When was the time your parish last offered: Benediction?
Every First Friday of the Month, as well as an Adoration to the Blessed
Sacrament for the rest of the day.
> First Friday
> devotions in general?
Every month since Archbishop Valazny took over.
> processions?
Easter and Christmas. I agree they could be more common.
> May crowning?
Last May. I thought the order for that one came down from the Holy Father
himself, are you saying some of the trendy parishes didn't do it?
Wouldn't suprise me in the least. After all, Mark is disloyal, not
insane, there's a reason for his complaints.
> A Mission?
Last one came through our ArchDiocese in May.
> Communal Rosary?
Saw one in Church just last week before Mass. Both Parishes (I went down
to Silverton to celebrate the Baptism of my brother Isaac James), the
Rosary Society holds one before every mass.
> Liturgy of the Hours?
Not available in the local parish, but there are several monestaries in
the area that accept outsiders praying with them. I go whenever I have
the chance.
> KoC?
Yes in Silverton, Council #5489 is very active (which reminds me, I've got
to get in touch with my father to see if the council wants me to desktop
publish invitations to their St. Valentine's Feast dance again this year).
Strangly missing at St. Clare's, haven't had time to ask if there is a
non-parish chapter yet.
> CYA?
Yes at St. Clare's, not enough interest at St. Paul's. Guess that is a
difference between living in the city/having a school (St. Clare's) and
living in a small town (St. Paul's). St. Paul's has SPY (St. Paul's
Youth) though.
> is the Church open for Adoration or are the doors locked outside of
> Mass?
We do have a problem with crime in both areas, but Adoration is offered
every first Friday in both parishes.
> Did you have your car blessed?
Yes, of course.
> How about your home?
Not yet, but I've only owned it for two months. Trying to set up a time
with the Priest now.
> pets?
Yes, previously. Been so busy lately, I'm not even sure if I have any at
this point in time. (the catbox is staying clean and the food is no longer
disappearing, I think they may have run away). Plan on getting a house
kitten, and St. Clare's being started by Franciscians, offers a blessing
of pets on the feast day of St. Francis.
> Have a Holy Water font at the door?
My parents do. As I said, I just moved in a couple of months ago, haven't
had much time for decorating (and my house looks like it....Very stark and
plain for now).
> Crucifix on
> the nightstand so it is the first and last thing you see?
This is a neccessity. Also, as a younger Catholic, I have a Sacred Heart
League sticker on my dashboard and a rosary hanging from my rearview
mirror.
> Hospital visits?
All priests in the Archdiocese do this one.
> Does anyone accompany the priest on sick calls?
Yes, also we have special Lay "Eucharistic Ministers" to visit the sick
with Eucharist, they collect what they need after the Eucharist has been
passed out at the 9:15 Sunday Mass. St. Clare's makes a big deal of this
one.
> I could ask if the parish has a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter or a
> crisis pregnancy center or a "Mother's Day Out" or all those other good
> things. But one of vH's points is that we've given up those things which
> build and strengthen us for activities that, while they also increase us,
> for the most part they drain us...which is why no one is interested in
> doing the good things.
That would depend on whether one is an Introvert or an Extrovert.
Introverts are drained by serveing others, and are rested by private
devotions (I'm one of these). Extroverts are exactly the opposite, they
gain energy from serving others, and they are drained by being alone. The
Catholic Church has blessings to serve both.
> I could also go into a major rant on vocations, but I'll let it go.
This one, I would agree with. And Circuit Riding Priests isn't helping
the situation.
But at least the number of graduates from the seminary at Mt. Angel has
tripled in number over the last 10 years.
> I'm NOT accusing (under ANY circumstances!), but my question is what is
> the evidence of the sanctification of your daily life? and what does your
> parish do to help you?
There's a lot of evidence in my life of the sanctification of it. But the
biggest evidence I can point to is this: Within one month of knowing
me, my finance decided FIRST to join the church. Marriage wasn't even
discussed for three more months, she saw the good the church was doing in
my life, and wanted that for herself. She will be baptised and confirmed
this Easter.
> We have abandoned the "Catholic identity" and are almost indistinguishable
> from good atheists. :(
I'd agree if you said that the CTA has, that Dignity has. Heck, I'd even
agree if you said that the NCCB, at times, appears as such :-(. But for
those of us who are cradle catholics, who have grown up in the Church
since 1970, there are many ways in which our lives are full of
participation in the Church.
Theodore M. Seeber
> >I am disturbed that he appears to deny the validity of the current rite.
>
> I most certainly do deny the validity of the 'new order'. That should
> be clear. And if one argues the validity, technically, _apart_ from
> the English, Italian, and Spanish (I believe), which is worldwide,
> then the complaints of Ottaviani, von Hildebrand who you quoted, and
> many others still hold. And the question is - can a liturgy which is
> 'awful', which is bad, which is clearly unholy, still be valid? Just
> take the putatively normative Latin (and no, it's not normative). It
> can't be argued that it is not, unless one considers the addition of
> The Mystery of Faith to be crucial to the form. I'm not sure it is.
> But I think the argument can be made that even if celebrated with pomp
> and in serious high Anglican fashion, that the intent of 'reform', the
> complaints even you allow, are enough to rule against even the 'pure'
> 'new order', as such. You disagree. Adoremus disagrees. Davies
> disagrees. I'm aware of that.
You are aware, that von Hildebrand himself disagrees with you on this
point, correct?
> There are waiting lists for the traditional orders. Maybe it's a _good
> thing_ that the trendy diocesan seminaries don't have such, and are
> pleased to present the ordination of maybe one or two priests a year.
> Maybe we don't _want_ more trendy vicars. Hand of God?
Uh, is Mt Angel (which is where most of the priests in Oregon come from) a
"trendy diocesan seminary"? Last I saw, it had a very large waiting list
for students, and was pleased to present the ordination of 23 priests last
year alone. There WAS a time in the mid 1980s that this was so, but it is
so no longer.
legatus
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
WOW! That's AMAZING! Especially since the Archdiocese of Portland (for
instance) only HAS 23 seminarians total. However, go back and look at the
number for 40 years ago...
tz...@my-dejanews.com
leg...@spamless.bellsouth.net (legatus) wrote:
> In article <77nsva$hoq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > First Friday Devotions? Generally stopped when the perpetual
> > adoration chapel was in place. There is a first friday Mass,
> > followed by stations of the Cross in the evening.
> So there is no communal adoration of the Blessed Sacrament?
In general no, which is not a good thing. I think, however, it
simply paused for a moment in our Parish. We got so involved in
indiviudal perpetual adoration hours, that the general time for
communial adoration as a group within the perpetual adoration
framework dwindled. But it's something I'm going to bring up
this weekend when we have the Knights meet in the rectory. A
family prayer hour had been suggested in the chapel, I think
we can work on benecition as well.
> > CYA. No, we have a major problem with post-confirmation
> > students, in part because the school stops at the 8th grade.
> That seems to indicate a major problem... I'm not sure how to express it
> right now, but I'm working on it.
I agree. It shows up as well in the Knights. The Fourth Degree
Assembly has a schollarship fund for those entering college, who
are practicing Catholics and who write an essay on patriotism.
We get very few candidates every year, maby one or two at the
most.
> > Adoration? Perpetual.
> But individual?
Perpetual adoration is a series of individual adorations round
the clock. My "hour" is every Thursday, at 8 AM. I share that
hour with one other person, although others will come in depending
on the circumstances, and since the church is being repaired,
there is the 8AM mass which takes up a small part of my hour.
> well, the "I don't know why" is interesting. Did you ever think of it? I
> don't want to be confrontational or needlessly argumentative but does it
> seem to you AT ALL that certain things have passed out of the daily lives
> of the faithful for what appears to be no good reason?
I really can't say for sure. It may be my general absent mindnesses.
> > Home? I rent.
> It's still a home isn't it? You do live there after all.
Guess you are right. I just never thought of giving it the
formal treatment. I just follow the old family tradition of
the post easter holy water splat.
Theodore M. Seeber
> > Uh, is Mt Angel (which is where most of the priests in Oregon come from) a
> > "trendy diocesan seminary"? Last I saw, it had a very large waiting list
> > for students, and was pleased to present the ordination of 23 priests last
> > year alone. There WAS a time in the mid 1980s that this was so, but it is
> > so no longer.
>
> WOW! That's AMAZING! Especially since the Archdiocese of Portland (for
> instance) only HAS 23 seminarians total. However, go back and look at the
> number for 40 years ago...
Mt Angel is filled with seminarians from other diocese, the KofC in
Silverton has given money to seminarians from as far away as Bolivia.
I agree that the numbers are lower than 40 years ago, but they are rising,
and are currently about 10x what they were 10 years ago even. Also, this
is ordinations, not just seminarians, Mt Angel now offeres theological
degrees to lay people as well. Last time I sat in on a class there (I
have never had the money to go, this was about 8 years ago when I was
"thinking about" whether I'd stay single or get married, and single life
for me would mean the priesthood, I am one of those people who needs a
sense of commitment), there were 15 students in the Philosophy class, and
three of those classes were offered for the semester.
Do not get me wrong, I am worried about the vocations. More and more
people seem to be taking the married/Lay route, fewer and fewer wish to
dedicate their lives to the Church (all dedicate their lives to God,
however, and we must not forget that marriage is a vocation too).
legatus
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, legatus wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.99011...@user1.teleport.com>,
> > "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, legatus wrote:
> >
> > > I do go one step further in that the grave defects only seem to appear
> > > when viewed through common language usage of the 1940s. But yes, defects
> > > they are, and defects they will remain.
> >
> > The "defects" in question are not necessarily in which words are used in
> > the typical edition. The defects are the words that are missing.
>
> In modern english, they are just extra sylables saying the same thing.
> But I agree, would be nice to have them, if for nothing else than the
> poetry.
I'm not going to argue against "they are just extra syllables" because I
don't even know where to begin.
> > > BTW, I also find grave defects when viewing the traditionalist
> > > translations of the Mass of Pius V.
> >
> > Well harumph. There ARE no "official" translations of the Missal of Pope
> > St. Pius V. But do please elighten me as to where you see defects.
>
> Often refers to the people of God as a single sex, especially in the
> Gloria. Limits even the possibility of the reference to who Jesus saves
> in the Eucharist to the many, meaning the RCC alone (didn't converts
> exist in 1955?!?!?!?). Eliminates any reading from the Old Testament
> other than Psalms, replacing our current cycle of readings with one
> epistle, one responsorial, and two gospels. Very few references to either
> God or Christ in the whole thing (no wonder certain people felt that it
> lead to a "worship of the Church").
I'm also going to pass on the "single sex" bit. But the part about the
Consecration is truly weird...TED!!!! It's pro multis in BOTH rites! On
the cycle of readings...don't get me started.
But my HUGE problem is "very few references to either God or Christ in the
whole thing"...I'll ignore the fact that Christ IS God because I assume
you didn't mean that...but please see the following (presented in English
for your benefit). Starting with the Asperges:
"Thou shalt sprinkle me, O Lord", "Have mercy on me, O God", "Glory
be...", "Thou shalt sprinkle me, O Lord", "Show us O Lord", "Oh Lord hear
my prayer", "The Lord be with you", "Hear us O Lord, almighty Father,
everlasting God", "Through Christ our Lord", "Praise the Lord for He is
good"
On to the Mass itself:
"In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", "I
will go unto the Altar of God", "To God, Who giveth joy to my youth",
"Judge me O God", "For Thou O God", "And I will go unto the Altar of God",
"I will praise Thee upon the harp O God, my God, Who giveth joy to my
youth", "Hope thou in God, for I will yet praise Him", "Glory be...", "Our
help is in the Name of the Lord", "I confess to Almighty God", "pray to
the Lord our God for me", "May Almighty God have mercy", "May the Almighty
and merciful God", "Thou wilt turn, O God", "Show us O Lord", O Lord, hear
my prayer", "The Lord be with you", "We entreat Thee O Lord", "We beseech
Thee, O Lord"
Then the Introit which is proper to the Mass... at random... it starts
"Behold O God", "O Lord of Hosts".
AND ON AND ON AND ON...I posted a message recently that counted up the
number of "Jesus/Lord/Christ" references in the new rite to refute someone
who said that we spent more time on Mary than Christ in the Mass... I came
up with 60+. So to be fair here are the number of times God (Father, Son
or Holy Spirit) are mentioned (ignoring pronouns) in the old rite from a
Sunday taken at random. ... well I hit *200* before I got to the
Consecration. Had I counted "You" and "His" that number would have tripled
at least.
Ted...have you REALLY read the text of the old Mass?
> These are grave defects today. But I will admit that for the period of
> time when the church was under constant attack from mainline
> Protestantism, THESE DEFECTS WERE NECCESSARY TO PROTECT THE CHURCH.
> Just as today, when mainline Protestantism and Catholicism have an uneasy
> truce while fighting fundamentalism THE CURRENT DEFECTS ARE NECCESSARY TO
> PROTECT THE CHURCH.
I don't think we're talking about "defect" in the same way...
> > Ted I know you say you've compared the two, but what I want you to do is
> > sit down with a missal from each rite and look seriously at the
> > differences of expression. Obviously the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus and Agnus
> > Dei haven't changed.
>
> Actually, translation of the Gloria has (I was wrong earlier, found the
> west Coast missal that Mark was talking about, and sure enough "Men of
> good will" has been changed to "People of God".)
I believe it is "His people on earth". But you're talking about a
non-official translation of the old rite and the english of the new
rite...please compare the Latin "typicals" of both.
Apparently I wasn't obviously rhetorical enough in my litany of questions.
I should rephrase...what external expressions of Catholic identity (on the
whole and in frequency) have been disgarded at your local parish in the
past 30 years?
> > I could ask if the parish has a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter or a
> > crisis pregnancy center or a "Mother's Day Out" or all those other good
> > things. But one of vH's points is that we've given up those things which
> > build and strengthen us for activities that, while they also increase us,
> > for the most part they drain us...which is why no one is interested in
> > doing the good things.
>
> That would depend on whether one is an Introvert or an Extrovert.
> Introverts are drained by serveing others, and are rested by private
> devotions (I'm one of these). Extroverts are exactly the opposite, they
> gain energy from serving others, and they are drained by being alone. The
> Catholic Church has blessings to serve both.
But we're not talking about intros and extros, the question is about the
available channels of Grace
> > We have abandoned the "Catholic identity" and are almost indistinguishable
> > from good atheists. :(
>
> I'd agree if you said that the CTA has, that Dignity has. Heck, I'd even
> agree if you said that the NCCB, at times, appears as such :-(. But for
> those of us who are cradle catholics, who have grown up in the Church
> since 1970, there are many ways in which our lives are full of
> participation in the Church.
No, I said "Catholic identity"...would any of us be convicted if visible
Catholicism were illegal? It seems to me that you might actually get
locked up for it... but look around the parish and see if you'd have
cellmates.
Theodore M. Seeber
> > In modern english, they are just extra sylables saying the same thing.
> > But I agree, would be nice to have them, if for nothing else than the
> > poetry.
>
> I'm not going to argue against "they are just extra syllables" because I
> don't even know where to begin.
It's probabally inargueable anyway. It's an asthetic idea, and one that
is definately GenX in nature.
Sure, we could argue the differences between the generations forever, but
that doesn't mean anything.
> > Often refers to the people of God as a single sex, especially in the
> > Gloria. Limits even the possibility of the reference to who Jesus saves
> > in the Eucharist to the many, meaning the RCC alone (didn't converts
> > exist in 1955?!?!?!?). Eliminates any reading from the Old Testament
> > other than Psalms, replacing our current cycle of readings with one
> > epistle, one responsorial, and two gospels. Very few references to either
> > God or Christ in the whole thing (no wonder certain people felt that it
> > lead to a "worship of the Church").
>
> I'm also going to pass on the "single sex" bit. But the part about the
> Consecration is truly weird...TED!!!! It's pro multis in BOTH rites! On
> the cycle of readings...don't get me started.
I'm talking about translating it directly to modern English.
> But my HUGE problem is "very few references to either God or Christ in the
> whole thing"...I'll ignore the fact that Christ IS God because I assume
> you didn't mean that...but please see the following (presented in English
> for your benefit). Starting with the Asperges:
Your translation, not neccessarily the one that was in use on the West
Coast of the US.
I've yet to get into that website, but will as soon as I possibly can
(some of the graphics and text seem blocked by Tektronix Proxy Server, so
I'll have to do this from home where I can get more than a couple of
non-typeable text boxes and a subscribe button).
> Ted...have you REALLY read the text of the old Mass?
Only an old missal from the OCP with a date of 1955 on it. I will
endeavor to read your website and adjust my beliefs accordingly.
> > These are grave defects today. But I will admit that for the period of
> > time when the church was under constant attack from mainline
> > Protestantism, THESE DEFECTS WERE NECCESSARY TO PROTECT THE CHURCH.
> > Just as today, when mainline Protestantism and Catholicism have an uneasy
> > truce while fighting fundamentalism THE CURRENT DEFECTS ARE NECCESSARY TO
> > PROTECT THE CHURCH.
>
> I don't think we're talking about "defect" in the same way...
I'm talking about phraseology that can be misunderstood by the avarage
Catholic in the pew. Due to the mysterious nature of the sacrament of the
Eucharist, we can never fully eliminate "defects" of this sort; the best
we can possibly do is minimize them.
> > Actually, translation of the Gloria has (I was wrong earlier, found the
> > west Coast missal that Mark was talking about, and sure enough "Men of
> > good will" has been changed to "People of God".)
>
> I believe it is "His people on earth". But you're talking about a
> non-official translation of the old rite and the english of the new
> rite...please compare the Latin "typicals" of both.
The Latin, as far as I know, has not changed.
> Apparently I wasn't obviously rhetorical enough in my litany of questions.
> I should rephrase...what external expressions of Catholic identity (on the
> whole and in frequency) have been disgarded at your local parish in the
> past 30 years?
Only one that I can think of right off hand: Confession. It hasn't
changed much in frequency, except for a few, and even then, a Priest that
I am friends with says that "the quality of sins confessed has gone up,
people are taking the sacrament more seriously". Not being a priest and
being less than 30 years old, I'm not entirely sure I know what he's
talking about.
In form, face to face is now offered. I'm not sure I like that, though I
do use the face to face when it is available, but at least once a month I
visit older churches in the area where the confessional is still
available. I find that I am more likely to confess more serious sins that
I feel more guilty about, in the old way. But that may just be personal
preference.
> > That would depend on whether one is an Introvert or an Extrovert.
> > Introverts are drained by serveing others, and are rested by private
> > devotions (I'm one of these). Extroverts are exactly the opposite, they
> > gain energy from serving others, and they are drained by being alone. The
> > Catholic Church has blessings to serve both.
>
> But we're not talking about intros and extros, the question is about the
> available channels of Grace
The available channels of Grace that one is able to take advantage of
DEPENDS upon the personality profile of the individual believer.
Extreme extroverts simply won't be happy spending all of their time in a
hermitage with a rosary; extreme introverts (like me) will not be happy
spending all of their time working with the poor. The blessing of the
Catholic Church is that there are available channels of grace for
EVERYBODY. That was true before Vatican II, and it is still to a large
extent true today.
> > I'd agree if you said that the CTA has, that Dignity has. Heck, I'd even
> > agree if you said that the NCCB, at times, appears as such :-(. But for
> > those of us who are cradle catholics, who have grown up in the Church
> > since 1970, there are many ways in which our lives are full of
> > participation in the Church.
>
> No, I said "Catholic identity"...would any of us be convicted if visible
> Catholicism were illegal? It seems to me that you might actually get
> locked up for it... but look around the parish and see if you'd have
> cellmates.
I certainly would, most of MY left-wing buddies would (funny, how the
Charismatic movement goes in for imitating the Baptists, but every
Charismatic I know has a chain full of Saint's medals around their neck
and carries their rosaries around wherever they go), some of my right wing
buddies would (every KofC member I know would, chapter #5489 wears their
lapel pins everywhere, and their largest fundraiser is that they are the
top selling booth at the Mt. Angel Octoberfest every year).
But it's entirely possible, since I am so active in my Catholicism, that I
am simply not associating with those who are not. I'll have to think about
that one.
Thank you, Steve, you might have just pointed out to me a place where I
need to be a better contageous Catholic. (I like to think I'm headed out
of the Zen Catholic heresy of my youth and proceeding in the direction of
becomeing a Hahn-style contageous Catholic).
Gary
legatus wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.99011...@user1.teleport.com>,
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> "BUT DESPITE THE GRAVE DEFECTS OF THE NEW MASS, IT WOULD OF COURSE BE
> COMPLETELY WRONG IN ANY WAY TO QUESTION ITS VALIDITY AS A REENACTMENT OF
> THE SACRIFICE OF CALVARY, AS UNFORTUNATELY SOME FEW ORTHODOX CATHOLICS
> HAVE. And it goes without saying that it would also be completely wrong to
> disobey any of the rulings of the Holy Father regarding the Novus Ordo and
> the Tridentine liturgy."
>
> So says Dietrich von Hildebrand. In effect, his words could be boiled down
> to "it sucks, it sucks mightily, it blows and it bites, but it's legit and
> we're stuck with it thanks be to God." I concur wholeheartedly.
>
> vH's "The Devastated Vineyard" is a wholesale condemnation of the
> post-conciliar reform and it is dramatic, bombastic and hysterical in some
> places. It is also finally and irrevocably accurate and stands as an
> indictment of our futile attempts to outdo our own heritage.
>
> He absolutely clobbers the introduction of false community and what he
> calls "harmless religion". Pick up a copy and give him a few pages to make
> his case.
>
Gary
The real issue here is who has the authority to make the decisionon the
validity of the novus Ordo. You? No. Me? No. The Church (magesterium)?
Yes.
Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> leg...@spamless.bellsouth.net (legatus) wrote:
>
> >> Good. Then he and I can agree to a large extent. Mark, however, by all
> >> appearances is not a loyal Catholic.
>
> >I am disturbed that he appears to deny the validity of the current rite.
>
> I most certainly do deny the validity of the 'new order'. That should
> be clear. And if one argues the validity, technically, _apart_ from
> the English, Italian, and Spanish (I believe), which is worldwide,
> then the complaints of Ottaviani, von Hildebrand who you quoted, and
> many others still hold. And the question is - can a liturgy which is
> 'awful', which is bad, which is clearly unholy, still be valid? Just
> take the putatively normative Latin (and no, it's not normative). It
> can't be argued that it is not, unless one considers the addition of
> The Mystery of Faith to be crucial to the form. I'm not sure it is.
> But I think the argument can be made that even if celebrated with pomp
> and in serious high Anglican fashion, that the intent of 'reform', the
> complaints even you allow, are enough to rule against even the 'pure'
> 'new order', as such. You disagree. Adoremus disagrees. Davies
> disagrees. I'm aware of that.
>
> >never am sure whether "it appears invalid on its face" means it IS invalid
> >or it just looks that way.
>
> Self-evidently invalid. How's that? Plainly invalid. It makes Our Lord
> say what Our Lord would never have said. It makes Our Lord preach
> heresy. It's an abomination. Don't run away from it. Look at it. Be
> honest.
>
> >I could also go into a major rant on vocations, but I'll let it go.
>
> There are waiting lists for the traditional orders. Maybe it's a _good
> thing_ that the trendy diocesan seminaries don't have such, and are
> pleased to present the ordination of maybe one or two priests a year.
> Maybe we don't _want_ more trendy vicars. Hand of God?
>
> >I'm NOT accusing (under ANY circumstances!), but my question is what is
> >the evidence of the sanctification of your daily life? and what does your
> >parish do to help you?
>
> >We have abandoned the "Catholic identity" and are almost indistinguishable
> >from good atheists. :(
>
> But only if your touchstone is the trendy parish - again, which threw
> out the statues, which tore out the stained glass, demolished the
> altar rail, and of course stuck that cheap wooden altar at the head of
> the sanctuary steps. It ain't Catholic to begin with. It's Catholic
> Reformed. It's Prot, plain and simple. The churches have been invaded
> by the 'well-intentioned' dupes. This isn't the case for the
> underground, or even various 'indult' parishes, more conservative
> parishes, and there are all these. The orthodox publishing houses
> preserve the written tradition, which the institutional church does
> not, at this time. The orthodox newsletters and periodicals keep
> people abreast of things, and air comments, which the official
> diocesan journals never would do. Like it being a war out there
> between the libral Dem and the hated GOP on this Clinton thing, to the
> extent the Dem will let Clinton slide for prob. anything short of
> starting WWIII, or maybe even that as well, so the trendy 'spirit of'
> crowd see themselves at war with orthodox Catholics. There is not only
> this church within the institution, this heretical leviathan, but they
> are not going to give the least quarter to anything 'pre-Vatican II'.
> Please understand that.
>
Mark Johnson
>In article <369fc4fb...@news.pacbell.net>,
> 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>> leg...@spamless.bellsouth.net (legatus) wrote:
>> I most certainly do deny the validity of the 'new order'. That should
>> be clear. And if one argues the validity, technically, _apart_ from
>> the English, Italian, and Spanish (I believe), which is worldwide,
>> then the complaints of Ottaviani, von Hildebrand who you quoted, and
>> many others still hold. And the question is - can a liturgy which is
>> 'awful', which is bad, which is clearly unholy, still be valid?
>Let's look at that question. In light of solid Catholic teaching
>and understanding. I think the question is not only important it
>is vital.
>Allow me to turn back the clock. During the time of St. Francis,
>one of the Hersies du jour was the notion that a "sinful priest"
>could not validly administer the sacraments. One day those who
>maintained such heresy went to Francis with reguards to a certain
>priest who was known to have a mistress. Francis' reaction was
>to go to the priest and kiss that priest's hands saying, "I do
>not know if these hands are sinful or not, but I do know that
>from these hands bread is turned into the most holy body of
>our Lord, and wine into his most saving blood, therefore I
>reverence these hands from which flows the sacraments of grace."
>In the same manner,
In the same manner?
>I will say and proclaim,
okay. Least we're not talking St. Francis, here.
>"I do not know
>if this liturgy is 'awful' (which is infinitely ironic, since
>awful comes from the expression 'full of awe' or wonder)
That used to be a sense of the term, now . . archaic.
>not, but I do know that through this valid liturgy of the
>Church the blessed sacrament of the altar is made present to
>the people, and therefore it deserves our reverence and
>respect." Why I'll even kiss the Sacramentary if that will
>make the point any better!
>The Novus Ordo is a valid liturgy of the Church.
But that's not the case. ICEL has Our Lord saying what Our Lord would
never say. The form is invalid.
>In the words of my Forefathers, ANATHEMA to those
>who think otherwise.
Right. Based on . . . what, exactly? A 'feeling'? Desire for status
quo? What if St. Athanasius were around, today? Anathematize him, too,
I suppose? You gotta have a standard. And it's gotta be dogma. It's
gotta be what Catholics believe. And even if a liturgy goes afoul of
that, it's the liturgy that gets called on it, and the 'liturgists',
as such, not dogma.
Gotta understand that.
Mark Johnson
>The real issue here is who has the authority to make the decisionon the
>validity of the novus Ordo. You? No. Me? No. The Church (magesterium)?
>Yes.
You're startin to get it. And what does The Church teach? Our Lord
died for all, but the fruits of His Passion do not extend to all.
Don't confuse churchmen with The Church they claim to represent. There
have always been heretics. Heretics wear collars.
Mark Johnson
>Fwiw, I've been to www.catholicliturgy.whichever-it-is. I've read the Roman
>Canon in both translations. Here's my aesthetic judgment: I like the ICEL
>translation better. More vigor, fewer archaisms,
Well . . . . you must be joking. There's nothing more archaic than the
trendy. It's old when it's first introduced! There's nothing more
banal, less uplifting, less inspiring. You defend 'new order' because
. . . ? (no joke).
>all of the meaning captured. I didn't care for the ornateness of the previous
>translation (which of course was not written to be a public, liturgical
>proclamation).
>If you disagree, then, guess what - you're right, too :-).
But there _are_ absolutes. There are standards. Some stuff is good,
some stuff is just not ready for prime time. You gotta confess it.
Mark Johnson
>In article <36a0c9f2...@news.pacbell.net>, 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>> leg...@spamless.bellsouth.net (legatus) wrote:
>> >> Good. Then he and I can agree to a large extent. Mark, however, by all
>> >> appearances is not a loyal Catholic.
>> >I am disturbed that he appears to deny the validity of the current rite.
>> I most certainly do deny the validity of the 'new order'. That should
>> be clear. And if one argues the validity, technically, _apart_ from
>> the English, Italian, and Spanish (I believe), which is worldwide,
>> then the complaints of Ottaviani, von Hildebrand who you quoted, and
>> many others still hold. And the question is - can a liturgy which is
>> 'awful', which is bad, which is clearly unholy, still be valid? Just
>> take the putatively normative Latin (and no, it's not normative). It
>> can't be argued that it is not, unless one considers the addition of
>> The Mystery of Faith to be crucial to the form. I'm not sure it is.
>> But I think the argument can be made that even if celebrated with pomp
>> and in serious high Anglican fashion, that the intent of 'reform', the
>> complaints even you allow, are enough to rule against even the 'pure'
>> 'new order', as such. You disagree. Adoremus disagrees. Davies
>> disagrees. I'm aware of that.
>Let's be perfectly clear... You deny the validity of the Mass according to
>the Missal of Pope Paul VI without exception?
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm .
>You are in disagreement with
>the very Ottaviani and von Hildebrand that you quote to support your
>position.
Maybe, maybe not. But I've never seen or heard where either addressed
the sort of thing raised by myself, and many others, as found at the
URL above. I can't believe either would disagree.
>If the Mass according to the Paul VI Missal is invalid then it
>is also apostate. Which would make John Paul II...what?
Would make him wrong. That was sort of the point of the guy who wrote
that article . . that I quoted at length . . in a reply to you . .
just what? a day ago?
Paul VI was wrong for promulgating it, and for trying to tie the whole
exercise _both_ to Trent and to Vatican II. Vatican II never called
for 'new order'. And the way the thing was done was _nothing_ like the
way Trent went about it.
>> Self-evidently invalid. How's that? Plainly invalid. It makes Our Lord
>> say what Our Lord would never have said. It makes Our Lord preach
>> heresy. It's an abomination. Don't run away from it. Look at it. Be
>> honest.
>Hmmm... Would you draw a connection between the present Mass and "The
>abomination of desolation"? I'm gonna have to think,
umm . . . good luck? You lost me on this one, here. Again, check out
the URL above, and tell me where I lose _you_, on this one.
>> >I could also go into a major rant on vocations, but I'll let it go.
>> There are waiting lists for the traditional orders. Maybe it's a _good
>> thing_ that the trendy diocesan seminaries don't have such, and are
>> pleased to present the ordination of maybe one or two priests a year.
>> Maybe we don't _want_ more trendy vicars. Hand of God?
>I am in total agreement with you here.
Well, it does seem to be a sort of winnowing going on. I find it
amazing to see it. But the reason for it, the widespread heresy, is
still a tremendous tragedy, nonetheless.
>> >We have abandoned the "Catholic identity" and are almost indistinguishable
>> >from good atheists. :(
>> But only if your touchstone is the trendy parish - again, which threw
>> out the statues, which tore out the stained glass, demolished the
>> altar rail, and of course stuck that cheap wooden altar at the head of
>> the sanctuary steps. It ain't Catholic to begin with. It's Catholic
>> Reformed. It's Prot, plain and simple. The churches have been invaded
>> by the 'well-intentioned' dupes. This isn't the case for the
>> underground, or even various 'indult' parishes, more conservative
>> parishes, and there are all these. The orthodox publishing houses
>> preserve the written tradition, which the institutional church does
>> not, at this time. The orthodox newsletters and periodicals keep
>> people abreast of things, and air comments, which the official
>> diocesan journals never would do. Like it being a war out there
>> between the libral Dem and the hated GOP on this Clinton thing, to the
>> extent the Dem will let Clinton slide for prob. anything short of
>> starting WWIII, or maybe even that as well, so the trendy 'spirit of'
>> crowd see themselves at war with orthodox Catholics. There is not only
>> this church within the institution, this heretical leviathan, but they
>> are not going to give the least quarter to anything 'pre-Vatican II'.
>> Please understand that.
>I won't comment on the political points. But I agree with you that the
>wholesale acceptance of the externals of the "deformation" have been
>catastrophic to the visible Church, to the faithful in general and the
>salvation of souls in particular.
Well, particularly since the heretics consider the latter pretty much
irrelevant to most anything - since all are saved. The problem is that
they are heretics, still wearing the collars, still calling themselves
Catholic to anyone naive enough to believe 'em - as it's always
historically been the case. Their services now take place in what had
been Catholic parishes, and which are still listed as such. And no one
in the Vatican, or those bishops who know better, have compiled any
list of approved or disapproved parishes, as I believe was done
historically when local bishops and pastors decided they'd found the
'better way'. There's just no 'adult supervision', as even the Pope
himself is trying to, as that article said, graft a dead, destructive
branch onto the living stem of The Church (something in Scripture
about not pouring old wine into new skins, and so on?).
JimPauwels
>From: leg...@spamless.bellsouth.net (legatus)
>Date: Fri, Jan 15, 1999 07:36 EST
>Message-id: <legatus-1501...@host-209-214-200-30.gsp.bellsouth.net>
>>If I may say so without dissing von Hildebrand, some critiques seem to come
>>down to aesthetic judgment. Someone with some credibility expresses an
>>aesthetic judgment (e.g. "there is not enough poetry in the current
>translation
>>of the missal"), and everyone who agrees thinks that an irrefutable point
>has
>>been made. And in a sense, they're right: there is no way to refute a
>person's
>>judgment that a particular piece of poetry sucks. If he says it sucks,
>then,
>>for him, it sucks.
>
>Well, I believe there is such a thing as objectively bad poetry...actually
>I mean art in general. All artistic expression is bad (or good)
>subjectively AND objectively. Not every expression of human creativity is
>worthwhile.
I don't know if I agree about objectively bad art or not. Until a couple of
years ago, I would have flat-out disgreed. But the Snowbird Statement, written
by some guys (don't think there were any female signatories) whose reputations
suggest they think pretty deeply about this stuff, suggested that objective
standards do exist, but declined to name them (or said that they weren't sure
what they are).
I would concede that there is such a thing as critical consensus. That's not
objectivity, but it is the confluence of a critical mass of subjective
opinions. It's probably a fair proxy for objectivity.
>The standard for objective worth is "does it please God?". We have an
>example in Genesis where Cain sacrifices the (literal) fruit of his labor
>and the Almighty refuses to accept it, favoring instead the offering of
>Abel. Biblical experts now run off at the mouth about that incident being
>exclusively a reference to the struggle between hunter/gatherer and
>agricultural societies...and I think that's a load of hooey.
It's one interpretation (and not one that's particularly important for our
faith, istm). It may have resonated with some folks in other times and places.
But to claim that's the *only* meaning of the tale would be a load of, take
your pick, mastadon hides or cow pies.
Before we can ask whether an offering is pleasing to God we need to ask, who
determines whether it's pleasing to God?
>>Fwiw, I've been to www.catholicliturgy.whichever-it-is. I've read the Roman
>>Canon in both translations. Here's my aesthetic judgment: I like the ICEL
>>translation better. More vigor, fewer archaisms, with (istm in my
>readthrough)
>>all of the meaning captured. I didn't care for the ornateness of the
>previous
>>translation (which of course was not written to be a public, liturgical
>>proclamation).
>
>Pardon me while I go into a bit of a snit.
Snit away :-)
>Let's settle this "translation" business first. Whether new rite or old
>rite, the Mass is Latin. When we hear English it is a translation, so
>comparisions should properly be made between the "typical" texts.
I agree with you. That's one of the things I dislike about this web site.
>Vigor is objective. A thing can not be more alive than it really is, it
>may appear so but it is not. The ICEL translation can not be more vigorous
>than the original. Why? Because the ICEL is expressing what is present in
>the Latin and if it is MORE vigorous, then it isn't a linguistic
>reflection or interpretation it is an actual departure.
Well, "vigorous" in the literary sense I used it is quite subjective - it's the
listener's or reader's sense of the the lively strength of the literary work.
That said, I agree that the vigor of the original should be reflected by the
translation. Of course, poor schmucks like me who are nearly illiterate in
Latin can't make that sort of comparison.
>As for archaisms, I suppose if you believe in the myth of "the modern man"
>you might have a point. But (again) objectively, there is no such
>creature; we *appear* different but we are not. The language that speaks
>to and of God (now that Revelation is complete) in one century is still
>legitimate in the next because man has not fundamentally changed (anymore
>than God has).
I agree with your thought here, to a point. Human society does change from age
to age. Entire disciplines such as economics and psychology that didn't exist
300 years ago (or existed in a rudimentary state) are now enormously
influential in our daily lives and daily discourse.
By archaisms, I was referring to words such as "deign". I don't think people
use that word anymore (at least, not often), unless they are consciously trying
to emulate an archaic style.
The web site in question compared a (presumably) older translation of the Roman
Canon with the newer, ICEL translation. What the Latin itself says, that page
does not show, save in translation. I like the newer translation better.
That's all I'm really saying.
>
>And the ornateness of the previous translation was not only not written
>for public proclamations...it wasn't used by the priest for the Sacrifice
>at all.
Exactly. So long as we realize that, we're okay. (It does raise the question
of the point of the web site. I think the author is simply saying - politely,
and implicitly - that he likes the older translation better. I think he
believes that a side-by-side comparison of the two translations would make that
conclusion obvious to anyone who read them. I reached the opposite conclusion.
So is one of us objectively right, and the other objectively wrong?).
JimPauwels
>> When was the time your parish last offered: Benediction?
Hmm, last Triduum? (But see below).
>>First Friday
>> devotions in general?
Haven't lived in a parish with them since the Sixties.
>> processions?
Outside of liturgy, I've never belonged to a parish that does them (some
"ethnic" parishes in the Archdiocese do them).
>> May crowning?
Every year. At it, I personally sing some of the worst sacred music ever
composed (e.g. Bring Flow'rs of the Rarest). (That's my subjective judgment
:-)).
>> A Mission?
Every year. Our's is coming up in March.
>>Communal Rosary?
Every day, before 9 am mass.
>>Liturgy of the Hours?
Occasionally. Tried to get it off the ground a year or two ago, but it's just
sporadic right now.
>KoC?
We've got 'em, but the number under the age of 50 is pretty paltry (as in zero,
I think).
> CYA?
It's a happening thing in Chicago, but not at my parish. But we do have a
youth minister who does youth stuff.
>>is the Church open for Adoration
>> or are the doors locked outside of Mass?
<Modestly clears throat> I'm pleased to report that our first evangelization
initiative, in preparation for the Great Jubilee, will be a weekly Holy Hour,
consisting of Eucharistic Adoration, possibly capped by Benediction (we still
have to work out what we'll be doing. Ideas and suggestions gratefully
accepted).
>>Did you have your car blessed?
No, but I did have it rust-coated :-). No, we don't do that, and quite
honestly, I've never heard of it before.
>> How about your home?
Ooh, good idea!
>>pets?
Every year. Hate to think what he'd be like if we *didn't* do it :-)
>>Have a Holy Water font at the door?
We have the hand dippers. And we have a baptismal font in the front of the
church.
>> Crucifix on
>> the nightstand so it is the first and last thing you see?
I'm afraid that crack in the ceiling (" ... had the habit of sometimes looking
like a rabbit") is what I see :-). We do have one (a crucifix, not a crack) on
the wall of our bedroom, with the palm from last Passion Sunday stuck behind
it.
>>Hospital visits?
We have an active ministry at our parish who does this (priests, deacons, and
laypeople). I don't do it personally - every time I go there, all I see are
sick people:-).
>> Does anyone accompany the priest on sick calls?
Jim
Cantate Domino canticum novum
Robert J Bobic
adamantly refuses to allow the Tridentine Mass. But he is allowing a
Byzantine rite mass later on this month. Why the difference? Does not
"Ecclesia Dei" give us traditionalists the right of access to the
Tridentine Mass, Bishop permitting? What is so terrible about this Mass
that VII clergy abhor it and avoid it like a vampire abhors and avoids the
cross? Is their mass so dreadfully bad that they fear it cannot stand up
to the comparison? Nowhere has it been declared by any magesterial
authority that I am aware of that the Tridentine Mass is invalid.
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Gary wrote:
>
> The real issue here is who has the authority to make the decisionon the
> validity of the novus Ordo. You? No. Me? No. The Church (magesterium)?
> Yes.
>
>
Bob Bobic |I love my country, but I fear
rjb...@korrnet.org |a government that lets Horiuchi
|go Freeh
Mark Johnson
>In article <369fc4fb...@news.pacbell.net>,
> 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>> leg...@spamless.bellsouth.net (legatus) wrote:
>> I most certainly do deny the validity of the 'new order'. That should
>> be clear. And if one argues the validity, technically, _apart_ from
>> the English, Italian, and Spanish (I believe), which is worldwide,
>> then the complaints of Ottaviani, von Hildebrand who you quoted, and
>> many others still hold. And the question is - can a liturgy which is
>> 'awful', which is bad, which is clearly unholy, still be valid?
>Let's look at that question. In light of solid Catholic teaching
>In the same manner,
In the same manner?
Gotta understand that.
Peace.
Mark Johnson
>The real issue here is who has the authority to make the decisionon the
>validity of the novus Ordo. You? No. Me? No. The Church (magesterium)?
>Yes.
You're startin to get it. And what does The Church teach? Our Lord
died for all, but the fruits of His Passion do not extend to all.
Don't confuse churchmen with The Church they claim to represent. There
have always been heretics. Heretics wear collars.
Stephanie Rendino
Robert J Bobic <rjb...@korrnet.org> wrote:
>A question about a situation that vexes me much. In my diocese, the Bishop
>adamantly refuses to allow the Tridentine Mass. But he is allowing a
>Byzantine rite mass later on this month. Why the difference? Does not
>"Ecclesia Dei" give us traditionalists the right of access to the
>Tridentine Mass, Bishop permitting? What is so terrible about this Mass
>that VII clergy abhor it and avoid it like a vampire abhors and avoids the
>cross? Is their mass so dreadfully bad that they fear it cannot stand up
>to the comparison? Nowhere has it been declared by any magesterial
>authority that I am aware of that the Tridentine Mass is invalid.
It's up to each bishop to grant the indult to perform the Tridentine mass.
Whether a diocese has it or not has nothing to do with whether the bishop
is "conservative" or "liberal" I've noticed. The old bishop of Arlington
was very conservative, but forbade both altar girls AND the indult. I'm a
supporter of every diocese having the indult, even though I won't attend a
Tridentine mass unless it's the only one available.
The Byzantine Rite is not "allowed", it's a valid rite within the Catholic
Church which does not need any permission to be performed. If you're a
traditionalist, you should see it as an option.
legatus
jimpa...@aol.comantispam (JimPauwels) wrote:
> Okay, I'll take the poll :-)
I'm really going to have to work on precision in my posts. :)
> >> May crowning?
>
> Every year. At it, I personally sing some of the worst sacred music ever
> composed (e.g. Bring Flow'rs of the Rarest). (That's my subjective judgment
> :-)).
What a scream... I was just commenting a few nights ago that I really
liked that song. And yes, that is a perfect example of subjective good.
> >>Did you have your car blessed?
>
> No, but I did have it rust-coated :-). No, we don't do that, and quite
> honestly, I've never heard of it before.
Never heard of it? Actually, neither had I until a woman asked the parish
priest to bless her new car after a weekday Mass ... about 2 years ago.
> >>pets?
>
> Every year. Hate to think what he'd be like if we *didn't* do it :-)
Hmmm... that may explain a few things about our new cat. :)
> >>Have a Holy Water font at the door?
>
> We have the hand dippers. And we have a baptismal font in the front of the
> church.
I meant at home... or are you saying you have hand dippers at home?
I guess what I was trying to communicate earlier was the idea that so many
of the "little things" have been disgarded and abandoned that we as
Catholics have lost some of our identity. In order for us to "leave the
ghetto" (as I've often heard the "renewal" called) we've had to dump many
of the cultural things which identify us (not only to ourselves but to the
world) as Catholic.
Deitrich von Hildebrand discusses this very point and says something to
the effect that when we "grew up" we not only put away childish things, we
burned them and spread the ashes on the foundation for the new parish rec
center. Those are strictly my own words by the way.
Debbie
(legatus) wrote:
>Never heard of it? Actually, neither had I until a woman asked the parish
>priest to bless her new car after a weekday Mass ... about 2 years ago.
Cue bad joke:
In a run down area of an inner city, the Catholics, the protestants
and the Jews shared a building and facilities. After some years
funraising, they finally got together enough funds to purchase a
minibus,and as they were going to share it they had a joint
"commissioning" session.
The Priest sprinkled the bus with holy water and prayed impressively
in Latin. Then the Pastor launched into a long blessing with a lot
of "we justs want to thank you"s in it. Then the Rabbi stepped
forwards. He pulled on overalls, picked up a tool box and crawled
under the bus. Emerging a few minutes later, he held up a small
circular piece of metal...having removed a small section from the end
of the exhaust pipe!
Regards,
Debbie
--
Cybertheologian
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/debbie.gaunt/
icq 9428714
GMDowns
In article <36a25136...@news.dial.pipex.com>, debbie...@dial.pipex.com
(Debbie) writes:
>Never heard of it? Actually, neither had I until a woman asked the parish
>>priest to bless her new car after a weekday Mass ... about 2 years ago.
>
You will find the blessing for cars in the "Book of Blessings" that is an
official publication of the Catholic Churdh. Included also are blessings for
adoptive parents, fisherman, boats, travellers, homes, mothers after
childbirth, mothers who have lost a child during child birt, engaged couples,
etc., etc., etc. I have been familiar with all these various blessings,
particularly the home and car blessings since I was a child. I am a
grandmother now.
GMD
Mr. Zoom
> The Byzantine Rite is not "allowed", it's a valid rite within the Catholic
> Church which does not need any permission to be performed. If you're a
> traditionalist, you should see it as an option.
>
of a *Roman* Catholic bishop (except for the Pope, of course). The
Byzantine Rites have their own bishops.
mr. zoom
tz...@my-dejanews.com
1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
> tz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >The Novus Ordo is a valid liturgy of the Church.
> But that's not the case. ICEL has Our Lord saying what Our Lord would
> never say. The form is invalid.
> >In the words of my Forefathers, ANATHEMA to those
> >who think otherwise.
> Right. Based on . . . what, exactly? A 'feeling'? Desire for status
> quo? What if St. Athanasius were around, today? Anathematize him, too,
> I suppose? You gotta have a standard. And it's gotta be dogma. It's
> gotta be what Catholics believe. And even if a liturgy goes afoul of
> that, it's the liturgy that gets called on it, and the 'liturgists',
> as such, not dogma.
No "feeling" no "desire." I base the statement that the Novus Ordo
is a valid liturgy on the Pillar and Bulwurk of the truth. Athanasius
was not and never was a successor to Peter. Nor was he a valid Council
of the whole Church in communion with the successor to Peter.
The Novus Ordo has been approved by the Sucessor to Peter, several
of them in fact. It is the rite and liturgy regularly used by him.
Now if you want to pull a Photius and think you can "excommunicate"
the Successor to Peter, then you are more than welcome to think you
can, but you schism your self in the process at best and anathema
yourself at worst.
Theodore M. Seeber
> jimpa...@aol.comantispam (JimPauwels) wrote:
>
> >Fwiw, I've been to www.catholicliturgy.whichever-it-is. I've read the Roman
> >Canon in both translations. Here's my aesthetic judgment: I like the ICEL
> >translation better. More vigor, fewer archaisms,
>
> Well . . . . you must be joking. There's nothing more archaic than the
> trendy. It's old when it's first introduced! There's nothing more
> banal, less uplifting, less inspiring. You defend 'new order' because
> . . . ? (no joke).
How about because von Hildebrand, who you like to quote about the defects
of the Mass, considers it VALID?
Theodore M. Seeber
> >You are in disagreement with
> >the very Ottaviani and von Hildebrand that you quote to support your
> >position.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. But I've never seen or heard where either addressed
> the sort of thing raised by myself, and many others, as found at the
> URL above. I can't believe either would disagree.
Legatus quoted where von Hildebrand disagrees. Please respond to von
Hildebrand's point that the mass is not invalid.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Deitrich von Hildebrand discusses this very point and says something to
> the effect that when we "grew up" we not only put away childish things, we
> burned them and spread the ashes on the foundation for the new parish rec
> center. Those are strictly my own words by the way.
Kinda suprised that we didn't use them for Ash Wednesday.....Now there's a
Catholic symbol....
Anybody else go to evening mass and then not bother to shower the next
morning, just so your mark can be seen by all?
legatus
> In article <36a32981...@news.pacbell.net>,
> 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
> > tz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > >The Novus Ordo is a valid liturgy of the Church.
>
> > But that's not the case. ICEL has Our Lord saying what Our Lord would
> > never say. The form is invalid.
>
> > >In the words of my Forefathers, ANATHEMA to those
> > >who think otherwise.
>
> > Right. Based on . . . what, exactly? A 'feeling'? Desire for status
> > quo? What if St. Athanasius were around, today? Anathematize him, too,
> > I suppose? You gotta have a standard. And it's gotta be dogma. It's
> > gotta be what Catholics believe. And even if a liturgy goes afoul of
> > that, it's the liturgy that gets called on it, and the 'liturgists',
> > as such, not dogma.
>
> No "feeling" no "desire." I base the statement that the Novus Ordo
> is a valid liturgy on the Pillar and Bulwurk of the truth. Athanasius
> was not and never was a successor to Peter. Nor was he a valid Council
> of the whole Church in communion with the successor to Peter.
But St. Athanasius was right.
> The Novus Ordo has been approved by the Sucessor to Peter, several
> of them in fact.
I don't think that 2 1/2 qualifies as "several". Paul VI established the
new rite, JPI wasn't around long enough and JPII brought the old rite back
into practice...
Now, you would be correct in saying that the new rite has received
unanimous approval since it was introduced...but that's as irritating as
the news idiots who say "housing starts are at the lowest level since the
third quarter of last year".
I'm not debating the legitimacy of the new rite... I just wanted to be a
little annoying. :)
Theodore M. Seeber
> On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> > >You are in disagreement with
> > >the very Ottaviani and von Hildebrand that you quote to support your
> > >position.
> >
> > Maybe, maybe not. But I've never seen or heard where either addressed
> > the sort of thing raised by myself, and many others, as found at the
> > URL above. I can't believe either would disagree.
>
> Legatus quoted where von Hildebrand disagrees. Please respond to von
> Hildebrand's point that the mass is not invalid.
I decided that perhaps you missed the message where Legatus quoted von
Hildebrand. Here's the quote again:
> "Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis' 'The Screwtape Letters' had
> been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it
> better. In place of the deep expression which even makes use of our
> bodily
> postures - sitting for the Epistle and the offertory, standing for the
> Gloria, the Gospel, the Credo, and kneeling in adoration - we now have a
> continual up and down which works against recollection.
> ...
> "BUT DESPITE THE GRAVE DEFECTS OF THE NEW MASS, IT WOULD OF COURSE BE
> COMPLETELY WRONG IN ANY WAY TO QUESTION ITS VALIDITY AS A REENACTMENT OF
> THE SACRIFICE OF CALVARY, AS UNFORTUNATELY SOME FEW ORTHODOX CATHOLICS
> HAVE. And it goes without saying that it would also be completely wrong
> to
> disobey any of the rulings of the Holy Father regarding the Novus Ordo
> and
> the Tridentine liturgy."
Ted
jpau...@asapsoftware.com
leg...@spamless.bellsouth.net (legatus) wrote:
> In article <19990116174002...@ng35.aol.com>,
> jimpa...@aol.comantispam (JimPauwels) wrote:
> > >>Have a Holy Water font at the door?
> >
> > We have the hand dippers. And we have a baptismal font in the front of the
> > church.
>
> I meant at home... or are you saying you have hand dippers at home?
No :-). I meant at church. At home - that, I've never seen. I do seem to
recall, very vaguely and faintly, having holy water about the house when I
was a wee tot. But it was in a bottle(?).
> I guess what I was trying to communicate earlier was the idea that so many
> of the "little things" have been disgarded and abandoned that we as
> Catholics have lost some of our identity. In order for us to "leave the
> ghetto" (as I've often heard the "renewal" called) we've had to dump many
> of the cultural things which identify us (not only to ourselves but to the
> world) as Catholic.
I think this is right. Honestly, I'm not sure that it was a conscious
decision on anyone's part. Well, I'm being a little too pollyanna-ish.
Certainly there are some renewal veterans (at my parish, on the staff) who
think a lot of that stuff is silly, totemism, or worse. But above and beyond
that, I think that a lot of these things just never "caught" onto the lives
of those who came of age in the '60's and '70's - at least, not in the
Upper-Midwest US middle-class places I grew up. And I think the church
leaders, at best, practiced a sort of benevolent disregard for them.
I'm hoping these things become more widespread (they never really went away).
I'm betting that if we promote it, it'll happen. That's one way I hope we
evangelize for the Great Jubilee.
Jim
legatus
> In article <legatus-1501...@host-209-214-200-148.gsp.bellsouth.net>,
> leg...@spamless.bellsouth.net (legatus) wrote:
>
> > In article <77nsva$hoq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, tz...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > Adoration? Perpetual.
>
> > But individual?
>
> Perpetual adoration is a series of individual adorations round
> the clock. My "hour" is every Thursday, at 8 AM. I share that
> hour with one other person, although others will come in depending
> on the circumstances, and since the church is being repaired,
> there is the 8AM mass which takes up a small part of my hour.
My poorly expressed point was that even though there is perpetual
adoration, it is a solitary adoration (for the most part) ...and that is
wonderful...but we need communal adoration.
legatus
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, legatus wrote:
>
> > > In modern english, they are just extra sylables saying the same thing.
> > > But I agree, would be nice to have them, if for nothing else than the
> > > poetry.
> >
> > I'm not going to argue against "they are just extra syllables" because I
> > don't even know where to begin.
>
> It's probabally inargueable anyway. It's an asthetic idea, and one that
> is definately GenX in nature.
> Sure, we could argue the differences between the generations forever, but
> that doesn't mean anything.
Generational differences are superficial at most and manufactured
silliness at least. I'm still confused how:
"WHO, the day before He suffered, took bread into His Holy and venerable
hands, and having raised His eyes to heaven, to You, O God, His almighty
Father, giving thanks to You He blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His
disciples, saying All of you take and eat of this"
is "just extra syllables".
> > I'm also going to pass on the "single sex" bit. But the part about the
> > Consecration is truly weird...TED!!!! It's pro multis in BOTH rites! On
> > the cycle of readings...don't get me started.
>
> I'm talking about translating it directly to modern English.
Then the proposed "defect" is absent in the actual text...
> > But my HUGE problem is "very few references to either God or Christ in the
> > whole thing"...I'll ignore the fact that Christ IS God because I assume
> > you didn't mean that...but please see the following (presented in English
> > for your benefit). Starting with the Asperges:
>
> Your translation, not neccessarily the one that was in use on the West
> Coast of the US.
Oh come on. There was no "translation" in use on the west coast. The Mass
was in Latin...the text is almost exclusively directed to God (Father, Son
and Holy Ghost)
> > > Actually, translation of the Gloria has (I was wrong earlier, found the
> > > west Coast missal that Mark was talking about, and sure enough "Men of
> > > good will" has been changed to "People of God".)
> >
> > I believe it is "His people on earth". But you're talking about a
> > non-official translation of the old rite and the english of the new
> > rite...please compare the Latin "typicals" of both.
>
> The Latin, as far as I know, has not changed.
That was my original point.
Mark Johnson
>The Novus Ordo has been approved by the Sucessor to Peter,
But that's beside the point. Not everything Pope's have done has been
the model of holy obedience. If it were the case that 'new order' must
be deemed some infallible decree, as Davies seems to want to argue, in
essence, then so be it. Say that's how you see it. Short of that,
allow that 'new order' could be wrong. If it could even be wrong,
confess it could even be invalid. Then the question is - is it?
Take a look at http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm .
>of them in fact. It is the rite and liturgy regularly used by him.
>Now if you want to pull a Photius and think you can "excommunicate"
>the Successor to Peter,
And no, Adam wasn't told not to eat of ANY tree in the garden. Save
the straw. Don't let your horns show so prominently. Read what I
write. Don't put words in my mouth.
>then you are more than welcome to think you can,
Save the straw.
>but you schism your self in the process at best and anathema
>yourself at worst.
It's true. I am NOT Catholic Reformed. Anything you wanna say that you
think will win me over to your new religion? The complaint is that the
bishops are embarked upon this new denomination, while JP II tries to
graft portions of it onto Catholic teaching. The guy I quoted to the
latter stated only the obv. - won't work. My suggestion for the former
is that none of the existing Prot denominations is the answer for
people. Why should you think yours would be any different. The 'better
way' - remember - it never is.
Peace. (you oughta read the book, below - but I know you won't)
Mark Johnson
>On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Mark Johnson wrote:
>> jimpa...@aol.comantispam (JimPauwels) wrote:
>> Well . . . . you must be joking. There's nothing more archaic than the
>> trendy. It's old when it's first introduced! There's nothing more
>> banal, less uplifting, less inspiring. You defend 'new order' because
>> . . . ? (no joke).
>How about because von Hildebrand, who you like to quote about the defects
>of the Mass, considers it VALID?
He's dead. But I doubt he would have _considered_ it valid. I don't
where he went to the issues I and others have raised, found at
http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . The very idea that
you have a consistently irreverent and banal liturgy - just to begin
with - that ought to be considered valid by the faithful is something
extraordinary, and which you dare not stop to appreciate.
What HAVE The Mass. Some call it the 'Tridentine'. You have your 'new
order', the new liturgy for the new religion - Reformed Catholicism.
Congratulate your 'reformers' on a century of 'fine work'. You should
be proud of your 'worthship' services. You should want to convert
_me_, and every other Catholic.
Stephanie Rendino
>
>> Deitrich von Hildebrand discusses this very point and says something to
>> the effect that when we "grew up" we not only put away childish things, we
>> burned them and spread the ashes on the foundation for the new parish rec
>> center. Those are strictly my own words by the way.
>
>Kinda suprised that we didn't use them for Ash Wednesday.....Now there's a
>Catholic symbol....
>Anybody else go to evening mass and then not bother to shower the next
Er...Jesus had some rather harsh things to say about that sort of
activity.