A place for Catholic men to discuss issues they face in the light of their faith.
Latest Activity: Oct 7
Started by Bearwolf. Last reply by Sean Sep 15.
Started by Chris Lazarus. Last reply by Native Son May 16.
Started by P. Dictus Magister. Last reply by P. Dictus Magister Feb 21.
We disagree. Pace.
I don't have a problem as such, I am merely observing. and trying to explain some of the history. In saying I have a problem you start off by ignoring everything I have to say, and thus your response is utterly off topic. In order:
1. I did not say 'reading', I said 'praying.' When you use a prayer book for your private prayers, are you 'reading'? My point was that the changes made were never mandated by the council, and I tried to set that in a historical context. You ignored that. This is your first straw man.
2: What does time have to do with the Church? If a thing is wrong, it is wrong whether it is a year old or a thousand. Same goes for whether or not something is right. The fact that the changes are now fifty years old is irrelevant to whether or not they were good or bad. And I go back to my point: The changes made were never mandated by the council. You did not address that point with this response either, and this is your second straw man.
3. I never said anything either about the Tridentine or Extraordinary Form. My original point in this debate was to say that Latin could be a unifying point for Catholics, as it once was. Many other religions have a sacred language. We surrendered ours against the wishes of the council. You have ignored what I said, and put forward your third straw man.
4 Your conclusion had nothing to do with anything I had said thus far. It refutes no point, advances no point, and adds nothing to this debate. Straw man number four.
Umm...quietly sitting in a pew reading along with the Liturgy isn't exactly the sort of active lay participation most bishops, at least US bishops, seem to have had in mind.
Anyway, what exactly is your problem with a change that happened half a century ago?
As I've said before, several times on this forum, if you really want an old school Latin Mass (ironically using the Latin Roman Missal approved by John XXIII shortly before Vatican II), it's not that difficult to find a parish that celebrates that form. The Latin Mass even is broadcast on cableTV.
I believe we've proven that the Church is a family, a very large, sometimes dysfunctional family, but a family.
The participation movement began earlier, prior to Vatican two, with the Pray the Mass movement, which advocated actively praying the Mass with the priest through the use of missals. It was enshrined in V II with a phrase that got mistranslated into the English as "active participation", which some took to mean that the laity had to actually be doing something all the time. The term used in the documents would be better translated as "actual participation", which included praying along with the priest.
am not talking about the current translation, I am talking about what was done in the wake of the council. There was no call- zip- in the documents for a new Mass. The actual Mass made from council recommendations was a slightly modified Tridentine- basically, tridentine with vernacular readings and a few vernacular responses. This, however, was nothing really new. It had been used, for instance, by the Jesuits Missionaries around the world for centuries prior to the council.
What happened back then depends upon whom you talk to. I am just old enough to remember the pre-conciliar Mass. My mother and my father and many relatives grew up with it. If you were to ask any of them if they merely sat passively and did nothing during the Mass, they would deny it vehemently. They, too, belonged to the Pray the Mass movement..
Hate to get into a yes, no, etc., exchange, but, to quote a book title, "H***, I was There!" A major reason given at the time (the 1960s), for the then new post-Vatican II Liturgy was get the laity more involved in the celebration of the Mass and the Church.
If you comment on the Current (2011) English translation of the 2002 Latin Roman Missal, you're talking about things that weren't part of Vatican II's adoption of Liturgial changes, which was four decades earlier.
It wasn't "the bad old days" but back in the Latin Mass days, going to Mass was passive participation, except for beating your breast during the "mea culpas" and walking to the Communion Rail, with a pretty strong message of "be here or else." Ever heard, "If Jesus could die on the Cross for you, you can show up for an hour on Sunday morning for Him."?
My apologies, Native Son, I had thought your comment was aimed at me.
Having said that, I disagree that the purpose of the new liturgy was to get people more involved in their faith, beyond confession and communion. I have read the documents of Vatican II, and nowhere in them is to be found what we now have. Furthermore, if I am wrong and that was the purpose, then it was a failure, as today Catholics barely go to Mass, and confession is all but forgotten.
Lastly, I don't think your representation of the bad old days tells the whole story. Back in the day, people were vastly more involved in the life of their church. Sure, they didn't have much going on at Mass, but they were active in dozens of other ministries and groups centred upon the church and their faith. We lost that rapidly in the wake of V II, though much of that has to do with cars, TV, suburbs, commuter parishes etch.
I'm not sure who Sean was replying to in his comment. I do have to comment on Stephanus's complaint about the "structure" of the New Liturgy. Other than following a three year cycle of Readings, the New Liturgy is nigh unto exactly the structure of the "old" Latin Mass, as demonstrated by a comparison of the current Missals (in the pews) and the Missal (good for years with a calendar showing every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation) I got as a First Communion gift back before Vatican II.
Onething the traditionalists don't quite seem to "get" is that the reason for the post-Vatican II Liturgy (and recently reinforced by His Holiness Pope Francis) was to get the laity involved in their faith beyond going to Confession and showing up on Sunday.
Wow. You missed the entire point of everything I said.
Latin or not, is not the most important aspect. It's the whole structure of the New Liturgy, which alientas many man http://www.lmschairman.org/2015/07/the-traditional-mass-and-men-new...
OK. You want Latin, there's a parish nearby that celebrates the Tridentine Rite. Somehow, I don't think God cares what language you worship in.
For that matter, part of the Latin Liturgy is actually said in Greek...
Welcome toArt of Manliness
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
© 2015 Created by Brett McKay.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.