HartfordWhalers Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 11 2004, 08:16 PM'] We have not changed belief in the Blessed Sacrament. The Mass is a discipline and can be altered. For example, in the early Church people took the Blessed Sacrament home with them. And we do not debate the merits of the Ordo Missae or Vatican II on this board. [/quote] I meant Novus Ordo not Ordo sorry for not specifying, and I meant change the practice not the belief--why change the practice that was wroking fine and fostered a belief that was correct to something that fostered what was incorrect and contradicted many Popes on touching Sacred vessels. I don't think that is true about the early Church, but we aren't the early Church, so we shouldn't act like Her.
Guest JeffCR07 Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 It is very hard to claim with any sort of legitimacy that the pre-Novus Ordo Missae, Tridentine Mass did not have problems. It is common knowledge that much of the laity sat in the pew and said a silent rosary during mass because they didn't adequately understand what was going on. Moreover, this is really a matter of personal opinion. I find the Ordo Missae incalculably beneficial to my faith. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff
HartfordWhalers Posted September 13, 2004 Posted September 13, 2004 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 12 2004, 12:06 AM'] It is very hard to claim with any sort of legitimacy that the pre-Novus Ordo Missae, Tridentine Mass did not have problems. It is common knowledge that much of the laity sat in the pew and said a silent rosary during mass because they didn't adequately understand what was going on. Moreover, this is really a matter of personal opinion. I find the Ordo Missae incalculably beneficial to my faith. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote] That's neo-con post Vat II rhetoric that couldn't be further from the truth. Why do you think people, even neo-cons, condemn the horrible catechesis of the post Vat II era? Because it was obviously much better before! And if you think peope understand Mass now (which they don't), then they CERTAINLY understood it then, and mucch better, too. If you want to prove this, go to any TLM and ask any given person what is happening at any given part of the Mass... he will be able to tell you not only the name but what is happening and often the symbolism behind it. Go to a Novus Ordo and they can't even tell you what the Creed means! They changed it into Eng. so people "could know that what they profess they believe" then people who do it mumble through it, not knowing what is actually being said or meant. For example, "God from God, Light from Light"--I have never had any NO attendee explain what that means... it's even in English and NOers still don't know what's going on... some people prefer to pray the Rosary through the Canon or other silent parts. There is nothing wrong with that. Popes have commended it in times past; however, they have also said the BEST way is with a missal, but that doesn't mean there are not other GOOD ways. I use a missal myself, but not what I serve. When I serve I don't pray the Rosary, either, but the Church certainly says that serving is a great way to assist at Mass! In any event, your conclusion does not hold up in light of history.
jasJis Posted September 13, 2004 Posted September 13, 2004 Your conclusions don't add up, Hartford. Did you go to Mass pre-Vatican? Your experiences with those few who choose to go to the Tridentine Mass now is not a sampling of the average Catholic. You do not base your assumptions on reality and fact. One only has to be 40+ to have the likely hood to have attended the Tridentine Mass and to have be catechized under the "old order". We also learn most of what we know via the families, so the "poor catechisis" effect would only be more recent. Things didn't change overnight despite what you want to claim. I was there and lived through it. I also have talked to enough 'older people' who are closer to my peers that only have vague ideas of what the theology of the parts of the Mass are. You are incredibly blind to your own prejudice and bias and lack of reasonableness. The lack of new priests entering seminaries have little to do with Vatican II. American families just simply viewed it as a not-worthwhile pursuit and instead, encouraged their children to got to college, get and degree, and earn $$. If you honestly looked at the drop of vocations, it because the nations became more wealthy, people ignored calls for selfish reasons. That's why in poor countries, people (men & women) are more likely to answer the call to religous vocations. Trying to claim ALL the seminaries are screwed up now is the reason is plain falsehood. Just look at the abuse scandals. Most of these priests were ordained in the 50's and 60's and committed these horrendous acts. The Bishops also came from the same period. It's not the effects of V-II or the NO. It's the mindset of morally acceptable rebellion against the Magisterium that is misleading religous and lay alike.
Azriel Posted September 13, 2004 Posted September 13, 2004 [hijack] Can we please put a moritorium on derogatory terms such as neo-cons? It lends nothing to a debate.[/hijakc]
HartfordWhalers Posted September 13, 2004 Posted September 13, 2004 [quote name='Azriel' date='Sep 13 2004, 11:02 AM'] [hijack] Can we please put a moritorium on derogatory terms such as neo-cons? It lends nothing to a debate.[/hijakc] [/quote] OK, just tell thedude to stop using radtrad... That is not derogatory. It is short-hand for a cateorization of people who believe a certain way (neo-conservative, aka neo-Catholic).
Azriel Posted September 13, 2004 Posted September 13, 2004 Labels only prove to divide. and, radtrad should not be used either.
HartfordWhalers Posted September 13, 2004 Posted September 13, 2004 [quote name='Azriel' date='Sep 13 2004, 01:38 PM'] Labels only prove to divide. and, radtrad should not be used either. [/quote] It's not meant to divide. It's meant to define the group which you are addressing. How can you explain the group of which you are speaking or whom you are addressing, etc., if you don't have labels. It would be to say we shouldn't label ourselves Catholic because that causes "divisions" in "the human race" or something of that sort. If you want I can use Catholic and non-Catholic (non-Catholic being anyone who denies a Church doctrine, but then disputes arise as to who actually is denying the Church's teaching).
jasJis Posted September 13, 2004 Posted September 13, 2004 [quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 13 2004, 01:49 PM'] It's not meant to divide. It's meant to define the group which you are addressing. How can you explain the group of which you are speaking or whom you are addressing, etc., if you don't have labels. It would be to say we shouldn't label ourselves Catholic because that causes "divisions" in "the human race" or something of that sort. If you want I can use Catholic and non-Catholic (non-Catholic being anyone who denies a Church doctrine, but then disputes arise as to who actually is denying the Church's teaching). [/quote] Then you should use pronouns such as "some Catholics", etc. Your usage infers non-Catholic or wrong-Catholic and is sterotypical.
HartfordWhalers Posted September 13, 2004 Posted September 13, 2004 [quote name='jasJis' date='Sep 13 2004, 01:58 PM'] Then you should use pronouns such as "some Catholics", etc. Your usage infers non-Catholic or wrong-Catholic and is sterotypical. [/quote] Well there is righ and wrong. We don't problem establishing that when we say Catholic vs non-Catholic. Does that somehow also divide? I think that some people are just a bit too sensitive to what a label is..
jasJis Posted September 13, 2004 Posted September 13, 2004 ... or some are too obtuse for gentle correction?
HartfordWhalers Posted September 13, 2004 Posted September 13, 2004 [quote name='jasJis' date='Sep 13 2004, 02:34 PM'] ... or some are too obtuse for gentle correction? [/quote] I don't mind being corrected. I just mind being "corrected". For example, someone "corrected" me when they thought I was misreprenting what the Church teaches about a certain teaching of the Church, but, in fact, he was the one who needed correction. I did not particularly like that "correction" because correction is needed when something is wrong, not when it's right. (I am not speaking of you here...)
kateri05 Posted September 13, 2004 Posted September 13, 2004 hartford, please read this: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=19693"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=19693[/url] i'm going to have to agree with azriel, the term neo-con is offensive. if you believe rad-trad to be so, i believe that out of respect, everyone could agree to stop using that as well. but neo-con is misleading and misrepresentative
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now