If the Tridentine Mass was brought back...

[Cam42]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Feb 20 2006, 09:29 PM']There were many illicit innovations.
[right][snapback]893294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Don't be "a pot" then.

And there still are many illicit innovations. You know, like celebrating Mass without jurisdiction or a valid celebrit.

[Amator Veritatis]

I had intended to pose a few questions, but it appears that Brendan has already made a few points.


1. skipping the Asperges.
It should be noted that the [i]Asperges[/i] are only sung at the principal Mass on Sundays, if the Mass be sung. If the principal Mass be a Low Mass, there would still be no [i]Asperges[/i]. Perhaps, if the [i]Asperges[/i] are omitted, it is because there is no sung Mass at the parish where you assist at Mass. I should say that I have never witnessed this either in my travels throughout Europe or in the Americas, though I have never been to an Indult, properly speaking, in Europe, but always a Mass under the care of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter or the Institute of Christ the King.

2. skipping the readings in Latin.
Sadly, the second abuse is rather common in France, but I have never witnessed it, even at Indult parishes in the United States.

3. tripping over the words of the Roman Canon. (Not allowed)
While this is a true shame, indeed, it is nearly always--if not always--a result of a priest's frailty or incompetency in the Latin language as opposed to a calculated or intentional error. It should be noted, of course, that the Canon of the Mass is recited with a secret voice.

4. altar boys handling the sacred vessels.
This point is a curious one. While it is rather common and certainly an abuse according to the old norms, is this actually considered a sacrilege as far as the new norms for the Mass are concerned? I do not advocate looser requirements, but I find it interesting that you mention this point. I am simply curious as to whether this is actually the case according to the new norms. Of course, those who serve the altar are permitted to handle such items without touching them directly, as Brendan indicated.

5. the inaudible prayers prayed over a microphone
I have actually been unfortunate enough to hear this--at least to some extent--at Saint John Cantius in Chicago and at an Indult parish as well. This is certainly a travesty from an aesthetic perspective as well as an infringement upon the rubrics.

6. priest not wearing a biretta
This error is extremely rampant in France and even in some places in the United States. In fact, at the seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter at Wigratzbad, Germany, this is the normative use, which is completely contrary to the rubrics the custom of which has never been recognised.

7. not ringing of the bells at the offertory
This is actually not a rubrical error, as it is not found in the rubrics of the Mass nor in the [i]Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae[/i], i.e., the rubrics for the serving of the Mass found in the preliminary part of the missal. I have been unable to find such a rubric in any of my five missals. Two of the missals are from the nineteenth century, thus pre-dating St. Pius X and any possible reforms from his pontificate. The other three are after St. Pius X. None of these missals mentions such a rubric in the [i]Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae[/i], much less in the actual rubrics of the Mass themselves. I also have an [i]Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus[/i] with the revisions of Pius XII which makes no mention of it, as would be expected. The ringing of the bell at the Offertory is a matter of custom much the same way the ringing of the bell at the minor elevation is dependent upon local custom.

8. priest not repeating the double prayers
I am not quite sure what is meant by "double prayers", but even in the changes made in 1955, 1960 and 1962, the priest is the only person who recites a prayer. There would be no need for the prayers to be doubled silently, for they are not chanted aloud by anyone else. Perhaps I could shed some light on the matter if you would be so kind as to clarify a bit. If you are including the epistle, Gospel and various other parts of the Mass during Holy Week, Brendan was correct in stating that this was changed under Pius XII or John XXIII, depending on which part specifically is not being doubled. For the revised Holy Week, especially the Easter Vigil, the changes made under Pius XII indicate that the priest is to "sit and listen" rather than reading the lessons. Subsequently, other changes were made both under Pius XII and John XXIII regarding the doubling of the epistle and Gospel. Happily, there are some who do not observe these revisions, e.g., the Institute of Christ the King.

9. priest not praying the doubles, only the propers of the day
In this case, I am a bit confused by "doubles", as this is a traditional title used in the naming of a Feast, not a part of the Mass. In any event, I think, perhaps, you are speaking of the fact that the orations for the Collect, Secret and Postcommunion have been reduced. Along with the doubling of the epistle and Gospel, these additional orations were suppressed in the 1962 Missal. While there are individual priests who attempt to retain the multiple orations, rarely do they recite the prayers according to the proper manner designated under the older norms, e.g., some priests will add a second oration for the Pope without observing the other relevant rubrics, namely reciting the oration to Our Lady based on the season first.

10. priest not doing abultions [sic] after Holy Communion, but rather after Mass, in the sacristy.
I have never witnessed this in any of my travels, though it is certainly a terrible abuse, perhaps the most grave of those listed, as it would almost necessary entail sacrilege unless the priest processed out without putting on his biretta or taking the chalice and walked with his index finger and thumb still joined.


I felt it profitable to mention some relevant comments, especially concerning clarifications, that scandal might not be taken where it be undue, at least regarding numbers 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 and perhaps 3. In any event, I should also add that those which are true abuses at Indult parishes are still less rampant and less grave than those seen throughout most parishes. Also, if possible, I would appreciate if you could clarify your meaning in the relevant places. Thank you.

Edited February 21, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Amator Veritatis]

I should add my response to the question at hand. If the traditional Mass were made the standard use again throughout the Latin rite and the[i] Novus Ordo Missae[/i] suppressed, I would be delighted but also aware of the grave need for reform in the manners of the clergy in general as well as the necessity of instructing them in the traditional rite. Though this would by no means solve all the problems in the Church, it would be an important step towards solving many of the liturgical problems.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Feb 20 2006, 09:48 PM']I had intended to pose a few questions, but it appears that Brendan has already made a few points.
1. skipping the Asperges.
It should be noted that the [i]Asperges[/i] are only sung at the principal Mass on Sundays, if the Mass be sung. If the principal Mass be a Low Mass, there would still be no [i]Asperges[/i]. Perhaps, if the [i]Asperges[/i] are omitted, it is because there is no sung Mass at the parish where you assist at Mass. I should say that I have never witnessed this either in my travels throughout Europe or in the Americas, though I have never been to an Indult, properly speaking, in Europe, but always a Mass under the care of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter or the Institute of Christ the King.

2. skipping the readings in Latin.
Sadly, the second abuse is rather common in France, but I have never witnessed it, even at Indult parishes in the United States.

3. tripping over the words of the Roman Canon. (Not allowed)
While this is a true shame, indeed, it is nearly always--if not always--a result of a priest's frailty or incompetency in the Latin language as opposed to a calculated or intentional error. It should be noted, of course, that the Canon of the Mass is recited with a secret voice.

4. altar boys handling the sacred vessels.
This point is a curious one. While it is rather common and certainly an abuse according to the old norms, is this actually considered a sacrilege as far as the new norms for the Mass are concerned? I do not advocate looser requirements, but I find it interesting that you mention this point. I am simply curious as to whether this is actually the case according to the new norms. Of course, those who serve the altar are permitted to handle such items without touching them directly, as Brendan indicated.

5. the inaudible prayers prayed over a microphone
I have actually been unfortunate enough to hear this--at least to some extent--at Saint John Cantius in Chicago and at an Indult parish as well. This is certainly a travesty from an aesthetic perspective as well as an infringement upon the rubrics.

6. priest not wearing a biretta
This error is extremely rampant in France and even in some places in the United States. In fact, at the seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter at Wigratzbad, Germany, this is the normative use, which is completely contrary to the rubrics the custom of which has never been recognised.

7. not ringing of the bells at the offertory
This is actually not a rubrical error, as it is not found in the rubrics of the Mass nor in the [i]Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae[/i], i.e., the rubrics for the serving of the Mass found in the preliminary part of the missal. I have been unable to find such a rubric in any of my five missals. Two of the missals are from the nineteenth century, thus pre-dating St. Pius X and any possible reforms from his pontificate. The other three are after St. Pius X. None of these missals mentions such a rubric in the [i]Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae[/i], much less in the actual rubrics of the Mass themselves. I also have an [i]Ordo Hebdomadae Sanctae Instauratus[/i] with the revisions of Pius XII which makes no mention of it, as would be expected. The ringing of the bell at the Offertory is a matter of custom much the same way the ringing of the bell at the minor elevation is dependent upon local custom.

8. priest not repeating the double prayers
I am not quite sure what is meant by "double prayers", but even in the changes made in 1955, 1960 and 1962, the priest is the only person who recites a prayer. There would be no need for the prayers to be doubled silently, for they are not chanted aloud by anyone else. Perhaps I could shed some light on the matter if you would be so kind as to clarify a bit. If you are including the epistle, Gospel and various other parts of the Mass during Holy Week, Brendan was correct in stating that this was changed under Pius XII or John XXIII, depending on which part specifically is not being doubled. For the revised Holy Week, especially the Easter Vigil, the changes made under Pius XII indicate that the priest is to "sit and listen" rather than reading the lessons. Subsequently, other changes were made both under Pius XII and John XXIII regarding the doubling of the epistle and Gospel. Happily, there are some who do not observe these revisions, e.g., the Institute of Christ the King.

9. priest not praying the doubles, only the propers of the day
In this case, I am a bit confused by "doubles", as this is a traditional title used in the naming of a Feast, not a part of the Mass. In any event, I think, perhaps, you are speaking of the fact that the orations for the Collect, Secret and Postcommunion have been reduced. Along with the doubling of the epistle and Gospel, these additional orations were suppressed in the 1962 Missal. While there are individual priests who attempt to retain the multiple orations, rarely do they recite the prayers according to the proper manner designated under the older norms, e.g., some priests will add a second oration for the Pope without observing the other relevant rubrics, namely reciting the oration to Our Lady based on the season first.

10. priest not doing abultions [sic] after Holy Communion, but rather after Mass, in the sacristy.
I have never witnessed this in any of my travels, though it is certainly a terrible abuse, perhaps the most grave of those listed, as it would almost necessary entail sacrilege unless the priest processed out without putting on his biretta or taking the chalice and walked with his index finger and thumb still joined.
I felt it profitable to mention some relevant comments, especially concerning clarifications, that scandal might not be taken where it be undue, at least regarding numbers 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 and perhaps 3. In any event, I should also add that those which are true abuses at Indult parishes are still less rampant and less grave than those seen throughout most parishes. Also, if possible, I would appreciate if you could clarify your meaning in the relevant places. Thank you.
[right][snapback]893305[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

First of all, are you trolling me for some reason? You seem bent on questioning most of my postings as of late. If you have an issue take it up in private. I have a PM box. Don't waste public space with this....

1. Nope. Solemn High Mass. This would make it the prinicple.

2. Rampant everywhere, not just France.

3. When you are serving and only two feet or so from the celebrant, it is audible enough. My understanding of Latin is more than acceptable, so I can decipher mistakes. Also, when emceeing a Mass, one is standing next to the priest, much like an archpriest would, so hearing the prayers is quite easy. Yes, this one is a first hand experience, as are all of these.

4. This point is not curious. Altar boys should not be handling sacred vessels. This is not acceptable when a deacon and sub deacon are present.

5. Point.

6. Point.

7. Innovation, is another word for custom. However, it is rubrical.

8. Double prayers, the double confetior, the double domine non sum dignus, etc.......they are often omitted.

9. Yes, I am speaking of the double feasts.

10. Point.

[quote] I felt it profitable to mention some relevant comments, especially concerning clarifications, that scandal might not be taken where it be undue, at least regarding numbers 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 and perhaps 3. In any event, I should also add that those which are true abuses at Indult parishes are still less rampant and less grave than those seen throughout most parishes. Also, if possible, I would appreciate if you could clarify your meaning in the relevant places. Thank you.[/quote]

You are new here, but honestly you really need to back off me. I have formally studied the Liturgies of the Catholic Church pre and post-Vatican II. They were my graduate emphasis. I also am an installed acolyte, as mentioned earlier.

Before you come on here claiming scandal, etc....you need to read up. I am not speaking of these things in any other way than that of a meaning of clarification or as a matter of catechesis. I am degreed in Theology, Philosophy, and Catholic Studies. My undergraduate empahsis was the Cappadocian Fathers and I have just mentioned my graduate emphasis.

As it is, most people are not scandalized by my postings. If you are, perhaps this is not the place for you. At any rate, I can assure you that I do know what I am talking about.

Again, if you have issues with me, personally, don't troll me. If you don't, don't assume that everything that I post is a potential scandal. You have a total of 18 posts (and counting) and you have accused me of possible scandal twice. Please stop. You have no basis.

Have a nice day.

[brendan1104]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 20 2006, 10:09 PM']Have a nice day.
[right][snapback]893326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Heh heh, the hour and a half that's left of it E.S.T.

Don't worry Cam, I'm with you!

(Can I not be phishy anymore? : Please?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 20 2006, 09:09 PM']At any rate, I can assure you that I do know what I am talking about.

[right][snapback]893326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[brendan1104]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Feb 20 2006, 10:32 PM']
[right][snapback]893346[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

(Cam)

Edited February 21, 2006 by brendan1104

[Cam42]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Feb 20 2006, 10:30 PM']Heh heh, the hour and a half that's left of it E.S.T.

Don't worry Cam, I'm with you!

(Can I not be phishy anymore?  :  Please?
[right][snapback]893343[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

When you recant the SSPX and stick with that recantation, perhaps dUSt will take the phishy moniker away.

You also will need to stop with the "rad-trad" line. Being traditional is fine. I am most certainly traditional, however, I am most certainly orthodox.

Where there is Peter, there is the Church.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 20 2006, 10:09 PM']You are new here, but honestly you really need to back off me.  I have formally studied the Liturgies of the Catholic Church pre and post-Vatican II.  They were my graduate emphasis.  I also am an installed acolyte, as mentioned earlier.

Before you come on here claiming scandal, etc....you need to read up.  I am not speaking of these things in any other way than that of a meaning of clarification or as a matter of catechesis.  I am degreed in Theology, Philosophy, and Catholic Studies.  My undergraduate empahsis was the Cappadocian Fathers and I have just mentioned my graduate emphasis.

As it is, most people are not scandalized by my postings.  If you are, perhaps this is not the place for you.  At any rate, I can assure you that I do know what I am talking about.

Have a nice day.
[right][snapback]893326[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Cam, i'm scandalized by the fact that you have so many degrees. It makes other people feel less smarterer than you, which I think is very uncharitable.

[brendan1104]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Feb 20 2006, 10:47 PM']
[right][snapback]893365[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

May I recommend braces? :

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Feb 20 2006, 10:49 PM']May I recommend braces?  :
[right][snapback]893369[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I use braces to hold up my pants.

[brendan1104]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Feb 20 2006, 10:51 PM']I use braces to hold up my pants.
[right][snapback]893373[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Feb 20 2006, 10:47 PM']Cam, i'm scandalized by the fact that you have so many degrees.  It makes other people feel less smarterer than you, which I think is very uncharitable. 
[right][snapback]893365[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Alea iacta est

[brendan1104]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 20 2006, 10:55 PM']Alea iacta est
[right][snapback]893380[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Remember Cam... pride is a capital sin.

I'm signing off... so please don't debate the SSPX or talk about the Tridentine Mass anymore tonight because I'm not here to defend them... if you comply with the wishes of your king you will be rewarded sweetly.

[Amator Veritatis]

[quote]First of all, are you trolling me for some reason? You seem bent on questioning most of my postings as of late. If you have an issue take it up in private. I have a PM box. Don't waste public space with this....[/quote]

I must admit that I do not know the meaning of trolling, though I too found it interesting that we had posted in the same threads. Perhaps great minds do think alike. In any event, I hope you do not misunderstand my intentions. I simply wish to offer whatever minimal knowledge I might have for the advancement of myself and others in virtue and in learning.

[quote]1. Nope. Solemn High Mass. This would make it the prinicple [sic].

2. Rampant everywhere, not just France.[/quote]

If there are multiple Solemn Masses at a church on the same day--this, of course, is rare if not non-existent throughout the entire world--the [i]Asperges[/i] would only be sung at the principal Mass, not all Solemn Masses, though I assume this is not the case at your church. As for the second abuse, it is sad that this is the case in many places. I am simply happy I have not experienced it yet.


[quote]3. When you are serving and only two feet or so from the celebrant, it is audible enough. My understanding of Latin is more than acceptable, so I can decipher mistakes. Also, when emceeing a Mass, one is standing next to the priest, much like an archpriest would, so hearing the prayers is quite easy. Yes, this one is a first hand experience, as are all of these.[/quote]

I am in complete agreement with you here. I am sad to say that I have heard the same problems in the Canon and other silent prayers during my experiences as an MC.

[quote]4. This point is not curious. Altar boys should not be handling sacred vessels. This is not acceptable when a deacon and sub deacon are present.[/quote]

Please do not misunderstand. I completely agree that it is a problem. I was merely interested as to whether this is a rubrical error properly speaking, under the new norms. I agree that the deacon and subdeacon should handle the sacred vessels and the priest in their absence, and I am sure to avoid this as much as possible whenever I serve. If I am obliged to transfer a ciborium, I use the veil, being sure not to touch the ciborium itself. This assumes, of course, that the ciborium be empty.

[quote]7. Innovation, is another word for custom. However, it is rubrical.[/quote]

If I may kindly point out, I believe the original word describing the list enumerated was "abuse" as can be seen in your post as well as that of StThomasMore, as the quotations below indicate.

[quote]There are 10. There are many more, but that should suffice. They are various in severity, but they are all abuses.[/quote]

[quote]I pray, oh Lord and Master of Orthodoxy, that you share with we, thy subjects, these abuses which thou hast witnessed.[/quote]

[quote]8. Double prayers, the double confetior [sic], the double domine non sum dignus, etc.......they are often omitted.[/quote]

Thank you for the clarification. I have not witnessed this in any of the Masses at which I have assisted, but I can imagine that such an abuse could easily occur.

[quote]9. Yes, I am speaking of the double feasts.[/quote]

If you are speaking of double feasts, I must say I am still confused. Do you mean, perchance, that the priest recites the prescribed prayers of the feria rather than that of a double feast? If this occurs, it is incorrect. If a double feast, termed a Second Class Feast in the 1962 Missal, should fall on a Sunday, according to the norms of the 1962 Missal, the Sunday would overtake the feast. Prior to the revisions under Pius XII and John XXIII, a double feast would overtake certain Sundays, I believe. A Double of the Second Class would overtake more Sundays, but still not all. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding your meaning.

[quote]You are new here, but honestly you really need to back off me. I have formally studied the Liturgies of the Catholic Church pre and post-Vatican II. They were my graduate emphasis. I also am an installed acolyte, as mentioned earlier.

Before you come on here claiming scandal, etc....you need to read up. I am not speaking of these things in any other way than that of a meaning of clarification or as a matter of catechesis. I am degreed in Theology, Philosophy, and Catholic Studies. My undergraduate empahsis was the Cappadocian Fathers and I have just mentioned my graduate emphasis.

As it is, most people are not scandalized by my postings. If you are, perhaps this is not the place for you. At any rate, I can assure you that I do know what I am talking about.

Again, if you have issues with me, personally, don't troll me. If you don't, don't assume that everything that I post is a potential scandal. You have a total of 18 posts (and counting) and you have accused me of possible scandal twice. Please stop. You have no basis.

Have a nice day.[/quote]

I hope I have not offended you in some way, especially regarding this apparent trolling. I think it interesting that we have interests and knowledge--though mine certainly limited--in the same fields. I have chosen a few threads in which to begin my endeavours here at Phatmass. I find it interesting that you happen to be involved in two of them, though I do not think that necessarily merits any spectacular charge. Certainly there are others who happen to be discussing the topics on this thread as well as the other in which we have both been active. Your credentials are certain, and I make no protestation against them. I certainly have no issues with you personally. I know nothing about you but what I have seen on these forums. Let me assure you that I do not seek scandal or assume your posts contain scandal. When I first joined these boards the manner in which you treated fellow Catholics was to me not merely scandalous but appalling. That much is a matter of fact. As to the recent comment I made, I simply stated an hypothetical in which I hoped to clarify a situation, that an unwitting observer might not be scandalised by certain abuses which were actually in keeping with the norms laid down in the rubrics for the 1962 Missal. Please know that I certainly mean no offence to you or anyone. I simply wish to discuss charitably and intelligently various matters of the Catholic Faith, to grow in virtue and piety myself and perhaps to help others grow in holiness. With that being said, I wish you a splendid evening as well and pray God's blessing be with you.

Edited February 21, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[philothea]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Feb 20 2006, 08:57 PM']I'm signing off... so please don't debate the SSPX or talk about the Tridentine Mass anymore tonight because I'm not here to defend them... if you comply with the wishes of your king you will be rewarded sweetly.
[right][snapback]893383[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[philothea]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Feb 20 2006, 09:03 PM']I must admit that I do not know the meaning of trolling,
[/quote]
"Trolling" is internet-speak for posting something deliberately inflammatory in the hopes of stirring up conflict.

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Feb 20 2006, 09:03 PM']When I first joined these boards the manner in which you treated fellow Catholics was to me not merely scandalous but appalling. That much is a matter of fact.
[right][snapback]893389[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
??

Could you specify the posts you're referring to?

[Amator Veritatis]

I was referring to the posts made by Cam in the thread about another member, StThomasMore, as well as various comments I read in his posts before I actually signed up for Phatmass, the locations of which I do not recall. I had intended to disregard the prior conflict regarding my comments in one of my first posts (which explained my cause for finding scandal in some of the writings of Cam) after myself realising that it might be improper or simply futile and after the same recommendation was made to me by multiple members of the forums. In any event, I would never have even addressed the issue had it not been brought up again in this thread. I think it best, perhaps, to simply forget about the prior comments and incidents, as they have apparently been a cause of conflict already. If it is not yet clear, I was in no way intending to troll anyone.

Edited February 21, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Feb 20 2006, 11:03 PM']I must admit that I do not know the meaning of trolling, though I too found it interesting that we had posted in the same threads. Perhaps great minds do think alike. In any event, I hope you do not misunderstand my intentions. I simply wish to offer whatever minimal knowledge I might have for the advancement of myself and others in virtue and in learning.
If there are multiple Solemn Masses at a church on the same day--this, of course, is rare if not non-existent throughout the entire world--the [i]Asperges[/i] would only be sung at the principal Mass, not all Solemn Masses, though I assume this is not the case at your church. As for the second abuse, it is sad that this is the case in many places. I am simply happy I have not experienced it yet.
I am in complete agreement with you here. I am sad to say that I have heard the same problems in the Canon and other silent prayers during my experiences as an MC.
Please do not misunderstand. I completely agree that it is a problem. I was merely interested as to whether this is a rubrical error properly speaking, under the new norms. I agree that the deacon and subdeacon should handle the sacred vessels and the priest in their absence, and I am sure to avoid this as much as possible whenever I serve. If I am obliged to transfer a ciborium, I use the veil, being sure not to touch the ciborium itself.
If I may kindly point out, I believe the original word describing the list enumerated was "abuse" as can be seen in your post as well as that of StThomasMore, as the quotations below indicate.
Thank you for the clarification. I have not witnessed this in any of the Masses at which I have assisted, but I can imagine that such an abuse could easily occur.
If you are speaking of double feasts, I must say I am still confused. Do you mean, perchance, that the priest recites the prescribed prayers of the feria rather than that of a double feast? If this occurs, it is incorrect. If a double feast, termed a Second Class Feast in the 1962 Missal, should fall on a Sunday, according to the norms of the 1962 Missal, the Sunday would overtake the feast. Prior to the revisions under Pius XII and John XXIII, a double feast would overtake certain Sundays, I believe. A Double of the Second Class would overtake more Sundays, but still not all. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding your meaning.
I hope I have not offended you in some way, especially regarding this apparent trolling. I think it interesting that we have interests and knowledge--though mine certainly limited--in the same fields. I have chosen a few threads in which to begin my endeavours here at Phatmass. I find it interesting that you happen to be involved in two of them, though I do not think that necessarily merits any spectacular charge. Certainly there are others who happen to be discussing the topics on this thread as well as the other in which we have both been active. Your credentials are certain, and I make no protestation against them. I certainly have no issues with you personally. I know nothing about you but what I have seen on these forums. Let me assure you that I do not seek scandal or assume your posts contain scandal. When I first joined these boards the manner in which you treated fellow Catholics was to me not merely scandalous but appalling. That much is a matter of fact. As to the recent comment I made, I simply stated an hypothetical in which I hoped to clarify a situation, that an unwitting observer might not be scandalised by certain abuses which were actually in keeping with the norms laid down in the rubrics for the 1962 Missal. Please know that I certainly mean no offence to you or anyone. I simply wish to discuss charitably and intelligently various matters of the Catholic Faith, to grow in virtue and piety myself and perhaps to help others grow in holiness. With that being said, I wish you a splendid evening as well and pray God's blessing be with you.
[right][snapback]893389[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I believe that you know what trolling is. End of that story. Say what you will, but you are trolling.

You really need to take me at my word. I told you it was the prinicple Mass. Get off my six.

Considering that StThomasMore has equated Innovation and abuse, it was not a stretch. You'd know that if you'd stop assuming and start reading.

Not all of the abuses take place on a Sunday at the principle (Solemn High) Mass. Yes, by double feasts I mean that the priest recites the prescribed prayers of the feria rather than that of a double feast? Or that he celebrates only one feast and not both, when both are prescribed.

You have not offended me yet, however, you are treading very close. If you choose to start your posting here at phatmass on these threads, it is usually helpful if you don't start by questioning those things which are accurate. I have not been inaccurate at all. And you assume that I have. Sorry Charlie, I can assure you that I am not.

Ahh, but you do assume that my posts contain scandal or at the very least "possible" scandal. In your very few postings you have claimed it twice and in this post you have actually accused me. Please stop. I have asked twice now. If you find something scandalous, take it up in PM, not in public, those were your personal thoughts about the thread and those thoughts need to be dealt with in private, not on the phorum. Thank you. However, nothing that I have done is scandalous, regardless of what you think. Please let it go. You have been asked.

As to your recent comment, it was an accusation. Please refrain. Have I been clear enough? I certainly hope so.

If you wish to discuss charitably and intelligently, I would suggest that you read through the total of the threads before you post. Your posts addressed to me, thus far, have been accusatory and combative. Please refrain from that unless it is directed toward you, unless you can take those posts in the proper context. For all of your rhetoric thus far, your contextual application has been very poor. You are questioning those things with which you agree.

Again, and for the last time, if you have a personal issue with me (or with anyone else) please deal with it in PM, not on the boards. They don't add anything to the discussion/debate.

Have a nice day.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Feb 20 2006, 11:26 PM']I was referring to the posts made by Cam in the thread about another member, StThomasMore, as well as various comments I read in his posts before I actually signed up for Phatmass, the locations of which I do not recall. I had intended to disregard the prior conflict regarding my comments in one of my first posts (which explained my cause for finding scandal in some of the writings of Cam) after myself realising that it might be improper or simply futile and after the same recommendation was made to me by multiple members of the forums. In any event, I would never have even addressed the issue had it not been brought up again in this thread. I think it best, perhaps, to simply forget about the prior comments and incidents, as they have apparently been a cause of conflict already. If it is not yet clear, I was in no way intending to troll anyone.
[right][snapback]893412[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

DROP IT!!!!!! Or take it to PM.