BUBBLES!
Vatican Report Exposes Cracks in Foundation of Traditionis Custodes
12,807 Views |
131 Replies |
Last: 5 mo ago by fc2112
oh, ok.
Quote:
The Vatican Response
This further evidence comes to light just days after Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni sought to downplay the significance two sections of the report that I published on July 1.
At a July 3 Vatican press conference on the "Mass for the Care of Creation," a reporter took the opportunity to ask one of the panelists, Archbishop Vittorio Francesco Viola, Secretary of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, for a statement or clarification about the sections of the CDF report that I released on July 1.
Archbishop Viola, who is believed to have been instrumental in the process that led to Traditionis Custodes, immediately turned to Matteo Bruni, whoafter reprimanding the reporter for asking a question not pertaining to the "Mass for the Care of Creation"took up a piece of paper and read this prepared response:It is worth noting that the current prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, was also present in the audience for the press conference as Matteo Bruni read the statement.Quote:
"I do not confirm the authenticity of the texts that have been published, which presumably concern part of one of the documents on which the decision was based and, as such, contribute to a reconstruction that is also very partial and incomplete with regard to the decision-making process. In fact, further documentation was later added to the consultation mentioned, including other confidential reports resulting from additional consultations that were submitted to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. That said, I have nothing more to add on this matter." (emphasis added)
Having provided rather definitive evidence of the authenticity of the texts I published one week ago, I would like to make the following points in response to the prepared statement read out by the Vatican spokesman:In the absence of such proof, we may conclude that "the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire" did in fact state that "making legislative changes to Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good."Quote:
1. In Traditionis Custodes and his accompanying letter to the decree, Pope Francis clearly says that he decided to intervene on the basis of the results of the detailed 2020 survey of bishops carried out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He did not refer, even obliquely, to any "further documentation" and "other confidential reports resulting from additional consultations," now mentioned by Matteo Bruni.
2. Four years after Traditionis Custodes, it has now come to light that the CDF final report reveals that "the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire stated that making legislative changes to Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good." This directly contradicts the stated rationale for issuing Traditionis Custodes.
3. The sections of the CDF final report that I released were "partial and incomplete," in the sense that they were not the full report. However, this does not mean that the CDF Fourth Section report itself was a "partial and incomplete" account of what the bishops said.
4. The relevancy of any "further documentation" and "other confidential reports" that went into the "decision-making process" depends upon whether those documents definitively show that the CDF Fourth Section's final report was incorrect and did not reflect the position of the majority of bishops who responded to the survey. If they do not show this, then the CDF final report stands as an accurate account of the 2020 consultation of bishops concerning Summorum Pontificum.
5. Given the gravity of the situation at hand, and its impact on the life and unity of the Church, it is therefore the Vatican spokesman's burden to prove that the "further documents" and "other confidential reports resulting from additional consultations" either wholly contradict, or at least seriously undermine, what is written in the CDF report's overall assessment. In other words, the burden of proof is on the Vatican spokesman to demonstrate that these other documents prove the CDF report inaccurately represented the responses of the world's bishops to the questionnaire, and that Pope Francis in fact had the support of the greater part of the responding bishops in issuing Traditionis Custodes and revoking Summorum Pontificum.
PabloSerna said:
"The sad part is you seem to be completely unaware or unable to see your hypocrisy."
You are right in that I don't see the contradiction in renewal that preserves the truth and pours it into new wine skins.
It's not a good renewal if every stat such as belief in the real presence, baptisms, vocations and marriages are way down and the only stat that is way up is annulments
How do you understand the words of Jesus about new wine and new wine skins?
ETA: you accuse me of hypocrisy but I show you scripture that points to a deeper understanding of renewal. Let's go down that path and leave the personal attacks out of it.
ETA: you accuse me of hypocrisy but I show you scripture that points to a deeper understanding of renewal. Let's go down that path and leave the personal attacks out of it.
I'm on her substack as well and have read the very same. If reading is your thing and you want to see what others are saying go to the article on "Where Peter Is" site.
Bottom line is that she is drawing a conclusion that a dead Pope made and she is insinuating that he lied- but by her reporting and his very words show that he is not. She just has a willing audience and a new book out.
Bottom line is that she is drawing a conclusion that a dead Pope made and she is insinuating that he lied- but by her reporting and his very words show that he is not. She just has a willing audience and a new book out.
You are not interested in truth. I think we are done.
PabloSerna said:
How do you understand the words of Jesus about new wine and new wine skins?
ETA: you accuse me of hypocrisy but I show you scripture that points to a deeper understanding of renewal. Let's go down that path and leave the personal attacks out of it.
You want to talk scripture?
17Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
The fruit of your so called renewal is less and less people believing in the very thing that makes us Catholic. If it was indeed so good then it would be bearing good fruit
I see. In YOUR judgment the renewal called for in the liturgical reforms of Vatican II is - not good?
PabloSerna said:
How do you understand the words of Jesus about new wine and new wine skins?
ETA: you accuse me of hypocrisy but I show you scripture that points to a deeper understanding of renewal. Let's go down that path and leave the personal attacks out of it.
Are you really trying to interpret wine and wine skins to be related to the N.O mass and Vatican II and "renewal" whatever renewal means?? Talk about twisting the scriptures to your own destruction.
Your position is not one of Christian charity, or tolerance, or "renewal". Yours is one of religious totalitarianism and destruction. You are willing to accept and defend liturgical abuses and the blatant mocking of our faith in the name of "renewal" and "participation" while simultaneously you advocate for anything that will vanquish and destroy the TLM.
The parable and verse below does not support you, Pablo.
Quote:
No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match
the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, 'The old is good.'"
I think the diabolical purpose behind the desire to throw out the "old wine and old wineskins" of the TLM entirely is obvious.
The wine skin parable undermines you and your precious renewal.
PabloSerna said:
I see. In YOUR judgment the renewal called for in the liturgical reforms of Vatican II is - not good?
Have we even had what was called for in Vatican 2? I don't recall Vatican 2 calling for priests dancing to Kool and the Gang, blessing people with guitars, Amazonian idols at Catholic Churches including during the mass, Pride masses, chicken dance at communion, etc
I think that's the missal of 1965,HtownAg19 said:PabloSerna said:
I see. In YOUR judgment the renewal called for in the liturgical reforms of Vatican II is - not good?
Have we even had what was called for in Vatican 2? I don't recall Vatican 2 calling for priests dancing to Kool and the Gang, blessing people with guitars, Amazonian idols at Catholic Churches including during the mass, Pride masses, chicken dance at communion, etc
This is a pretty good side by side of the TLM and a reverent NO mass that I think is more representative of the "spirit of Vatican II" and the language and rubrics of V2.
https://www.youtube.com/live/RqEzpoJzHj4?si=a7rgoepeQ2x42sFL
ETA: the below is probably closer to a side by side for the typical NO Mass
https://www.youtube.com/live/RqEzpoJzHj4?si=a7rgoepeQ2x42sFL
ETA: the below is probably closer to a side by side for the typical NO Mass
Is it possible to have a discussion without delving into personal attacks? You presume some things about me that are not true and if I were to set the record straight would sound as if I am boasting. So I want to stay away from such personal attacks if you please.
I pray you read that whole chapter in its entirety. You may come away with a different understanding. I use the Jerome Biblical Commentary among other sources- so my understanding is based on Catholic teaching and not "my precious"- whatever that means. But here we go.
+++
Now- thanks for sharing your understanding because it precisely reveals what Jesus was attempting to teach the disciples of John who were questioning Jesus based on the actions (or no action in this case) of the apostles. The question was why weren't they fasting like them and the Pharisees? Jesus as you point out uses 3 parables to instruct them on the new way- the bridegroom, the new clothing, the new wine- each a parable.
Now- you assert that Jesus is arguing to keep the old wine but he is not. In fact he is pointing out that you cannot keep both. This is what he is telling the disciples of John - that he is the new wine and the old wine skins will not contain lest they burst. THAT is why the apostles were not adhering to the old ways.
Renewal is central to message that Christ gave witness.
I pray you read that whole chapter in its entirety. You may come away with a different understanding. I use the Jerome Biblical Commentary among other sources- so my understanding is based on Catholic teaching and not "my precious"- whatever that means. But here we go.
+++
Now- thanks for sharing your understanding because it precisely reveals what Jesus was attempting to teach the disciples of John who were questioning Jesus based on the actions (or no action in this case) of the apostles. The question was why weren't they fasting like them and the Pharisees? Jesus as you point out uses 3 parables to instruct them on the new way- the bridegroom, the new clothing, the new wine- each a parable.
Now- you assert that Jesus is arguing to keep the old wine but he is not. In fact he is pointing out that you cannot keep both. This is what he is telling the disciples of John - that he is the new wine and the old wine skins will not contain lest they burst. THAT is why the apostles were not adhering to the old ways.
Renewal is central to message that Christ gave witness.
If you read what I wrote above you will be hard pressed to find a personal attack anywhere. I have already stated in this thread that I think you are a genuinely decent person with a kind heart and a deep love for our Lord. However, your insistence on attacking the TLM and anything traditional is not charitable on your part and does not show Christian charity towards the views of others.
Again, you are making the point for me here…you are defending the suppression, restriction, and abrogation of the old liturgy of the New Testament Church for more than 1,000 years to be replaced by a new liturgy created in the past less than 75 years.
In the parable JESUS was the bridegroom, the new clothes, and the new wine & wineskin because JESUS was the New Covenant. What you are advocating or claiming is that Vatican II kept the old wine and put it into a new wineskin. Jesus was the renewal, not Vatican 2 and not the NO.
…and I attend the NO
PabloSerna said:
Now- thanks for sharing your understanding because it precisely reveals what Jesus was attempting to teach the disciples of John who were questioning Jesus based on the actions (or no action in this case) of the apostles. The question was why weren't they fasting like them and the Pharisees? Jesus as you point out uses 3 parables to instruct them on the new way- the bridegroom, the new clothing, the new wine- each a parable.
Now- you assert that Jesus is arguing to keep the old wine but he is not. In fact he is pointing out that you cannot keep both. This is what he is telling the disciples of John - that he is the new wine and the old wine skins will not contain lest they burst. THAT is why the apostles were not adhering to the old ways.
Renewal is central to message that Christ gave witness.
Again, you are making the point for me here…you are defending the suppression, restriction, and abrogation of the old liturgy of the New Testament Church for more than 1,000 years to be replaced by a new liturgy created in the past less than 75 years.
In the parable JESUS was the bridegroom, the new clothes, and the new wine & wineskin because JESUS was the New Covenant. What you are advocating or claiming is that Vatican II kept the old wine and put it into a new wineskin. Jesus was the renewal, not Vatican 2 and not the NO.
…and I attend the NO
I watched all 13 minutes and agree that this is a representative sample of a Novus Ordo mass with what appears to be a mass from another country, could tell if that was French at the gospel?
My impressions:
1. Where are the women in the Latin mass? This is probably one of the first issues between Vatican II and the 1962 Roman Missal. V2 exhorts that all (men and women) are called to holiness. Over time the GRIM made the adjustments with Extraordinary Ministers, then Altar Servers. If there is one aspect lacking is the number of altar servers in the NO mass. We have like 4-5 per mass, all youth, boys and girls. Yours truly was an Altar Servers at Christ the King and OLPH in Corpus Christi. This is where it started for me.
2. Where is the Laity in the Latin Mass? The NO example has many non-clerical faces, reading, singing, and serving. This Latin mass example may be a poor example in that it could be from a religious order? I have been the TLM that featured women religious in the front pews and laity behind them. Didn't see that in this example.
3. Striking contrast between the attire of the congregants and the celebrants. The priests of each are clearly attired, however, the Novus Ordo mass has the laity in a variety of dress from informal clothing such as a t-shirt and jacket for one of the cantors (young man) to a more formal attire for the lector (older woman). Nothing borderline immodest, but nothing like the vestments of the whole congregation in the Latin Mass. What does that say about holiness? What did Jesus say about long robes and piety? Surely the saints have washed their robes in the blood of the lamb making them white as snow- but that is where we are going, what we are doing now.
This may be where the contrast is sharpest. In the visuals. Because I have heard some heavenly music that is not in Latin and I have attended mass that has incense and bells- all in various types of architecture.
To me, it comes down to each of us and where we see ourselves in the life of the church. The aim of Vatican II to include the laity as a means to better understand our role in evangelizing the world was on full display and that is a good thing.
My impressions:
1. Where are the women in the Latin mass? This is probably one of the first issues between Vatican II and the 1962 Roman Missal. V2 exhorts that all (men and women) are called to holiness. Over time the GRIM made the adjustments with Extraordinary Ministers, then Altar Servers. If there is one aspect lacking is the number of altar servers in the NO mass. We have like 4-5 per mass, all youth, boys and girls. Yours truly was an Altar Servers at Christ the King and OLPH in Corpus Christi. This is where it started for me.
2. Where is the Laity in the Latin Mass? The NO example has many non-clerical faces, reading, singing, and serving. This Latin mass example may be a poor example in that it could be from a religious order? I have been the TLM that featured women religious in the front pews and laity behind them. Didn't see that in this example.
3. Striking contrast between the attire of the congregants and the celebrants. The priests of each are clearly attired, however, the Novus Ordo mass has the laity in a variety of dress from informal clothing such as a t-shirt and jacket for one of the cantors (young man) to a more formal attire for the lector (older woman). Nothing borderline immodest, but nothing like the vestments of the whole congregation in the Latin Mass. What does that say about holiness? What did Jesus say about long robes and piety? Surely the saints have washed their robes in the blood of the lamb making them white as snow- but that is where we are going, what we are doing now.
This may be where the contrast is sharpest. In the visuals. Because I have heard some heavenly music that is not in Latin and I have attended mass that has incense and bells- all in various types of architecture.
To me, it comes down to each of us and where we see ourselves in the life of the church. The aim of Vatican II to include the laity as a means to better understand our role in evangelizing the world was on full display and that is a good thing.
Well we are saying the same thing then. I asked for your understanding of the NEW wine and NEW wine skins knowing full well what Jesus and the church are saying that you cannot have both old and new.
The new wine in my case are the reforms of Vatican II and the old wine skin is the 1962 Roman Missal.
The new wine in my case are the reforms of Vatican II and the old wine skin is the 1962 Roman Missal.
PabloSerna said:
Is it possible to have a discussion without delving into personal attacks? You presume some things about me that are not true and if I were to set the record straight would sound as if I am boasting. So I want to stay away from such personal attacks if you please.
I pray you read that whole chapter in its entirety. You may come away with a different understanding. I use the Jerome Biblical Commentary among other sources- so my understanding is based on Catholic teaching and not "my precious"- whatever that means. But here we go.
+++
Now- thanks for sharing your understanding because it precisely reveals what Jesus was attempting to teach the disciples of John who were questioning Jesus based on the actions (or no action in this case) of the apostles. The question was why weren't they fasting like them and the Pharisees? Jesus as you point out uses 3 parables to instruct them on the new way- the bridegroom, the new clothing, the new wine- each a parable.
Now- you assert that Jesus is arguing to keep the old wine but he is not. In fact he is pointing out that you cannot keep both. This is what he is telling the disciples of John - that he is the new wine and the old wine skins will not contain lest they burst. THAT is why the apostles were not adhering to the old ways.
Renewal is central to message that Christ gave witness.
Let's just get rid of everything that's Catholic in the Mass. let's get rid of the vestments, statues in the Churches, the offertory, the Eucharistic Prayer, all the blessings. Let's just make it some hip worship music and a long sermon. Renewal!/s
At what point then does this coveted renewal stop? How much of our Catholic identity and worship do we throw out to make it happen?
Who is saying get rid of everything?
Again, Vatican II goes into great detail on the call for liturgical reform that started then and continues even in this millennium.
Again, Vatican II goes into great detail on the call for liturgical reform that started then and continues even in this millennium.
Big picture question:
Can there be a true reform in the Church? As theologian Yves Congar argues.
Can there be a true reform in the Church? As theologian Yves Congar argues.
PabloSerna said:
1. Where are the women in the Latin mass?
2. Where is the Laity in the Latin Mass?
Why are these questions that should even be asked? I think many "traditional" Catholics like myself reject the very premise that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass needs more women or laity involved. Mass isn't about making everyone feel good and included, it's about the Eucharist.
To me the sharpest contrast is that you are seemingly focused on everything BUT God and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Where are the women? How many individuals are singing or reading or participating or performing somewhere in the Mass and how can we get more? Where are the Altar Girls? How can we give more women a prominent role? Let's get some T-shirts in here! Can we get some drums and maybe some tambourines? Everyone needs a role in the Mass and something to do! How many parts can we have?PabloSerna said:
I watched all 13 minutes and agree that this is a representative sample of a Novus Ordo mass with what appears to be a mass from another country, could tell if that was French at the gospel?
My impressions:
1. Where are the women in the Latin mass? This is probably one of the first issues between Vatican II and the 1962 Roman Missal. V2 exhorts that all (men and women) are called to holiness. Over time the GRIM made the adjustments with Extraordinary Ministers, then Altar Servers. If there is one aspect lacking is the number of altar servers in the NO mass. We have like 4-5 per mass, all youth, boys and girls. Yours truly was an Altar Servers at Christ the King and OLPH in Corpus Christi. This is where it started for me.
2. Where is the Laity in the Latin Mass? The NO example has many non-clerical faces, reading, singing, and serving. This Latin mass example may be a poor example in that it could be from a religious order? I have been the TLM that featured women religious in the front pews and laity behind them. Didn't see that in this example.
3. Striking contrast between the attire of the congregants and the celebrants. The priests of each are clearly attired, however, the Novus Ordo mass has the laity in a variety of dress from informal clothing such as a t-shirt and jacket for one of the cantors (young man) to a more formal attire for the lector (older woman). Nothing borderline immodest, but nothing like the vestments of the whole congregation in the Latin Mass. What does that say about holiness? What did Jesus say about long robes and piety? Surely the saints have washed their robes in the blood of the lamb making them white as snow- but that is where we are going, what we are doing now.
This may be where the contrast is sharpest. In the visuals. Because I have heard some heavenly music that is not in Latin and I have attended mass that has incense and bells- all in various types of architecture.
One of the things that's beautiful about TLM is how the laity can participate by getting lost in prayer and in being in the presence of God. Everything is oriented toward God. There is a natural flow and continuity to the Mass with the priest in control and as our guide. The same simply cannot be said for the NO.
If this were true and it "came down to each of us" why not leave traditional Catholics alone and let them worship in TLM vs. trying to force them into the NO? I don't think I have ever seen you post anything alluding to your being okay with having TLM continue. Would you be okay with with Leo removing all restrictions of TLM and returning to how it was under Benedict?PabloSerna said:
To me, it comes down to each of us and where we see ourselves in the life of the church. The aim of Vatican II to include the laity as a means to better understand our role in evangelizing the world was on full display and that is a good thing.
PabloSerna said:
Who is saying get rid of everything?
Again, Vatican II goes into great detail on the call for liturgical reform that started then and continues even in this millennium.
Anyone supporting restrictions, limitations, and banning of the TLM is getting rid of an entire form of the Liturgy. Everything.
What is your definition of Eucharist?
From USCCB:
"The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life. The term "Eucharist" originates from the Greek word eucharistia, meaning thanksgiving."
This thanksgiving is for all men and women.
Following through from the 1965 Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity the Magisterium writes,
" In this decree the Council seeks to describe the nature, character, and diversity of the lay apostolate, to state its basic principles, and to give pastoral directives for its more effective exercise. All these should be regarded as norms when the canon law, as it pertains to the lay apostolate, is revised."
Therefore, it is imperative that the laity be involved in the liturgy- hence the reforms that followed to the Roman Missal.
From USCCB:
"The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life. The term "Eucharist" originates from the Greek word eucharistia, meaning thanksgiving."
This thanksgiving is for all men and women.
Following through from the 1965 Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity the Magisterium writes,
" In this decree the Council seeks to describe the nature, character, and diversity of the lay apostolate, to state its basic principles, and to give pastoral directives for its more effective exercise. All these should be regarded as norms when the canon law, as it pertains to the lay apostolate, is revised."
Therefore, it is imperative that the laity be involved in the liturgy- hence the reforms that followed to the Roman Missal.
Well to be clear it wasn't abrogated completely- but it is being restricted to each Bishop's preference. In the diocese of Austin, where I live, the TLM is offered at the Cathedral.
One of the points that Pope Francis has made and is evident in that video is that none of the reforms of Vatican II are reflected in the TLM. As the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity call for among other documents.
One of the points that Pope Francis has made and is evident in that video is that none of the reforms of Vatican II are reflected in the TLM. As the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity call for among other documents.
The Marksman said:PabloSerna said:
1. Where are the women in the Latin mass?
2. Where is the Laity in the Latin Mass?
Why are these questions that should even be asked? I think many "traditional" Catholics like myself reject the very premise that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass needs more women or laity involved. Mass isn't about making everyone feel good and included, it's about the Eucharist.
33 AD Pablo Serna excoriates the Romans not for crucifying Christ, but for toxic masculinity in crucifying 3 men on Golgotha, and not a single woman.
747Ag said:I think that's the missal of 1965,HtownAg19 said:PabloSerna said:
I see. In YOUR judgment the renewal called for in the liturgical reforms of Vatican II is - not good?
Have we even had what was called for in Vatican 2? I don't recall Vatican 2 calling for priests dancing to Kool and the Gang, blessing people with guitars, Amazonian idols at Catholic Churches including during the mass, Pride masses, chicken dance at communion, etc
https://blog.adw.org/2015/01/a-look-at-the-actual-mass-of-vatican-ii-the-1965-missal/
PabloSerna said:
Well to be clear it wasn't abrogated completely- but it is being restricted to each Bishop's preference. In the diocese of Austin, where I live, the TLM is offered at the Cathedral.
One of the points that Pope Francis has made and is evident in that video is that none of the reforms of Vatican II are reflected in the TLM. As the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity call for among other documents.
Reducing the availability of TLM to only being allowed in one place for an entire diocese is heavily restricting the Mass today, and laying the foundation for it to disappear "naturally" in the near future. Priests must seek special permission to offer the Mass, and must be taught how to offer the Mass but fewer and fewer priests are able to do that. Under TC the Latin Mass is being abrogated - but conveniently it won't need to be officially declared because the groundwork has been laid to happen naturally if given enough time.
It's frustrating that you continue to harp on how Vatican 2 reforms should impact TLM, but completely ignore the abuses and sacrilege happening in the NO in the name of renewal.
Simple question for you…would you support and defend the right for TLM to be offered anywhere and everywhere where the laity support it and want it?
Pretty sure he would spontaneously combust in the name of "renewal"
The two bolded sections in no way, shape, or form remotely logically follow one another. Just because the Mass is for everyone does not mean that everyone needs to be involved in the Mass any more than simply attending. Thinking that the laity need to be involved in the Mass for it to be "better", "more effective," or "more inclusive" is simply pride and arrogance.PabloSerna said:
What is your definition of Eucharist?
From USCCB:
"The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life. The term "Eucharist" originates from the Greek word eucharistia, meaning thanksgiving."
This thanksgiving is for all men and women.
Following through from the 1965 Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity the Magisterium writes,
" In this decree the Council seeks to describe the nature, character, and diversity of the lay apostolate, to state its basic principles, and to give pastoral directives for its more effective exercise. All these should be regarded as norms when the canon law, as it pertains to the lay apostolate, is revised."
Therefore, it is imperative that the laity be involved in the liturgy- hence the reforms that followed to the Roman Missal.
The Marksman said:The two bolded sections in no way, shape, or form remotely logically follow one another. Just because the Mass is for everyone does not mean that everyone needs to be involved in the Mass any more than simply attending. Thinking that the laity need to be involved in the Mass for it to be "better", "more effective," or "more inclusive" is simply pride and arrogance.PabloSerna said:
What is your definition of Eucharist?
From USCCB:
"The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life. The term "Eucharist" originates from the Greek word eucharistia, meaning thanksgiving."
This thanksgiving is for all men and women.
Following through from the 1965 Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity the Magisterium writes,
" In this decree the Council seeks to describe the nature, character, and diversity of the lay apostolate, to state its basic principles, and to give pastoral directives for its more effective exercise. All these should be regarded as norms when the canon law, as it pertains to the lay apostolate, is revised."
Therefore, it is imperative that the laity be involved in the liturgy- hence the reforms that followed to the Roman Missal.
Participatio Actuosa
Often times translated as ACTIVE participation, whereas it's also faithful and legitimate to translate as ACTUAL participation.
I think it was Faithful Ag who said something to the effect of people getting "lost in prayer" at Holy Mass. It follows the second translation quite well. This mode draws people in deeper to the sacred mysteries and to be better equipped to spread the gospel. It's essential to the Catholic life.
Pablo's position seems to be that it most be that people should be doing the things. This mode really ancillary to the Holy Mass. Mass is still the Mass with or without liturgical roles being filled by people from the pews. In some quarters, we might even see this sort of participation lead to people being territorial about their roles.
There seems to be a clear difference that each liturgical form of the Roman Missal (TLM and Novus Ordo) bring to the table. This is where it should be clear by now that the reforms of Vatican II, whether you agree with them or not, are best expressed through the liturgical reforms since the 1970s.
The active participation of the laity in the Novus Ordo liturgy reinforce the calling of the lay faithful to be Priest, Prophet, and King in building up of the Kingdom of God.
It's unfortunate that we as a church must go through this period of in fighting to get on the same page. However, it is clear at least to me that it is necessary if we are to move forward as a people called to be salt of the earth.
The active participation of the laity in the Novus Ordo liturgy reinforce the calling of the lay faithful to be Priest, Prophet, and King in building up of the Kingdom of God.
It's unfortunate that we as a church must go through this period of in fighting to get on the same page. However, it is clear at least to me that it is necessary if we are to move forward as a people called to be salt of the earth.
SoulSlaveAG2005 said:
BUBBLES!
BUBBLES
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Thank you for these two opposing views of the TLM and NO. It is an excellent comparison of the two, sadly.
Gig'em, Ole Army Class of '70
PabloSerna said:
There seems to be a clear difference that each liturgical form of the Roman Missal (TLM and Novus Ordo) bring to the table. This is where it should be clear by now that the reforms of Vatican II, whether you agree with them or not, are best expressed through the liturgical reforms since the 1970s.
The active participation of the laity in the Novus Ordo liturgy reinforce the calling of the lay faithful to be Priest, Prophet, and King in building up of the Kingdom of God.
It's unfortunate that we as a church must go through this period of in fighting to get on the same page. However, it is clear at least to me that it is necessary if we are to move forward as a people called to be salt of the earth.
You just made an argument for Benedict's desire of mutual enrichment... something that is actually happening in my parish.
Mark Fairchild said:
Thank you for these two opposing views of the TLM and NO. It is an excellent comparison of the two, sadly.
Saint John Cantius also has a comparison between the two forms.
Featured Stories
See All
FINAL: Texas A&M 90, Auburn 88
by Luke Evangelist
Tuesday (1/6) Portal Storylines: Another add, watch list grows & more
by TexAgs Recruiting
4:55
13h ago
2.2k
Keys to the Game: Texas A&M at Auburn
by Luke Evangelist