working4christ2 working4christ2 word press

rucatholic · ay 17, '13, 11:50 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by latingirl

You know what, I come here asking honest
questions because I am very troubled in my heart about something and I
get sarcasm and mockery in exchange. I am tired of this. My feelings
about the liturgy are legitimate feelings, shared by many other people.
They are also feelings in line with the intentions of the Second Vatican
Council. People here need to stop assuming everyone who wants a return
to more traditional worship is rejecting the Second Vatican Council!!
That gets really old and it reflects a lack of charity. I thought this
would be one place where I'd be understood after all this forum
sub-heading being "Traditional Catholicism" but apparently I was wrong.

I wish for reverence, mystery and beauty. I wish to feel connected to
the ancient church. All I get from people here is hassle. Well I'm sorry
for having these views.

I'm sorry that I am STARVING for something otherworldly and
transcendental that I want worship to be an embrace of God in his
heavenly realm and realization of heaven touching earth, a standing in
awe at the hill of Calvary instead of social time where Mass is just
like the rest of the world.

I suppose I must not be a real Catholic.

Maybe people like me who are "behind the times" aren't welcome in the Roman Catholic Church.

Thanks for getting me to realize that.

thanks for bring up this thought thread--

last week a priest ws trying to explain in his homily what mass was
boring, and un eventful-- and un satisfying-- and alluding to the fact
that gee -- but it is the real presence-- so it can't be un satisfying

so it must be you the people -- who is a miss fit--

gee if the homily or the ceremony dosen't bring in the presence of God-- and its the people 's fault--

then what are we to do?

SBeard1238 · #33 May 22, '13, 4:01 pm

Just a note of caution....one of the fundamental chasms between a
catholic understanding of how God relates to us and a Protestant
understanding is the Catholic Church's Sacramental Theology. If
sacraments are "efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and
entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us." And
"The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and
make present the graces proper to each sacrament" then claiming that the
externals aren't important is heretical. We know that the Lord makes up
for what is deficient but that does not excuse us from making our
utmost effort to celebrate the sacraments as perfectly as possible.
Also, letters and comments by a Pope are by definition not Ex Cathedra
so we must look to the officially promulgated teachings of the
Magesterium for guidance. I believe that the documents put forth by VC
II make explicit that Latin and Gregorian chant were to remain firmly in
place and I am unaware of any document put forth by a council of
bishops changing that. On the other hand, Rome apparently made no
comment that the English language GIRMs prepared by ISEL made no attempt
to maintain any Latin.

manualman · #34 May 22, '13, 5:17 pm

It's important to remember what charisms the popes really have and what they don't.

While the decision to retain sacred language for liturgy versus change
to vernacular was certainly an important one, it hardly qualifies for
the protection of infallibility!

The passage sounds to me like Paul VI decided that there was a
profoundly building crisis of faith already coming and he believed that
perhaps allowing people to use prayer language they actually understood
might be helpful in prodding people towards an active living of the
faith, rather than a passive submission to it. In hindsight, one can
easily argue that it was a mistake. But one CAN'T reasonably say there
was no crisis in the church at the time. All the rebellion, all the
dissent, the majority of the abuser priests were already in place. It
was the old catechesis and liturgy that existed when all those heretics
were formed and educated. Clearly, then, it was no guarantor of
ecclesial purity.

I do think we were substantially lied to by certain "Spirit of
VaticanII" types. I don't think Paul VI was one of them. The council
documents themselves certainly don't call for a purge of Latin or even
the loss of ad orientum posture. Most of what traditional catholics
despise were not products of the council at all.

Paul VI may not go down as the perfect pope, but I'm pretty sure he did a
far better job than I could have. And who am I to complain if that's
the case?

Cider · #35 May 22, '13, 5:25 pm

If the Pope's over the years didn't want the changes that occurred they
could have done something to stop them. What's the saying "by their
fruits" or something like that.

**ProVobis** · #36 May 22, '13, 5:49 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by manualman

The passage sounds to me like Paul VI decided that there was a profoundly building crisis of faith already coming and he
believed that perhaps allowing people to use prayer language they
actually understood might be helpful in prodding people towards an
active living of the faith, rather than a passive submission to it.
In hindsight, one can easily argue that it was a mistake. But one CAN'T
reasonably say there was no crisis in the church at the time. All the
rebellion, all the dissent, the majority of the abuser priests were
already in place. It was the old catechesis and liturgy that existed
when all those heretics were formed and educated. Clearly, then, it was
no guarantor of ecclesial purity.

Then it also can be argued that relearning (in many cases) the
prayers in the vernacular when 70%+ already had been weekly exposed to
the Gloria, Kyrie, Sanctus, Credo in the Latin was an unnecessary burden
as well. Sure, had you taken a poll of churchgoers in 1966-67 as to
which they preferred, they would have chosen the English but do realize
that many voted with their feet as it seemed inevitable that the Mass
that they did understand would disappear. I mean, it's possible to
understand the Latin Mass even if one doesn't know Latin, given enough
exposure to it.

Didn't Paul VI make it a point to address those who favored Latin in his
1970 promulgation of his Missal? Certainly then there was a significant
number who fell into that category. Did he feel it was out of his
control to retain the Latin perhaps?

sw85 · #37 May 22, '13, 6:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirach2

No, you SHOULD look into church history and be corrected and informed. Who is "they," Latingirl? THEY
is the Holy-Spirit-guided-Magisterium that promulgated this change. You
left out a critical part of your quotes from the document.

As We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change. The first is obedience to the Council. That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council's prescription and put them into practice.

6. This first reason is not simply canonical—relating to an external
precept. It is connected with the charism of the liturgical act. In
other words, it is linked with the power and efficacy of the Church's
prayer, the most authoritative utterance of which comes from the Bishop. This is also true of priests, who help the Bishop in his ministry, and like him act in persona Christi. It is Christ's will, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit which calls the Church to make this change.
A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which
is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church, arousing it, obliging
it to renew the mysterious art of its prayer.

19. In every case, and at all times, let us remember that "the Mass is a
Mystery to be lived in a death of Love. Its divine reality surpasses
all words. . . It is the Action par excellence, the very act of our
Redemption, in the Memorial which makes it present".

Either we believe the Holy Spirit guided this change,

... or we do not believe.

If we believe, then let us obey with a generous heart.

... if anyone does not believe, then join Luther and start a new denomination which will be more akin to one's preferences.

Those are very strange words on Paul VI's part.

**Thomas Casey** · #38 May 22, '13, 6:46 pm

MODERATOR NOTE

Pope Paul VI is not on trial here. Either accept what he said or walk
away from it. End of story. It is very bad example to non-Catholics when
Catholics challenge the Holy See at every turn and question its every
utterance. We're not going to do that on this forum.

Use the forum wisely. Try to understand rather than to find fault at every turn.

hoop0826 · #39 May 25, '13, 11:22 pm

It seems that in the NO, The Holy Spirit is urging us to re-examine our
prayer, the prayer and Sacrifice of the Mass. Admittedly, it at times
seems to have more of a secular touch to it than does the EF. Perhaps
its gestation period for this change is a very long time? Can it be
agreed that the liturgical music of the OF has not quite advanced in
beauty as the EF has? Either way, it cannot be doubted that the faithful
for the most part that I have met, are not indifferent to what goes on
at Mass. I pray the Holy Spirit guide the OF of the Mass of the Church.

1answer · #47 Mar 8, '13, 11:03 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evan

As I understand it, doing something "in the name of ...somebody..." meant doing it by their authority. Like, I sentence you in the name of the King, or Open in the name of the law. So to baptize in the name of Jesus would be doing it according to his authority. And he said "Baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit".

right on--

in hebrews 6-- the baptism of idenification is one of the 6 types of water dunking that is referred to--

after the water baptism then Jesus is supposted to baptize you with the holy spirit

PJM · #48 Mar 8, '13, 4:06 pm

Quote:

=1answer;10437436]

thanks -- for this string -- to demenstrate the difficulity of recognizing that the mikvah- in the Hebrew tradition was was being performed by John - as also referenced in hebrews 6- where it references moving on to the foundations o "baptisms"
it is necessary to to read about the "hebrew roots" of this God made ceremony,

to avoid developing imaginary and man made understanding of what the scripture means.

as peter said "be mikvah in the water of repentence and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,

this is why paul said in acts 19 what were you "baptised" or mikvah in?

so he got them mikvah in the Holy Spirit-- and there is a difference-- between the two baptism's or mikvah- other wise -- why bother

so -- obviously-- john the baptis -- what Mikvah in water as was the tradition in the religious ceremony-- i suggest that the readers of this string-- research and learn what the baptism or mikvah is all about--

so you don't become mis-lead or deceived

BE CAREFUL HERE!

John 3: 5 "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Matthew 28: 19-20 "[16-20] "And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

FIRST JESUS SAYS "DO IT!"; THEN TELLS HOW!

The ONLY relation to Jewsh Tradition is through circumission with is NOW overriden by Christian Baptism.

The Old Covenant by the New Covennt.

God Bles,
pat/PJM

working4christ2 working4christ2 word press

Monday, February 16, 2015

Friday, April 18, 2014

The Hem of His Garment - Part 1 of 2 - By Michael Rood

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Did 2nd century Church Fathers distinguish their own writings from the w...

What is the significance of Jesus talking about the "rock" in reference ...

What is the significance of Jesus talking about the "rock" in reference ...

What are the "keys to the kingdom"?

What are the "keys to the kingdom"?

What is the significance of "the keys of the kingdom"?

What are the "keys to the kingdom"?

A Dog On The $25,000 Pyramid *Col 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,

What does God think about Christmas?

Who Baptized John the Baptist?thanks -- for this string -- to demenstrate the difficulity of recognizing that the mikvah- in the Hebrew tradition was was being performed by John - as also referenced in hebrews 6- where it references moveing on to the foundations o "baptisms"