FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Back to the tradition - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Back to the tradition (/showthread.php?tid=30551)

Pages: 1 2 3


Re: Back to the tradition - Baskerville - 09-01-2009

"Mr Tornielli said this would require changes from below with the help of the Bishops"

Well there ya have it folks it aint gonna happen. Our wolves in sheeps clothing..er...Bishops will have nothing to do with this. My Bishop doesnt even wear clerical garb for an example.


Re: Back to the tradition - glgas - 09-01-2009

(09-01-2009, 12:25 AM)Baskerville Wrote: "Mr Tornielli said this would require changes from below with the help of the Bishops"

Well there ya have it folks it aint gonna happen. Our wolves in sheeps clothing..er...Bishops will have nothing to do with this. My Bishop doesnt even wear clerical garb for an example.

I am sorry, but this have to be quoted

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican. 12 I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O God, be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted.

The pope wants the change, the Holy See wants the change, why don't you pray for it, and confess your sins instead of accusing others?

You wont be better if others are wrong.




Re: Back to the tradition - James02 - 09-01-2009

Quote: Those aren't changes to the mass. According to VII, all of that should be done anyway.
Untrue.  Let's see what it actually said:

Quote: 39. Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution.
So if the local Bishop (the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority) wants Communion in the hand, then that falls under his authority to specify adaptations in the case of the administration of the sacraments.  And if he wants felt banners, that falls under "arts".  Note this has to be "within the limits" and "according to the fundamental norms", however there aren't any fundamental norms and limits, as the authority in this matter, Bugnini wanted.  So in the Novus Ordo,  anything goes.

If Pope Benedict gets these revisions implemented, it will be a reversal of Vat. II.  Your local vulgar, communion in the hand, communion while standing, women invading the sanctuary, women without veils, altar girl, hippy music, E.M. of the Eucharist,  Mass IS the Mass of Vat. II.  THAT is the problem.




Re: Back to the tradition - Historian - 09-01-2009

(09-01-2009, 12:34 PM)James02 Wrote: If Pope Benedict gets these revisions implemented, it will be a reversal of Vat. II.  Your local vulgar, communion in the hand, communion while standing, women invading the sanctuary, women without veils, altar girl, hippy music, E.M. of the Eucharist,  Mass IS the Mass of Vat. II.  THAT is the problem.

If VII were actually followed, the laity would know Latin better than they ever did.


Re: Back to the tradition - glgas - 09-01-2009

(09-01-2009, 12:34 PM)James02 Wrote: If Pope Benedict gets these revisions implemented, it will be a reversal of Vat. II.  Your local vulgar, communion in the hand, communion while standing, women invading the sanctuary, women without veils, altar girl, hippy music, E.M. of the Eucharist,  Mass IS the Mass of Vat. II.  THAT is the problem.

Just for your information; throughout Europe the veil was not used at least from the beginning of the the 20th Century. Some secluded villages used ornamented hairpieces more for vanity that honor. The US and may be so otger countries were exception.

The vernacular is not vulgar.

The guitar music means less obstacle fro concentration of the Mass thatn the orchestral Masses, which was quite a rule in the Church between the Renaissance and St Pius X

God wants pure hearts not formality, the heart filled with hatred is not pure.


Re: Back to the tradition - Historian - 09-01-2009

(09-01-2009, 01:04 PM)glgas Wrote: The vernacular is not vulgar.

Yes it is; they are synonyms.




Re: Back to the tradition - James02 - 09-01-2009

Quote:
If VII were actually followed, the laity would know Latin better than they ever did.

Let's see if that holds up:
Quote: 2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters (by Bugnini).

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

No, we did follow Vat. II, the competent ecc. authority decided to have a completely vulgar Mass, and the Apostolic See approved it.  So we have the Mass of Vat. II., and therefore the faithful don't know their Latin.

Vatican II is history.  It WAS implemented and it destroyed a large part of the Church.  That is why it is critical to fess up and reverse it.  If the Pope now dictates these reforms, it is an abandonment of Vat. II.  These changes were LEGITIMATELY made per Vat. II.  They are history now.  From this point on we must rid ourselves of them, which is what Pope Benedict appears to be starting.  However he can not bring himself to admit the obvious.  Vat. II is being reversed.  Fight on SSPX.




Re: Back to the tradition - glgas - 09-01-2009

(09-01-2009, 01:06 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(09-01-2009, 01:04 PM)glgas Wrote: The vernacular is not vulgar.

Yes it is; they are synonyms.

With the basic difference that the vulgar has negative sense too, the vernacular does not

Vulgar:
3 a : of or relating to the common people : plebeian b : generally current : public <the vulgar opinion of that time> c : of the usual, typical, or ordinary kind
4 a : lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste : coarse b : morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate : gross c : ostentatious or excessive in expenditure or display : pretentious
5 a : offensive in language : earthy b : lewdly or profanely indecent
synonyms see common, coarse


Using words with double sense is not Christian behavior:

James 5:12 But let your speech be, yea, yea: no, no: that you fall not under judgment.


Re: Back to the tradition - Historian - 09-01-2009

(09-01-2009, 01:23 PM)glgas Wrote: With the basic difference that the vulgar has negative sense too, the vernacular does not

Vulgar:
3 a : of or relating to the common people : plebeian b : generally current : public <the vulgar opinion of that time> c : of the usual, typical, or ordinary kind
4 a : lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste : coarse b : morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate : gross c : ostentatious or excessive in expenditure or display : pretentious
5 a : offensive in language : earthy b : lewdly or profanely indecent
synonyms see common, coarse

Using words with double sense is not Christian behavior:

James 5:12 But let your speech be, yea, yea: no, no: that you fall not under judgment.

No, vulgar now means that, but in the context of translations, it merely means "vernacular". This is especially used when translating Latin in the Church.





Re: Back to the tradition - glgas - 09-01-2009

(09-01-2009, 03:53 PM)Rosarium Wrote: No, vulgar now means that, but in the context of translations, it merely means "vernacular". This is especially used when translating Latin in the Church.

The Official English translation of the Sacrossanctum Concilium is using 7 times the vernacular 0 times the vulgar

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

In the Latin original of the document the vernaculus or derivative is used 12 times, the vulgaris 0 times

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_lt.html


Would you so kind to quote the usage of vulgar in present Ecclesiastical English or Latin?