The next pope r.e. Liturgy
#61
(01-08-2010, 04:11 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-08-2010, 03:49 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-08-2010, 03:41 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-08-2010, 02:31 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Not to mention the deplorable change from "Mass" or "Holy Mass" to "Eucharist" in the common language of many Latin countries. It's frequent to see "Eucharist at 10h and 12h" in Church pamphlets.

Could you please explain what is wrong with the term "Eucharist"?  I don't understand what your objection is.

The Most Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament itself. The Holy Mass is the name we give to the whole liturgical action. Don't you find it odd that they felt the need all of a sudden to stop calling the Mass a Mass, to call it the Eucharist? It's another modernist ploy.

But wouldn't calling the entire liturgy  "Eucharist" focus people's attention on the Sacrament as being the central event?  I would think this would be a good thing, especially when so many aspects of the NO do the opposite.

The central event of the Mass is the Sacrifice, the Sacrament is the fruit of that Sacrifice.
Reply
#62
This might help..

Quote: Greek eucharistia, thanksgiving.

The name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in its twofold aspect of sacrament and Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present under the bread and wine.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm

Reply
#63
(01-08-2010, 12:10 PM)RRR Wrote: The plot against the Church belongs in the Other Religions forum which is currently locked.  It wasn't the material in and of itself, but how you were applying it.

I was applying it in response to Scipio_a assertion that if a super lib "pope" is elected, we are suppose to accept it. Scipio_a: "So what if the next Pope were Levada or worse???"

Like Schonborn worse? Any Traditional Catholic who would follow Schonborn as pope needs their head examined. He would be an obviously anti-pope.
[/quote]

Thus far in the history of the Church the only viable position to oppose the pope was to elect an antipope. The lasting event was the Great Western Schism after Avignon, when those remaining in Avinon elected a second pope. This lasted from 1378 to 1417 and was resolved by the Council of Constance.  The key of successful antipope is to get significant support among the college of cardinals., at this point very unlikely. Self appointed popes are schismatics, pope-less church is not the hierarchical jurisdictional Church, not Catholic.

There are very few dogmas, but one of them is the UNAM Sanctam Catholicam et APOSTOLICAM Ecclesiam.

Reply
#64
(01-08-2010, 08:25 AM)ggreg Wrote: I'm hoping God destroys Rome and chastises the world in such a way that nobody is left in any doubt that the Church has been run by a bunch of heretics and apostates for the last 50 years.

Umm... alright. My only problem with this event is that if it were to happen, all the Protestants I know would say, "I told you so".
Reply
#65
(01-08-2010, 02:31 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Not to mention the deplorable change from "Mass" or "Holy Mass" to "Eucharist" in the common language of many Latin countries. It's frequent to see "Eucharist at 10h and 12h" in Church pamphlets.

Deplorable is a strong word. It's not an incorrect term, as using "Eucharist" to describe the liturgy predates "Mass", "missa", or anything of that sort. BUT, it also seems to take a page from certain types of Anglicans/Episcopals who may celebrate their liturgies more Roman than the Romans, yet call them Eucharists instead of Masses because they're afraid the word Mass is too sacrificial. If I recall correctly, Percy Dearmer's Ritual Notes, while instrumental in drawing the mainstream Anglican church out of the low-church mentality, avoids the word "Mass" entirely.
Reply
#66
Vetus Ordo Wrote:So was the Church "missing something" before Vatican II by calling the Liturgy the Mass?

Absolutely. First off, what do you mean by "the Church?" Eastern Christians never call the Eucharistic celebration a "Mass." Etymologically speaking, "Mass" is a pretty dull word. "Divine Liturgy" is much better.
Reply
#67
(01-08-2010, 07:54 PM)Credo Wrote:
Vetus Ordo Wrote:So was the Church "missing something" before Vatican II by calling the Liturgy the Mass?

Absolutely. First off, what do you mean by "the Church?" Eastern Christians never call the Eucharistic celebration a "Mass." Etymologically speaking, "Mass" is a pretty dull word. "Divine Liturgy" is much better.

I can't take you seriously on this, I'm sorry.
Reply
#68
LETS LEAVE IT IN GOD S HANDS.
Reply
#69
(01-08-2010, 09:35 AM)glgas Wrote:
(01-08-2010, 08:45 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The liturgy is one of the means by which those problems will be fixed.  Where else do Catholics go every Sunday?  A good liturgy with a edifying homily can change minds and hearts.  Flashy youtube videos won't do it, and the media will filter out and distort anything edifying the Pope has to say just as it did with his homily that got all our panties in a bunch.

The Mass is what forms future priests, teaches the faithful, etc.  The Mass needs to be fixed as a priority.

I attend every Sunday the St John Cantius Father's Masses in Volo IL, either the Enlish (New) and the Latin (TLM) Mass.  The New Mass is facing the altar, Latin proper and Ordinary chanted, communion at the bars of the altar kneeling and onto tongue. They regularly say sermon on the TLM Mass and holy on the New Mass, with many exceptions for the sermon in the New mass. The attitude of the priest and the faithful, and not the words and rubrics make the difference.

I've been to the St. John Cantius Mass at the church in Chicago and I've seen them giving Communion to people standing during the TLM.  They have a hybrid view of things, neither completely traditional nor completely Neo-Catholic.  At one time they also wanted to be biritual and say an Eastern Rite Mass.  I don't think that's a good idea.

Quote:As for what is edifying our knowledge is limited, this is why we need the guidance of the Magisterium, instead of the guidance of the conscience of those people who deny the value of the conscience (Dignitatis Humanae)

Sure.  And maybe someday the Magisterium will tell us how to interpret DH.  Until then, your guess is as good as mine is as good as EWTN's is as good as Father Murray's.  Or maybe they'll say it's a wreck and V2 needs a do-over.  Time will tell.  But I know what the Syllabus of Errors means because it's based on all previous encyclicals and teachings, and it's written in clear language.

In the meantime, most Novus Ordo Masses are not like the ones said by the Cantius priests or even EWTN, so we shouldn't pretend that they are.  We don't even know if it's the "right way" to say the NOM because the Magisterium hasn't ruled on that either.  They give guidelines in the form of the GIRM and the rest is "left as an exercise for the liturgist".  Should they look like JP2 Papal Masses?  Cdl. Mahony Masses?  EWTN Masses?  What?

I dunno, and neither do you because Rome hasn't ruled.  But I know what a TLM is supposed to look like because even with changes to the Missal, it's looked pretty much the same for over 500 years.

Reform-of-the-reform keeps saying that we should interpret DH properly according to the Magisterium, but really what they are objectively saying is we should interpret it as they interpret it because the Magisterium hasn't told us how to read it.

When in doubt, I'll stick with what's known.


Reply
#70
Vetus Ordo Wrote:I can't take you seriously on this, I'm sorry.

That's okay, but why do you say so?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)