The Luminous Mysteries ? JP2
#91
(04-25-2010, 07:57 AM)Mhoram Wrote: With the Mass, though the two forms are so different that an uninitiated person would never mistake one for the other, we're still told they're the exact same rite, and admonished never to suggest that one might be deficient.  Now the same is true of the Rosary, with two very different forms (if all the suggestions of RVM are followed as obediently as the luminous mysteries have been, you won't recognize the Rosary easily anymore either), with the insistence that nothing has changed.  Ignore your lying eyes, these aren't the droids you're looking for, and so on---it's exactly the same, just completely different.  Sorry, I'm not buying it in this case either.

But with the Mass, they took out much of what made it the Mass.  With this new Rosary, they have added things.  Both show the spirit of the Age, and that is change - change to the new over the old, which is shown to be outdated, defecient and "old-fashioned."  We may be told that the TLM and the N.O. are the same rite, but we must realize that this is NOT true, for the TLM is the true "ordinary form" of the Mass, which was instituted in all of its essentials at the time of the Apostles and canonized in the Council of Trent for all-time.  The Novus Ordo Mass should be called the "Protestant form," for it squares almost completely with Cramner's "Lord's Supper" Community Meal.  In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau, one of the architects of the Novus Ordo Missae, observes: "Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed."  Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed.  Monsignor writes: "[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed" (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).  Those major propeonents and architects of the New Mass state plainly that the Old Latin Mass was "destroyed" to make way for the New Mass.

Reply
#92
Just a quick question if I may. So, all of you who reject the Luminous Mysteries say your Hail Mary only up to the Most Holy Name correct? At the time of the Rosary was given to St. Dominic the Most Holy Name and the ending were not yet part of the Hail Mary but added later. So, if you do say the "modern" Hail Mary you are saying the Traditional Rosary with a Modernist Hail Mary. Since things should never ever change I am feeling somewhat confused.

Oh, by the way, those of you who have stopped saying the Rosary at abortuarie and the such due to the inclusion of the Luminous Mysteries, you do know you are playing  into the devil's hands, right? Again, just asking.

Pax Vobiscum!
Reply
#93
(04-25-2010, 06:34 AM)Nic Wrote:
(04-24-2010, 10:18 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(04-24-2010, 08:36 PM)Nic Wrote:   Now we hear that we should not proselytize Protestants or Orthodox, for they are our "separated brethren," and are elluded to be just fine where they are. 

I'm not sure where you are hearing that, but it is not an official teaching of the post-V2 Church. 

What goes as an "official teaching" and an "unofficial teaching" these days of the post-conciliar Church is really a moot point.  The bishops have created such a name for themselves as "second-popes" that the faithful believe almost everything they say, ESPECIALLY if it comes out of "Rome."  We hear, from all levels of the Church hierarchy, outright comments and crooked-worded ambiguities that give the allusion that we have no need to proselytize the nations anymore as Christ commanded, especially not the Jews, the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox.  This mostly comes from the gross misinterpretation of the intentional ambiguities of Vatican II, which state, among other things, that Protestants are our "separated brethren" and have a good meaning in the "life of salvation."  These intentional ambiguities, interpretted by the liberals within the official structure of the Church post- V2, were intrpretted so as to change the religion, invoke a new viewpoint of other "Chrisitan" religions and other non-Chrisitan religions, and thus invoke a revolution in the Church.

Well it shouldn't be a moot point.  If some bishops are misinterpreting Church teaching so as to change its meaning then they are doing something wrong and we ought to say so.  You are right that the Vatican II documents are ambiguous and it seems likely to me that it was intentional, as you say.  But there have been clarifying statements made subsequently and there is no real doubt that we are required to evangelize the world.

(04-25-2010, 06:34 AM)Nic Wrote: Also, you speak of the Novus Ordo Missae helping in your conversion.  Just think how much easier it would have been if there was not an RCIA that taught a watered down version of the True Religion - or if there never was a Second Vatican Council or a N.O. Mass, like from the time of the advent of Protestantism in the early 16th century all the way up to the midpoint of the 20th century, some 450 years of doing in the right way.  If the N.O. Mass was so important for bringing Protestants to the Church, then why did we not see it when it was needed the absolute MOST - during the time of the Counter-Reformation of the mid 16th century?  It is because, as the saints have taught throughout history, you NEVER do such a thing at the expense of Truth.  During the Counter Reformation, the Church did what was necessary - she re-clarified her age-old doctrines of the Faith, and during this time several great saints and doctors arose from the fold to aid in this event.  Due to this TRUE flowering of the Holy Ghost, this TRUE Springtime, MANY Protestant heretics were brought back into the One True Religion of Jesus Christ.  The same thing could happen today if the Church went back to doing in the right way, instead of an imprudent zeal for souls at the expense of Truth, or, as in most occassions, no evangelization at all, which has accounted for a loss of souls that I don't even want to ponder the number of.

I don't know if I could have gone directly from Protestant to traditional Catholic.  I know for sure that I didn't.  In spite of the negative aspects that I recognize V2 and the NO,  I have to be grateful for the role they played in my life.  For that matter, I am grateful for the Jews who taught me as a child and the heretics who taught me in my teens.  Sometimes there is truth among falsehood and that truth can lead people to more complete truth.

You are right that we must not compromise truth when evangelizing.  But we don't have to set out to offend people either.  For example, I am not going to emphasize the role of Blessed Virgin when first speaking to Protestants.  This is a difficult concept for many of them.  I want to start with common ground where we already agree and work up to the ideas they struggle with.

In the account in Acts 17 of St. Paul preaching in Athens, we see him say:
Quote:23 For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:
He started with them with something they already believed and built on that. Rather than tell them that all their beliefs were false, he found a kernel of truth in their beliefs as a starting point to make it easier for them to accept the Gospel.  He was not betraying the truth when he did this.
Reply
#94
(04-25-2010, 07:57 AM)Mhoram Wrote: With the Mass, though the two forms are so different that an uninitiated person would never mistake one for the other, we're still told they're the exact same rite, and admonished never to suggest that one might be deficient. 
Who is admonishing like this?  I have never been told that I cannot say that the TLM is better than the NO. 
Reply
#95
(04-24-2010, 07:48 PM)JayneK Wrote: The Novus Ordo Mass really has helped some people into the Church. 

I have heard that from others as well, but it seems to have helped more Catholics out of the church than it helped prots in.  I dont deny your experience, but it stills seems to have done more harm than good.
Reply
#96
(04-25-2010, 01:02 PM)HotRod Wrote:
(04-24-2010, 07:48 PM)JayneK Wrote: The Novus Ordo Mass really has helped some people into the Church. 

I have heard that from others as well, but it seems to have helped more Catholics out of the church than it helped prots in.  I dont deny your experience, but it stills seems to have done more harm than good.

I think you are right about that.  It puts me in a strange position.  I benefited from something that was harmful to others.  I have to be grateful for how I was helped.  I very well might never have become Catholic without the NO.  And yet I can see how it caused great spiritual damage for many people.
Reply
#97
convert trads most times are zealous but confused and still have an individualistic protty instinct.
Reply
#98
(04-25-2010, 07:16 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: convert trads most times are zealous but confused and still have an individualistic protty instinct.

Well then, I must be extra confused, since I started out Jewish.  :confused:
Reply
#99
(04-25-2010, 07:16 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: convert trads most times are zealous but confused and still have an individualistic protty instinct.

I don't see that with convert trads of which there are tons on this forum.

I do see it with convert Neo-Catholics an awful lot.
Reply
(04-25-2010, 09:41 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-25-2010, 07:16 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: convert trads most times are zealous but confused and still have an individualistic protty instinct.

I don't see that with convert trads of which there are tons on this forum.

I do see it with convert Neo-Catholics an awful lot.


Agreed - and that is coming from a convert trad.  I think that a lot of converts these days is equated with the old "frog in boiling water" experiment.  Some "cradle Catholics" let the water boil all around them, never realizing just how damn hot it was.  Many converts were thrown right into the boiling water, realized it was scorching, and then jumped out of it ( meaning they got away from the new religion being imposed and found true Catholicism, although in the "modern catacombs.")  Or maybe it is just those who listen to God and accept the grace being given to them about what is happening, although I don't want to sound like I am applauding myself, for I am probably the worst sinner on this board.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)