Ranking arguments against the NO
#31
I can't imagine why it would be desirable for repetitions to be cut. Should Daniel have been edited?

Quote:3:51 Then these three as with one mouth praised, and glorified, and blessed God in the furnace, saying: 52 Blessed art thou, O Lord the God of our fathers: and worthy to be praised, and glorified, and exalted above all for ever: and blessed is the holy name of thy glory: and worthy to be praised, and exalted above all in all ages. 53 Blessed art thou in the holy temple of thy glory: and exceedingly to be praised, and exceeding glorious for ever. 54 Blessed art thou on the throne of thy kingdom, and exceedingly to be praised, and exalted above all for ever. 55 Blessed art thou, that beholdest the depths, and sittest upon the cherubims: and worthy to be praised and exalted above all for ever.

56 Blessed art thou in the firmament of heaven: and worthy of praise, and glorious for ever. 57 All ye works of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 58 O ye angels of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 59 O ye heavens, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 60 O all ye waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all for ever.

61 O all ye powers of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 62 O ye sun and moon, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 63 O ye stars of heaven, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 64 O every shower and dew, bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 65 O all ye spirits of God, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

66 O ye fire and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 67 O ye cold and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 68 O ye dews and hoar frosts, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 69 O ye frost and cold, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 70 O ye ice and snow, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

71 O ye nights and days, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 72 O ye light and darkness, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 73 O ye lightnings and clouds, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 74 O let the earth bless the Lord: let it praise and exalt him above all for ever. 75 O ye mountains and hills, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

76 O all ye things that spring up in the earth, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 77 O ye fountains, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 78 O ye seas and rivers, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 79 O ye whales, and all that move in the waters, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 80 O all ye fowls of the air, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

81 O all ye beasts and cattle, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 82 O ye sons of men, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all for ever. 83 O let Israel bless the Lord: let them praise and exalt him above all for ever. 84 O ye priests of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 85 O ye servants of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

86 O ye spirits and souls of the just, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 87 O ye holy and humble of heart, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. 88 O Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. For he hath delivered us from hell, and saved us out of the hand of death, and delivered us out of the midst of the burning flame, and saved us out of the midst of the fire. 89 O give thanks to the Lord, because he is good: because his mercy endureth for ever and ever. 90 O all ye religious, bless the Lord the God of gods: praise him and give him thanks, because his mercy endureth for ever and ever.

91 Then Nabuchodonosor the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and said to his nobles: Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered the king, and said: True, O king.
Reply
#32
(05-04-2010, 07:48 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 06:28 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 04:33 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 04:29 PM)JayneK Wrote: While I agree with all this, I can imagine someone making a reasonable case for removing the repetitions. 

In the same way as removing unnecessary repititions of the Kyrie Eleison, the Ave Maria during the rosary, or the Ora Pro Nobis during a litany? 

I think that someone could make a case for removing repetitions because this was explicitly mentioned in Sacrosancto Concilium.  It was arguably the intent of the Council fathers.  This is a different kind of change from those which cannot be justified as mandated by the Council.

Okay. To which council are you referring?
I think we might want to remove the unnecessary repetitions in the Bible, too. Afterall, St. Paul did say:

I am referring to the Second Vatican Council.  Using the term "unnecessary repetitions" (or, as in Sacrosanctum Concilium "useless repetitions") implies that some repetitions are necessary and useful.  I'm not saying that getting rid of the Confiteors was a good idea, only that I see it as more justifiable than some of the other changes that were made.
Reply
#33
(05-04-2010, 08:15 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 07:48 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 06:28 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 04:33 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 04:29 PM)JayneK Wrote: While I agree with all this, I can imagine someone making a reasonable case for removing the repetitions. 

In the same way as removing unnecessary repititions of the Kyrie Eleison, the Ave Maria during the rosary, or the Ora Pro Nobis during a litany? 

I think that someone could make a case for removing repetitions because this was explicitly mentioned in Sacrosancto Concilium.  It was arguably the intent of the Council fathers.  This is a different kind of change from those which cannot be justified as mandated by the Council.

Okay. To which council are you referring?
I think we might want to remove the unnecessary repetitions in the Bible, too. Afterall, St. Paul did say:

I am referring to the Second Vatican Council.  Using the term "unnecessary repetitions" (or, as in Sacrosanctum Concilium "useless repetitions") implies that some repetitions are necessary and useful.  I'm not saying that getting rid of the Confiteors was a good idea, only that I see it as more justifiable than some of the other changes that were made.

Its certainly not as bad as getting read of the Offertory. Which by the way was the first thing the protestant heretics got rid of.
Reply
#34
(05-04-2010, 10:56 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 08:15 PM)JayneK Wrote: I'm not saying that getting rid of the Confiteors was a good idea, only that I see it as more justifiable than some of the other changes that were made.

Its certainly not as bad as getting read of the Offertory. Which by the way was the first thing the protestant heretics got rid of.

Exactly.  That was one of things I was thinking of.
Reply
#35
The reason I think the Modern Rite is inferior to the Tridentine Rite (yes, I will use that term) is that the proper prayers were reorganized, reformulated ("centonized" is the technical term the sub-Consilium--coetus--used to describe the practice), or outrightly fabricated out of some consilium member's head in such a way so that they presently contain, and are meant to communicate, what were percieved by young theologians and liturgical scholars of the middle of the twentieth century as the religious sensibilities of modern man.

This fact has been preliminarily studied by Dr. Lauren Pristas of the Caldwell College Theology Department.  She is a research fellow of the new Society of St. Catherine of Siena:

http://www.caterinati.org.uk/fellowships.html

Here is her faculty page at Caldwell:

http://faculty.caldwell.edu/lpristas

This woman's work on the Modern Rite is nothing short of groundbreaking.  Her papers are a must read for anyone who would know anything about this new missal that was forced down the throats of the faithful.

Pristas of course doesn't quite express the same disgust as I.  She's too professional for that.  :)


edit: emphases and typo.
Reply
#36
Thank you, Zakhur.  Just her first article is pure gold.
Reply
#37
(05-04-2010, 01:32 PM)JayneK Wrote: Are you saying, glgas, that you  think that the TLM is not objectively better than the NO?  I really think that is an untenable position.  How can you possibly support it?

[edit: fix typo]
I am saying that neither is ABSOLUTE, ETERNAL 'THE TRUE'; each has positives and negatives. I am also saying that the decision about this belong to the Church and ultimately to the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the pope.

As a matter of fact I am saying that more people are attracted by the reverent NEW Mass than the attracted by the TLM, so the new mass serves better the concept of evangelization in our word.

As for details I believe the New Mass (on the way the ST John Cantius Fathers celebrate it priest turning toward the altar, communion to tongue kneeling at the bars of the altar, propers and ordinary sung in Latin)  is equal value  with the TLM celebrated by the same fathers. I feel some nostalgia toward the old one, to which I born and in what I grown up, but I do not believe that my nostalgia is the decisive value for the Church, I strictly believe that Catholics differ from the schismatics and protestant because they accept the decisions of the Popes.

I am thinking about to set up a webpage comparing the TLM and the New Mass section to section, so either me or anyone else could make the decision by facts instead of slogans (New Mass is protestant, New Mass is heretic, New Mass is modernist etc.)  .

Even before that I am ready to discuss the problem details by details.

For start:

Why is murmuring Psalm 42 with the altar server excluding the people present superior than the solemn proccess into the Church?

Why is murmuring the Confiteor twice alternated with the atlar server (who usualy just hums it) superior that the whole congregation praying it together.

Why is the Kyrie acclaimed 9 times in the manner that Christ is introduced by the altar server and not by His representative the priest: (P. Kyrie eleison S. Kyrie eleison P. Kyrie eleison S. Christe Eleison etc) than the priest invokes, people answer method in the New Mass?

Reply
#38
(05-05-2010, 08:03 AM)glgas Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 01:32 PM)JayneK Wrote: Are you saying, glgas, that you  think that the TLM is not objectively better than the NO?  I really think that is an untenable position.  How can you possibly support it?

[edit: fix typo]
I am saying that neither is ABSOLUTE, ETERNAL 'THE TRUE'; each has positives and negatives. I am also saying that the decision about this belong to the Church and ultimately to the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the pope.

No.  The Tridentine Rite is closer to the "absolute, eternal, and true" liturgy of heaven.  The Modern Rite and the Tridentine Rite, as liturgy, are in different categories.  One is closer to the truth of what Christian liturgy should manifest, the other is a diminishment of Christian liturgy.  An honest, unbiased, comparison (assuming one knows authentic Christian liturgy when one sees it) of the two rites is (and was for me when I followed along with Dr. Pristas) dumbfounding.

The men who concocted the Modern Rite were theological, spiritual, and cultural neanderthals.
Reply
#39
(05-05-2010, 08:03 AM)glgas Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 01:32 PM)JayneK Wrote: Are you saying, glgas, that you  think that the TLM is not objectively better than the NO?  I really think that is an untenable position.  How can you possibly support it?

[edit: fix typo]
I am saying that neither is ABSOLUTE, ETERNAL 'THE TRUE'; each has positives and negatives. I am also saying that the decision about this belong to the Church and ultimately to the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the pope.

As a matter of fact I am saying that more people are attracted by the reverent NEW Mass than the attracted by the TLM, so the new mass serves better the concept of evangelization in our word.

As for details I believe the New Mass (on the way the ST John Cantius Fathers celebrate it priest turning toward the altar, communion to tongue kneeling at the bars of the altar, propers and ordinary sung in Latin)  is equal value  with the TLM celebrated by the same fathers. I feel some nostalgia toward the old one, to which I born and in what I grown up, but I do not believe that my nostalgia is the decisive value for the Church, I strictly believe that Catholics differ from the schismatics and protestant because they accept the decisions of the Popes.

I am thinking about to set up a webpage comparing the TLM and the New Mass section to section, so either me or anyone else could make the decision by facts instead of slogans (New Mass is protestant, New Mass is heretic, New Mass is modernist etc.)  .

Even before that I am ready to discuss the problem details by details.

For start:

Why is murmuring Psalm 42 with the altar server excluding the people present superior than the solemn proccess into the Church?

Why is murmuring the Confiteor twice alternated with the atlar server (who usualy just hums it) superior that the whole congregation praying it together.

Why is the Kyrie acclaimed 9 times in the manner that Christ is introduced by the altar server and not by His representative the priest: (P. Kyrie eleison S. Kyrie eleison P. Kyrie eleison S. Christe Eleison etc) than the priest invokes, people answer method in the New Mass?
Why did you repeat a negative word like "murmuring? Was it for emphasis of an important point to you? Bad form. Especially because I don't see instructions anywhere in the rubrics for "murmuring" these portions so...your claim is the equivalent of mine for liturgical dancers and giant puppet heads leading the procession of the NO. I can go there if you want me to.
Reply
#40
(05-05-2010, 08:03 AM)glgas Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 01:32 PM)JayneK Wrote: Are you saying, glgas, that you  think that the TLM is not objectively better than the NO?  I really think that is an untenable position.  How can you possibly support it?

[edit: fix typo]
I am saying that neither is ABSOLUTE, ETERNAL 'THE TRUE'; each has positives and negatives. I am also saying that the decision about this belong to the Church and ultimately to the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the pope.

You must have read Sacrosanctum Concilium.  Does the New Mass look to you like it is carrying out the instructions of the Council?  The reforms to the Mass were supposed to encourage the active participation of the faithful by changing non-essential elements in the Mass.  They had in mind things like making the Canon audible and reading the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular.  It was not a mandate to make changes with serious doctrinal implications.  The Pope with the Council had delegated incorporating these reforms to a commission that betrayed the task that was entrusted to them.  This was not the decision of the Church or the Pope, other than in a most superficial sense of the Pope signing off on their work.  It was the ideas of a handful of men.  The Pope trusted that his experts were following the instructions given to them and they betrayed him.  They betrayed all of us.  The New Mass is founded on betrayal and this overshadows any  positive elements that it contains.

(05-05-2010, 08:03 AM)glgas Wrote: As a matter of fact I am saying that more people are attracted by the reverent NEW Mass than the attracted by the TLM, so the new mass serves better the concept of evangelization in our word.

How can you know that?  How many people have been given a choice?  The Tridentine Mass was suppressed.  Countless people left the Church, their faith shattered.  What kind of evangelization destroys faith?

(05-05-2010, 08:03 AM)glgas Wrote: As for details I believe the New Mass (on the way the ST John Cantius Fathers celebrate it priest turning toward the altar, communion to tongue kneeling at the bars of the altar, propers and ordinary sung in Latin)  is equal value  with the TLM celebrated by the same fathers. I feel some nostalgia toward the old one, to which I born and in what I grown up, but I do not believe that my nostalgia is the decisive value for the Church, I strictly believe that Catholics differ from the schismatics and protestant because they accept the decisions of the Popes.

This is not about nostalgia.  I had never been to the TLM unto Summorum Pontificum went into effect.  My entire life as a Catholic, almost 30 years, had been with the Novus Ordo Mass.  I discovered the Traditional Mass with joy to have finally found it and outrage that I had so long been denied my heritage.

(05-05-2010, 08:03 AM)glgas Wrote: I am thinking about to set up a webpage comparing the TLM and the New Mass section to section, so either me or anyone else could make the decision by facts instead of slogans (New Mass is protestant, New Mass is heretic, New Mass is modernist etc.) 

I encourage you to do so.  I am convinced that this kind of thoughtful examination of facts will show the Traditional Latin Mass is truer to the teaching of the Church.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)