Ranking arguments against the NO
#51
[quote='JayneK' pid='559680' dateline='1273093389']
This is not necessarily an indication that Pope Benedict thinks it is better.  It very well may be what he thinks is expedient, especially given his other comments about it.

In the nineties (before he get Pope) he wrote, that if someone would attend a New Mass as it was defined (describing basically a Mass simiar to what I use to attend at the the St John Cantius Fathers) would not be able to tell the difference, except the lanuguage. This means equal value. The intricsic value of the Mass is the bodily presence of Jesus Christ, and there is just One Jesus Christ with the same intrinsic value for both Mass. The external thing, the man made rites are matter of taste

[quote]
But one can say that the changes to the Mass had doctrinal implications and that the commission was not instructed to change doctrine, only to encourage participation.  And one can say that these changes make essential Catholic doctrine less clear.  And one can say that it is better for everybody if Catholic doctrine is presented as clearly as possible. 
[/quote]

You shall prove this, detail by detail. Here is again the comparing text:

http://www.the-pope.com/missals.html

[quote]

Please prove that the truth is obscured by the new Mass as it is defined. Do not use the clown Mass, or if you want to use compare it to a TLM  Mass 'celebrated' by a priest who still was drunk form the previous night, or to a Mass celebrated by a priest who just stepped out from the bed of his concubine, or a Mass celebrated by a pastor who denounced at the State his vicar, who in turn got 3 years prison sentence. Abuses were around since the Church is Church.  The New Mass in itself was approved by the Church and as a matter of fact keeps together the Church all 1140 million members, it can not be without true value.
Reply
#52
(05-05-2010, 06:46 PM)Mhoram Wrote:
(05-05-2010, 05:11 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: This ritual, the Mass, is not "man-made"; it is God-made, and even if no one attends the Mass, reparation for sin is still effected. This dogma of the Church is something that the new Mass does not teach.

After recently attending a Low Mass where I was one of only two people in the pews, I realized everyone needs to do that at least once.  It really reinforces that the Mass isn't about the congregation.  We're there to assist and receive graces, but the Mass is complete without us.  It's easy to forget that when you only go on Sundays with a large group of people, but I suspect it's even easier to forget when the priest is always turned around having a running conversation with the people.

Indeed. I think you are right in saying that the truth and purpose of the Mass is often lost in a certain selfishness - thinking that the Mass is there for us. It benefits us to be there, yes, but the Mass, by nature, is propitiatory. The point of Christ's sacrifice was to appease God's justice. As the same sacrifice, the Mass does the exact same thing, and we don't need to be there for that to happen. It is good to unite our own sacrifices to those of the Victim on the altar, but the Victim is still sacrificed without us. Though we should assist in this way, we should not assist for ourselves; we should assist for God. In so doing, we are receiving the benefits that come from our obedience, humility, and sacrifice (unselfish love for God). In so doing, our sacrifice, the sacrifice, may be propitiatory for all those who attend the Mass because we are there to present our own offerings to Christ's in Whom they can be made perfect, complete, and sufficiently meritorious.
Reply
#53
(05-05-2010, 08:42 PM)glgas Wrote:
(05-05-2010, 05:03 PM)JayneK Wrote: This is not necessarily an indication that Pope Benedict thinks it is better.  It very well may be what he thinks is expedient, especially given his other comments about it.

In the nineties (before he get Pope) he wrote, that if someone would attend a New Mass as it was defined (describing basically a Mass simiar to what I use to attend at the the St John Cantius Fathers) would not be able to tell the difference, except the lanuguage. This means equal value. The intricsic value of the Mass is the bodily presence of Jesus Christ, and there is just One Jesus Christ with the same intrinsic value for both Mass. The external thing, the man made rites are matter of taste

I agree that most people would not notice the differences, but that does not mean there are no differences or that the differences are not significant.  I have attended abuse-free NO Masses such as you refer to. (This is how the Oratorians in Toronto do it.)  Yes, without the distraction of blatant problems, it is a much more prayerful experience.  Nevertheless, an analysis of the New Mass shows that that new theological themes have been introduced and that Catholic doctrines have been obscured.  This is not a matter of taste.  This is objective information, ascertainable by anyone who investigates it.  It is also objective that the commission did not have a mandate to make these kinds of changes.  It was a commission to carry out the instructions of Sacrosanctum Concilium and it is objectively clear that they did not follow these instructions.  This was wrong.

(05-05-2010, 08:42 PM)glgas Wrote:
(05-05-2010, 05:03 PM)JayneK Wrote: But one can say that the changes to the Mass had doctrinal implications and that the commission was not instructed to change doctrine, only to encourage participation.  And one can say that these changes make essential Catholic doctrine less clear.  And one can say that it is better for everybody if Catholic doctrine is presented as clearly as possible. 

You shall prove this, detail by detail. Here is again the comparing text:

http://www.the-pope.com/missals.html
Every explicit reference to the propitiatory nature of the Mass was removed.  This from the Offeratory of the TLM:

Quote:Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting.


Compare this passage in the TLM to the corresponding one in the NO:
Quote:who offer up to Thee, this sacrifice of praise, for themselves, their families, and their friends, for the salvation of their souls and the health and welfare they hope for, and who now pay their vows to Thee, God eternal, living, and true.

Quote:We offer you this sacrifice of praise for ourselves and those dear to us. We pray to you, our living and true God, for our well-being and redemption.

The TLM has:
Quote:May the lowly homage of my service be pleasing to Thee, O most holy Trinity: and do Thou grant that the sacrifice which I, all unworthy, have offered up in the sight of Thy majesty, may be acceptable to Thee, and, because of Thy loving kindness, may avail to atone to Thee for myself and for all those for whom I have offered it up.



(05-05-2010, 08:42 PM)glgas Wrote:
(05-05-2010, 05:03 PM)JayneK Wrote: The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice on the Cross. The priest is the same.  The victim is the same.  The action is the same.  Only the manner is different.  The Mass brings redemption into the world just as Jesus' death on the Cross does.  Since this truth is obscured by the changes to the Mass, it is not surprising that you were wrong about this.   You have perfectly illustrated what is wrong with the New Mass.

Please prove that the truth is obscured by the new Mass as it is defined. Do not use the clown Mass, or if you want to use compare it to a TLM  Mass 'celebrated' by a priest who still was drunk form the previous night, or to a Mass celebrated by a priest who just stepped out from the bed of his concubine, or a Mass celebrated by a pastor who denounced at the State his vicar, who in turn got 3 years prison sentence. Abuses were around since the Church is Church.  The New Mass in itself was approved by the Church and as a matter of fact keeps together the Church all 1140 million members, it can not be without true value.

I am talking about the Mass as defined, not its abuses.  The Mass was written with theological and doctrinal flaws and these remain even when it celebrated perfectly.  It is nevertheless a valid Mass (unless something is done to invalidate it) and so has enormous value.  As a valid Sacrament it is a major means of Grace.  But it is not as good as the TLM which does not have these flaws.
Reply
#54
(05-05-2010, 04:37 PM)glgas Wrote:
(05-05-2010, 03:44 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: glgas: For someone who utilizes a great deal of posts scolding other Catholics for, what you interpret as, pointing their pharisaical fingers at others, it comes as a surprise to me that you would think it good to point fingers at the intentions of others. I have not seen JayneK act as if she knows the Magisterium better than the Church.

I meant the 'you' as it is: plural: a generalization for the most laud speakers of this group. JayneK is very far away toward the Center from the average.

If you acknowledge that I do not have a problem with disobedience to the Magisterium, then that means that you cannot dismiss criticism of the NO Mass as necessarily being a manifestation of disobedience. 
Reply
#55
(05-05-2010, 09:48 PM)JayneK Wrote: If you acknowledge that I do not have a problem with disobedience to the Magisterium, then that means that you cannot dismiss criticism of the NO Mass as necessarily being a manifestation of disobedience. 

It is more complicated. If you criticize something in a group of admirers in order to make it better, that is sign of your benevolence

If your criticism joins the choir of deniers, who also explicitly deny the authority of the Church, accuse the Church to deliberately falsify the facts, and being reason of  the present problems, then your criticism joins their disobedience too.

Our actions are not absolute, they are always interpreted in the context.

We hope that this principle applies to God too, so he understand our weakness.
Reply
#56
I guess I've joined the crowd of deniers...shame on me.

Pope Leo XIII Wrote:These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where the See of Holy Peter and the Chair of Truth has been set up as the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be.

Our Lady at La Salette Wrote:In the year 1864 Lucifer, together with a great number of devils, will be loosed from hell; little by little they will abolish the faith, and that even in persons consecrated to God; they will so blind them, that without a special grace, these persons will take on the spirit of these evil angels; a number of religious houses will lose the faith entirely and cause many souls to be damned.

(then) Cardinal Ratzinger Wrote:I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy...in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not he speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless. (Milestones, Ignatius Press, 1998).

Reply
#57
(05-06-2010, 05:49 AM)glgas Wrote:
(05-05-2010, 09:48 PM)JayneK Wrote: If you acknowledge that I do not have a problem with disobedience to the Magisterium, then that means that you cannot dismiss criticism of the NO Mass as necessarily being a manifestation of disobedience. 

It is more complicated. If you criticize something in a group of admirers in order to make it better, that is sign of your benevolence

If your criticism joins the choir of deniers, who also explicitly deny the authority of the Church, accuse the Church to deliberately falsify the facts, and being reason of   the present problems, then your criticism joins their disobedience too.

Our actions are not absolute, they are always interpreted in the context.

I say the same thing about the NO whichever group I am among because that is what I think is true.  The truth does not change depending on to whom I speak.  I have argued at length here with people who make criticisms of the NO that I believe are overly harsh or unreasonable.  I have argued with people who take positions that I think are overly accepting of the NO.  I have explicitly defended the authority of the Church and expressed my loyalty to the Pope many times.   

Fisheaters is not some sort of group mind.  We are unique individuals.  I am responsible for what I say.  I am not responsible for what anyone else says, especially when I have expressed my disagreement with them. 
Reply
#58
(05-06-2010, 12:12 PM)JayneK Wrote: I say the same thing about the NO whichever group I am among because that is what I think is true.  The truth does not change depending on to whom I speak.  I have argued at length here with people who make criticisms of the NO that I believe are overly harsh or unreasonable.  I have argued with people who take positions that I think are overly accepting of the NO.  I have explicitly defended the authority of the Church and expressed my loyalty to the Pope many times.   

Until I attended only the New Masses in my territorial parish (which over the years became the worship of the human success, for activity groups, or even not religion related events) I too believed that the New Mass is banal and protestantized. I was about to join the local baptist community, because they at least do not pretend that their sevice is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and make every effort to entertain the audience.

Then I found a nearby (12 m distance) Church. This was before the St John Cantius took over, so the priest was facing the altar, the communion was to hand and even was a lay Eucharistic minister. But above that everything brough that the spirit of my youth, the full reverence toward God, always the Confiteor , always the Roaman Canon, people singing the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei in Latin.

At that time I started to think if is anything wrong with this Mass? I compared the two missal step by step, and in overall found the new mass somewhat better that the old one.

I belive you should go on the two mass step by step, and make decision for each parts.

Here is the daily Mass in my site: (click on Sancta Missa link to get the text)

http://divinumofficium.com/cgi-bin/missa/missa.pl

and here is the USCCB site with the new Translation (which is the near future)

http://usccb.org/romanmissal/OrdoMissaeWhiteBook.pdf

Here are three questions for the firat three parts:

1./ Is the murmuring of Psalm 42 superior than the solemn process into the Church following the cross?

2./ Is the duplicated double  murmuring of the Confiteor supeor thant all the people praying together? Is the reminding of the people to the fact that many sins are committed by failing to do our obligations ("in what I have done and in what I have failed to do," ) a step forward or a step backward.

3./ Is the 3 x 3 murmuring of the Kyrie (where the altar server introduces Christ, and not the priest) superior that the 3 invocation of the priest each answered by the people)?

And on your own go ahead step by step.

First start with the abstract masses, so use the Confiteor and the Roman canon from the new one with this new translation, and when you went thru on that ask yourself: should we work to make this new mass standard, or better to declare that it is intrinsically inferior, and for the dead Language and very limited participation on all the people?

The new mass is abused many times, and may be as a rule. But I remember the times form the late sixties when the TLM was abused too, and temporarily the New Mass brought some order ( in Hungary till the early nineties)

Reply
#59
(05-06-2010, 12:55 PM)glgas Wrote: I belive you should go on the two mass step by step, and make decision for each parts.

That is exactly what I have done.  And I discovered that the New Mass made changes with doctrinal and theological implications.  Many of the changes are neutral, as far as I'm concerned.  I don't mind Psalm 42 being taken out (although I do think it is better left in)  and I have no strong feelings about the number of Kyries or Confiteors.  It is just a mild preference to leave things alone for the sake of continuity with the past.  I object very strongly, however, to essential Catholic doctrines being obscured or made ambiguous.  This is not about the abuses that are so common in the implementation of the New Mass.  This is about its basic structure.  From the perspective of liturgical theology it is severely flawed.
Reply
#60
[quote='glgas' pid='559755' dateline='1273106576']
[quote='JayneK' pid='559680' dateline='1273093389']
This is not necessarily an indication that Pope Benedict thinks it is better.  It very well may be what he thinks is expedient, especially given his other comments about it.

In the nineties (before he get Pope) he wrote, that if someone would attend a New Mass as it was defined (describing basically a Mass simiar to what I use to attend at the the St John Cantius Fathers) would not be able to tell the difference, except the lanuguage. This means equal value. The intricsic value of the Mass is the bodily presence of Jesus Christ, and there is just One Jesus Christ with the same intrinsic value for both Mass. The external thing, the man made rites are matter of taste

[quote]
But one can say that the changes to the Mass had doctrinal implications and that the commission was not instructed to change doctrine, only to encourage participation.  And one can say that these changes make essential Catholic doctrine less clear.  And one can say that it is better for everybody if Catholic doctrine is presented as clearly as possible. 
[/quote]

You shall prove this, detail by detail. Here is again the comparing text:

http://www.the-pope.com/missals.html

[quote]

Please prove that the truth is obscured by the new Mass as it is defined. Do not use the clown Mass, or if you want to use compare it to a TLM  Mass 'celebrated' by a priest who still was drunk form the previous night, or to a Mass celebrated by a priest who just stepped out from the bed of his concubine, or a Mass celebrated by a pastor who denounced at the State his vicar, who in turn got 3 years prison sentence. Abuses were around since the Church is Church.  The New Mass in itself was approved by the Church and as a matter of fact keeps together the Church all 1140 million members, it can not be without true value.
[/quote]

glglas,

Give liturgical scholars a few more years and they will have assembled a dossier on the New Mass that will make the CDF chair reel.  The real scholarly  grunt work has only begun.  Up till recently it was considered borderline schismatic to even analyze this missal the way people like Dr. Pristas have begun to do.  Read her papers.  You'll get a good reel out of them yourself.

Fortunately, I'm not talking about someone's opinion here.  If you know Latin, liturgical history, have familiarized yourself with the theories and activity of the Consilium that did the work, and have studied the science of liturgical prayer and the vital relationship it and the Church's dogma have developed over the centuries, the content of the New Missal, specifically as liturgical prayer, is revealed as a breach in the organic tradition of the liturgy.  This is a fact about this missal.

To say that is NOT rebellion against authority because it is the truth.  Obedience to legitimate authority is not meant to constrain one's mind to agree that a fact is not a fact.  That is a misunderstanding of the nature of obedience.

Nor does recognition of this fact imply that he who recognizes it denies that the New Missal can be used to offer a Mass.  It is perfectly capable of offering a Mass (until the CDF says otherwise).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)