Oh No!!! Modernists take aim at Old Roman Missal
#51
(08-17-2012, 03:31 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 03:19 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 03:07 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 02:45 PM)Old Salt Wrote: It is all a ridiculous rumor.

The Missal of 1962 will stay as it is and the FSSP ICRS etc. will always use it or the 1955 version.

What could possibly happen is the NO Missae might come to be a lot more like the Missal of 65.
As bad as this is, it is a lot better than what is offererd in 99% of Catholic parishes.

Shame shame OS!

Once the Missal changes - whoever doesn't use it will be disobedient  - - no way will they turn disobedient for the sake of the faith!
The SSPX use a "changed" missal.

They use the pre-1962 Missal, it was not tampered with by today's modernist NO authorities.
Are you serious??!!
No they don't
They use the Missal of 1962.
It is in their constitutions.

Look it up on Angelus Press. All they sell is the Missal of 1962.

One of the reasons why the nine were kicked out by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1983 is because they refused to use the Missal of 1962.
Reply
#52
The SSPX uses the Missal of 1962:

http://angeluspress.org/Genuine-Leather-...ily-Missal
Reply
#53
(08-17-2012, 03:17 PM)Stubborn Wrote: All I am saying is that the Sunday Obligation changed - FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE.

My understanding is that the vigil Mass was introduced to accommodate people who have to work on Sunday. This may sound lame, but I used to work at a hospital, where lots of healthcare professionals simply don't have the option to take Sunday off. In the old days, they would just receive a dispensation from their pastor to miss Mass altogether.
Reply
#54
There is nothing sinful about fulfilling the obligation on the Vigil.
It is definitely not part of the "slippery slope".
Reply
#55
(08-17-2012, 03:40 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 03:17 PM)Stubborn Wrote: All I am saying is that the Sunday Obligation changed - FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE.

My understanding is that the vigil Mass was introduced to accommodate people who have to work on Sunday. This may sound lame, but I used to work at a hospital, where lots of healthcare professionals simply don't have the option to take Sunday off. In the old days, they would just receive a dispensation from their pastor to miss Mass altogether.

Yes, there are all kinds of reasons to change the Holy Day of Obligation - I mean, why not, everything else was changed.

I still remember when nearly *everything* was closed on Sundays. Grocery stores, department stores, gas stations - you name it - they all respected Sunday as the Lord's Day. Since NO doesn't even respect it, why should the rest of the world?

It's all about change..........wait and see what happens when they get their claws on the Missal. And I hope I am wrong. 



Reply
#56
Dude, I'm not arguing for "change for the sake of change". I'm simply pointing out a legitimate use of the vigil Mass: accommodating people who work in essential industries such as healthcare. Saturday evening is still liturgically Sunday.

Likewise, there's a legitimate reason to have Masses on holy days of obligation (like the recently past Assumption) to be scheduled for the evening. Not everyone can go early in the morning before work. It's better to adjust the times of Mass than to have large groups of people not able to attend them at all.
Reply
#57
(08-17-2012, 04:15 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Dude, I'm not arguing for "change for the sake of change". I'm simply pointing out a legitimate use of the vigil Mass: accommodating people who work in essential industries such as healthcare. Saturday evening is still liturgically Sunday.

Likewise, there's a legitimate reason to have Masses on holy days of obligation (like the recently past Assumption) to be scheduled for the evening. Not everyone can go early in the morning before work. It's better to adjust the times of Mass than to have large groups of people not able to attend them at all.

What you seem to be failing to understand is that, aside for the sake of change, there was no reason to change the Lord's Day to Saturday in the 60s, any more than there was reason to change it for the previous 2000 years.

People worked in hospitals for hundreds of years, as did firemen, and on and on - through it all, they all kept Sunday exclusively as the Lord's Day. I know you do not think the change was made for convenience of essential services after 2000 years - I am telling you every single solitary thing that was ever considered sacred, changed - including the Day the Lord Himself set aside for rest and to keep holy.

I will tell you that my grandfather was a Police man, then he became a security guard after he retired. His schedule often had him on duty during the day on Sunday.
Perhaps it is unthinkable for the last few generations, but it was considered completely normal back then to have a fellow "essential services worker" cover for you for the 60 - 90 minutes you would need to get to Mass and back if that were possible.
Yes, the NO took care of that inconvenience for the .01% of the Catholic population it inconvenienced - in the process it served as a bad example to the rest of the whole world - those multitude of shops who have long since stopped ever giving a second thought about staying open on Sunday - not to mention all the people who patronize the shops on Sunday.

It has nothing to do about whether or not technically the Sabbath starts Saturday afternoon or not - that became a mute point the day the pope changed it - it is not about whether the pope should have changed it either - it is all about change - there is not one thing that the NO has not changed - nothing, and the Missal will be no different.

Judging by the way the NO was able to empty out the Churches, seminaries, schools etc, the changing the Lord's Day to include Saturday certainly did not prove to be a change for the better - did it?
Reply
#58
(08-17-2012, 05:35 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 04:15 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Dude, I'm not arguing for "change for the sake of change". I'm simply pointing out a legitimate use of the vigil Mass: accommodating people who work in essential industries such as healthcare. Saturday evening is still liturgically Sunday.

Likewise, there's a legitimate reason to have Masses on holy days of obligation (like the recently past Assumption) to be scheduled for the evening. Not everyone can go early in the morning before work. It's better to adjust the times of Mass than to have large groups of people not able to attend them at all.

What you seem to be failing to understand is that, aside for the sake of change, there was no reason to change the Lord's Day to Saturday in the 60s, any more than there was reason to change it for the previous 2000 years.

People worked in hospitals for hundreds of years, as did firemen, and on and on - through it all, they all kept Sunday exclusively as the Lord's Day. I know you do not think the change was made for convenience of essential services after 2000 years - I am telling you every single solitary thing that was ever considered sacred, changed - including the Day the Lord Himself set aside for rest and to keep holy.

I will tell you that my grandfather was a Police man, then he became a security guard after he retired. His schedule often had him on duty during the day on Sunday.
Perhaps it is unthinkable for the last few generations, but it was considered completely normal back then to have a fellow "essential services worker" cover for you for the 60 - 90 minutes you would need to get to Mass and back if that were possible.
Yes, the NO took care of that inconvenience for the .01% of the Catholic population it inconvenienced - in the process it served as a bad example to the rest of the whole world - those multitude of shops who have long since stopped ever giving a second thought about staying open on Sunday - not to mention all the people who patronize the shops on Sunday.

It has nothing to do about whether or not technically the Sabbath starts Saturday afternoon or not - that became a mute point the day the pope changed it - it is not about whether the pope should have changed it either - it is all about change - there is not one thing that the NO has not changed - nothing, and the Missal will be no different.

Judging by the way the NO was able to empty out the Churches, seminaries, schools etc, the changing the Lord's Day to include Saturday certainly did not prove to be a change for the better - did it?

You were doing alright as long as you used the term "Lord's Day".  When you used the term "Sabbath" I am sure that you know that the Sabbath was Saturday, at least when our Lord obsrved it.  This, as you know, was changed to Sunday, the day our Lord rose from the dead, by the Church, because the Church has the authority to do that.  Just as the Church has the authority to say when the Lord's Day liturgically starts and ends. 

Here you have traditional Catholicism being presented to you.
Reply
#59
(08-17-2012, 03:40 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 03:17 PM)Stubborn Wrote: All I am saying is that the Sunday Obligation changed - FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE.

My understanding is that the vigil Mass was introduced to accommodate people who have to work on Sunday. This may sound lame, but I used to work at a hospital, where lots of healthcare professionals simply don't have the option to take Sunday off. In the old days, they would just receive a dispensation from their pastor to miss Mass altogether.

This has been said, yes, but some would argue that, like it is implied in “Catholics for Dummies,” p. 188, this was allowed in order to facilitate ecumenism (attending non-Catholic services on Sunday, provided that Catholics attend a valid Mass on Saturday evening or sometime during the day on Sunday). I know Catholics who think this is perfectly fine and are encouraged by their local ordinaries.  

But even if this was not the reason, in Stubborn's defense, this change reflects one of the most destructive philosophical principles to even enter the minds of churchmen: making the exception the new rule. From a philosophical standpoint, the problems with this principle are glaring: it is a slippery slope that will eventually lay waste to all traditions, customs, and pious safeguards if it is consistently applied. It will never accomplish this in one generation, but over the course of many generations it will destroy all the safeguards that the Holy Ghost has put in place for a race so apt to failure, indifference, and complacency--hardly indicative of the action of the Holy Ghost whereby He makes the true Church visible to all by its mark of sanctity.

The Church has long distinguished between its mark of sanctity and the personal sanctity its individual members. In what, then, did its true mark of sanctity consist? Well, one of its principle attributes was the Church's formal imposition of laws, customs, traditions, and practices that exhorted the faithful to strive for a higher standard of holiness. It is in the codification of laws, customs, traditions, and practices that the love of the Holy Ghost for His flock shines out to the world. Some of those practices were loosed or lessened in various ways depending on the particular social or historical circumstances, but never did the Church use a principle of liberalism to apply her permission of exceptions to all her laws and customs in order create new rules that effectively erode those practices by which she proved her mark of holiness to the world.

The revolution in the Church applied this principle to many of the practices they changed whereby what was once allowed only on an exceptional basis (i.e. receiving the consecrated wine [gluten allergies], being present at the religious services of false religions, standing for communion [the elderly, disabled, and infirmed], practicing natural family planning, receiving communion in the hand [during epidemics and persecution], dispensing parishioners from the Friday fast, dispensing individual parishioners from a Sunday obligation, etc.) became the new rule: everyone is allowed to do these things without requiring special privileges or needs. The Church prohibited these things for good reason--reasons which exist more today than ever--and only allowed exceptions on an individual basis if absolutely necessary and if the specified conditions were met. Now, these safeguards put in place by the Holy Ghost have been all but completely washed away under such specious pretexts as "they have been allowed in certain circumstances, so it is not intrinsically evil." The Church, led by the Holy Ghost, has frowned on this reasoning for 2000 years because of the dangerous impact this would have on the spiritual well-being of the faithful. Where is the mark of sanctity to be found in such a policy? Are we expected to think that the Holy Ghost suddenly became enlightened in the 1960s and realized He was being too hard on us? What else are wayfaring souls supposed to conclude when they examine the erosion of those moral customs that bound together, into a conspicuous unity transcending space and time, the Catholics of yesterday with the Catholics of today?

The ensuing apostasy is not a surprising consequence of the wholesale application of such a principle.
Reply
#60
The observation of the Sabbath is transferred to Sunday, but properly speaking, the Sabbath is still Saturday, since it refers to the day God rested after Creation. In Spanish, for example, the word for Saturday is sabado. The word for Sunday is domingo (Lord's Day).

(A subtle but important distinction for someone with a Seventh-day Adventist background like myself!)


Anyway, I'm aware of the slippery slope principle. But a Saturday evening Mass is still on liturgical Sunday. If it's a change, it's no more a change than having an evening Mass for a holy day of obligation. If you condemn the vigil Mass, you must logically also condemn the practice of having evening Masses on holy days, as is done with many TLM's (I don't know if SSPX does so or not).


But if Stubborn says that in the old days, you could find a way to attend Mass on Sunday no matter what job you had, I'll take his word for it unless someone comes up with a contradicting story.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)