- This topic has 1 reply, 4 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ever hear some people say that history doesn’t matter that “The Bible alone” is the issue. Oh contrare! How necessary these folks find it to not allow “history” to enter the debate.
You can very well see why. Our Church history, good and bad, has always been open for public view. In it, you can see the folly in the many accusations of doctrines we have supposedly “created” and the many doctrines they claim are “the true church”.
When you read the church Fathers you come to the inescapable conclusion that we teach the same doctrines we have for 2000 years.
In that is the proof that we got them from Jesus.
How wonderful it is that the truth has been put to paper, for so long, for all of us to see!Yes, it is wonderful to see the teachings of Jesus have been around this long and will be for all time! I think that history also repeats itself, because really, many of the events that were going on during the time of Jesus are going on yet today, only maybe in a slightly different manner. The same temptations are present now, and the same sins that occured in the past are still committed today. However, when one looks at the big picture, what the Church has taught for over 2000 years has transcended time and will continue to do so because Jesus’ teachings will never expire. Man is responsibile for the variations of morals within society, but God does not change his teachings or morals.
To me, it is amazing to think that the Church has not only lasted through numerous wars and persecutions but also continues on with the same teachings that still are relevant today. Also not to be overlooked: the Church includes (and has included) millions of people that all believe and follow the same teachings throughout this vast time period!
It is unfortunate, though, that there are people out there who actually distort what happened in history. Take for example the fallacy that the Catholic Church was started by Constantine. This is totally untrue and far removed from reality.
History can also work against Catholics because of episodes such as the Crusades and the Inquisition.
I am old enough to remember life in the Church pre Vatican II.
In those days, we had altar rails and a pulpit in my parish church.
Holy Communion was distributed only by priests. When I went to receive Holy Communion, I knelt down at the altar rails and received on my tongue.
There are not so many priests now in my diocese of Down and Connor… not so many ordinations… not so many attending the Holy Sacrifice of Mass.
Although Pope John Paul II said that those who prefer the Tridentine Mass should be shown respect and accommodated, and my Bishop gave permission, the Tridentine Mass is not celebrated in Belfast.
But I suppose I shouldn’t forget that Pope Paul VI said the “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church.”
Hi John Caughey, welcome to the site.
Are you saying that the change to having mass in the vernacular instead of all in Latin was a bad thing for the Church? I’m just asking for clarification on your last comment.
” title=”Smile” />
[quote:cjidh4c0]Are you saying that the change to having mass in the vernacular instead of all in Latin was a bad thing for the Church? I’m just asking for clarification on your last comment. [/quote:cjidh4c0]
Yes, to some extent. However, it is not only a question of language, I think. I somehow feel that the New Rite Mass is not as reverend.
I usually attend the New Rite Mass daily, but prefer the Tridentine Mass and would attend it, if it was available; with the permission of my Bishop.
Well, “reverent” is kind of subjective depending on what you are used to.
Take, for instance, churches that are more “shout and praise” style. [b:1ujibjmg]That[/b:1ujibjmg] is their form of showing reverence to God. What has become the common definition (at least here in the U.S.) I think is the silent, being still, hands folded, keeping all of your limbs in towards yourself.
In the Catholic Church today you will see many people with their hands folded as they pray, but only a few thousand years ago, the way to pray was with the hands open and the body open to God – that is the way the Hebrews pray.
This position is kind of interesting because when you do it, you feel more vulnerable (at least I do) and open. It’s almost like you’re allowing yourself to become hit by something. Whereas the hands folded thing is a nice security blanket where you can keep yourself focused inward. It’s really an interesting experience to pray with your hands out instead of in.
Now, I have always grown up with the Mass in the vernacular so I am not too familiar with the Tidentine Mass, but I do know a few things. For one, it would seem weird to me that the priest is not facing toward me when doing a lot of the Eucharistic prayers since part of the purpose of the Eucharist is to bind the Body of Christ together. And communion rails and all that seem to me to be keeping something that is meant for the people away from the people. I think the changes in the mass were a great thing.
If you look at the original Eucharist, you see that all the people were gathered around a table, facing each other and sharing. They were not 50 yards away in a back pew watching the “show” at the altar.
I also think that the Mass is whatever you put into it. If you’re not attentive or not in tune with what is going on then yeah, it won’t seem that great.
Now, I understand that the Tridentine Mass might be beautiful with the singing and Latin and all that, but I do not see it any more reverent than any other type of Mass. The Mass is something that can be integrated with different cultures, hence the different Rites of the Church (with the Latin Rite being the most common) and creating different worship styles. Reverence in each of these settings may be different due to different cultural norms thereby making reverence subjective.
I also grew up only with the Novus Ordo. I remember reading some articles on a traditionalist website about the Tridentine Mass and while I feel there are many aspects of it that do seem more reverend I value my ability to participate more actively in the mass. That, of course, was one of the goals of Vatican II.
[quote:2ci3fgif]In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, the full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered above all else, for it is the primary and indespensible source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit.[/quote:2ci3fgif]
[quote:2c9s9k4r]I also grew up only with the Novus Ordo. I remember reading some articles on a traditionalist website about the Tridentine Mass and while I feel there are many aspects of it that do seem more reverend I value my ability to participate more actively in the mass. That, of course, was one of the goals of Vatican II.
[quote:2c9s9k4r]In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, the full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered above all else, for it is the primary and indespensible source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit.[/quote:2c9s9k4r][/quote:2c9s9k4r]
Yes, that is one of the things I hear from people that grew up with Mass in Latin is that the priest spoke a funny language and people just repeated what they were supposed to, etc…. With the Mass in someone’s native language they can now participate more and have a greater appreciation for what is happening.
[quote:3ezbtx51]Well, “reverent” is kind of subjective depending on what you are used to. [/quote:3ezbtx51]
I thank you and Benedict for your responses to my message.
I still possess a Latin/English missal and a Latin/Gaelic missal that I used years ago when I attended Mass in the Tridentine rite. My knowledge of Latin is poor but I was able to follow the Mass in English or in Gaelic.
The priest celebrant facing the congregation at Mass in the New Rite, can be a distraction for some people, I think.
It is a pity that many bishops did not respond to the Holy Father’s request to be generous in their response to requests for the Tridentine Mass from those who prefer it.
I feel that our religious leaders should not cause us hurt or confusion.
A priest once told me that “confusion is a good thing.”
[quote:119n2btf]Yes, that is one of the things I hear from people that grew up with Mass in Latin is that the priest spoke a funny language and people just repeated what they were supposed to, etc…. With the Mass in someone’s native language they can now participate more and have a greater appreciation for what is happening. [/quote:119n2btf]
The “funny” language – Latin – is still the official language of the Church. A layman in my parish, in reference to Latin said, “I don’t believe in mumbo jumbo. I reminded him, as I remind you, of its offical status in the Church.
[quote:336x0ftx]The priest celebrant facing the congregation at Mass in the New Rite, can be a distraction for some people, I think.[/quote:336x0ftx]
Interesting…
” title=”Confused” /> I’m just more into the notion that at the Last Supper (the first Mass if you will) Jesus was gathered around the table with people in close quarters sharing his body and blood. And with the Eucharist being the spiritual connection between the members of the Church I just think that having the priest face away is weird. However, I still respect your preference for the Tridentine Mass, don’t get me wrong, I just don’t know if [b:336x0ftx][i:336x0ftx]I[/i:336x0ftx][/b:336x0ftx] would like it.[quote:336x0ftx]It is a pity that many bishops did not respond to the Holy Father’s request to be generous in their response to requests for the Tridentine Mass from those who prefer it.
I feel that our religious leaders should not cause us hurt or confusion. [/quote:336x0ftx]
I’m sure we have some of the same problems in the U.S. but I think in my archdiocese there isn’t that problem. I definitely agree with you that our religious leaders should not cause us hurt and confusion. I think that is why the clergy sexual abuse scandal in the U.S. Church has hurt so much – because of the hurt and confusion from someone we trust.
” title=”Sad” />[quote:336x0ftx]The “funny” language – Latin – is still the official language of the Church. A layman in my parish, in reference to Latin said, “I don’t believe in mumbo jumbo. I reminded him, as I remind you, of its offical status in the Church.[/quote:336x0ftx]
Oh, I know that – [b:336x0ftx]I[/b:336x0ftx] wasn’t calling it a funny language, I was more or less “quoting” what other people have told me regarding their feelings on the Tridentine Mass.
” title=”Smile” />
” title=”Smile” />
” title=”Confused” /> I’m just more into the notion that at the Last Supper (the first Mass if you will) Jesus was gathered around the table with people in close quarters sharing his body and blood. And with the Eucharist being the spiritual connection between the members of the Church I just think that having the priest face away is weird. However, I still respect your preference for the Tridentine Mass, don’t get me wrong, I just don’t know if [b:336x0ftx][i:336x0ftx]I[/i:336x0ftx][/b:336x0ftx] would like it.
” title=”Sad” />- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.