Topic: Roman mass questions...

[J Michael]

I'm not the moderator of the Orthodox-Catholic Discussion forum by hap-chance.  My name wasn't "pulled out of a hat."  It's because I have a pretty good grasp on things Orthodox and things Roman Catholic/Greek Catholic.

How expert are you?

Just curious

Interesting that he hasn't replied to either of our questions......yet.  What say you, username?

Interesting that I have obligations off-line chill yo!

Can I just have fun sometimes

Gee, and here I thought that a moderator would actually live on-line, all the time!  Whatever was I thinking    ?

I'm chillin' "yo"  !

Just out of curiosity, where did you see me write or imply *anything* to the effect of "username must never have fun"?  Chill yo-self yo .

Hehe I was just teasing back yo!

Yokeedokee yo  !

[J Michael]

So, username, now that you seem to be back posting, back to what Mary and I have asked: What were you referring to when you wrote, "I'm not the moderator of the Orthodox-Catholic Discussion forum by hap-chance.  My name wasn't "pulled out of a hat."  It's because I have a pretty good grasp on things Orthodox and things Roman Catholic/Greek Catholic."  And how much of an expert on the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are you?

[username!]

So, username, now that you seem to be back posting, back to what Mary and I have asked: What were you referring to when you wrote, "I'm not the moderator of the Orthodox-Catholic Discussion forum by hap-chance.  My name wasn't "pulled out of a hat."  It's because I have a pretty good grasp on things Orthodox and things Roman Catholic/Greek Catholic."  And how much of an expert on the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are you?

I grew up Greek Catholic and since we moved around I attended Roman Catholic churches and schools as well.  My other half of the family is Orthodox.  So I've grown up around all three and am very familiar with all of them.  That's all, I mean I do know how to read and have served in all three forever.  I may have even studied one of those in a formal setting once.

[J Michael]

I believe that the RCC would say that all of its members receive the the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under either species. Perhaps this is why the need to receive from the Chalice itself is not a requirement.

Correct. 

It is true, too, that many parishes, such as the one where my wife and I are members, distribute under both species at virtually every Mass.

[Peter J]

Actually, it isn't always that easy to get an answer. See for example:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,42259.msg697897.html#msg697897

[Peter J]

The change to "And with your spirit," is not necessarily "going East;" it is a return to the direct translation from the Latin of the (old) Trendintine Latin Mass. 

I believe it is actually a direct translation from the Novus Ordo Latin Mass.

[Scotty]

The change to "And with your spirit," is not necessarily "going East;" it is a return to the direct translation from the Latin of the (old) Trendintine Latin Mass.

I believe it is actually a direct translation from the Novus Ordo Latin Mass.

During the time leading up to the new translation, Catholic media outlets often cited the move as a "return to the original Latin."  I found the phrase to be very misleading, because when Catholics [and everyone else] hear "original Latin" they undoubtedly think of the old Mass which implies the new Mass is just the old Mass translated (this is what I was taught as a kid and what my mom's parish still teaches).  But nay, it is only 1970s Latin.

[username!]

The change to "And with your spirit," is not necessarily "going East;" it is a return to the direct translation from the Latin of the (old) Trendintine Latin Mass. 

I believe it is actually a direct translation from the Novus Ordo Latin Mass.

Et cum spiritu tuo doesn't mean "and also with you."  It means " and with your spirit".  It doesn't matter what mass they translated that from it doesn't change the Latin or the English.  But they merely fixed up the English translation of the 1970 Roman Missal and I think it only took them about 10 years to do it (google translate does it in 5 seconds and is rather good with Latin). 

[Scotty]

The change to "And with your spirit," is not necessarily "going East;" it is a return to the direct translation from the Latin of the (old) Trendintine Latin Mass. 

I believe it is actually a direct translation from the Novus Ordo Latin Mass.

Et cum spiritu tuo doesn't mean "and also with you."  It means " and with your spirit".  It doesn't matter what mass they translated that from it doesn't change the Latin or the English.  But they merely fixed up the English translation of the 1970 Roman Missal and I think it only took them about 10 years to do it (google translate does it in 5 seconds and is rather good with Latin). 

This is just the surface of what was corrected, but is what was most talked about.  The collects, postcommunions, prefaces, and Canon(s) were drastically changed, and the Gloria, Creed, and other responses had minor changes; unfortunately the NAB readings remain.  I think Peter J was referring to the whole Mass, not just "and with your spirit."

[Peter J]

Not really. I just worried that some people might be misled or confused by the "it is a return to the direct translation from the Latin of the (old) Trendintine Latin Mass" comment.

[username!]

Not really. I just worried that some people might be misled or confused by the "it is a return to the direct translation from the Latin of the (old) Trendintine Latin Mass" comment.

Honestly I don't know why they just didn't stick with the 1965 Roman Missal.  And I've seen participatory low masses where the faithful say responses.  In all honesty they never struck me as much different in atmosphere as the no music or min. music modern mass just recited and no homily said.  They are both rather quick.

[Scotty]

Not really. I just worried that some people might be misled or confused by the "it is a return to the direct translation from the Latin of the (old) Trendintine Latin Mass" comment.

Honestly I don't know why they just didn't stick with the 1965 Roman Missal.  And I've seen participatory low masses where the faithful say responses.  In all honesty they never struck me as much different in atmosphere as the no music or min. music modern mass just recited and no homily said.  They are both rather quick.

1965 was essentially an English version of the old Mass with lay readers, right?  That's a loaded question because most will say that is what the Novus Ordo is, but you get what I mean. 

The Mass I go to when I'm visiting my mom is a High Mass with laity responding to all responses, including the prayers at the foot of the altar and "Orate fratres...", per the recommendation of Pope St. Pius X (which I thought was only regarding a few phrases, but whatever).  The Canon is still silent.

[quietmorning]

I just came back from a funeral mass.  I have a few questions...

1. Where's the incense?  I swear, y'all used incense when I was little, even if it was so little I could barely smell it.

Trevor, the incense, in Vatican II is used in certain Holy Days of Obligation - primarily Christmas and Easter.  I don't know why they cut it back so much - probably because the Liturgy within the Mass is only a third of what it once was.  If you will notice that the Western Rite does not have an Iconostasis, and there is heavy emphasis on the alter (it is turned to face the people instead of the Crucifix) - the statues of veneration if there are any, any longer within the church (the older churches usually have statues, the newer churches often do not or have very few.) are toward the back of the church - so it isn't nearly as 'feasible' to 'Cense' the Saints of God.  So, basically, it just doesn't work as well in the format of how things are today.  I don't know if your Grandmother took you for the Christmas and Easter Masses, but this is usually where you will find incense now. . .and it's been that way since I was a little girl.  

2. The wine used for communion wasn't red, but pink-ish.  Do they dilute the wine, and then mix it with water?

Yes, it is mixed with water.  It's not boiling like ours is, but the water is used to wash the Priests hands and then, from the same flask, added to the wine because when Jesus was speared both water and blood poured from his side.

3.  Why did only the priest partake of the wine, and the faithful only received "host"?

When I was a little girl, I only received the host - when I asked the same question as you asked above - I was told that not only does the Priest represent Christ, the High Priest, but also stands in the gap for the people.  (So the priests received the blood on behalf of the people.) It was decided that the body and the blood cannot be separated (this is childhood teaching, so I couldn't reference this unless I did some pretty hefty research, I'm sure.) and therefore the people were actually receiving both 'species'.  I didn't like the answer. . . I think I was ten.  It seemed to me that it was man messing with what God put forth as most-sacred.  When I was a teen ager, the RC started listening to some of the complaints of the people, and this was one of them. . . so they began to offer both the host and the cup. . .then the Aids outbreak hit the scene, and they either went back to only offering the host or offering the host 'dipped' into the chalice.  Now, they do what ever . . . their parish happens to be doing.  I've seen all three depending on what church I happen to have been in.

Another thing that changed was that the RC used to fast before Holy Communion just like we do.  That changed when the change in the wine was reintroduced.  It went from receiving the host on your knees and the priest placing it on your tongue while a paten was placed under the chin to standing before the priest and having the host placed in your hands.  Then there were laymen ministers added to help with distributing the host to the parish in and outside of church (I was one of these.) So. . .every twenty years or so. . .a pretty significant change happened.  

4.  Why do you sit during the Gospel reading, yet you stand for hymns?  Not to sounds standoff-ish, this just really surprised me.  I fealt like sitting in the comfy pew while the Gospel was being read was somehow disrespectful.

We always stood for the Gospel Reading, and sat for the homily.  I've never experienced this - so I cannot even begin to fathom why this would happen. This sounds very protestant to me. Maybe this is the most recent change to take effect?

5.  The person for whom the funeral mass was for was my grandmother.  She was cremated.  I thought that the Roman Catholics didn't do cremation?

I was raised that cremation was not an option, BUT the CULTURE of the current Roman Catholic is very different. . .please remember that the church memberships are often HUGE compared to ours.  The teaching often has many holes. . . I was a cradle Catholic. . . .and was a precocious child - always asking questions. . .that no one seemed to know the answers to.  Even when I asked the priests and the nuns. . . they just didn't know or thought it prudent not to teach.  My uncle - a priest, told me that I would have to become a priest to know the questions I was asking (interestingly enough - the same questions I've always asked. . .the same questions I've found answers to quite easily in the OC.). . .well. . . that's a shot in the foot on THAT one.  So, please understand, the Orthodox, even as an inquirer is far more educated on the history and reasoning of the church than a lot of RC.  Culturally, the Bible isn't read - or wasn't. . .that may have changed, now - I was a goof ball when I was 'caught' reading mine.  If I as a parent fail to teach my children something - then I am less likely to discipline as harshly when it's time to discipline.  It's my fault, not theirs. . . I think sometimes the Catholic Church takes (understandably) the same stance.  So while cremation may not have been allowed, it may have been permitted for the sake of the family and soul of your Grandmother.

6.  Why was it ok for a parishioner (a woman, no less) to touch the altar?  Are people allowed to just approach and touch it when preforming some liturgical function (I think she was bringing the priest the "host" (wafers))

This is another thing that came along right about the time the change in how the host was handled. . .they wanted God to be 'touchable'. . . loveable. . . there was a significant problem in 'perceived' in the RC called 'Catholic Guilt', and they wanted to help the people understand that God LOVES them, and really wasn't the hammer in the sky ready to strike at any moment.  But, I think they kind of threw the baby out with the bathwater - taking on the Love of God without holding in tact the Majesty of God.  Again, a move more toward Protestantism.  Seemed like the RC was trying to repent for its sins in a way that was a little lost. . .I know that also during this time the sins of the Holocaust came out and were acknowledged and repented for.  So, it was an incorrect. . . correction of sorts.  (Ah, we are so lost, aren't we?  It's so hard to really hit that mark. . .all of us.)

So, they wanted to make Him approachable. . .and in that the alter became 'touchable'.    

7.  Lastly, why do you no longer respond with "and also with you", but now use "and with your spirit"?  Going East, are we?  I don't blame you

Maybe!  I know that my mother called me about the current changes that are being made.  Seems the current Pope is trying very hard to work on reconciliation . . . and to keep the Eastern Catholics from feeling like they are isolated.  She seemed to think that they would all be Orthodox before the end of the century - and wanted to know what changes she would have to make.  . . I just told her. . ."You'll just get to love God even more, because you'll have all of church history, traditions and all who have gone before you to help you."  She told me that was what she was going to tell her friends.  

I don't mean any of this to start an argument.  This is not the place for such a thread.  I am seriously curious, as I remember the Catholic Church as doing things differently (but, then again, that was 4 years ago...).  

 Just pray for us all.  Maybe Rome will come back to true communion, yet.  

EDIT:  I just want to say:  One thing I thought was interesting was that, were this 5 months ago, I might of felt more at home at this mass.  I'm happy to report that I felt like an Orthodox Christian in a Roman Catholic Church  

 

[username!]

Not really. I just worried that some people might be misled or confused by the "it is a return to the direct translation from the Latin of the (old) Trendintine Latin Mass" comment.

Honestly I don't know why they just didn't stick with the 1965 Roman Missal.  And I've seen participatory low masses where the faithful say responses.  In all honesty they never struck me as much different in atmosphere as the no music or min. music modern mass just recited and no homily said.  They are both rather quick.

1965 was essentially an English version of the old Mass with lay readers, right?  That's a loaded question because most will say that is what the Novus Ordo is, but you get what I mean. 

The Mass I go to when I'm visiting my mom is a High Mass with laity responding to all responses, including the prayers at the foot of the altar and "Orate fratres...", per the recommendation of Pope St. Pius X (which I thought was only regarding a few phrases, but whatever).  The Canon is still silent.

It was closer to the 1962 Missal just in vernacular. prayers at the foot of the altar were shortened and optional.  Still it cut out a lot of prayers. 

[username!]

A lot of Roman Catholic churches use the American Carpatho Russian Orthodox Diocese's made incense.  It's the powder for called P-8 and the brand is Gloria Incense.  Or they use this stuff called Jerusalem incense.

Just saying you can't go wrong with pure frankincense.  It doesn't make the entire congregation cough.

[Peter J]

4.  Why do you sit during the Gospel reading, yet you stand for hymns?  Not to sounds standoff-ish, this just really surprised me.  I fealt like sitting in the comfy pew while the Gospel was being read was somehow disrespectful.

We always stood for the Gospel Reading, and sat for the homily.  I've never experienced this - so I cannot even begin to fathom why this would happen. This sounds very protestant to me. Maybe this is the most recent change to take effect?

No. Based on my experience, I would have to say that standing for the Gospel reading is still the norm and sitting is still very rare.

5.  The person for whom the funeral mass was for was my grandmother.  She was cremated.  I thought that the Roman Catholics didn't do cremation?

I was raised that cremation was not an option, BUT the CULTURE of the current Roman Catholic is very different. . .please remember that the church memberships are often HUGE compared to ours.  The teaching often has many holes. . . I was a cradle Catholic. . . .and was a precocious child - always asking questions. . .that no one seemed to know the answers to.  Even when I asked the priests and the nuns. . . they just didn't know or thought it prudent not to teach.  My uncle - a priest, told me that I would have to become a priest to know the questions I was asking (interestingly enough - the same questions I've always asked. . .the same questions I've found answers to quite easily in the OC.). . .well. . . that's a shot in the foot on THAT one.  So, please understand, the Orthodox, even as an inquirer is far more educated on the history and reasoning of the church than a lot of RC.  Culturally, the Bible isn't read - or wasn't. . .that may have changed, now - I was a goof ball when I was 'caught' reading mine.  If I as a parent fail to teach my children something - then I am less likely to discipline as harshly when it's time to discipline.  It's my fault, not theirs. . . I think sometimes the Catholic Church takes (understandably) the same stance.  So while cremation may not have been allowed, it may have been permitted for the sake of the family and soul of your Grandmother.

Cremation has been allowed for the last couple decades. I recall hearing an announcement like "Cremation is now permitted, provided that the ashes are buried" (as opposed to, say, sprinkled over a lake).

6.  Why was it ok for a parishioner (a woman, no less) to touch the altar?  Are people allowed to just approach and touch it when preforming some liturgical function (I think she was bringing the priest the "host" (wafers))

This is another thing that came along right about the time the change in how the host was handled. . .they wanted God to be 'touchable'. . . loveable. . . there was a significant problem in 'perceived' in the RC called 'Catholic Guilt', and they wanted to help the people understand that God LOVES them, and really wasn't the hammer in the sky ready to strike at any moment.  

Funny you should mention that, because I just recently heard an RC priest talking about an article called You Are Worthy in the Jesuit magazine America. I forget everything that Father said about the article, but I remember he quoted the student saying “Yo, Father Rick, how come before we get Communion we say that thing about not being worthy? That really sucks. Man, so many kids today don’t feel worthy of anything. Why reinforce it right when we’re receiving Communion?”

But, I think they kind of threw the baby out with the bathwater - taking on the Love of God without holding in tact the Majesty of God.  Again, a move more toward Protestantism.

In my experience, when RCs do something bad it's usually "a move more toward Protestantism".

[Scotty]

When I was a little girl, I only received the host - when I asked the same question as you asked above - I was told that not only does the Priest represent Christ, the High Priest, but also stands in the gap for the people.  (So the priests received the blood on behalf of the people.) It was decided that the body and the blood cannot be separated (this is childhood teaching, so I couldn't reference this unless I did some pretty hefty research, I'm sure.) and therefore the people were actually receiving both 'species'.  I didn't like the answer. . . I think I was ten.  It seemed to me that it was man messing with what God put forth as most-sacred.  When I was a teen ager, the RC started listening to some of the complaints of the people, and this was one of them. . . so they began to offer both the host and the cup. . .then the Aids outbreak hit the scene, and they either went back to only offering the host or offering the host 'dipped' into the chalice.  Now, they do what ever . . . their parish happens to be doing.  I've seen all three depending on what church I happen to have been in.

Another thing that changed was that the RC used to fast before Holy Communion just like we do.  That changed when the change in the wine was reintroduced.  It went from receiving the host on your knees and the priest placing it on your tongue while a paten was placed under the chin to standing before the priest and having the host placed in your hands.  Then there were laymen ministers added to help with distributing the host to the parish in and outside of church (I was one of these.) So. . .every twenty years or so. . .a pretty significant change happened.  

This practice comes around the same time as St. Thomas Aquinas.  In a nutshell, you cannot separate the Body and Blood of Christ.  When you receive the Body, you receive all of Christ, as do you when you receive the Precious Blood.  You also don't receive the flesh of Christ without His Soul and Divinity.  People in the West at one time had falsely taught that each species is different; I think this was a dead issue by the 1200s, but if it wasn't I'm sure this was part of the reason of switching to Communion under one kind.  There are theological and scriptural reasons for this as well.

The priest acts on behalf of the people at many times in the Mass, but he does not receive communion on behalf of the people, but I can see how this would be explained to children [though it shouldn't be].  A priest must receive both the Body and Blood, however.  See Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 80, Article 12, for more info on an accepted Roman Catholic teaching regarding this.

[Scotty]

6.  Why was it ok for a parishioner (a woman, no less) to touch the altar?  Are people allowed to just approach and touch it when preforming some liturgical function (I think she was bringing the priest the "host" (wafers))

This is another thing that came along right about the time the change in how the host was handled. . .they wanted God to be 'touchable'. . . loveable. . . there was a significant problem in 'perceived' in the RC called 'Catholic Guilt', and they wanted to help the people understand that God LOVES them, and really wasn't the hammer in the sky ready to strike at any moment.  

Funny you should mention that, because I just recently heard an RC priest talking about an article called You Are Worthy in the Jesuit magazine America. I forget everything that Father said about the article, but I remember he quoted the student saying “Yo, Father Rick, how come before we get Communion we say that thing about not being worthy? That really sucks. Man, so many kids today don’t feel worthy of anything. Why reinforce it right when we’re receiving Communion?”

...another reason why I consider America (and most modern Jesuit literature) to be fishwrap.

[Peter J]

6.  Why was it ok for a parishioner (a woman, no less) to touch the altar?  Are people allowed to just approach and touch it when preforming some liturgical function (I think she was bringing the priest the "host" (wafers))

This is another thing that came along right about the time the change in how the host was handled. . .they wanted God to be 'touchable'. . . loveable. . . there was a significant problem in 'perceived' in the RC called 'Catholic Guilt', and they wanted to help the people understand that God LOVES them, and really wasn't the hammer in the sky ready to strike at any moment.  

Funny you should mention that, because I just recently heard an RC priest talking about an article called You Are Worthy in the Jesuit magazine America. I forget everything that Father said about the article, but I remember he quoted the student saying “Yo, Father Rick, how come before we get Communion we say that thing about not being worthy? That really sucks. Man, so many kids today don’t feel worthy of anything. Why reinforce it right when we’re receiving Communion?”

...another reason why I consider America (and most modern Jesuit literature) to be fishwrap.

I just want to say that, while I may not be in agreement all the changes that have happened since Vatican II, I do think it's a credit to Catholics that they have kept the "Lord I am not worthy ..."

[Christopher McAvoy]

I do think it's a credit to Catholics that they have kept the "Lord I am not worthy ..."

yes, the "consiliums" original novus ordo liturgy that they tried out in 1968, with great enthusiasm from Mr. bugnini had lacked those words. So it could have been worse, whew.

Sometimes it is the key words that keep flame of integrity and potential legitimacy burning more fully in the hearts of the faithful. Those little sparks which allow a more easy return to the fullness of tradition over time.

[Andrew21091]

No. Based on my experience, I would have to say that standing for the Gospel reading is still the norm and sitting is still very rare.

I will agree with you. All of the Catholic masses that I've ever been to, everybody stood during the reading of the Gospel.

[Andrew21091]

1965 was essentially an English version of the old Mass with lay readers, right?  That's a loaded question because most will say that is what the Novus Ordo is, but you get what I mean. 

My stepmother suggested that the Novus Ordo is just the same mass with more participation.

I don't understand why the Catholic Church couldn't just stick with the old form and simply have it in the vernacular. I was told this is what was done right after Vatican II but everything changed with the introduction of the Novus Ordo. Are there any current Catholic parishes (specifically in the US) that serve the mass in the old form but have it in the vernacular? Is this possible in the Catholic Church?

[NicholasMyra]

The last time I attended a Catholic parish, they had service books with a clipart-style icon of black jesus pantokrator on the covers.

[Peter J]

Are there any current Catholic parishes (specifically in the US) that serve the mass in the old form but have it in the vernacular? Is this possible in the Catholic Church?

I don't think so.

[Scotty]

1965 was essentially an English version of the old Mass with lay readers, right?  That's a loaded question because most will say that is what the Novus Ordo is, but you get what I mean. 

My stepmother suggested that the Novus Ordo is just the same mass with more participation.

I don't understand why the Catholic Church couldn't just stick with the old form and simply have it in the vernacular. I was told this is what was done right after Vatican II but everything changed with the introduction of the Novus Ordo. Are there any current Catholic parishes (specifically in the US) that serve the mass in the old form but have it in the vernacular? Is this possible in the Catholic Church?

Its somewhat complicated, but the group which wrote the Novus Ordo came about after the council basically with blanket approval.  They were headed by Archbishop Bugnini, who is very much heterodox.  So I'm told, the council envisioned essentially a High Liturgy with vernacular, similar to the Tridentine Mass.  What Bugnini wanted is what is done in the Neocatechumenal Way. 

Before the Council of Trent some German and I believe Polish bishops (and probably a handful of others) were allowed vernacular Masses, and had great success doing so.  However, Protestant demands conflicted, and Latin was retained as to not appeal to Protestantism among other reasons.  China had permission to use the vernacular for most of the Mass if not all at one time, and this was definitely after Trent.

[username!]

1965 was essentially an English version of the old Mass with lay readers, right?  That's a loaded question because most will say that is what the Novus Ordo is, but you get what I mean. 

My stepmother suggested that the Novus Ordo is just the same mass with more participation.

I don't understand why the Catholic Church couldn't just stick with the old form and simply have it in the vernacular. I was told this is what was done right after Vatican II but everything changed with the introduction of the Novus Ordo. Are there any current Catholic parishes (specifically in the US) that serve the mass in the old form but have it in the vernacular? Is this possible in the Catholic Church?

it's google-able that 1965 roman missal.  I guess it isn't too much different.  Of course you could only use the roman eucharistic canon (no.1 in today's liturgy but I seldom have heard it, usually 2 or 3 is what they use).

[stanley123]

Are there any current Catholic parishes (specifically in the US) that serve the mass in the old form but have it in the vernacular? Is this possible in the Catholic Church?

I don't think so.

I think that they did have it as such for a while in some Old Catholic Churches (not the RCC).

[username!]

the one old catholic church nearby uses the tridentine mass in english.  they aren't roman catholics, but protestants though.

[William]

the one old catholic church nearby uses the tridentine mass in english.  they aren't roman catholics, but protestants though.

I wouldn't consider Old Catholics Protestants.

[Peter J]

the one old catholic church nearby uses the tridentine mass in english.  they aren't roman catholics, but protestants though.

I wouldn't consider Old Catholics Protestants.

Agreed.

[Peter J]

Are there any current Catholic parishes (specifically in the US) that serve the mass in the old form but have it in the vernacular? Is this possible in the Catholic Church?

I don't think so.

I think that they did have it as such for a while in some Old Catholic Churches (not the RCC).

I think there was such a thing in the RCC too, but only for a short while in the 1960s I believe.

[Papist]

Are there any current Catholic parishes (specifically in the US) that serve the mass in the old form but have it in the vernacular? Is this possible in the Catholic Church?

I don't think so.

I think that they did have it as such for a while in some Old Catholic Churches (not the RCC).

I think there was such a thing in the RCC too, but only for a short while in the 1960s I believe.

That's probably the road that liturgical reform should have taken. If we had merely translated the TLM into English, we'd be in much better shape today.

[Andrew21091]

Are there any current Catholic parishes (specifically in the US) that serve the mass in the old form but have it in the vernacular? Is this possible in the Catholic Church?

I don't think so.

I think that they did have it as such for a while in some Old Catholic Churches (not the RCC).

I think there was such a thing in the RCC too, but only for a short while in the 1960s I believe.

That's probably the road that liturgical reform should have taken. If we had merely translated the TLM into English, we'd be in much better shape today.

Its a shame that it didn't. 

[Christopher McAvoy]

That's probably the road that liturgical reform should have taken. If we had merely translated the TLM into English, we'd be in much better shape today.

Its a shame that it didn't.  Sad

Yes, instead we have this:



http://vultus.stblogs.org/2011/01/sanguis-christi.html

"The use of this photo is in no way a reflection on the good faith of the young people appearing in it. It does, however, effectively demonstrate the great chasm that has opened up between the liturgical practice of the Eastern Churches (see the photo above) and certain liturgical practices that are currently widespread in churches of the Roman Rite. It also demonstrates that some members of the clergy have failed to address the legitimate hopes and praiseworthy aspirations of the faithful, by neglecting to offer a consistent mystagogical catechesis (explanation of the unfolding of the liturgical rites and texts), capable of fostering true, conscious, and actual participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in accordance with liturgical law and in organic continuity with tradition."

Oh, how the Latin Church has come a long way since the year 1500!



Protestant influence indeed.

Well on the bright side of things, the Archdiocese of Baltimore is allowing young priests to wear really nice cassocks on a daily basis now. And some actually are. And a few local Latin churches are making some baby steps inroads toward more "orthodox" practices, concerning the eucharist and it's attendant music. Some of the "annoying gregorian chant nerds" on the blacklist are finally being taken seriously and given a chance to work their magic touch here or there. Meanwhile, simultaneously, every major city appears to have made an attempt at a celebrating "gay mass" in their most liberal parish, sometimes they canceled, sometimes they are continued.  What confusing times to live in if you have not found the "true faith".

[Christopher McAvoy]

In fact I think that homosexuality amongst the clergy is the number one reason that the last decades of "modern" practices of the Latin /Roman Catholic Church succumbed to so may grave errors. Some may view that as conspiratorial, but years of research and first hand experience have taught me this lesson. I think that the blackmail of homosexual hierarches by modernist clerics was what allowed them. Specifically Pope Paul VI.

As actions in the OCA prove, the Orthodox Church is not immune from similar problems, but it's theology and model is able to overcome the "authoritarian/centralized/counter-reformation" policies because it is the opposite in those area, homosexuality amongst its own clergy, while less to begin with can in no way destroy it in the way it did for the Latins. Adherence to Holy Tradition preserves it.

Theoretically adherence to Holy Tradition could also save the Latin Church...but the road is much rockier there.

[Andrew21091]

Theoretically adherence to Holy Tradition could also save the Latin Church...but the road is much rockier there.

Who knows? I hope and pray that what is happening here, takes off:
http://www.cantius.org/go/about_us/category/video_about_saint_john_cantius_church/

I think this quote tells it all: "The parishioners of St. John Cantius love the Latin Liturgy.  They see in the Sacred Rites of the Church an intrinsic beauty that has a transformative power over the soul.  The Bride of Christ, the Catholic Church, understands the sacramental nature of her own liturgy, and so our Holy Mother the Church understands that beauty in liturgical gestures and monuments can reflect the beauty of God and direct the faithful towards God." (http://www.cantius.org/go/liturgy_devotions/)

I cannot wait for the next time I'm in Chicago!

[Peter J]

That's probably the road that liturgical reform should have taken. If we had merely translated the TLM into English, we'd be in much better shape today.

Its a shame that it didn't.  Sad

Yes, instead we have this:



http://vultus.stblogs.org/2011/01/sanguis-christi.html

"The use of this photo is in no way a reflection on the good faith of the young people appearing in it. It does, however, effectively demonstrate the great chasm that has opened up between the liturgical practice of the Eastern Churches (see the photo above) and certain liturgical practices that are currently widespread in churches of the Roman Rite. It also demonstrates that some members of the clergy have failed to address the legitimate hopes and praiseworthy aspirations of the faithful, by neglecting to offer a consistent mystagogical catechesis (explanation of the unfolding of the liturgical rites and texts), capable of fostering true, conscious, and actual participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in accordance with liturgical law and in organic continuity with tradition."

Oh, how the Latin Church has come a long way since the year 1500!



Protestant influence indeed.

As I told quietmorning, almost anything that Roman Catholics do wrong can be, and oftentimes is, blamed on "Protestantism".

[Peter J]

Theoretically adherence to Holy Tradition could also save the Latin Church...but the road is much rockier there.

Who knows? I hope and pray that what is happening here, takes off:
http://www.cantius.org/go/about_us/category/video_about_saint_john_cantius_church/

I think this quote tells it all: "The parishioners of St. John Cantius love the Latin Liturgy.  They see in the Sacred Rites of the Church an intrinsic beauty that has a transformative power over the soul.  The Bride of Christ, the Catholic Church, understands the sacramental nature of her own liturgy, and so our Holy Mother the Church understands that beauty in liturgical gestures and monuments can reflect the beauty of God and direct the faithful towards God." (http://www.cantius.org/go/liturgy_devotions/)

I cannot wait for the next time I'm in Chicago!

Shhhh ... everybody's suppose to believe that "traditionalism" is hurting relations with the Orthodox.

[stanley123]

In fact I think that homosexuality amongst the clergy is the number one reason that the last decades of "modern" practices of the Latin /Roman Catholic Church succumbed to so may grave errors. Some may view that as conspiratorial, but years of research and first hand experience have taught me this lesson. I think that the blackmail of homosexual hierarches by modernist clerics was what allowed them. Specifically Pope Paul VI.

What did Pope Paul VI do "specifically"?

[Peter J]

Yeah, I was quite puzzled by that reference to Pope Paul VI.

[J Michael]

In fact I think that homosexuality amongst the clergy is the number one reason that the last decades of "modern" practices of the Latin /Roman Catholic Church succumbed to so may grave errors. Some may view that as conspiratorial, but years of research and first hand experience have taught me this lesson. I think that the blackmail of homosexual hierarches by modernist clerics was what allowed them. Specifically Pope Paul VI.

What did Pope Paul VI do "specifically"?

I'd like to know, too.  How 'bout it, Christopher?

[username!]

Are there any current Catholic parishes (specifically in the US) that serve the mass in the old form but have it in the vernacular? Is this possible in the Catholic Church?

I don't think so.

I think that they did have it as such for a while in some Old Catholic Churches (not the RCC).

I think there was such a thing in the RCC too, but only for a short while in the 1960s I believe.

I think you are thinking of the 1965 Roman Missal.

[Basil 320]

In Reply No. 79, Christopher McAvoy, are you saying that Pope Paul VI was a homosexual?  If so, do you know if he was a practicing homosexual?  If so, did this behavior occur in his youth, or do you know when it occurred or if it ended at some point.  I've never heard anything about this before.

[Christopher McAvoy]

Concerning Paul VI:

"albizzi says:
5 August 2011 at 7:01 am

Pachomius & Young Canadian,
Paul VI was affected of a vice against nature. He was a homosexual.
This isn’t a hearsay. Mrs Randy Engel (“The rite of sodomy”), Franco Bellegrandi (“NikitaRoncalli”) and Fr Villa himself (“Paul VI beatified?”) already spoke of this.
In particular there are police report when he was archbp of Milan, he was allegedly picked up by the police for soliciting a male prostitute.
The French writer Roger Peyrefitte (himself a notorious homosexual) revealed this in time and Bellegrandi (who was a nobleman of the pontifical court and lived in the Vatican) even reported the name of his lover, the actor Paul Carlini who appeared a s a barber in the film “Roman holiday”.
Naive people cannot accept this fact, but if they were more learned, they would know that there were already homosexual popes in the past, other popes were adulterers, fornicators, even murderers.
Why are you speaking of “conspiracy theories? Before dismissing Fr Villa’s book who is a good and courageous priest, pls read it and talk after.
robtbrown says:
5 August 2011 at 7:54 am

source: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/08/23969/

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/02/28/archbishop-nichols-reaffirms-soho-masses-after-criticism/

The pastoral provision, known colloquially as the “Soho Masses”, has attracted criticism since it was established in February 2007 by the archbishop’s predecessor, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. Earlier this month a short video of the bidding prayers at one of the Masses was posted on YouTube. Critics claimed that the prayers challenged Catholic teaching on homosexuality – a claim denied by the organisers (the video obviously shows it to be true, with giant rainbow flags and transgendered person reading prayers for "you know what".

Archbishop Nichols said: “As we approach the fifth anniversary of the establishment of a pastoral provision for Catholics of a same-sex orientation at the Church of Our Lady of the Assumption, I would like reaffirm the intention and purpose of this outreach.

It is not a topic I am going to speak about much more, except to say that the Orthodox church must make certain they do not develop these infiltrations, I dont particularly think it will, because it has many more barriers to prevent these problems.
One can research these views for themselves.

you can't quote entire articles in full length, read the rules they are in the toolbar -username! section moderator. also stay on topic.  if you want to discuss paul vi and his lifestyle start another thread.  any further infraction and you will receive a green warning dot   I also shortened your quoted article.

[Noesisaa]

Interestingly enough, a month after Trevor, the original poster, claims on the Fish Eaters website that he wants to become Roman-Catholic: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3424002.40.html (user ServantofGod)
AND
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3449489.msg33707648.html#msg33707648