A while back I conjectured that now that the apostolic exhortation is out, we might begin to hear more about the motu proprio liberalzing the use of the Tridentine rite of Mass, buliding up to its release.
It appears that there are now signs of that.
Roman Catholic Blog has a post on two related stories that deal with this.
The first comes from Rorate Caeli, where an excerpt is given from a French publication (Le Figaro) in which Cardinal Bertone discusses the matter. Here’s the money quote:
Is a Decree widening the possibility of celebrating the Latin Mass according to the rite from before Vatican II (the so-called Mass of Saint Pius V) still expected?
[Secretary of State] Cardinal Bertone: The merit of the conciliar liturgical reform is intact. But both [for reasons of] not losing the great liturgical heritage left by Saint Pius V and for granting the wish of those faithful who desire to attend Masses according to this rite, within the framework of the Missal published in 1962 by Pope John XXIII, with its own calendar, there is no valid reason not to grant to every priest in the world* the right to celebrate according to this form. The authorization of the Supreme Pontiff would evidently preserve the validity of the rite of Paul VI. The publication of the motu proprio which specifies this authorisation will take place, but it will be the pope himself who will explain his motivations and the framework of his decision. The Sovereign Pontiff will personally explain his vision for the use of the ancient Missal to the Christian people, and particularly to the Bishops.
*au prêtre du monde entier: literally, to the priest of the whole world
Now, I have a little note of caution here, because the interview in question hasn’t yet appeared on Le Figaro’s web site, raising a tiny question in my mind about the provenance of the story. However, I think it’s most likely accurate.
Here’s the French group that originally put it online.
There’s also this story from Catholic News Service, which is well worth reading. It cites a bunch of unnamed Vatican sources, but it nevertheless conveys the expectation that the motu proprio will soon be released. What’s interesting, though, is that it provides a plausible understanding of Benedict’s rationale in issuing it: that it’s not just a gesture to the SSPX but is instead an effort on his part to harmonize elements in the Church’s recent liturgical history.
EXCERPT:
More than making peace with Archbishop Lefebvre’s followers, they said, the pope is trying to make peace with the church’s own tradition.
One big clue to the pope’s thinking came in his 1997 book, titled "Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977" and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.
The almost total prohibition of the old missal, which had been used for 400 years, was unprecedented in the history of the liturgy, he said in the book.
In effect, he said, "the old building was demolished" and a new one put in its place. Thus the liturgy ceased to be a living development and was treated as something manufactured by experts, which has caused the church "enormous harm," he said.
This is something that Cardinal Ratzinger said on more than one occasion, and in more than one way. In one of Peter Seewald’s interviews with him, he expressed the thought that for 400 years the Tridentine rite of Mass had been the Church’s most sacred possession, and it was problematic to then suddenly turn around and treat it as forbidden.
In any event, after a long dormancy of hearing anything about the motu proprio, it now sounds as if things are in motion again.
I would offer one correction to the CNS article, the “Tridentine” mass was used far longer than 400 years. “Tridentine” is a misnomer, as if the mass had been an invention of the Council of Trent. It should be more properly called, as many like Monsignor Gamber argue, the mass of St. Gregory the Great (like how the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrisostom). The Traditional Roman Rite remained relatively unchanged in all its essentials for over 1500 years. To destroy that kind of organic liturgical development was foolish and has reaped some horrible results in the liturgy.
I pray that the Holy Father will indeed free the Old Rite, the Church needs to be re-anchored in Her own liturgical Tradition again.
WOOT!
I am praying there will be a TLM available in our area, soon.
BXVI says very correctly that the Novus Ordo was too much, too quickly, and with very poor catechesis to back it up.
However, it is a valid mass, and the Pope has always acknowledged that. Both those who reject the TLM and those who reject the NO are in error.
If not for the NO, my family would have to have been content with no mass at all in our area. I would never have acted in disobedience to my Bishop by attending a schismatic mass.
But I am VERY happy to hear of the possible return of the TLM.
I won’t make any apology for the N.O. Mass at all, findng it to be highly edifying if done the way it’s suppose to. Really, a liturgy is not some magical rite, but a communion with the ‘biblical’ Jesus. And everyone who studies well the Lord of the Gospels finds that he was well accustomed to ‘dining with Sinners’, preaching to the poor, and railing against the ‘leaven of the Pharisees’. If anything He warned AGAINST excessive formalism in religion!
So, there is NOTHING wrong with the N.O. Liturgy!
What is needed is a proper understanding of it, which is a ‘pastoral’ and ‘catequetical’ issue. And this is what Benedict is doing..trying to give these catequetical lessons on the liturgy through documents such as Redemptionis Sacramentum and Sacramentum Caritiatis, amongst others.
The problem is, is that Catholics need to do what all Christians have done since the transfiguration of Mount Tabor…”LISTEN TO HIM”! We need to listen to Christ speaking in the Church, and follow these teachings!
However, I do believe the Motu Propio will be great for trying to connect us to the liturgical traditions of the past, and also inspire a more profound N.O. Liturgy. But what is needed most is just good ole’ OBEDIENCE to the teachings, regulations and ‘norms’ that we already have…with the future Motu Propio being included!
If anything He warned AGAINST excessive formalism in religion!
Have you by any chance read the book of Leviticus, which He wrote?
Leviticus was written/inspired by God!!! Hmmm!!!! But did He not also write/inspire the N.O.??
BillyHW,
I’m not against ritual, but rather FOR the correct application of it. We all know how Jesus viewed the ways of the Pharisees. I’m really not comparing the Old MAss to the Pharisees in any way, but rather stressing the there is really nothing wrong with the current the N.O. Mass. The problem, as ‘Redemptionis Sacramentum’ teaches, is with the ‘abuses’.
However, the styles of the liturgies are different, with the Old Mass being somewhat more formal in that it uses the Latin. However, we go to Mass to worship God, and to be united with Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. And we also remember that Jesus was the same Lord who walked amongst men, and ate with Sinners!
So, the style of the Litugy is secondary to the presence of the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. And what is needed is for an increased catequises to teach everyone who this ‘Eucharistic’ Lord really is. For this we need to know well the scriptures.
Gospel in the Liturgy and Eucharist in the Liturgy…they go together! If we know well both, any approved liturgical rite should be satifactory.
“But did He not also write/inspire the N.O.??”
No. That’s “N” “O” — no, He did not inspire the Novus Ordo. He has only inspired the books of Holy Scripture. Liturgical texts and traditions are not divinely inspired, but would be divinely guided and informed.
“So, there is NOTHING wrong with the N.O. Liturgy!”
Let us pray that one day soon faithful Catholics will be free to attend a Mass again that doesn’t depend only upon the Priest for its reverence and beauty, a Mass where active participation refers primarily to interior spiritual participation more than it does on apparent external participation, and hopefully a Mass where one will never ever hear Amazing Grace or Were You There sung, and where one is not forced to hold hands with neighbors and shake hands with strangers right before Holy Communion!!! Is that too much to ask? People who are bored by reverence, beauty and silence should always be free to attend the New Mass. One should not throw pearls before …
..Again, these are all abuses! What is needed is discipline and catequesis in the N.O. Liturgy, which Benedict XVI is currently trying to promote. This is probably the real reason behind the Motu Propio to begin with. However, all of this might take some time?
I also hope and pray that at every Mass the Lord will be honored and adored as He ought to be, whether it be in the old or the new liturgy.
I am curious about the ramifications of the motu propio from an architectural standpoint. I can not envision the old mass in a modern-looking church structure that looks more like a barren protest church. Will they have to install temporary rails? Will they have to move the tabernacle? I can see some having more problems, such as having to move the drum kits out of the way of the chant choir.
As a post-Vatican II cradle Catholic, I don’t know very much about the old way of doing things. I envision where at Communion, if you are in a state of sin, and should not receive, one could approach the altar and leave before receiving the Body, without calling attention to the fact that you have refrained. In the current “orderly” approach, if you don’t go with the line, you are basically an obstacle and people may wonder what is wrong with you… are you not Catholic, are you harboring a grudge against the Church, just what exactly are you here for? So, under a kind of peer pressure, they receive with no confession, and make a habit of it.
“So, there is NOTHING wrong with the N.O. Liturgy!”
I wish I could film our pastor celebrating his Sunday mass. If all priests did their masses in his fashion then the clamor for the Trentian mass would have been much quieter.
Anonymous Catholic Diary entery dated 2020:
Oh, how I wish I weren’t FORCED into a mass in some language I don’t understand though my friends who speak Latin tell me the priest mangles the language so badly that they don’t follow him either especially as he knows that no one understands him so he skips parts and tossing in nice sounding pharases in others.
Oh, If only the OLD mass in English were allowed! Then we could follow these priests and discipline them when they err and stray.
I suspect Jesus could find fault with every Mass said since the first one. It is, after all, our interior that matters more than the exterior…(Please note the qualifer “more”)
MORE UPDATE RE: THE MOTU PROPRIO
Link:
Tridentine Mass: Pope looks for bridge to tradition
“where one will never hear Were You There sung”
Just for you, darlin’, I’m gonna translate “Were You There” into Latin. And maybe Greek, too. Heck, why not Old Church Slavonic? And we can do both chant and polyphony versions.
Bless your heart. 🙂
… polyphony versions.
Maureen,
Did you know there was a time in Church History where polyphony was considered as evil as Rock n’ Roll?
Cracked me up when I was doing a study on the Chants back in College!
Did you know there was a time in Church History where polyphony was considered as evil as Rock n’ Roll
They had Rock n’ Roll back then?
Smoky,
What was meant by that comment was this:
Do you know/remember how folks despised Rock n’ Roll back in the days as being evil?
Well, the very same sentiments were felt as regards polyphony way back then in those days.
I thought somebody as intelligent as you would come to realize that analogy.
I thought somebody as intelligent as you would come to realize that analogy.
And I thought someone as smart as you would realize I was kidding. 🙂
And I thought someone as smart as you would realize I was kidding. 🙂
I knew that — but couldn’t help but call you on it and take a jab! ;^)
Esau: I think Smokey’s pulln’ your leg.
Arieh:
I would offer one correction to the CNS article, the “Tridentine” mass was used far longer than 400 years. “Tridentine” is a misnomer,
Amy Welborn has worked a long time on a “FAQ” sheet for news agencies to try and make heads or tails of the possible changes and part of her work was an open question of what to call the two masses as they have no formal names and all titles have become polititcized. I think she has it posted somewhere on her site.
Sir,
Pope Benedict XVI is the new era of the TLM,anyhow the Heavenly Liturgy of Mass is to come near future.
DEO GRATIAS
I prefer the current form of the Roman rite to the 1962 form, although I think they both have singular strengths. I would like to see the Tridentine Mass more commonly celebrated just because it is a beautiful ritual, along with the many other Liturgies in the Church’s history. But I have no desire to “go back”. I wouldn’t want the Pope to say we’re just going back to the Tridentine Mass (and I know he’s not doing that). Hopefully if the Tridentine Mass becomes more common it will help us return to our Liturgical roots in the west, and give the current Mass the “aggiornamento” envisioned by the Council Fathers.
I hope this Motu Proprio comes soon. I look forward to the revival of the TLM in the world.
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal [TLM] is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing…
…no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Sound familiar, anyone?
TLM here we come!!
Yup. Eeeeevil polyphony. Encourages loose behavior and harmonizin’. 🙂
Of course, the major reason people think of these styles as… undesirable… is that they don’t generally get invented in chaste conservatories full of clean living. Most forms of music seem to have been invented in taverns or other low places of entertainment, in order to encourage consumption of whatever was on offer there.
Anyway, as promised, my Latin version of “Were You There?” I’m pretty sure I got the grammar wrong somewhere, and that someone else already has a better version.
You can either sing the changing verse part as recitative, slowing down to sing the second half of the line in normal scansion; or you can sing the changing part as the whole line, and leave the stationary bit to the basses’ answering part. The first way would sound more like chant, but the second way is more tuneful.
1.
Crucifixuntur quando Dominum —
(praesens eras?)
crucifixerunt quando Dominum —
O!
Me facitur tremere,
aliquando,
aliquando,
aliquando.
Crucifixerunt quando Dominum
(praesens eras?)
2.
In ligno confixerunt Dominum
(praesens eras?)
3.
In late transfixerunt Dominum
(praesens eras?)
4.
Recusat radiare quando Sol
(praesens eras?)
5.
In monumento posuerunt Dominum
(praesens eras?)
Oops. Make that
Recusavit radiare quando Sol
“Recusavit lucere” might even work better.
“Tremere me facitur” scans better, too.
Btw, this was a lot easier than it might have been because I could just look up the Gospel words in the Vulgate. That made vocabulary a lot easier to choose.
Presumably the same thing would work with Greek and Old Church Slavonic, but I think I’ll leave all that to others. Still, I bet Bach would have loved to play variations on “Were You There?” 🙂
Btw, Jimmy, I noticed while looking for vocab that Deuteronomy says there was special shame in being hung on a tree. That kinda ties into Jesus’ death, but also Judas’, doesn’t it? And isn’t there a lot about hanging on trees in Paul somewhere?
I realize this is probably old news to you, but I’ve never heard about it before.
Hearken unto me, through that Medicine of our wounds, who didst hang upon the tree and who sittest at thy right hand “making intercession for us.” — Augustine
Galatians 3:13
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (for it is written: Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree). (DRV)
“there is no valid reason not to grant to every priest in the world* the right to celebrate according to this form.”
Maybe I’m wrong, but shouldn’t this say “every Latin rite priest?”
That’s implied and doesn’t need to be stated, because Cardinal Bertone was talking about the Tridentine Mass, the Roman Rite or Latin Rite.
The Mass of Pope John XXIII has caused millions of people to leave the faith! Do away with it!!!!fully restored the Saint Pius V Mass before it’s too late!!!
Apropos of the current discussion, I’m pretty excited about Mel Gibson’s next project. The working title is “Lethal Missal.” It’s one big splatterfest about the total emasculation and disemboweling of the Mass. Apparently, he’s filming the thing in post-conciliar English, but with Latin subtitles.
ah, I see that I have disciples on this blog.
Boy, all I can say is that some people must have it easy if they think the greatest threat to Catholicism today is the singing of Amazing Grace.
As an ex-Protestant, such a knee jerk reaction against anything remotely Protestant is rather annoying. I am blessed to be in the Church, but surely hope we aren’t arrogant enough to think that there isn’t a single positive thing we can learn from our separated brethren.
The N.O. frankly helped lead me to the truth. I don’t believe I would have understood the faith enough were things still only taught in an ultra-traditional way in a language I didn’t understand. I am indeed hoping that the TLM is made a regular thing, and plan on trying to attend one soon myself, but the N.O. has its place, and I don’t think that should be forgotten.
Incidently, give me “Amazing Grace” and “Were You There” any day to move my spirit to worship of God.
“Incidently, give me “Amazing Grace” and “Were You There” any day to move my spirit to worship of God.”
I am grateful that you were given the grace of conversion to the One, True, Holy and Apostolic Church. There are many Catholic hymns out there that have simply been discarded in lieu of Amazing Grace and Were You There. You are welcoms to the songs you like around the campfire, I am just praying for a return of the Mass where those songs would seem out of place.
Well, I really have no trouble with traditional songs either. I particularly like some of those Marian ones usually sung on her holy days in Mass. I fully think that many forms of music that communicates to people’s hearts can be accomidated without being inherantly “irreverant” or “evil”, in large part. The problem is that they’ve done it very poorly, thrusting music at people who are unmoved by it and saying “well, this is the new way”. I’d really like to see things more as they were at the parish I was received into the faith at. They have a traditional service with traditional music and a more contemporary service with more recent forms of musical worship.
I think the key here is to praise God in a true manner. Some people seem to get hung up on “their” way of doing things, that they neglect to see that it is He who matters. If they forced me to only go to Mass in Latin, or Sanskrit for that matter, I would to be with His precious body and blood. I’d reserve the right to think it a mistake though, at least privately. Where there isn’t a good reason not to, accomidation seems wiser. Unfortunately, the abuses brought on by some maniacs have lead to accomidation being viewed in a lot of suspicion, I fear.
Jarnor23:
There are actually theological reasons why music such as “Amazing Grace” shouldn’t be allowed at Mass.
Music that are theologically unsound since they may undermine Catholic beliefs by the very nature of their lyrics shouldn’t be allowed at Mass.
The lyrics of “Amazing Grace” supposes that one actually enters a state of grace simply upon belief.
However, this is not at all in line with Catholic beliefs where, supported by both Scripture AND Tradition, it is the Sacraments by which this occurs.
Whoa, Esau. I agree.
So, you’re saying Catholics believe God cannot impart His Grace upon sinners when they first begin to believe? That seems rather odd to me as we cannot come to Faith without the help of His Grace to begin.
Honestly, it’s quibbling over things like this that keep Protestants from finding the Catholic faith. Instead of working as hard as possible to make them feel unwelcome, perhaps we can hold the line at things actually against the faith, and not things that emphasize things differently than Catholics are traditionally comfortable about. Comfort should really not be the goal of our faith. I’d rather be uncomfortably saved by Christ than comfortably led to hell. This includes if Amazing Grace really was an evil evil song, not singing it. However, I really would like to see more proof of this song that has helped many’s belief in Jesus Christ being so harmful first. Especially since I’ve seen it in many music missals in many VERY faithful Catholic churches around here.
Whoa, Esau. I agree.
I actually don’t know if that’s a good thing or bad considering the source! ;^)
Comfort should really not be the goal of our faith.
COMPROMISING the Catholic Faith shouldn’t be either!
I may have my bouts against Rad Trads and the like, but this matter I am categorically adamant on!
It is precisely when we COMPROMISE the Catholic Faith that it NO LONGER can be called CATHOLIC!
This APPLIES to BOTH Rad Trads and Liberals!
“How precious did that Grace appear the hour I first believed.”
We received that Grace at Baptism. Most of us were baptised as infants, before we were capable of believing.
Exactly, bill912!
Don’t confuse donum gratuitum with the State of Grace that results from the Sacraments!
Interesting. The question is what is compromising the faith, and what actually is just a compromise. If you think the Catholic Church has no room for compromise about anything, that’s a dark, dark path. It is one thing to sell out your core beliefs, it is another to belittle and degrade another’s ideas when they do not conflict with your core beliefs.
Here, for instance, are the lyrics for Amazing Grace. If you cannot see a beautiful message here, that’s a very sad thing, I feel.
————————————–
Amazing grace! (how sweet the sound)
That sav’d a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears reliev’d;
How precious did that grace appear,
The hour I first believ’d!
Thro’ many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
’Tis grace has brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.
The Lord has promis’d good to me,
His word my hope secures;
He will my shield and portion be,
As long as life endures.
Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease;
I shall possess, within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.
The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,
The sun forbear to shine;
But God, who call’d me here below,
Will be forever mine.
——————————————-
Outside of that last line of the second paragraph, which I’ve provided a perfectly good explanation of why it doesn’t go against the Catholic faith, where is your problem here? It seems to me that you are supposing that since a Protestant wrote it, it must be full of evil things and harmful to a Catholic. Poppycock, I say. If you have proof this historic song of faith is actively harmful to Catholics, then not only I, but the bishops should see this so they can work against such “diabolical” influence. *sigh*
Many are not baptized, and many who are have falled out of Grace. To have that Grace appear (again or not) the hour you first believe is not an evil thing. Frankly, you’re sounding in a way you accuse John of sounding most of the time.
It seems to me that you are supposing that since a Protestant wrote it, it must be full of evil things and harmful to a Catholic.
You’ve got to be kidding!
Have you even read any of the posts I’ve written here against Rad Trads that even advocates such prejudicial thinking?
Furthermore, do you even know anything about the person who wrote it?
In fact, I am a great admirer of his close friend and associate, William Cowper, whose Illiad I have a copy of, in fact, and whose eloquence, in my opinion, is unmatched by any literature in our day!
To have that Grace appear (again or not) the hour you first believe is not an evil thing.
Where the heck have I said it being evil?
You rather enjoy putting your words into people’s mouths, don’t you?
Kindly read again what I had ORIGINALLY said and QUIT putting such evil words into my mouth:
There are actually theological reasons why music such as “Amazing Grace” shouldn’t be allowed at Mass.
Music that are theologically unsound since they may undermine Catholic beliefs by the very nature of their lyrics shouldn’t be allowed at Mass.
The lyrics of “Amazing Grace” supposes that one actually enters a state of grace simply upon belief.
However, this is not at all in line with Catholic beliefs where, supported by both Scripture AND Tradition, it is the Sacraments by which this occurs.
Again, as I had mentioned earlier:
Don’t confuse donum gratuitum with the State of Grace that results from the Sacraments!
Plus, if you should consider me evil for what I believe in this regard; so be it!
I rather be persecuted by BOTH Rad Trads AND Liberals rather than COMPROMISE the Catholic Faith!
I reject the heretical call to return to the mass of Saint Pius V made by Pope John XXIV (SuperNova). The only true mass, of course, is said in Aramaic and consists only of the exact actions taken at the Last Supper. No altar, no vestments, etc. Also, I don’t see any way out of it… we’ll have to have a designated Judas to jump up and run out. I’m supposing that the person in the Judas role will still have met his Sunday Obligation, but we may need some clarification form the Holy See on this issue.
BTW, if anybody is missing it, I’m trying to show how far the “return to the traditions” call can be taken.
Also, I haven’t heard much about the Book of Divine Worship (used in Anglican Use parishes). Everybody hammers on the “Novus Ordo,” and I’m feeling left out. Can’t SOMEBODY please criticize the Book of Divine Worship? Please?
What I’m writing is about the suitablity of this song for fostering Christian belief, and yes, even Catholic belief. You seem to be implying that this song does harm to Catholic belief and should not be sung at Mass. Logically, one could easily extend this to Catholic funerals, performances, or even simply Catholics wanting to avoid it at all, if it really was against Catholic belief. Would this then not be an “evil” to be avoided? If not, please let me know your words so I don’t have to interpret.
And all because you don’t like the idea that Grace would appear when someone began to believe? I know for a fact that God’s Grace fell upon me greatly in that hour I first really believed. The problem is you are equating “appeared” with “was only then created” and taking the least charitable reading of something beautiful.
It seems of something more likened of the Pharisees than a genuine Catholic view.
Plus, if you should consider me evil for what I believe in this regard; so be it!
He never called you evil. He suggested that you were suggesting the song was evil. I agree that “theologically unsound” is nowhere near the same as “evil”, so you have both misrepresented each other’s words.
I rather be persecuted by BOTH Rad Trads AND Liberals rather than COMPROMISE the Catholic Faith!
You can’t be persecuted as an anonymous poster on a blog. That’s just being excessively dramatic. 🙂
Jarnor23:
Isn’t it even apparent to you that the very fact that you actually believe & support the notion that a person enters into a state of grace upon belief (just as the song ‘Amazing Grace’ says) is, in fact, PROOF that this music shouldn’t be played at Mass since it does influence such notions contrary to Catholic Faith in Catholics as yourselves (unless, of course, you aren’t one)?
He never called you evil.
Smoky —
You didn’t pay particular attention to what I actually said:
Plus, if you should consider me evil for what I believe in this regard; so be it!
I mean with all the evil he was inserting into my actual statements, it seemed only a matter of time.
Esau, please demonstrate where the song explicitly makes it clear the sinner is in a full state of grace, rather than the sinner being grateful for the Grace he has received.
Perhaps it is in differing terminology you find problems here and I do not. I’d thank you to not guess about my personal subscription to a “saved by faith alone” kind of philosophy, as you clearly have no idea at all where I stand there.
Perhaps “evil” being attributed to the song was a harsh conclusion on my part, but it did indeed seem to me that you believed this song was harmful to the Christian soul. Generally, I would guess that most things harmful to Christianity can be attributed to some sort of evil involved, but perhaps you did not mean it so.
My statement stands though that the lyrics as written should not pose such a threat to Catholic belief as to be discouraged. Nothing I’ve seen with the written lyrics has yet changed my mind, nor apparently with the Bishops, many of whom are good and faithful servants of the Church, contrary to popular opinion. Your arguments so far have been appearing to me to say “this is what Protestants believe, so the song must say this and cannot be taken in a Catholic context” – an arguement I disagree with.
Jarnor
Dont you know if Esau says it is sinful than so be it!!
I think Esau should start his own blog, I think I am going to count how many posts Esau places here a day from morning to night, interesting statistic
Tim posted:
“I reject the heretical call to return to the mass of Saint Pius V made by Pope John XXIV (SuperNova). The only true mass, of course, is said in Aramaic and consists only of the exact actions taken at the Last Supper.”
Ahh, I have not heard that one in a while from a Vatican II Novus Ordo “renewal” supporter
Sure Tim, while we are at it, we can sit around the table as Jesus did and have a passover dinner
I guess you know very little about tradition the liturgy, the Popes responsibility to safeguard it and not “invent” or “change” what is sacred, and that the Traditional Latin Mass is organic and evolved over time with prayers ADDED and not DELTED as in the New Mass
Lame try
Once more the Hobby Horse shows itself to be humor challenged.
Smoky Mountain, I haven’t had time to follow the discussions, but had to tell you that I’m enjoying your user names. (getting curious to see how they connect with the discussion)
Your arguments so far have been appearing to me to say “this is what Protestants believe, so the song must say this and cannot be taken in a Catholic context” – an arguement I disagree with.
Well, gee, since you’re putting, yet again, such words into my mouth, it’s no wonder you’re able to refute such an argument!
You say:
you clearly have no idea at all where I stand there.
Yet, you have no idea at all where I’m coming from since most, if not, all the things you’ve said so far were utterly gross misinterpretations of what I actually said with all this evil you keep on purposely inserting just so that you can advance arguments that cannot stand on their own without such utter fabrications of the truth on what I actually stated.
Let us pray for a return to a Mass where Amazing Grace does not appear to be appropriate.
I should just make it clear that my earlier comment regarding “Amazing Grace” and “Were you there” are somewhat driven by my often having to attend a Church where those 2 songs appear to be the only songs the Priest knows. Seminary education must be so lackig nowadays. Knowing that there are so many appropriate Catholic hymns out there, as well as Latin hymns, one can be driven crazy by hearing these 2 hymns all the time. Admittedly it is very penitential to listen to them, especially during Lent. Really, perhaps they have a nice sentiment, but then so does Kumbaya. Shouldn’t hymns of inferior quality, and which are clearly inappropriate for Holy Mass be relegated to around the campfire and Protestant services?
And, at the Aramaic Mass (The TRUE Mass), we should recline on couches around a U-shaped table. It was good enough for Jesus, and it’s good enough for me!
I think Esau should start his own blog, I think I am going to count how many posts Esau places here a day from morning to night, interesting statistic
Oh great, the closet homosexual who gets turned on by pedophile priests (just as he stated) has not only an obsession but a fatal attraction for me!
I guess that’s what happens when you have such hate for Protestants and non-Christians and regard them as subhuman, as well as contemptibly hold such utter disdain for holy folks like Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II to the point of spreading mere calumny regarding them!
… not to mention, disguising rebellion against Christ’s Catholic Church as Traditional Catholic Teaching!
Thanks Mary Kay.
Levity is utterly wasted *sigh*
Esau posted:
“Oh great, the closet homosexual who gets turned on by pedophile priests (just as he stated) has not only an obsession but a fatal attraction for me!”
Esau last I checked it was you who were not married and protecting Cardinal Law and the pedophile priests, saying they must be forgiven!
Good try and so charitable of you! I thought the Vatican II church was the “church of Love” where even Moslems, Hindus, Protestants, etc can get to heaven as JPII prays with them!
John,
Even you can get to heaven with JPII’s prayers.
Esau last I checked it was you who were not married and protecting Cardinal Law and the pedophile priests, saying they must be forgiven!
Good try and so charitable of you! I thought the Vatican II church was the “church of Love” where even Moslems, Hindus, Protestants, etc can get to heaven as JPII prays with them!
Yes — as charitable as the LIES that spewed from your mouth!
By the way, you do know that you don’t actually need to be married to have a girlfriend, right?
Of course, given your obsession and how you get turned on by pedophile priests, it’s no wonder why you hold such homosexual constructs in your mind.
I just feel sorry for your family though — do they know these sordid details about you?
John and Esau: Enough with the mud-slinging! This is not productive, nor is it healthy.
Esau, I told you what your argument was appearing to be to me, if it is otherwise, please refute it without mud-slinging or accusations.
I may not agree much with John about things (believing as I do that both the NO & TLM have their place), but I will agree with him that you do disregard the arguments of people you don’t agree with, and generally treat them with a lack of charity. I’m trying to do better in return for you and apologize for where I must be failing at this to solicit such a response.
Agreed, Smoky.
It’s just that yesterday was In Rememberance of John Paul II.
Observing how John continues his calumny on the blog against somebody I regard so deeply religious and holy, I can’t stomach the vomit that issues from his mouth!
I will agree with him that you do disregard the arguments of people you don’t agree with, and generally treat them with a lack of charity.
Jarnor:
If I disregarded them, I wouldn’t be responding specifically to their points.
However, I challenge you to observe and see if John actually regards any of the arguments we present to him!
If he did, we wouldn’t need to re-assert much of what we’ve told him in the past again and again.
In fact, it’s funny that when we actually re-introduce arguments we had previously presented to him some time back, he would seem to be rather surprised by them as if he hadn’t read them when we first posted them (even though we had posted these numerous times before)!
This is how he (dis-)regards people’s posts which had come from me, Innocencio, bill912, Tim J., Ryan C., Rosemarie and many, many others here.
… and Jarnor23, please be more honest about how you are presenting the facts.
My post originally stated:
You were the one who replied in the uncharitable manner below:
Actually I thought it was quite charitable, if not in agreement, especially considering some of the replies you were giving me. I would rather hope you’d address the questions I posed, but I really do not feel like a satisfactory answer was given.
It seems to me that you are supposing that since a Protestant wrote it, it must be full of evil things and harmful to a Catholic. Poppycock, I say. If you have proof this historic song of faith is actively harmful to Catholics, then not only I, but the bishops should see this so they can work against such “diabolical” influence. *sigh*
Jarnor:
You actually consider this demonizing charitable?
Look again on the thread since the other replies came only after yours here.
Jarnor23,
The problem with playing (or singing) Amazing Grace is not that there is a great danger of scandal. The problem is that the Church, Christ’s Church, teaches that while everyone is given actual Grace to convert to and remain faithful to the Faith, their belief in Jesus and desire to be saved doesn’t obtain Sanctifying Grace, the grace which can only come from first through baptism. Forbiding churches to play “Amazing Grace” will not be a scandal to reasonable protestants. There are many very old hymns, written by protestants, which show that protestants have done some good for God in this world, and which do not contradict fundamental Catholic teaching.
God Bless.
I know Tim was posting tongue-in-cheek. But for those of you whose humor meter is low right about now, my “heretical” statements (futher up the thread) are sarcastic.
Esau
Your imposter games are somewhat lame, grow up my unmarried sorry, fellow who sits at home with no one to love him all alone trying to make money as a frustrated Protestant on Catholics as Scott Hahn and other “former” Protestants are doing!!!
The lyrics of “Amazing Grace” supposes that one actually enters a state of grace simply upon belief.
Could it be that it’s you who is supposing and not the lyrics?
John,
Yes, Esau for whom Amazing Grace is too Protestant be sung at mass is really a closet Protestant himself, just trying to scam us. Nice one.
Regarding Amazing Grace, yes you can detect a non-Catholic theology behind some of the lines (“saved a wretch like me” “the hour I first believed”) but it is so mild and can be reinterpreted in an orthodox way, so in general I think it would be excessive to ban such a beloved song.
Oh, that Esau *is* crafty, JR!
Yeah, now that I can see JXXIV. I mean, the two usages of “grace” here definitely should be kept clear in the Catholic’s mind.
And J.R., my feelings exactly about the mildness of any potential problem and the possibility of reading the lyrics in an orthodox manner.
I agree with Jarnor in that I also see no problem with “Amazing Grace.”
“How precious did that Grace appear the hour I first believed.”
As a Catholic convert, when I first learned about and first really BELIEVED in the True Presence of the holy Eucharist, it was very precious indeed when I recognized the truly amazing GRACE that was being imparted to me through that sacrament.
Esau, I also think that Jarnor has been very patient with you, and that you have been less than charitable with him.
Jarnor said:
It seems to me that you are supposing that since a Protestant wrote it, it must be full of evil things and harmful to a Catholic. Poppycock, I say. If you have proof this historic song of faith is actively harmful to Catholics, then not only I, but the bishops should see this so they can work against such “diabolical” influence. *sigh*
Esau said:
You actually consider this demonizing charitable?
How is what Jarnor said “demonizing”? He was expression his perception (by the words “it seems to me”) of your comments, not saying that you were actually calling the song full of evil. If his perception was incorrect, by all means do correct him, but it might behoove you to do so without flying off the handle at him.
it might behoove you to do so without flying off the handle at him.
Speaking of perceptions, here’s one from a stranger…
Behoove: “It’s an old-fashioned word and is often used in a way to suggest that the person saying it is more important/more knowledgeable than the person who is “behooved” to do something. It comes across as somewhat self-righteous.”
Amen! Good night Esau. Good night Jarnor23. Good night John. Good night JR. Good night all.
Joanna posted:
“Esau, I also think that Jarnor has been very patient with you, and that you have been less than charitable with him.”
Gee-Join the club! Dont you know that Esau and his lemming followers (whom Esau chastises if they dont fall in line with his warped thinking)know everything? He knows so much that he actually thinks Cardinal Law and the pedophile priests and Bishops who protect them are innocent, dont exist, that there are no gay priests and that if they are pedophiles (even with our Lord warning better a millstone be tied around ones neck than hurt a child) that they should be forgiven! What a guy this Esau is, but at the same time anyone else who doesnt fall in line with him is a schismatic, heretic, stupid, jackass, homosexual, you name it!
What a living example of charity and Apologetics at its finest!
John,
I may just be one of Esau’s lemmings in your mind, but your problem (objectively speaking) is not refusing to fall in line with Esau.
It is refusing to fall in line with the Church of Christ.
John,
First you’re going to have Esau investigated, arrested and sued (all from past posts), then you’re going to have Jimmy subpoenaed so that you can get Esau’s address (again from a past post), and now you’re going to start counting all of his posts.
Me thinks you might have an obsession that is bordering just a wee bit on the unhealthy side.
“…Grace…that *saved*…” is Sanctifying Grace, which we receive at Baptism, not at “…the hour I first believed”. That’s one of the theological errors in “Amazing Grace”. The song was written by one whose religious tradition teaches that Baptism is merely symbolic, but doesn’t actually confer Grace.
>The Mass of Pope John XXIII has caused millions of people to leave the faith!
No, the mirror worshipping ethos of the 1960’s caused millions to leave the faith.
Do away with mirror worshipping.
>fully restored the Saint Pius V Mass before it’s too late!!!
If mirror worshipping is not done away with, this won’t help.
>BTW, if anybody is missing it, I’m trying to show how far the “return to the traditions” call can be taken.
Why stop there? We need to return to Leviticus 🙂 Get that temple in Jerusalem rebuilt… 🙂
Or even better, go back to Abel’s sacrifice 🙂
Of course, I’m saying this tongue in cheek for those who are unable to discern this 🙂
I agree with JR and Smoky about the potentially orthodox interpretation of Amazing Grace.
I doubt very much that this is the author’s original intent, but it is possible to interpret these lyrics (the most problematic ones, it seems) as if Baptism is already assumed:
The first conversion occurs at Baptism, but anyone in serious pursuit of the spiritual life undergoes second and third conversions along the way. The grace already received and present is appreciated in a much different light when that happens.
It’s certainly good to be aware of the deep Protestant roots and theology of the song, and I’m not suggesting that it should be played at Mass. (There is such an ample treasury of beautifully traditional Catholic songs that have to be bypassed to get to it.) But if it is, I wouldn’t get all bent out of shape over it. (And I certainly wouldn’t assume that the person choosing the music has the wrong interpretation in mind when playing it. In fact, charity often requires that the opposite be assumed.)
/tongue in cheek on/ Whoa BobCatholic! As you well know, the traditional (i.e. pre-Vatican II) opinion of Jews is that they are well-poisoning Jesus killers (cf. Sungenis)! This Leviticus stuff is obviously an attempt to subvert the Catholic faith to the Zionist conspiracy. /tongue in cheek off/
John:
When did I ever utter such things that you continue to spew from your viscious and deceiving mouth?
He knows so much that he actually thinks Cardinal Law and the pedophile priests and Bishops who protect them are innocent, dont exist, that there are no gay priests and that if they are pedophiles (even with our Lord warning better a millstone be tied around ones neck than hurt a child) that they should be forgiven!
As for what you say here:
Dont you know that Esau and his lemming followers (whom Esau chastises if they dont fall in line with his warped thinking)know everything?
You’re the one who is WARPED since:
1. You disguise REBELLION against the Catholic Church as TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC TEACHING
2. DECLARE Vatican II Council as NONBINDING
3. DECLARE John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and John XXIII as Apostates and Mother Teresa as a PAGAN!
Just where do you get such AUTHORITY????
Indeed:
Jn:8:44:
44 You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. (DRV)
” Yeah, now that I can see JXXIV. I mean, the two usages of “grace” here definitely should be kept clear in the Catholic’s mind. ”
They should indeed. Actual Grace is transitory, and is not sanctifying. Sancitfying Grace give life to the soul, and remains in one’s soul forever (if one doesn’t sin mortally. Songs convey a message. IF a non-Catholic were to hear these heretical words played in a Catholic church, he might believed that the church teaches that Baptism isn’t saving. That truly is scandalous.
BTW, I thank you for your sarcastic response to my attempt to engage you in a thoughtful discussion. One resorts to sarcasism when one is either losing the argument or doesn’t like opposing viewpoints.
“…Grace…that *saved*…” is Sanctifying Grace, which we receive at Baptism, not at “…the hour I first believed”. That’s one of the theological errors in “Amazing Grace”. The song was written by one whose religious tradition teaches that Baptism is merely symbolic, but doesn’t actually confer Grace.
Posted by: bill912 | Apr 4, 2007 7:37:04 AM
Thank-you, Bill912!
The fact of the matter is that the nominal Catholic — especially these days where Liturgical Abuse is rampant and knowledge of the Catholic Faith is even non-existent these days with all the poor Catechisis the average Catholic receives — would not be aware of these subtleties and, in fact, be influenced to the extent of accepting such notions as part of the Catholic Faith.
In addition, I find it a riscible notion that others here would actually accuse me of being intolerant of Protestants and, furthermore, materials that actually come from a Protestant.
Does Jarnor or anybody here who carry such notions of me actually know the fact that I have even read exegetical work done by Protestants such as Lutheran scholar, Dr. Walter Maier III and other such Protestant scholars?
If I actually viewed such works by Protestants with such intolerance, these would not be part of my library, for heaven’s sake.
So, there goes the supposed notion that not only am I intolerant of Protestants and their works but also regarding things I am in disagreement with!
For, in fact, I do not wholly agree with their contents; however, I find some aspects of their work consistent with Catholic beliefs.
But that’s just it — one would need to have adequate knowledge of the Catholic Faith enough to discern such aspects (e.g., what bill912 rightly expounded regarding ‘Amazing Grace’).
For the normal Catholic these days whose knowledge thereof would be, in fact, lacking (especially if they are of an impressionable age); they may assume based upon researching the song, its Protestant source and the Protestant Theology behind its lyrics, they may erroneously assume that that’s actually in agreement with Catholic beliefs and, thus, why it is being played at Mass in a Catholic Church!
I say this not from mere assumption but experience!
Further, I would caution those who may hold such prejudicial notions of me (i.e., my being intolerant of Protestants and Protestant works) to first stop and consider what they’re actually saying given, as well, the history of my posts to John and the extent of my studies that have, in fact, included Protestant sources.
BTW, I thank you for your sarcastic response to my attempt to engage you in a thoughtful discussion.
That is, if you were trying to be sarcastic.
“How precious did that grace appear, The hour I first believed.”
One could also interpret this line as a reference to the “prevenient grace” that the Councils of Orange taught is what makes justifying faith possible.
It’s true the song is Protestant, and does not distinguish between grace and grace, and omits reference to the sacraments, but I think the song is not irreconcilable to the Catholic faith regarding grace. We don’t expect hymns to be dogmatic treatises, after all.
Esquire:
(And I certainly wouldn’t assume that the person choosing the music has the wrong interpretation in mind when playing it. In fact, charity often requires that the opposite be assumed.)
Nobody is assuming the worst about the person playing the song.
The point here is the person hearing/singing the song — how s/he might perceive it.
If this song was played at a time in the history of the Church where the average Catholic possessed adequate knowledge of the Catholic Faith and can make such distinctions as those bill912 was able to make here in the following statement:
“…Grace…that *saved*…” is Sanctifying Grace, which we receive at Baptism, not at “…the hour I first believed”.
That’s one of the theological errors in “Amazing Grace”.
The song was written by one whose religious tradition teaches that Baptism is merely symbolic, but doesn’t actually confer Grace.
Posted by: bill912 | Apr 4, 2007 7:37:04 AM
…then I might not have such problems with it actually being played at Mass.
However, as it is, the fact that its Protestant source, history, lyrics, etc. carry such notions inconsistent with Catholic beliefs; when a person in church, who lacks adequate knowledge of the Catholic Faith and may even be impressionable, when s/he sees that music played in church (especially in light of what s/he knows of its Protestant background and the Protestant theology behind the song); the very fact that it’s actually played at Mass in a Catholic Church might seem to give the song and its Protestant theological aspects as a certain “stamp of approval”, one might say.
Liturgical music played at Mass should be Sacred Music that reflects on aspects of the Catholic Faith and cause one to reflect and meditate on it accordingly, in line with the Source and Summit of the Catholic Faith, the Eucharist, and the Holy Sacrifice re-presented at the Mass.
>[Pope John XVII, so called]Just where do you get such AUTHORITY????
I can speculate 🙂
It is nice and shiny.
correction: Not Pope John XVII, but rather the guy who goes by the “Pope John” moniker in these discussions 🙂
Esau,
Since you are splitting hairs: How do you feel about “A Mighty Fortress is Our God” being sung at Mass? It was penned by Martin Luther …
Esau,
If you’re going to object to “Protestant” music at the Divine Liturgy I guess that excludes Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Mendellsohn. Isn’t Mozart a favorite at Tridentine Mass? He was a Mason …
Did Esau object to music because of who wrote it or because of its content? I thought it was the latter.
I’m sorry, Gary, it was not my intention to come across as self-righteous. 🙁 I have a degree in English, and sometimes use words that could be considered “out-of-date” if the context allows.
I love “A Mighty Fortress is Our God.”
Maybe this anecdote will help you understand where Jarnor and I are coming from, Esau…
Jarnor is my husband. He and I were married in the Lutheran Church in 2001. (We converted to Catholicism in 2003.)
Our wedding recessional was “The Star Wars Theme.” Our pastor had no issue with that particular choice of music at our wedding.
Obviously, if we’d been married in the Catholic Church that particular recessional would have been out of the question.
But comparitively, wouldn’t you rather hear “Amazing Grace” in church as opposed to the Star Wars theme? 😉
Esquire wrote:
I agree with JR and Smoky about the potentially orthodox interpretation of Amazing Grace
I don’t have time to read back through this thread, but I don’t recall taking sides on the Amazing Grace issue — I just recall attempting to point out that both Esau and Jarnor were mis-representing each other’s points yesterday, or something like that.
Did Esau object to music because of who wrote it or because of its content? I thought it was the latter.
Thank you, bill912, yet again!
*sigh*
JoAnna:
Again, if I were as intolerant of Protestants and their works, as you and Jarnor seems to be claiming, the works of Dr. Walter Maier III, who is, in fact, a Lutheran Scholar, wouldn’t be decorating my library, for goodness sake!
Furthermore, if you guys are saying that so long as the music/lyrics are beautiful, such music should be allowed to be played at Mass; then might as well allow “LET IT BE” to be played at Mass as well!
As I mentioned previously:
Liturgical music played at Mass should be Sacred Music that reflects on aspects of the Catholic Faith and cause one to reflect and meditate on it accordingly, in line with the Source and Summit of the Catholic Faith, the Eucharist, and the Holy Sacrifice re-presented at the Mass
I will be happy if I never ever hear “Amazing Grace”, “Were you There”, and “A Mighty Fortress is Our God” at Holy Mass again. My apologies to the sensibilities of the ex-Prots here, but they are not Catholic hynms, and are not sacred hymns approporiate for Holy Mass.
Esau said,
“For the normal Catholic these days whose knowledge thereof would be, in fact, lacking (especially if they are of an impressionable age); they may assume based upon researching the song, its Protestant source and the Protestant Theology behind its lyrics, they may erroneously assume that that’s actually in agreement with Catholic beliefs and, thus, why it is being played at Mass in a Catholic Church!”
And,
“The point here is the person hearing/singing the song — how s/he might perceive it… the fact that its Protestant source, history, lyrics, etc. carry such notions inconsistent with Catholic beliefs…”
Esau,
Were these not your posts? Perhaps there is another Esau (a Protestant one?! Gasp!).
Esau, can you please quote my comment where I claimed that you were intolerant of Protestants and their works? Because I can’t seem to find it.
Nor can I find the comment where I claimed that if it was a “pretty song” it should be played at Mass. I adore the Beatles but I don’t want to hear “Hey Jude” after Communion, for example. So if you could cite that one too, I’d appreciate it.
I don’t want to speak for Jarnor, but what I’M saying is that I don’t think the lyrics or the message of Amazing Grace necessarily conflict with Catholic doctrine, and if it’s sang at Mass or at some other Catholic function on occasion, it’s not worth getting in a tizzy over.
How kind of you, Mark, to isolate only parts of my comments in order to further your point of view.
However, I think you may have left out the part:
The point here is the person hearing/singing the song — how s/he might perceive it.
If this song was played at a time in the history of the Church where the average Catholic possessed adequate knowledge of the Catholic Faith and can make such distinctions as those bill912 was able to make here in the following statement:
“…Grace…that *saved*…” is Sanctifying Grace, which we receive at Baptism, not at “…the hour I first believed”.
That’s one of the theological errors in “Amazing Grace”.
The song was written by one whose religious tradition teaches that Baptism is merely symbolic, but doesn’t actually confer Grace.
Posted by: bill912 | Apr 4, 2007 7:37:04 AM
…then I might not have such problems with it actually being played at Mass.
However, as it is, the fact that its Protestant source, history, lyrics, etc. carry such notions inconsistent with Catholic beliefs; when a person in church, who lacks adequate knowledge of the Catholic Faith and may even be impressionable, when s/he sees that music played in church (especially in light of what s/he knows of its Protestant background and the Protestant theology behind the song); the very fact that it’s actually played at Mass in a Catholic Church might seem to give the song and its Protestant theological aspects as a certain “stamp of approval”, one might say.
Liturgical music played at Mass should be Sacred Music that reflects on aspects of the Catholic Faith and cause one to reflect and meditate on it accordingly, in line with the Source and Summit of the Catholic Faith, the Eucharist, and the Holy Sacrifice re-presented at the Mass.
Posted by: Esau | Apr 4, 2007 10:32:20 AM
JoAnna:
I would ask that you review Jarnor’s comments in their entirety.
Also, it appears you haven’t really considered the tone of his comments to me which is the reason I responded in kind.
For example, the tone of this particular comment from him in the post wherein it was featured in its entirety:
Poppycock, I say. If you have proof this historic song of faith is actively harmful to Catholics, then not only I, but the bishops should see this so they can work against such “diabolical” influence. *sigh*
Of course, you being his wife, I wouldn’t expect you necessarily to go against him.
That is certainly understandable (and somewhat admirable).
Mark:
I missed this one —
Mozart wasn’t a Catholic?
No wonder he wrote The Great Mass!
I’m not asking about Jarnor’s comments, Esau. I’m asking about MINE, since you also said that *I* had claimed the same.
As to the portion you quoted above, I still don’t see what you’re so worked up about. Of course, being that I’ve been married to him for nearly six years, I can read the words above and know with a good amount of certainty that it was not his intent to be rude, arrogant, or caustic towards you. I’m sorry you perceived his comments that way.
JoAnna:
I respect you greatly not only because of the charity you demonstrate in your comment above, but because of past comments you’ve made in other threads.
Regarding my post, I believe I said:
The reason why I appeared irked by the nature of such remarks/insinuations is because it’s completely an absurd notion that some folks have that anything Protestant is simply intolerable and unacceptable where Catholics are concerned; which is far from my personal opinion.
For example, Maier did a great paper on typology that I wouldn’t hesitate to utilize for bible studies and, in addition, demonstrates elements consistent with certain Catholic principles and teaching.
However, as far as Liturgial Music for the Mass is concerned, I am more insistent on having Sacred Music that’s specifically/explicitly focused on aspects of the Catholic Faith for the purpose of meditiation and reflection upon the Sacrament and the Holy Sacrifice taking place at the Mass.
God bless!
might as well allow “LET IT BE” to be played at Mass as well!
Let it be, Esau. Let it be.
When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.
And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree,
There will be an answer, let it be.
For though they may be parted there is
Still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be. Yeah
There will be an answer, let it be.
And when the night is cloudy,
There is still a light that shines on me,
Shine on until tomorrow, let it be.
I wake up to the sound of music
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be,
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.
Esau,
As I pointed out already, Mozart was an enthusiastic Mason. In fact, he persuaded his father, Leopold, to become a Mason, and perhaps his friend Joseph Haydn. Mozart joined despite the fact that Pope Clement XII had prohibited membership in 1738.
You have consistently cited “Protestant source” as potentially confusing to “impressionable” Catholics at Mass. Isn’t that confusing to “impressionable” Catholics? Just how “pure” does one need to be to write an acceptable hymn for your sensibilities? I’m just trying to understand your criteria …
Mark:
Seriously, are you this dense?
For the nth time, READ CAREFULLY what I wrote:
Did you NOT catch the part:
If this song was played at a time in the history of the Church where the average Catholic possessed adequate knowledge of the Catholic Faith and can make such distinctions as those bill912 was able to make here in the following …then I might not have such problems with it actually being played at Mass.
*sigh*
By the way, Mark, did it not strike you that the CATHOLIC MASS we Catholics celebrate is, in fact, CATHOLIC and, therefore, as I mentioned, should be celebrated with Sacred Music specifically/explicitly focused on aspects of the CATHOLIC Faith for the purpose of meditiation and reflection upon the Sacrament and the Holy Sacrifice taking place at the Mass!
Incidentally, Mark, I LOVE your facts about Mozart — it’s no wonder he wrote THE GREAT MASS!
” >[Pope John XVII, so called]Just where do you get such AUTHORITY????
I can speculate 🙂
It is nice and shiny. ”
Pope John XXIV is my name.
I got my authority by way of a cellphone conclave that took place in my parent’s attic. Believe it or not, Pope Pius XVIII infallibly declared such conclaves to be legit. Oh, and a cellphone Pope can say “legit.”
;^)
Unless popular acclaim says otherwise, I plan to abdicate my throne…going once…going twice………
Gone.
No, David B! You can’t force us to abdicate! Precious! Begone! Go away! Let us alone! We are Pope forever !!!
Keep your forked tongue behind your teeth! I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a witless worm!
Wow Esau-The last 40 posts or so from you had to do about Music and your blasting of others as well-What does music and Mozart have to do about the MP and this thread????
Lets look at the Esau count for April 4, 2007, he posted:
On th MP thread at:
9:11AM
9:32
10:32
1:10
1:18
1:34
1:44
1:48
3:31
4:50
4:55
Posted on the St Rabban Thread at:
1:52
2:33
3:55
4:11
Posted on the Nature of Hell Thread at:
9:51AM
So starting at 9AM or so to about 5PM or 8 hours, Esau has approximately 16 posts or about 2 posts per hour and the night has only begun for him, so much more time Esau to set the world straight on the Pope, Protestanism, the church, the bible, Hell, St Rabban
And who knows how many other imposter names he posts under like David B, Anonymous, Pope John XXIV (SuperNova)!
I think because Esau cant find a woman to love him, he takes out his frustrations on us here who want to discuss Catholic Apologetics in a calm, rational and intelligent way, instead of all of that cut and paste and BOLD face responses that go on and on and on and on……………….
It’s so difficult when a person suffers from multiple personalities! <;^)
David B. You need to remove LOTR from your nightstand. NOW.
Incidentally, Mark, I LOVE your facts about Mozart — it’s no wonder he wrote THE GREAT MASS!
Even atheists can write spiritual music, perhaps call it The Pope’s Delight. But what of it?
Mary, I’ve seen it done! (heard it, rather, but you know what I mean.) Also ‘Lean on Me’. GAAAACK.
And just for the record, Esau, I read Jarnor’s comments the same way JoAnna did and did not suspect him of rude or hostile intent. You’re coming across a wee bit touchy today. Why don’t you sit back and have a snickers bar or a cup of tea or something?
I should point out, David B. (PXXIV) that my statement you took as sarcasm was actually meant in complete earnest. I was merely agreeing with you.
Sometimes I think here people are more likely to take the worst possible interpretation of another’s words than the most charitable. Not such a good thing, I think.
Jarnor23,
Sorry. I’m paranoid.
“David B,… Pope John XXIV (SuperNova)!
John,
Believe it or not, I am not Esau. Is it so hard to conprehend that more than one person can disagree with you? It’s extremely rude and arrogant of you to assume that I am esau posting under a different name. It’s also absurd, as Esau and I have disagreed several times on this blog.
Smoky Mountain Rohirrim ,
Dad, is that you? 😉
I agree. Jarnor has no bad or hostile intent. He just has bad taste in liturgical music.
It’s also absurd, as Esau and I have disagreed several times on this blog.
I don’t believe that you’re Esau. But a disagreement between two different pseudonyms does not prove that the pseudonyms are not shared by the same person.
Case in point, “David B.” disagreed with “Pope John XXIV (Supernova)” just a few posts above.
Jarnor23,
One of the reasons (though not an excuse) for my reaction to your comments is that some people on this blog are regularly sarcastic. Once again, I apologize, and I thank you for agreeing with my first(?) post (I wouldn’t blame if you didn’t do so anymore).
But a disagreement between two different pseudonyms does not prove that the pseudonyms are not shared by the same person
Yes it does. Are you really that dense?
” Case in point, “David B.” disagreed with “Pope John XXIV (Supernova)” just a few posts above. ”
Yeah, hehe. I better research my sources better next time, if Smoky Mountain Gollum is going to be on patrol! 🙂
My throat hurts.
Uh oh. I’ve started something. Sorry, Jimmy!
” The coming of [David B.] is like the falling of small stones that starts an avalanche on the mountainside. ”
“Sometimes I think here people are more likely to take the worst possible interpretation of another’s words than the most charitable. Not such a good thing, I think.”
True enough! And what is the essence of being a Catholic anyway? Isn’t it : “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.” John 13 Found 5?
Hear what our Holy Father, Pope Benedict had to say today on this subject of love!:
Christ Still Conquers Sin With Love, Pope Says
Dedicates Audience to Reflect on Easter Triduum
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 4, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The paschal mystery is not just something from the past, but remains a current reality since Christ continues to overcome sin with love, Benedict XVI says.
The Pope said this today during the general audience in St. Peter’s Square, attended by some 20,000 people. The Holy Father’s address reflected on the Easter triduum, which begins Thursday.
Benedict XVI explained that “the paschal mystery, which the holy triduum allows us to relive, is not only a memory of a past reality. It is a current reality: Today, too, Christ overcomes sin and death with his love. Evil, in all of its forms, does not have the final word. The final triumph belongs to Christ, to truth, to love!”
The Pope began his reflection commenting on scenes from the Upper Room, drawing on the Gospel reading of today’s Mass.
The Pontiff reflected on Judas’ betrayal: “When the traitor exits the Upper Room, darkness penetrates his heart — it is an internal night — discouragement grows in the spirits of the other disciples — they too go toward the night — while the shadows of abandonment and hate grow darker around the Son of Man, who prepares himself for the consummation of his sacrifice on the cross.
“In the coming days, we will commemorate the supreme battle between Light and Darkness, between Life and Death.”
Spiritual benefits
The Holy Father encouraged the faithful to “place ourselves within this context — aware of our own ‘night,’ of our sins and responsibilities — if we want to spiritually benefit again from the paschal mystery, if we want to bring light to our hearts, by way of this mystery, which is the center point of our faith.”
After highlighting elements from Holy Thursday and Good Friday, Benedict XVI commented on the celebrations of Holy Saturday.
“In the Easter Vigil,” he said, “the veil of sadness, which surrounds the Church during the death and burial of the Lord, will be torn in two by the victorious cry: Christ has risen and has overcome death forever! Then we can truly understand the mystery of the cross.”
The Pope added: “We will experience that the Church is always alive, always renewing itself, always beautiful and holy, because its foundation is Christ, who, having risen, will never die again.”
* * * *
Just a little inspiration to remind us what real “Catholicism” and even real ‘Catholic Apologetics” is all about!
“And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.”
But a disagreement between two different pseudonyms does not prove that the pseudonyms are not shared by the same person
Yes it does. Are you really that dense?
No it doesn’t.
John said:
“…us here who want to discuss Catholic Apologetics in a calm, rational and intelligent way, instead of all of that cut and paste…”
LOL!!!!!!!
[I]I agree. Jarnor has no bad or hostile intent. He just has bad taste in liturgical music.[/I]
Now THAT is entirely possible. My musical tastes are notoriously ecclectic. *grin*
Sorry about the bad attempt to use italics up there folks. I’m not really sure what works and doesn’t in these comboxes.
Esau writes,
“However, as it is, the fact that its Protestant source, history, lyrics, etc. carry such notions inconsistent with Catholic beliefs; when a person in church, who lacks adequate knowledge of the Catholic Faith and may even be impressionable, when s/he sees that music played in church (especially in light of what s/he knows of its Protestant background and the Protestant theology behind the song); the very fact that it’s actually played at Mass in a Catholic Church might seem to give the song and its Protestant theological aspects as a certain “stamp of approval”, one might say.”
Esau,
It’s golden nuggets like this which make your posts so memorable. I’ve never actually seen anyone use “may/might” three times in one sentence. Nevertheless, your point is perspicuous; how could I have missed it?
You might have earned a certain “stamp of approval”!
Jarnor,
You use the pointy arrows (shift-, or shift-. ) instead of [i] and [/i]
“…us here who want to discuss Catholic Apologetics in a calm, rational and intelligent way, instead of all of that cut and paste…”
Amazing John!
Considering that everything you’ve said on this blog demonstrates an absence of both intelligence and rational thought, which is why you often need to go to other websites in order to find an opinion you can cut and paste and post here as your own — which Innocencio and even Esquire have caught you doing!
I just feel so sorry for your family though — unfortunately, it appears that what I’ve said on the blog about you is, in fact, true since it struck such a nerve that you actually retaliated to this hilarious extent, becoming more obsessed with me than usual!
Today’s the big day!
Oh boy oh boy!
Here you go, Ecumania at work, as reported today on Spirit Daily, right in our Pope’s home country, The Catholic church collects money to build a mosque. JPII and Ecumania at work. Is this not apostasy, helping destroy the Catholic church by contributing to build a house of worship which denies our Lord and savior as messiah?
http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=26&story_id=37774
Catholic church collects money for mosque
16 March 2007
Cologne, Germany (dpa) – When the Rev. Franz Meurer stands at the altar this Sunday in his priestly vestments, he’ll say to the congregation: “Today’s collection is for the construction of the big new mosque in Ehrenfeld.”
Meurer, 55, is not expecting protests. Both the board of Cologne’s St. Theodore Catholic Church and the parish council have unanimously approved the action.
“It’s only natural that we’re helping them,” he said of the Muslims living in a city that is one of the main centres of Catholicism in Germany.
After the special collection was announced last Sunday, several parishioners asked if it was really necessary – considering, for instance, that four young Turks beat a family man into a coma on the Thursday before Ash Wednesday.
“I said, ‘Hey, people, think about it, will you? We’ll be supporting the sensible ones’,” Meurer recalled. “That’s not so dumb.”
St. Theodore’s parish council came up with the unusual idea. Its chairman reminded the group that their new church was completed five years ago, and that the Protestant parish in the neighbourhood had given a nice gift.
“Now we, in turn, should give someone a gift too,” Meurer said. “That’s how we hit upon the mosque; it’s being designed by the same architect that did our church.”
The mosque, at the headquarters of the Turkish-Islamic Union for the Institution of Religion (DITIB) in the Cologne district of Ehrenfeld, will be one of Germany’s biggest. Plans call for two 55-metre-high minarets, a dome, and room for more than 3,000 worshippers.
A right-wing populist party called ProCologne has been gathering signatures for a public petition against the structure. Ehrenfeld residents who want nothing to do with the petition have reservations about the size of the mosque, however.
Meurer’s parish is in the Cologne suburbs of Hoehenberg and Vingst, both of which have a high proportion of foreigners. At his initiative, 180 sponsors planted 41,000 daffodils now in bloom along the streets.
Christian community work for Meurer means things like installing public dog loos because, as he said, “once an area like this is neglected, it can go downhill very fast.”
At the community centre, young Muslim women in headscarves are photographed at no cost for job applications. Turkish children play in the yard. And Meurer organises multi-religious celebrations.
Cardinal Joachim Meisner, archbishop of Cologne, set off a heated debate late last year when he directed Catholic school teachers in the region to stop participating in multi-religious events.
“All that matters to me about them is keeping peace in the area,” Meurer remarked. “We don’t pray together there. We get to know each other, which is possible only at get-togethers like that.”
Weighing what the parish could buy for the mosque sparked a lively discussion about Islam, Meurer said.
“Our people were suggesting such things as a little kneeler, a bell, a picture and the like. But then I said, ‘Friends, this isn’t likely to lead anywhere. They pray to God one on one in their mosques. They haven’t got liturgical objects like we do’.”
About 350 euros (462 dollars) winds up in the collection bag on normal Sundays. This time, though, more than 1,000 euros has been collected in advance. DITIB officials said the amount of the gift was unimportant.
“It’s simply a nice gesture by Mr Meurer,” said Rafet Ozturk, DITIB’s coordinator for interreligious dialogue. “We’re pleased, of course. Even very pleased.”
“We don’t expect hymns to be dogmatic treatises, after all.”
All this discussion about “Amazing Grace” and those “other” ditties got my interest up. Beyond question, they are inappropriate for the celebration of Mass. The problem isn’t so much that the lyrics aren’t susceptible to an interpretation that can be squared with Catholic doctrine or spirituality (but even then you’d have some doing to convince me that that would be enough for Catholics make use of them) but that they are so incredibly sentimental and subjective and subtly insinuate the perverse emotional soteriology that gave us Methodism and “The Great Awakening” and thereby present a proximate danger to those who are given to doubt the activity of supernatural grace upon their souls.
And the issue as I see it between traditional liturgies and the modern one is precisely that traditional liturgies are explicitly and unquestionably dogmatical! whereas the modern rite leaves a lot of room for the wandering imagination–and quite frankly, I’d say that holds for the typical version in Latin as well. I wouldn’t venture to say that makes it invalid, however, just regrettably inopportune given the pervasive, capitulating eirenism of our age.
The Church needs to remain militant–and will need to do so until the end of the age–instead of promulagating this vague notion of a “pilgrim church” where everyone is acknowledged or assumed to be wandering through life on a path to God. We should all rejoice to find ourselves with another Blessed Pope Pius IX in our current Holy Father. Let us all continue to pray for him.
I usually try to keep levity in my posts, but this is ridiculous. I may be out of line, but here I goe:
John, you are a schismatic. I believe I speak for the majority of people on this Blog when I tell you that I am sick of your VII criticisms, putdowns of JP II, putdowns of Benedict XVI, etc. Why don’t you run off and play with your EXCOMMUNICATED SSPX friends and slam on the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church there? You commit the sin of schism when you defy the lawful authority of the Vicar of Christ, the Magisterium, and Vatican II. I for one am tired of your rebellion against the Curch.
All that are in agreement, please say Aye!
Tim Brandenberg posted:
“John, you are a schismatic. I believe I speak for the majority of people on this Blog when I tell you that I am sick of your VII criticisms, putdowns of JP II, etc”
Well Tim, lets go and see if indeed I am a schismatic. Looking at the definition from Catholic World News, it says:
Schism,” the Greek word for tear, refers to the willful separation of a group from the Catholic Church and eccelsiatical communion. A schism occurs when a group of Catholics, ordinarily including one or more bishops and priests, deliberately breaks off ties with the Holy See.
Vatican II acknowledges that those in schism do retain certain bonds with the Church, including Baptism, faith in Christ, and hope for unity in the future. Some schismatic groups– notably the Orthodox churches– also maintain valid sacraments.
A schism differs from a heresy in that the reason for separation is not primarily doctrinal.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/biosgloss/definition.cfm?glossID=22
Tim-There is a problem here-I have not willfully tore myself from “eccelsiatical union” with the church-The church has willfully done so herself. You fail to understand what schism really is
And please note that Vatican II as stated above, NOW teaches (as not before Vatican II that is):
II acknowledges that those in schism do retain certain bonds with the Church, including Baptism, faith in Christ, and hope for unity in the future. Some schismatic groups– notably the Orthodox churches– also maintain valid sacraments.
So thanks to Vatican II, those that who are in schism actually retain bonds and a connection with the church and hope for unity. Well I do hope for unity, once the church restores all things in christ and realizes that the deposit of faith does not “RENEW” itself and the Pope can not change it as they please ,as they are only supposed to safeguard such
And to be honest, Catholicism is not a democracy, it is a monarchy with Christ the King and what those like Esau and David B/Esau/Anonymous/Pope John XXIV Supernova or whoever he is pretending to be today says about me, than I take that as a compliment
John,
I ask you… where do you meet your Sunday obligation? Is it a SSPX parish?
SSPX is a schismatic organization. If you attend a SSPX parish for the purpose of rebelling against the lawful authority of the Vicar of Christ, you are a schismatic. End of story.
If you attend a parish using the Tridentine indult (given, by the way, by JP II whom you despise), I apologize. Then you’re not schismatic, just rebellious.
John says,
“Vatican II acknowledges that those in schism do retain certain bonds with the Church”
John,
It’s precious that you cite Vatican II to justify your position in regards the Catholic Church. The delicious bit of irony is that you have many times rejected Vatican II as an invalid development of Church doctrine. In other words, you’ve chopped off the branch upon which you now claim to be sitting.
I would reiterate Tim’s point above: if you wish to be in schism then BE IN SCHISM – and leave the rest of us who wish to dialog within the parameters of fidelity to the Church alone!
“I have not willfully tore myself from “eccelsiatical union” with the church-The church has willfully done so herself.”
What the heck? You sound just like Martin Luther.
“You fail to understand what schism really is.”
Look in the mirror when you say that.
Tim Brandenburg,
You asked, way way above, (in a humorous way, I believe) “Won’t somebody criticize the Book of Divine Worship-I feel left out!”
Ok, I will take you up on that one. I have seen two forms of it; one I read online at the website of a Texas Anglican Use parish. It consisted of 1928(or earlier?) Book of Common Prayer…then the Novus Ordo for the canon, then back to the BCP. The jump from Elizabethan English to the bland English in the translation of the Novus Ordo was absolutely bizarre. The form I have heard celebrated (at the masses of the St. Thomas More Society at St.Clare’s Church in Scranton) uses the same BCP, then the Tridentine mass canon translated into English by a contemporary of Cranmer…Coverdale, I believe, who did the psalm translations in the BCP. This is definitely better. But the Coverdale translation wasn’t done to be proclaimed, but for study (in fact for Protestant divines to read in order to criticize it from their point of view. Can you imagine what Coverdale would think if he knew the use we are putting it to? ) It just does not have the majesty of Cranmer’s near poetic prose. The priests who were celebrating it, Latin rite priests who were just learning it, had no trouble with the Cranmer, but began to stumble when they reached the Coverdale part. The meaning of the words does have great dignity. But then, then….they (presumably someone in Rome?)made them put in the “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith, Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.” No more pretense at Elizabethan English. And WHY do you think this was done? My guess is that, because this is one of the things the traditionalists complain about; that Mysterium fidei in the traditional mass referred to the consecration which had just happened, and the “Let us proclaim” deliberately changes that. But it sits very ackwardly in the BDW liturgy, in my opinion.
The adaptation of the Book of Common Prayer rite which was done for Western Rite Orthodoxy,(called the Liturgy of St. Tikhon after the bishop whose idea it first was) which changes it only by making “will be for us the Body and Blood of Christ” be “will be changed into the Body and Blood of Christ” and by somewhat emphasizing and strengthening the Epiclesis, is far superior, in my opinion.
They also have a Liturgy of St. Gregory, which is the Tridentine Rite in English, with a strengthened Epiclesis, by the way.
Satisfied, Tim?
Susan F. Peterson
Darn… that was a fine analysis.
The Anglican Use parish I attend (when in the area) is St. Mary the Virgin in Arlington, Texas. Fr. Hawkin uses the Roman canon option, so I haven’t really checked out the others in any detail. I’ll tell you what though… for those who criticize the “Novus Ordo,” an Anglican Use parish shows how it can be done with as much reverence as a Tridentine Mass.
When I go home tonight I’m going to check out the different canons of the Mass. As an Anglo-Catholic (before coming to the catholic church via the Pastoral Provision of JP II), I loathed the 1928 BCP (VERY Protestant in nature), and was much more pleased with the 1979 BCP (except for the so called “Starship Enterprise” canon), which was far more Catholic in nature.
I’ll get back with you Susan. It’s great to hear from somebody else familiar with the Anglican Use!
BTW, the Pastoral Provision of JPII is one of the reasons I am such a staunch defender of JPII. God willing, the entirety of the Anglican Communion will re-unite with the Church via this avenue JPII graciously provided.
Mark posted:
“John,
It’s precious that you cite Vatican II to justify your position in regards the Catholic Church. The delicious bit of irony is that you have many times rejected Vatican II as an invalid development of Church doctrine. In other words, you’ve chopped off the branch upon which you now claim to be sitting.”
Traditionalist rightfully feel that they worship as Catholics had done for centuries. It was the church after Vatican II which CHANGED her:
Liturgy
Canon Law
All Sacraments
Translations of the Bible
Catechism
Customs
Introduced such novelties such as Eucharistic ministers and communion in the hand
Did away with kneeling to receive our Lord
Ecumania gone wild with all religions on equal footing in clear defection from past church teachings and even Scripture!
So-How is it that a Traditionalist is schismatic when it was the Vatican II Popes and council which changed and all a Traditionalist wants to do is worship as the church has always done as the deposit of faith never changes and the Pope is only responsible to safeguard it and not change it
Please expand on your statement
John… Please answer my question. If the answer is “yes,” you ARE a schismatic. I’m sure Martin Luther had all kinds of rationalizations as well, and they all amount to… NADA.
Hey, no Motu Proprio yesterday. Maybe next year.
But new stations of the cross today!
Whoopie!
Looks like Pope Benedict is going to give JPII a run for his money at schism-prevention greatness.
Let’s dance people!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRULNTperWE&eurl=
Who needs “St.” Veronica anyways.
“please demonstrate where the song explicitly makes it clear the sinner is in a full state of grace, rather than the sinner being grateful for the Grace he has received”
It doesn’t!! And it was never intended to. The author, John Newton had been a slave trader & an atheist. During a storm at sea, he cried out in desperation to God, & was filled with a sense of great calm.
He later was received into the Church of England, and–still later–became a clergyman therein….
It was looking back on his conversion from atheism to belief in God & His Son, Jesus Christ, that he began to write the words which later were set to music.
Newton, being a high-church Anglican, understand perfectly well that his conversion had not, at that moment when it began, been a full conversion. Please note that he says “how precious did that grace appear the hour I first believed”!
He did not say, that grace was applied to him at that point in time. He says: He accepted the existence of God, & the God in Whom he began to believe, is the same God Whom he has been privileged to serve for many years (at the time of writing).
The fact that some may imagine that he meant this, does not seem any more surprising or dreadful, than many a strange notion of our more (ahem!) enthusiastic brethren in the fundamentalist wing of protestantism. Their imaginations & their enthusiasms are their own. Let us leave them to them.
You all may cease to sing Amazing Grace if you like; we Methodist followers of Christ will sing it gladly. And none, I think, will ever mistake it for a fundamentalistic anthem.
My Cat,
I was kind of thinking the same thing. It seems that John Newton wasn’t concerned in any way with formal theology, but rather the practical experience of someone who realizes something very great in his life, and this was in a moment of greeat crisis in his life, which something like a ‘storm at sea’ might inspire!
And this actual realization about the truth of Christ and God, is really a gift of ‘actual grace’, which can lead, as it did with him and many others, to the Sacraments, Baptism, Ministry, etc..
So, I really think he is merely describing the ‘feeling’ and impression, of this first conversion experience, and which might have been something that he had been pondering, or troubling over in the depths of his heart, for some time.
One of my conversion experiences was such, and it was, at first, more in the lines of discovering truth and wisdom in Greek philosophy. Afterwards, I had another greater experience when I discovered the Life and teachings of St. Francis, which basically ecclipsed the former ‘philosophical’ experience. And the serious study and love of the life of St. Franicis, obviously led me to a profound love of Christ, as this was the ‘fount’ of St. So, when I followed Francis’ lead I was led to yet another summit, and this was when I really realized the depths of the Gospel teachings of Christ Himself..the which I continue to grow in to this day!
Anyway, I think these moments of ‘Amazing Grace’ can be had by everyone seeking truth in life, and can be seen as the ‘steps’ marking the development or maturation of the understanding and soul, wherein one’s heart rejoices at each major step it takes in drawing nearer to the love and knowledge of God.
At least that continues to be my experience.
Can I ask what any of the above has to do with the Pope permitting permission to say the Traditional Latin Mass without their Bishops approval (some great career move, I guess this is another red herring, but whatever)???
Does anyone have anything to add on this subject, possibly the horrible abuse by the liberal Novus Ordo worshippers who prefer a 45 minute banal mass as compared to those that want to worship God instead of Man and the Vatican’s slow turnaround? Can the seminaries attract even less heterosexual candidates than they are now after the catholic reformation of 1962-1965?
The music discussion should be left for another thread
Tim posted:
“John… Please answer my question. If the answer is “yes,” you ARE a schismatic. I’m sure Martin Luther had all kinds of rationalizations as well, and they all amount to… NADA.”
What question is that?
And then you stated:
“BTW, the Pastoral Provision of JPII is one of the reasons I am such a staunch defender of JPII. God willing, the entirety of the Anglican Communion will re-unite with the Church via this avenue JPII graciously provided.”
Tim sorry but you missed the boat, the Anglican mass is not catholic nor will it ever be as thank the Lord that pre vatican II popes have already declared such, and if the church accepeted the Anglicans into the church, with their “priestesses” and married priests, it would just be another joke and stake into the heart of the church
Now it is very clear why you like Vatican II and ecumenism as you side with Catholicism today, but you hate the “brand” that was held as the standard for 2000 years and which martyrs gave their lives for rather than compromise, but like JPII and Vatican II, now all faiths have some truth and like going to a buffet, try a little hinduism today, Anglicanism tomorrow, Islam and kissing the koran the next day, on and on and on
Tim posted:
“”BTW, the Pastoral Provision of JPII is one of the reasons I am such a staunch defender of JPII. God willing, the entirety of the Anglican Communion will re-unite with the Church via this avenue JPII graciously provided.”
Tim-Ever hear of Pope Leo XIII?
He has already declared the Anglican priests, sacraments and liturgy null and void, so I guess JPII couldnt get around this one, I cant wait to see what happens with this!
APOSTOLICAE CURAE
Apostolic Letter
On the Nullity of Anglican Orders
Promulgated September 18, 1896, by Pope Leo XIII
[In this Apostolic Letter Pope Leo XIII reviews the history of the rite for Holy Orders introduced under King Edward VI of England for the Church of England, otherwise known as the Anglican Church (in England) or Episcopalian Church (in the United States). The pope declared ordinations according to the rite in the
Anglican Ordinal null and void and thus closes the question of validity, according to Catholic doctrine that there are three essential conditions needed for the valid conferral of a Sacrament: proper matter, proper form, and proper intention.
In the Anglican form there is no reference to the priestly power of offering sacrifice, which is essential in the ordination of priests. Furthermore, the Anglican ordinal rendered the form for the consecration of bishops invalid by the omission of essential words. Astute
readers will see that the arguments the pope makes against the validity of Anglican Orders might apply equally to argue the invalidity of the Novus Ordo Mass of today)
John,
My question, was: Do you attend a SSPX parish? Also, you need to catch up.
First of all, all Anglican priests are re-ordained.
Second, after APOSTOLICAE CURAE, Anglo-Catholics recognized the deficiency and many began having Old Catholics (who maintain valid apostolic sucession) perform ordinations (the “Durch Touch”). Interestingly enough, those Anglicans with valid orders, in schism with Rome, are just as valid as the SSPX priests you love so much. And, they are co-equal… both are in schism with Rome. Put that in your schismatic pipe and smoke it!
Third, the Pastoral Provision has been in use for some time, and Anglican parishes have, and continue, to return to the Catholic Church in UNITY… unlike the schismatic SSPX that defies the authority of Rome. Any Catholic meets his or her Sunday obligation at a Pastoral Use parish, unlike those that attend SSPX parishes.
Check out what you criticize before you criticize it: http://www.pastoralprovision.org/.
John,
This is one of the the Rites provided for by the Pastoral Provision: http://www.atonementonline.com/orderofmass/Rite1.html. I urge you to read it and see how we worship before you criticize.
Anon posted (I guess you are scared to use your name)
“Third, the Pastoral Provision has been in use for some time, and Anglican parishes have, and continue, to return to the Catholic Church in UNITY… unlike the schismatic SSPX that defies the authority of Rome. Any Catholic meets his or her Sunday obligation at a Pastoral Use parish, unlike those that attend SSPX parishes.”
First-You defend the Anglicans who split with the church and caused great harm and the death of St Thomas Moore. The Anglicans split because the heretic Henry VIII wanted the Pope to annul his marriage so he could keep on divorcing and marrying, but believe it or not the church at one time had some Guts and stood up to him unlike today
You posted some lame JPII agreement, and anything that the Ecumenist JPII agreed to is fully uncatholic and non binding as he worshipped with vodoo and moslems and everyone so why would he not make some lame agreement with the heretic Anglicans!
As far as SSPX they seem to scare you but the Anglicans who ordain woman and homosexuals and everyone for that matter dont-Is there something I should and all the board members here should know about you?
John, that was me. I don’t know why my name didn’t come up. And John… SCREW YOU! I am in communion with the Church… you are a schismatic. Who’s the bad guy here? You and all your schismatic SSPX cohorts can GO TO HELL!
Who’s the bad guy here?
No one is good — except God alone.
That last post was made in anger. No person should see the fires of Hell. I apologize for my statement. “O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of your Mercy. Amen”
I am obviouly too emotionally involved in this. I ask the forgiveness of all those that read my last post, and of you John.
“You posted some lame JPII agreement, and anything that the Ecumenist JPII agreed to is fully uncatholic and non binding as he worshipped with vodoo and moslems and everyone …!”
#123,405,465,038…
“Is there something I should and all the board members here should know about you?”
John, A question: was that charitable? I know I don’t have the charitability market cornered, but Ad Hominum attacks is wayyyyy out of line. Period.
“You posted some lame JPII agreement, and anything that the Ecumenist JPII agreed to is fully uncatholic and non binding as he worshipped with vodoo and moslems and everyone …!”
If I didn’t know better I’d say that my secret persona (opps), Pope John XXIV (SuperNova), wrote that.
“but believe it or not the church at one time had some Guts and stood up to him unlike today”
Thomas More was about the only person whose personal mortality was in keeping with his Catholic Faith. I might be wrong, but I thought that that pope was a great scandal to the church.
Tim posted:
John, that was me. I don’t know why my name didn’t come up. And John… SCREW YOU! I am in communion with the Church… you are a schismatic. Who’s the bad guy here? You and all your schismatic SSPX cohorts can GO TO HELL!”
Tim, that is about the most uncharitable response I have ever gotten except possibly from Esau
But I see your frustrations as many here can not defend the present quagmire they and many are in, wanting to believe that santa claus is real (JPII) but seeing time and time again how he contradicted past popes, which is unaccepted in his continued effort of a “One World Religion” which he preached about time and time, and how all faiths have truth and that somewhere deep inside them they are catholic, which is pantheism and heresy
But you cant seem to back up your assertions with fact and history because all that those like you have to rely on is JPII and a pastoral council, so I do feel for you
Possibly some readings on St Thomas More, how he gave his life rather than succomb to the heresy of Henry VIII and how even today their is a great groundswell from the time of Agatha Christie to others in England to bring back the “True Mass”
God bless you on your journey
Tim
I accept your apology
I am sorry if I angered you as well
We all desire the same thing, sorry if I upset you as well
I dont know why people get personal here (Esau). I defend myself when attacked as being schismatic, etc which I am not, and even if I sympathise with those from SSPX whom you seem to dislike so much, they are 10000 times better than what JPII played footsie with when he was pope, those false faiths, but that all seemed OK
I have to deal (Easter dinner tomorrow) with inlaws and family who are all SSPX and SSPV and make fun of me for going to the Indult (they call it the “insult mass”) but I try to stay as my wife and children within, but I have a hard time defending what is going on today
We have attended some SSPX masses and they do not have horns, do not think they are better than anyone, they are just in a state of confusion as I am as well as to what exactly is being taught today in the church and if they want their kids exposed to it and they feel fully they are obedient to the Pope, but do not want to worship in the NO mass, and I feel the same way
What I want is a rollback, as even Cardinal Ratzinger stated there are excesses that have taken place, but he being 80 years old is not going to start on a campaign at his age, so we can only pray over time all will be back in full communion as it would make my life easier at home to say the least!
John
John, you surprised me. I assumed (incorrectly) that you were a schismatic SSPX, when in fact you are a Catholic that has submitted to the lawful authority of the Church and are using the lawful indult Mass (granted by JPII, I might add *grin*). Stay firm to the faith and you will be rewarded. One day the abuses (yes, I admit they are taking place) will be corrected. I loathe music and touchy feely nonsense at Mass too (which is why I am part of the Pastoral Provision).
John, what angers and upsets me about so many of your posts is your continued (seeming) insistence that the N.O. Mass is in fact INVALID, that Christ is not present there, that the Eucharist is not confected, that those who attend are heretics, pagans and worse. In all your posts I have seen NO reasonable basis for that view.
Then I read the occasional post of yours, like the one above, and am astonished that a wave of conciliation and reasonableness seems to have drowned all that bitterness and bile for a few minutes.
I hate abuses, TOO. I hate the flippant, slovenly, artless approach to the mass that is often seen in some churches, but at the same time, there are N.O. masses that are reverent and that are performed according to the rubrics. A mass is either valid or invalid, and the N.O. mass is as valid as any other. You may like the Indult a lot more, you may find it more moving and profound, but you have no grounds whatever to say the mass I attend is invalid. Them’s fightin’ words, and you can’t be too surprised when you use them and then end up with a fight on your hands.
From what I can gather, the choice of music at mass has never made everyone happy. I remeber reading that C.S. Lewis hated a lot of the hymns common during his time, and though he was an Anglican, I expect this was common among proper Catholics, as well.
If you could leave off insulting the mass I attend, and the Pope, and drop the insinuations that we are a bunch of mind-numbed robots carrying out the orders of our pagan masters, you would likely find things a lot more pleasant in the combox.
Tim J, well said.
John, I remember you mentioning your family in SSPX before. Making fun of you for attending the indult is uncharitable. Nor do you have to defend the genuine abuses that happen today. What Tim said, and I agree, is when someone insults the 1970 Missal as invalid or Catholic teaching.
Tomorrow might be difficult, but why not just put the situation in Mary’s hands.
A quick comment on Amazing Grace, though it will probably not be read by anyone discussing it before!
There is, it seems to me, a false assumption underlying Esau’s and others’ crtiticisms of the songs theology: that faith does not lead to saving/sanctifying grace according to Catholic theology. This is the teaching of Aquinas or other Doctors of the Church, nor the Fathers. Aquinas, for example, freely accepted the possibility that any act of faith informed by charity (“living faith”) could do so, even apart from the Sacraments. Indeed, it would be truer to say he insisted every act of this kind of faith justified the sinner.
The sacraments of baptism and penance “guarantee” saving grace to those properly disposed due to God’s covenant promise, one might say. Many Catholic theologians have taught that they do this partly by “completing whatever is deficient” in the faith of the penitent seeking sacramental grace, and making that faith alive with “caritas”. Whether that is correct or not, what is clear is that the promise attached to the sacraments does not mean grace (even sanctifying grace) is promised to proceed ONLY through the sacraments.
The author of Amazing Grace had become an unbeliever and grievous sinner in adult life. By Catholic teaching, therefore, his Baptism had left an indelible “mark” on his soul but did NOT mean he was in a state of grace at the time of his subsequent conversion experience. A conversion caused by prevenient grace leading to penitent, living faith and sanctifying (saving) grace is certainly accepted as possible in traditional soteriology. This appears to be exactly what the song is describing.
Finally, as for what is appropriate for liturgical hymnody, my understanding is that many of the ancient hymns were often quite subjective and emotional in tone. It is best not to be dogmatic on such issues or to pretend hard and fast rules exist or are being broken when historical evidence does not support this.
Oops. Insert “not” between “is” and “the teaching” in the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph.
“my understanding is that many of the ancient hymns were often quite subjective and emotional in tone.”
The words that are chanted might be described as “subjective and emotional in tone,” but there is more to music than lyrics. Compare the serenity and exquisite beauty and lofted tones of Latin Chant to the self-absorbed “pop ballad” sound of modern so-called sacred music, and you can see there’s absolutely nothing subjective and emotional about the ancient hymns.
Tim
I never ever said the NO mass is invalid, just that the sacramental rite is questionable that is all, and that has been debated back and forth by those much more intelligent than I
I have hard arguments from those on the Trad side that the TLM was not allowed to be changed, and then the same argument from those who support the NO mass, which then I question how could it have been changed in 1969 but not allowed to be changed back today
I always always have said it is a valid mass, to do so in my opinion would illegitisize PaulVI and that is not acceptable. I do have doubts though and after reading more and more about the horrible translations by the ICEL and abuses taking place attend the TLM exclusive
My apologies if I ever mispoke that, or possibly I said so out of anger at one particular person here who always bashes anything traditional
Back from mass and getting ready for dinner with my guard up!!
God bless all on this blessed day
John
Thanks, Fr Kirby. If some of the old hymns (not all of which are chant!) are anything like the old holy cards they are most certainly subjective and emotional. I appreciate your comments and wish you a blessed and holy Easter.
God bless your Easter, John, and all here at JA.O.
Christ is risen, indeed!
John said:
Yet, John had stated in the past:
AND
AND
John has repeated this theme time and again — the Novus Ordo Missae being a damned Mass and, furthermore, nothing more than a Protestant service.
John has also DECLARED the Second Vatican Council and the Teachings of the Pope apostasy!
He has clearly demonstrated the EXTENT to which he would go just to bring down the Catholic Church — that is, to the treacherous extent of SPREADING LIES regarding her:
AND
John would go so far as to DESTROY HOLY PEOPLE LIKE MOTHER TERESA WITH OUTRIGHT CALUMNY JUST TO ADVANCE HIS SINISTER AGENDA:
John hilariously states in his most recent post:
I take it, then, that these posts from him aren’t personal:
AND
AND
But, I guess since John is unable to defend his REBELLION against the Catholic Church (disguising it as TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC TEACHING), he cannot win an argument other than to personally attack those who argue for the Catholic Church, the Pope and the Modern Roman Rite!
As I had asked him numerous times:
In fact, John has NEVER provided answers to these questions — he is UNABLE to provide a satisfactory one since the OBVIOUS ANSWER would no doubt REVEAL his actual DISDAIN for the PAPACY & Christ’s Catholic Church itself as well as the FACT that IT IS HE whose agenda is AGAINST TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHINGS!
This is why when ROSEMARIE & her husband submitted their arguments against John’s High Church Protestant ideas, because he could not, in fact, refute them, John took potshots as usual:
Yet, not only does John sink so low as to ATTACK people whose arguments he is UNABLE to REFUTE, but he also goes to the extent of MIS-REPRESENTING WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID!
For example, as Innocencio had caught him:
John has also been CAUGHT PLAGERIZING other people’s opinions and DISGUISED THEM AS HIS OWN:
AND
AND
Of course, Anon with No Name said it best:
In addition, JOHN many times just OUTRIGHT LIES:
AND
YET, this is what I have actually said about those Pedophile priests:
AND
Even after Easter, John has not REPENTED of his sin of lying, deception and two-faced-ness!
Jn:8:44:
44 You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. (DRV)
CLARIFICATION:
Because there are other “JOHN”s on the blog, the ‘John’ I speak of above is:
jtnova@optonline.net