Cognitive Dissonance and the New Mass

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.
…
But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a “real improvement” in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.
In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old “low Mass,” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, “was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people” when it disappeared.
The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.
With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope’s new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.
CNS on the Motu Proprio: a link and commentary
What came to my mind here was there is also a need for those who have rejected our tradition and traditional forms to likewise demonstrate their own good will and a hermeneutic of continuity. Let’s be clear and fair, there has been a hermeneutic of rupture which has banished most anything deemed “pre-conciliar” and this is as problematic as the sort of traditionalist who has rejected anything and everything “post-conciliar.”
Further, not all “traditionalists” take on this approach of rupture. If they are simply attached to the treasures of the classical liturgy, desirous of true liturgical reform in the light of both the Council and our tradition of organic development, all the while never questioning the validity of the modern Roman rite, but calling for a reform of the reform with regard to it, then it seems to me that they have nothing to justify and join the ranks of our Holy Father as a Cardinal in this set of ideas. In that regard, I would propose they form a part of the true liturgical centre and mainstream —- just as do those who focus upon the reform of the reform, but who are supportive of the availability of the classical liturgy, provided we do not take an immobiliistic and triumphalistic approach to it, or one which rejects the Council — not as popular opinion may go of course, but as the mind of the Church may go, as seen in the light of the Conciliar documents and our tradition.
As for the extremes, the road to a change of heart and mind is not a one way street as this article might make one think; it is rather and precisely a two-way street.
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.
…
But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a “real improvement” in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.
In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old “low Mass,” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, “was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people” when it disappeared.
The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.
With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope’s new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.
Link:
CNS on the Motu Proprio: a link and commentary
What came to my mind here was there is also a need for those who have rejected our tradition and traditional forms to likewise demonstrate their own good will and a hermeneutic of continuity. Let’s be clear and fair, there has been a hermeneutic of rupture which has banished most anything deemed “pre-conciliar” and this is as problematic as the sort of traditionalist who has rejected anything and everything “post-conciliar.”
Further, not all “traditionalists” take on this approach of rupture. If they are simply attached to the treasures of the classical liturgy, desirous of true liturgical reform in the light of both the Council and our tradition of organic development, all the while never questioning the validity of the modern Roman rite, but calling for a reform of the reform with regard to it, then it seems to me that they have nothing to justify and join the ranks of our Holy Father as a Cardinal in this set of ideas. In that regard, I would propose they form a part of the true liturgical centre and mainstream —- just as do those who focus upon the reform of the reform, but who are supportive of the availability of the classical liturgy, provided we do not take an immobiliistic and triumphalistic approach to it, or one which rejects the Council — not as popular opinion may go of course, but as the mind of the Church may go, as seen in the light of the Conciliar documents and our tradition.
As for the extremes, the road to a change of heart and mind is not a one way street as this article might make one think; it is rather and precisely a two-way street.

Hey, Tim Jones, here (not Jimmy Akin). I became a Catholic in 1993. In looking at the history of Christianity (with a lot of help) I became convinced that the Catholic Church constituted the authentic Church that Christ founded. On any reasonable, unbiased view of the evidence, it emerged as the great trunk from which every branch of Christianity sprung, if any Church could make that claim.

I think that my joining the ancient Church has only deepened my appreciation for old things in general. I’ve always been fascinated with old things, and found great satisfaction in working for a couple of historical museums and even illustrating an archaeological textbook. I have been privileged to handle and examine many man-made artifacts thousands of years old. One of the most damning marks of our present culture, from where I sit, is the tendency – or the reckless mania – for tossing out things of great (or at least unknown) value, simply because they are old. I’m all for looking at both tools and traditions to see whether they are still truly helpful or could be improved on, but our Western culture discards old ideas and structures with all the thoughtful consideration of a drunk tossing empty beer cans out the car window.

In short, I’m a traditionalist by nature and temperament, and it troubles me to see – in the Church or in the secular world – people so giddily enamored of novelty and "progress" that they lose almost completely the capacity to see the value of old things. For this reason, I have a great deal of natural sympathy for those who lived through the liturgical changes after Vatican II and found them deeply disturbing. I often hear in their communications a deep sense of mourning, pain and bewilderment behind all the anger and bitterness.

Imagine, having been raised with the old Latin Mass, going to your parish church one day and – with very little explanation – experiencing the equivalent of the average modern teen mass. For many people, this would be like entering a parallel universe, or some kind of Twilight Zone episode…"Where are the old Latin prayers and responses? Why is the priest facing the wrong way? Where are the hymns? Why is that guitar-strumming folk singer wailing at us? How did those drums get in here? Make them stop! I can’t breathe!! What’s going on?!?"

Then, imagine your response when you hear, "You’re at Mass. This is the Mass… the NEW Mass. This will be how we do Mass from now on, for ever and ever…"

"But," you might ask,  "what about the Old Mass? Can’t I go to the Old Mass?".

And that’s the kicker. I doubt, really, that most of these "Rad-Trad" folks would have had that big a problem with the mere existence of the Novus Ordo mass, had the Old Mass been allowed to continue alongside it. The problem – perhaps – wasn’t so much the introduction of the New Mass as the fact that the beloved Old Mass was, for all practical purposes, swept away to make room for it. If those strongly attached to the TLM still had access to such a mass in their own parish (or nearby) I doubt we would see the level of anger and the veiled – or explicit – charges that the Novus Ordo is invalid and a tool of the devil.

There is a good, short Wikipedia article on the subject of Cognitive Dissonance that I think might help shed some light on the stridency and outrage of the Rad-Trads. The article begins with this short definition;

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one’s beliefs. More precisely, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior.

On the one hand, you have the thought (based on your own experience), "This is not the Mass", and on the other hand, you have the Church telling you "This is the Mass". But, the thought is too much, and just won’t fit into your mind.

You think, "No, that can’t be right", but there is the conflicting thought, "The Church – the Pope – speaks for Christ". While some are able – with time – to sort through these seeming contradictions, others are overwhelmed and something has to give. People just can’t go on thinking in one way and acting in another.

I’ve never experienced this uncomfortable dissonance, because I didn’t grow up attached to a particular kind of Mass. I became a Catholic for doctrinal and philosophical reasons and decided to convert before I had ever been to a Catholic mass. I was absolutely convinced of the authority of the Church, and for me it was a slam-dunk that The Mass was whatever the Church said it was. As Mark Shea put it recently, "Just give me my lines and my blocking". I don’t know exactly who gets to decide what goes into the liturgy and what doesn’t, I only know it isn’t me.  All the same, it’s my understanding that Benedict XVI may be of the opinion that the liturgical changes that took place after Second Vatican Council were too much, too soon. This does not mean the Church has gone apostate, or even that the Novus Ordo was a bad idea, only that as a matter of prudence, there may have been too many changes and that these changes could have been implemented in a less ham-fisted way.

I understand the feelings of the liturgical purists, but they make enemies when they go around hinting, or flatly stating, that the Novus Ordo is invalid and that the Pope and the Church are in apostasy (except for their little corner of it, where the True Faith is preserved).  What is needed is a bit of humility and charity on both ends. We need to try and understand the deep feelings of loss and disorientation that some experienced after the New Mass was so abruptly introduced, and they need to understand that the Latin Mass was no more immune to abuse than is the Novus Ordo. There were slovenly, irreverent Masses long before Vatican II.

Hopefully, some day soon, we will get to see the Latin Mass made available to a much greater degree, and maybe then we can leave behind some of this territorial chest-pounding and controversies over the How of the mass and focus instead on Who it is we encounter there.

Just a note; I will assertively implement Jimmy’s combox rules on this thread. Diatribes, harangues and tub-thumping of any kind will be mercilessly excised. I will suffer no attacks on the Holy Father, nor any laundry lists of perceived evidence that Vatican II was the work of Satan. The same goes for those who accuse all TLM enthusiasts of being schismatics. For once, let’s try to talk about this without consigning to the pits of heck those who hold a different view.

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

266 thoughts on “Cognitive Dissonance and the New Mass”

  1. And that’s the kicker. I doubt, really, that most of these “Rad-Trad” folks would have had that big a problem with the mere existence of the Novus Ordo mass, had the Old Mass been allowed to continue alongside it.
    I doubt it. If they have no problem with the NO per se, they are probably just Trads, not RadTrads.

  2. “…our Western culture discards old ideas and structures with all the thoughtful consideration of a drunk tossing empty beer cans out the car window.”
    As Fulton Sheen said: When you think you’ve come up with a completely new idea, go read what Aristotle wrote about it.

  4. MORE UPDATE RE: THE MOTU PROPRIO
    Tridentine Mass: Pope looks for bridge to tradition
    Tim,
    Thank you for the very nice article,
    I believe you are right on when you say that had the Classical Rite remained alongside the Novus Ordo that there would not be as much pain and frustration amongst those who recognize a more sacrifice oriented mass as opposed to a more horizontal view.
    I personally think that the two mass’s could not have co-existed together equally.In other words the 7am mass is Tridentine,the 9am mass Novus Ordo and so on.I personally think that the Tridentine mass is of a much more reverent nature,even when the Novus Ordo is offered and prayed correctly.
    Personally I have grown infinitely closer to the Lord, have learned much,much more about my faith and am able to understand the holy sacrifice of Mass much more clearly since I started assisting at the Tridentine Mass.
    Of course,you would have to be faithless to think that the Novus Ordo is invalid or that the Supreme Pontiff is an heretic.One would not be Catholic if one thought this.But personally I believe that the Classical rite Mass when offered correctly is more pleasing to God and more graceful, for us, than the newer mass.
    I just pray to the good Lord above that when the Motu Proprio is released by His Holiness,that priests do not try to wing the mass and botch it up.This would be very abusive.
    God bless you

  5. I want to make clear that I am not trying to psychoanalyze anyone, either. I am only trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who had grown up with the TLM and the had the kind of wrenching experience of the New Mass that I described. Cognitive Dissonance is just a handy way to describe how I think that might have felt.

  6. Dan,
    Your post above has some good points.
    The first being that of the implementation of the Novus Ordo Missae, which appears to have been very abrupt and without even a transition phase.
    This, understandably, would lead to certain people’s refusal to even accept the New Mass since there wasn’t even any prior introduction as to the whys and what for, it seems.
    Also, one thing I cannot refute and do admit — for some reason, when I had attended the Indult Mass at a distant parish (no longer celebrated, unfortunately, since the priest there retired), I had not once witnessed an abuse of the Liturgy or the flagrant irreverence I’ve often witnessed at my current Novus Ordo Missae parish.
    I mean, is there a genuinely valid reason folks chew gum at Mass as if it were some social event like a baseball game and why they dress up as if they were actually attending one?
    Even at a Protestant service, folks often dressed up in their best Sunday outfits like suits and dresses.
    How much more when attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist?
    But I guess we should show the utmost respect to Our Lord by including gum in our mouth when receiving Him!

  7. See the thing is that many conservative people crystalized at the sight of decadence and like counterrevolutionaries they stood against it.
    But the thing is, that evil knows there those people out there. So what does the evil forces do, they create a “false right”, ultra-conservative in appearance, satisfying to the crystalized person, but being a tool of the Devil, the false right is as said false.
    Like the Pharisees against Our Lord, they not only hate but with self-love the Left, but hate the True Right, the real counterrevolutionaries.
    They are good only in appearance, because they commit the same or worst kinds of sins as the liberal revolutionaries.
    The True Right is certainly cautiously using the New Mass, but with all the splendor and more than the Old Mass, because even though constrained, the True Right is holy and truly progresses and perfects. It has an unsatiable desire to perfection. They are not making any noise or pointing fingers (for now) because it is not convenient for the cause.
    Yet as the Our Lord conforts us:
    …sed confidite Ego vici mundum
    John 16:33
    And Our Lady in Fatima promised:
    “In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph!”

  8. Even at a Protestant service, folks often dressed up in their best Sunday outfits like suits and dresses.
    Esau that’s a very good point. My sportscoat and tie fit right in at my wife’s Presbyterian service, but, sadly, I stand out like a sore thumb at Mass. Does anyone know why Protestants dress up and Catholics don’t? (While I’m asking, the same question goes for singing.)

  9. The False Right can sometimes extend to “conservative” protestants.
    Yet there errors are still grave and crystalizing in some areas of morality does not save them as a whole.

  10. Some Day,
    Why do you write in Latin sometimes? What do you hope to achieve? I suspect the majority of Jimmy’s readership can’t understand Latin, so you’re probably not communicating.

  11. I thought most people go to Latin or like Latin Mass and music?
    I for one, even though I like it, have only been a handful of times.
    Plus, Madame, il convainc très quand vous vous servez d’autres langages.
    No seriosly, some phrases I only know in certain languages.

  12. The point of these forums is to communicate; as this is an English language blog, I don’t think it’s appropriate to write little one-liners in another language. It comes off as pretentious, to me.

  13. Sorry, but I seriously do not recieve all my education in English.
    And translating takes longer, and plus I would think that most people here are smart enough to see what things mean.

  17. And translating takes longer
    My premise is that most people here speak English only. So writing in another language means that they will not understand what you wrote. So, by suggesting that “translating takes longer”, you are saying “I’d rather write something quickly that most people won’t understand, then take a little more time so that I actually communicate to everyone.”

  18. Could be.
    But my other statement still holds weight.
    Plus, Madame, il convainc très quand vous vous servez d’autres langages.
    or
    Plus, miss, it is very convincing when you use other languages.
    #1 seems melhor. 😉

  20. Smoky,
    Actually, what you are saying here to Smoky:
    So, by suggesting that “translating takes longer”, you are saying “I’d rather write something quickly that most people won’t understand, then take a little more time so that I actually communicate to everyone.”
    …would be a very uncharitable characterization.
    If from a more charitable perspective, one might think that Some Day believes the audience is intelligent enough to decipher what he is saying, given that Jimmy had introduced Latin on this blog in the past and also provided some basics.
    Besides, what he said here:

  21. Correction:
    Actually, what you are saying here to Some Day…
    P.S.
    Also, Smoky, who’s to say that Some Day had his bible verses memorized in Latin rather than in English (especially given his past communications) and, therefore, when he quotes, he is doing so from the memorized Latin.

  22. Smoky,
    Sorry I thought you were some girl that was curious but not a Catholic.
    Are you the same but male?

  23. What the heck is going on here?
    Please get back to Tims great post.
    God bless.

  24. Esau,
    I agree I was a bit uncharitable. I still disagree that the use of non-English languages is appropriate.
    Some Day writes:
    No seriosly, some phrases I only know in certain languages
    If doesn’t know how to say them in English, why should we be expected to understand them?
    Some Day writes:
    And translating takes longer
    Esau writes:
    when he quotes, he is doing so from the memorized Latin
    The burden shouldn’t be on the reader to translate.
    Esau writes:
    utilized rudimentatry Latin words
    Latin is Greek to me :). I have no idea what the Bible verse says.
    Communication is difficult enough as it is (as evidenced by the constant arguments on these forums). It is the burden of the writer, in my opinion, to write as clearly as possible so as to increase the likelihood that the reader will understand. Any impediments to clarity are counterproductive.

  25. Sorry I thought you were some girl that was curious but not a Catholic.
    Nope. I’m a dude. I was raised Catholic but I’ve not practiced for several years.

  26. But you saw that other post where you thought my is not is to you.
    It was not, just that my post was not fast enough or yours came first, but I did not see it though I refresh like every 10 seconds.
    That is why I rather post first and any doubts we can resolve later.

  27. Tim, nice post.
    I can’t be suffering from cognitive disonance if I had never experienced the TLM as a child, right? I was born in 1964. I have been told that our diocese (OKC) was one of the very first to implement the NO under Bishop Quinn and so I grew up with felt banners, kum bah ya, guitar masses, etc. I knew nothing different.
    So now that I understand the teachings of the Church (thanks to Catholic answers, EWTN, etc circa 2002) why do I long for the TLM?
    Why do people who have always had the NO mass now hunger for the TLM?
    It’s not cognitive disonance. Are both masses valid? Sure.
    I certainly can’t say I know the mind of God, but which one do you think He prefers? And I am just thinking about silence, reverence, etc.
    Not trying to be a wiseguy or anything of the sort. I am just an ignorant redneck from Oklahoma asking questions.

  28. But you saw that other post where you thought my is not is to you
    You could have quoted Lana’s text to which you were responding, and then there would be no confusion (and no need to post quickly — better to post slowly and make sure you write what you intend to write — these posts stick around for a long time).

  29. Well I remeber you telling me something like that…
    I recieved Holy Communion for your conversion,
    but was under the impression that you where a girl that likes to hike.
    God listens anyways though…
    I hope you decide to open up to His grace.

  30. I know…
    But I’m a bit impatient in my responses…
    Mainly because you have to refresh to make sure some idiot does not say something stupid and confusing and gets away with it.

  32. Okay, uhhhh, Smoky and Some Day, not to take away from the fun you guys are having here, but are you two going to continue your casual conversation here all throughout the thread?

  33. Suzanne,
    All of us long for God, and beauty is reflection of God in His Creation.
    The Church is the most beautiful thing we have.
    Yet She has been covered with a smoke that hides that from us.
    This NO, is certainly valid, as the Church in all Her battles will certainly prevent the forces of evil to feed us something that can give us a mortal blow. Yet the NO “tastes like heresy” a theologan once said. Yet taste is not is, but that taste is that it certainly can conduce to heresy much easier than before. And because of this it has lent itself to abuse. So you never see any beauty in the Mass, we see more like a show and social gathering with guitars.
    But the NO Mass can be beautiful, because like I said before, it is still officially from Mother Church.
    Look at the Vatican Masses, the Shrine from Mother Angelica and for me I have seen it in many times in the Heralds of the Gospel.
    That is why the most of the apostolate of the Heralds is that, show the world the beauty of God within the Church.

  34. Some Day,
    This was good:
    All of us long for God, and beauty is reflection of God in His Creation.
    The Church is the most beautiful thing we have.
    Yet She has been covered with a smoke that hides that from us.

    However, as regards this:
    Yet the NO “tastes like heresy” a theologan once said. Yet taste is not is, but that taste is that it certainly can conduce to heresy much easier than before.
    This is where you might consider utilizing certain Latin distinctions in order to achieve precision, as the plain meaning of certain English words can sometimes convolute things.

  35. Imagine, having been raised with the old Latin Mass, going to your parish church one day and – with very little explanation – experiencing the equivalent of the average modern teen mass
    Tim, while the transition did occur without sufficient preparation, it was not a one day abrupt change. Nor was it intended to throw out all that came before. (although some were opportunistic in using it for what was not meant)

  36. Why do people who have always had the NO mass now hunger for the TLM?
    Suzanne, you might also ask why so many who did experienced the Tridentine now prefer the Novus Ordo.
    It’s been said in these comboxes before and I’ll say it again, It is not the form of the Mass that makes the difference.

  37. Mary Kay is correct about the change coming in stages. At first, we celebrated the Tridentine Mass in English. I remember, as an altar boy, having to read the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar from a card for a while. I had them down cold in Latin from age ten (still do). Then there were a few more changes over the next few years.

  38. bill912,
    If that was the case, then why’d John say:
    “This is another farce. If Paul VI could overnight as my parents have told me introduced the New Mass with no advance warning, except a few handouts at the back of the church for a month leading up to the debacle of 1970, then the Pope could do the same today”
    Posted by: John | Dec 14, 2006 1:32:18 PM

  39. For clarification, I merely interested in knowing what actually happened since this was WAY, WAY before my time.

  40. Still trying to imagine the football game mentality (wherein the “youth music minister” dufus shouts “THE LORD BE WITH YOU, BROTHERS AND SISTERS!” repeatedly until the congregation responds with the “appropriate” volume for his tastes) being present at a Latin Mass.
    …
    “DOMINUS VOBISCUM, BROTHERS AND SISTERS!”
    “I SAID, ‘DOMINUS VOBISCUM!!!'”
    Nope, still not able to imagine it.
    …
    But just in case, how does one say, “Hey, dufus! You’re not a cheerleader!” in Latin?

  41. ego dixit “DOMINUS VOBISCUM”
    LOL
    Mirare stultus, tu non est domine clamator
    A terrible guess.

  43. Thanks Esau. So are you going to hand me my Geritol and walker and let me spend some time with my pet pterodactyl? 🙂
    I have a rather fuzzy memory of that time so this is some selected changes from a timeline at the back of Dictionary of the Liturgy by a Fr. Jovian Lang:
    1963 Sacrosanctum Concilium on the Liturgy
    1964 Mass in English is introduced
    1965 Encyclical Mysterium Fidei on the Eucharist
    1967 Communion under both species
    instruments other than organ allowed
    1968 three new Eucharistic Prayers
    1969 Vatican II Latin edition of the New Order of Mass and Roman Calendar and Lectionary
    1970 permission for Saturday vigil
    1971-1972 revised breviary
    1972 Vatican II Latin edition of RCIA
    readers and acolytes
    Rite of Anointing and Pastoral Care of the Sick
    1973 permission for extraordinary ministers of Eucharist
    Vatican II edition of Rite of Penance
    1974 Marialis Cultus
    Jubilate Deo
    I left out a lot, but those are the changes most noticed by people.

  44. Thanks Mary Kay for that info!!!!! Really and truly appreciate it!
    About this though:
    Thanks Esau. So are you going to hand me my Geritol and walker and let me spend some time with my pet pterodactyl? 🙂
    My sincerest, humblest apologies — I did not mean to actually imply such — especially as concerns you, my dearest! =^)

  45. I expect by:
    this was WAY, WAY before my time.
    Esau meant:
    this was WAY, WAY before my conversion
    But he could’ve meant it both ways — I don’t know hold the lil’ bugger is.

  46. I meant:
    I don’t know old the lil’ bugger is.
    I’m having trouble typing tonight.

  48. It appears I’m suffering from cognitive dissonance. And yes, Esau, I called you a lil’ bugger.

  49. If anyone wishes to tackle this… It seems the fact that many Protestants dress up and act more reverently at their services than Catholics may indicate that the NO Mass is not solely responsible for the abuses that have taken place since Vatican II. Protestant services are much more similar to the NO than the TLM and yet they haven’t reached our level of irreverence. Any thoughts?
    P.S. I don’t know what it’s like at your parish, but now that it’s soccer season there’s enough uniforms at Mass to field a whole team at mine.

  50. Some Day and Willo: Thanks, guys. I knew I count on someone to know.
    Smoky: I wasn’t gonna mention this but since you’ve been callin’ out Some Day for posting foreign phrases … you do know what the English mean when they say “bugger,” right?

  51. Smoky: I wasn’t gonna mention this but since you’ve been callin’ out Some Day for posting foreign phrases … you do know what the English mean when they say “bugger,” right?
    I don’t, and if it’s something offensive I apologize. I didn’t recognize “bugger” as a “foreign phrase”.

  52. Wow. I just used google’s define capability. I apologize to everyone — I had no idea that it meant that in British usage.
    Sorry Esau — I meant no offense.

  53. As for not dressing up… at least in my parish, a lot of people attend Mass as part of a routine, often their daily routine, and therefore come as they are. I don’t think it’s disrespectful at all. I do think it’s disrespectful to suggest that, if one doesn’t have time to run home and change, one shouldn’t attend Mass. Sunday Mass is, of course, obligatory, and if possible it’s encouraged to receive holy Communion daily. I consider it far better to receive Christ daily wearing sweatpants (Christ never indicated a preference for his followers’ clothing, as far as I know) than to not receive him because one happens to be wearing sweatpants.
    I suppose if attending Mass is the only thing on one’s agenda for the day, then it makes sense to dress nicely. But few people have easy enough lives that they only have one thing to do per day.
    On the other hand, my Protestant friends (and maybe I’m overgeneralizing here, because I don’t have friends from every denomination) attend services once a week, sometimes less because there is no obligation to go. They don’t believe in the Real Presence, and so don’t make time in their day to receive Communion. When they attend church, they are going to see other people and listen to a man (or woman) preach, not to receive Christ and be in the Presence of the Eucharist. They’re dressing up because church is a social event they can choose to attend or not attend, and they dress up to fit in and impress other people, not because they are in the Real Presence of Christ. And they can find God just as easily praying in their Bible study group or going for a hike as they can in Church, dressed casually I’m sure, whereas many Catholics prefer to pray in a Church before the Eucharist.
    Also, as far as Protestant dress goes, there are also hundreds or thousands of churches where everyone, pastor included, wears jeans and listens to rock music. So it’s hardly true that Protestants, on average, dress better than Catholics.
    Anyway, the Cliff notes version of my post is that, unlike Protestants, Mass attendance is obligatory and many Catholics prefer to pray in the presence of the Eucharist, and it’s not possible for everyone to go change their clothes beforehand.

  54. People still dressed up for Mass well into the 80’s and 90’s. Heck, we didn’t routinely receive communion under both species until well into the 80’s.
    Okay, it has been said that our diocese runs 10-20 years behind everyone else, but….

  55. I agree with Dan and Tim
    Why was the Traditional mass banned like it was leprosy until JPII was cornered by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 (I dont want to be accused of hijacking this thread)almost 20 years later, and even today you cant get a true traditional mass (I hate the word indult as it means “allow” if I recall my Latin from 20 years ago, as one should not have to be allowed or granted permission to say a mass in an ancient rite. Why the change in every area of the church from the sacraments, to the mass, to canon law, to catechism, to the bible, why the need to compromise with this rotten secular sinful world?

  56. John, as I understand it, the indult is required to ensure that the parish that wants to say Mass in Latin accepts the authority of the Pope and the legitimacy of Vatican II.
    Groups that do not accept the authority of the Magisterium or consider Vatican II illegitimate present a real threat to the Church, and shouldn’t be allowed to do whatever they want.

  57. Esau posted (in his comtinued infacatuation with me (I hope you are not a stalker Esau):
    “”This is another farce. If Paul VI could overnight as my parents have told me introduced the New Mass with no advance warning, except a few handouts at the back of the church for a month leading up to the debacle of 1970, then the Pope could do the same today”
    Yes Esau, the new mass was introduced with little fanfare, with no “blogs” and no TV as I was a youngster and I recall vividly and have even asked my mother the same to recollec.
    The MP and the so called “resotration” or allowance of the ancient rite has been talked about an debated like it is some chemotherapy for cancer, which the NO mass is basically cancer for ones faith, with the FDC waiting on an approval!
    Esau-you are so lame as people laugh at you

  58. Esau would seem (seem is the max I can determine from this bloging unless God grants discernment of the spirits through writing) to be a more virtuous person than yourself John.
    But then maybe you are just as hardheaded as I am and like to show-off.
    But unfortunetly, you seem to have proved (and of this I have no doubt) that you are a typical false rightist.
    If you think the problems are only as deep as you rant they are (and your so-called knowledge on masons is simply what they want you to know so as a typical false rightist, you discredit the fact that the Devil has his human agents) then you know very little, but pharisiacally claim you do because you are a “Champion of Tradition” in your mind.
    You want to fight progressivists and the evil forces in the world John, be humble, and above all pure, because only a pure man can combat this fight.
    Pray, because it would appear you don’t have the vocation to be the specific person or member of that group that will fight this fight.
    But you are called to be a Son of the Light regardless of your specific vocation.
    So all I can tell you is to be virtous, pray a lot, esspecially the Rosary and recieve daily Communion.
    Know that the world is going down the drain and greatly offends God, and will soon get what is coming to it. Pray so God intervines in our history, because that is the only solution now.
    Hate what is evil, but hold it in because it is not time yet.
    Vigilance and prayer

  59. Going back to the Tridentine Mass would take me from being a full participant at Mass to an uneasy observer, at least immediately … perhaps forever. And just so you know, I went to Brother Dutton grade school, Beloit Catholic High School, and Marquette University all before 1962. I was an altar boy for six years and even trained younger altar boys. I took two years of Latin in high school. I hated the Novus Ordo as it began, but now, going back to the TLM would be like going back to my hometown after being gone for 50 years. And I’ve done both since last August, i.e., attended three Tridentine Masses and the 50th reunion of the class of ‘56; whoever said that you can’t go back, was right. And I have absolutely no desire to do so. If I were required to attend the Tridentine Mass, I would consider it a penance. I find beauty and joy in my current NO Eucharistic celebration.

  60. Tim, well we had relative peace for just under 5 hours until John came back and called the Novus Ordo a “cancer.”

  61. Okay, y’all get a cookie for keeping the comments pretty charitable so far. Let’s not let things slide into personal tit-for-tat or hobby horsing. Don’t make me get the hatchet.
    Suzanne asked;
    “Why do people who have always had the NO mass now hunger for the TLM?”
    I don’t want to give the impression that I think everyone respnded to the N.O. mass in the same way. I expect some were happy enough to see the changes, some were ambivalent, some hostile, and many just confused.
    Everyone has their own personal likes and dislikes, as well as their own history and experience of the liturgy.
    I can’t say for sure that I really long for the TLM, only that I DO long for what I think the TLM COULD be. In that sense, though, I would be happy with a more solemn, high-church approach to the Novus Ordo.
    Personally, I’m excited at the prospect of the Motu Proprio and the possibility that I might be able to attend a Latin Mass soon. But I am also of the opinion that the only proper attitude toward ANY mass wherein I receive Christ in the Eucharist is “Oh Lord, I am not worthy to receive you”.
    Unless there are some very serious abuses taking place (and I know this happens, and I feel for those who have to carry that cross) the best mass is always the next one I can get to.

  62. Is is cognitive dissonance to wander into an indult mass one Sunday morning and walk away in wonder asking yourself how what you experienced your entire life could ever be put in the same category as what you just found? Why was all this beauty kept from me for so long and how can I forgive those who worked so hard to suppress this patrimony? And finally, why do so many respond in anger when you excitedly try to relate the beauty of what you did not until recently know even ever existed?
    Jimmy,
    I wish to express my appreciation for the spirit of charity that obviously inspired your post. Thank you.

  64. I would guess that the introduction of the N.O. varied WIDELY from diocese to diocese, parish to parish. In some places it was probably phased in, in others there were probably those who could not wait to take the VII football and run as far as they could with it, sometimes clear past the end-zone and out of the stadium.
    John, you might be more persuasive if you could express what it is you love about the Latin Mass, rather than falling back on your standard carping about the Novus Ordo and JPII. If you think Archbishop LeFebvre could IN ANY WAY “corner” JPII and pressure him on the liturgy, you are sadly mistaken.
    Right now, you are on thin ice. Keep the gloves up, or be deleted.

  65. Well, Tim J., I’m rather flattered that you actually considered John’s potshots at me as ‘charitable’.

  66. “Oh Lord, I am not worthy to receive you”
    In the TLM, triply so.
    Domine, non sum dignu ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum sic verbo et sanabitur anima mea. Repeat twice.

  67. Jimmy,
    I wish to express my appreciation for the spirit of charity that obviously inspired your post. Thank you.
    Michael,
    This post was done by Tim J.
    But I agree that it was a very good post though.

  68. Shouldn’t we be careful in the way we use our words? There is no restriction to using Latin in the Novus Ordo Mass, so isn’t calling the Tridentine Mass the “Latin Mass” a little misleading? It seems to me to be suggesting that Latin is only used in the Tridentine Mass. There are many things that people changed post-Vatican II, which Vatican II itself never actually suggested to be changed. Many people who love/miss some of the traditions of the Tridentine Mass, might be consoled at a Novus Ordo Mass that retained many of those traditions that many parishes have lost: the priest facing Ad Orientum (or at least Ad Apsium), Altar Crosses, Communion Rails, Chanted Mass Parts, Latin Mass Parts, Statues, other Catholic Architecture, etc. None of the liturgical documents called for a removal of these in the Novus Ordo. Vatican II allowed the use of the common language of the people, but not to the exclusion of Latin. I’ve heard it suggested to chant all of the Mass parts in Latin, except the Readings and Presidential Prayers because those are the parts that change daily. Pre-16 suggested a lot of this in his book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”.

  69. It is not misleading. If you enter a conversation on quantum physics you better know what they are talking about at the risk of looking incredibly stupid.
    Don’t be square. That is the lazyness of the mind to go past the fact that Latin is the official language of the Church, and can be used in NO, but is usually in reference to the TO Mass.
    It is not a math equation 😉

  70. Ad Apsium?
    Are you sure you got the words right?
    I don’t think that is a word in Latin.

  71. “Well, Tim J., I’m rather flattered that you actually considered John’s potshots at me as ‘charitable’.”
    The hazards of cross-posting, Esau. What can I say? Please see my warning shot to John, above.
    Just try to bite your toungue and let it go. Offer it up. If it continues, I’ll be all over it like a chiken on a cutworm.
    No more personal remarks. They are worse than useless, they sully and distort the image of Christ that we are supposed to be showing to the world. They destroy our witness.

  72. Mary Kay,
    Why do you prefer the Novus Ordo over the Tridentine Mass?
    Could you please,if you have the time, list all of your reasons and then maybe a comparison between the two.
    This might help me understand more fully the Novus Ordo Mass.
    God bless you

  73. Some one I don’t know who posted they feel like a complete participant at NO.
    Well that proves one part of what could be a valid arguement.
    The “community”does not offer any sacrifice.
    Our Lord does.
    It is the incruent renovation of the Sacrifice of the Cross.
    That idea lead to heresies that said that the consecration was not complete until the faithful said “Amen” before recieving Communion.
    And others.
    It “tastes like heresy”.
    Yes we are a community.
    But that is on an infinetly lower level.
    The merits of a Mass are infinite.
    You are there to adore Our Lord, to recieve Him in order to greater give Him glory.
    Not be a sensual person and only look to feel good singing and save my little soul.
    We are here and exist to give glory to God.
    And doing backflips in Mass does not do that.
    In Latin, English or Aramaic. If you go to Mass in any Rite like that you are not going to sanctify yourself.

  74. Casey, Good points! The Ignatius Press (I would guess other publishers too) put out a $3 prayer booklet for the Mass of Vatican II as promulgated by Paul VI, but in the form clearly envisioned by the Fathers of the Council in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (These words from the booklet.) Fixed or unchanging parts of the Mass are in Latin with side by side translations. The variable parts of the Mass are in English. The booklet contains traditional Gregorian chant settings for both the Order of Mass itself and the Ordinary chants.
    Our Church used this a few weeks ago to see what acceptance it might get. Haven’t heard of the results. The only down side for me was the priest raced through the Latin … just like old times.
    An interesting note says there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them. (There’s more, but I’m not a typist.)
    I bought a copy because I thinking it may become the Mass Book of the near future.

  75. CASEY TRUELOVE:
    EXCELLENT POINT!!!
    SOME DAY:
    Casey is right in his post — Vatican II did not call for the total elimination of Latin from the Mass. It encouraged greater use of the vernacular but it still, if you read the Vatican II document, it still envisions substantial parts of the Mass being in Latin and that’s something that was de-emphasized after the Council.
    Yes, there has always been permission to celebrate the Mass in Latin. Now, the Rite of the Mass was changed around 1970 and most of the time, if you wanted to say it in Latin, you’d have to say the 1970 version in Latin; the 1962 version, though, has permission to be used in some settings; but the Church has never envisioned a total abolition of Latin and there has been a movement in recent years to re-emphasize that by the Holy See.
    Hopefully, with the Motu Proprio, this will re-emphasis will be realized.

  76. If we use all these criteria to determine if a mass is valid or not, will the original last supper be considered valid?

  77. And you say this why Esau?
    I know this.
    My last post was to that person speaking about
    spectator vs. “full participation”.
    Both are erronous conclusions.

  78. Some Day,
    I was referring to what I thought was your post to Casey: Posted by: Some Day | May 2, 2007 8:14:42 PM.

  79. Some Day,
    About your comment:
    My last post was to that person speaking about
    spectator vs. “full participation”.
    I believe you may have missed my Posted by: Esau | May 2, 2007 2:20:05 PM post wherein I included an excerpt regarding Cardinal Ratzinger’s views:
    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.
    But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a “real improvement” in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.
    In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old “low Mass,” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, “was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people” when it disappeared.

  80. Yeah I know, but I was just making a point that many people esspecially that Lana are so “square” and not mentally flexible to get what most of us regular posters mean.
    When we say the Latin Mass we are not talking about the NO in Latin.
    Ofcourse it not the absolute, inequivocably, perfect proper name.
    But in casual conversation, do you have to make distinction between for example “the president is stupid.” or do you have to be so square as to say “the currently elected president of the republic of the united states of america, George Walker Bush is stupid.” Again it is just an example.
    Politics is not something I get into.

  81. Definetly.
    The liturgy needed renewal.
    It is just questionable the way it was done.
    The Church is always old and always new.
    We don’t celebrate in catecombs and in aramaic anymore.
    The Church, with the merits of the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ rises continually to aspire to the Absolute Perfection, God.
    But sometimes when you “open the windows”you don’t get fresh air and sunlight.
    You get smoke and a storm.

  82. Some Day, I sorry I didn’t have my “theological mouth” in the right gear when I used the word participation at Mass. Yes, I learned long ago from the Jesuits in the 60s that the Mass is a public act of adoration. They used this distinction one day in class to discourage us from praying the Rosary at Mass… people praying the Rosary were not concentrating on the Sacrifice. When I used the word participation, I meant being fully aware of the Divine Sacrifice and using one’s senses, intellect, will, behavior, and love to give full witness to it.

  83. In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old “low Mass,” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, “was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people” when it disappeared.
    Esau, could you provide a source for the above quote.

  84. The senses are important.
    They have their role.
    But the western man has become to sensual.
    We guide ourselves based on what we feel more so than convictions.
    Look at a picture of an afgani.
    Yes he is a pagan and so forth. Many deplorable things.
    But he is not a sensual man.
    He has convictions, however wrong they are.
    Now look at an American.
    There is so many bad tendencies that I cannot begin to describe.
    It is our fault. The Middle Ages was declined into the Rennaisance because of sensuality and lack of conviction.
    But anyhow, I respectfully disagree that people these days have a real sense of what is happening.
    And the new liturgy left itself open to that.
    But ofcourse, don’t think I go TO Mass.
    I’ve probably been at 5 my whole life.
    I go to Mass wherever it is closest.
    I prefer the more decent churches, because it helps elevate the soul more, but ultimetly, even if the priest dresses as a clown, I know what is going on.
    Though if he does dress up as clown, I’ll probably recieve with a conditional act of adoration, because unless he is just that bad, he probably doesn’t have the intention to confect the Eucharist. But he could be that bad to do it on purpose.
    Sorry if I came on rough.
    But I’m hispanic, and I got my own cultural defects (not as much as you may think, I was born in PR, but can pass for a white guy easily because my family is more European{Spanish-Swiss, go HRE!}, but “squareness” is an anglo-saxon thing.

  85. Well good night everyone.
    It is 12:37 am here.
    I’m only awake because I’m hitting the weights in my room and some energy booster I took is freakishly loaded with caffeine.
    Well Our Lady protect all of you.
    Good night!

  86. Esau, could you provide a source for the above quote.
    I did — In fact, I provide TWO LINKS in my Posted by: Esau | May 2, 2007 2:20:05 PM post above concerning it.
    Go to my first post — CLICK the Links I’ve provided there.

  87. I am a former Baptist convert and I really wonder if the crossing would have been possible for me if it were not for the N.O. mass. The TRM would have been just too alien for me. Of course, this does not mean that God would not have still converted me to His Church, but it does mean that, like it or not, I am a “child” of the N.O. mass.
    However, as I grew in my faith, I became more and more aware of what the liturgical abuses meant. At first it bothered me, then it bugged me, then it got intolerable. Though I still go to the O.M. I only do so because the TRM is not available every day.
    The worst thing about the O.M. is its susceptibility to things like fads, trends, the times, and local color. It means never knowing what you are going to get going from one church to the next. I have celebrated in Hawaii, California, Michigan, all over Texas, Wisconsin, Hikone, and Vermont and each time got something so radically different I was left doubting if the service I attended was really a Catholic mass or a Lutheran one, or a charismatic service, or a liturgical dance class …
    One of the biggest failings of Protestantism is its emphasis on the subjective at the expense of the objective and though this philosophy is not as prevalent in Catholic circles, some of the O.M. abuses seem to accommodate such thinking.

  88. Sharon:
    Here’s my post again and this time I’ve labelled the links I previously provided with the label “Link”. I think maybe that’s why you might not have noticed that these were actually links when I originally posted it on this thread (I actually posted this previously on other threads as well). As you can see from the first link provided, the excerpt I quoted came from an article from Catholic News Service.
    MORE UPDATE RE: THE MOTU PROPRIO
    Link:
    Tridentine Mass: Pope looks for bridge to tradition
    Thanks, Some Day. Talk about “cultural defects,” I’m Sicilian, Irish, and German. Three grandparents were from the “old country.” However, my kids and God love me, and that’s all that’s important.

  89. A few comments.
    1) If you are talking about using Latin in the liturgy, then do not be surprised if people write in Latin here. It effectively tells us what most people know: people, even if they had books to follow, will not understand the liturgy the same, and will not follow along in the right spirit.
    2) Liturgical abuse – I find the greatest liturgical abuse tends to be from those who are looking for liturgical abuses. Are you really participating in the liturgy; are you really going up for communion in the right spirit, the right frame of mind? It seems the Pharisee is still there.
    3) MP — the MP won’t fix anything in the US. An older form of the Latin Liturgy won’t fix the cultural problems which are the cause of disbelief, but might encourage more disconnect and push more people off the edge. It’s not even a band-aid. But I still will believe it only when I see it. We keep hearing about it, but the prophets of the MP continue to be wrong about it.
    4) The so-called trads tend to be traditional protestants influenced by the American, individualistic spirit, where they think they are the proper interpreters of Scripture and tradition, not the Pope. Beware.

  90. ) If you are talking about using Latin in the liturgy, then do not be surprised if people write in Latin here. It effectively tells us what most people know: people, even if they had books to follow, will not understand the liturgy the same, and will not follow along in the right spirit.

    Actually, reading Latin is incredibly easy (not speaking it or writing it – you’d have to memorize a gazillion endings – but READING it). I lvoe it when I am at a Mass with people from all over the world (like at the Vatican) and the Holy Holy Holy, Agnus Dei etc are in Latin. They took all of 5 minutes to learn. Plus, why aren’t people taking Latin in school? All my kids had four years of Latin and it was a huge help in many things, not least of which was vocabulary 9so many Latin roots in our words) and literary understanding (many, many MANY writers in MANY fields quote Latin).
    There is such a thing as being a lowbrow snob – it is not an oxymoron. Too many people think it is elitist and undemocratic to ask that people learn something new.

  91. mr: I went to public school. Given that I was the last of ten kids (yes, because my parents practiced what they preached), Catholic school was not a viable financial option.
    The reason I bring this up? Latin isn’t taught in most public schools. I’m only now attempting to catch up on my own.
    But it’s worse than that. My wife, on the other hand, went to Catholic school (both grade and high school) and neither of those schools offered Latin either.

  92. Mr
    A couple things. You assume I didn’t know Latin? I do. I am a doctoral candidate in Systematic Theology. I actually have several languages I can and do work with.
    However, other people do not. There is a reason why it was originally put into Latin — it was for the “lowbrow snobs” who didn’t study and know Greek. It was put into Latin as a vernacular tongue. That’s right — and this tradition is a good tradition and helps many people. Not everyone studies languages, and not everyone needs to.
    Second, while you think you can study Latin so everyone else should do so – no, not really. As with all intellectual exercises, people often need to survive first, and learning Latin really is far off from their needs.

  93. A.Non.,
    You may argue whatever you wish regarding the N.O. v. Latin Mass, but please don’t play the old “the faithful can’t understand” card.
    The missals are incredibly easy to follow. Anyone one goes to a few masses could follow with little effort, and actively participate in prayer. My fiancee doesn’t know a lick of Latin and she has no problems when we attend.

  94. Well, Steve, one person posted Latin here — even gave the verse so one could look it up, and we got a complaint for that Latin use.
    Trust me, the vernacular is better, and this is what the earliest church knew. It didn’t make an idol out of languages.

  95. There is such a thing as being a lowbrow snob – it is not an oxymoron.
    This doesn’t have any bearing on the discussion, but that is an oxymoron. It’s made of two contradicting words that form a figure of speech. That doesn’t mean its not true. In fact, if it wasn’t true it wouldn’t be an oxymoron, it would just be meaningless mumbo jumbo.

  96. I appreciate Mary Kay’s chronology, if only because it helps me believe that my memory is not slipping. I was a teenager through the 1960’s. As a teenager, the three years between the first English and Communion under both species was forever. That is, to me at least, the transition was anything but abrupt. I became my home parish’s first lector in 1966 because our associate pastor liked the way I read during catechism. Yep, that was back when the priests still taught catechism. That said, I had no problem with the Latin Mass either and fondly remember Benediction at High Mass, one Mass every Sunday rather than rarely as today. And I had no problem following the Mass having one of those missals that had Latin on one side and English on the other. As a young twenty-something, I thought the change was a good idea to help us focus on what mattered. I was much surprised by those who thought that Latin or the precise form of the Mass mattered. I left language and form to the Church, I guess like Mark Shea. I was also much surprised by those who thought that the horizontal (community) was in conflict with the vertical (God) with horizontal good and vertical selfish. At the Mass we come as a community to pray to God and receive the newly consecrated Eucharist. If we don’t have a relationship with God, we won’t have one with the community … and vice versa. Something about vine and branches.
    My own efforts at preservation are rather simple. I geneflect at the tabernacle, if the doors are closed, not to the altar. To the altar I bow. That puts things in the proper perspective: Eucharist first, altar second. Many still geneflect to the altar, showing they didn’t know why. No matter. I try to teach by example and watch, learning from the example of others. And I keep studying and learning. The well of our Faith is deep.

  97. Anyway, the Cliff notes version of my post is that, unlike Protestants, Mass attendance is obligatory and many Catholics prefer to pray in the presence of the Eucharist, and it’s not possible for everyone to go change their clothes beforehand.
    J, thanks for your thoughts, they’re very interesting. I was thinking about it last night and the best answer I could come up with is that there’s something about Catholic culture that encourages people to stick around even when they have little/no faith. I feel Protestants are more likely to move on to another Church or stop going altogether than Catholics are. The Sunday obligation is probably a factor in this, but I don’t think it’s the whole thing (after all, what’s the obligation mean if you don’t believe in the Authority of the Church who obliges it). The average Catholic has pretty much followed the path of the average American over the past 50+ years and for some reason many parishes design their liturgies to reflect this mindset. I think the lack of reverence at Mass today is more a result of this than it is with anything inherent in the NO Mass. The NO Mass itself may even be much more of a reflection of this mindset than it is a cause of it, but I’m not old or wise enough to comment meaningfully on that.
    I personally think there’s a difference between weekday Mass and Sunday Mass. On weekdays most people go to mass on their way to work or their lunch break or something like that. Go as you are. But Sunday is the Lord’s Day, it’s different and it should be special. Most parishes have multiple masses on Sunday, so most of the time people have the opportunity to wear their “Sunday best” but choose instead to go to the Mass that fits their errand schedule. And even if that’s the case, isn’t it better to be overdressed for the grocery store than underdressed for our Lord? I like dressing up because it’s good for the individual who dresses up, it builds faith just like genuflecting and other acts of reverence do. Of course one of the hardest things to do is do convince someone to do something for their own good.
    Anyway, I hope this motu proprio, if it comes out, creates the choice of a more reverent Mass. Right now the only choice at many parishes is the least common denominator. I agree with Mary Kay that “it is not the form of the Mass that makes the difference.” But I do hope that by encouraging greater choice in the form of Mass, the Church will also encourage greater choice in reverence (meaning more reverence not less).

  98. Please note that the so called person who grew up with the “Old mass” is most likely old or dead by now. The push for the “Traditional latin Mass” has been for the most part by the young, or new parents in their 30’s and 40s, having grown up with a weak if not non existent catechism after Vatican II and feeling the mass they have grown up with, the New Mass is banal and leaves you feeling no different after you left than before, are the most vocal and demanding of the rollback. These groups I mentioned have access to the internet and have been educated as to the changes and the clear contradictions and break from tradition as well which took place.
    We have seen many in our age group fall from the faith only to find drugs and other horrible avenues, some in part due to lack of fear, and that now “everyone gets to heaven” and “God loves me no matter what”, where before Vatican II , HELL was real and a possibility if one did not alaways stay in a state of sancifying grace
    Does the priest read at the NO parish the rules for reception of holy communion including being in a state of sanctifying grace anymore? Well they do so at the Traditional Mass. Why is that? Is the body of christ less at the New Mass?
    The church is eithe going to believe in her roots, abide by them, and not continue down the path that the church started with Vatican II as a house built on no foundation is bound to fall…

  99. A.non.,
    “Well, Steve, one person posted Latin here — even gave the verse so one could look it up, and we got a complaint for that Latin use”
    Your point does not follow. My point is that the missal would have a translation handy, no extra effort required other than reading. No one needs to learn Latin to understand the mass. Just ask the 90% of indult goers who know rudimentary or no Latin.
    No one is making an “idol” out of language. This is absurd. If this is so, then the Church bowed before the idol of “Latin” for 1600 yrs; and continues to do so by maintaining it as its official language. You purport to know not only what the early church “knew was best” but also what is best now; I would appreciate an actual reason rather than “they knew, I know.”
    By the way, I think your tone is very condescending and your argument would be better served if you employed it in a more charitable way.

  100. John, if your comments are an example of the fruit of the Tridentine Mass, I’m VERY glad to attend the Novus Ordo.

  101. Brian, I agree with you about the difference between weekday and Sunday Mass and that there is no reason not to dress up on a Sunday.

  102. John, I’m right in line with your thinking. The only difference is I see the problems rooted in us (Catholics as a whole) rather than being rooted in Vatican II. Vatican II has maybe made it easier for these abuses to occur, but it’s also made it easier for the layman to find sanctification in the Church. I guess that’s the trade-off that happens when you allow more freedom.

  103. Steve,
    If you have to keep looking down to follow along with the liturgy, how much of it are you really following along? That’s the problem. When I go, I go and pray — I follow along — with the words without needing to look at a book. This is easier done and more comprehensible for most people if done in english; you can realize what it is you are praying and interiorize it; you can’t do that if you are struggling to keep along with a translation of a text which is not a language you really know. You lose quite a bit of actual worship, and instead, go on to be a reader. Not the same! Again, the church realizes this from the get go — only some people who are fixated on latin do not.

  104. A.Non – even though I said my kids (who all went to public schools) took four years of Latin, that was really an aside. I said that it only took a few mintues to learn the Sanctus and Agnus Dei.
    Also, I reread my post, and I did NOT say that you personally do not know Latin.
    As for Latin being “the vernacular” in the past, it was – at some times, in some places. But it was still used in many, many, MANY places (in fact, most!) where there were many dialects, some of which were so different that the people could not even understand each other (I know, my parents are from Italy!). In that case, it wasn’t so much about Latin being the vernacular as it was about it being a universal language.
    The latest AE things it would be well and good to use Latin in large or internatinoal masses EXCEPT for the homily and readings. It is VERY easy to learn the other parts, especially with a translation on one side of the Missal!

  105. A.Non – even though I said my kids (who all went to public schools) took four years of Latin, that was really an aside. I said that it only took a few mintues to learn the Sanctus and Agnus Dei.
    Also, I reread my post, and I did NOT say that you personally do not know Latin.
    As for Latin being “the vernacular” in the past, it was – at some times, in some places. But it was still used in many, many, MANY places (in fact, most!) where there were many dialects, some of which were so different that the people could not even understand each other (I know, my parents are from Italy!). In that case, it wasn’t so much about Latin being the vernacular as it was about it being a universal language.
    The latest AE thinks it would be well and good to use Latin in large or internatinoal masses EXCEPT for the homily and readings. It is VERY easy to learn the other parts, especially with a translation on one side of the Missal!

  106. Sorry for my comment being posted twice – I don’t know how it happened, as I only hit “post” once.
    A.Non, I do not sit at massing READING the missal; after a few times, at least the Agnus Dei and the Sanctus can be learned by heart, and the Our Father really does not take much longer. I also do not think it is making an idol of language, but rather uniting our coices with that of the universal Church. It is wonderful to be at a Mass in Rome with people from all over the world, from every continent, and being able to pray together as one voice!

  107. First, I am not fixated on Latin, nor is anyone I know who attends a Tridentine mass.
    Second, I find that following along with text helps my to concentrate and internalize the prayers.
    Third, there I much more than the language which makes the Tridentine rite appealing.
    But again, I speak for myself. You know the minds of those in the early Church and all “rad-trads” (all of whom are “fixated” with a dead language for some reason you cannot comprehend). And you know that the vernacular is best.
    I see the argument – it would be preferable if everyone understood Latin fluently. However, I simply think that employing the language, in addition to other benefits of the rite, outweighs the negative that people do not speak it (or read it rather) fluently.
    I don’t know what is best, or what or why so many others prefer the Tridentine rite as I do. But perhaps you could acknowledge the fact the many do, and there just might be a good reason other than your accusations of language fixation and “idol” worship.
    I wish you well, but I am done arguing this here. It has proved just as fruitless as it usually does. Until a person can honestly appraise and evaluated both sides of the argument, progress will not be made.

  109. The universal church does not expect or require latin. So that “uniting with the universal church” is false. It was a vernacular langage and slowly became something else; this transition has led to a confusion and a desire for people to use latin in a way it was not meant to be used. We are not in a latin world; get over it! It’s never been the language of worship in my parish, never will be!
    Following along and knowing it and therefore praying it is different from just looking down and reading words. Sorry, you miss the liturgy when you just do that. It is not internalized, it is not made yours yet. Whenever someone new comes to my parish, the deacon tells them “don’t open the book, just follow along.” He is right –when just looking through and flipping through books, you don’t get internalized. I know, I’ve done it both ways.
    Third, it is the Latin rite; this distinction of “Novus Ordo” vs “Tridentine” is so shallow and shows people are not following through with the universal, western use. They want “a universal” then they demand their own exclusive, non-universal worship. What hypocrites!
    It is quite clear some people have a romantic, idealized notion of a past which never existed, and they think by removing the vernacular some magic will occur and the church will be this perfect utopian Camelot. Sorry, never existed, never will, and the development of liturgy is not the reason for problems: humanity and people who think they are defending the church by attacking its worship, on the other hand, are a major problem.

  110. I am only trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who had grown up with the TLM and the had the kind of wrenching experience of the New Mass that I described
    Well actually, in the NY Archdiocese it was a 5 year transition (see Mary Kay’s timeline) from 1965 until 1970. It was kind of like the proverbial frog in the pot of water. Changes were gradual, and we not only adjusted to them, but back then, you didn’t ever question ecclesial authority. You did as you were told. Mother Church knew best!

  113. The universal church does not expect or require latin. So that “uniting with the universal church” is false. It was a vernacular langage and slowly became something else; this transition has led to a confusion and a desire for people to use latin in a way it was not meant to be used. We are not in a latin world; get over it! It’s never been the language of worship in my parish, never will be!
    A. Non. At this point I have no preference between NO and TLM and I’ve never even been to a TLM. So hopefully my comments can be somewhat mediating. Latin, as you say, was adopted by the Church because it was vernacular. But to say that is wasn’t meant to be used for unity is false. Even though there were people from many different cultures in the crumbling Roman Empire, most understood Latin – the very reason for adopting it was unity. Seeing as how its the official language of the most diverse Church in the world, I think Latin can still serve that role today. Your parish is not the Church. Just because your parish prefers something doesn’t mean it’s what’s good for the whole Church. A better, and more Catholic answer, may be to allow parishes to use vernacular or Latin as they see fit. Few, if any, here are mandating Latin for everyone.
    Following along and knowing it and therefore praying it is different from just looking down and reading words. Sorry, you miss the liturgy when you just do that. It is not internalized, it is not made yours yet. Whenever someone new comes to my parish, the deacon tells them “don’t open the book, just follow along.” He is right –when just looking through and flipping through books, you don’t get internalized. I know, I’ve done it both ways.
    Again, I have to go with the both/and rather than either/or mentality. Some people are able to concentrate and participate in Mass better with a Missal, some find it to be a distraction. Your advice and your deacon’s advice is welcome, but there’s no reason to say that everyone must do one or the other.
    Third, it is the Latin rite; this distinction of “Novus Ordo” vs “Tridentine” is so shallow and shows people are not following through with the universal, western use. They want “a universal” then they demand their own exclusive, non-universal worship. What hypocrites!
    Can you clarify this, I’m not sure I follow? Aren’t there already like 12 rites of the Church. Just because the form is different doesn’t mean we’re celebrating a different Mass. It’s the same Sacrifice.
    It is quite clear some people have a romantic, idealized notion of a past which never existed, and they think by removing the vernacular some magic will occur and the church will be this perfect utopian Camelot. Sorry, never existed, never will, and the development of liturgy is not the reason for problems: humanity and people who think they are defending the church by attacking its worship, on the other hand, are a major problem.
    I think the comments of several people on here indicate that the desire for something better than the Masses their parishes currently offer is more a longing for greater reverence than it’s about turning back the clock. There’s a difference between wanting to bring about change in worship and attacking it (if there wasn’t we’d have neither the NO or the TLM). If you want to see attacking, go to the motu proprio thread. I think most of the comments on this thread have been constructive.

  115. Dan, you asked why I prefer the Novus Ordo.
    I’m planning on attending a Tridentine Mass, but I don’t want to do a comparison because that still feeds into the “one is better than the other” way of thinking.
    My primary reason for going to the Novus Ordo is that I strongly believe that the Holy Spirit inspired Vatican II and that God knows what He is doing.
    Even aside from the Novus Ordo being the ordinary, the normative Mass, there are several reasons why I like the Novus Ordo.
    Some of the reasons I like the Novus Ordo have been hijacked by the liberal dissidents. I like that it is both vertical and horizontal. The dreaded “C” word – community and the distinction of public worship which does not lessen private communion. (That sentence might be confusing to some, but the explanation is longer than I have this morning.)
    I like that Scripture and Eucharist are seen as “so closely connected that they form but one single act of worship.” (GIRM 8, er, General Instruction of the Roman Missal, paragraph 8). That “…from the one it grows in wisdom and from the other in holiness.” (Lectionary for Mass: Introduction paragraph 10)
    I very much like the three year lectionary cycle, especially the arrangement of Holy Week and Easter Octave. I posted on this recently but don’t remember which thread.

  116. There is such a thing as being a lowbrow snob – it is not an oxymoron. Too many people think it is elitist and undemocratic to ask that people learn something new.
    Was I a “lowbrow snob” by criticizing Some Day for his Latin usage on this blog? I don’t think so. This is an English-language blog, and I read it with that expectation in mind. It would be different if I was attending a Latin Mass — I would be entering a situation where Latin was the norm, the expectation.
    I don’t think my complaint is any different than if I posted a mathematical formula here and then didn’t explain what it meant. Sure — most people here are quite intelligent, and some would take the initiative to understand the formula. But for the most part, I probably wouldn’t be communicating unless I explained what the formula meant. The burden would be on me to be as clear as possible, given my expected audience.
    I hope that makes sense. I have nothing against the use of foreign language in its place. But to randomly insert a foreign phrase in an English-language blog is inappropriate, because it fails to achieve communication.

  117. I went to catholic elementary school in the 1960’s and vaguely remember the Latin Mass. I for one was estatic when the mass was changed to english. I had no idea what was going on or what they were saying.
    I innocetly thought we were cheering on a moose:
    “Oremus” (Let us pray)
    My translation: “Hooray Moose”

  118. Esquire writes:
    Well said.
    Hola Esquire! It seems like it’s been several weeks since I’ve seen you comment…I’ve missed your insight in this combox!

  120. Mary Kay,
    Thank you very much for taking the time to respond.I have a better understanding of your spiritual life.
    Interestingly enough I find the same spirituality as you do in the Novus Ordo,but I find it in the Tridentine Mass.
    My faith was on the rocks with years of assisting at the Novus Ordo until I started assisting at the Tridentine Mass.
    It all changed for me.
    I am glad that you are a faithful daughter of the Triune Godhead.You make the Mystical Body of Christ that much stronger.Thank you and may God smile upon you and your family.

  121. Although I am totally rooting for the proposed motu propio, I do think that some people will be disappointed to know that there is really no one single cure for all the ails we find in the church today.
    The liturgy, I think, is only ONE vitamin, so to say… one type of ‘spiritual fertilizer’ necessary for a holy life. But what is needed even before the liturgy is someone to teach the Gospel message, that is, WHO IS JESUS CHRIST?…so that people will actually UNDERSTAND the liturgy. And this is the harder task and problem to solve, in comparison to only changing the style, language or music of the Liturgy.
    Think about St. John Bosco, for instance. There were many masses being said in Turin in his time. But many people, especially the poor,and particularly the youth, could scarcely benefit by these, because they couldn’t understand what was going on.
    So, St. John Bosco set about teaching youth, and adults too, the meaning of a devout and happy Christian life.
    And if we remember, it was the ‘stuffy’ old priests of Turin, who didn’t agree with Don Bosco’s somewhat wild and charitable tactics, and were some of his first adversaries. They didn’t even want to give him permission to teach ‘their’ children.
    However, what we find in examples such as this, is that the Faith can only really thrive when many elements together are feeding the ‘body of Christ’..that is to say, real Catholic education, good liturgies, healthy Catholic societies and clubs, expanded devotion to holy study and reading, and virtuous and charitable living, overall.
    So, the Motu propio might be one of these elements, but let’s not forget the rest!
    Everyone should be thinking also about giving holy books away to their friends and family, books like the Lives and writings of the Saints, for instance. Even giving non-Catholic books to others, such as copies of Aristotles ‘Ethics’ could be extremely beneficial to many, especially youth, because it encourages them to think about the ‘ends’ for which they are living. They might then be more inclined to pay more careful attention to items of Catholic faith and doctrine?
    So, I think it is very good for Catholics to work on small projects within their various communities and parishes, that can further the overall evangelization and education of not only Catholics, but also all others around them. If every devout Catholic can at least buy and give away 10 ‘lives of the Saints’,or other highly spritual reading material, to others every year, this might go a long way in stimulating the dissemination of the love and knoweledge of Christ, the Holy Gospel and the Holy Catholic Faith!
    Then, also, those who attend the restored Latin Mass will really know well how to fully and consciously participate in it!

  122. Hey Smokey,
    Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur.

  124. War ich Sprechen wieder deutsch? Dumm ich. Manchmal schlüpft er gerade hinaus.

  127. Was I a “lowbrow snob” by criticizing Some Day for his Latin usage on this blog? I don’t think so. This is an English-language blog, and I read it with that expectation in mind. It would be different if I was attending a Latin Mass — I would be entering a situation where Latin was the norm, the expectation.
    I don’t think my complaint is any different than if I posted a mathematical formula here and then didn’t explain what it meant.
    Smoky:
    Unlike a mathematical formulas, Latin has a lot to do with the Catholic Church. What you fail to understand is that Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church and many of its official documents are kept in Latin.
    Jimmy had, in fact, utilized Latin in his posts as well and even was the main topic of some, too.
    Theological terms themselves cannot even be discussed utilizing plain English words without reference to the actual Latin, in fact; since doing so can many times lead to various misinterpretations as the Latin term itself may not have a sufficient English equivalent and involves such a subtle, profound idea than one expressed offhand by any single English word.
    Also, the Latin that Some Day utilized was very basic; not to mention, in addition to the Latin biblical verse he quoted, he provided the actual verses in the bible as well as reference.
    I would also again ask you to reconsider the fact that Some Day, given his cultural background, might have recalled biblical verses that he memorized in Latin.
    This is not unusual — especially if he were brought up with a Classical education (i.e., the Triviuum).
    In fact, if you were to read Catholic spiritual classics, you would find them littered with biblical verses that are in Latin rather than in English.
    Further, there are still those Catholics who use the Vulgate — not the Douay-Rheims or the NAB or the RSVCE.
    Needless to say, Latin is a part of the Heritage (not to mention, its very language) of the Catholic Church as evident in its Theology, Liturgy and History.
    …and, incidentally, I don’t find Schrodinger’s equation in any of the documents or teachings of the Catholic Church, so if you’ll forgive me for finding Mathermatical formulae as being egregiously irrelevant.

  128. odio el latín porque es un idioma muerto y no sirve para nada. There are at least 300 languages that I would study before I made an attempt to learn latin and I would really hate to have to listen to a mass in latin. I wouldn’t mind making the mass more respectful but the language should remain English.

  130. Esau,
    I see your point. But I still repeat:
    The burden would be on me to be as clear as possible, given my expected audience.
    If you think the expected audience of this blog understands Latin, then I’m in the wrong. But: even the Latin Missal provides a translation in English so that the parishoners can follow along, doesn’t it? I would’ve been fine with a post in Latin if Some Day also provided a translation. Communication is the goal.
    Theological terms themselves cannot even be discussed utilizing plain English words without reference to the actual Latin…the Latin term itself may not have a sufficient English equivalent
    That’s a good point — I have no trouble believing there’s no 1-1 correspondence between some Latin terms and English. But I’d find it hard to believe the Latin terms can’t be explained in English.
    Nevertheless, you accuse me of being irrelevant with my math analogy (to which I disagree), and I think your point is irrelevant here. Some Day wasn’t talking about an esoteric theological concept that can’t be expressed in English — he was quoting a Bible verse.

  131. I don’t have time to read all the comments, but my 2cents on Tim’s thought expirement…The folks I know who most dislike (not just are indifferent to) the Tridentine mass are all people who grew up with it. My mother in law raised holy heck when her parish started using latin mass parts until the pastor put translations in the pews and the music director started directing people to the translations or appropriate missal pages. Despite her catholic education, she apparently has and still does find all that latin terribly alienating. Another sweet, wonderful and devout older Catholic I know refers to the pre-VII days as “the bad old days” (referring, I think, to clericalism, lack of bible education, and incompreensible liturgy), although she is not a fan of liturgical abuse or fluff either and likes her NO straight up.
    In contrast, the most rabid rad-trads I know are folks under 40 who grew up in very loose or ‘lite’ NO parishes and discovered the Tridentine rite after a ‘reconversion’ experience. I’m glad they’ve fallen for the old traditions and liturgy, but I wish they’d stop telling me there’s something wrong with all of us who prefer a reverent, Novus Ordo mass in our native language. Sure, I’d like to see a better english translation of the NO, and I’m not adverse to a little more latin here and there, but I’ll take a respectful, reverent, albeit inactive and blah NO parish over even a very well-educated and active on fire traddie parish (which is the choice we made when we moved to our current city).

  132. But: even the Latin Missal provides a translation in English so that the parishoners can follow along, doesn’t it?
    Smoky:
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I could’ve sworn that Some Day provided the relevant biblical verses in addition to the quoted Latin verse.
    Nevertheless, you accuse me of being irrelevant with my math analogy (to which I disagree), and I think your point is irrelevant here.
    If Latin was truly irrelevant, then this whole affair of bringing back the ‘Latin’ Mass wouldn’t be such an issue.
    Also, I don’t see anybody screaming for a Motu Proprio for the Dirac Equation — though I could be wrong.

  133. Latin is THE ecclesial language.
    Dan Hunter:
    I believe that’s one aspect Smoky has sorely failed to consider as well.

  134. If Latin was truly irrelevant
    You just put words in my mouth. I said your point regarding the inability to express some theological terms in English was irrelevant to this specific case, because all Some Day did was quote a Bible verse.
    And the analogy to the math formula was just that: an analogy.
    All I’m championing is the need to communicate.

  135. Sigh.
    There are approximately 22 approved rites in the Church. Under the Roman (aka the Latin Rite), both the Novus Ordo and Tridentine are approved, only with the Anglican Use Rite and many others.
    THE MASS IS IN LATIN. Whatever English language Mass you hear is a TRANSLATION of the Missale Romanum. The Church documents including encyclicals etc. are all written in Latin. It IS the official language of the Church. This has NOT changed. There is nothing elitist about it; it’s a simple fact. So to act like Latin is some weirdo imposition is just plain wrong.
    So it IS in fact the “universal language.” However, I meant that in a less official sense: when I am in Rome with people who speak Polish, French, German, Bulgarian, or whatever, it is wonderful that we can raise one voice in the Sanctus (for example).
    As for the ridiculous red herring about whether looking at a missal somehow makes your participation in the Mass less than if it is “internalized,” this is just wrong too. One can read with deep intent and participation, and one can mouth the memorized words like a robot – or vice versa.
    Logically, there is no necessary connection whatsoever between reciting without a missal and somehow having the truth of the Gospel more internalized, or not.
    Finally, if one complains that one goes to an English language blog and doesn’t even want to SEE a Latin sentence, someting more is going on here! I come across Latin – usually untranslated – VERY often, in all my reading, which I admit is heavily literary, but also encompasses the social sciences, etc. Should we just throw C.S. Lewis or others across the room if they DARE suddenly throw in a Latin sentence, assuming that their educated readers might be able to grasp the basic meaning?

  136. No, once again, Latin is not the official language of the Body of Christ. Jesus spoke Aramaic; maybe you will say that’s the official language. Seriously, there are more languages in the Catholic Church, and some people do celebrate without anything being translated from latin.
    To make it the universal language is to 1) remove the pre-Latin use from the church and 2) remove all non-latin users from the church. Learn what universals are, please.

  137. Mary kay posted:
    “John, if your comments are an example of the fruit of the Tridentine Mass, I’m VERY glad to attend the Novus Ordo.”
    Mary Kay I have no idea what you mean by this post except I guess in your haste to take an uncharitable swipe at me you failed to even read what you posted as my post had to do with the fact that it is the youth and middle aged Catholics who are demanding the rollback, not the aged as they are most likely products of the 1960′ and were brought up for the most part to challenge authority and if you cant meet a standard or requirement demand the tests be changed, demand for affirmitive action and quotas, and demand that even the Catholic church be changed, as she was after Vatican II to “modernize” to suit for what is in many cases immoral lifestyles that todays Modern catholics want to lead. How many Hillary bumper stickers (ie pro choice) in the Novus Ordo church parking lot here in NY? Countless, as compared to those who attend the Traditional mass, you can see the difference all together as
    Lex Orandi Lex Credendi or “The Law of Prayer is the Law of Belief”

  138. Smoky:
    You fail to understand that Latin is very much a part of the Catholic Church to the very extent that the language itself is engrained in its official documents, its Liturgy, its Theology, its culture, and its very history — unlike mathematical formulae.
    You speak of an ‘expected audience’.
    Yet, you seem to fail to grasp the ‘Catholic’ audience.
    The very fact that we are even discussing bringing back the Tridentine Mass that’s in Latin (imagine that!) should bring to mind that there is actually an audience here that still reveres the official language of the Church and respects her heritage.
    So, I don’t really see how Some Day quoting a biblical verse in Latin can actually be equated as being irrelevant as the citation of mathematical formulae, as you have posed.
    For one, Some Day provided the corresponding biblical verses, making it easy for anybody to reference the cited verse in their bibles.
    Second, you fail to even consider, out of charity, that perhaps Some Day had memorized those verses in Latin and, therefore, cited them accordingly off-the-cuff (as it were) in the very language he memorized them.
    Third, those in the audience who are actually Traditional Catholics, brought up in the Trivuum, should be acquainted with it. Not to mention, those who are actually Catholic Theologians, and classically trained seminarians, priests, etc. (I’m sure there are those here); also, there are the Classicists as well.
    Catholic spiritual classics to this day are littered with biblical citations quoted in Latin and even some casual books on the topic of Catholicism can’t help but utilize Latin at various instances; demonstrating the extent to which Latin is ‘relevant’ and, in fact, engrained as an integral part of the heritage of the Catholic Church, which, thus, cannot be looked down upon as something ‘irrlevant’.

  139. You’re still mischaracterizing my use of the word irrelevant. Reread my past two posts again.

  140. How many Hillary bumper stickers (ie pro choice) in the Novus Ordo church parking lot here in NY? Countless, as compared to those who attend the Traditional mass
    How does this say anything about the Mass itself? If the TLM were the normal mass that 99% percent of Catholics went to and the NO were the special mass that you needed an indult for, all the Hillary stickers would be at the TLM mass. It’s a statistical issue that doesn’t necessarily reflect on the nature of the liturgies. The same type of thing happens when you compare the Church attendance of Catholics with some very right-wing, “on fire” Evengalical denomination. Catholic attentance is always less because the Evengelical denomination is made up entirely of people who have chosen to be there.
    In fact, looking at it this way, maybe the Holy Spirit guided the Church to create the NO Mass in order to preserve the TLM from all the abuses of these past few generations. Maybe if Vatican II had never been made the NO, the TLM might be as abused today as the NO is. Maybe you should be thankful in this respect.

  141. Look, Smoky.
    If you don’t get it, for the sake of prolonging this discussion, let’s just tackle the one thing you said:
    But: even the Latin Missal provides a translation in English so that the parishoners can follow along, doesn’t it?
    Did not Some Day provide the corresponding biblical verses?
    I believe he did:

    Yet as the Our Lord conforts us:
    …sed confidite Ego vici mundum
    John 16:33

    Thus, could somebody reading the verse look it up in their English bible?
    I believe they can.
    Also, in the interest of charity, it would behoove you to, at least, give some consideration (even the very slightest) that perhaps Some Day might have actually memorized certain biblical passages in the Latin.
    It would not be surprising given the culture that Some Day might have been brought up in and especially if he was raised in the tradition of the Trivuum.

  142. Please also stop characterizing me as uncharitable. That’s fine if Some Day memorized his verse in Latin. If I memorized my verses in English but was on a Spanish-language website, I think it would be appropriate to quote from a Spanish-language Bible. Some Day can look up the verse in English as easily as I can. Why should the burden be on me?

  143. Mr.,
    I was strictly speaking of the Western Church.
    However, since you’ve insisted, here are some facts on the matter:
    “The Catholic Church began in the days of the Roman Empire, and the language spoken throughout that Empire was Latin. St. Peter moved the seat of Church government from Antioch to Rome, and the Catholic Church government remains centered there to this very day. It was only natural that Latin became the language of the Church. As the centuries elapsed, for example, Latin still remained the language of the educated classes–even into the 18th and 19th centuries. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that Latin should still be the official language of the Catholic Church. It simply always has been. Furthermore, a universal language greatly facilitates the unity of the Church. Ecumenical Councils, for example, have always been held in Latin, enabling bishops from all over the world to communicate with each other easily.” (Augustine Club, Columbia University)
    Also, another excerpt — this one from Dr. D’Ambrosio:
    Why did Latin become the Church’s official language since Greek was so popular back then?
    As soon as the Church began to move out from Jerusalem into Antioch and other cities, the international language of the Church became Greek rather than the apostles’ native Aramaic. Note that all New Testament books are written in Greek, even the letter to the Romans. All cultured people in the Roman Empire knew Greek and anyone who wanted to do business in the cities of the empire had to know it as well.
    But beginning around 290 when the Emperor Diocletian divided the empire into Eastern and Western halves, people in the West gradually began to lose knowledge of Greek and the everyday language of business became Latin from what is now Croatia Westward to Spain. The Roman liturgy finally switched from the original Greek to Latin around the year 380 under Pope St. Damasus, and from that point on, all official Church documents and business in the west was conducted in Latin. The first seven ecumenical councils though, since they took place in the Eastern Greek-Speaking halves of the Empire, published their decrees for the most part in Greek and they were later translated into Latin.
    So actually the church was bi-lingual so to speak until the Orthodox schism in the Middle ages made the Catholic Church almost entirely Latin in Culture and western in geography.

  145. Esau,
    As you’ve requested putting myself in Some Day’s shoes, please try to put yourself in mine. I don’t speak any other language than English. I don’t have an aptitude for foreign language. I’m very interested in what people say on this blog, but I’d like to understand it.
    Putting aside the specific case of Some Day’s Bible quote, would it be so bad for me to request that if someone wants to post something in a foreign language, it would be courteous to post a translation as well?

  146. Smoky:
    That’s fine if Some Day memorized his verse in Latin. If I memorized my verses in English but was on a Spanish-language website, I think it would be appropriate to quote from a Spanish-language Bible.
    That’s just it — this is a CATHOLIC website!
    Also, this very thread, is not a discussion on the Tridentine Rite which is in the ecclesial language of Latin???
    Further, again, in your failed attempt to defer to ‘audience’, this thread being a discussion of the Tridentine Rite, wouldn’t there be, in addition to Catholic theologians, priests, seminarians who may as well be familiar with Latin, Traditional Catholics on this very thread who would’ve understood Some Day?
    Some Day can look up the verse in English as easily as I can. Why should the burden be on me?
    What burden? He provided the biblical verses, for goodness sake! How hard is it to look it up in a Bible?
    How is that a burden?
    I mean, how is that any different from somebody looking up an unfamiliar word in the dictionary when they read a newspaper article?

  147. Just drop it, both of you. At this point it doesn’t really matter who’s right and who’s wrong. You both lost.

  148. John, is there anyone whom you haven’t yet accused of “taking an uncharitable swipe” at you? Poor, innocent John in the midst of all these mean, uncharitable people.

  149. Just drop it, both of you. At this point it doesn’t really matter who’s right and who’s wrong. You both lost.
    Brian:
    I am just trying to provide some insight as to why Some Day perhaps did what he did.
    I don’t see why you seemed to have all of a sudden attacked me on this point.
    However, I agree, this particular topic has gone on for long enough.

  150. I don’t see why you seemed to have all of a sudden attacked me on this point.
    I don’t read Brian’s statement as an attack on me, and neither should you read it as an attack on you.

  151. Dan, thanks.
    Guacho, actually I think there are people in the Vatican who use Latin other than Mass.

  152. I don’t see why you seemed to have all of a sudden attacked me on this point.
    I didn’t mean to attack anyone, but the amount of bickering far exceeded the importance of the issue. If someone was lurking on here trying to learn about the Catholic Faith and saw that, they would get a very bad impression of the Church.

  153. Latin is the official language of the Church.It has been since the middle of the third century and will always be the official language of the Church.
    Just one example is Gregorian Chant it is the official hymnody of Mother Church and always will be.It was written in Latin not English or Swahili or Chinese,Latin.It is always chanted in Latin.If translated to the vernacular it loses its cadence and much of its meaning not to mention it sounds bad.This is the same with the liturgy,any liturgy of the Church.
    Just look at the collapse of the spoken aspect of religous orders since the near decimation of Latin from their various offices…and on …and on….
    God bless you.

  154. Brian:
    If you read my posts above, the dominant theme you’ll find is emphasis on the heritage of the Church, which is one of the very reasons why I chose to continue with the pro-longed exchange.
    So, it’s not bickering wherein a trivial point was being insisted upon; rather, it meant to draw attention to the very Heritage of the Catholic Church, of which Latin is a part.
    I don’t think some of the folks these days have a clear appreciation of that.

  155. Dan, Sorry I was pretty much referring to Esau and Smoky. By that point I think everyone conceded that Latin is the heritage of the Church. The argument had pretty much boiled down to “my analogy was appropriate”, “No it wasn’t”. If I’m just irritable today and jumped on them wrongly, I apologize.

  157. Again, do not confuse the Roman Church with the Catholic Church; the Roman Church has Latin as official; the Melkites do not.
    Cardinal Arinze makes this clear: the Latin as official is particular to Rome not ALL of the Church (Most rites have an original language which also gives each rite its historical identity. The Roman Rite has Latin as its official language. The typical editions of its liturgical books are to this day issued in Latin.)
    http://www.adoremus.org/Arinze_StLouis06.html

  158. Dan, Sorry I was pretty much referring to Esau and Smoky. By that point I think everyone conceded that Latin is the heritage of the Church. The argument had pretty much boiled down to “my analogy was appropriate”, “No it wasn’t”. If I’m just irritable today and jumped on them wrongly, I apologize.
    Brian:
    It would’ve been fine had I not revealed such details lending to support the fact that Latin is, indeed, a part of the heritage of the Church.
    However, the fact that Smoky seemed to have relegated it to being irrelevant (especially given that this blog is a ‘Catholic’ website) as ‘mathematical formulae’ would seem to suggest that due attention must be given to this fact.
    It’s almost similar to somebody complaining about a post somebody put up on a Science website that actually utilized nomenclature.

  159. You continue to misrepresent my statements Esau.
    I did not say Latin is irrelevant. My use of the word “irrelevant” was relative to a point you made. I said a certain point you made was irrelevant to the discussion of the Bible verse.
    I’m going to assume that you are not purposefully misrepresenting my statements in order to pick a fight; so, again I ask that you re-read what I’ve written.
    I’d also ask that you humbly accept correction. You seem to have a hard time admitting you may have made a mistake — you spend a lot of time on these forums defending your words.

  160. I’ll add a final thought. When Jimmy posts about languages — Latin or otherwise — he generally offers lots of explanation and never assumes you know the language. That says something about who he expects is reading his blog.

  161. You seem to have a hard time admitting you may have made a mistake — you spend a lot of time on these forums defending your words.
    Isn’t that what you’re exactly doing?
    Defending your words?
    Also, have you not read anything I’ve written to you?
    I’ll just refer to what I had last written to you and, then, drop it. If you refuse to heed it, that’s fine.
    You said:
    That’s fine if Some Day memorized his verse in Latin. If I memorized my verses in English but was on a Spanish-language website, I think it would be appropriate to quote from a Spanish-language Bible.
    That’s just it — this is a CATHOLIC website!
    [If you acknowledge Latin as being an integral part of the Heritage of the Catholic Church, it wouldn’t be surprising that a poster like Some Day posted something in Latin]
    Also, this very thread, is [this] not a discussion on the Tridentine Rite which is in the ecclesial language of Latin???
    Further, again, in your failed attempt to defer to ‘audience’, [the fact that] this thread being a discussion of the Tridentine Rite, wouldn’t there be, in addition to Catholic theologians, priests, seminarians [who comprise the Catholic audience] who may as well be familiar with Latin, [there would also be for certain] Traditional Catholics on this very thread who would’ve understood Some Day?
    Some Day can look up the verse in English as easily as I can. Why should the burden be on me?
    What burden? He provided the biblical verses, for goodness sake! How hard is it to look it up in a Bible?
    How is that a burden?
    I mean, how is that any different from somebody looking up an unfamiliar word in the dictionary when they read a newspaper article?

  163. See? You just did it again!!! You ignored my statements (in 3 previous posts!!!) that you misrepresented my words, and made no gesture to apologize.
    Here’s a classic example of you wasting a bunch of time defending yourself rather than admitting you may have made a mistake:
    link

  164. I’d read your comment, Brian, but it’s too much a burden for me, as is looking up a verse in the bible, as is looking up an unfamiliar word in the dictionary.

  166. Nice distraction, Smoky; however, it’s not addressing the point I’ve made at all.
    In addition, you still haven’t admitted your mistake.

  167. I’ve conceded you made good points about Latin (see Posted by: Smoky Mountain | May 3, 2007 10:20:50 AM). I don’t know what mistake you’re otherwise referring to. If you can be specific, I’ll answer.
    I admit my mistakes on this forum all the time. For example, I just apologized yesterday for using a word which had an offensive meaning that I was unaware of. I’m not too proud to admit I’m wrong.
    And you still haven’t acknowledge your mistake.

  168. Brian wrote on another thread:
    Your argument in the other thread has boiled down to pride on both ends. You both agree with the big picture of the importance of Latin. You’re fighting over whether or not Latin needs a footnote on a thread that no-one will read in a week. Who cares, you’ve wasted too many bytes on it already.
    Posted by: Brian | May 3, 2007 3:03:03 PM

    Brian is right. I at least have been somewhat immature and uncharitable on this thread, so I apologize to you, Esau, and to Jimmy’s readers.
    I should’ve let this go a long time ago.

  169. The N.O. is valid, but banal in the extreme, lends itself to abuse, and for a convert like myself it can’t hold a candle to the TLM.
    I consider it a penance to have to wade through the nonsensical presentation of the N.O. I can’t take it anymore, nor can I abide lectures from well-meaning N.O. supporters. You know, the whole “It’s a valid Eucharist, so that’s all you should focus on” nonsense.

  170. Johnny, your post almost sounds plausible. Almost. Your email goes to a website business described as “a wholesale supplier to Pagan and New age stores all over the U.S.”

  171. Maybe the market for saint medals, rosary beads and prayer cards was already saturated.

  172. Listen.
    Stop fighting because over trivial matters.
    In the efforts to convince in an arguement, one may employ many techniques.
    Ethical (no not what is right in science, but rather the literary term ethos) appeals means you should believe me because I am experienced or knowledgable in this subject.
    To achieve that, I chose to use Latin, because since most people don’t know Latin well (including myself, I was not raised in “tradox”atmospheres, in fact my parants are “charismatics”and I am not.) it gives a good impression. Usually.
    But there are somethings that I have no idea how to say in English, Spanish, Portugese or even French, but only Latin. Mainly because even in science, Latin is very precise, plus (and above all) it is the OFFICIAL language of the Church.
    There are somethings I know in one of the languages I know. I could translate mentally, but imprecisely. And English is my best language, but not ecclesiastically, philosophically nor theologically. But since I can dominate English best, there are somethings that I MUST read in English to understand.
    So that explains why I did what I did.
    Second, el latin no es un idioma muerto, es la oficial de la Santa Iglesia.
    And some of you say that Latin was used as the vernacular a long time ago, so now use the vernacular of today.
    Many things in the early history of the Church were for practical reasons.
    Washing the hands was because of the incense,
    amice and maniple to wipe away perspiration, the stole a sign of rank in the Empire and so forth.
    Yet the Church gave it a more “Catholic” touch, and made it a beautiful customs.
    Latin was the lingua franca of the early Church. But even when it ceased to be, it stayed the language of the Church.
    Latin, apart from its preciseness, if it deserves any importance, it is because it is the language of the Church.
    The Church is what matters. It is of Divine Providence that God allows these things to happen.
    Even in decadence, whatever happens, it is for the good of the just.

  173. John wrote: “Please note that the so called person who grew up with the “Old mass” is most likely old or dead by now.”
    I’m not dead yet.
    And 57 just isn’t that old.

  174. A few notes. Until the middle of the 19th century, Latin was not only the language of the Church but also the intellectual language of the Western World. By the second half of that century, child labor laws and extended education for all, even into high school, drove literacy to close to 100 percent in the industrialized nations. With literacy that high, books in the venacular became common. The myriad venaculars of places like France and England consolidated. Finally, it became possible for everyday things to be recorded in the local language, because it wasn’t so local anymore. The Church moves slowly, so another 50 or so years further on, Mass in the venacular seemed reasonable, literally for the masses.
    I grew up on the Latin Mass. I remember Vatican II (I was in junior high). I’ve since attended Mass in Spanish, German, French, and Vietnamese. I don’t speak any of those languages but I was able to follow with ease, because the form is the same in all of those languages. I’ve even gotten broad smiles praying aloud the congregation’s parts in English while everyone else was praying in a different language. They also knew exactly what I was saying.
    I’ve also attended a Catholic Orthodox Mass (I forget which Rite) and a Russian Orthodox Mass. They were as different from each other as they were from either the Tridentine or the current Roman Masses, which by comparison appear to be the same Mass in different languages. Yes there are/were abuses, both in the venacular and the Latin.
    I have very positive memories of the Latin Mass. I also have very positive memories of the Mass in the venacular. Yes, the Eucharist is the center of it all. Forget that and you lose everything else. What’s left without it is just a prayer service, no matter what language it’s in. Not bad, but not at all on the same plane.
    The anticipated Motu Proprio sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe more of us will then focus on substance rather than form.

  175. Mike posted:
    “John wrote: “Please note that the so called person who grew up with the “Old mass” is most likely old or dead by now.”
    I’m not dead yet.
    And 57 just isn’t that old.”
    Well if the New Mass for the most part became the “norm” in 1970 that is 38 years ago so if you are 57 that means you were19 when the changes took place. I myself was a bit younger but do remember as well
    Let me clarify, at our age (you were in your teens I was younger) we had no feeling one way or another nor had we been indoctrinated into the so called post WWII modern culture. With most of Europe bombed and suspicion abound about Pius XII collaboration with the Nazis and sympathies for non Catholic faiths especially Jews due largely in part of the Hollocaust, the church was basically doomed and the Modernists and new age thinking was rampant
    We had no influence with regards to the changes as I was essentially catechised with ever changing teachings as I was a youngster with what seemed like every week our teacher now saying “no..now that is allowed”, or “you dont have to do that anymore”…seemed great to hear as a pre teen and teenager but what did we know that at the time our faith was being sold off in blocks to appease modern sinful man and these other false faiths in the name of Ecumenism

  176. Tony posted:
    “Am I allowed to say that the “spirit” of Vatican II is the work of the Devil?”
    Tony, to say otherwise would be foolish
    By their fruits ye shall know them, and just take a look around you!
    Just came from a wedding rehearsal for a cousin as I am in the wedding party. Run by a deacon with such banal and lame teachings. Precana a 4 hour session with 10 other couples.
    I had a lengthy conversation with the good old Deacon after the rehearsal and starting asking him about his feelings on the Traditional Latin Mass. Right away he got defensive saying he grew up with it in Brooklyn but today it just wont work. I asked him why he thinks that way as my family went from the New Mass to the Traditional Latin Mass as did many of our friends. His answer was that people dont want to not understand the Latin and they want to participate. I then said I could care less about the Latin, but the new mass did away with 35 prayers and that is alot, he agreed and said I know the new mass is shorter and is condensed and that is because people dont want to even spend the 40 minutes a week here so forget about making it longer, he laughed and said that is “just the way it is now”.
    What a sorry state of affairs the church is in, doing what people want instead of doing what the church thinks is right for their salvation

  178. Re: Latin and the vernacular in the early Church.
    Scholarship has pointed to the fact that the Latin that was used in the early liturgy was of a different sort than would have been commonly understandable to the “common man” speaking ‘vulgar’ Latin on the street.
    In that sense, it employed the idea of a sacral language, probably in a way that would be comparable to the use of hieratic English, which employs different words, expressions, archaic forms, etc. but which might not be readily understandable to the average person on the street.
    So you cannot actually make the simple equation of Latin in the early Latin church as operating on the principle of using the common vernacular in the way it is often thought of today.
    Even in the Eastern Church, this is common. The Greek Orthodox use ancient Greek, not modern, and then of course there is old Church Slavonic.
    I am not suggesting by this that using the vernacular is “bad”, but clearly the Roman church does not intend that she lose the place of Latin in standard parish liturgy, particularly in reference to the ordinary of the Mass. As pertains to the use of the vernacular though, when and where it is used, it should be a worthy and sacral translation that is befitting the sacred rites.

  179. Maybe someone else has already posted this. I don’t know as I have not read through all 180 posts in this thread so far, but Monsignor Schmitz, Vicar General of the Institute of Christ the King, is scheduled to be on Catholic Answers Live, radio program tomorrow. ICKSP is a priestly order canonically recognized by the holy see and dedicated to the traditional Latin liturgy.
    http://www.institute-christ-king.org/heavenly.html
    Msgr. Schmitz speaks inspiringly of the traditional mass so it should be a good show for those interested in the TLM.
    http://www.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php

  180. Johnny, your post almost sounds plausible. Almost. Your email goes to a website business described as “a wholesale supplier to Pagan and New age stores all over the U.S.”
    Hi Mary Kay,
    Not that it’s any of your business, but my wife in a Pagan. Your cheap shot won’t work. I am a practicing Catholic…moreover, I am a Catholic who doesn’t like attending N.O. Masses.

  181. Maybe the market for saint medals, rosary beads and prayer cards was already saturated.
    It’s my wife’s business. Again, I am a practicing Catholic. I can only hope my wife doesn’t read your ignorant posts…you guys wouldn’t exactly be helping her return to the Church, to put it mildly.
    Now, back to our regular topic. Thanks and God bless you.

  182. This thread reminds me why I rarely read Jimmy’s blog anymore… Though the posts are interesting the comment boxes are a total waste of time… I find no pleasure or use in reading them. It’s actually annoying to always read comments from the same usual suspects (Esau, John, Smoky, etc…). Anyway… I do hope somebody does find them useful in any way.

  183. Sky,
    That is what happends when people defend un-Catholic things and then fight over who is more right than the other, with doing apostolate being the last thing on their mind.
    I try my best to do this with an apostolic mind and not a let the world see my greatness mentality.
    I think it would even be better if we could somehow all get Skype and have real conversations every once in a while.

  184. But anyhow I hope everyone sees the relationship between Latin and the Church.
    May Our Lady protect you all!
    Prayer and Vigilance

  185. Johnny, when it said “run by myself…and husband, Johnny” I wondered. Don’t jump on me because you used an email from a website inconsistent with Catholicism. How can the post be “ignorant” if quoted directly from the website?
    It wasn’t a cheap shot. More like a “testing the waters.” This blog occasionally gets posts from people who turn out to be different than initially presented.
    I’m glad to hear that you’re a practicing Catholic. That’s meant sincerely, so don’t read it otherwise. Sounds like you love your wife a lot. It also sounds like a very fine line to walk.
    Isn’t is funny that you feel free to bash what sustains others in Christ, but have a meltdown when someone notices an incongruity about your post.
    I will pray for you and your wife. I also hope that you leave open the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, the practice of the Catholic faith is larger than your personal experience.

  186. Brian: asked:Esau that’s a very good point. My sportscoat and tie fit right in at my wife’s Presbyterian service, but, sadly, I stand out like a sore thumb at Mass. Does anyone know why Protestants dress up and Catholics don’t? (While I’m asking, the same question goes for singing.)
    Protestant groups are, imho, self-selecting for piety, doctrine and conformity (attention to valuing the social fellowship). Chosing to indulge in an indult Mass is also self-selects for piety, and valuing the community involved in the worship. The N.O. Mass has to take everyone else. (And I was tie wearin’ Baptist for 40+ years (and wore good clothes for the next 7) Now two years later, I am Home and wearing Some good and some ties and suits)
    Wayne

  187. Johnny, when it said “run by myself…and husband, Johnny” I wondered. Don’t jump on me because you used an email from a website inconsistent with Catholicism. How can the post be “ignorant” if quoted directly from the website?
    It wasn’t a cheap shot. More like a “testing the waters.” This blog occasionally gets posts from people who turn out to be different than initially presented.
    I’m glad to hear that you’re a practicing Catholic. That’s meant sincerely, so don’t read it otherwise. Sounds like you love your wife a lot. It also sounds like a very fine line to walk.
    Isn’t is funny that you feel free to bash what sustains others in Christ, but have a meltdown when someone notices an incongruity about your post.
    I will pray for you and your wife. I also hope that you leave open the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, the practice of the Catholic faith is larger than your personal experience.
    Hi Mary Kay,
    This blog isn’t the place for this discussion. If you’d like to continue it, please feel free to email me.
    God bless you and yours,
    Johnny

  188. Johnny wrote: ‘Well if the New Mass for the most part became the “norm” in 1970…’
    I think you need to reread Mary Kay’s chronology. But then I can now see your comment about memories meant people older than you. From my memory, most of the abuses of the venacular Mass occurred during the 70’s with new traditionalists carrying them forward after John Paul II’s election. We, on occasion in the 70’s, sang the Doxology on the Lord’s Prayer “and yours _will_ be the power and glory”. I always thought that was strange. Apparently, so did others, as I haven’t heard that version sung in quite a while, though I do like to chant the Lord’s Prayer in English and we do that occasionally.
    As to put downs of Pius XII, though they originate with “The Deputy” in the early 1960’s, they only reached force in the last 10 years or so, essentially starting with “Hitler’s Pope”. I suppose they’ll become part of the folklore as are the “Inquisition” and the Crusades.
    The 1950’s were a different time. Though only in single digits then, I remember much. For example, my parents sitting at the kitchen table prefering Adlai because Truman’s speech was vulgar. With hindsight, I believe the country embraced order after the chaos of WWII. As Cokie Roberts said recently on NPR, “Then, we knew what real enemies looked like,” and she meant the term “real”. In this country, we’ve forgotten what they look like and so tend to dwell on details as if our lives depended on it making it very hard to focus on what truely matters. The Church knows, though we individuals frequently get it wrong. So I’ll keep following and learning.

  189. No, once again, Latin is not the official language of the Body of Christ. Jesus spoke Aramaic; maybe you will say that’s the official language. Seriously, there are more languages in the Catholic Church, and some people do celebrate without anything being translated from latin.
    To make it the universal language is to 1) remove the pre-Latin use from the church and 2) remove all non-latin users from the church. Learn what universals are, please.
    Posted by: mr | May 3, 2007 11:16:54 AM
    As far as I knew I was the only mr posting on Jimmy’s site, and on this thread, and I did NOT post this.
    mr

  190. Mike M, your posts are like a breath of fresh air with their common sense. I think you read John’s post right the first time. He said the “so called person” – you mean something other than a person? – “is most likely old or dead by now” – as if their views don’t count. Unfortunately John is so humor challenged that he doesn’t see the humor in his post.
    OTOH, Esau has a good sense of humor and so can be occasionally tweaked. Esau, I meant to say above that I was tweaking you above. 🙂
    btw, John and Johnny are two different people.
    Johnny, you’re right. Anything at this point won’t be before tomorrow afternoon.

  191. I think it’s time to inject some levity into the conversation. I found the following letter here and thought I’d share.
    (Note: this is a JOKE. It is not an actual letter written by B16.)

    It has recently been reported the Pope Benedict XVI has personally composed a letter to the Bishops to accompany the ‘Motu Proprio’ when it is released.
    My Dearest Brother Bishops,
    Please find the enclosed ‘Motu Proprio’ regarding the use of the 1962 missal in your Diocese. Please read it carefully as there will be a test.
    For any priest, Bishop, or theologian who decides that they need to find the nearest T.V. camera to accuse me of bringing back the dark ages please remember the following:
    You may recall that in my previous post of 24 years, I was head of the office formerly known as the Inquisition. So rest assured that I have many methods of persuasion. Further, it may interest you to know that the basement of the Vatican has some historically significant, (but still fully functional) remnants of some of the more ‘colorful’ periods in the Office of the Inquisition’s past.
    For those of you who think that this “Motu Proprio’ is merely a concession to the Lefebvrists and therefore not relevant to you or your diocese, you might be interested in a recent conversation that I had with Bishop Fellay of the SSPX. He has informed me that they are currently looking for a new global headquarters. I would be happy to offer him your diocese as a preferred location. Ideally, perhaps you could even share office space. You might then find it relevant.
    Finally, for those Bishops who find it impossible to comply with the ‘Spirit of the Motu Proprio’ with the same verve by which you implemented the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’, I have reserved several key dioceses. These include, but are not limited to, Eastern Siberia, Tierra del Fuego, Chernobyl, and New Brunswick New Jersey. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if you would be interested in one of these key assignments.

  192. Brian: asked:Esau that’s a very good point. My sportscoat and tie fit right in at my wife’s Presbyterian service, but, sadly, I stand out like a sore thumb at Mass. Does anyone know why Protestants dress up and Catholics don’t? (While I’m asking, the same question goes for singing.)
    Seriously, all the excuses for why Catholics in general dress sloppily for Sunday Mass are just that, excuses. There is a Haitian community that worships at a French language Mass on Sundays in our local parish, and the women wear Sunday-best dresses, most of the men shirt and tie, and the children are generally better dressed as well. The Hatians, being recent immigrants, are by far the poorer demographic in this parish. Yet they dress the best.
    I remember, as a child in the 60s and 70s, getting new shoes every August and Easter, because we always wore shoes, slacks and collared shirts to school and church. I always had a suit as a child. We were not wealthy, and there were 6 children…but American society was not quite so adicted to convenience, comfort and slovenly dress as it is now.
    As for folks for whom Mass is just a detail of their Sundays, perhaps a closer reading of John Paul II’s Dies Domini is in order.

  193. Seriously, all the excuses for why Catholics in general dress sloppily for Sunday Mass are just that, excuses.
    Steve Cavanaugh:
    Thank you for your great comment there!
    Let’s not forget Matthew 22: 11-13
    11 And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment.
    12 And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having on a wedding garment? But he was silent.
    13 Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

  194. Steve, your comment reminded me of this thought from Chesterton –
    “The modern man thought Becket’s robes too rich and his meals too poor. But then the modern man was really exceptional in history; no man before ever ate such elaborate dinners in such ugly clothes.”
    Keep in mind, though, that to judge anyone ELSE by how they dress at Mass is to open yourself up to serious sin. None of us will be asked at the Judgement what we did about how others dressed at Mass (except maybe our kids!).

  195. Brian,
    As for singing, there are many reasons that folks in the Church here in the U.S. don’t sing as much. Some ideas I have.
    Historically: the U.S. Church is heavily Irish. For much of the time between 1550 and 1820, celebrating Mass in Ireland was illegal. Even though most of the population of Ireland was Catholic, they weren’t singing at the top of their lungs drawing attention to themselves. Besides, the Church of Ireland (Protestant) had taken most of the churches and organs. The tradition of quiet, low Mass was pretty firm, and it was brought by the Irish when the emigrated.
    Also, historically, many people did not pray the Mass, but prayed during Mass. The rosary during a low Mass, for example, was not uncommon. The idea was that the priest had his liturgy at the altar, the choir its liturgy in the choir loft, and the people were a bit on their own. That is why for much of the 20th century, there was continual emphasis on St. Pius X’s teaching to “pray the Mass”. I think that this has continued, despite the changes to the liturgy.
    Musically: One of the problems with the most commonly used hymnals in U.S. congregations is that the contemporary hymns, Haugen, Hass, St. Louis Jesuits, etc., are all written with the melody foremost in mind, and it’s written for a soprano voice. Protestant hymnody, by contrast, tended to be written with 4-part harmony in mind. Now, early in the morning your vocal chords aren’t ready for high notes. I’m a decent tenor, but early on Sunday I sound more like a bass 😉 With music written for sopranos, it’s hard to sing. I spent many years as a cantor, and I could only do it by getting up before 5 am and giving my voice a chance to warm up. With this in mind, the Episcopal Hymnal 1940 and 1982 deliberately lowered the keys in the hymns so that they were easier to sing with “morning” voices.
    Another problem is too much variety: Many parishes program too many songs over the course of a year, and people just can’t get familiar enought with them to really sing out. Notice that most parishes have no problem getting people to sing “Silent Night” or “Jesus Christ is Risen Today” (tough as the latter is). Familiarity makes songs easier to sing. That’s why people like contemporary songs like “Eagle Wings” and “I Am The Bread of Life”, both of which are pretty hard to sing…but they have been used so often that they’re familiar.
    There is, of course, the issue of the quality of the music, but I’ll not open that can of worms 🙂 But I would note that we are not a culture of singers: we are a culture of listeners. The culture of hymn singing in English that the Anglicans, Methodists and Congregationalists fostered came out of a culture that was full of song. It was typical for an English upper class and even middle class home in the 16-19th century to have an organ in it. The previous centuries saw lutes, harps, etc. People sang at home, and they sang at church. We have iPods and radios and walkmen. The culture doesn’t sing, it listens. And it carries that habit into Mass, which hasn’t had a strong historical custom of popular singing in many cultures (as in the Irish above).
    Liturgical Emphasis: In many U.S. parishes today, there is an overemphasis on the Liturgy of the Word. Mass is becoming more of a teaching time, through the three readings and the homily. Some parishes also include an “introduction” to the liturgy by the priest and perhaps comments before the readings. In a typical 45-minute Sunday Mass, 25-30 minutes might be on the Liturgy of the Word, only 15-20 minutes in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. While there is plenty of place for music in the introductory rites and LofW, the emphasis is on teaching not on worship, and singing at Mass is a form of worship. Even in the LotW, the emphasis on worship needs to be restored.

  196. Tim J,
    You are certainly right, and I am not judging anyone in particular. But when a large portion of the population acts a certain way, you do wonder why. Especially with a “control” group at hand (like the Hatians at our parish) to compare with.

  197. Steve, thanks. Similar to the Hatian Mass at your parish, my parish has a Vietnamese Mass on Sunday evening which I go to if I’ve been traveling and don’t get home in time for the morning Masses. It’s by far the most reverent Mass in my parish.
    American society was not quite so addicted to convenience, comfort and slovenly dress as it is now.
    I think the root of my question lies here. I realize that cultures and styles change. But why, for many people, is there no difference between what they wear to run errands on Saturday and what they wear to Mass on Sunday. Some people wear clothes to Mass that they wouldn’t wear to work. Even if 10 years from now the everyday clothing style is to wear spandex unitards, I would imagine it would still be appropriate to wear your special unitard with the cape to Mass.
    I don’t know why American Catholics have lost the distinction between Mass and rest of their lives.

  198. Even if 10 years from now the everyday clothing style is to wear spandex unitards
    That’s not the style today? I’d better go change.

  199. Thanks Tim,
    I’m more interested in the phenomenon as a whole, rather than judging anyone’s faith. I never even realized it until I started going to my wife’s Church and my wife to mine. I think for both of us, the dress was more of a culture shock than the difference in liturgy.
    If I cross the line in my questions, please call me out.

  200. Tim J:
    Keep in mind, though, that to judge anyone ELSE by how they dress at Mass is to open yourself up to serious sin. None of us will be asked at the Judgement what we did about how others dressed at Mass (except maybe our kids!).
    As I’ve mentioned in the past, for folks who are poor and cannot afford clothing, this is certainly understandable.
    However, the fact of the matter is that most folks, when they go to some great occasion, or even on a date, they tend to dress accordingly — in a manner befitting the event.
    How is dressing up in t-shirts, shorts and slippers for Sunday Mass befitting of the reverence and respect that should be given to Our Lord at Mass?
    If it were a Sunday Mass being said in a poor neighborhood or country; of course, this is certainly understandable.
    But, the core of the problem, which you might be neglecting, is irreverence and the treatment of Mass as being less than what the occasion merits.

  201. Esau
    The verses you quoted were allegory about the spiritual state of the soul. Move along now.

  202. I have to remember, too, that as a younger man (as a Protestant) I would sometimes wear jeans and a Harley-Davidson T-shirt to church. I didn’t think of it as irreverant, at all. It was just another manifestation of the whole idea of “low church”… it may have been wrong-headed, but it was not ill-intended. For that reason, alone, I don’t want to judge too harshly how others dress.
    The other angle, of why our society – affluent by any material standard, and well able to dress itself – now thinks and acts this way, is a very valid question. If it were simply a matter of placing spiritual considerations over material ones, then that would be one thing, but if you really think our culture is more deeply spiritual and less materialistic than in times past, I have a bridge to sell you.

  203. A Non:
    It still has relevance in that the spiritual state of the soul is dependent on the actions by which the individual treats the Sacred.

  204. Tim J.
    As I had stated above to A Non — the Spiritual State of the Soul is (in fact) dependent on how the individual treats the Sacred.
    If the person thinks so little of Mass in that they come to it dressed like slobs; how much more for the authority of Scripture? For the Church? For even the Commandments of God?
    That is why Christ had taught about the importance of folks putting importance in trivial matters since if you can’t trust folks with such little matters — how much more with much bigger ones???
    In the same vein, if a person disrespects something in this respect, how much more for anything else that’s sacred?

  205. Since the thread has taken a bit of a turn recently, I’ll head in that direction:
    It is really sad to see that people don’t dress in their Sunday best for Mass. Although changes in styles throughout the years can be blamed for part of the reason, a big part of the reason is that our pastors don’t remind us of how important our dress is – it is a(n imperfect) reflection of our interior disposition.
    Maybe our priests don’t tell us this because we don’t want to hear it, and give them a hard time when they try to tell us.
    I’m reminded of what my grandmother tells me about when she was younger (in the 30s & 40s). Her pastor routinely commented on proper dress to attend Mass and receive the Eucharist. He even refused some women who wore sleeveless dresses and lipstick!
    My current pastor – he’s getting moved soon 🙁 – went to great lengths to explain to us the importance of wearing our Sunday best. As little league baseball & softball are VERY big in our small town, he even reminded parents that they shouldn’t bring their children to Mass dressed up like they’re ready to field a flyball. (And, btw, this is NO parish!)
    I know of several parents who complained to him; but he stuck to his guns.
    Up to that point, I must admit that (as someone posted earlier) I usually wore something less formal to Mass than I did to work. This really made me think, and respond.
    There has been a change in our parish. No, not everyone comes to Mass dressed in their best; but I’ve got to say that there is a noticable increase in the number of those who do.
    We need to support our priests who want to deliver a hard message.

  206. We need to support our priests who want to deliver a hard message.
    Way to sum up the solution to a lot of things in one sentence. I think sometimes we get stuck in a cycle where a teaching is unpopular so its not voiced. Then we end up with even more people opposed to the teaching purely out of ignorance because they’ve never been exposed to the full truth. Even a small group of very supportive parishioners can be enough to give their priest the courage to proclaim hard truths.

  208. The $1 bill is an emorous waste of resources. It’s average useful life is less than 2 years and costs more than it’s face value to print. $1 coins are a much smarter and cost effective. Both are available now, but the bill, wasteful as it is, is still the prefered option. That is not going to change until the treasury has the cajones to force the change by discontinuing the bills and minting only the coins.
    Thus it would have been with the liturgies of Pius V & Paul VI. Uncomfortable as it may have been, the only effective way to introduce the Pauline liturgy was to completely dislodge the Pian one.
    40 years after the $1 bill is discontinued few will mind if the mint prints a few for collectors or nostalgia buffs. The coins will be the much more popular option by then and the bills will seem quaint. No harm will be done.
    40+ years after the institution of the Pauline liturgy, it hurts no one allow the greater use of the Pian one.
    I do wish, however, that Benedict XVI would actually get around to motuing his proprio here. The (effective, not intended) tease stopped being amusing long ago and it seems to me that all the dawdling about this is sapping energy form the more important work of giving the mass of Paul VI some of the granduer and solemnity of the Pian one.

  209. I have not read through all of the responses, but my response to Tim’s posting was mixed. On the one hand, I think he makes a great point about our penchant for throwing out what is old. I also agree with his pastoral point that in forbidding the Tridentine Mass, the transition to the Novus was more contentious than it had to be.
    Still, I dislike the implication of the piece that traditionalists are suffering from some psychological disorder. This reminds me of traditionalist arguments that the Novus Ordo is a reflection of current narcissism. Both charges may be true of some people in both camps, but are not helpful in describing the crisis.
    I am a traditionalists, but not a “Rad Trad.” I think that an honest debate between traditionalists and partisans of the novus ordo would be hard to obtain these days, especially on this site (as there seems to be over-eager people on both sides — and I would include myself here). I came to the traditionalist position through a good deal of reading and through the experience of being in a liberal parish in a “conservative diocese” (when a group from our parish complained about liturgical abuses, our supposedly “conservative” bishop did nothing and then blamed us; I began to see that conservatives’ solutions to the crisis in the Church would not work; a restoration was needed). I think that the works of Michael Davies, in particular, laid out the case for the traditional mass and the deficiencies (but not ones that would make the Novus Ordo invalid) of the Novus Ordo. His case against the Novus Ordo seems to me to be based more on reason and theological points rather than a simple attachment to the past or emotionalism. Davies also insisted that the Novus was valid, a point Rad Trads reject. Perhaps others would disagree. But the issues concerning the Novus ordo are many — as Cardinal Ratzinger himself pointed out in many of his writings before he became pope.

  210. Perhaps the Catholic Church is bigger than we think it is.
    There never has been, is not now, nor wil lthere ever be a single human being for which Jesus Christ did not come to suffer and die to save.
    I was reminded of this when I was grumbling about something during the Holy Father’s trip to Turkey. My buddy told me, “Remember, the Pope is the vicar of Christ for every single human being alive while he is Pope. He’s tasked to get the gospel to those people as well.”
    So, given that 400 years passed since the shipwreck to Christianity of the Protestant reformation, the NO Mass and other Vatican II changes could be an effort towards Christian unity without requiring everyone to return to sixteenth century Europe.
    This seeems like a reasonable view which avoids, for me at least, cognitive dissonance.

  211. I know the Latin Mass is not sixteenth century European development.
    What I am trying to say is that our current Protestant friends are not, by and large, the Protestant Reformers. They have grown up within hundreds of years of their protestant tradition.
    For these fellow lovers of Jesus Christ who have been separated for 400 years, the Church has given them (and us) a gift in the NO Mass, a way to bridge the rift.
    But perhaps we’re not looking at it that way. Perhaps some of us are looking at our Protestant brothers and sisters the way the elder brother looked at the Prodigal Son.
    Our Lord ws making a pretty big pint in that stroy, wasn’t He?

  212. Rick,
    You cannot be so restrictive. ‘RadTrad’ is an invective that can mean anything the person using it intends it to mean. Don’t you know that those dangerous radtrads can be found hiding nearly everywhere, not just in sedevacantist sects but even in indult congregations, being secretly disloyal to the magesterium. Why they may not even be Catholic at all because they hold to a tradition that seems weird and anachronistic to people today.
    Seriously, I don’t think that Jimmy meant to imply that traditionalists are suffering from a psychological disorder but he is acknowledging the obvious that many of those Catholics who have held to tradition in the face of the hostility towards it that has been the hallmark of the post Vatican II church are emotionally damaged by their experiences. Imagine, one day you are a good Catholic doing what you have always done and the very next you are being marginalized because you are not embracing the whirlwind of changes that are sweeping through the church. These people truly bore a huge cross. Unfortunately some were so embittered by the experience that we have the anger and distrust you see today. And even today, traditionalists are not embraced by other Catholics. I attend an indult mass that is being held in a parish that is otherwise NO. It is difficult not to notice that the NO Catholics will walk by both before or after mass too uncomfortable to make eye contact with or smile at those odd traditionalists.
    Hopefully a Motu Proprio officially affirming that tradition still has a place in the Catholic Church will help to begin to soften some hearts.

  214. I found out Friday that one of my colleagues at work calls herself a “closet Catholic” and her objection was that one moment you were going to Hell if you ate meat on Friday, and the next moment you weren’t. I told her that as a kid I remember going out to eat at Arthur Treacher’s fish and chip shop every Friday, and my family being English, it was a real treat. The meat thing was about a Friday penance–and we’re still supposed to do some kind of Friday penance of our choice, whether it’s meatless or something else. So how was going out to a seafood restaurant every week penitential?
    There are some non-dress up people at my parish, mostly working poor. Part of their past experience with Christian churches was being rejected by the competitive “fashion show” that went on, and they didn’t have the resources to compete. One thing wonderful about being Catholic is that we have everybody! All cultures, economic backgrounds, etc. We, all of us, rich and poor, are equally miserable sinners before the Lord at Mass. I’m in mission territory, in Appalachia, so yeah, there’s a lot of working poor and disabled poor here (workplace injuries from coal mining–part of the price of the electricity you use). So no one pays much mind to how we’re dressing.
    Being mission territory, our priests drive a lot to cover multiple little parishes and missions. The MP might give them the right to celebrate additional TLM Masses, but it won’t give them the extra hours in the day to do so. We’re stretched thin as it is. No one is clamoring for the TLM here. It’s available in the big cities, where there’s enough people interested in it to schedule a regular Sunday TLM Mass, and enough priest resources to enable it to happen. But not out here with our “circuit rider” priests. So it’s a city people thing.

  215. I found out Friday that one of my colleagues at work calls herself a “closet Catholic” and her objection was that one moment you were going to Hell if you ate meat on Friday, and the next moment you weren’t. I told her that as a kid I remember going out to eat at Arthur Treacher’s fish and chip shop every Friday, and my family being English, it was a real treat. The meat thing was about a Friday penance–and we’re still supposed to do some kind of Friday penance of our choice, whether it’s meatless or something else. So how was going out to a seafood restaurant every week penitential?
    I don’t know if this will help your friend or not, but Catholics as a whole are still required to abstain from meat on Friday. The American Bishops have removed this obligation for American Catholics but still recommend prayer and some form of penance such as fasting, abstinence, almsgiving, etc. Jimmy wrote about it here: More on Friday Penance
    It’s not eating meat in itself that’s sinful. It’s choosing to disobey the authority of the Church. So if you live somewhere where your bishop hasn’t removed your obligation to abstain on Friday and you forget one Friday and eat meat, I don’t think that’s mortal sin – maybe venial. If, however, you remember your obligation and say “That’s a bunch of baloney, what does the Church know anyway,” that may constitute mortal sin.
    The Church doesn’t say that anyone has to go out to a restaurant and order fish on Friday (or even eat fish at all on Friday). As with anything you do, you can choose to follow the letter of the law while breaking the spirit. Or you can do the right thing and abstain from meat while keeping within the penitential spirit of the obligation.

  216. May 5th here.
    Love that Motu Propio, you know, the one which is deemed to precede the second coming, and the world will all be converted to Catholicism instantly once it is proclaimed…. you know the miracle of all priests will now be speaking in Latin (via tongues) and will now all be living saints!

  217. A Non –
    Your sarcasm falls flat. Has anyone claimed anything even remotely similar to this view you seem to be lampooning? If I think the Motu Proprio may be a good thing, does it follow that I MUST think of it as some kind of cure-all?
    Do you really have anything of substance to say?

  218. DGS,
    It would be a return to coins. Not starting all over. The “note” system is the revolutionary one.
    So your arguement should be more like the Pauline Mass (in the liturgical sense) has 2 years to live.
    I like coins. I like TO masses.
    But just because bills and NO mass has a very masonic influence I won’t discredit either.

  219. The $1 bill is an emorous waste of resources. It’s average useful life is less than 2 years and costs more than it’s face value to print.
    Not sure what this has to do with anything but you should not assume that it is actually cheap to mint coins. The big problem the treasury has with coins is coming up with a base metal alloy cheap enough to actually cost less than the denomination of the coin. They just recently took the nickel out of nickels and the copper out of pennies for that reason. Don’t even think about gold and silver like what used to be in our coinage. The declining face value in comparison to the cost to manufacture will be a problem that just gets worse as time goes on whether coins or bills are in circulation. And besides, forty years from now the dollar is likely to be as prevalent as the mark, franc, or lira is today…extinct.

  221. Brian posted:
    “I don’t know if this will help your friend or not, but Catholics as a whole are still required to abstain from meat on Friday. The American Bishops have removed this obligation for American Catholics but still recommend prayer and some form of penance such as fasting, abstinence, almsgiving, etc. Jimmy wrote about it here: More on Friday Penance
    It’s not eating meat in itself that’s sinful. It’s choosing to disobey the authority of the Church”
    Brian-this is very confusing and again leads one to question why Paul VI even tampered with the teachings and Traditions of the church
    If you are allowed to eat meat now on Fridays (which I never do for all 52 weeks), but this the American Bishops have removed this obligation(I dont recall ever reading ONLY the American Bishops but the entire church)but must instead do some form of penance such as almsgiving (money instead-buy your way into heaven?), prayer, fasting (in what way-complete or partial?)-Why not then just leave tradition only on Friday to abstain from flesh meat???? Has one ever heard of atonement?
    More confusion just like the rest of what has taken place over the past 40 years, ambiguous teachings and no clear direction in order to accept all and one it seems

  222. Nothing is funnier than someone who is clearly exhibiting cognitive dissonance from the very top of this article to the end trying to explain cognitive dissonance.
    It is laugh out loud funny. Discussing the merits of eating meat on Friday or not.
    /given that 400 years passed since the shipwreck to Christianity of the Protestant reformation, the NO Mass and other Vatican II changes could be an effort towards Christian unity without requiring everyone to return to sixteenth century Europe./
    It wasn’t a shipwreck it was returning the church to the place it needs to be.
    /Perhaps some of us are looking at our Protestant brothers and sisters the way the elder brother looked at the Prodigal Son/
    Or a younger brother looking at all the wrong the older brother had done and realizing he can do better.
    Folks arguing over this language and that is high comedy.

  223. If you are allowed to eat meat now on Fridays (which I never do for all 52 weeks), but this the American Bishops have removed this obligation(I dont recall ever reading ONLY the American Bishops but the entire church)but must instead do some form of penance such as almsgiving (money instead-buy your way into heaven?), prayer, fasting (in what way-complete or partial?)-Why not then just leave tradition only on Friday to abstain from flesh meat???? Has one ever heard of atonement?
    More confusion just like the rest of what has taken place over the past 40 years, ambiguous teachings and no clear direction in order to accept all and one it seems
    John, I’m just the messenger. I was trying to summarize the Church’s teachings about meat on Friday as I understood them from Jimmy’s previous posts. My intent was to help the person whose friend’s understanding of Friday abstinence was keeping her from learning more about the Church. If I’ve got something factually wrong, please correct me. As far as I could tell from the sources Jimmy cited, the changes came from the American Bishops and not the Vatican.
    I’m in agreement with you when it comes to the optional observance. I don’t think the bishops should have removed the obligation and in doing so they have made the whole issue very confusing. But regardless of whether or not I agree with the bishops, that’s their decision and I cannot impose anything on my fellow Catholics which their bishops don’t.
    I personally don’t have a problem with the decision to expand the penance to fasting, abstinence, or alsmgiving as long as it were mandatory to perform an act of penance on Friday. But that’s my personal opinion, I have the utmost respect for you and all those who think otherwise.
    I’m sure, John, that you didn’t mean to call almsgiving buying your way into heaven. First of all, almsgiving is not limited to money. Secondly – fasting, abstinence, and almsgiving have been traditional forms of penance from Old Testament times through this present day.

  224. Brian,
    Thanks for the link to the homily and for your thoughts. That homily surely was impressive. I know that it concludes with an apology for taking longer than usual, but I’d rather sit through 25 minutes of a good “red meat” sermon than 10 minutes of fluff.

  225. I’d rather sit through 25 minutes of a good “red meat” sermon than 10 minutes of fluff.
    Nick, I’m with you there.

  226. It wasn’t a shipwreck it was returning the church to the place it needs to be.”
    Over 33,000 denominations is “the place it needs to be”?
    “Father, I pray that they may be one, as You and I are One.”

  227. HAHA, you act as if the RCC is one solid body. There are subsets of catholism. There are disagreements over many doctrines, 90%+ disagreeing with many of them and you throw out the red herring of the number of denominations.
    Whats funny is you don’t understand the incredible consistency among the 33,000 on the primary issue of what salvation is -faith. Get them in a room and you’d be amazed. They will say the same thing.

  228. YZ:
    The comparison you’re making is apples and oranges. In the case of Protestant groups that have different denominations, they are not in visible communion with each other. They are not part of one single organization that has a common theology. They are part of many, many different organizations which have substantially different theologies. In the case of Catholicism, even though there are different schools of thought within the Church, there’s still one organization that is capable of articulating the Common Faith of all.
    And about this hilarious thing you mentioned:
    Whats funny is you don’t understand the incredible consistency among the 33,000 on the primary issue of what salvation is -faith. Get them in a room and you’d be amazed. They will say the same thing.
    I, for one, used to be part of such a church. And whenever they did get in a room together, they couldn’t even agree on anything and arguments abounded where you had one group facing off against others, trying to prove that their interpretation of the bible was the correct one as well as the doctrines which came from their faith tradition.
    Yeah — you’d be amazed, all right — you’d be amazed how many fights folks can get in a gathering that was supposed to be for the Lord but, instead, turned a 1-hour bible study into a 3-hour debacle!

  230. /YZ, where did the Bible come from?/
    Mine came from a printing press. Copied from something some men wrote awhile ago.
    / In the case of Protestant groups that have different denominations, they are not in visible communion with each other. They are not part of one single organization that has a common theology./
    You say this as if it is a bad thing.
    / They are part of many, many different organizations which have substantially different theologies. In the case of Catholicism, even though there are different schools of thought within the Church, there’s still one organization that is capable of articulating the Common Faith of all/
    This is a BS paragraph. You can’t be articulating a common faith if your adherents disagree with big chunks of it. You are then simply ceremonial and/or cultural. Which is what I think the RCC is to the vast majority of it’s shrinking membership.
    /And whenever they did get in a room together, they couldn’t even agree on anything and arguments abounded where you had one group facing off against others, trying to prove that their interpretation of the bible was the correct one as well as the doctrines which came from their faith tradition./
    Of course, which is why if your a pharisee and you think it’s all about rules and regulations you miss the fact that these 33,000 know it’s about faith. And what you mention above happened in the RCC a long time ago culminating in the vote on the bible itself.

  231. YZ:
    Clearly, you have no historical knowledge of how the bible came to be.
    The Bible, in fact, came from the Catholic Church!
    The Canon of Scripture (i.e, just which books actually belong in the Bible) can’t be found in the individuals books that comprise the bible. You can’t go to the individual books of the bible to determine which are authentically inspired and deemed as Scripture. Did you even know there were so many other books in addition to those that actually became part of the bible that the Church had to decide which of them formed Scripture in the fourth century?
    So, if you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic Church, you shouldn’t trust the books that the Church declared the “New Testament”, which Protestants to this day still put faith in.
    FF Bruce during his lifetime is known as kind of the Dean of Evangelical Christians. He was very well respected as a Scholar and he has a book that I believe is called “The Canon of the New Testament” or it might be “The Canon of the Bible”.
    Anyway, in that book FF Bruce goes through how the bible and, particularly, how the New Testament was put together and how it was Catholic Bishops who began to write letters back and forth and encourage the inclusion of certain books and the rejection of other books, culminating in a series of Catholic Councils right around the year 400 AD that put together the New Testament, the 27 books of the New Testament as we know it.
    In fact, if you don’t trust the so-called “Roman” Church, you then should doubt all the books that comprise the New Testament in your bible, and, in addition, take up all those other books that the Catholic Church rejected time and again in the Councils of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD). I mean, who’s to say that the Catholic Church did not make a mistake in rejecting all those books that they threw out in deciding the Canon of the New Testament???

  232. “Mine came from a printing press. Copied from something some men wrote awhile ago.”
    So, if I asked you where electricity comes from, would you say “from the wall socket”?
    I was surprised to find that the Bible came to all of us through the authority of the Catholic Church, as the result of decisions made by Church councils hundreds of years after the apostles. It reamained the unquestioned written Word of God until Martin Luther REMOVED several books he didn’t like.
    One of the things I am grateful for as a Catholic is that I now get to read the WHOLE Bible, the way it was for all Christians for at least twelve centuries before the Protestant schism.

  233. /Clearly, you have no historical knowledge of how the bible came to be./
    yeah right whatever. The catholic churhc put it together and it happened by vote. 568-563. Big deal. Who cares who put it together?
    /fact, if you don’t trust the so-called “Roman” Church, you then should doubt all the books that comprise the New Testament in your bible, and, in addition, take up all those other books that the Catholic Church rejected time and again in the Councils of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD). I mean, who’s to say that the Catholic Church did not make a mistake in rejecting all those books that they threw out in deciding the Canon of the New Testament???/
    Your correct, who is to say? Again your setting up a false dicotomy.
    /So, if I asked you where electricity comes from, would you say “from the wall socket”?/
    Yes unless of course you wanted more detail.
    /I was surprised to find that the Bible came to all of us through the authority of the Catholic Church, as the result of decisions made by Church councils hundreds of years after the apostles. It reamained the unquestioned written Word of God until Martin Luther REMOVED several books he didn’t like./
    Then you clearly where not well educated as this is fairly common knowledge. He didn’t not ‘like them’ he found them questionable. As he did with what the RCC was doing hence his proclaimations. The majority of which where spot on and a necessary part of restoring the church.
    /One of the things I am grateful for as a Catholic is that I now get to read the WHOLE Bible, the way it was for all Christians for at least twelve centuries before the Protestant schism/
    Good for you as many generations of catholics where shielded from just this thing. I can read them also. Unfortunately for millions of catholics previously they where prevented from doing so. Once they did they began to form their own conclusions and think for themselves. Something the ‘magistrum’ really didn’t want. At least now they let you read it.

  234. /Mine came from a printing press. Copied from something some men wrote awhile ago.
    All those men were Catholics. Why aren’t you?
    / In the case of Protestant groups that have different denominations, they are not in visible communion with each other. They are not part of one single organization that has a common theology./
    You say this as if it is a bad thing.
    / They are part of many, many different organizations which have substantially different theologies. In the case of Catholicism, even though there are different schools of thought within the Church, there’s still one organization that is capable of articulating the Common Faith of all/
    This is a BS paragraph. You can’t be articulating a common faith if your adherents disagree with big chunks of it. You are then simply ceremonial and/or cultural. Which is what I think the RCC is to the vast majority of it’s shrinking membership.
    /And whenever they did get in a room together, they couldn’t even agree on anything and arguments abounded where you had one group facing off against others, trying to prove that their interpretation of the bible was the correct one as well as the doctrines which came from their faith tradition./
    Of course, which is why if your a pharisee and you think it’s all about rules and regulations you miss the fact that these 33,000 know it’s about faith. And what you mention above happened in the RCC a long time ago culminating in the vote on the bible itself.
    /YZ, where did the Bible come from?/
    //Mine came from a printing press. Copied from something some men wrote awhile ago.
    All those men were Catholics. Why aren’t you?
    / In the case of Protestant groups that have different denominations, they are not in visible communion with each other. They are not part of one single organization that has a common theology./
    //You say this as if it is a bad thing.
    It is if Our Lord’s expressed desire is that his flock would remain one: “…that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17).
    / They are part of many, many different organizations which have substantially different theologies. In the case of Catholicism, even though there are different schools of thought within the Church, there’s still one organization that is capable of articulating the Common Faith of all/
    //This is a BS paragraph. You can’t be articulating a common faith if your adherents disagree with big chunks of it. You are then simply ceremonial and/or cultural. Which is what I think the RCC is to the vast majority of it’s shrinking membership.
    2.5 Billion Catholics worldwide; one Catholic Catechism. How’s your storefront doing?
    /And whenever they did get in a room together, they couldn’t even agree on anything and arguments abounded where you had one group facing off against others, trying to prove that their interpretation of the bible was the correct one as well as the doctrines which came from their faith tradition./
    //Of course, which is why if your a pharisee and you think it’s all about rules and regulations you miss the fact that these 33,000 know it’s about faith. And what you mention above happened in the RCC a long time ago culminating in the vote on the bible itself.
    Unintelligible.
    Thanks for playing the game of “Scattershot Responses” AZ. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the topic of the Post?

  235. / In the case of Protestant groups that have different denominations, they are not in visible communion with each other. They are not part of one single organization that has a common theology./
    //You say this as if it is a bad thing.
    It is if Our Lord’s expressed desire is that his flock would remain one: “…that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17).
    / They are part of many, many different organizations which have substantially different theologies. In the case of Catholicism, even though there are different schools of thought within the Church, there’s still one organization that is capable of articulating the Common Faith of all/
    //This is a BS paragraph. You can’t be articulating a common faith if your adherents disagree with big chunks of it. You are then simply ceremonial and/or cultural. Which is what I think the RCC is to the vast majority of it’s shrinking membership.
    2.5 Billion Catholics worldwide; one Catholic Catechism. How’s your storefront doing?
    /And whenever they did get in a room together, they couldn’t even agree on anything and arguments abounded where you had one group facing off against others, trying to prove that their interpretation of the bible was the correct one as well as the doctrines which came from their faith tradition./
    //Of course, which is why if your a pharisee and you think it’s all about rules and regulations you miss the fact that these 33,000 know it’s about faith. And what you mention above happened in the RCC a long time ago culminating in the vote on the bible itself.
    Unintelligible.
    Thanks for playing the game of “Scattershot Responses” AZ. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the topic of the Post?

  236. The majority of which where spot on and a necessary part of restoring the church.
    So the Church was wrong for 1500 years until Martin Luther came to be?
    Tell me, where in the early Christian church could you find notions of ‘Protestantism’?
    If you were to read about the early Christian church and the works of the early Church Fathers, you would see that they were more Catholic than they were Christian!
    yeah right whatever. The catholic churhc put it together and it happened by vote. 568-563. Big deal. Who cares who put it together?
    568-563??? Wow! Indeed, you do know your Church history — NOT!
    And who cares?
    Gee, from Matthew 16:18, I could’ve sworn that Christ meant to establish ‘A’ Church!
    Good for you as many generations of catholics where shielded from just this thing.
    Shielded?
    Yeah — again, no knowledge of Church history whatsoever; the Church did not ‘shield’ anybody from Scripture.
    The fact of the matter is that they made them available to others but your interest is not to investigate this truth but, rather, operate on the typical anti-Catholic propaganda.

  237. /It is if Our Lord’s expressed desire is that his flock would remain one: “…that they may be one, even as we are one/
    And they do, in spirit.
    /All those men were Catholics. Why aren’t you?/
    They certainly where not. The early chistians had 6 distict groups 4 of which where universalists. 1 became the RCC.
    /.5 Billion Catholics worldwide; one Catholic Catechism. How’s your storefront doing?/
    Very well thank you. 2.5 billion please sir. Thats the total number in Christianity. The RCC portion is perhaps the most overinflated number in history. They count every man woman and child even those attending other denominations now. This has been debunked and debunked in many places. You spreading it(and using the wrong figure) is almost embarrasing.
    /Unintelligible./
    it’s in english.

  238. Again, YZ, if Martin Luther only restored the Church, as you had claimed in your earlier post, where in early Church history were there any notions of Protestantism?
    For that matter, have you even studied anything of the early Church or are you just blathering about something you know nothing about yet again?

  239. /if Martin Luther only restored the Church, as you had claimed in your earlier post, where in early Church history were there any notions of Protestantism?/
    Good grief. To get Protestants – ‘Protest’ one has to read the bible. When a group of humans prevents a larger group of humans from accessing the sacred texts you have no protest. There where 6 forms(at least) of Christianity in the early centuries. 4 where univeral Christians. The Rcc came from another branch.
    /have you even studied anything of the early Church or are you just blathering about something you know nothing about yet again?/
    Have you?

  241. YZ, I see what’s happening here. We see the same thing from different worldviews.
    The Catholic Church sees itself as the Church Christ founded. Therefore it sees itself as responsible for looking after everyone it’s baptised unless they write their bishop and end their association with the Church. It sounds weird but it couldn’t be any other way. The Catholic Church can’t cut you off, you have to cut yourself off. It’s like a mother who always worries about her son whether he likes it or not.
    On the other hand, many non-Catholics see the Church as all who have the proper faith in Christ. In this sense you’re right that the number of Catholics who actually adhere to the Magisterium is far (maybe even embarrassingly) less than the commonly published number of Catholics.
    But if the Church is nothing more than all those with the faith to save them, how do you know what the Church is or who is a member? How can you trust the published numbers of people in your own denomination? How do you know you won’t be deceived and led astray by someone like Dr. Beckwith? Who can you trust other than yourself?

  242. Good grief. To get Protestants – ‘Protest’ one has to read the bible. When a group of humans prevents a larger group of humans from accessing the sacred texts you have no protest. There where 6 forms(at least) of Christianity in the early centuries. 4 where univeral Christians. The Rcc came from another branch.
    Good grief.
    Please provide me with some actual factual support for what you claim here.
    I’ve never heard of such fabrications.

  243. /The Catholic Church sees itself as the Church Christ founded/
    Then they are deluded from the top down.
    /It sounds weird but it couldn’t be any other way/
    It sounds wierd because it is wierd. There are many other ways it could be. This blog is the land of false dicotomy and assumptions.
    /But if the Church is nothing more than all those with the faith to save them, how do you know what the Church is or who is a member?/
    You don’t frankly why should it concern you in any event? God knows doesn’t he? You know the church by the love and kindness people show to each other. Not in doctrine and dogma the only things Jesus hammered in the gospels.
    /How can you trust the published numbers of people in your own denomination?/
    I wouldn’t, nor would I care. BUT Protestants generally use different methods for calculating membership. Birth isn’t one of them. Their numbers are more accurate.
    /How do you know you won’t be deceived and led astray by someone like Dr. Beckwith? Who can you trust other than yourself/
    Exactly. I can read and make my own conclusions. I wouldn’t take anyone elses word on something like superstition. It’s impossible for them to be more privy than you or I and silly to think it so.

  244. /Please provide me with some actual factual support for what you claim here.
    I’ve never heard of such fabrications./
    The fact that:
    1. you think this is a fabrication and
    2. You don’t know this very rudimentary information
    but I’ll gladly educate you.
    ‘They point out that four of the six theological schools of thought in ancient Christendom supported universalism, and only one supported eternal damnation. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge says in volume 12, page 96, “In the West this doctrine had fewer adherents and was never accepted by the Church at large. In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.”[2]’

  245. Allow me to educate you in turn:
    “Yet Scripture and tradition amply testify to the presence of a centralized authority structure from the beginning of the Church. Not only does the New Testament portray Christ as explicitly commissioning the Twelve, investing them with power (to heal, cast out demons, etc.) and authority (to teach, baptize, forgive sins, “bind and loose,” etc.), but it has Christ proclaiming that He will establish His Church upon Peter, whose name He changes from “Simon” to “Cephas” (from the Aramaic word for “Rock”), and bestowing upon him the unique power of the “Keys of the Kingdom.” Petrine primacy is evident even from the circumstantial details of the citation of the Twelve in the New Testament. For example, the second most commonly cited apostle in the New Testament is John, “the beloved disciple,” whose name appears a total of 30 times. But the most frequently cited apostle, Peter, is mentioned 179 times, and in each listing of a group of the apostles, regardless of the order in which the others are named, his name always heads the list. Beyond this, there are numerous additional things one could point to, such as the manner in which Peter exercises leadership in the selection of Judas’ successor in the first chapter of Acts, or his prominent role in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), even though the Council took place in the city where, according to tradition, James was the local bishop.
    The hierarchical structure of the early Church is amply attested in the New Testament. The first episcopal synod, far from occurring only in the third century after Christ, is recorded in the Book of Acts as having taken place under the episcopal oversight of Peter and James themselves, in Jerusalem, where they met to deliberate over norms of ecclesiastical discipline to be imposed on gentile Christians in distant Antioch (in modern-day Turkey).
    Moreover, to underline the divine authority of their decree, they explicitly identify their decision with the will of the Holy Spirit, declaring: “it has seemed good to the Holy spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things” (Acts 15:28, emphasis added).
    Further, the New Testament itself uses the hierarchical distinctions between bishops, priests, and deacons, even if the writers are not careful to distinguish the fact that bishops are also priests (presbyters) and yet how they also differ from other priests.
    In any case, it is abundantly clear from the writings of Ignatius of Antioch early in the second century, that this threefold distinction was already widely in use and conceptually clear (Letter to the Magnesians, 6, 1; 13, 1; Letter to the Trallians, 3, 1; 7, 2; Letter to the Philadelphians, 7, 1). Furthermore, as early as A.D. 80, we see the bishop of Rome (Pope Clement I, in a letter to the church in Corinth) exercising his authority over a local church in distant Greece, simply assuming that his jurisdiction extends to all particular churches in certain matters of ecclesiastical discipline as well as doctrine.”

  246. BUT Protestants generally use different methods for calculating membership. Birth isn’t one of them. Their numbers are more accurate.
    No one is born in to the Catholic Church.
    YZ, you would really help your cause if you demonstrated a better understanding of the Catholic Church and Catholicism before condemning it.
    You would also help your cause by imparting us with your wisdom so we have the truth to replace our false notions which you’ve torn apart with your devastating analysis.

  247. /demonstrated a better understanding of the Catholic Church and Catholicism before condemning it./
    Exactly where have I erred. Outside of the counting and even then it’s an infant baptism.
    Esau- That entire last quote has little to do with what I said above. All the NT stuff is working on a whole host of assumptions.
    /You would also help your cause by imparting us with your wisdom so we have the truth to replace our false notions which you’ve torn apart with your devastating analysis./
    Your false notions are just that and I am not here to seperate a harmless fiction from you.

  248. Fiction???
    Have you read multiple accounts of Christian history, or do you only read one account that your little mind is able to understand and agrees with your anti-Catholic notions?
    Prove to me that your account of Christian history is actually factual!

  249. /demonstrated a better understanding of the Catholic Church and Catholicism before condemning it./
    Exactly where have I erred. Outside of the counting and even then it’s an infant baptism.
    For example, your posts from the other thread seem to indicate that you think Catholics follow their priest’s interpretation of the Bible.
    /You would also help your cause by imparting us with your wisdom so we have the truth to replace our false notions which you’ve torn apart with your devastating analysis./
    Your false notions are just that and I am not here to seperate a harmless fiction from you.
    What kind of an answer is that? If you’re here to help us, help us. If you’re here to make yourself look good, well, keep doing what you’re doing. You’ve certainly got me befuddled as to what you’re trying to accomplish.

  250. “The catholic churhc put it together and it happened by vote. 568-563. Big deal. Who cares who put it together? ”
    Obviously not something you care to think about deeply, as it would undermine your preconceived “truth”.
    “Unfortunately for millions of catholics previously they where prevented from doing so.”
    That’s a well known myth… a lie, if you like. They were only prevented from reading the Bible in the same sense that I am “prevented” from hoarding platinum. If I don’t have any platinum, is that the Church’s fault? Oh, I forgot… EVERYTHING is the Church’s fault.

  251. Good grief, what am I doing? YZ has already admitted his faith is irrational.
    I am curious, though, why he thinks trying to argue with people would make any difference… being that fiath and reason are polar opposites, and all.
    You need offer no more evidence, YZ, that YOUR faith is a complete stranger to reason. That is abundantly obvious.

  252. Oh, great. yutz…er…I mean YZ is taking over Jimmy Blog! Calling all Murderous Albino International Monks (MAIM)!!!!

  253. Don’t. Feed. The Troll.
    (this message comes to you courtesy of the your Local Organized Virtue Enterprize (L.O.V.E.)

  254. You people are something else.
    You have perhaps the largest persecution complex of any blog I have seen on the net. Now the insults are coming.
    /Have you read multiple accounts of Christian history, or do you only read one account that your little mind is able to understand and agrees with your anti-Catholic notions?
    Prove to me that your account of Christian history is actually factual!/
    Seeing how it took less than a minute to find this information on wikipedia it should be easy for you as well. I haven’t disagreed with what you said, your just putting an isolated example of 1 of six in your reply.
    /For example, your posts from the other thread seem to indicate that you think Catholics follow their priest’s interpretation of the Bible./
    No the priesthood. Whether you listen to you individual priest I have no idea.
    /You’ve certainly got me befuddled as to what you’re trying to accomplish./
    I’m simply having a conversation.
    /Obviously not something you care to think about deeply, as it would undermine your preconceived “truth”./
    No, it simply has little truth value. I have no preconceived truth. You folks are something else. There is no truth value inherent in one who puts the bible together by vote as to the veracity of their claims.
    /That’s a well known myth… a lie, if you like. They were only prevented from reading the Bible in the same sense that I am “prevented” from hoarding platinum. If I don’t have any platinum, is that the Church’s fault? Oh, I forgot… EVERYTHING is the Church’s fault./
    Now I am lying. If I am incorrect so be it. But it is also true that if I’m not 100% on the money the church certainly was not encouraging to people who wanted to read the bible themselves. I think perhaps to deny this is less than honest.
    And who on earth is claiming everything is the churches fault? On the contrary I see many claims looking to credit the church with everything.
    C’mon fellas.

  255. Tim J-
    /YZ has already admitted his faith is irrational./
    All faith is, thats why it’s faith. If we had any evidence for it we wouldn’t need faith. Thats called knowledge.
    /I am curious, though, why he thinks trying to argue with people would make any difference… being that fiath and reason are polar opposites, and all./
    because I enjoy conversation. Unfortunately there are people like you who have such thin skin that rather than a gentle discussion you come with the sarcasm.
    /You need offer no more evidence, YZ, that YOUR faith is a complete stranger to reason. That is abundantly obvious./
    What you don’t understand, willfully or no, is that yours is also. There is nothing reasonable about the premises of your branch of the religion. Nothing. Thats not to say there is nothing good about it.

  256. This is YZ’s idea of a “conversation”?
    I didn’t say you were lying, YZ. You were passing on a lie, though, which is a shame.

  257. “Seeing how it took less than a minute to find this information on wikipedia it should be easy for you as well.”
    Wikipedia isn’t a trusted source. Even colleges forbid their students from citing it in a research report.

  258. “But it is also true that if I’m not 100% on the money the church certainly was not encouraging to people who wanted to read the bible themselves.”
    Yeah, that’s why the church built universities and monks spent their lives copying bibles: to keep the people from reading.

  259. It’s fascinating that trolls like YZ can start with insulting posts and then a while later act as if they are shocked – SHOCKED, that we are all so thin-skinned… “Gee, I’m just trying to have a conversation…”.
    Yeah. Pardon me if I find that “laugh out loud funny”.
    High comedy.

  260. Tim J-
    I’m growing tired of your weak sideswipes. This is a conversation, apparently me with about 10 others. What else would you call it? I say something, you say something, I respond.
    /Wikipedia isn’t a trusted source. Even colleges forbid their students from citing it in a research report./
    No they don’t. It can’t be the primary. It is generally well received. But I don’t care in any event. It’s handy. I could have posted numerous google results. You guys are something else. You want info, you get info. You then assail the source. A very common source. This is certainly an apologetics site. Moving goalposts all around.
    /Yeah, that’s why the church built universities and monks spent their lives copying bibles: to keep the people from reading./
    Did they do this always? See this is the dishonest thing that occurs. Is it even possible to debate the church limited access to scripture? I would never say they did it wholesale but they did do it. Why can you people not admit your church is not perfect? It’s borderline bizarre.

  261. Granted, I’m coming late to the latest direction this thread has taken (does this thread get “The Most Topic Twists and Turns Award”?)
    YZ, as far as I can see, you’ve provided no source that the Church “prevented people from reading the Bible.”
    Later on you say this, “the church certainly was not encouraging to people who wanted to read the bible themselves”
    Perhaps what you’re thinking of is that the Church has not allowed people to make up their own interpretation of Scripture. That’s very different from not allowing or not encouraging them to read Scripture at all.

  262. YZ,
    Do you know how hard it was to produce a book 1000 years ago? Most people went uneducated, not as the result of some conspiracy, but because of the diffulties involved in learing.
    Also, your contention that education would potentially cause people abandon the faith is absurd! The Church didn’t survive 2000 years by preventing people from learning her doctrines! Quite the opposite. It is because of her fearless preaching of the truth that she has flourished!

  263. “Why can you people not admit your church is not perfect?”
    Obviously YZ has not visited here before. Faithful Catholics are inveterate critics of the Church. The Church is full of flaws… but her defined doctrines just aren’t among them, courtesy of the promised protection of the Holy Spirit.

  264. Separating faith from reason was perhaps Martin Luther’s most notable — and enduring — contribution to theology.
    It will, eventually, go the way that all falsehoods go.

  265. ‘T’raditional Catholicism doomed?
    Excerpt:
    At St. Benedict Joseph Labre, in a working-class neighborhood in Queens, for instance, sharp differences now divide the 10 a.m. charismatic Mass and the more traditional — and less attended — Spanish Mass said at 1 p.m.
    A significant number of active charismatic and younger Catholics celebrate at the morning Mass, spontaneously shouting out praise, lifting their hands skyward and clapping to the rhythm of moving hymns played on electric guitars and synthesizers. By comparison, the more traditional Spanish Mass held later is, like St. Benedict’s English-language Masses, more tranquil, with hymns sung to serene pipe organ music and no demonstrative devotion.
    Link:
    Catholic Church Offers Livelier Services for a Growing Constituency of Charismatics

  266. I’m really uncomfortable with that type of stuff at Mass. Mass is Mass, stick to the rubrics. The Church has a great mystical tradition, but the great mystics rooted their faith in the Eucharist not outward displays of the Spirit. While I’m skeptical of the Charismatic movement and think it can open up the door for abuse, I see nothing wrong with it if led in the right direction by the right people. I’d just like to see Charismatic worship services held outside of Mass.

Comments are closed.