tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post7127546544847826612..comments2024-03-23T09:59:53.293+00:00Comments on LINEN ON THE HEDGEROW: It must be tough in the modern ChurchRichard Collinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10826907710570316952noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-65333479723552228552014-10-12T00:27:54.923+01:002014-10-12T00:27:54.923+01:00The most pathetic thing I see in this whole thread...The most pathetic thing I see in this whole thread is that the argument really is "Those who believe we celebrate as a community, listening to The Word which is then spoken about by the priest presider and then in the Prayer of the Faithful, we pray, as a community, to live the Word. As we move into the Liturgy of the Eucharist, we respond to and acclaim the Reality unfolding before us which we will eat and drink. It's not just "God and me"... you can do that at home. When you come to Holy Assembly, it is to celebrate the two Great commandments, "Love God and love your neighbor" as the community we are called to be. The other folks on this thread want to be LEFT ALONE to make up their own way of praying so that, God forbid, they don't have to interact with ANYONE... except you can do that at home. To use disparaging words to dismiss members of your community, to deny the veracity of Vatican II, to reject our current Pope (and all the other ones back to ST. John XXIII is unthinkable if you want to be Catholic. All of you haters, what you are really doing is saying that you reject the Holy Spirit and that anything that happened since 1958, with the death of Pius XII, you are entitled to reject and still call yourself a Catholic... NO, NO, and NO... I truly hope that somehow all the anger and fear and denial is purged from your heart and you come along and rejoin our Church which is always obliged to read the signs of the times, or risk total irrelevancy... as a highly respected Catholic priest-theologian friend of mine says, "If it's not playing in a theater near you, it's not playing anywhere!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-46099823786843152732014-08-26T21:30:26.805+01:002014-08-26T21:30:26.805+01:00Richard, is all well with you?
God bless,
ChrisRichard, is all well with you?<br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />ChrisLeft-footerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18154175028539882422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-72976027698196358262014-08-26T09:52:18.660+01:002014-08-26T09:52:18.660+01:00Seems that some ecclesial communities do it with b...Seems that some ecclesial communities do it with bells on:<br /><br />http://www.evangelismcoach.org/2008/10-tips-for-greeters/<br /><br />Lord preserve us!<br />Frhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452381203940231150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-81601652532004935962014-08-25T17:04:05.931+01:002014-08-25T17:04:05.931+01:00David, thanks for reposting my comment. The subjec...David, thanks for reposting my comment. The subject was, of course, Gregorian chant, described by Vatican II as being 'proper to the Roman Liturgy'. Since most of it was composed by the end of the eighth century it could hardly be described as 'a la mode faddism', not that Pope Francis ever used the term. In the 1970s Latin and chant were distinctly unfashionable, as I recall.<br /><br />Once again your unreasoning prejudice impels you to talk out of your fundamental orifice.<br /><br />John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-82093926520577463792014-08-25T05:02:20.050+01:002014-08-25T05:02:20.050+01:00But the self-obsessive elitism of the 'pelagia...But the self-obsessive elitism of the 'pelagian' Trads continues.....No wonder Pope Francis calls all this a la mode faddism.<br /><br />John Nolan ยท 1 day ago <br /><br /><br />"This is where it has to start, with children. The idea of providing watered-down 'children's liturgies' which persist into secondary schools is disastrous. As soon as they 'put away childish things' they ditch the Mass. And the fact that most Catholic adults are given, Sunday after Sunday, a scarcely less childish 'worship experience' with music that I would have regarded as trite sentimental rubbish even at the age of nine doesn't help." Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-5191607962672398312014-08-18T21:33:54.111+01:002014-08-18T21:33:54.111+01:00Yawn.....Yawn.....Aged parenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05217229048176272954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-53892296008700018372014-08-14T10:49:25.071+01:002014-08-14T10:49:25.071+01:00Mass is Crucial for a Catholic (formerly known as ...Mass is Crucial for a Catholic (formerly known as a seeker of truth, a convert to truth or cradle catholic seeking daily conversion in truth). Therefore, if a trusting Catholic attends a crap-protestant experiment call a 'mass' it can be most detrimental - because the whole point of prostestantism is to detroy the Mass/Truth/Real Presence (most don't know it of course 'cause satan likes his pinions to be ignorant) - that is, to 'destroy' (as if they could) the Real Presence, Who promised, "I will be with you till the close of the Age". Therefore, in my dismissable opinion, the biggest reason for apostate Catholics now is an apostate Mass.<br /><br />But the unbloody sacrafice will be given up, 'from the rising of the sun till the setting of the same', 'till the close of the Age'. How many Catholics fleeing the boot of satan currently have access to Real Presence? It's not for nothing that roots of the Apostolic Body live where satan's footsolidiers are making way. What's the point in satan defeating himself? None, which is why his end game is the Real Presence. But Christ promised He will be with those who don't give up on Him 'till the end of the age'. Our Lady of Good Success-pray for us.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14746510579669229511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-23571856472427642312014-08-10T16:47:19.935+01:002014-08-10T16:47:19.935+01:00Good points, David, all the more cogent since you ...Good points, David, all the more cogent since you avoid hyperbole and invective. The Council of Trent, like Vatican II, was anxious to connect the laity to the Sacred Liturgy. The great medieval cathedrals were mostly monastic institutions, and the Mass and Office were celebrated by the monks in the choir, which was separated from the nave by a massive screen. Processions into the nave helped to bring the Liturgy to the people, but the Counter-Reformation trend, which culminated in the Baroque, got rid of screens so that everyone's attention could be focused on the High Altar and the sacred drama that took place there. <br /><br />There was a down-side, which Pius X recognized and Joseph Ratzinger also acknowledged, which was the 'operatic ' aspect, one feature of this being the neglect and corruption of Gregorian Chant. Pius X virtually kick-started the Liturgical Movement. <br /><br />The question remains as to whether the post-V2 reform which was carried out in great haste has been a success. In terms of Mass attendance it would appear not to be. The hoped-for return of Gregorian Chant was scuppered by the insistence on the vernacular, come what may. The Novus Ordo, rightly or wrongly, was interpreted as a template for creativity in which everything was up for grabs. I'm no expert, but ROTR and the idea of mutual enrichment was being used by the Oratorians and others in the 1970s when they used the options allowed in the NO to make their celebrations conform as much as possible to the older Rite, particularly as regards music.<br /><br />The situation is too complex to admit of easy solutions. For example, the main problem for the Liturgical Movement was the Low Mass rather than the sung or Solemn Mass. Yet I will guarantee that the average parish Mass in England will be a Low Mass in English accompanied by four hymns chosen by the so-called music director who knows little of Church music.<br /><br />ROTR, meaning a Missal which includes the best of both Forms or Rites is now regarded as dead in the water. Those liturgists who advocated it now believe one must go back to 1963 and start again. <br /> John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-74281220119563839462014-08-10T01:03:30.509+01:002014-08-10T01:03:30.509+01:00Say a prayer. The constant irrational attacks on t...Say a prayer. The constant irrational attacks on the person with attempts to intimidate may indicate illness. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-26156711503120247602014-08-09T16:04:43.873+01:002014-08-09T16:04:43.873+01:00Troll alert! David has a new persona, Interlocutor...Troll alert! David has a new persona, Interlocutor (the timing of the posting, ten to three in the morning, rather gives the game away). If you can't find anyone to agree with you, post under another name (or Name) and just agree with yourself. Simples!John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-10935141954312146932014-08-09T13:49:15.306+01:002014-08-09T13:49:15.306+01:00At last! An attempt at an argument with no name ca...At last! An attempt at an argument with no name calling! However, the argument is flawed. The 'Mass of Pius V' is little different from the earliest printed Missals of a century earlier, and has much in common with other Uses which Pius was happy to allow to continue; perhaps the best known of these is the 13th century Dominican Rite (or Use - the terms are to some extent interchangeable). We know a lot about how the Liturgy developed from the time of Gregory the Great, and if the Mass was 'a disaster for the Church' in 1570 then it must have been a disaster for many centuries previously. Not that Ratzinger ever described the Mass in these terms - his model for liturgical reform was the moderate path exemplified by Guardini; in fact he used the title of Guardini's book for his own.<br /><br />'From around 1995 ... he came up with a hybrid of the two forms which would constitute what came to be promoted as the Roman Rite'. Where is your evidence for this assertion? It is true that Ratzinger came to the conclusion that the ideals of the Liturgical Movement had been betrayed and even perverted. He was on the Cardinatial commission which ruled that the Old Rite had never been abrogated, and would probably have wanted EDA to have gone further in emancipating it, but was deterred by episcopal opposition. There is, however, no 'hybrid of the two forms' nor is there likely to be in the foreseeable future.<br /><br />'Remote, soulless, alienating'. Your words, not Cardinal Ratzinger's. Eamon Duffy and the Cambridge school of Reformation historians have shown that in late medieval England the liturgy was not so perceived (quite the opposite in fact) and no doubt it was the same elsewhere. Reiterating the now discredited canards of the Protestants, with a large dollop of 20th century prejudice thrown in, shows a singular lack of understanding.<br /><br />John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-58643188177223713822014-08-09T13:29:50.874+01:002014-08-09T13:29:50.874+01:00Richard,
More than happy that my earlier comment ...Richard, <br />More than happy that my earlier comment has been posted.<br />Kind regards, Brian.umblepiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13455889107917179909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-4854102033714006152014-08-09T11:19:09.533+01:002014-08-09T11:19:09.533+01:00Hello Richard, This comment is not for publicatio...Hello Richard, This comment is not for publication, but just to let you know that your post as usual was spot on, and that I am absolutely amazed at the number of comments you have had, 90% of them from one or two persons clearly intent on undermining your views and your blog,it has all the signs of a deliberate targeting. Please do not let these worthless and contemptible comments get to you,no doubt easier said than done, but they are not worth a light. You have my 101% support with many, many others, I'm sure. Kind regards, Brian.umblepiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13455889107917179909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-83212613747693412792014-08-09T11:00:07.377+01:002014-08-09T11:00:07.377+01:00You continue to confuse Forms with Rites. Ratizing...You continue to confuse Forms with Rites. Ratizinger didn't. From around 1995, maybe before then, he came up with a hybrid of the two forms which would constitute what came to be promoted as the Roman Rite, mutually enriched buy the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms.<br /><br />Follow that paper trail, John, and you might learn some modern history of the liturgy. Furthermore, if you want to get some perspective on just much Ratzinger shifted theological addresses from 1968 until now in his retired state, read his Vatican II memoirs.<br />He had some very unflattering views, even strong convictions, on what a disaster the Mass of Pius V had become for the Church, how operatic it had become and just how spiritually alienating it was for the pew sitters.<br /><br />He appreciated the fact that some of the great saints such as Catherine of Siena, John of the Cross, Ignatius of Loyola did not draw much significant inspiration from the Eucharistic liturgy precisely because it was remote, soulless and alienating.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-29314966534321764012014-08-09T09:50:05.963+01:002014-08-09T09:50:05.963+01:00It doesn't matter whether you label them EF an...It doesn't matter whether you label them EF and OF, Vetus Ordo and Novus Ordo, Usus Antiquior and Usus Recentior, Joannine Missal and Pauline Missal, Ritus romanus and Ritus modernus (cf Klaus Gamber), even Old Roman Rite and New Roman Rite, the fact is that they are distinct.<br /><br /> The compilers of the new Mass were under no illusions. Joseph Gelineau wrote in 'Demain la Liturgie' (1976): 'To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists, it has been destroyed ...'. Joseph Ratzinger made much the same point but less nihilistically when he wrote: 'The old building was taken down and another was built, largely from the material of the previous building of course, and also using the old design ... but it was a new building'. Again, in his preface to Gamber's critique of the liturgical reform: 'This is not a development of living liturgy, but substitutes this with a fabrication following the pattern of technical production, the banal product of the moment' (das platte Produkt des Augenblicks).<br /><br />If, as Gelineau confidently asserted in 1976, the Roman Rite 'as we knew it' no longer exists, then the Novus Ordo could simply be called the Roman Rite. But aside from the fact that the classic Roman Rite has a historical existence, it still lives today in the Church - indeed, it has been given a new lease of life in the last decade. The term 'of the same Rite' is ambiguous. It can mean that the rites are distinct but have a common origin. It can mean that the intention and efficacy of both are the same. I wouldn't argue with either of these propositions. Most traditionally-minded Catholics were happy to accept Benedict XVI's definition in SP. It was the progressive 'liturgists' on blogs like PrayTell who suddenly came over all 'historical' (as well as hysterical), bleating that you can't have two forms of a single rite. Did they imagine that Benedict, the most liturgically-aware pope since at least Pius X, was not aware of this?<br /><br />Using Gamber as an example, I shall continue to refer to the Roman Rite and the Novus Ordo. It makes sense both liturgically and historically. I shall also hang on to my two bob, since you have not addressed any of my arguments. Making a bald statement and then agreeing with yourself isn't good enough.John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-68569626181910116162014-08-09T08:31:57.404+01:002014-08-09T08:31:57.404+01:00I think we should all ignore this David chap. He s...I think we should all ignore this David chap. He seems full of hate for the truth of the Catholic Faith. To reply to his nasty comments is just what he feeds on. Ignore him. . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-80772138686487644732014-08-09T02:49:59.028+01:002014-08-09T02:49:59.028+01:00I agree, Nolan is a pretentious, self-promoting bo...I agree, Nolan is a pretentious, self-promoting bore. You should avoid association with him.Interlocutornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-1296889146017344622014-08-09T02:47:15.960+01:002014-08-09T02:47:15.960+01:00The 'Name' is correct, you are not so you ...The 'Name' is correct, you are not so you lose your two bob.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-47045241515113099092014-08-09T02:12:16.093+01:002014-08-09T02:12:16.093+01:00The 'usus antquior' and the Novus Ordo, th...The 'usus antquior' and the Novus Ordo, the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form are of the same Rite. Would you like it in Morse Code, Semaphore or, perhaps in Ugaritc?<br /><br />Namenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-70339546946939062812014-08-09T00:15:38.792+01:002014-08-09T00:15:38.792+01:00You asked a question, I answered it. I challenge y...You asked a question, I answered it. I challenge you to refute, with evidence, any or all of the points I made. I'm willing to have my 'two bob bet' that you don't, since that would mean engaging in rational argument, which isn't quite your style.John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-56217426997863971382014-08-08T23:25:33.399+01:002014-08-08T23:25:33.399+01:00In your rush to rationalise your confusion, all yo...In your rush to rationalise your confusion, all you have succeeded in doing is to bungle an attempt to put scorched earth around your ignorance.<br />You have probably done just enough to give your colleagues the impression that you remain the unchallenged illuminatus you pretend to be.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-78752815340942142792014-08-08T14:25:41.949+01:002014-08-08T14:25:41.949+01:00Does the Novus Ordo belong to a different Rite? Th...Does the Novus Ordo belong to a different Rite? The fact that it is a valid and authorized Rite used in the Roman Church does not make it the Roman Rite which exists sui generis, and in its 1962 revision operates alongside it, with parity of esteem. If it is revised in the future (which it may well be, as it has been in the past) such revisions will only affect it and not the Novus Ordo, now in its third 'editio typica'. In the past, a new edition of the Missale Romanum supplanted the previous one, but this is not what has happened. Bugnini was alert to this, which is why he wanted the older Rite to be formally abrogated, but he was not even allowed to apply for this, and Paul VI would have been aware that to do so would have been without precedent and probably ultra vires.<br /><br />In Summorum Pontificum Benedict XVI could have referred to two 'Uses' of the Roman Rite. In fact the term 'Usus Antiquior' was in general use. However, a simple textual comparison between the Missals of 1962 and 1970 show that the latter diverges too much from the former to be properly considered a Use of the Roman Rite. This is especially true if the Roman Canon, the oldest anaphora to have come down to us, is not used. It was only added to the NO as an option at the last minute on the insistence of Paul VI.<br /><br />Had Benedict admitted what is patently true, that we have two distinct Rites, then it follows that only one can be accurately called the Roman Rite, and that has to be the older one since it has always been identified as such. This might have caused some to question the validity of the newer Rite, and so we have the legal fiction of two 'forms' of the same Roman Rite, which is useful but not really satisfactory. Pope Francis has referred to the 'Forma Extraordinaria' as the 'Vetus Ordo' which strongly implies the existence of two distinct Rites. Priests who offer both forms of Mass, such as the Oratorians, are described as 'bi-ritual'.<br /><br />The Western Church has allowed the celebration of Rites other than the Roman, an obvious example being the Ambrosian Rite of Milan. So to return to the original question, the Novus Ordo does not 'belong to' a different Rite, it 'is' a different Rite.<br /><br /><br /><br />John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-50285847128044280442014-08-08T10:37:01.238+01:002014-08-08T10:37:01.238+01:00Delate the Argentinian to Card Mueller and demand ...Delate the Argentinian to Card Mueller and demand answers. He understands this kind of insistent approach. This would probably not be new to you. Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-56783407103260594502014-08-08T10:31:37.734+01:002014-08-08T10:31:37.734+01:00'Not too far removed from the Roman Rite"...'Not too far removed from the Roman Rite"?<br /><br />Does the Novus Ordo belong to a different Rite, John Nolan?Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3682550116445790117.post-5882907470923859752014-08-07T21:20:04.477+01:002014-08-07T21:20:04.477+01:00Sue, one can only hope so. As for the NO Mass (whi...Sue, one can only hope so. As for the NO Mass (which I attend on a fairly regular basis) I have always maintained it needs to be judged on its own terms. When celebrated in Latin with the chants specified in the Graduale it is not too far removed from the Roman Rite. The new translation (should one need it) isn't too bad either. There are, however, some elements of performance practice which are not mandated and in some cases reprobated, but which still persist, and it is surely in order to criticize these and where appropriate to hold them up to mild ridicule.John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.com