Latin Mass Discussion

katydid

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

It is fact, sometimes unclear facts, but not anything you bother with too much. You have no source except your imagination for 'simple meal with simple implements.' The Agape or Christian Love Feast (a part of Christian life mainly found now in the East) was according to murals in the catacombs celebrated in as fine a fashion as the mainly poorer or middle class Christians could manage.

Roman traditional religion was not congregational. I cannot see how you can connect that to the Mass, except in some really vague manner.

I would also say that your 'Anglicans are Catholics' contention is a hook on which to hang a ragged old coat of anti-Catholic aspersions. You might consider Communion to be 'angels on a pinhead' but that is my Faith. You should not mock it. A very large portion of Earth's population regards the Successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome as their spiritual leader. Anglicanism is in the process of losing any semblance to anything other than a small Western liberal minority church as African and other bishops of the developing world tire of ultra-liberal synodal politics. If I was at the level of mockery I would remind you that Henry VIII founded your Church as he could not get an annulment, and then even Anne Boleyn got the chop. St Peter, whose remains are under the High Altar of the basilica of St Peter, is for me a better first leader.

What Missals do people who hear the Mass of Ages use?

What of the Dialogue Mass? Views?

Not my imagination. Scripture. In Acts 2:46, we read how they (the first three thousand baptised followers who had heard what Peter had to say after Pentecost) went to the Temple very day, and broke bread at home. Very simple. Breaking bread. No descriptions of fancy chalices or other utensils. Of course, scripture is not history, but it is a good vignette of how the first Christians worshipped.

All that came later, once the religion was more established.The Agape rituals came in long after, when Christianity spread beyond the Middle East to Rome.

I didn't say Roman religion was congregational. I said Christianity adopted many of the elements of it. More accurately, I should have said that Christianity adopted elements of the Roman state, rather than, specifically, the religious worship. Although many Roman temples were converted into churches, and adapted to meet the more congregational needs of Christian worship. But the main change was the adoption of the basilica format; a basilica was a kind of meeting place or forum, where law courts and other public services were held. There was a clear demarcation between where the presiding judge was seated, and the assembled people. This was adapted, and became integral in the present form of Christian worship. Likewise, the colour purple, worn by Roman magistrates, became a symbol of authority in the Christian church.

The Eucharist is at the centre of every Christian's faith. You don't hold a monopoly on it. Just because you believe that the bread actually becomes flesh, while I believe it remains bread, while containing the Real Presence, is not important. What is important is that we believe that when we receive the Eucharist, we receive Jesus into our bodies and hearts.

I have no knowledge of nor interest in missals of any kind, nor in the kind of vessels that are used etc. etc.. I am interested in the sacred event that occurs every time the Eucharist is celebrated. It seems to be largely forgotten by some people in their obsession with detail.

Thinkingaboutit

katydid wrote: »

Not my imagination. Scripture. In Acts 2:46, we read how they (the first three thousand baptised followers who had heard what Peter had to say after Pentecost) went to the Temple very day, and broke bread at home. Very simple. Breaking bread. No descriptions of fancy chalices or other utensils. Of course, scripture is not history, but it is a good vignette of how the first Christians worshipped.

All that came later, once the religion was more established.The Agape rituals came in long after, when Christianity spread beyond the Middle East to Rome.

I didn't say Roman religion was congregational. I said Christianity adopted many of the elements of it. More accurately, I should have said that Christianity adopted elements of the Roman state, rather than, specifically, the religious worship. Although many Roman temples were converted into churches, and adapted to meet the more congregational needs of Christian worship. But the main change was the adoption of the basilica format; a basilica was a kind of meeting place or forum, where law courts and other public services were held. There was a clear demarcation between where the presiding judge was seated, and the assembled people. This was adapted, and became integral in the present form of Christian worship. Likewise, the colour purple, worn by Roman magistrates, became a symbol of authority in the Christian church.

The Eucharist is at the centre of every Christian's faith. You don't hold a monopoly on it. Just because you believe that the bread actually becomes flesh, while I believe it remains bread, while containing the Real Presence, is not important. What is important is that we believe that when we receive the Eucharist, we receive Jesus into our bodies and hearts.

I have no knowledge of nor interest in missals of any kind, nor in the kind of vessels that are used etc. etc.. I am interested in the sacred event that occurs every time the Eucharist is celebrated. It seems to be largely forgotten by some people in their obsession with detail.

I was not directing those questions to you. You would have nothing relevant to say on the matter. I was directing it to others who hear the Mass and have no interest in being a foil for some anti-Catholic poster.

I am at a loss to see how the point you make in your first attempt using relevant historical example of the Roman basilica. You are a member of an episcopal Protestant Church. When the Church of Ireland gives up all the fine churches in prime town centre locations, when your Archbishops (the ones always wearing purple) and bishops give up their fine vestments and crosses and pleasant rectories, when services are held mainly in houses, then you can talk. Masses are oftentimes celebrated in houses, and Irish people have a long experience in desolate outdoor or mean indoor locations, thanks to the Church of Ireland persecutors and their Penal Laws. A Catholic could not call their house of worship a church, only a chapel. Older people still call them that.

Do you have any point to make apart from bundling together bad history and worse exegesis to sneer at the Mass of Ages, and the wider Catholic Faith?

There are surely other threads for you to attack the Catholic Faith. You are free to attack it here, but it should in decency be kept to the topic at hand, that is, the Tridentine Mass.

katydid

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I was not directing those questions to you. You would have nothing relevant to say on the matter. I was directing it to others who hear the Mass and have no interest in being a foil for some anti-Catholic poster.

I am at a loss to see how the point you make in your first attempt using relevant historical example of the Roman basilica. You are a member of an episcopal Protestant Church. When the Church of Ireland gives up all the fine churches in prime town centre locations, when your Archbishops (the ones always wearing purple) and bishops give up their fine vestments and crosses and pleasant rectories, when services are held mainly in houses, then you can talk. Masses are oftentimes celebrated in houses, and Irish people have a long experience in desolate outdoor or mean indoor locations, thanks to the Church of Ireland persecutors and their Penal Laws. A Catholic could not call their house of worship a church, only a chapel. Older people still call them that.

Do you have any point to make apart from bundling together bad history and worse exegesis to sneer at the Mass of Ages, and the wider Catholic Faith?

There are surely other threads for you to attack the Catholic Faith. You are free to attack it here, but it should in decency be kept to the topic at hand, that is, the Tridentine Mass.

If you weren't addressing the questions to me, why put them in a post to me?

My pointing out that the early church was simple and basic doesn't mean I'm suggesting there is something wrong with latter day customs and practices. My point is that there is room for every kind of worship in the Christian family, and that what is important is the essence of the Eucharist. I am no fan of fancy chalices or other trappings, but I don't let it get in the way of my worship.

I've no idea where you get the notion that I'm attacking the Catholic faith. Why on earth would I attack my own faith? Why would I attack any faith? The whole tenor of my posts is that we are all Christian brethren DESPITE what divides us.

But since the discussion is about a form of Christian worship peculiar to Roman Catholicism, and since Roman Catholicism is part of the Christian family, the opinions and perspectives of non-Roman Catholics is both valid and relevant. You don't need to take such comments as attacks.

By the way, what is "bad" about the facts I have stated regarding early Christisan worship? Please be specific.

Thinkingaboutit

katydid wrote: »

If you weren't addressing the questions to me, why put them in a post to me?

My pointing out that the early church was simple and basic doesn't mean I'm suggesting there is something wrong with latter day customs and practices. My point is that there is room for every kind of worship in the Christian family, and that what is important is the essence of the Eucharist. I am no fan of fancy chalices or other trappings, but I don't let it get in the way of my worship.

I've no idea where you get the notion that I'm attacking the Catholic faith. Why on earth would I attack my own faith? Why would I attack any faith? The whole tenor of my posts is that we are all Christian brethren DESPITE what divides us.

But since the discussion is about a form of Christian worship peculiar to Roman Catholicism, and since Roman Catholicism is part of the Christian family, the opinions and perspectives of non-Roman Catholics is both valid and relevant. You don't need to take such comments as attacks.

By the way, what is "bad" about the facts I have stated regarding early Christisan worship? Please be specific.

You have a habit of ignoring any point which requires effort, like when I quoted an excellent SSPX FAQ on the Mass. Too long or something of that sort. I answered above about your lively historical imagination which has early Christian horny handed sons of toil sitting at some mean meal with the crudest tableware, Roman era Jeremy Corbyns. Christians used the finest rooms of their home or even villa for worship, even if a patrician Roman might have sneered at their working or middle class surroundings. You make an assumption about early Christians that they took no particular care with the places they worshipped. The beautiful if proletarian art of the catacombs show a high level of care in marking their faith. Most, nearly all early house churches or oratoria have vanished with the insulae of ancient Rome or like Santa Pudenziana (second century AD) have had later accretions added, but Christian places of worship were decorated from an early time.

You can reread your earlier posts to see where you sneered at or mocked Catholic Tradition. Anyhow you have been trying to divert the thread to a Catholic-Protestant debate.

I don't go in for lots of posts, so one post can do many.

A debate of Catholic v Anglican claims might be good, but they belong to another thread. I would note that Catholic is used for people who attend the Traditional or New Latin Rite, as well as those attending Greek Rite liturgies, who acknowledge Pope Francis as the head of the Church. Roman Obedience Greek Catholic is a mouthful and Uniate is somewhat offensive. A person can mentally insert Roman for every time I type Catholic. What of it?

Does anyone want to discuss the Tridentine Mass?

This Mass was filmed at the SSPX's second European seminary at Flavigny, France. It is claimed that more now hear SSPX Masses than attend diocesan New Masses in France. The number of SSPX in France might well outnumber Novus Ordo priests in a few decades going on current trends. I don't know the veracity of those claims. Anyhow the Dialogue Mass is typical for a French Tridentine Mass.

katydid

bat

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

You have a habit of ignoring any point which requires effort, like when I quoted an excellent SSPX FAQ on the Mass. Too long or something of that sort. I answered above about your lively historical imagination which has early Christian horny handed sons of toil sitting at some mean meal with the crudest tableware, Roman era Jeremy Corbyns. Christians used the finest rooms of their home or even villa for worship, even if a patrician Roman might have sneered at their working or middle class surroundings. You make an assumption about early Christians that they took no particular care with the places they worshipped. The beautiful if proletarian art of the catacombs show a high level of care in marking their faith. Most, nearly all early house churches or oratoria have vanished with the insulae of ancient Rome or like Santa Pudenziana (second century AD) have had later accretions added, but Christian places of worship were decorated from an early time.

You can reread your earlier posts to see where you sneered at or mocked Catholic Tradition. Anyhow you have been trying to divert the thread to a Catholic-Protestant debate.

I don't go in for lots of posts, so one post can do many.

A debate of Catholic v Anglican claims might be good, but they belong to another thread. I would note that Catholic is used for people who attend the Traditional or New Latin Rite, as well as those attending Greek Rite liturgies, who acknowledge Pope Francis as the head of the Church. Roman Obedience Greek Catholic is a mouthful and Uniate is somewhat offensive. A person can mentally insert Roman for every time I type Catholic. What of it?

Does anyone want to discuss the Tridentine Mass?

This Mass was filmed at the SSPX's second European seminary at Flavigny, France. It is claimed that more now hear SSPX Masses than attend diocesan New Masses in France. The number of SSPX in France might well outnumber Novus Ordo priests in a few decades going on current trends. I don't know the veracity of those claims. Anyhow the Dialogue Mass is typical for a French Tridentine Mass.

If you seriously think the thing you cut and pasted was "excellent", you have a lot to learn about how to engage in debate and dialogue. Cutting and pasting reams of material, including irrelevant and repetitive stuff, is not how to make your case. It would have been much more meaningful if you put a bit of effort into paraphrasing and editing it.

Also, "not going in for a lot of posts" is no reason to address general questions in a post to one individual. It is lazy and confusing. For someone who wants to make a point, you don't seem to be too bothered to go out of your way to do it effectively.

Maybe because of this, you seem to have totally misread this thread. It's not a debate about "Catholic V Anglican", since Anglicans are Catholics. Neither is it a debate about Roman Catholics V Anglicans, it is a debate about how the celebration of the Eucharist is conducted. The vernacular versus Latin, and the differing rubrics of the Eucharistic celebration. Naturally, the way it is celebrated in different Christian traditions comes into that.

Since I am a Catholic, why would I mock or sneer at Catholic tradition? You do say very strange things. How about an example or two?
Ditto an example of your claim of "bad history". Bad history is ignoring facts, something you specialise in. So again; how about some examples?

I won't hold my breath.

Thinkingaboutit

I copied but one thing, a pair which covered the basics of the Tridentine Mass. When a person makes an effort another will claim I copy pasted. The SSPX or Fr Cedaka are experts. Paraphrasing it would be pointless, and you would ignore it entirely, anyhow. Using their fairly efficient explanations once is hardly copypasta time. The totality of the copying is in one post and I describe it as copied.

You have tried to steer it into a sterile Protestant/Catholic debate. You posted barely a syllable on the liturgy except some very hackneyed Protestant imaginings on the 'Primitive Church.' Contending that the early Church celebrated by eating a mean meal at a mean table is bad history. You give no evidence barring scriptural quotes which don't really say what you evidently think they say. You mock a priest taking care not to drop particles of the host as 'angels on a pinhead stuff.' I'm not going to reread your posts. Discussion of liturgy in the Anglican tradition would be nice, but you certainly haven't done it so far. Anyhow, the Anglican Communion is an episcopal Church which makes 'Primitive Church' meanderings a bit silly.

I mentioned repeatedly how the Anglican pretensions to be Catholic are a bit weak. Africans tired of post modern manipulation of scripture and tradition, as well as conservative Americans and Britons, for the same reason, are breaking from the Anglican Communion. Some become separate, some are connecting with Rome through autonomous parishes, particularly in the US. The Personal Ordinate is an example of this. Your Church is losing most of its members. Getting some suburban Irish Hyacinth Buckets isn't making up for that. Ms Elizabeth Windsor is your Pope, Abp Justin Welby her spiritual deputy. While I might grumble about this or that emphasis taken by Pope Francis, he heads a community of over a billion people.

@everyone else

There are some interesting things on the Tridentine Mass to post. Later.

katydid

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I copied but one thing, a pair which covered the basics of the Tridentine Mass. When a person makes an effort another will claim I copy pasted. The SSPX or Fr Cedaka are experts. Paraphrasing it would be pointless, and you would ignore it entirely, anyhow. Using their fairly efficient explanations once is hardly copypasta time. The totality of the copying is in one post and I describe it as copied.

You have tried to steer it into a sterile Protestant/Catholic debate. You posted barely a syllable on the liturgy except some very hackneyed Protestant imaginings on the 'Primitive Church.' Contending that the early Church celebrated by eating a mean meal at a mean table is bad history. You give no evidence barring scriptural quotes which don't really say what you evidently think they say. You mock a priest taking care not to drop particles of the host as 'angels on a pinhead stuff.' I'm not going to reread your posts. Discussion of liturgy in the Anglican tradition would be nice, but you certainly haven't done it so far. Anyhow, the Anglican Communion is an episcopal Church which makes 'Primitive Church' meanderings a bit silly.

I mentioned repeatedly how the Anglican pretensions to be Catholic are a bit weak. Africans tired of post modern manipulation of scripture and tradition, as well as conservative Americans and Britons, for the same reason, are breaking from the Anglican Communion. Some become separate, some are connecting with Rome through autonomous parishes, particularly in the US. The Personal Ordinate is an example of this. Your Church is losing most of its members. Getting some suburban Irish Hyacinth Buckets isn't making up for that. Ms Elizabeth Windsor is your Pope, Abp Justin Welby her spiritual deputy. While I might grumble about this or that emphasis taken by Pope Francis, he heads a community of over a billion people.

@everyone else

There are some interesting things on the Tridentine Mass to post. Later.

You copied copious amounts of text. This forum is not about cutting and pasting, but about exchanging opinions on facts and ideas. And yes, paraphrasing IS a good idea; apart from anything else, it shows that you have actually read and absorbed the idea.

I have not attempted to steer the discussion in any direction. And certainly not in a Protestant V Roman Catholic direction; I simply pointed out the nature of the original Christian celebration of the Eucharist, which, despite your denials, is accurate and relevant. The original simple, unadorned celebration, with the Eucharist at the heart of it, became, over the centuries, an event where style became more important than substance. Both the Roman Catholic AND the Protestant churches have tried to recover some of the original spirit of early Christian worship and to rescue it from the pass it had come to.

Anglicans don't have pretensions to be Catholic. Anglicans ARE Catholic, whether you like it or no.

I've no idea what Elizabeth Windsor has to with anything. She is head of the Church of England, an independent body within the Anglican communion. Your understanding of modern religion is as lacking as your understanding of the early church. If you spent less time worrying about the position of a priest's fingers and more time paying attention to your Christian brethrern, you might be better off.

Thinkingaboutit

katydid wrote: »

You copied copious amounts of text. This forum is not about cutting and pasting, but about exchanging opinions on facts and ideas. And yes, paraphrasing IS a good idea; apart from anything else, it shows that you have actually read and absorbed the idea.

I have not attempted to steer the discussion in any direction. And certainly not in a Protestant V Roman Catholic direction; I simply pointed out the nature of the original Christian celebration of the Eucharist, which, despite your denials, is accurate and relevant. The original simple, unadorned celebration, with the Eucharist at the heart of it, became, over the centuries, an event where style became more important than substance. Both the Roman Catholic AND the Protestant churches have tried to recover some of the original spirit of early Christian worship and to rescue it from the pass it had come to.

Anglicans don't have pretensions to be Catholic. Anglicans ARE Catholic, whether you like it or no.

I've no idea what Elizabeth Windsor has to with anything. She is head of the Church of England, an independent body within the Anglican communion. Your understanding of modern religion is as lacking as your understanding of the early church. If you spent less time worrying about the position of a priest's fingers and more time paying attention to your Christian brethrern, you might be better off.

I copied one single SSPX FAQ. You are something of a troll. All the trolling methods can be seen. There is diversion, in this instance to a futile sectarian debate. There is irrelevance. Apparently the Catholic Church of 2015 is unlike your imaginary 'Primitive Church' (for which you cited only a verse which does not support the construction you put on it). That relates in no manner to the topic of liturgy and is beside the point you were somehow making. I posted instances of early sites in Rome, original tituli which remain in use as churches. I further wasted my time giving other relevant examples.

You make no effort to say a thing on the matter of liturgy, and cannot or will not engage with any point made. Then you accuse me of plagiarising, the points I have made, when the only copy was cleared indicated and linked.

Anglicans reject the idea of a sacrificial priesthood, a basic point shared between the Latin, Greek and Eastern Rites. The form and intent differs too much. This is what caused Pope Leo XIII Apostolicae Curiae to call Anglican Orders 'absolutely null and utterly void.' Anglican reject the priesthood as understood for millennia in the East and West. There is a sharing of the sacrament of baptism (although some Protestants do not clearly invoke the Trinity which would cast doubt on the validity of the baptism), but without any shared understanding of form and intention of the priestly office, there is no shared Catholicity. Asserting that there is, does not make it so.

Anglicanism is just a collection of institutionally linked English speaking national Protestant Churches (btw Church as a community is capitalised and the building is lower case. Do learn these things before you accuse me of lacking knowledge on the matter). It spread with the British Empire and without government patronage in the post colonial age, receded. Episcopalians in the United States are fewer than Shia Moslems. African, American and other conservative Anglicans, who try not to re interpret Scripture on homosexuality to suit modern mores, are deserting the Anglican Communion. Abp Justin Welby recently proposed dissolving the Anglican Communion as it presently exists. Any communal, synodal decision making would cease to bind local communities who might reject it. The Church of England would be free to become ultra-liberal inward looking, post Biblical micro minority, and African Anglican would actually try to connect with those seeking a Protestant Episcopal understanding of Christianity.

You don't debate. You just troll. You try your best to evince annoyance. You annoyed others who were posting in the thread. They left. I will persist, not in debating with you, which is a waste, in posting on the matter of the Mass of Ages.

@everyone else

Fr John Zuhldorf runs the popular blog What does the Prayer Say(http://wdtprs.com/). The name suggests a focus on liturgy and he does still post on that topic. He converted from Lutheranism and was ordained by no less than Pope St John Paul II

Some differences between Catholics and Lutherans on Baptism, Eucharist, Priesthood
Posted on 17 November 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
In a comment elsewhere, someone wondered about differences between Catholics and Lutherans. HERE

I cannot go into deep detail about these differences. Books can be written about each point, and have been.

Here are my lunch break reflections while the US Bishops are having lunch during their annual meeting.

Keep in mind that I am a former Lutheran convert to the Catholic Church. I was validly baptized as a Lutheran. I rejected the Lutheran catechism and instruction when I was 7 years old because I couldn’t square their message about corruption with the beauty of the music of Mozart. After a vaguely Christian time and a pagan period I was brought into the Church formally in 1982 following private instruction lasting a couple years and involvement in the choir at St. Agnes in St. Paul. My longer story is elsewhere. I made my Profession of Faith according to the traditional, longer form, as found in the Rituale Romanum HERE, publicly during a Vespers service, kneeling in the sanctuary before the Blessed Sacrament exposed. I renewed my Profession of Faith before I was ordained to the diaconate and to the priesthood at the hands of St. John Paul II.

We Catholics believe all that is contained in the teachings of the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the revealed and defined teachings of the Scriptures and the Magisterium. God teaches us these things through the Church and we are bound to give assent to them with mind and will. As we say in the Act of Faith, I firmly believe the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because God has revealed them, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Catholics believe that Christ instituted seven sacraments. They are outward signs, instituted by Christ, which confer grace.

Lutherans believe in only two sacraments for sure, Baptism and Eucharist, with a possibility of Penance.

They believe different things about the effects of those sacraments.

(more at http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/11/some-differences-between-catholics-and-lutherans-on-baptism-eucharist-priesthood/)

He covers in a clear way the rather wide gap in sacramental understanding and liturgy between Catholics and Lutherans. Perhaps there might more Pentecostals than Lutherans, in fact there likely are in Africa, but the Catholic-Lutheran divergence is seminal. Christendom was shattered by an Augustinian Friar who annoyed priests in Rome with his slow, careful Masses. It is a crucial starting point in understanding the differences which exist.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Please don't call other posters a troll.

If you have a problem with a post, please report it.

Thanks for your attention.

katydid

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I copied one single SSPX FAQ. You are something of a troll. All the trolling methods can be seen. There is diversion, in this instance to a futile sectarian debate. There is irrelevance. Apparently the Catholic Church of 2015 is unlike your imaginary 'Primitive Church' (for which you cited only a verse which does not support the construction you put on it). That relates in no manner to the topic of liturgy and is beside the point you were somehow making. I posted instances of early sites in Rome, original tituli which remain in use as churches. I further wasted my time giving other relevant examples.

You make no effort to say a thing on the matter of liturgy, and cannot or will not engage with any point made. Then you accuse me of plagiarising, the points I have made, when the only copy was cleared indicated and linked.

Anglicans reject the idea of a sacrificial priesthood, a basic point shared between the Latin, Greek and Eastern Rites. The form and intent differs too much. This is what caused Pope Leo XIII Apostolicae Curiae to call Anglican Orders 'absolutely null and utterly void.' Anglican reject the priesthood as understood for millennia in the East and West. There is a sharing of the sacrament of baptism (although some Protestants do not clearly invoke the Trinity which would cast doubt on the validity of the baptism), but without any shared understanding of form and intention of the priestly office, there is no shared Catholicity. Asserting that there is, does not make it so.

Anglicanism is just a collection of institutionally linked English speaking national Protestant Churches (btw Church as a community is capitalised and the building is lower case. Do learn these things before you accuse me of lacking knowledge on the matter). It spread with the British Empire and without government patronage in the post colonial age, receded. Episcopalians in the United States are fewer than Shia Moslems. African, American and other conservative Anglicans, who try not to re interpret Scripture on homosexuality to suit modern mores, are deserting the Anglican Communion. Abp Justin Welby recently proposed dissolving the Anglican Communion as it presently exists. Any communal, synodal decision making would cease to bind local communities who might reject it. The Church of England would be free to become ultra-liberal inward looking, post Biblical micro minority, and African Anglican would actually try to connect with those seeking a Protestant Episcopal understanding of Christianity.

You don't debate. You just troll. You try your best to evince annoyance. You annoyed others who were posting in the thread. They left. I will persist, not in debating with you, which is a waste, in posting on the matter of the Mass of Ages.

@everyone else

Fr John Zuhldorf runs the popular blog What does the Prayer Say(http://wdtprs.com/). The name suggests a focus on liturgy and he does still post on that topic. He converted from Lutheranism and was ordained by no less than Pope St John Paul II



He covers in a clear way the rather wide gap in sacramental understanding and liturgy between Catholics and Lutherans. Perhaps there might more Pentecostals than Lutherans, in fact there likely are in Africa, but the Catholic-Lutheran divergence is seminal. Christendom was shattered by an Augustinian Friar who annoyed priests in Rome with his slow, careful Masses. It is a crucial starting point in understanding the differences which exist.

You still haven't learned to be succinct. Let me wade through your post and try to extract something comprehensible.

A. Just because someone points out your shortcomings in terms of succinctness and accuracy doesn't make them a troll. The world doesn't revolve around you.

B. I gave you historical examples from the very early church, not the church in Rome. And it was in comparison to the Roman Catholic church of 2015, not the Catholic church of 2015

C. I have not said anything about the liturgy, as I'm not discussing the liturgy. I'm not in the habit of referring to things I'm not discussing.

D. Anglicans have the same understanding of the priesthood as the rest of the Catholic church. The opinion of a pope is irrelevant - a case of "he would say that, wouldn't he?"

E. Anglican isn't a "collection". It's a Communion, a very significant difference. And yes, all Anglican churches are Protestant. So?

I am more than happy to debate with you, but you have to meet me halfway; try being succinct and putting your points forward clearly and neutrally, without resorting to verbal abuse. I want to debate with an adult, not a child.

Thinkingaboutit

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Please don't call other posters a troll.

If you have a problem with a post, please report it.

Thanks for your attention.

Yes, probably wise, and there's an ignore list. Ms K has joined it.

Yesterday, 09:33

Remove user from ignore list
katydid

This message is hidden because katydid is on your ignore list.

Why did I waste a moment reading her boring, irrelevant efforts at derailing the thread? She cannot engage with simple facts like how Anglicanism has no priesthood as Catholics understand, which makes Leo XIII's statement almost redundant. At least she said she wasn't posting on liturgy. And nor can she manage basic punctuation in her succinct postings. No better reason to ignore her. She subtracted from the thread with each post.

@anyone else

An SSPX and Indult Mass uses the 1962 Missal. Is the Last Gospel ever read/sung at an SSPX Mass? It's sad this capstone was dropped from the Masss.

Thinkingaboutit

http://saintlaurencescatholicheritage.blogspot.ie/2015/10/pilgrimage-to-church-street.html#comment-form

St Laurence O'Toole Catholic Heritage Association have a Mass at 1pm in St Mary of the Angels in Church St. Hope there's parking. There was someone giving out flyers outside St Kevins' after the 10.30 Mass.

I hope they have altar rails as kneeling without them means I'm not getting up easily for a while, but Tridentine Masses do take account of people who cannot kneel easily.

katydid

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Yes, probably wise, and there's an ignore list. Ms K has joined it.

Yesterday, 09:33

Remove user from ignore list
katydid

This message is hidden because katydid is on your ignore list.

Why did I waste a moment reading her boring, irrelevant efforts at derailing the thread? She cannot engage with simple facts like how Anglicanism has no priesthood as Catholics understand, which makes Leo XIII's statement almost redundant. At least she said she wasn't posting on liturgy. And nor can she manage basic punctuation in her succinct postings. No better reason to ignore her. She subtracted from the thread with each post.

@anyone else

An SSPX and Indult Mass uses the 1962 Missal. Is the Last Gospel ever read/sung at an SSPX Mass? It's sad this capstone was dropped from the Masss.

Pope Leo's statement "almost" redundant? Had it ever crossed your mind that it IS redundant for those who don't have any allegience to popes?

You do look rather silly with your fingers in your ears, singing "la la la la la". The issues won't go away, you know...

Thinkingaboutit

http://www.marcellefebvre.info/

The SSPX USA District has launched this website. It provides so much on this holy man who saved the Mass of Ages. Priestly societies like the Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP) with an average age of 37 (nothing shows so clearly the foolishness of discarding the Mass) are branches from the SSPX tree.

Yet there was another way the Tridentine Mass survived. Pope Paul VI handed out Indults to priests and religious orders. For instance Monsignor Escriva of the secretive Opus Dei got a personal Indult while Opus Dei are largely hostile or indifferent to the Mass of Ages. Priests who were able to ask for it, got it.

England and Wales were different.

There was the Agatha Christie Indult. Non Catholics who loved the Tridentine Mass for its majesty or from a measure of doctrinal sympathy including Agatha Christie, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Kenneth Clark, Robert Graves, F. R. Leavis, Cecil Day-Lewis, Nancy Mitford, Iris Murdoch, Yehudi Menuhin, Joan Sutherland and two Anglican Bishops, those of Exeter and Ripon (thanks Wiki for the full list of names!) joined Catholics in petitioning to allow the old Mass for those who wished it. Cardinal John Heenan met the Pope and made mention of this petition and when Agatha Christie's name was mentioned he exclaimed 'ah Agatha Christie' and signed it. It was the broadest Indult until the near the mid eighties. The Mass of Ages is beautiful and all these artists, writers and the two Anglican Bishops, none of them Catholic, could clearly see it.

Roger Buck

Won't go into the specific issues right now … although I appreciate the intelligent things being said by Thinkingaboutit, Peregrinus, hinault, La Fenetre etc among others

Right now I just want to say my heart was exploding with joy when I was able to go the Christ the King Latin Mass in Belfast last night.

So beautiful, so reverent, so spiritual compared with so many Ordinary Form masses.

I grant that there are a great priests celebrating the Ordinary Form with real beauty … I am not trying to knock that.

But this was truly out of this world.

Just want to shout (for joy) from the rooftops for ICKSP in Limerick (daily) Galway (weekly) Ennis and Belfast (monthly) …

Truly incredible. Thank God for these priests here!

Also want to say I have a book out THE GENTLE TRADITIONALIST defending TLM, Catholic Ireland and Christendom. I fear if I put a link here I'll get an infraction. Even though the book is completely relevant to this particular thread!

Anyway, there's a link in my signature. (Not sure people can see that though?) And I'll see if I can put one in my profile.

Or if you're interested just google THE GENTLE TRADITIONALIST and my name ...

Thinkingaboutit

They would be Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest? I think they have a beautiful church in Preston, St. Walburge, which I've only seen from the outside. Thanks for the post, although I see you are banned, but I think it is same society.

Priestly societies do great work and draw the ardour of the young. They do not have the vast autonomy of a religious order, but the more circumscribed remit allows the to concentrate on the task at hand of proclaiming the Gospel. The Fraternal Society of St Peter (http://www.fssp.org/en/) has an average age of thirty seven. They provide the Mass of Ages in many places worldwide, although not in Ireland for now.

Compare that the nursing homes which the houses of so many religious orders have become. Modernism has bitter, sterile fruit.

This morning I heard the 9 o'clock Mass in St Kevin's church. It was pretty much a Low Mass, so the splendid Lassus Scholars would be at the 10.30 Mass. I think the priest could have spoken a little louder (not sure there is a microphone there), but I liked his sermon.

He used a line from the Office for today about the animals seeing Our Lord to talk about the Mystery that Mary pondered in her heart and which we too need to contemplate.