|
|
Post by cato on Dec 7, 2017 21:16:09 GMT
Why do you call yourself a non-Catholic? I thought Anglicans considered themselves Catholic and accepted the necessity of extra-Scriptural Tradition? Perhaps I am being rude speaking as a non Anglican but Anglicanism is a very broad movement which accomodates and indeed prides itself on theological pluralism nowadays at least. The sola scriptura doctrine ignores the fact the church existed prior to the completion of the New Testament so the first generation of Christians for example had to wait for firstly Paul's letters and then the Gospels to be gradually written. The much later Apocryphal Gospels much beloved of the secular media like Thomas and Mary Magdalene were also judged heretical by the Church. The Church decided on what scripture actually was or wasn't guided by the Holy Spirit. Dr Martin Luther of beloved memory also gutted the scriptures when he didn't like their message like the Epistle of James and famously added the word "sola" to St Paul's teaching on the matter of faith. Obviously St Paul had forgotten to include that word in his original text! Luther also assumed everyone would agree with his interpretation of what scripture meant and got very annoyed when followers of Zwingli Calvin and the Anabaptists differed with him on important doctrinal points. He should really have coined another principle - Sola Luther. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 7, 2017 21:50:18 GMT
I don't think Anglicans ever went in for sola scriptura-- though I may be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 7, 2017 22:45:14 GMT
I don't think Anglicans ever went in for sola scriptura-- though I may be wrong. Under Edward Vi and his sister Elizabeth they embraced it - but assumed everyone would interpret it in the official way. I imagine they assumed the text was self evident and that once popish interpretation was rejected then the pure true meaning would emerge .Unfortunately the pesky papists and later the evangelical puritans didn't read it in the official manner. In fairness to the Anglicans every denomination believed it had the correct grasp of scripture and that others were in error to a greater or lesser extent. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 7, 2017 23:22:17 GMT
Back to Latin - One of the great advantages to Latin is that the mass was the same wherever you travelled to once apon a time. In an age of unparelled travel this is something I believe the liturgical reformers got wrong. Similarly when foreigners come to live in a new country they are often treated as minority groups and given their own language masses chaplains etc. I do accept the pastoral benefit for this but it may come at the cost of not integrating people fully in their new community.
I remember in the 1970s being told as a child the mass in Irish was a return to tradition and was the real traditional mass in Ireland. Of course this is total historical rubbish. The Church of Ireland had vernacular liturgies but catholics never had mass in Irish before Vatican II. It was interesting how the Mass was used in the promotion of Irish in non Gaeltacht areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 8, 2017 12:28:53 GMT
I've been attending an Irish languaeg Mass in recent months-- in Our Lady of Dolours Glasnevin on Sunday mornings, at 9:30.
It's a funny example of the contradictions inherent in conservatism. I want to help conserve and revive the Irish language, so I go to an Irish languge Mass. But, of course, it's a NOVUS ORDO Mass, so you can argue that it's anti-conservative right there. And I wince at some of the practices. They have a children's choir that sings folksy hymns (previously that had some Sean O'Riordán hyms, so it's a big come-down). But worst of all, they have a female storyteller who "retells" the Gospel as a story immediately after the readings, sometimes replacing the homily. This exasperates me. It's especially difficult because I know this lady, she's perfectly nice, and she even collaborated with me on writing a hymn once.
On the other hand, it was at this Mass that I heard the best and most theologically literate homily I've ever heard in my life. (It was in English-- some of the priests give their homilies in English.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 9, 2017 15:18:35 GMT
I've been attending an Irish languaeg Mass in recent months-- in Our Lady of Dolours Glasnevin on Sunday mornings, at 9:30. It's a funny example of the contradictions inherent in conservatism. I want to help conserve and revive the Irish language, so I go to an Irish languge Mass. But, of course, it's a NOVUS ORDO Mass, so you can argue that it's anti-conservative right there. And I wince at some of the practices. They have a children's choir that sings folksy hymns (previously that had some Sean O'Riordán hyms, so it's a big come-down). But worst of all, they have a female storyteller who "retells" the Gospel as a story immediately after the readings, sometimes replacing the homily. This exasperates me. It's especially difficult because I know this lady, she's perfectly nice, and she even collaborated with me on writing a hymn once. On the other hand, it was at this Mass that I heard the best and most theologically literate homily I've ever heard in my life. (It was in English-- some of the priests give their homilies in English.) I highly recommend going to the TLM as the sermons are usually excellent. I have heard it all.... How can you abide such sacrilege. Sounds as bad as my father's months mind,that was a children's Mass. I still get flash backs. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 9, 2017 16:01:45 GMT
When I went to the Latin Mass I encountered lots of people coming in late, and the priest informed us with great confidence that Lenin was a Freemason-- for which there is no evidence, as I learned when I looked it up.
Nothing is perfect. If the Church tells me the Novus Ordo is the Mass, then the Novus Ordo is the Mass.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 9, 2017 17:56:31 GMT
When I went to the Latin Mass I encountered lots of people coming in late, and the priest informed us with great confidence that Lenin was a Freemason-- for which there is no evidence, as I learned when I looked it up. Nothing is perfect. If the Church tells me the Novus Ordo is the Mass, then the Novus Ordo is the Mass. To be precise the Novus Ordo is a rite(the ordinary rite of mass in the west) of mass. There are other perfectly valid rites especially eastern liturgies of churches that are in full communion with Rome. The anglican ordinarate has its own rite of mass I believe. And we have the extraordinary rite of Mass or the tridentine mass. The Novus Ordo may be the most widely used but it isn't the only show in town. The worst thing about the novus ordo is it is like dolly mixture sweets. You have no idea how reverent or sacrilegious it is going to be. Generally everything is fine I accept if you are fortunate enough to have a solid priest but you never ever know when Fr Mc Trendy is going to bring on dancing children or promote some crypto-heresy in his homily. The rite unfortunately offers numerous opportunities for "creativity" on the part of the "presider" ( priest in normal language) which is code for cruelty to catholics in the pews. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 10, 2017 12:53:15 GMT
When I went to the Latin Mass I encountered lots of people coming in late, and the priest informed us with great confidence that Lenin was a Freemason-- for which there is no evidence, as I learned when I looked it up. Nothing is perfect. If the Church tells me the Novus Ordo is the Mass, then the Novus Ordo is the Mass. People come in late for a range of reasons. Many travel more than a hour each way to get to Mass, this is Still not an excuse. (Screaming children are not easy) It may be the Mass but it is a complete fracture with Tradition and I would say it is not even the Roman Rite any more but a new rite in itself. How many TLM have you attend and were they all diocesan? |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 10, 2017 12:56:50 GMT
I attended three High Masses and one low Mass in St. Kevin's. They were fine, but I wasn't swept away or anything. The biggest thing I appreciated was that everybody received on the tongue. And I didn't appreciate the choir singing-- seems more like a performance than worship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 10, 2017 13:06:32 GMT
My problem with a lot of Traditionalist rhetoric is that it comes down to emotion and aesthetics. Traditionalists have a transformative experience with the Latin Mass, and good for them, but they often assume that this is what everybody else is missing. But why assume that? They talk about the Traditionalist Mass being more reverential, and in many ways I agree, but ultimately you can't quantify reverence. You can't say someone at the Novus Ordo Mass is being less reverential than someone at the Latin Mass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 10, 2017 13:07:46 GMT
I attended three High Masses and one low Mass in St. Kevin's. They were fine, but I wasn't swept away or anything. The biggest thing I appreciated was that everybody received on the tongue. And I didn't appreciate the choir singing-- seems more like a performance than worship. I find it interesting that you did not appreciate the choir singing. I think this may be an Irish thing. I have heard plenty an old lady say you can't get a low Mass. I believe it comes from the penal times. But Chant has been with the Church since the Temple!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 10, 2017 13:12:54 GMT
My problem with a lot of Traditionalist rhetoric is that it comes down to emotion and aesthetics. Traditionalists have a transformative experience with the Latin Mass, and good for them, but they often assume that this is what everybody else is missing. But why assume that? They talk about the Traditionalist Mass being more reverential, and in many ways I agree, but ultimately you can't quantify reverence. You can't say someone at the Novus Ordo Mass is being less reverential than someone at the Latin Mass. I agree with you that people sometimes over exaggerate numbers or age range. You can if they are receiving God standing up and taking him in the hand. The individual, maybe not. The Traditional Latin Mass is profoundly more reverent and this can be easily proven. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 10, 2017 13:14:52 GMT
It's as I say...it seemed more like a performance than worship. If the Latin Mass was restored, could every church put together a choir like that? It's a bit too fancy for me, to be honest.
I do think aesthetics can distract from worship. I realize other people think that aesthetics are an aid to worship. But when they're too elaborate, I think they become a distraction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 10, 2017 13:16:29 GMT
The Traditional Latin Mass is profoundly more reverent and this can be easily proven. Here we go again! How? And I need hard, rigorous evidence. It can't just be "This is how I feel", or anecdotal evidence. And of course you may quote from sources, but just copying and pasting in bulk is out! (As a matter of fact, I agree that the Latin Mass is more reverent. My argument is that any given person at a Novus Ordo Mass is not necessarily less reverent than anyone at a Latin Mass.) |
|
