All The Cool People

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
i'm sorry, but a lot of the time (not just STM on phatmass, but an attitude also found elsewhere), is one of being stricter than the Church. We should not be more liberal than the Church nor more strict than the Church. and it does come off as condescending. all i'm advocating for is nothing more, nothing less than what the Church teaches and allows.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1581139' date='Jun 23 2008, 10:14 PM']Not to be annoying or anything, but STM never claimed that these things were unlawful, only that they were abused. Quite frankly, if you do a quick search on this board and on google you'll find that several bishops agree with STM (or really, STM agrees with the bishops) that the currently used translation is inadequate.

As for EMHC's, there is no real dispute about whether their use is greatly abused. I could type the quotes from my own VII book, or I could link to a page and let him do the arguing for me, so I'll do that.

<a href="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Faith/2000-12/kwasniewski.html" target="_blank">http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Fa...wasniewski.html</a>

Another objection I have (at least until someone shows me a more current document which DOES allow it) is that at NO Masses people often receive under both species.

(from Sacrosanctum Concilium)

242. With the bishop's approval and after due instruction the following persons may receive Communion from the chalice:

1. Newly baptized adults in the Mass following their Baptism; newly confirmed adults in the Mass following their Confirmation; baptized persons who are being received into full communion with the Church.
2. The bridegroom and bride at their Nuptial Mass.
3. Deacons at their ordination Mass.
4. An abbess in the Mass wherein she is blessed; virgins at the Mass of their consecration; professed religious and their parents, close relatives and other members of their community in the Mas wherein they make their first, renewed or perpetual religious profession on the condition that the profesesion is made during Mass.
5. Lay missionaries at the Mass in which they are publicly assigned to their missionary task; others who, during Mass, are entrusted by the Church with some special mission.
6. A sick person, and all who are present when Viaticum is given in a Mass celebrated in the sick person's home.
7. The deacon an dothers who have special ministries in a Mass celebrated with singing.
8. When there is ocncelebration:
a. all who perform a genuine liturgical ministry in concelebration; and all seminarians who are present.
b. all members of institutes professing the evangelical counsels, and other societies whos members dedicate themselves to God by religious vows or promises, provided that the Mass be in their own church or chapel, in addition, all those who live in the houses of these institutes and societies.
9. Priests who are present at important celebrations and yet are not able personally to celebrate or concelebrate.
10. All who are making a retreat or some other form of spiritual exercise, in a Mass specially celebrated for those taking part; all who attend a meeting of pastoral commission, in a Mass which they celebrate in common.
11. Those mentioned in 2 and 4 above, at Masses celebrating their jubilees.
12. Godparents, parents, spouses and lay catechists or a newly baptized adult, during hte Mass of Initiation.
13. Parents, relatives, and special benefactors of a newly ordained priest at his first Mass.
14. Members of the Community at the Conventual or Community Mass as described in n. 76 of this Instruction. (which talks about communities celebrating a "Community Mass". Religious communities, that is.)
I know that's long and tedious, but it does NOT mention every lay person at daily/Sunday Mass. So unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible), we're not supposed to do that.

I'm not trying to be holier than thou, or condescending, I'm just presenting what I believe to be right. I know that more traditional people (and i don't mean rad trads, b/c i'm certainly not one of those) are often viewed as condescending and closed minded.

My argument is not with the NO Mass itself, and I actually disagree with STM when he says "the ordinary form celebrated like the eo form". I think what should be said is "the ordinary form as it was meant to be celebrated", or, "the Mass of Vatican II". Fr. Joseph Fessio who is in residence at Ave Maria celebrates the NO Mass ad orientam, in Latin.

Basically, I'm just with the Holy Father that there needs to be a "reform of the reform".

For the record, I'd go to an extraordinary form over any normal parish Mass, but then I'd go to the Mass of Vatican II over any extraordinary form. [/quote]

Good post BTW, you'd have to probably look at the liturgical books for the current norms for Communion under the species of wine because they may have changed. I, personally prefer the EF to the OF even when it is celebrated at its best (the Offertory just seems so much richer in the EF), but in any case its much easier to find an EF than an OF celebrated in the manner intended by the Council.

Edited June 24, 2008 by StThomasMore

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1581149' date='Jun 24 2008, 12:24 AM']+J.M.J.+
i'm sorry, but a lot of the time (not just STM on phatmass, but an attitude also found elsewhere), is one of being stricter than the Church. We should not be more liberal than the Church nor more strict than the Church. and it does come off as condescending. all i'm advocating for is nothing more, nothing less than what the Church teaches and allows. [/quote]


I do agree with you that more traditional people (including myself) are like that sometimes... but a lot of the time I think that they're right, and the attitude kinda turns other people off. I think that a lot of people just never hear the arguments because all they hear is "you're wrong and you have to do what I said you have to do". It's a shame. I just wish that people could view arguments completely impartially. :shrug:

[aalpha1989]

Does anyone else think that maybe with a little tweak in the title of the thread it could be moved to a more serious board? I definitely think it might have some fruitful discussion, if we don't just break down to name calling.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1581161' date='Jun 23 2008, 10:31 PM']I do agree with you that more traditional people (including myself) are like that sometimes... but a lot of the time I think that they're right, and the attitude kinda turns other people off. I think that a lot of people just never hear the arguments because all they hear is "you're wrong and you have to do what I said you have to do". It's a shame. I just wish that people could view arguments completely impartially. :shrug:[/quote]
others just wish 'your' passion for your 'arguments' would come second to love of God and neighbor, and possibly a decent outpouring of charity.

[BG45]

Awesome MS, wonder if that one guy was doing it intentionally. "It's boring today, I'll see if I can screw with people's heads..."

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1581177' date='Jun 24 2008, 12:43 AM']others just wish 'your' passion for your 'arguments' would come second to love of God and neighbor, and possibly a decent outpouring of charity.[/quote]

Was I being uncharitable? I honestly think no. Did you read my posts?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1581161' date='Jun 23 2008, 10:31 PM']I do agree with you that more traditional people (including myself) are like that sometimes... but a lot of the time I think that they're right, and the attitude kinda turns other people off. I think that a lot of people just never hear the arguments because all they hear is "you're wrong and you have to do what I said you have to do". It's a shame. I just wish that people could view arguments completely impartially. :shrug:[/quote]

yeah people who like the EF (even if they're completely orthodox and accept Vatican II, etc.) can be a little um... meanish (?)

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1581177' date='Jun 23 2008, 10:43 PM']others just wish 'your' passion for your 'arguments' would come second to love of God and neighbor, and possibly a decent outpouring of charity.[/quote]

I bet that in most people they probably do, and the passion for the arguments comes from a love of God and neighbor.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1581188' date='Jun 23 2008, 10:49 PM']I bet that in most people they probably do, and the passion for the arguments comes from a love of God and neighbor.[/quote]

Funny how it never seems to come across that way...........

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1581188' date='Jun 24 2008, 12:49 AM'] yeah people who like the EF (even if they're completely orthodox and accept Vatican II, etc.) can be a little um... meanish (?)
I bet that in most people they probably do, and the passion for the arguments comes from a love of God and neighbor.[/quote]


I tend to agree... or at least agree that the condescending demeanor comes from an attempt to be charitable. Even if it is not perfect charity, they are honestly trying (at least I am) to help others worship God in the most fulfilling way possible. Why settle for anything? Strive for something higher, instead!

And I never called anyone a bad person, or uncool, or anything for attending a NO Mass. I don't believe I ever argued against a person, I only stated facts, quote documents, and told what I believed. Why are disagreements not allowed anymore?

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1581190' date='Jun 24 2008, 12:50 AM']Funny how it never seems to come across that way...........[/quote]


that's true, too. but what about my posts in this thread? This is why i didn't want to get involved...

[MissScripture]

[quote name='BG45' post='1581180' date='Jun 23 2008, 11:44 PM']Awesome MS, wonder if that one guy was doing it intentionally. "It's boring today, I'll see if I can screw with people's heads..."[/quote]


[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1581187' date='Jun 23 2008, 11:49 PM']Was I being uncharitable? I honestly think no. Did you read my posts?[/quote]
I don't think he meant you specifically, which is why 'you' had the quotes around it, but I could be mistaken.