tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post8429138250832542680..comments2024-03-28T16:16:51.062-04:00Comments on Musings of a Pertinacious Papist: "The elephant in the liturgical living room"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-67781173300611292372011-08-30T13:24:14.861-04:002011-08-30T13:24:14.861-04:00In light of Reid's conclusions about Cekada...In light of Reid's conclusions about Cekada's book, Benedict's "reform of the reform" effort is harder than ever to defend. Reid's judgment of Cekada's failure to "demonstrate the invalidity of the Mass of Paul VI" amounts to little more than a negative acquittal: "well, at least it doesn't appear to be heresy." The argument for "reforming" the NO has never been more obviously threadbare. <br /><br />But that's not even the real point. It is downright scandalous that Church leaders have allowed a "not heresy" standard of validation to apply to the Church's principal liturgy of the past 40 years. <br /><br />Does the argument of a lack of toxicity justify one who feeds his children grain pellets and bird feed?Ralph Roister-Doisternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-76940676922985046162011-08-30T11:22:20.885-04:002011-08-30T11:22:20.885-04:00One can regard the rite of Paul VI as valid and ha...One can regard the rite of Paul VI as valid and have great problems with the orations, as Lauren Pristas has shown.<br /><br />As far as the present Pope's efforts to make the rite of Paul VI look more like that of the old Mass - that is precisely the problem. He has only constructed a beautiful shell. The same deficient contents are still there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-33632527203936072012011-08-29T20:08:07.461-04:002011-08-29T20:08:07.461-04:00This is serious business. It's a shame that t...This is serious business. It's a shame that the bloke is sedevacantist, which will probably deter nearly anyone from taking his critique seriously. If Reid takes him seriously, that's reason enough for me to see he has a serious case.Sheldonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-3541434728120135082011-08-28T21:26:01.488-04:002011-08-28T21:26:01.488-04:00Anonymous,
I'm glad you're so hopeful, ye...Anonymous,<br /><br />I'm glad you're so hopeful, yet I fear your optimism here may be misplaced. Has the thought never troubled you that there could be a problem here that goes deeper than the mere formal validity of the new Eucharistic Prayers and the fact that the term "sacrifice" may occur in them at one point or another? <br /><br />For one thing, how often do you hear Eucharistic Prayer #1, which includes the Roman Canon at Mass? In my experience, priests almost universally prefer #2 (the shortest, which resembles a quick dash by the drive-up window at McDonalds) or #3 (whose "advance the peace ... of the whole world" sounds like it was written for the UN General Assembly).<br /><br />For another, even when the Roman Canon is used, how does the liturgical context (Bringing up the gifts, Sign of Peace, Extraordinary Ministers, Bidding Prayers, etc.) support the sacrificial character of the Mass?Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-84999353420088590952011-08-28T14:54:18.946-04:002011-08-28T14:54:18.946-04:00The problem with the orations in English was fully...The problem with the orations in English was fully solved in the 1998 translation rejected by the Vatican. There is no proble with teh orations in Latin. The Eucharistic Prayers, which include the Roman Canon, strongly affirm the sacrificial character of the Mass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com