Concerning the Mass

[dabaq]

Well, I'm just transferring this mini-debate over to my journal since Miriam seems to freak out every time I mention this subject in her journal...

Let's see here:

I said:
They can't understand the importance of the Mass if it looks like a Protestant worship service... Change the Mass back to the Catholic Mass and people will go.

God Bless!

Comments

[heyyoimjohnny]

You're saying that a Mass said in the vernacular is less clear and understandable than one said in a dead language? Please be specific on these "guestures" that are missing and make the Norvus Ordo untangible.

Also, the Norvus Ordo Mass is not a protestant service. It is Eucharist centered. Saying the Mass in the vernacular doesn't make it invalid. The faithful have every reason to go for this reason!

The fact that the truths of the Church aren't being well-taught by the priests is not the cause of the Mass. If that's the case, how can you explain the strong Orthodoxy of, say, diocese in the Nebraska area?

God Bless you, too. :)

[dabaq]

The key difference between the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass is not the fact that the Mass is in the vernacular. Firstly the Novus Ordo is technically supposed to be done in Latin anyway and a priest can do so without any need of permission; even then, however, it is essentially just as bad. The vernacular in the Novus Ordo simply aggravates the issue because the translation is deliberately made to make the already skewered Mass seem to be more like a Protestant service by mistranslating the Latin

[heyyoimjohnny]

I'm going to a more basic point; I should have done this earlier, my apologies for that. I'm not going to fight your opinion; you're set in your ideas, and I'm not a forceful person

[dabaq]

Ok, I agree we should go into a more basic point. Firstly, the Novus Ordo was certainly never promulgated officially by the Pope, and hence has no authoritative binding and has no guidance of the Holy Spirit. Hence, it is illicit, which means it is illegal under Church law to say it... Therefore, I'm taking Church authority over worship of the illegal pronouncements of pontiffs. The document "promulgating" the Novus Ordo is a joke; it does not bind the Novus Ordo as law, since it was not declared to be law, no promulgation date was provided (although it was later added as a forgery), and no punishment was given, besides the fact that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil by its nature (a bad law is no law). Hence, under Church law, the law was invalid, null and void.

God Bless!

[muy_gwai]

:-\

[dabaq]

What's that supposed to mean?

God Bless!

[muy_gwai]

:-\

[dabaq]

What is the emotional connotation behind this?

God Bless!

[dr_tikki_huff]

Ah controversy....it is drawn to David....

Just to put in my word, the last Novus Ordo Mass I went to, the priest used the word "bitch" in the sermon (wasn't a very good sermon either).

The Mass shouldn't change to accomodate the general public....

But, hey, I don't have time to debate right now!

:-P

[dr_tikki_huff]

David a better debater than you!! That's hilarious. David doesn't know how to debate logically any more than my little brother.

[dabaq]

Who is this? And it is quite illogical to state that I debate illogically without stating proof (i.e. it becomes reduced to an ad hominem fallacy).

God Bless!

[zenblends]

Note the subtle, interlaced humour...

[dr_tikki_huff]

Was the anonymous dope refering to me? You're not even brave enough to say who the heck you are. I'm not even going to comment on such an immature comment as that *crap*.

If this wasn't David's LJ......

[dabaq]

No, he was referring to me, but don't worry; I don't get "offended" so easily. I take such things as humorous or as a stimulus for a debate, or I'll disregard it as the comments of a disgruntled weirdo.

God Bless!

[dr_tikki_huff]

I wasn't offended and I definitely don't get offended easily, lol. Such immaturity irritates me, thats all.

[anonymous]

Was that a comprehensive list? Is that your final answer?

To everyone else, I am just having a little fun at David's expense. His arrogant, know-it-all attitude makes a lot of people frustrated and turned off to him. I'm just trying to bring a little fun into the "debate".

Fine, I'll own up to it: I'm David's evil twin, Daniel!!

[dabaq]

Those are the most likely choices... there are other vague possibilities though...

Well, I think not everyone would agree that that was humorous, but came off as a bit sour. And again, it is ad hominum to start insulting me, especially if you can't substantiate your claim. Show where I have had a know-it-all attitude. I know what I know, and I'll put it forward as persuasively, clearly, and strongly as possible, but I don't see how that can be arrogance, unless you consider it arrogance to think you're right until proven otherwise...

Hmmmm... you either are a good guesser or know more than a little about myself. (i.e. for those who don't know, I have an older brother named Daniel who is 20) However, again, the concept of "evil twin" would more accurately describe myself in comparison with my brother as opposed to the other way (i.e. "evil" because I'm far more insane than him and "twin" because I look like a miniature of him except for his beard). Don't you start trashing his name though in front of me...

God Bless!

[anonymous]

David, David, David, my whole point here was to.....well, drive you crazy. But it's gotten rather old so I'll just leave go torment someone else. As for my claims, if I started talking logically you might guess who I really was. Can't have that, can we? I'm sure some other people who also know you could bring for plenty of proof about your attitude. Remember that you can be 100% right and still be arrogant and have a know-it-all attitude. The attitude is how you present the information, not in the information itself. You have a way of doing it that makes it seem like you're putting other people down.

I think I did know you had a brother named Daniel, but I completely forgot when I said that. Daniel just sounded like a good evil twin name.