Pope Benedict's changes to the Catholic mass

Trotter

Does anyone expect that the next pope might undo the changes that Pope Benedict made to the catholic liturgy?

In my opinion it didn't do anything to make the celebration of mass any more relevant to Catholics. I'd be interested to hear whether people think those changes might be undone.

Peregrinus

No, I doubt they will be undone. The strife caused by that process has more or less settled down; there is no appetite for reopening it.

3rdDegree

I hardly noticed the changes he made. Just a few little bits here and there. In fairness, it wasn't exactly Vatican III.

Ugh, said to myself I wouldn't be back as a regular until Benny's Mass was gone.

Looks like I'll die a non regular! >:(

toomevara

Deleted User wrote: »

Ugh, said to myself I wouldn't be back as a regular until Benny's Mass was gone.

Looks like I'll die a non regular! >:(

Might I suggest the Latin rite? A thing of great beauty.

Trotter

3rdDegree wrote: »

I hardly noticed the changes he made. Just a few little bits here and there. In fairness, it wasn't exactly Vatican III.

It won't make a difference to a practicing catholic but I'd argue it was a step in the wrong direction if bringing people back to the church is an aim.

StudentDad

Trotter wrote: »

It won't make a difference to a practicing catholic but I'd argue it was a step in the wrong direction if bringing people back to the church is an aim.

The Church will have to a whole lot more than just fiddle with the mass to get people back.

SD

C.K Dexter Haven

I think it alienated a whole generation of Catholics even further- not just one generation but many. There was no need for it. It was an exercise in pure intellectualism that created just further alienation for the common Catholic.

I'd welcome a reversal of it tbh.

Manach

I've no issue with it, and it does seem to bring more into line with the meanings found in the Latin mass. Perhaps it can act as spurn to people to look at the inner-workings of the word choice and meanings and thus become more engaged with the mass.

MrTsSnickers

I've been to mass for a few things recently (weddings, baptisms and the like). While I'm not Catholic, I went to a Catholic primary school, most of my friends have a Catholic background etc, so I'd know what goes on in a mass. Anyway, I was at a couple of services recently and while I wasn't actively participating I'd know the prayers so was going along with them in my head until a bit "forgive me my faults my most grievous faults (or something along those lines)" while beating their chests. Everyone seemed to be doing it, grand that's up to them, but it seems so harsh and a little bleak for what's supposed to be a celebration of faith. I didn't notice any other changes but then, I'm no expert. The beating of the chest part and this extreme expression of criticism wouldn't not draw me to the church and even some friends I've spoken to (who are Catholic, or at least profess to be) either haven't noticed or say that it has alienated them to some degree. If my faith was on the boarder line, this would seriously make me think twice about participating, simply because I think I lead a good life, the best I can. I treat people well and generally try to live a good moral life - this beating the chest think is a little too archaic for my liking. That's just my 2 cents.

lmaopml

MrTsSnickers wrote: »

I've been to mass for a few things recently (weddings, baptisms and the like). While I'm not Catholic, I went to a Catholic primary school, most of my friends have a Catholic background etc, so I'd know what goes on in a mass. Anyway, I was at a couple of services recently and while I wasn't actively participating I'd know the prayers so was going along with them in my head until a bit "forgive me my faults my most grievous faults (or something along those lines)" while beating their chests. Everyone seemed to be doing it, grand that's up to them, but it seems so harsh and a little bleak for what's supposed to be a celebration of faith. I didn't notice any other changes but then, I'm no expert. The beating of the chest part and this extreme expression of criticism wouldn't not draw me to the church and even some friends I've spoken to (who are Catholic, or at least profess to be) either haven't noticed or say that it has alienated them to some degree. If my faith was on the boarder line, this would seriously make me think twice about participating, simply because I think I lead a good life, the best I can. I treat people well and generally try to live a good moral life - this beating the chest think is a little too archaic for my liking. That's just my 2 cents.

Hi MsTsSnickers - I know you are not Catholic and in fairness I think your post is extremely honest for somebody who isn't. However, to a Catholic or any Christian for that matter, the idea of 'personal sin' and recognising it is part and parcel of making a confession and repenting.

The prayer you mention is part of a community expressing repentance for sin, but not only as part of a community but also in an individual way too that we take it seriously before receiving communion.

The prayer you are speaking of is called the 'Confiteor', it starts with 'I confess to Almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters that I have sinned........'

With respect, you can see that it wouldn't be much of a confession if we said, 'I confess to Almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters that I am a nice person mostly....'

The changing of the wording - for example when saying our Creed, from 'We believe in one God the Father Almighty' to 'I believe in one God the Father Almighty....' - is meant to urge a 'personal' participation and reflection on the words in that sense.

I think the changes to the wording are very very minute and shouldn't cause too much of a problem for anybody who always partakes at Mass - in fact, I think they are a much better translation from the original, and give a clearer sense of the purpose of Mass in Worship.

I don't have a problem with it, it took me about two weeks to have it pegged and see the reasoning behind these small changes.

Trotter

What would you consider the meaning of 'entered willingly into his Passion' to be?

I just feel that if the church is to recognise the meaning of the word church, as a collective of individuals, then the language should be aimed at the individuals in question. I just feel that there was a sense of refusal to tolerate the dumbing down of the mass to suit apparently less intellectual members.

A church is only as strong as its community and as such, these changes reflected an attitude to the community more than a need to make the mass more traditionally accurate.

lmaopml

Trotter wrote: »

What would you consider the meaning of 'entered willingly into his Passion' to be?

I just feel that if the church is to recognise the meaning of the word church, as a collective of individuals, then the language should be aimed at the individuals in question. I just feel that there was a sense of refusal to tolerate the dumbing down of the mass to suit apparently less intellectual members.

A church is only as strong as its community and as such, these changes reflected an attitude to the community more than a need to make the mass more traditionally accurate.

...'entered willingly into his Passion'... I'll try to explain from my perspective....quickly cause I'm on the way out the door to Mass..lol...

This is what Jesus did when he chose willingly to prove that love is real by dying on a Cross for humanity, even those who hated him. He was obedient and fulfilled all of the O.T. - God did himself, what the Irealites could never do, he 'kept his word' and set an example for all of what it means to truly love, to totaly and utterly love, even onto death for others.

Trotter

lmaopml wrote: »

...'entered willingly into his Passion'... I'll try to explain from my perspective....quickly cause I'm on the way out the door to Mass..lol...

This is what Jesus did when he chose willingly to prove that love is real by dying on a Cross for humanity, even those who hated him. He was obedient and fulfilled all of the O.T. - God did himself, what the Irealites could never do, he 'kept his word' and set an example for all of what it means to truly love, to totaly and utterly love, even onto death for others.

I respect your point of view on all that. But don't you see that what you wrote is far more relevant and 'accessible' to me than what I hear in mass? Therein lies the problem.