no thank you, I'll stick with the gospel if Leo spouts off about nations having a right to protect their borders

yeah we do it in my country too, but that's probably because of Anglo-American cultural dominance, and the sprinkling ashes version is clearly better.

I can't think of a single change that didn't make the rite into "our lousy best" rather than the fake perfection of ornate, courtly ceremonies with angelic Latin chants.

it's like you always used to say.
bsky.app/profile/dixi...

it was a step along the way of liturgical reform but I don't see why you think it's better than the "final product".

yes, and pope francis was a larper too. he was just pretending to be catholic

old is false because it doesn't accord with the gospel of Jesus (religious coercion, condemnation of out-groups, obscurantist rite, patriarchal and clerical theology); new is true because it does (freedom to believe, openness to working of the spirit, vernacular message, horizontal equality)

yeah that guy basically has a social media career of dunking on people, but not even particularly good dunks. just self-satisfied smirking

sorry, I will try to stop

of course this shouldn't be reduced to "staying in touch with God", which sounds more like piously going to church rather than the real touch of God, which is touching his wounded flesh as you endure the shame of the cross for the sake of the joy set before you.

I think something like this paradox is a part of Jesus' teaching. "You will be betrayed, hated, and some of you will be killed... but not a hair on your head will be harmed." Because as you give yourself away amidst the scapegoating violence of this world, you will be enveloped in God's aliveness.

I don't think it's too much to say the Spirit should at least be mentioned, when other rites go into such depth (Liturgy of St. Cyril):

the law of prayer is the law of faith, it's worth asking whether a de-emphasis on the Spirit in liturgy corresponded to a de-emphasis on the Spirit in general.

but is it a good one, not to ask for the Spirit? liturgy, as with theology, grows and advances with time, and rites adopt fitting and praiseworthy features from other rites that can be adapted to their context.

if you look at the Eucharistic prayers of other rites, they are almost all follow a similar structure, as are the other ten or so Eucharistic prayers we have used in the Roman rite beginning after Vatican II. you might say it is a unique feature of the Roman canon that it does not have an epiclesis.

the bishop or priest, speaking for the community, asks the Father to send the Spirit to make the gifts into the body and blood of Christ, and to sanctify and gather the people of God into that same body. he or she speaks the words of Christ, which he directed us to say in memory of him.

likewise. I don't think there's a problem with my Trinitarian theology because appropriating certain acts to Father, Son or Holy Spirit is precisely what all liturgies do. I said the principal actor of the "making holy" of the gifts is the Spirit, which I think is not controversial.

I don't think it is required for the spirit to act. I just think it's liturgically and theologically correct to invoke her, whereas it is a problem or defect when she is not invoked. I don't think implicit is the right way to go.

I don't think the English-speaking Roman Catholic churches should (or will) adopt wholesale old English music (Catholic or Anglican) to replace what we have now. the 70s music fits the 70s rite, in language and temperament.

upon reflection, I was overzealous in my response. what I wanted to defend is that there is value and beauty in the Catholic and Christian music of that "era". I do not mean to demean older forms of Anglican music, which I don't have much experience with anyway. I do like Rutter for example.

the Eucharistic prayer is not just any prayer, it's the central and most important (and usually the longest!) of the liturgy. the Holy Spirit is the principal actor in making the gifts, and us, into the body and blood of Christ. to not refer to the Spirit at all is a defect in this prayer.

zero mention of the Holy Spirit in the entire prayer (and no, the holy angel does not count- because it isn't the Holy Spirit)

whenever I hear it, I remember how defective it is, especially the new translation. so the consilium was right as usual

I'm in an amateur choir so I guess you clocked me there. and I love singing these songs

yes, I'll take Marty Haugen, Sebastian Temple and Bernadette Farrell over those people.

I forgot to block you on here

the structure of the rite is itself clericalist and does not recognize the equal participation of all. changing the language to vernacular and making prayers audible alleviates some of this, but the new rite is far more (and intentionally built to be) horizontal and egalitarian, as much as it can

I could not say amen to this prayer on Good Friday: "Almighty eternal God, who drives not away from your mercy even the Jews: hear our prayers for the blindness of that people...". true it's one of the worst but there are lots of prayers which are overly negative, ahistorical or superstitous etc

if you mean the lectionary, that was another massive improvement from before the council. as for music, I love the hymns from the 70s and 80s, and they beat whatever Anglican type stuff I presume you want them replaced with

you are correct, it would have been *exactly the same thing* and thus would not fit at all with the *vastly changed* views of orders, the laity, salvation, penance, biblical interpretation, religious liberty, ecumenism, that the council opened the Church to. that is what I mean by incoherent.

more than a "partial obscuring" was needed. a thorough revision was called for and completed. true, I oversimplified by saying the rite was all a certain kind of theology, but it remains true that this needed to be excised and it was a good thing that this happened!