I'm going to suggest that folks soften the tenor of their disagreements - the thread is beginning to take a tone that is inconsistent with civil discourse in polite society. It is one thing to debate, it is another to personalize comments; the first is acceptable, the second is not.

Finally, with no opinion to express on the matter as a whole, I will remind posters that, regardless of whether one 'likes' or 'dislikes' the rubrics and ritual form of a Liturgy - Latin or otherwise - such cannot be dismissed as spiritually bankrupt. There is an inherent spirituality in the fact that the Consecration is performed within the Liturgy, be it Novus Ordo, Tridentine, Byzantine, or of any other Rite or Usage. Those who cannot accept that fact need to rethink why they identify themselves as members of an Apostolic Church.

Many years,

Neil

Well, one might perhaps say that certain innovations were imposed on the faithful without ascertaining whether the faithful wanted these innovations. Not all of these are attributable to the Second Vatican Council: to give three examples:

1. The Council explicitly provided for the retention of Latin;

2. The Council never mentioned "Communion in the hand"; and

3. Nothing in the Vatican II documents requires the celebration of Mass facing the assembly.

Does anyone care to take issue with me on any or all of these three points? And have I succeeded in stating them without violating the ruling of our Irish Melkite brother?

Fr. Serge

Bless, Father,

You most certainly have - and no less might be expected from one such as yourself, endowed by nature and learning with solabharthact (and could Father Prout's self-description as 'an Irish potato seasoned with Attic salt' be ever more aptly applied than to a Byzantine Irishman such as yourself ?)

Many years,

Neil

Just to be clear, I don't doubt that the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in a sacred, solemn manner, or that it is inherently "holy," since our Lord mystically becomes present on the altar during the Holy Sacrifice.

I'm somewhat astonished I would even need to clarify this. If one has read my comments with care, this should be clear.

Same thing goes for Vatican II and the Pauline Reforms.

My point really is simply focusing around what the faithful were led to believe concerning the abrogation of the Traditional Rites in the Latin Church over the past 40 years.

Alexis

Go raibh maith agat!

It is also to the point to remember that no less an authority than Pope John Paul II found it appropriate to issue a public apology to all the faithful for the scandal which had been associated with the liturgical reform.

Fr. Serge