Oh, a lay missal is definitely modernist.  It's just that it can be used in a different way than the modernist inventors intended (i.e., individual devotion instead of collectivity, and “more conscious worship”).

  Ok, then I guess you and I disagree on what "modernist" means.  I only apply the "modernist" label to things which are actually and intended to be, un-orthodox and which were approved by modernist/liberal popes.


No matter the intention of the "inventor", St Pius X glowingly endorsed the missal as a good thing.  That, in essence, means it's not modernist; because one of the most-Trad/orthodox popes approved it.

You can point to history and say missals are "new", but the printing press wasn't invented until the 1500s.  Is the idea of people having Bibles, or catechisms, or the Divine Office in their homes also "modernist"?  Because none of that happened until the 1900s either.

The history of books in general says that ownership of such was a luxury until the 1900s.  The idea of lay missals is just a good, catholic use of technology, just like one can download an "app" on their phone to pray or get reminders about novenas, etc.

I agree that you are against "collectivist" prayers but the lay missal more an example of technology improving one's life than a push for uniformity.  The push for uniformity will always be present, in any age, simply because most people are followers.  

Newman absolutely was a Modernist and manifested this when, grudgingly accepting Vatican I, he appealed to a future Pope to revise the teaching.  That's Modernism in a nutshell.

I would maintain that the use of hand missal isn't "modernist," at least, not any more modernist than the dialogue mass. It is confused, as is the DM. These practices conflate the roles of the faithful and the celebrant at Mass. It isn't for the faithful to know exactly what the priest is saying at every moment of the Mass. Those prayers are directed to GOD, after all. 

People who brandish their hand missals should at least be coherent and clamor for a Mass in the vernacular. I mean, isn't it retarded that we have a religion that forces us to dress up on Sundays and assist at a ceremony that you and your family won't remotely profit from unless you pony up 60 bucks for every member of your family to be able to follow along in their missals? L0l.

As for the guy who mentioned the printing press, he is defeated by his own argument. There is a reason that catholic civilisation waited four centuries to start printing lay missals and it's not because of how luxurious and cost-prohibitive the printing of small books was. It's because people from those ages would have thought it abnormal that lay people should be scanning a miniature missal instead of praying at Mass. If you don't believe me, then explain the ridiculous amounts of missal-sized prayer books that litter European flea-markets. There wouldn't be so many if only 17th century Elon Musk could afford them.

I still don't understand why people are so attached to things that only became commonplace in the Church because of 20th century modernists. Some of you are on other threads talking about how you don't trust ANYTHING that comes from Big Pharma. So why are you gobbling everything that comes from Beauduin, Botte, et al? The people who wrecked our Church?

I would maintain that the use of hand missal isn't "modernist," at least, not any more modernist than the dialogue mass. 

There is absolutely no comparison between the lay missal and a dialogue mass.  The former is praiseworthy while the latter is full-blown modernism.

It is confused, as is the DM. These practices conflate the roles of the faithful and the celebrant at Mass. It isn't for the faithful to know exactly what the priest is saying at every moment of the Mass. Those prayers are directed to GOD, after all. 

The Catholic Faith is not secretive.  The prayers of the Mass are beautiful and glorious because they praise God.  There is no reason to hide what the priest is saying, nor is there any benefit for the faithful to not pray along with the priest.

People who brandish their hand missals should at least be coherent and clamor for a Mass in the vernacular. 

The 2 have nothing to do with one another.  70% of the prayers are not said by the altar boys, so a dialogue mass would still be silent 70% of the time.  While one can silently pray 100% of the prayers using a missal.

I mean, isn't it retarded that we have a religion that forces us to dress up on Sundays and assist at a ceremony that you and your family won't remotely profit from unless you pony up 60 bucks for every member of your family to be able to follow along in their missals? L0l.

The beauty of the Catholic Faith is that we are allowed to worship God in many ways, as long as we attend Mass.  No one is forced to use a missal and that's never been Church teaching.

As for the guy who mentioned the printing press, he is defeated by his own argument. There is a reason that catholic civilisation waited four centuries to start printing lay missals and it's not because of how luxurious and cost-prohibitive the printing of small books was.

 Cost plus also, many people were illiterate.

Also, many people don't like to read and think it's a distraction.  And that's fine.  You are free to "pray the Mass" in other ways.  There's no one, right way.

It's because people from those ages would have thought it abnormal that lay people should be scanning a miniature missal instead of praying at Mass. 

Some people like to read prayers; others don't.  Live and let live.

If you don't believe me, then explain the ridiculous amounts of missal-sized prayer books that litter European flea-markets. There wouldn't be so many if only 17th century Elon Musk could afford them.

  This is mostly due to European atheism and the abandonment of Catholicism.

I don't think Newman was necessarily modernist for this. He was merely saying that he would wait to see what continued magisterial tradition would make of the Church infallibly defining Her ability to infallibly define.

He was openly questioning a defined dogma, defined by a dogmatic council.  He was suggesting that Vatican 1 could be "overturned" or "re-interpreted" as if the Holy Ghost (who inspires all dogma, through the pope) could be wrong, or could "correct" Himself later.

Preposterous idea!  An absolute insult to the Holy Ghost and the Papacy.  Heresy in a nutshell. 

I don't think Newman was necessarily modernist for this. He was merely saying that he would wait to see what continued magisterial tradition would make of the Church infallibly defining Her ability to infallibly define.

Yup.

No.  It is entered into the AAS.

  A pope's endorsement of a book is not part of the AAS.  What are you smoking?  

When Dom Beauduin introduced the hand missal, his primary reason for doing so was to institute a uniform worship among the faithful, so that by entering into the prayers of the Mass, the faithful would all be worshiping in the same way (in addition to a "more conscious worship" achieved at the expense of the mystery safeguarded by Latin, which was an incremental first step in horizontalizing the liturgy by removing the dignity of Latin).

Quite simply, while its perfectly fine to read a missal if it unites you more closely to the sacrifice than other devotions, the collectivism implicit in this method is contradicted by the praxis of the Church for 1900 years: There is no theological reason justifying this uniformity (and that such a desire is not the mind of the Church is proven by recalling that there are no rubrics for the faithful attending Mass).  This abusive collectivism gradually instilled -even within trad circles- the defective notion that if you were not following along in your hand missal, you were not fully "participating" in the Mass, which is nonsense.

As to the first point, in much of [southern, at least] Europe till not even a century ago, local dialects were similar enough to Latin that even illiterates could understand much of what the priest said aloud, in the same way that present-day Spaniards, French, and Italians are able to make do amongst themselves in conversation. Thus, the dignity of ecclesiastical Latin is preserved more in its apartness from profane life than in its incomprehensibility. Similarly, when novusordites complain that the priest in the VO makes no sense, they yield ground to the Protestant false allegation that Catholics aren't allowed to read Scripture. We are indeed allowed to know what's said, but we don't want traitorous translations and heretical exegesis. Ecclesiastical Latin is the sure and universal vehicle for Truth, it isn't an end in itself.

As to the second point, agreed, yet that particular trad version of abusive and defective notions has the same human origin as that of orans-obsessed novusordites who also scowl when they see others refrain from sign-of-peace antics. Pharisaical ingroup vs. outgroup nonsense as usual.

BTW, I am weaning myself from my Mass time missal.