Allergic to tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spyridon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blessings
The church is bringing the Latin mass back. They are stifling the Charaatic renewal. The drop in church attendance is being blamed on Vatican II.
They forget the priest scandal…
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice
It all brings worship to God. ( not the scandal, of course.)
 
Freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
 
So in the context of your original statement what are you meaning to say?
 
Freedom for a purpose generally refers to being free to choose whatever you want, and choosing to serve something bigger than yourself.

For example, many young kids are told their free to do what they want, whatever they want, yet they have no idea what they want. They have no purpose or cause to shape that freedom into something good.
 
adgloriam said:
You are right on all accounts Tis_Bear, it were very very different times. Perhaps the two examples I find most funny are that back then folks didn’t have TV (or internet) so they didn’t waste any significant (or compulsive) time on entertainment.
Click to expand...
They made their own entertainment. My grandmother is Native American. After the chores were done and when it was dark but they were still awake her parents–especially her father would tell stories for hours. They would make little playthings. They interacted with eachother more but they still had copious amounts of “entertainment” in their lives, especially during the winter.

This was citra 1930’s rez life.
 
I think if people knew more about Why the Church has the reverent traditions of the past, they would be more accepting of it. I don’t think many people have been taught what the traditions are and why they were established in the first place.
Also, I think there can also be an attitude that the “old ways” aren’t “evolved” enough, as if previous generations weren’t educated enough and/or were a bunch of lemmings. :roll_eyes:
 
Well, I have been called a “modernist” on this forum because I prefer the Ordinary Form Mass; even though where I attend Mass, the propers and ordinary are in Latin/Greek Gregorian chant, the rest in French plainchant, and in spite of the fact that I chant Lauds and Vespers in Latin every day…

So I think it works both ways, a good dose of tolerance on either side would make the Church more unified.
 
OraLabora said:
modernist” on this forum because I prefer the Ordinary Form Mass;
Click to expand...
I suppose I’m a modernist as well then - I also prefer the OF Roman Mass over the EF. I find the OF is closer to the Eastern Divine Liturgies which I know and love.
 
More standing and less kneeling in general.

Standing to receive Communion.

Receiving the Blood as well as the Body at Communion.

Going up in a line to receive instead of using altar rails or kneelers.

Use of the vernacular instead of strictly Latin.

The Litany of Prayers of the Faithful after the homily.

The procession of the Gospel Book.

These are just a few of the noticeable ways in which the OF Roman Mass is closer to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy than the EF Roman Mass.

I’m convinced that the Eastern Liturgies played a big part in influencing the reforms to the Liturgy post-VII.
 
Last edited:
The statement conveys the meaning. It is a basic concept of communication. Ideas, principles, truths which would otherwise remain hidden are signified by words, written or spoken, and made visible to the intellect of the other via a functioning sensory orexis. The ability of the other, the recipient, to comprehend is limited by the capacity to both comprehend the medium of communication and to discern from it the conveyed meaning.
 
I don’t mean to be playing the devil’s advocate here, but I’m honestly asking this:

If you ‘prefer’ the O.F. do you really feel the E.F. is absolutely, exactly, 100% as holy and reverent as the O.F.? Exactly?

I’m only asking for O.F. because the vast majority of people here have experienced it only, or for the vast majority, of their lives. Very few people have not only a personal contemporary experience of the E.F. but have also experienced it 'for the majority of their lives.

So, for the moment setting those aside who have attended the E.F. for the majority of their lives or have ‘only’ experienced it, I will ask again of the 99% posting here, who have experienced the O.F. only, or for most of their lives. . .

Do you truly 100% believe that the E.F. is absolutely exactly as holy and reverent as the O.F.?
 
I went to the OF exclusively until five years ago. If the Latin Mass isn’t as holy as the OF, then I don’t know why the Church waited so long for Vatican II. If the OF is superior, why did Trent happen?

Also, if the OF is holier, how do the Eastern rites fit in?
 
I wasn’t considering the Eastern rites (though I find them beautiful). I was --and am–just wondering if the average person who has attended the O.F. pretty much their whole life does feel that the E.F. is just as holy and reverent as the O.F.
 
stpurl said:
I wasn’t considering the Eastern rites (though I find them beautiful). I was --and am–just wondering if the average person who has attended the O.F. pretty much their whole life does feel that the E.F. is just as holy and reverent as the O.F.
Click to expand...
raises hand

I think that a well done OF is just as holy and reverent, if not more than TLM. As stated above I know Latin well. I do think that there are more poorly done OF but that’s because it’s everywhere. It would be the same with TLM if it was the more popular one.
 
Thank you Xanthippe, but that wasn’t the question.

The question was, for the person who attends the O.F. regularly and has for most of his/her life, does THAT person truly feel that the E.F. is exactly as holy and reverent as the O.F.?

You kind of went the other way around!

In a way you did answer but you couched it not as, “I believe the E.F. is as reverent as the O.F., you went and turned it into " I believe the O.F. can be MORE reverent than the E.F.” So you’re saying that as somebody who attends the O.F., then, that you do NOT feel that the E.F. IS as reverent and holy as the O.F. . . .is that it?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top