P
Are the arguments for superiority of the TLM based on the dreaded emotionalism of the charismatics?
- Status
E
ethelzguy
Guest
There were plenty of little quirks and/or abuses back in the Latin days as well, but we have romanticized those days to the point that we forget.
My 49 Ford was great, but let’s face it, the brakes, steering, and suspension were nothing compared to today’s cars.
Ah, but those were the days, right?
My 49 Ford was great, but let’s face it, the brakes, steering, and suspension were nothing compared to today’s cars.
Ah, but those were the days, right?
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Eric,
You misunderstood me. The point I was making is that I didn’t label you. Let me try to explain it more clearly:
You posted aboutOrdinary Form of the Latin rite of Mass in which you gave several examples of very severe Liturgical abuses as evidence that the Ordinary Form is not beautiful. I pointed out that your post very unfairly characterized these abuses as being intrinsic to the Ordinary Form, rather than what they were - abuses contrary to the proper celebration of the Ordinary Form. You responded with rather harsh and negative post in which you said that 95% of all Ordinary Form Masses are like that and in which you made it clear that you recognize the Ordinary Form is not supposed to be as it was in those examples. I said that this is a gross exagerration, to which you replied that I hadn’t walked in your shoes and that you had been labeled a wacko, looked at with odd looks, and suffered many other injustices due to your love of the Extraordinary Form.
I invited you to be a part of the solution by showing how the EF has transformed you into the image of Christ. I pointed out that one of the reasons you were treated that way is because most of the vocal traditionalists do act like wackos, for lack of a better term. They go around labeling people heretics and spouting vile language towards the Pauline Mass and those who attend or prefer it. I invited you to help eliminate this reputation, and to join the many traditionalists on this forum who do not behave that way. In response, you said that I had not walked in your shoes and so that in some way either excuses you from or causes you to act harshly as you did.
I then said that you had not walked in my shoes, and that I have been subject to the very same sorts of attacks from traditionalists as you have from others, but that I had not labeled you but had instead prayed to the Holy Spirit so that He might help me to communicate with you in a loving way. My point was that if you truly want to support the EF and to spread the news about it, you must act in this way, showing forth the love of Christ which you have received at that Mass.
I didn’t label you. My point was exactly that just as I had not labeled you because of the many vocal traditionalists who behave terribly, so too you ought to offer up your suffering on the behalf of those who treat you poorly for your belief and preach your message lovingly as I have tried to do.
I hope that clears things up! Peace and God bless
You misunderstood me. The point I was making is that I didn’t label you. Let me try to explain it more clearly:
You posted aboutOrdinary Form of the Latin rite of Mass in which you gave several examples of very severe Liturgical abuses as evidence that the Ordinary Form is not beautiful. I pointed out that your post very unfairly characterized these abuses as being intrinsic to the Ordinary Form, rather than what they were - abuses contrary to the proper celebration of the Ordinary Form. You responded with rather harsh and negative post in which you said that 95% of all Ordinary Form Masses are like that and in which you made it clear that you recognize the Ordinary Form is not supposed to be as it was in those examples. I said that this is a gross exagerration, to which you replied that I hadn’t walked in your shoes and that you had been labeled a wacko, looked at with odd looks, and suffered many other injustices due to your love of the Extraordinary Form.
I invited you to be a part of the solution by showing how the EF has transformed you into the image of Christ. I pointed out that one of the reasons you were treated that way is because most of the vocal traditionalists do act like wackos, for lack of a better term. They go around labeling people heretics and spouting vile language towards the Pauline Mass and those who attend or prefer it. I invited you to help eliminate this reputation, and to join the many traditionalists on this forum who do not behave that way. In response, you said that I had not walked in your shoes and so that in some way either excuses you from or causes you to act harshly as you did.
I then said that you had not walked in my shoes, and that I have been subject to the very same sorts of attacks from traditionalists as you have from others, but that I had not labeled you but had instead prayed to the Holy Spirit so that He might help me to communicate with you in a loving way. My point was that if you truly want to support the EF and to spread the news about it, you must act in this way, showing forth the love of Christ which you have received at that Mass.
I didn’t label you. My point was exactly that just as I had not labeled you because of the many vocal traditionalists who behave terribly, so too you ought to offer up your suffering on the behalf of those who treat you poorly for your belief and preach your message lovingly as I have tried to do.
I hope that clears things up! Peace and God bless
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
And is it proper for priests to mangle the mass to their own selfish liking?
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
ok fine I understand but let me be clear that the ignorance comes from both sides. The modernists are just as guilty for making people like feel like **** because I prefer the old mass and when I question things about the novous ordo that are not correct.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Perhaps if some of the folks on this forum availed themselves a genuine Sacrementary, and took a good look at it, they might realize that some of the “latitudes” priests avail themselves of are GIVEN to them, not wrongly taken.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I agree that the modernists are just as guilty. The issue is that - and I can tell you from experience - the vast majority of people who act the way you are describing only do so because they’ve been led to believe that traditional Catholics are nasty people, thanks to the fact that the most vocal of them have behaved that way. I’m inviting you to, in a Christ-like way, put your pain behind you and begin to be a vocal but respectful, kind, and polite traditional Catholic. Only through people like yourself choosing to do that will the unfair reputation traditional Catholics have change.
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
And that is why there is the GIRM. I would say allot of priests do not follow the GIRM. The roman missal itself is weak or unclear with its rubrics where as the 1962 missal is extremely detailed as far as the rubrics are concerned.
S
Sarpedon
Guest
Of course not. This applies to both the OF and EF. You simply can’t say that the OF is synomous with mangled masses.
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
no but it happens more with the OF it seems.
S
Sarpedon
Guest
Yes, but we don’t really want to appeal to pragmatism in support of our arguments. To say that the EF is better because the priests who say it are less likely to abuse it is pragmatic.
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
I think as far as rubrics are concerned the EF is better.
The OF is weak with its rubrics and not all priests follow the GIRM the way they are supposed to leaving the potention for abuse.
Have you ever seen an EF missal? The rubrics are extremely detailed.
S
Sarpedon
Guest
This is not the same as the Mass itself- the potential for abuse exists in all masses
I have seen missals for both forms. Yes, the EF rubrics are more complex than the OF rubrics. All this means is that the EF is a more structured mass than the OF. This doesn’t relate to abuse. A simpler mass celebrated according to simpler rubrics is not an abuse.
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
yes it is when the priest ignores them as well as the GIRM.
S
Sarpedon
Guest
Of course, this goes without question. However, you can’t say that the OF itself is inferior because of this. OF masses are more likely to be abused because they are the “default” mass and are said by both devout and not-so-devout priests, while those who say the EF are a self-selected group of devout priests
S
SJP
Guest
“In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”
BENEDICT XVI
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
P
proud2bcatholic
Guest
Not only is the Novus Ordo Mass (without abuses) less reverent than the TLM. But even worse the philosophy behind the creation of the Novus Ordo was utterly irreverent.
S
Sarpedon
Guest
All this says is that traditional practices have value, cannot be forbidden or deemed inferior, and that we should preserve them and give them their proper place
This is what the church has done, with both liturgies side by side.
I don’'t see anything here that says that adding to the tradition of the church is harmful.
S
Sarpedon
Guest
S
SJP
Guest
There is nothing wrong with “adding” to the traditions of the church. That has happened throughout the history of Catholicism. However, legitimate development is always organic… there is no “rupture”. When one studies the development of the liturgy prior to V2, it is clear that the development of the liturgy was indeed organic.
Was the creation of the OF of the Mass an “organic development?”
I’ll defer to Cardinal Ratzinger:
“What happened at the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living, process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”
-From the preface to the French edition of “Reforms of the Roman Liturgy Its Problems and Background” 1993
I’m not saying that the OF is inherently corrupt, however, its celebration in the average North American Parish is so far removed from the liturgical traditions of the Church, that one could scarcely call it “Catholic.”
Therefore, the Church’s Liturgical tradition is more accurately expressed in the EF. In this way, the EF is certainly superior.
- Status