dealing with EF/OF tension

[ConstantineTG]

Some things I don’t understand about the new mass"

• Why does the Priest face the people instead of the alter when making the sacrifice? Doesn’t that imply the priest is there for the people instead of God?
  -Why were these “tables” put in and the alter removed? Doesn’t a table imply a communion “meal” similar to the protestant version of communion?

Well, yes, the Last Supper is a meal. Also, I believe history points to that 1st Century Christians use simple dining tables for the Eucharist. So this is not without precedent

-How come hardly any of the scripture readings from the new mass talk about “gnashing of the teeth” and hell?

Does it have to be every week?

-Why should we stand up to receive the eucharist? Doens’t standing up imply an equal relationship with God, when in reality we should kneel when receiving a king?

Standing has been the norm for the Eastern Churches. Why is it good for them and not us?

-Why should we take the eucharist in the hand? I don’t think we should- out of respect for God, and also out of respect for the priest who has sacrificed so much and thus deserves a certain exclusivity with Christ.

Again, this is not a new thing and this is how it was in the past.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Before Summorum Pontificum there were many places in which the TLM was, in effect, banned. Even now, there are bishops who do not obey SP.

Because before SP, the EF was an indult. I thought traditionalists are against indults?

 

[CWBetts]

Before Summorum Pontificum there were many places in which the TLM was, in effect, banned. Even now, there are bishops who do not obey SP.

Still, the TLM can be celebrated anywhere on the Catholic world without permission. In addition, can you name the Dioceses where this is a problem? I would be interested to know who these alleged rebel Bishops are.

 

[Momofmyangels]

I think you are approaching the issue the wrong way. Our bishop for one is very supportive of the TLM, and yet there is only one FSSP parish in our archdiocese. Its not about supressing it but the feasibility of establishing EF masses. Fact is, a great amount of Catholics in a given area prefer the OF over the EF. If there is an EF mass in every parish, how many people would attend it regularly? There is so much that goes into that decision so please do not throw out unfounded suspicions of conspiracy theories unless you have solid evidence that there is one in fact.

When a bishop tells you you will never see the TLM in your area, despite a great amount of Catholics preferring it, what is one to think? Of course suspicions come into play when the pope says we are entitled to have the TLM and the bishops won’t allow it. What else are we supposed to think? I have never heard of a person preferring the NO and the bishop telling them, no, they will never see it. If both are valid and equal why is there such a struggle to get the TLM said?

 

[notredame_999]

As to the others, I do not have an answer for you. I am not a liturgist. But I can say that nothing that you mention falls under those things that are the substance of the Sacrament, but relate to the form, which can and do change over the centuries.

Well it seems to me that a lot of these new “changes” were protestant desires going all the way back to Martin Luther. It reflects a dis-belief in the real presence. According to Malachi Martin who worked extensively in the Vatican, a good number of consecrations are not even valid in the Novus Ordo because there isn’t sufficient consecration leading up to it, and the priest often times does not even realizing what he’s doing. I think he would know, the guy is brilliant.

 

[CWBetts]

Well it seems to me that a lot of these new “changes” were protestant desires going all the way back to Martin Luther. It reflects a dis-belief in the real presence. According to Malachi Martin who worked extensively in the Vatican, a good number of consecrations are not even valid in the Novus Ordo because there isn’t sufficient consecration leading up to it, and the priest often times does not even realizing what he’s doing. I think he would know, the guy is brilliant.

You need to rationalize this position. How does the NO deny Transubstantiation?

 

[Robert_Burns]

You were never called a racist, which was made abundantly clear. What was criticized was your logic, which is faulty, at best.

Robert : Your opinion is that my logic is faulty and my opinion is that your opinion is faulty and shortsighted and biased , overly dramatic and your analogies purposely used inflamatory rhetoric for efffect rather than substance. Its like calling someone a “Nazi like person” so as to deflect from the actual subject matter , a classic strawman fallacy .

 

[MarkThompson]

Robert: Well right now I can point to 6 different attacks to what I have written and my opinion is centered on what I as an individual think - I cast no aspersions on the beliefs of others and yet when I expressed that opinion I was for all intents and purposes called a Racist - a Pope Hater - a defector - a person willing to not fulfill my Sunday Obligation , Etc . So you might forward that opinion if you care to - but in this simple exercise - I challenge anyone to show where I have leveled the least bit of criticism over what anyone else does. I simply stated what I dont like and why. I have yet to point out a single fault in anyone else. Can those who responded to my opnion say the same?

Well, it’s like if you asked a girl for a date and she said, “Hey, I’m not criticizing you, but I don’t like your clothes, your face, the way you talk, the way you act, or how you smell. If you’re fine with all those things, then more power to ya. But I will avoid you, and to be honest I would drive an hour and fifteen minutes out of my way not to see you. Still, don’t take any of this as a criticism – it’s just my opinion.”

 

[floresco]

If you go back on your sentence you will find your answer. You started out with “But I think,” then end with “not my personal feeling.” Kind of contradictory, is it not?

This is a good example of what I mean by difficulties in communicating. I consider thinking and feeling to be distinct and very different. I feel happier at the EF. I think its theology is expressed more clearly. Not only do I make this distinction, but thinking and feeling have different implications.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Well, it’s like if you asked a girl for a date and she said, “Hey, I’m not criticizing you, but I don’t like your clothes, your face, the way you talk, the way you act, or how you smell. If you’re fine with all those things, then more power to ya. But I will avoid you, and to be honest I would drive an hour and fifteen minutes out of my way not to see you. Still, don’t take any of this as a criticism – it’s just my opinion.”

Robert: No my analogy along the same thought lines would be - I date the Girl i date because she is intelligent , graceful , beautiful , modest , religious and we have everthing in common. You then question MY Judgement and offer your sister to replace her. And I kindly refuse to date her. for alll the reasons you just mentioned. I dont have to mention them because we all can see and smell for ourselves. Each person has diffferent tastes in women. I happen to like mine Bathed.

 

[CWBetts]

Robert : Your opinion is that my logic is faulty and my opinion is that your opinion is faulty and shortsighted and biased , overly dramatic and your analogies purposely used inflamatory rhetoric for efffect rather than substance. Its like calling someone a “Nazi like person” so as to deflect from the actual subject matter , a classic strawman fallacy .

It wasn’t my analogy, I was coming to the defense of another. You are perceiving attacks upon your position as attacks upon your person. If you engage in a debate, you r position will be criticized. Learn to deal with it. It does not strengthen your position to complain about non-existent personal attacks.

 

[floresco]

Well, it’s like if you asked a girl for a date and she said, “Hey, I’m not criticizing you, but I don’t like your clothes, your face, the way you talk, the way you act, or how you smell. If you’re fine with all those things, then more power to ya. But I will avoid you, and to be honest I would drive an hour and fifteen minutes out of my way not to see you. Still, don’t take any of this as a criticism – it’s just my opinion.”

It is nothing like that. You are being like someone who reacts to a person who says that he doesn’t like anchovies on pizza by saying, “Well then you don’t like me because that is my favorite pizza topping.”

 

[Robert_Burns]

It wasn’t my analogy, I was coming to the defense of another. You are perceiving attacks upon your position as attacks upon your person. If you engage in a debate, you r position will be criticized. Learn to deal with it. It does not strengthen your position to complain about non-existent personal attacks.

Robert: My post began with “your opinion” whether that opinion be a faulty defense of an erroneous analogy , so be it. You seeem to be taking this way to personal. I am merely expressing my opinion of your faulty deffense of that faulty analogy and identifying the flaws in it. Consider it dealt with. I have already moved on. And BTW - since my rebuttle was adequate it doesnt need strrengthening.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Still, the TLM can be celebrated anywhere on the Catholic world without permission. In addition, can you name the Dioceses where this is a problem? I would be interested to know who these alleged rebel Bishops are.

my dear friend, you dont seem to know much about what is going on in the Church. i will leave at that. it is better for you not to know.

 

[CWBetts]

Robert: My post began with “your opinion” whether that opinion be a faulty defense of an erroneous analogy , so be it. You seeem to be taking this way to personal. I am merely expressing my opinion of your faulty deffense of that faulty analogy and identifying the flaws in it. Consider it dealt with. I have already moved on. And BTW - since my rebuttle was adequate it doesnt need strrengthening.

You have yet to make a compelling statement on this thread.

 

[MarkThompson]

It is nothing like that. You are being like someone who reacts to a person who says that he doesn’t like anchovies on pizza by saying, “Well then you don’t like me because that is my favorite pizza topping.”

I suppose it’s the phrasing that draws out what a person really means. To drop the analogies, compare:

1. I go to the EF because it’s what I consider to be reverent and in touch with how I worship God. For people who feel that way about the OF, no problem.
2. I go to the EF because it is more reverent and it is how we appropriately worship God. For people who disagree, whatever.
   Position 1 is entirely reasonable, but I’m sensing quite a bit more of Position 2 from some people here. Consider, by way of contrast:
   1(a). I go to the OF because I prefer to worship in the vernacular and I find that I’m able to engage and participate more fully in the worship than I can at a TLM.
   2(a). I go to the OF because in today’s world we worship in the vernacular, and we should be able to actually engage and participate fully in worship.
   I’ve definitely heard (well, not on this board) plenty of the second position, and I argue against that as well.

 

[notredame_999]

You need to rationalize this position. How does the NO deny Transubstantiation?

I didnt say it denies transubstantiation.

 

[floresco]

It wasn’t my analogy, I was coming to the defense of another. You are perceiving attacks upon your position as attacks upon your person. If you engage in a debate, you r position will be criticized. Learn to deal with it. It does not strengthen your position to complain about non-existent personal attacks.

It seems to me that he has legitimate complaints about some of the comments directed at him. They have been unfair and emotionally-loaded.

 

[Robert_Burns]

I suppose it’s the phrasing that draws out what a person really means. To drop the analogies, compare:

1. I go to the EF because it’s what I consider to be reverent and in touch with how I worship God. For people who feel that way about the OF, no problem.
2. I go to the EF because it is more reverent and it is how we appropriately worship God. For people who disagree, whatever.
   Position 1 is entirely reasonable, but I’m sensing quite a bit more of Position 2 from some people here. Consider, by way of contrast:
   1(a). I go to the OF because I prefer to worship in the vernacular and I find that I’m able to engage and participate more fully in the worship than I can at a TLM.
   2(a). I go to the OF because in today’s world we worship in the vernacular, and we should be able to actually engage and participate fully in worship.
   I’ve definitely heard (well, not on this board) plenty of the second position, and I argue against that as well.

Robert: 2. I go to the EF because it is more reverent and it is how we appropriately worship God. For people who disagree, whatever

That was my POINT and apparently according to CW Betts not kosher enough for his or her tastes. But I especially like the last word - whatever.

 

[CWBetts]

It seems to me that he has legitimate complaints about some of the comments directed at him. They have been unfair and emotionally-loaded.

IMHO, if the attacks are really that serious, he needs to report the poster and put the offender on his ignore list