dealing with EF/OF tension

[malphono]

Perhaps I will start another thread for that later. I do not want to talk about the EF in this thread. In this one I am trying to figure out how to talk about the EF. When I say what I believe to be true, many people become offended. I am trying to figure out if there is a way to be honest at the same time as avoiding offending people.

I’m not by any means a “trad” but I am a liturgical purist (and that is not limited to the Roman Rite), and I must say that, assuming that all else is equal – meaning that the OF is done "by the book (“read the black, do the red”), I see the differences between the EF and the OF ) as being phenomenal.

Do those differences make the OF “invalid”? No. Does it make the EF “superior”? No, at least not objectively. Nonetheless, and despite all the posts and comments to the contrary, there are indeed objective differences between the EF and the OF, including the focus. Even where all else is equal (as noted above, and it’s not all that common to find), those objective differences remain. What some people don’t seem to understand is that it is not necessary to adopt a “politically correct” position to express those differences.

For example, we can look at the term “reverence” which, IMO, is overused by both sides in this unending argument. As I’ve said before in other threads, the concept of “reverence” is really quite relative and, IMO, not objectively quantifiable. It is, rather, strictly subjective. But, if one takes away the “all else is equal” and looks at the OF the way it is usually done, one can can say that whereas “reverence” may be subjective, adherence to the approved version is not. That is objective, and the unfortunate fact is that a great many OF parishes are strangers to the “read the black and do the red” philosophy, which means that the comparison becomes quite a bit more complicated.

Let’s say Mr X has two Masses available: one is EF and the other is an “innovative” OF. Now, Mr X is not a child of the dreaded “spirit of Vatican II” and will not darken the door of the OF Mass. Given the scenario, his reasons could well be both objective and subjective. The “subjective” is that he prefers the EF. The “objective” is the that local OF is less than orthodox in its practice.

Perhaps looking at it that way might help.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I think this has been the best post on this thread.

I second that !!

Thanks, ConstantineTG!

 

[floresco]

You see, if we start questioning whether the EF is better than the OF, then it will open avenues to compare the EF with the Mass/Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Rites. Then we’re just opening can after can of worms, creating more division with the Church. The Apostles meant for such diversity within the Church because Jesus meant for all men to be saved. Thus we are given different forms of Mass across different Rites to suit the needs of different people.

I understand that this is your position. I disagree. I think that some objective comparisons are possible between the OF and EF. Virtually every time someone makes a statement about this that claims objectivity , the discussion becomes emotional and uncharitable. I am asking for suggestions about how I can present my position in a way that will lead to rational, charitable discussions. Rather than answering my question, you are restating your belief that only statements of subjective preference are possible.

Is the answer to my question that I must give up on rational charitable discussion?

 

[super_squirrel]

One could always attend the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom at a Byzantine Rite Catholic Church and avoid the Latin Rite EF/OF tension altogether

 

[ProVobis]

I agree, but none of those are part of the Novus Ordo, but are abuses of the Novus Ordo. There is a distinction to be made.

Unfortunately many wouldn’t like or even recognize their liturgies without those abuses.

 

[ProVobis]

One could always attend the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom at a Byzantine Rite Catholic Church and avoid the Latin Rite EF/OF tension altogether

Especially if you don’t like to sit or kneel.

I’d prefer it if it were in Greek or Syrian, though.

 

[ConstantineTG]

One could always attend the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom at a Byzantine Rite Catholic Church and avoid the Latin Rite EF/OF tension altogether

True, and there are Divine Liturgy in the vernacular, so you are not limited to the traditional language of each Particular Church.

 

[Sirach2]

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?

There are reasons beneath the surface that a bishop is not obligated to discuss with advocates of the TLM liturgy, for they are complex and apt to be misunderstood.

In my area, many churches have been closed due to lack of priests, and the parishes have become partner parishes with a single pastor having to serve mass at two churches in a weekend. One of the partner parishes has abolished their Saturday evening vigil mass, and has only one mass for the entire church on Sunday morning. The other parish has cut the Sunday liturgy to one only besides the Saturday night vigil.

Now the directive from the Pope regarding the TLM states that, although there is the freedom to celebrate without the permission of the bishop, the pastor cannot substitute it for the regular Sunday Ordinary Form and must celebrate the regular liturgy for the people. So, which of the ONE Sunday masses would you suggest the bishop allow for the TLM? If the priest were to advertise in the bulletin (it is required) that the Saturday vigil is going to be TLM, and 20 people loyal to that liturgy attend, where would there be pews enough to support the entire parish the next morning at their ONE mass? As for the partner parish that is without a Saturday vigil and only one mass on Sunday, they will never be in a position to offer the TLM. Period.

This tiny percentage [actually, only 1% in my area] of those who desire the TLM does not warrant equal servicing. If 50% of the people were trads, and 50% preferred the NO, well maybe there would be a justified outrage if the other half was not given their share. However, like it or not, the TLM is the “extraordinary form” and not the ordinary liturgy mandated for celebration on a Sunday for the regular congregation, and it cannot be given equal status.

Do you begin to see how abhorrent it is to paint this sweeping characterization of our bishops as simply being arbitrary and unwilling to listen to the pope in celebrating the TLM for those who desire it?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I understand that this is your position. I disagree. I think that some objective comparisons are possible between the OF and EF. Virtually every time someone makes a statement about this that claims objectivity , the discussion becomes emotional and uncharitable. I am asking for suggestions about how I can present my position in a way that will lead to rational, charitable discussions. Rather than answering my question, you are restating your belief that only statements of subjective preference are possible.

Is the answer to my question that I must give up on rational charitable discussion?

The problem is no matter how sutble to make a statement, its an attack on their beliefs. Perhaps one should employ more empathy than apathy. Put yourself in their position first, understand why they believe what they believe. Bridges are never made from one side going to the next. Its always started on both sides and finish in the middle. Sometimes, you have to be the one to do the work from both sides. But working just from one side to the other can easily be construed as an act of war, because here you are coming in as if a conqueror. But if you also come from their side, you come as a sympathizer.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Oh, my goodness, I did not mean to imply that I was quick to judge his response and just come up with “conspiracy theories” as the reason why. We have asked, numerous times…with no answer as to why. There are priests here who would say it, many churches it could be said in, many people who would attend it and still the answer is just, “no”, no explanation. Our bishop deserves obedience and respect and we give him that, our priests deserve the same and we give it to them also. But it is not reciprocated. I have asked many times why the answer is no and have yet to get a reply whatsoever. How do you make sense of this? What are you to think?

My apologies, I was going through the flow of the conversation which began with a statement that is accusing Bishops to supressing the TLM. That is why I continues with that line of thought.

Refer to Sirach2’s post, he has a better explanation through his example.

 

[wisdomseeker]

There are reasons beneath the surface that a bishop is not obligated to discuss with advocates of the TLM liturgy, for they are complex and apt to be misunderstood.

In my area, many churches have been closed due to lack of priests, and the parishes have become partner parishes with a single pastor having to serve mass at two churches in a weekend. One of the partner parishes has abolished their Saturday evening vigil mass, and has only one mass for the entire church on Sunday morning. The other parish has cut the Sunday liturgy to one only besides the Saturday night vigil.

Now the directive from the Pope regarding the TLM states that, although there is the freedom to celebrate without the permission of the bishop, the pastor cannot substitute it for the regular Sunday Ordinary Form and must celebrate the regular liturgy for the people. So, which of the ONE Sunday masses would you suggest the bishop allow for the TLM? If the priest were to advertise in the bulletin (it is required) that the Saturday vigil is going to be TLM, and 20 people loyal to that liturgy attend, where would there be pews enough to support the entire parish the next morning at their ONE mass? As for the partner parish that is without a Saturday vigil and only one mass on Sunday, they will never be in a position to offer the TLM. Period.

This tiny percentage [actually, only 1% in my area] of those who desire the TLM does not warrant equal servicing. If 50% of the people were trads, and 50% preferred the NO, well maybe there would be a justified outrage if the other half was not given their share. However, like it or not, the TLM is the “extraordinary form” and not the ordinary liturgy mandated for celebration on a Sunday for the regular congregation, and it cannot be given equal status.

Do you begin to see how abhorrent it is to paint this sweeping characterization of our bishops as simply being arbitrary and unwilling to listen to the pope in celebrating the TLM for those who desire it?

do you have any excuse for the bishop in my area who refuse to let the Latin Mass in my area? the FSSP cannot come here because of the bishop do not allow it. there is one Latin Mass in the chapel in the Diocese that he tries to end. and that is too far for me and it is late noon.

 

[ProVobis]

Now the directive from the Pope regarding the TLM states that, although there is the freedom to celebrate without the permission of the bishop, the pastor cannot substitute it for the regular Sunday Ordinary Form and must celebrate the regular liturgy for the people.

That’s interesting because many of the places which have the TLM/EF today are places where the parishes were ready to close down or already had cut the number of OF’s in their regular Sunday schedule.

 

[Timothysis]

Tim, please allow this thread to remain open. Your hostility will most certainly get a padlock.

Friend, if this thread is closed it won’t be because of any “hostility” on my part.

You hurl accusations and then cry “foul” whenever you are called on them.

 

[MarkThompson]

That’s interesting because many of the places which have the TLM/EF today are places where the parishes were ready to close down or already had cut the number of OF’s in their regular Sunday schedule.

However, in general, because there is a far smaller number of TLMs than Masses in the Ordinary Form, such parishes draw from a significantly larger geographical area than their literal borders. It’s like seeing that a restaurant closed down due to bad business, reopened as a funky vinyl record shop, and is thriving with business from the city’s alt-music scene, and saying, “If only all struggling restaurateurs opened funky record stores instead – problem solved!”

 

[Sirach2]

ProVobis:

That’s interesting because many of the places which have the TLM/EF today are places where the parishes were ready to close down or already had cut the number of OF’s in their regular Sunday schedule.

How do you know this, and even so, how does this exempt the requirement to have an OF each Sunday for the congregation? If parishes are fortunate enough to have more than one liturgy and/or celebrant, and have more than 1% of traditionalists in their flock, what would be unusual about your statement?

Circumstances vary within dioceses, so it cannot be a blanket situation. Given the tremendous decline in vocations, and having heard on EWTN from other priests that this is pretty much the case everywhere, I believe the situation you describe is unique and rare. Have you seen the Directory for TLM liturgies? They are scarce in any given state.

 

[Timothysis]

The writing style also suggests emotion has taken over reason.

Sorry… I guess we can’t all be academics.

 

[Sirach2]

wisdom seeker:

do you have any excuse for the bishop in my area who refuse to let the Latin Mass in my area? the FSSP cannot come here because of the bishop do not allow it. there is one Latin Mass in the chapel in the Diocese that he tries to end. and that is too far for me and it is late noon.

I cannot anticipate his reasons, unfortunately. You may want to ask him kindly what the problem is. Generally, our bishops encounter great difficulties trying to administer all the parishes in their diocese, and many factors go into their decisions. Our Catholic newspaper just announced this week that one priest is retiring at 80 years of age and it required the move of eight priests, as he tried to fill his shoes. This parish was ethnic, so it will be difficult to replace him, as the new pastor does not speak Polish. God bless 53 years of service by this faithful priest!

 

[ProVobis]

How do you know this,

In Chicago: St. John Cantius, St. Gelasius,
In Rockford: St. Mary

In these parishes there are a heck of a lot more than 1% EF supporters. And before their restorations, there were close to 0 NO supporters.

I suggest you also look at statistics in France and Germany before you start spreading your “Ha, ha, we’ve got the numbers to wipe you guys out” mentality. Then we wonder why we have tension?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Tim, please allow this thread to remain open. Your hostility will most certainly get a padlock.

I see no hostility on Tim’s part. He has made some excellent points and I appreciate them very much.

Thanks, Tim!!

Please don’t stare at my clothes during Mass. We are here to attend to Christ the Lord, not my attire.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I cannot anticipate his reasons, unfortunately. You may want to ask him kindly what the problem is. Generally, our bishops encounter great difficulties trying to administer all the parishes in their diocese, and many factors go into their decisions. Our Catholic newspaper just announced this week that one priest is retiring at 80 years of age and it required the move of eight priests, as he tried to fill his shoes. This parish was ethnic, so it will be difficult to replace him, as the new pastor does not speak Polish. God bless 53 years of service by this faithful priest!

so, you do have an excuse.