dealing with EF/OF tension

[MarkThompson]

It seems to be quite acceptable among many people to say things like “I have absolutely no desire to ever attend the EF, I have a distinct preference to Mass in the vernacular and that’s the way I am” Yet, quite a number are shocked and sometimes offended when I say the exact opposite. Doesn’t mean I spend my time maligning those who attend the OF, I know many fine Catholics who attend only the OF, it’s just that I have no desire to myself.

That’s a reasonable point, but I really can’t say I know very many Catholics who would declare about the EF, “I wont go to it under any circumstances.” I suppose that there must be some, somewhere. In fact, one of the great points I hear people make in favor of the TLM is that there are people so dedicated to it that they will drive hours to go to one – but who, the argument runs, would drive hours to get to an OF Mass if that’s what it took? Not very many, I’d reckon.

 

[Momofmyangels]

You’re probably right. To be clear, I don’t want to say that Mr. Burns’ view are in any way racist (how could I know any such thing?), only to point out that “I don’t look down on you, all I’m saying is that I go an hour and fifteen minutes out of my way to avoid seeing you” isn’t exactly a paragon of tolerance.

But he didn’t say he was going out of his way to avoid seeing any persons…just that he prefers to attend the TLM even if it is an hour and fifteen minutes away. What really is so wrong with that? I’d travel 2 hours away to avoid the atrocities I encounter every Sunday where I attend Mass.

 

[MarkThompson]

But he didn’t say he was going out of his way to avoid seeing any persons…just that he prefers to attend the TLM even if it is an hour and fifteen minutes away. What really is so wrong with that? I’d travel 2 hours away to avoid the atrocities I encounter every Sunday where I attend Mass.

Well, he didn’t quite say that he “prefers” the TLM, did he? He said that he wouldn’t go to an OF Mass “under any circumstances. I avoid it.” He obviously knows that his stance on the issue is somewhere well outside of the mainstream, since he expected responses “fast and furious.”

 

[Momofmyangels]

Well, he didn’t quite say that he “prefers” the TLM, did he? He said that he wouldn’t go to an OF Mass “under any circumstances. I avoid it.” He obviously knows that his stance on the issue is somewhere well outside of the mainstream, since he expected responses “fast and furious.”

But, still, isn’t it his prerogative to attend the TLM exclusively. He hasn’t said the NO is invalid, nor that he looks down on the people that attend it, just that he will not attend it. It is the same for the people who exclusively attend the NO, it is their right to do so. Isn’t it Robert’s right to do so also? I’m not trying to argue, just trying to understand.

 

[MarkThompson]

But, still, isn’t it his prerogative to attend the TLM exclusively. He hasn’t said the NO is invalid, nor that he looks down on the people that attend it, just that he will not attend it. It is the same for the people who exclusively attend the NO, it is their right to do so. Isn’t it Robert’s right to do so also? I’m not trying to argue, just trying to understand.

Of course it’s his right. I’m trying to draw out the tension between “Oh don’t worry, I don’t look down on it” and “I would never, ever go to it under any circumstances whatsoever.” Personally, I don’t think those are particularly compatible modes of thinking. I think often, in these cases, the first statement (“I don’t look down on it”, “I acknowledge it’s valid”) is a perfunctory bow and scrape made before explaining why, really, you believe just the opposite and anyone else with half a brain ought to also.

 

[Ockham]

What makes you think that the TLM is 2000 years old? it is about 500 years old. At one time it was “new.” You are fearful of change, and you recall a Golden Age of the Church that never existed. It is this stubbornness that causes division in the Church. Those that insist that the Novus Ordo is inferior are really the source of the problem.

This post is exactly why there is tension between the OF and EF supporters. Show me where I said the EF is two thousand years old.

Please allow this thread to remain open. If you can’t restrain yourself don’t post.

 

[archangel04]

I have a different opinion on the situation. I think as Catholics we should be willing to help others achieve the right kind understanding of the Church teachings. Did the Apostles ignore the gentiles because they didn’t believe in Jesus? No, they approached them with charity and preached the Gospel to them. We should do the same thing. By abandoning people and leaving them in the same sinful state we found them, then we didn’t follow what Jesus said that we should preach the Gospel to all nations. As lay people we are not expected to do what priests and missionaries do, but at the very least we should preach to those we come across in our everyday lives.

That’s just my take.

There is a difference between helping a fellow person, and staying in a relationship with that person. If he tried to help her, but it wasnt working he had every right to break up with her at any point of the relationship, and go their seperate ways, there is nothing wrong with that, they were not married.

 

[Ockham]

That’s a reasonable point, but I really can’t say I know very many Catholics who would declare about the EF, “I wont go to it under any circumstances.” I suppose that there must be some, somewhere. In fact, one of the great points I hear people make in favor of the TLM is that there are people so dedicated to it that they will drive hours to go to one – but who, the argument runs, would drive hours to get to an OF Mass if that’s what it took? Not very many, I’d reckon.

Mark, on the third Voris thread you presented a very well thought out summary of the OF/EF divide. If you have time could you re-post please?

 

[floresco]

That’s standard human behavior. What’s uncanny is after a long debate with someone here it often comes out they are a married decon, EMHC, “Liturgical Minister” or teach RCIA. If the Church were to return to a more tradtional practice then those laity roles would be diminished or eliminated.

In my experience, the vast majority of people who perform those roles act out of a sincere desire to serve the Church. While I am am not enthusiastic about laity doing these things, I really don’t want to question the motives of the people who do them. And I don’t think it is fair to say their resistance to traditions I value is motivated by a desire to protect their roles.

This sort of ascribing bad motives to others is one of the main causes of tension and hostility between us. Both “sides” do it - trads and non-trads. I have probably done it myself and, if so, I apologize. I have a right to make a case for the EF being better, but no right to make these kinds of judgments about people. I ask the forgiveness of anyone that I may have wronged in this way.

 

[Timothysis]

What I see happening, (as objectively as possible) is non-traditional Catholics come into this the Traditional Catholic forum and debate the above issues. Some are often offended that someone not only prefers the EF but can make an argument as to why it’s a better expression of Catholic faith.

And this is exactly what the problem is!!! This isn’t the “traditionalists” Catholicism Forum; it is the Traditional Catholicism Forum! Many people (including myself) consider themselves Traditional Catholics because we follow the Pope, the Church, the bishops and all that they hold and teach. Those who call themselves “traditionalists” have made an “us and them” distinction between the “modern” Church and the fantasized Church of the Golden Age of Catholicism. The two are on and the same. I can assure you that no one is going to be offended if one has a preference for the EF; they will be offended, however, when the "argument as to why it’s a better expression of Catholic faith" begins, or the “six protestant ministers and a freemason” argument arises, or why your wrong to receive communion in the hand. Add to that the "I’ll drive an hour and a half to attend the EF rather than go to the OF a half mile from my house" attitude and you are going to have a clash.

What I feel would ease the tension is for the non-traditional Catholics to realize the givens and not get emotional when someone states their reasons for being traditional on an issue or subject.

The same applies to those who assume a* more Catholic than the pope* attitude when others express satisfaction with the OF. It really does go both ways, you know.

If you can’t control yourself then stay in the L&S forum or at least don’t make inflammatory posts here.

It is not your place to decide who can and can’t post here. This attitude is just another example of the whole problem.

 

[Ockham]

In my experience, the vast majority of people who perform those roles act out of a sincere desire to serve the Church.

I agree that there is most certainly many people who perform these roles with sincere intentions. However, I also suspect others do so for their own vanity and lash out to defend their privileges. Regardless, the blurring of the separation between laity and clergy does not serve the best interests of the Church.

 

[Ockham]

The same applies to those who assume a* more Catholic than the pope* attitude when others express satisfaction with the OF. It really does go both ways, you know.

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

 

[Momofmyangels]

Of course it’s his right. I’m trying to draw out the tension between “Oh don’t worry, I don’t look down on it” and “I would never, ever go to it under any circumstances whatsoever.” Personally, I don’t think those are particularly compatible modes of thinking. I think often, in these cases, the first statement (“I don’t look down on it”, “I acknowledge it’s valid”) is a perfunctory bow and scrape made before explaining why, really, you believe just the opposite and anyone else with half a brain ought to also.

or, the “I don’t look down on it”, “I acknowledge it’s valid” may be to remain civil and not start an argument, kind of like being politically correct I guess. I can certainly see how people would preface their statements in favor of the TLM with those types of statements after repeatedly getting a negative response when they state they prefer the TLM. Arguments get us nowhere, charitable discussions on the other hand can be very helpful and informative. And whose to know whether those statements and stating why you, yourself feel otherwise can’t co-exist?

 

[Melchior_1]

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

Ock, I’m not seeing the hostility you’re talking about. Both sides are coming across as fairly reasonable at this point.

 

[floresco]

I’m trying to draw out the tension between “Oh don’t worry, I don’t look down on it” and “I would never, ever go to it under any circumstances whatsoever.” Personally, I don’t think those are particularly compatible modes of thinking. I think often, in these cases, the first statement (“I don’t look down on it”, “I acknowledge it’s valid”) is a perfunctory bow and scrape made before explaining why, really, you believe just the opposite and anyone else with half a brain ought to also.

It seems to me that this way expressing oneself is a typical trad way to try to get along with non-trads. (I am using “trad” and “non-trad” with the hope that these terms are neutral and inoffensive. I am open to suggestions for better terminology to achieve that goal.) I think that there are a whole lot of us trads who want to get along but the non-trads keep pointing us to a path to “getting along” that we can’t take. They tell us, “All you have to do is say that is just a matter of preference and both forms are equally good.”

I can’t take that path without violating my intellectual integrity. To the best of my understanding, the EF is better. As much as I want to get along, I can’t get there by being dishonest. The sort of thing that you are objecting to is a trad way of attempting to make peace while remaining true to what we think.

 

[Ockham]

Ock, I’m not seeing the hostility you’re talking about. Both sides are coming across as fairly reasonable at this point.

Accusing someone of thinking they are more holy that the pope isn’t a nice thing to say. I bet the ol’ ‘you just want the smells and bells’ is coming next. The writing style also suggests emotion has taken over reason.

 

[floresco]

Those who call themselves “traditionalists” have made an “us and them” distinction between the “modern” Church and the fantasized Church of the Golden Age of Catholicism. The two are on and the same. I can assure you that no one is going to be offended if one has a preference for the EF; they will be offended, however, when the "argument as to why it’s a better expression of Catholic faith" begins, or the “six protestant ministers and a freemason” argument arises, or why your wrong to receive communion in the hand. Add to that the "I’ll drive an hour and a half to attend the EF rather than go to the OF a half mile from my house" attitude and you are going to have a clash.

I call myself a traditionalist and I have no fantasies of a Golden Age of Catholicism. I have studied too much Church history for that. And I would prefer that the Church not be torn apart by needless “us and them” distinctions. Nevertheless, after much thought and study, I have come to conclusions that you find offensive. What do you suggest? Should I not say what I really think because it offends you? That somewhat defeats the point of having a discussion forum.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Robert: See what I mean? I simply expressed my honest opinion about what I think of the OF and I have been accused of intolerance , had an analogy to racism used - an analogy of POPE avoidance used , etc. Need I say more? I dont go to the OF because I dont like the way women dress - or men for that matter - I dont like the guitars and protestant music I dont like the fact that people stand for communiuon in the hand or that women are not veiled that people are inattentive I dont like the hand holding or altar girls or the sign of peace. I dont like those things. I much prefer tradition. If some people see no problem with these things than thats their opinion. But you dont see me demanding that they do exactly as I do or they are a racist or hate the Pope either , do you. Therein lies the difference.

Pax

 

[Melchior_1]

Robert: See what I mean? I simply expressed my honest opinion about what I think of the OF and I have been accused of intolerance , had an analogy to racism used - an analogy of POPE avoidance used , etc. Need I say more? I dont go to the OF because I dont like the way women dress - or men for that matter - I dont like the guitars and protestant music I dont like the fact that people stand for communiuon in the hand or that women are not veiled that people are inattentive I dont like the hand holding or altar girls or the sign of peace. I dont like those things. I much prefer tradition. If some people see no problem with these things than thats their opinion. But you dont see me demanding that they do exactly as I do or they are a racist or hate the Pope either , do you. Therein lies the difference.

Pax

You never did answer Mark’s original question. Say you car broke down or something. Would you go to a Mass in the Ordinary Form if needed to satisfy your Sunday obligation? If the Pope came to your area, would you refuse to go to see him if it meant that you’d have to go to an OF Mass?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Robert: See what I mean? I simply expressed my honest opinion about what I think of the OF and I have been accused of intolerance , had an analogy to racism used - an analogy of POPE avoidance used , etc. Need I say more? I dont go to the OF because I dont like the way women dress - or men for that matter - I dont like the guitars and protestant music I dont like the fact that people stand for communiuon in the hand or that women are not veiled that people are inattentive I dont like the hand holding or altar girls or the sign of peace. I dont like those things. I much prefer tradition. If some people see no problem with these things than thats their opinion. But you dont see me demanding that they do exactly as I do or they are a racist or hate the Pope either , do you. Therein lies the difference.

Pax

i agree with you.
it seems the main theme for liberals is tolerance. yet they show no tolerance to EF, it is forbidden in most place. where is the tolerance? Jesus did not show tolerance to those who wanted to make the House of God a corvil of thiefs.