dealing with EF/OF tension

[MarkThompson]

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.

Well, there you have it. That’s the difference between

1. No thanks, your sister’s not really my type; and
2. No, I could only date a girl who is actually pretty.

 

[Robert_Burns]

Well, there you have it. That’s the difference between

1. No thanks, your sister’s not really my type; and
2. No, I could only date a girl who is actually pretty.

Robert Well I wasnt the one to introduce analogies , they rarely illustrate a point sufficiently.

 

[floresco]

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.

My position is closer to the second option than the first. I get that most non-trads don’t have a problem with trad views framed as something subjective, as the first example does. But I do not see myself as discussing something subjective. I understand my concerns about the theology of the OF to pertain to something objective. Is there nothing left to do other than dismiss me as an intolerant horrible person?

 

[ProVobis]

I dont think the problem lies so much with those who attend the EF so much as it is the insistance that those who prefer the EF be forced to acknowledge the OF as just another form of worship.

This was true under Ecclesia Dei but I think a lot of this is overblown today. If it’s true that all Catholic rites must be respected, then almost by definition they should have every Catholic study and learn every rite of the Church, both Eastern and Western. This then would be fair to all.

 

[Robert_Burns]

This was true under Ecclesia Dei but I think a lot of this is overblown today. If it’s true that all Catholic rites must be respected, then almost by definition they should have every Catholic study and learn every rite of the Church, both Eastern and Western. This then would be fair to all.

Well said and I completely agree with you. Its evident from reading your posts that you have done a good job of it. Keep up the good work - i enjoy reading the things you contribute.

Pax

 

[MarkThompson]

My position is closer to the second option than the first. I get that most non-trads don’t have a problem with trad views framed as something subjective, as the first example does. But I do not see myself as discussing something subjective. I understand my concerns about the theology of the OF to pertain to something objective. Is there nothing left to do other than dismiss me as an intolerant horrible person?

Again, there are different ways of looking at it. One might say that the TLM is “more reverent” in that, statistically, more people get inspired to reverence by it, or more people would learn certain truths of the faith from it, or what have you. That’s different from saying, “Well, it just is; look at all the reverent prayers in it” or something like that.

In other words, how can the issues we’re discussing be framed in terms that aren’t subjective? It won’t do to simply say, “Well, I don’t view them subjectively.” That’s like saying, “You see, it’s less that I find anchovies subjectively disgusting, it’s that I consider them an objectively bad topping.”

I submit that most of the genuine ways one could find to cast the TLM as “objectively” better are either (1) empirical statements that will involve judgments about subjective things “in most cases” or “for the majority of people,” which can’t imply that those in the minority are wrong, (2) statements like, “It has a greater number of theologically rigorous prayers,” which imply that the TLM itself would be inferior to a double-length super-TLM padded out with lots of extra bonus prayers, or (3) statements relying on a subjective weighing of desired criteria, such as “It is better because it is more universal” or “because it is the same Mass that thousands of historical saints prayed.”

Don’t get me wrong – certainly, with respect to point 1, I think there are very important points to be made. For instance, I don’t that Communion in the hand is somehow “just irreverent – it just is, look at what these saints said about it!,” as you often see argued, but I do think it’s very likely as an empirical matter that Communion on the tongue would increase, for the majority of people, the sense of mystery, importance, and specialness of the Eucharist which I (subjectively, though I think others ought to agree with me) want to promote. So I don’t say I’m against CITH “because it’s wrong,” I’m against it because I think it’s a pragmatically poor choice, at least as a general proposition.

These are the types of considerations I’m talking about here.

 

[CWBetts]

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.

That is where you are incorrect. If you prefer the EF, I personally do not care. I will not tolerate the denigration of the OF because you prefer the EF

 

[ProVobis]

If, on the other hand, you are going to teach that the EF is the only “true Mass”, that EMHC, CITH, are “wrong”

Why would I want to teach this? Should I teach them that chewing gum in church is okay too? What does this progressiveness have to do with the Truth?

 

[floresco]

In other words, how can the issues we’re discussing be framed in terms that aren’t subjective? It won’t do to simply say, “Well, I don’t view them subjectively.” That’s like saying, “You see, it’s less that I find anchovies subjectively disgusting, it’s that I consider them an objectively bad topping.”

If I were raising my concern which I see as objective and people were responding with arguments about how it is really subjective, that could be a reasonable discussion. But the usual response is that people get upset. They are offended, angry and hurt. I am open to logical arguments that explain my position is wrong, but that hardly ever happens. Instead I am perceived as attacking people and they attack in return.

 

[floresco]

That is where you are incorrect. If you prefer the EF, I personally do not care. I will not tolerate the denigration of the OF because you prefer the EF

See, this is what I mean. This is the sort of response that trads get when do not frame our position as a subjective view. But for many of us it just is not honest to do that.

 

[MarkThompson]

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?

Was it the lengthy one about Quo Primum? Fortunately, the Google cache saved it and I’ve copied it into a text file, where I might rework it a little and create a thread on the topic. If so, I’ll let you know –

 

[ProVobis]

That is where you are incorrect. If you prefer the EF, I personally do not care. I will not tolerate the denigration of the OF because you prefer the EF

If I can recognize it as a valid rite of the Church, I will not denigrate it. But if I see ladies dancing or clowns clowning or priests kicking soccer balls, all bets are off.

 

[CWBetts]

If I can recognize it as a valid rite of the Church, I will not denigrate it. But if I see ladies dancing or clowns clowning or priests kicking soccer balls, all bets are off.

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.

 

[CWBetts]

See, this is what I mean. This is the sort of response that trads get when do not frame our position as a subjective view. But for many of us it just is not honest to do that.

Whether or not you recognize it as such, it is a subjective opinion that you prefer the EF. It is not objective simply at your say-so. Evidence of some kind is needed to establish objectivity. I will concede that the EF is objectively better if you can convince me that it is so.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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?

But don’t you think its a better way to ask why rather than hurl out accusations? I don’t know why today people love to come up with conspiracy theories with everything that is happening. Aren’t conspiracy theories the work of the devil? Let us not fall into that temptation. There may be a good reason or a bad reason for it, but we should seek the reason.

The struggle with the TLM is that I believe, if I remember correctly, is that not every priest can publicly celebrate it. They must be certified or something to that effect. The FSSP are such priests who can celebrate publicly. I don’t know what the politics are involved in obtaining FSSP priests, but there may not be a lot of them out there. Perhpas that is why the Bishop is telling you no, because he can’t get a priest who can say the TLM. Or perhaps the diocese just doesn’t have the funds or resources to make it happen. I can’t give you the real answer, we can guess all we want. But all I ask is be fair with your Bishop and ask for the reason behind why.

Also, I don’t believe that every OF mass requested is granted as well. There is a sizable Filipino community here in Vancouver but there is no Filipino OF Mass. There’s one in Cantonese, Mandarin as well as some European languages, but no Filipino. In fact in my parish we do not have a French speaking priest but we have a French Mass. Its bilingual. There are Filipino priests in our diocese so there can be a Filipino Mass, but there isn’t. I’m pretty sure some of the Filipino communites have asked for it, but it still is not granted. Why? Should I think our Bishop hates Filipinos? That there is a conspiracy against Filipinos?

 

[floresco]

Whether or not you recognize it as such, it is a subjective opinion that you prefer the EF. It is not objective simply at your say-so. Evidence of some kind is needed to establish objectivity. I will concede that the EF is objectively better if you can convince me that it is so.

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.

 

[CWBetts]

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.

fair enough. If you do start such a thread, would you please contact me so I can be sure to participate?

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Let me pull out another example that I know you and I will agree that we do not like. Charismatic Catholic service. I do not like it, I agree its very Protestant in nature. But you know what, it appeals to some. And for me as long as it doesn’t replace the Mass, which it definitely doesn’t, then I will support those who wish to have it. I won’t go. Maybe if I’m invited as a guest I will go once, but its not compatible with my spirituality. But I recognize a lot of people find spirituality in the Charismatic Movement. And its good that they can go to a Charismatic Movement that is aligned with the Catholic Church and her teachings, rather than go to one that is not. That is why the Pope is supportive of this movement, because he recognizes the spiritual needs of these people and how this movement appeals to that. But you and I we agree its not something for us. I don’t think ill of those who choose to go there. Thats my take on it.

You see, even during the first few years of the Church, it was that way. Each liturgical tradition was established acording to the tradition and norms of the locale where each Particular Church was founded. If Jesus taught and Apostles believed that there is a superior form of Liturgy, they would have taught it as such and the Church will have only one Rite. But God recognizes that we as human beings have many limitations, that is why there is some flexibility to allow for every human being to be able to participate in Mass. 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.

 

[CWBetts]

Let me pull out another example that I know you and I will agree that we do not like. Charismatic Catholic service. I do not like it, I agree its very Protestant in nature. But you know what, it appeals to some. And for me as long as it doesn’t replace the Mass, which it definitely doesn’t, then I will support those who wish to have it. I won’t go. Maybe if I’m invited as a guest I will go once, but its not compatible with my spirituality. But I recognize a lot of people find spirituality in the Charismatic Movement. And its good that they can go to a Charismatic Movement that is aligned with the Catholic Church and her teachings, rather than go to one that is not. That is why the Pope is supportive of this movement, because he recognizes the spiritual needs of these people and how this movement appeals to that. But you and I we agree its not something for us. I don’t think ill of those who choose to go there. Thats my take on it.

You see, even during the first few years of the Church, it was that way. Each liturgical tradition was established acording to the tradition and norms of the locale where each Particular Church was founded. If Jesus taught and Apostles believed that there is a superior form of Liturgy, they would have taught it as such and the Church will have only one Rite. But God recognizes that we as human beings have many limitations, that is why there is some flexibility to allow for every human being to be able to participate in Mass. 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 think this has been the best post on this thread.

 

[Momofmyangels]

But all I ask is be fair with your Bishop and ask for the reason behind why.

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?