dealing with EF/OF tension

[malphono]

It is impossible to say that the “Liturgy of the Word” in the OF is “superior” to that in the EF. The much touted “3 year cycle lectionary” (or whatever it’s called – I will not be drawn into an argument on terminology) used in the OF is not objectively “superior” to the EF. By the same token, neither is the cycle of readings used in the EF “superior” to what is used in the OF. Valid arguments can be made for the logic behind both.

As I said in an earlier post, there are objective differences between the EF and the OF. The question of “superiority” is rather like that of “reverence”: it’s relative and more subjective than anything else.

 

[CWBetts]

It is impossible to say that the “Liturgy of the Word” in the OF is “superior” to that in the EF. The much touted “3 year cycle lectionary” (or whatever it’s called – I will not be drawn into an argument on terminology) used in the OF is not objectively “superior” to the EF. By the same token, neither is the cycle of readings used in the EF “superior” to what is used in the OF. Valid arguments can be made for the logic behind both.

As I said in an earlier post, there are objective differences between the EF and the OF. The question of “superiority” is rather like that of “reverence”: it’s relative and more subjective than anything else.

You havent convinced me because there is more scripture included. The EF all but ignores the Old Testament. There are two readings, an Epistle and the Gospel. In the OF, we also have an Old Testament reading. The cycle is not the issue. It is the fact that more Scripture is included. The faithful get more exposure to the Scripture, so I would wonder how one could argue that the Liturgy of the Word in the OF is not an improvement over the EF.

 

[malphono]

You havent convinced me because there is more scripture included. The EF all but ignores the Old Testament. There are two readings, an Epistle and the Gospel. In the OF, we also have an Old Testament reading. The cycle is not the issue. It is the fact that more Scripture is included. The faithful get more exposure to the Scripture, so I would wonder how one could argue that the Liturgy of the Word in the OF is not an improvement over the EF.

It is not my intention to “convince” you or anyone else. I said valid arguments can be made for logic behind the readings in both.

Would it be possible to add an OT reading to the EF? Yes, of course it would, with a stroke of the Papal pen. Whereas I personally would not particularly favor changing the current readings, adding one from the OT would, IMHO, be a good idea.

 

[ProVobis]

For a useful dialog, you need to stop making blanket accusations, and also support your claims.

I find his claims credible.

 

[ProVobis]

The EF all but ignores the Old Testament.

Blatantly false. There is Psalm 42 at almost every EF. There is also Psalm 25 at the Lavabo. I can’t seem to find any OT in the OF texts other than the Propers.

 

[ProVobis]

Would it be possible to add an OT reading to the EF? Yes, of course it would, with a stroke of the Papal pen. Whereas I personally would not particularly favor changing the current readings, adding one from the OT would, IMHO, be a good idea.

I agree. There are some occasions (can’t recall offhand) where there are more than one Epistle readings already. (Also multiple Collects, Secrets, and Postcommunion prayers). Having two readings shouldn’t be that difficult to implement in the old liturgical texts. It might, however, be a little difficult to integrate into the theme of the Mass at hand but I don’t see that as an insurmountable problem.

 

[CradleCath]

This is little more than an emotional rant. Who is causing division: those who accept the teaching of the Church, or those who claim that their form of worship (and theirs alone) is legitimate and all others are inferior, even though the Church says otherwise. Unity comes from submission to the authority of the Church, not from engaging on a personal crusade to make sure that everyone meets your standard of what is and is not genuinely Catholic.

I read some of your blog &, if I were you, I wouldn’t comment on anyone’s “Emotional rant”.

I also think that the poster you’re answering has something worthwhile to say. There IS division in the Church & to deny that & cast blame will never get us anywhere. It certainly won’t bring unity to the flock.
Unity comes about with ** thinking like **our Supreme authority on earth…the Pope. Pope Benedict has asked for “*a LIBERAL USAGE” *of the TLM. So, when you make the remark that “unity comes from submission to the authority of the Church”…it’s hard to take you seriously.

 

[CWBetts]

I read some of your blog &, if I were you, I wouldn’t comment on anyone’s “Emotional rant”.

I also think that the poster you’re answering has something worthwhile to say. There IS division in the Church & to deny that & cast blame will never get us anywhere. It certainly won’t bring unity to the flock.
Unity comes about with ** thinking like **our Supreme authority on earth…the Pope. Pope Benedict has asked for “*a LIBERAL USAGE” *of the TLM. So, when you make the remark that “unity comes from submission to the authority of the Church”…it’s hard to take you seriously.

Nice ad hominem! This has nothing to do with my blogs. Fine, don’t take me seriously. Your loss. I have not said anything contrary to the teachings of the Church. I have never said that the EF should not be celebrated. Likewise, where has the Holy Father said that TLM is actually superior and should completely replace the OF? If that is what he wanted, he could do so at any time. You are reading too much into the words of His Holiness.

 

[ConstantineTG]

my friend i am not going to address point by point. i am just going to say this to you. the reason we are here arguing Catholics against Catholics is because we are no longer one in the mind, we no longer believe the same as it was once, we no longer are tought the same. we are divided. open your eyes. i refuse to be tought by modernists who deny the Truth of the Bible and the Church. those who love changes and hate the Church of all times. the new church have showed disgust for the holy Church of always and wants to get with the times. you are taking everything as a personal thing. this is not direct at you but to those who have the desire to see the Church go down. this is not about you. this about God and His Church.

The Church is not divided, at least not in what you believe it to be. The only division I see in the Church is the schism of the Catholics and Orthodox, who should rightfully be reunited. This small packets of “rebels” we have today do not create division within the Church, but through their words and actions separate themselves from the Church. Since they are separated, they are not part of the whole anymore.

Again, you resort to name calling, which pretty much sums up how credible you are. Again, you cannot argue with the truths you claim you have. Plus your attitude reeks of Phariseeism, thanking God that you are better than others rather than acknowledging one’s inequities.

you are confusing charity with nicy. these are too different thing. again this is not about you. modernists think that we should all be nice to each other. they have forgot the cause of our Lord and shift the attention to them. all they care is that we all be nice to each other.

I think it is you who is confused. You claim to have the truth, but only seek to belittle people who you believe does not share this truth you have. Those who possess the real truth seek to bring the truth to others, not belittle them for not knowing the truth.

Jesus calls calls people hypocrite, blind guiders, brood of vipers, whitening sepulcher, how can anyone escape damnation. but some people today, want to be better than Jesus by commanded others to be just nice. do you still think that Jesus could be more chatible?

Like I said, Jesus always spoke the truth. He tells it like it is, and substantiates it with facts. He just didn’t call people hypocrites and being and end with it. He tells them why. You sir just called me a modernist without even knowing me nor my beliefs. And ended with that dismissing me just on the basis of your opinion that I am a modernist. That is not even anywhere in the same galaxy as how Jesus handles such situations.

you accuse me of dividing. dividing what? do you want me to agree with your beliefs so we wont be divided? i will stick with the Holy Church of all times.

Sad that you claim you are with the Church but do not act like a true Christian. That is why the Church is so persecuted today, because of many who claim the faith but do not act accordingly.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It truly is sad. A traditionalist like floresco has made the effort to bridge the gap between traditionalists and people like myself whom I will refer to as Pauline Catholics, for the sake of this argument because we adhere to the Pauline Mass. Now, floresco’s efforts are very noble but instead of getting support from other traditionalists, they come into this thread and turn it into another OF vs. EF discussion and make efforts to castigate Pauline Catholics. This thread was supposed to make progress to bridge the gap. Instead its just becoming another battleground for the never ending, senseless, un-Catholic bickering of Traditional Catholics and Pauline Catholics.

 

[ProVobis]

It truly is sad. A traditionalist like floresco has made the effort to bridge the gap between traditionalists and people like myself whom I will refer to as Pauline Catholics, for the sake of this argument because we adhere to the Pauline Mass. Now, floresco’s efforts are very noble but instead of getting support from other traditionalists, they come into this thread and turn it into another OF vs. EF discussion and make efforts to castigate Pauline Catholics. This thread was supposed to make progress to bridge the gap. Instead its just becoming another battleground for the never ending, senseless, un-Catholic bickering of Traditional Catholics and Pauline Catholics.

Nice narrative. And your suggestions?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Nice narrative. And your suggestions?

If we go to the first few pages of this thread, we see that the conversation has a good flow. Name calling has to stop. Also, people should drop the “my way or the highway,” attitude. We can’t expect Traditional Catholics to start going to Pauline Masses, nor can we expects adherents to the Pauline Mass to start attending the EF Mass. If we want to deal with the tension we have to work on a common ground. If the US and Russia are on the brink of a nuclear war, the two sides are not going into a conference room and demand that one side surrenders immediately. Granted that they both are thinking they are on the right side, but they should both be willing to give something up for the sake of the common good.

Isn’t that what this thread is for? The common good of our faith? We’re all Catholics here. We are supposed to be one Church, one faith. We’re not Protestants who when we disagree, one group leaves and forms their own church. The Church is supposed to be the Body of Christ. Do the parts of the same body attack one another? No! The only time when when parts of the body attack one another is when some cells mutate into cancer cells. So lets keep that in mind always, and tell ourselves that we do not want to be the cancer in the Church. We should strive to keep the body whole, not try to amputate parts we do not like.

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=CWBetts;6923540]Nice ad hominem! This has nothing to do with my blogs. Fine, don’t take me seriously. Your loss.

As you well know, I was repying to your putdown of another poster:

I have not said anything contrary to the teachings of the Church. I have never said that the EF should not be celebrated. Likewise, where has the Holy Father said that TLM is actually superior and should completely replace the OF?

Nor have I ever said that the Novus Ordo Mass should be abrogated. If anyone here has actually said that, I’m sorry & regret that you’ve had to deal with that.

If that is what he wanted, he could do so at any time. You are reading too much into the words of His Holiness

He absolutely **cannot **do whatever he wants with the Mass. The infallible teachings of the Pope who came before him are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the “ordinary and universal magisterium”. However, since Vatican II was the first pastoral council to ever occur within Catholicism, it has brought up many questions??? But in Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church & The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture & the Infallible teachings of Popes who have gone before.

Which leads me to wonder how the Fathers of Vatican II were able to get around the canons of Trent:

On Canon 6:
Canon 6. If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated,[25]** let him be anathema.**

Re: canon 6, they got around this by turning the Roman Canon into EP.1, which was not used in my diocese for 40 yrs. & can even.now only be heard at the TLM.

Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema.

Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; **or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;**28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema.

Anyway, a Pope cannot just “do what he wants with the Mass.”

 

[CWBetts]

As you well know, I was repying to your putdown of another poster:

Nor have I ever said that the Novus Ordo Mass should be abrogated. If anyone here has actually said that, I’m sorry & regret that you’ve had to deal with that.

He absolutely **cannot **do whatever he wants with the Mass. The infallible teachings of the Pope who came before him are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the “ordinary and universal magisterium”. However, since Vatican II was the first pastoral council to ever occur within Catholicism, it has brought up many questions??? But in Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church & The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture & the Infallible teachings of Popes who have gone before.

Which leads me to wonder how the Fathers of Vatican II were able to get around the canons of Trent:

On Canon 6:
Canon 6. If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated,[25]** let him be anathema.**

Re: canon 6, they got around this by turning the Roman Canon into EP.1, which was not used in my diocese for 40 yrs. & can even.now only be heard at the TLM.

Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema.

Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; **or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;**28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema.

Anyway, a Pope cannot just “do what he wants with the Mass.”

The form of the Liturgy is not part if the infallible Magisterium. It can be reformed, and had been reformed many times. And as to the pastoral nature of Vatican II: pastoral and dogmatic are not mutually exclusive terms. There are infallible statements in VII, just as there ire non-infallible statements in Trent.

 

[ProVobis]

If we go to the first few pages of this thread, we see that the conversation has a good flow. Name calling has to stop. Also, people should drop the “my way or the highway,” attitude. We can’t expect Traditional Catholics to start going to Pauline Masses, nor can we expects adherents to the Pauline Mass to start attending the EF Mass. If we want to deal with the tension we have to work on a common ground. If the US and Russia are on the brink of a nuclear war, the two sides are not going into a conference room and demand that one side surrenders immediately. Granted that they both are thinking they are on the right side, but they should both be willing to give something up for the sake of the common good.

Isn’t that what this thread is for? The common good of our faith? We’re all Catholics here. We are supposed to be one Church, one faith. We’re not Protestants who when we disagree, one group leaves and forms their own church. The Church is supposed to be the Body of Christ. Do the parts of the same body attack one another? No! The only time when when parts of the body attack one another is when some cells mutate into cancer cells. So lets keep that in mind always, and tell ourselves that we do not want to be the cancer in the Church. We should strive to keep the body whole, not try to amputate parts we do not like.

Okay, that’s a fair assessment.

Maybe a little offtopic but good that you brought up the Russia-US situation. Did you see Fail Safe by any chance? The President brought in the best translator, who was versed not only in literal translations but also in all the idioms, nuances, customs, voice inflections of a person speaking Russian. Despite their best efforts, they were still unable to prevent war. True, this is fiction but it does carry a message. There are people who attend Spanish OF or Polish OF who wouldn’t attend an English OF. This shouldn’t be either. Perhaps it is the language change in the liturgy that has brought about such unintended consequences. It’s one of my theories anyway.

 

[ProVobis]

It can be reformed, and had been reformed many times.

Not the canon of the EF, which is now EP1 but as the poster suggested, it is very rarely used.

 

[CWBetts]

Not the canon of the EF, which is now EP1 but as the poster suggested, it is very rarely used.

The liturgical form is not part of the Substance of the Sacrament, and can therefore be reformed.

 

[ProVobis]

The liturgical form is not part of the Substance of the Sacrament, and can therefore be reformed.

Where does the Magisterium of the Church teach this?

 

[CWBetts]

Where does the Magisterium of the Church teach this?

That the form is reformable, or that the liturgical form is not the substance of the Sacrament?

 

[CradleCath]

The Church is not divided, at least not in what you believe it to be. The only division I see in the Church is the schism of the Catholics and Orthodox, who should rightfully be reunited. This small packets of “rebels” we have today do not create division within the Church, but through their words and actions separate themselves from the Church. Since they are separated, they are not part of the whole anymore.
Again, you resort to name calling, which pretty much sums up how credible you are. Again, you cannot argue with the truths you claim you have. Plus your attitude reeks of Phariseeism, thanking God that you are better than others rather than acknowledging one’s inequities.
I think it is you who is confused. You claim to have the truth, **but only seek to belittle people **who you believe does not share this truth you have. Those who possess the real truth seek to bring the truth to others, not belittle them for not knowing the truth.
Like I said, Jesus always spoke the truth. He tells it like it is, and substantiates it with facts. He just didn’t call people hypocrites and being and end with it. He tells them why. You sir just called me a modernist without even knowing me nor my beliefs. And ended with that dismissing me just on the basis of your opinion that I am a modernist. That is not even anywhere in the same galaxy as how Jesus handles such situations.
**Sad that you claim you are with the Church but do not act like a true Christian. **That is why the Church is so persecuted today, because of many who claim the faith but do not act accordingly.

I don’t even know where to BEGIN! Hyocrites? Pharisees? Small Packets of Rebels?? Please do not give advice to anyone about “people who claim the faith but do not act accordingly”. This post is hateful.