dealing with EF/OF tension

[CradleCath]

The problem of division is as old as the Church is.

You are absolutely right here pnewton. It was present in early Catholicism as one can see by studying the differences between St. Peter & St. Paul, the differences between Gentile Christians & Jewish Christians, etc., etc.

The solution as I see it is:
Every faction, in a parish or the Church as a whole, should fulfill this challenge, working as hard for the good of those on the opposite side as they did for their own good,

 

[floresco]

You know, Floresco, I was thinking about your points a bit last night. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you’re entirely right, and that some of the prayers in the EF do a better job than the OF of expressing certain theological truths about the Eucharist. Okay, fine. On the other hand, someone might say that the OF does a better job of communicating some of the truths of Holy Scripture in the Bible, since the OF generally has more readings and the modern lectionary covers substantially more of Scripture than the sum total of readings in the EF.

Is a person entitled to say that he sees the difference between the forms in the amount of Scriptural teaching as more important to him than the difference in content between the prayers which you have described, and that therefore he considers the OF as coming out on top in that liturgical contest? If so, doesn’t that point to the fact that even among (what we accept for argument’s sake to be) objective characteristics, it is the subjective ranking of the importance of such criteria that can still make all the difference?

I did say something like this in a post on the last page when I wrote:
“What is subjective is that I consider this difference [in clarity of theological expression] important enough that I prefer the EF over the OF because of it.” It is certainly possible that my interest and training in theology make this seem to me to have more importance than it actually does.

However, I would say that your point about Scripture readings has two layers of subjectivity. The relative amounts of Old Testament is quantifiable and objective. Then we have the subjective question of whether it is better for people to hear fewer readings more often (more depth) or more readings less often (more breadth). Assuming that one concludes that more breadth is better, one then faces another subjective question. Does this area of superiority of the OF make that Mass the better one overall?

 

[ProVobis]

of course you do. the NO has brought Catholics even to dissobedience to the Pontifice even more so.

Indeed. Even Paul VI wrote as he was promulgating the Mass into the vernacular:

…
But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful “should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, the Our Father” (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).

1. But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: the Latin language will not thereby disappear. It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See’s official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. If possible, it will reflourish in splendor.

1. Finally, if we look at the matter properly we shall see that the fundamental outline of the Mass is still the traditional one, not only theologically but also spiritually. Indeed, if the rite is carried out as it ought to be, the spiritual aspect will be found to have greater richness…

Apparently there was either disobedience or a gross misunderstanding amongst the bishops, priests, and laity.

 

[floresco]

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.

There have been trads who support me in this thread. You probably just notice more the ones who do not. You also seem less inclined to notice the faults of Pauline Catholics than traditional Catholics in terms of their contributions to bickering. As far as I can tell, there is plenty of fault to go around. I suspect it would help a lot if you became more aware of the faults of the Pauline Catholics.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ll agree with you there. It’s unbelievable how our politicians and even our Presidents are butchering the English language. And they want to make English the official language of the U.S.? Good luck with that.

Dubya made nukyular famous

 

[ProVobis]

Then we have the subjective question of whether it is better for people to hear fewer readings more often (more depth) or more readings less often (more breadth). Assuming that one concludes that more breadth is better, one then faces another subjective question. Does this area of superiority of the OF make that Mass the better one overall?

Sort of pointless argument and let me add to that pointlessness. What about times where there are short readings, like in Pentecost or Ordinary Time? Are the Masses in that period inferior, either form?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Cardinal Arinze, who speaks for the Pope in liturgical matters, is quite firm as well.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20061111_gateway-conference_en.html

You see, the difference between you, the Cardinals, the Popes and me is that I do not have any formal education in Latin. I’m an everyday, average Catholic. I guess that is why a lot of proponents of Latin will complain that many priests either outright oppose Latin, or very much support the vernacular. Its these priests who has to deal with the ordinary people, the flock, every single day. They see such difficulties of people trying to appreciate the teachings of the Church. Its already a huge task to try to educate people in the faith, I know because I teach Catechism. Now, you also want the priests and Catechists to be language teachers as well?

I’m not advocating the eradication of Latin. But we have to realize a great majority of people have no or limited capacity to appreciate Latin. The desire to worship and praise God includes the desire to be part of that process. A mass in a language most people do not understand makes them feel not part of it. It feels like we are just watching the priest do his thing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

of course you do. the NO has brought Catholics even to dissobedience to the Pontifice even more so. it is protestant in nature where every man is his own authority.

I do not know what you are talking about. I am in under no obligation to believe and follow everything the Pope says as matter of opinion. Unless he infallibly teaches this, I am free to form my own opinion. Are you denying that truth?

 

[ProVobis]

Dubya made nukyular famous

Amongst others. Our leaders and teachers change the English language and its grammar and meanings so much it is understandable the Vatican decided to revisit the translations. Don’t forget, Pope Paul VI, who allowed the vernacular, didn’t speak much English so he probably couldn’t forsee the problems with the English. But then other languages have a few problems too, though certainly they didn’t have the damaging (I think) effects of say, “for you and for all men” instead of “for you and for many.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

Amongst others. Our leaders and teachers change the English language and its grammar and meanings so much it is understandable the Vatican decided to revisit the translations. Don’t forget, Pope Paul VI, who allowed the vernacular, didn’t speak much English so he probably couldn’t forsee the problems with the English. But then other languages have a few problems too, though certainly they didn’t have the damaging (I think) effects of say, “for you and for all men” instead of “for you and for many.”

Translation has been ongoing since day 1. We can assume the Apostles were mostly taught in Aramaic by Jesus, who then had to translate to a number of languages as they started their ministry across the known world.

 

[ProVobis]

You see, the difference between you, the Cardinals, the Popes and me is that I do not have any formal education in Latin. I’m an everyday, average Catholic. I guess that is why a lot of proponents of Latin will complain that many priests either outright oppose Latin, or very much support the vernacular.

But it could also be a mental block too. What is Latin and is it really different than your vernacular? Take for instance, the word “consubstantialem.” It will be translated as “consubstantial” now. Yet you would accept and understand consubstantial but not consubstantialem? And to what degree do you need to understand anyway? Remember when you learned the Our Father? Did you understand it then or were you like me, just memorized the cadences and syllables, then proceed with tackling every word later on? Same thing with the Latin in the Mass, either form. Listen to the cadences and syllables and be able to recognize them. The understanding of each word comes later (and perhaps automatically.) But it all starts with listening to the Latin. And you can’t listen unless you’re exposed to it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There have been trads who support me in this thread. You probably just notice more the ones who do not. You also seem less inclined to notice the faults of Pauline Catholics than traditional Catholics in terms of their contributions to bickering. As far as I can tell, there is plenty of fault to go around. I suspect it would help a lot if you became more aware of the faults of the Pauline Catholics.

I do realize that in anything in the world, the greater majority are good, well meaning people. Its the minority who can’t keep their mouths shut are the ones that give the good majority a bad image.

I know there are a few bad apples in the basket of those who adhere to the Pauline Mass. I’ve already made my stance clear that I do not advocate any eradication of the TLM nor of Latin. In fact, I love the diversity within our Church, not only of the two forms in the Roman Rite, but the Eastern Rites as well. I know there are those who advocate the removal of the TLM. But thankfully there are not that many here in CAF. Most people I know either are oblivious of the TLM (born in the 70s or later) or just do not have any ill feelings against it. They personally won’t go to a Mass in Latin, but they don’t see why they should waste their energies trying to prevent people who do want it to be able to go to one.

We should come to realize that both sides should be able to co-exist with mutual respect and adoration of one another. We should follow the humility that Jesus so praises in the Gospel, that we should never think we’re good enough or worthy enough because we all are sinners. The tension comes about when one side thinks they’re better than the other. But if one side becomes truly humble and charitable, to accept the fact that we all are sinners and limited humans, that what we do is all in hoping that we are made worthy of the promises of Christ, then we would have greater respect for one another.

 

[ProVobis]

The tension comes about when one side thinks they’re better than the other.

Only the translators need to know better than we.

 

[ProVobis]

Translation has been ongoing since day 1. We can assume the Apostles were mostly taught in Aramaic by Jesus, who then had to translate to a number of languages as they started their ministry across the known world.

Yes but according to my understanding of the Scripture, they were given the gift of tongues in the sense that whatever they said was understood by all their audiences. And when the Apostles died it was up to the Church to find some common languages in which the faith would be continued and spread. Latin, Greek, and two others, I believe.

Look at it this way: do we expect our government to translate the US Constitution and Laws so that the judicial process can be carried out in all the different vernaculars spoken in the country? Or do we expect everyone and every courtroom to conform to the English? Translations are nice but we don’t owe it to them. I rest my case.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Indeed. Even Paul VI wrote as he was promulgating the Mass into the vernacular:

Apparently there was either disobedience or a gross misunderstanding amongst the bishops, priests, and laity.

it was a total disobedience. they felt that they no longer had to listen to the Vatican and they didnt. i remember listen to this philosopher the other day on EWTN. he was telling how awfull it was for JPII when no one would listen, they just completely ignored everything he said. it was a very dark time for the Church and it still is. for today, they continue to ignore the pope. some people just continue to support a movement in the Chruch when they probably have no idea who they are following. they certainly are not following the pope. they may be following someone who is in disobedience to the pontif and dont even realize.

 

[floresco]

I do realize that in anything in the world, the greater majority are good, well meaning people. Its the minority who can’t keep their mouths shut are the ones that give the good majority a bad image.

I think that most of us have a tendency to see the faults of people on the other side more than people on our own side. I know that I do. I probably go to far over-compensating for this and am overly hard on trads. I’m thinking of poor Ockham. I’ve read many posts of his that I think are wonderful, but I’m afraid I mainly comment to be negative. So don’t go too far like I have, but just keep it in mind.

 

[CradleCath]

**it was a total disobedience. they felt that they no longer had to listen to the Vatican and they didnt. **

When Pope Paul VI was promulating the Novus Ordo…I think it was outright rebellion by the Bishops. In this country, at least. They felt that Vatican II gave them the right to set up their own little fiefdom in their diocese. It was horrible. One diocese still called for a long pre-cana instruction, but one could cross the line into the next diocese & be married within a month. If your diocese did not support the fact that the “Mass gives one absolution from sin” . The next diocese did. No Confession was needed there…just general absolution at Mass. One diocese required that parents be active members of the parish in order to have their baby Baptized…another didn’t.

I believe that this rebellion grew & worsened during the 80’s & 90’s & is just now **beginning **to die out. You are right, the Bishops just ignored John Paul II…but, while they still rebel…they can’t ignore Pope Benedict. However, as the Vatican II generation of priests & Bishops retire…it’s obvious that the new young priests & Bishops realize the extent of the damage & are embracing their duty to follow the Vicar of Christ.

I also think that Paul VI & John Paul II were afraid of another schism & tried hard to “toe the PC, liberal line” in order to avoid that.

 

[LittleSoldier]

here this gives you an idea, on the left the EF,

montfort.org.br/veritas/c…vo_missas.html

montfort.org.br/veritas/comparativo_missas.html

Thank you (the first link doesn’t work but the second did and the photos brought across the message clearly).

Where can I go to weep? I had stayed away from even thinking about clown masses but there are the photos. It broke my heart.

So the EF is like the Mass when I was a child and the OF is the non-traditional Mass now (and mostly there are not clown masses, I hope).

I have to think about this. When I was a kid I loved the smell of the incense and the music but I really had no idea what was going on. Now I have a much better understanding of the Mass but I wish I could say the prayers and sing the hymns in Latin. I can understand why there is tension here.

I think if it’s possible (not where I live) there should be a Latin Mass and a Mass in the vernacular each Sunday.

And we should still be nice to each other and when we feel the need to be insulting we should pray for peace instead.

Thank you!!

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

 

[LittleSoldier]

of course you do. the NO has brought Catholics even to dissobedience to the Pontifice even more so. it is protestant in nature where every man is his own authority.

I don’t think that’s quite right. When I attend the Mass in English (and I have no choice) I find myself crying with joy every time. Every single time. I don’t consider myself my own authority - Jesus is my authority and the Pope, also.

I don’t see the protestantism in the NO (clown masses aren’t protestant; they’re just tacky and disgusting). How many protestant churches have transubstantiation? In every Mass we are following the instructions of Jesus to “do this in memory of Me.”

What I see and remember is that in the traditional Mass the priest faced away from the people, the majority of the people did not know what he was saying except during the homily, there were no altar girls, we took Communion on the tongue and knelt while doing so, girls and women wore chapel veils, and I never cried with joy after receiving Communion.

Now the priest faces the people. I don’t see what difference that makes. God is everywhere. The people understand what is being said. There are altar girls and it’s a good thing there are because in two parishes I know of the girls are the only ones who will serve, except for one small boy who serves at my parish.

On the other hand we seem to have lost the dignity and beauty of the ceremonies in Latin. They weren’t changed to English - they are gone. I want those back!

I know I’ve missed a whole lot of the differences. I was not an active church-goer for many years and now I can only attend once in awhile because of my back injury. But this is how I think of it.

As for the tension, I don’t understand why it exists. I don’t understand why this topic brings out so much anger. Those of you who attend Mass daily or weekly don’t know how lucky you are to have any Mass at all. There are many who can’t attend at all or, like me, can attend once in awhile. To be able to go to Mass weekly would be so wonderful for me that I wouldn’t care how it is presented (with the exception of the clown masses).

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

 

[JosephdeMaistre]

To be clear – Floresco wanted a discussion about how to discuss – statements like “do you want me to agree with your beliefs so we wont be divided? i will stick with the Holy Church of all times” are generally unproductive and amount to an accusation. You are saying, “We disagree, but I, unlike you, am on the side of the Holy Church of all times.” To this the naturally-felt consequence is, “… so, if you persist, you are against the Holy Church of all times.” Like I said, it’s not very productive.

I guess I’m not sure why *accusation *is unproductive, or determining whether a person “disagrees with the Holy Church of all times” is unproductive. It’s either true or it is not, and if it is true, it is productive. If it is untrue, then it is not productive.

So, perhaps you meant to say that truth is productive, and untruth is unproductive. Hence, accusation can never be unproductive, so long as its end is truth.