Do you hate Mass?

[Cat]

Cat, nice post. I agreed with about 90% of it.

You may have some point that there are some people that gripe too much. There are people that tend towards negativism in all aspects.

(I sure get that from all the liberals put off-base by the direction our Pontiff is taking the Church now.)

I appreciate the way you have phrased this: “people that tend towards negativism in all aspects.”

Yes, I know people like that. And perhaps that’s what my main question is–do these people hate Mass? Or perhaps…they just see everything through dark glasses.

I personally don’t want to be that way. I don’t want to be one of those people who “tends towards negativism in all aspects.”

I consider myself an activist when it comes to righting wrongs. I am personally responsible for several reforms that were done in our local ice skating rinks, and I am very proud of that, although getting the changes implemented was hell for me. To this day, certain coaches will not speak to me.

So yes, if I spot something that is definitely abusive, I would go to the proper person and speak to them.

But I don’t want to be a person who cannot attend a Mass without spotting an abuse or disliking the music or noticing a person with a low cut blouse. Once again, going back to I_Believe’s post (italics mine):

*We should not hate it, or hate anything for that matter. We just need to take ourselves out of the equation. God owes us nothing.

When we walk into a church, we should check all mundane concerns at the door. Nothing of this world is of value to us once we enter the church. It’s just us before Him.

All we should seek for ourselves is His mercy while begging for His forgivness for having offended Him.

And if we have assisted at the Mass for the right reasons, once we walk back out into this filthy world, we should look forward to the next Mass we will pray.*

I find this very comforting and joyful, in a different sort of way. I have made a copy of it to carry into Mass with me from now on. It indicates a hatred of the world and of our sinfulness, but not a hatred of humanness and human mistakes and failures. I like that a lot. Thank you.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

No. The reason people find the Mass hard to tolerate is because the Novus Ordo Mass has become an irreverent and often sacreligious event.

Why can’t we ever discuss the reenactment of the sacrifice of Calvary without degrading into language such as this?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ethelzguy]

Why can’t we ever discuss the reenactment of the sacrifice of Calvary without degrading into language such as this?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

One can not feel superior about one’s preference if they don’t denigrate the preference of another. It’s what superiority is all about.

Reminds me of a great article in today’s paper, about a guy who is being fined by his neighborhood association for parking a Ford F-150 in his driveway…because it violates the “standards” of the neighborhood. Hasta be a Lincoln LT or Cadillac Escalade to qualify.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

One can not feel superior about one’s preference if they don’t denigrate the preference of another. It’s what superiority is all about.

It’s my belief that you engage in this practice, and sport this air, more than any other regular poster in the forum.

I find it amusing how you disappear for a short while after being roundly defeated in a matching of wits, only to return again with daggers out, but leaving the other thread hanging.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I appreciate the way you have phrased this: “people that tend towards negativism in all aspects.”

Yes, I know people like that. And perhaps that’s what my main question is–do these people hate Mass? Or perhaps…they just see everything through dark glasses.

I personally don’t want to be that way. I don’t want to be one of those people who “tends towards negativism in all aspects.”

Certainly not!

(If you have never read any of Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich’s works - well, they are so wonderful and amazing. They show us the truly human side of Christ in great detail - and he was joyful, happy, and pleasant most of the time. He was someone who always ‘looked on the bright side’ and sought the commonality among people. There is one chapter, I recall (and it’s been a long time - 15+ years), where he meets a pagan woman, and starts with their common ground in both seeing the beauty in a flower to start a theological conversation.)

I consider myself an activist when it comes to righting wrongs. I am personally responsible for several reforms that were done in our local ice skating rinks, and I am very proud of that, although getting the changes implemented was hell for me. To this day, certain coaches will not speak to me.

Hmm. I don’t ice skate, but this sounds like something I could get into. Were the changes implemented by modernists? Are there naughty skating officials who are disobedient to the skating leader?



I’m being silly.

But I don’t want to be a person who cannot attend a Mass without spotting an abuse or disliking the music or noticing a person with a low cut blouse. Once again, going back to I_Believe’s post (italics mine):

*We should not hate it, or hate anything for that matter. We just need to take ourselves out of the equation. God owes us nothing.

When we walk into a church, we should check all mundane concerns at the door. Nothing of this world is of value to us once we enter the church. It’s just us before Him.

All we should seek for ourselves is His mercy while begging for His forgivness for having offended Him.

And if we have assisted at the Mass for the right reasons, once we walk back out into this filthy world, we should look forward to the next Mass we will pray.*

I find this very comforting and joyful, in a different sort of way. I have made a copy of it to carry into Mass with me from now on. It indicates a hatred of the world and of our sinfulness, but not a hatred of humanness and human mistakes and failures. I like that a lot. Thank you.

Yes, this is all spot-on. I like it too.

Regarding the blouse comment - it’s my belief that engaging in judgment of our fellow Mass-goers is a trap constantly set by the Enemy. From the parents of the screaming child, to the late-comers, to those not dressed appropriately, or those who don’t kneel - looking down upon them, especially during Mass, is simply a gaping spiritual trap for the unwary! A way to perhaps instantly nullify all the graces you’re receiving or should be receiving.

Keep your mind on the Lord, pray the sacrifice, and don’t worry about what anyone else is doing or not doing. And realized that you don’t walk in their shoes and there might be reasons you don’t understand behind almost anything.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"Pax et Caritas:

No. The reason people find the Mass hard to tolerate is because the Novus Ordo Mass has become an irreverent and often sacreligious event.

Why can’t we ever discuss the reenactment of the sacrifice of Calvary without degrading into language such as this?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

The subject of the thread deals with why people are disgusted by the Mass. I gave my answer.

Do you deny that the reason people feel disgust is because of the irreverence and sacrileges that take place in the Novus Ordo Mass. If so, what is your explanation?

And, are you implying that you do not feel disgusted by abuses and sacrileges? If not, there is something wrong.

 

[BSHoop96]

Deacon EdB, we both seem to have tried to ask for civility.

I responded to the quote below. Before this response, the word “Sunday Hootenanny” had already been used once to describe the poster’s NO Mass.

Typically, the hootenanny breaks out during the priest’s monologue at the beginning of Mass following the sign of the cross, the homily, and the “final announcements” just before the dismissal. Our pastor’s a real gas - he makes sure everyone’s entertained. He always remarks how much he’s “enjoyed our celebration”.

I had asked for examples but I don’t think this ridicule is ever appropriate. Also, was a little surprised at the abuses. I know an abuse is an abuse but you must pick your battles and I was expecting maybe all the outrage to be over something like a lay person doing the homily or something at little more serious than “the priest always remarks how much he’s enjoyed our celebration”. Anyway, I responded:

Is this necessary? I am really getting quite tired of hearing this sort of talk. Your posts are full of them. I get that you don’t approve but really…you are terribly unkind. I think it is sufficient to tell us the abuse without a cutting commentary on each one. We get it.

Here was the reply I received:

He was being “unkind” to nobody (that’s just reading something in to what he stated) and made a pertinent point.

**These sort of personal, emotional responses always seem to come when somebody is pierced by logic and truth exactly where it hurts. **

I have been to plenty of parishes and plenty of NO masses where I KNOW a majority of the people do not realize what just went on, what they just participated in. Very sad, and very true.

Here was the statement that prompted you to try.

The reason people find the Mass hard to tolerate is because the Novus Ordo Mass has become an irreverent and often sacreligious event.

You responded:

Why can’t we ever discuss the reenactment of the sacrifice of Calvary without degrading into language such as this?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

The answer given to you:

The subject of the thread deals with why people are disgusted by the Mass. I gave my answer.

Do you deny that the reason people feel disgust is because of the irreverence and sacrileges that take place in the Novus Ordo Mass. If so, what is your explanation?

And, are you implying that you do not feel disgusted by abuses and sacrileges? If not, there is something wrong.

Once again, someone totally not understanding what you were trying to point out. I know we have discussed the frustration of being on these threads and the value of trying to maintain a civil dialogue with the hope of moving forward. But it’s just not working. I have great respect for the EF. I have never spoken against it. The NO, while having abuses, particularly in certain areas of the country, is still the Mass. The priests are still priests. We can hate the abuses and work on eliminating them without ridicule and denigration. You can disagree and dislike, and even hate, the abuses without this disrespect for the Church, for that is ultimately what it is.

I am slowly removing myself from the threads in the Traditional Forum as I get to a place where I can step out.

Deacon, I hope to see you elsewhere. I have never seen you be disrespectful and I appreciate that. You have more self-control than I.

To those of you who have disagreed but have done so with respect and Christian charity, thank you and hopefully I’ll see you in another thread. Let us pray that we can continue to move forward and remove the abuses in the NO and do what we can to foster that within our own parishes.

 

[KingAlfred]

I love Mass, but I must confess I have encountered some Masses I didn’t like at all.

 

[ILUVGSUS2]

I love mass…for the first 2 years or so after I converted, I cried at every mass I attended. I simply love mass and our faith!

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I love Mass, but I must confess I have encountered some Masses I didn’t like at all.

What was it about the Mass that you didn’t like? Was it the Sacrifice that was taking place which is invisible to the eyes, or was it abuses and/or sacrileges you witnessed in the liturgy?

 

[NeedImprovement]

…
After all, if Mass is only a “sacrifice,” I will never like it because to “like” a sacrifice is perverted. I will hate it because I hate seeing the Lord Jesus suffering and dying because of my sin.

…

@ Cat : Please forgive me, in the beginning of the thread I wondered if it could’ve been sarcasm too…

This might make it a bit clearer (I hope) for you Cat;

There are two distinctive elements to the Sacrifice of Christ and they correlate respectively to Christ the Victim and Christ the Priest.

The** victim **is the one offered in sacrifice, while the **priest **is the one who offers.

So what happened to Christ - Victim for our sins, the Paschal Lamb who was slain,… all the bloodshed, torments, insults, spittle ,crown of thorns, buckling under the weight of the Cross…the Crucfixion - technically called His** Passion**,…to “like” any part of that - youre right!..it would be more perverted than we have words for. It’s meant to disgust us; to show us the ugliness of sin. His Passion constituted His immolation - also known as the exterior sacrifice

What Christ our high Priest did with His Passion,that is **offering up **His suffering and death is technically called His Action. The action of offering up His Suffering and Death, being fully aware, constituted his oblation,doing the will of the Father - also known as the interior sacrifice

The exterior sacrifice by itself isn’t worth very much. As Rev. Albert Mary Joseph Shamon says in one of his books [Behind The Mass]:

“Of the two elements in sacrifice, the more important is the second element: the interior sacrifice. The body without the soul is dead; prayers without attention are lip-service; a cathedral without the Blessed Sacrament is a hall. So giving up something without the proper motive is useless.”

When we say that the Sacrifice of Calvary is re-presented in a bloodless manner during the Mass, we are speaking of the interior sacrifice, with all the merits of His Passion as He offers them again to the Father, together with whatever we offer through Him , with Him and in Him.

Christ can’t die again…He died, “…once for all.” However, He still does suffer in His Mystical Body.

The **Action **of Christ, is that part of the Sacrifice which alludes to His unspeakable love for us. I believe it might have been Lee M’s avatar who said, "It would be easier for the world to survive without the sun than without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Meditation on The Passion (without “liking” it), remains a very powerful remedy for sin, as devotions like The Stations of the Cross can attetst to.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

@ Cat : Please forgive me, in the beginning of the thread I wondered if it could’ve been sarcasm too…

This might make it a bit clearer (I hope) for you Cat;

There are two distinctive elements to the Sacrifice of Christ and they correlate respectively to Christ the Victim and Christ the Priest.

…

Thanks for posting that! This is what this thread needed from the beginning.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Deacon EdB, we both seem to have tried to ask for civility.

I responded to the quote below. Before this response, the word “Sunday Hootenanny” had already been used once to describe the poster’s NO Mass.

Quote:
Typically, the hootenanny breaks out during the priest’s monologue at the beginning of Mass following the sign of the cross, the homily, and the “final announcements” just before the dismissal. Our pastor’s a real gas - he makes sure everyone’s entertained. He always remarks how much he’s “enjoyed our celebration”.
I had asked for examples but I don’t think this ridicule is ever appropriate. Also, was a little surprised at the abuses. I know an abuse is an abuse but you must pick your battles and I was expecting maybe all the outrage to be over something like a lay person doing the homily or something at little more serious than “the priest always remarks how much he’s enjoyed our celebration”. Anyway, I responded:

Is this necessary? I am really getting quite tired of hearing this sort of talk. Your posts are full of them. I get that you don’t approve but really…you are terribly unkind. I think it is sufficient to tell us the abuse without a cutting commentary on each one. We get it.
Here was the reply I received:

He was being “unkind” to nobody (that’s just reading something in to what he stated) and made a pertinent point.

These sort of personal, emotional responses always seem to come when somebody is pierced by logic and truth exactly where it hurts.

I have been to plenty of parishes and plenty of NO masses where I KNOW a majority of the people do not realize what just went on, what they just participated in. Very sad, and very true.

Here are my observations on this (whether you’ll stop back or not to read them, I’m not sure). (The last quote above, of course, was mine.)

• It seems you objected to the word (‘hootenanny’) without having any idea at all to what he was referring. The word is obviously not meant literally; in a mode of literary exaggeration, are you sure it’s that off the mark in all cases? Ever been to a ‘clown mass’ or a ‘polka mass’?

I do agree the word is definitely on the ‘strong side’ in general. But please try to identify with the emotional reaction of somebody who is deeply offended by real irreverence.

If I jumped on you for calling him ‘unkind’, it’s because it just wasn’t warranted - or known. You’re assuming the intent of the poster. You’re assuming things you can’t know.

However, the next paragraph, ‘These sort of personal, emotional responses always seem to come when somebody is pierced by logic and truth exactly where it hurts.’, I will apologize for. I was doing a bit of assuming of my own there - I’m sorry about that.

Here was the statement that prompted you to try.

The reason people find the Mass hard to tolerate is because the Novus Ordo Mass has become an irreverent and often sacreligious event.

You responded:

Why can’t we ever discuss the reenactment of the sacrifice of Calvary without degrading into language such as this?

He responded:

The subject of the thread deals with why people are disgusted by the Mass. I gave my answer.

Do you deny that the reason people feel disgust is because of the irreverence and sacrileges that take place in the Novus Ordo Mass. If so, what is your explanation?

And, are you implying that you do not feel disgusted by abuses and sacrileges? If not, there is something wrong.

Once again, someone totally not understanding what you were trying to point out. I know we have discussed the frustration of being on these threads and the value of trying to maintain a civil dialogue with the hope of moving forward. But it’s just not working. I have great respect for the EF. I have never spoken against it. The NO, while having abuses, particularly in certain areas of the country, is still the Mass. The priests are still priests. We can hate the abuses and work on eliminating them without ridicule and denigration. You can disagree and dislike, and even hate, the abuses without this disrespect for the Church, for that is ultimately what it is.

I have to say I don’t that last reply (which wasn’t mine, of course) as being uncivil. We are all intelligent adults here, right? Do we want civility or do we want walking on eggshells? Language is going to be blunt occasionally in a conversation like this. Just my opinion.

Deacon, I hope to see you elsewhere. I have never seen you be disrespectful and I appreciate that. You have more self-control than I.

If you’re going to climb onto the high ground here, and point out all the incivility you’ve seen, you’d be remiss not to mention the stuff that came from your ‘side’ (if there are two sides). I don’t mean you - I do acknowledge you’ve been quite the model of civility here and that is something to be proud of.

 

[Lee_M]

The subject of the thread deals with why people are disgusted by the Mass. I gave my answer.

Do you deny that the reason people feel disgust is because of the irreverence and sacrileges that take place in the Novus Ordo Mass. If so, what is your explanation?

And, are you implying that you do not feel disgusted by abuses and sacrileges? If not, there is something wrong.

Your blaming the Norvus Ordo Mass for irreverence and sacreliges is about the same as a person blaming the Church’s requirement for the celibacy of priests as the cause of the sexual abuse that was happening.

The Norvus Ordo is a reverent Mass. It is a shame that there are liturgical abusers performing Clown Masses and Polka Masses but it is not the result of the Norvus Ordo. Watch EWTN’s NO Mass. It’s beautiful.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Your blaming the Norvus Ordo Mass for irreverence and sacreliges is about the same as a person blaming the Church’s requirement for the celibacy of priests as the cause of the sexual abuse that was happening.

The Norvus Ordo is a reverent Mass. It is a shame that there are liturgical abusers performing Clown Masses and Polka Masses but it is not the result of the Norvus Ordo. Watch EWTN’s NO Mass. It’s beautiful.

Pax can (and will, I’m sure) answer for himself, but he clearly did not blame the NO for the abuses within it - he just stated that the abuses [he’s concerned about] have occurred within the NO.

It just seems to be a fact that there really isn’t such a thing as a LM said with abuses…

 

[Lee_M]

Pax can (and will, I’m sure) answer for himself, but he clearly did not blame the NO for the abuses within it - he just stated that the abuses [he’s concerned about] have occurred within the NO.

It just seems to be a fact that there really isn’t such a thing as a LM said with abuses…

I beg to differ. There were abuses happening in the Tridentine Mass. You just didn’t hear of abuses as much back in the days as you do now on these forums because we didn’t have the internet.

Vatican II corrected some abuses that were occuring in the Tridentine Mass. It also restored the participation of the people in concert to older traditions of the early Church that pre-dates the Tridentine Mass and it even brought back ancient and traditional prayers that the Tridentine Mass did not have.

I have nothing against the Tridentine Mass. But it gets old hearing people condemn the Ordinary Form. Anyone who claims the Ordinary Form is an Unholy Mass is speaking for Satan because Vatican II was valid and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I beg to differ. There were abuses happening in the Tridentine Mass. You just didn’t hear of abuses as much back in the days as you do now on these forums because we didn’t have the internet.

There’s no evidence, none, that there were abuses anywhere near the scope and seriousness we see today. Please cite any refs you have.

Vatican II corrected some abuses that were occuring in the Tridentine Mass. It also restored the participation of the people in concert to older traditions of the early Church that pre-dates the Tridentine Mass and it even brought back ancient and traditional prayers that the Tridentine Mass did not have.

Actually, all of the evidence points to the priest facing the altar with the people as long as there were altars (meaning as soon as people’s tables were no longer used). I have references for this.

Other parts of this post smack of archeologism, condemned by several popes. This the notion that anything that is older is automatically better. That isn’t so.

The earliest Christians needed a very simple liturgy because Masses were said in secret, under penalty of death frequently. Also, there simply had not yet been time for liturgy to develop naturally.

The NO did not develop. It was not natural. It was written by a committee, as our Pope said.

I have nothing against the Tridentine Mass. But it gets old hearing people condemn the Ordinary Form. Anyone who claims the Ordinary Form is an Unholy Mass is speaking for Satan because Vatican II was valid and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

You just got done telling us the things you don’t like about TLM - the reasons the NO is better - and now you said you’ve nothing against it? It’s one or the other.

Almost nobody here - nobody who’s posted in this thread - believes the new Mass to be anything close to ‘unholy’. So, you are setting up a straw man there. I attend the NO more than TLM. And yet I find the form, prayers, and rubrics of TLM objectively superior. But, these are ‘practical’ matters - I’d still give my life to be able to attend the NO and only the NO.

By the way, I pointed out to you previously that St. Pio preferred the Latin Mass. You did not respond in a meaningful fashion. Did you happen to look into that?

 

[Lee_M]

There’s no evidence, none, that there were abuses anywhere near the scope and seriousness we see today. Please cite any refs you have.

Actually, all of the evidence points to the priest facing the altar with the people as long as there were altars (meaning as soon as people’s tables were no longer used). I have references for this.

Other parts of this post smack of archeologism, condemned by several popes. This the notion that anything that is older is automatically better. That isn’t so.

The earliest Christians needed a very simple liturgy because Masses were said in secret, under penalty of death frequently. Also, there simply had not yet been time for liturgy to develop naturally.

The NO did not develop. It was not natural. It was written by a committee, as our Pope said.

You just got done telling us the things you don’t like about TLM - the reasons the NO is better - and now you said you’ve nothing against it? It’s one or the other.

Almost nobody here - nobody who’s posted in this thread - believes the new Mass to be anything close to ‘unholy’. So, you are setting up a straw man there. I attend the NO more than TLM. And yet I find the form, prayers, and rubrics of TLM objectively superior. But, these are ‘practical’ matters - I’d still give my life to be able to attend the NO and only the NO.

By the way, I pointed out to you previously that St. Pio preferred the Latin Mass. You did not respond in a meaningful fashion. Did you happen to look into that?

There have been many posts on this thread that one can read into that they believe the NO to be unholy. When the terms hootenanny and other goofy words are used, one can come to a conclusion of how they feel about the NO.

Why do you keep bring up Padre Pio’s preference for the Latin Mass? Padre Pio was an exceptional human being and held a special place with God. My preference towards a particular form of Mass does not have anything to do with my admiration of this great Saint. I did respond to you and I’m starting to get royally ticked off that you keep trying to bring this up against me. Go back and look it up in my previous post. I would really prefer you leave that out of this conversation. I know Padre Pio preferred the Latin Mass. That is what he was used to. Remember he died in 1968. Vatican II was during several years of the 60’s. The Pope gave Padre Pio permission to continue with the Tridentine Mass.

Let me rephrase. I have nothing against people attending a TLM. I personally prefer the NO because “I” can follow it better. But to say one is more superior than the other is a matter of opinion.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I made a typo in post # 129 I’d just like to readjust :

The correct term is an “unbloody” manner - not "bloodless." The Precious Bloodof Christ is made present by the miracle of transubstantiation, so “bloodless” is an unsuitable descriptive.

 

[KingAlfred]

What was it about the Mass that you didn’t like? Was it the Sacrifice that was taking place which is invisible to the eyes, or was it abuses and/or sacrileges you witnessed in the liturgy?

Just strange idiosyncracies of the community and/or priest involved. There’s an old Irish priest who runs a parish nearby whom I’m convinced is crazy. I simply can’t bear his sermons. He takes up a full hour, uses horribly prepared powerpoint slides, and brags about turning Mass into a torture session. Seriously, I would attend a non-Catholic service before ever sitting through another one of his Masses.