B
Big_Feet
Guest
I am affraid that the same could be said about the EF by someone in attendance who was not familiar with that GIRM as well…just saying.
- Status
R
roadsend
Guest
I have. At Holy Rosary parish in Portland, Oregon, although there used to be an abuse free OF at St. Patrick’s, also in Portland. I wish that it were possible for me to get there every Sunday.
Unfortunately, these are the only parishes where I have ever seen an abuse free Sunday OF.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Fair point. Many of those who just walk into the EF unprepared probably won’t be coming back. I’ll agree with those who say more instruction is necessary for either form.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
No, he was speaking to the OP and that is NOT what OP did. He said he was tired of us not attending Latin Mass.
Tired of Catholics who don’t do what he does.
Tired of us.
I guess I’ll read through some more posts now and see if he apologized.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
That is big of you and I’m sure they appreciate knowing this.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I added the emphasis. This is probably the best post I ever read on this forum.
After I read it, I deleted my two responses.
Anyone who thinks there is anything to discuss beyond this, well …
T
TrueLight
Guest
Well what Julia Mae?
S
stanncie
Guest
I’ve wanted to say something about this subject for awhile and here I go. I’ve only gone to a EF mass twice once in an sspx church (didn’t know it at the time) and another time at a small church that closed a few years ago. The experience was interesting and I liked it OK. Would I go again? maybe if it was more convenient but it’s not something that I think about much.
I do sense especially in this forum that lovers of the EF have this condescending attitude towards the OF and those who prefer it. There often seems to be an undercurrent of we’re better than you cuz we like the EF. I"m sorry if this perception is wrong but I’ve noted it in more than one occasion.
I speak as a person who almost exclusively attends mass in Spanish because it’s what i grew up with and what i prefer. I have gone to a few masses in English but it’s not my preference even if English is probably my strongest language of the three that I speak. I have friends that prefer to attend mass in English, that doesn’t bother me, others prefer it in Creole, that’s cool too. I don’t understand the total obsession a few here have with wanting everyone to attend the mass in Latin
Shouldn’t we attend the mass that we are most comfortable in and that we prefer? Since coming here I have noted that my parish does sometimes commit some minor of what you guys would call ‘liturgical abuses’ I choose not to pay much mind to them since they distract me from what I should be doing which is worshiping God. As long as Jesus is there I’m content,
Some of the EF advocates really hurt their own cause in the way that they behave on here. If I had never attended an EF I would think twice about attending one if the people here represented the faithful that I would find in an EF parish.
I do sense especially in this forum that lovers of the EF have this condescending attitude towards the OF and those who prefer it. There often seems to be an undercurrent of we’re better than you cuz we like the EF. I"m sorry if this perception is wrong but I’ve noted it in more than one occasion.
I speak as a person who almost exclusively attends mass in Spanish because it’s what i grew up with and what i prefer. I have gone to a few masses in English but it’s not my preference even if English is probably my strongest language of the three that I speak. I have friends that prefer to attend mass in English, that doesn’t bother me, others prefer it in Creole, that’s cool too. I don’t understand the total obsession a few here have with wanting everyone to attend the mass in Latin
Shouldn’t we attend the mass that we are most comfortable in and that we prefer? Since coming here I have noted that my parish does sometimes commit some minor of what you guys would call ‘liturgical abuses’ I choose not to pay much mind to them since they distract me from what I should be doing which is worshiping God. As long as Jesus is there I’m content,
Some of the EF advocates really hurt their own cause in the way that they behave on here. If I had never attended an EF I would think twice about attending one if the people here represented the faithful that I would find in an EF parish.
T
Te_Deum
Guest
There’s your answer.…]Spanish…]English…]Creole…]
I don’t understand the total obsession a few here have with wanting everyone to attend the mass in Latin
No because it isn’t about you or me.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Many people who are attached to the EF spent a long time in the wilderness. I don’t know if you remember the 1970s and the 1980s, but people who were attached to the EF (called the “old mass” or the “tridentine” then) were often virtual outcasts in their own churches. It was like going to Mexico, and being attacked for asking for frijoles and a Corona in Spanish. Weird does not even begin to describe the feeling.
Kafkaesque comes close.
It’s a sad fact that those times made some folks “tough.” One had to be, to withstand the constant criticism of what was dearly believed.
That history is with some of us still. I’m not justifying, only trying to explain. Hope you can cut us some slack!
T
TrueLight
Guest
Warrenton, it’s funny that you just responded because I am pasting your post, which I think is so important.That history is with some of us still. I’m not justifying, only trying to explain. Hope you can cut us some slack!
Stancie, I would recommend reading Warrenton’s post that I just pasted for a better understanding.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
The EF doesn’t make me anti-OF intentionally or unintentionally. It just makes me better able to see abuses.
The church where I attended the EF at in the past has somewhere around 1000 people there for every Sunday mass.
The church where I attended the EF at in the past has somewhere around 1000 people there for every Sunday mass.
S
stanncie
Guest
Agree 100% but since the church has approved all of the various translations i’m not using my own judgement here but following what the church permits. Are you saying that God wants us to pray in Latin? I’m not trying to be funny but this is what I gathered from this comment. Sorry again I’m not really what you would call an intellectual so maybe your explanation went right over my head.There’s your answer.
Sorry I still don’t get it
No because it isn’t about you or me.
W
Warrenton
Guest
S
stanncie
Guest
I’m only in my early thirties and I spent my childhood in Peru so no I don’t have any clue as to this period. I only knew about the mass in Latin through my mom who told me about it.Many people who are attached to the EF spent a long time in the wilderness. I don’t know if you remember the 1970s and the 1980s, but people who were attached to the EF (called the “old mass” or the “tridentine” then) were often virtual outcasts in their own churches. It was like going to Mexico, and being attacked for asking for frijoles and a Corona in Spanish. Weird does not even begin to describe the feeling.
Kafkaesque comes close.
It’s a sad fact that those times made some folks “tough.” One had to be, to withstand the constant criticism of what was dearly believed.
That history is with some of us still. I’m not justifying, only trying to explain. Hope you can cut us some slack!
I’m sorry that you suffered and were marginalized
I can only imagine how hard it must have been for all the people that loved this form of the mass and didn’t want the change that came in that period. I’m glad that you now have the option to go to the EF although i understand it’s rather limited in some areas. I hope that we can all respect each other and treat each other as brothers and sisters no matter what form of the mass we prefer to attend.
P
ProVobis
Guest
With 500-some vernaculars being used throughout the Church, it would be nice to have something, even a small amount, that everyone can recognize as being Catholic. Latin is the language of the Church and of the cross, after all. It doesn’t make sense to suppress it entirely with some modern language.I speak as a person who almost exclusively attends mass in Spanish because it’s what i grew up with and what i prefer. I have gone to a few masses in English but it’s not my preference even if English is probably my strongest language of the three that I speak. I have friends that prefer to attend mass in English, that doesn’t bother me, others prefer it in Creole, that’s cool too. I don’t understand the total obsession a few here have with wanting everyone to attend the mass in Latin
Keep up the good work in learning three languages, though.
S
stanncie
Guest
I guess it’s not that big of a deal to me to have ONE language for everything maybe because i grew up in Miami and I’m used to hearing many different languages
Very few people that live here are monolingual, most are bilingual and there are many that speak three languages or more.I once went to a mass in Hungarian (very strange language lol) I didn’t understand a word of the homily! but I managed to follow along for the rest of the mass since it was the exact same structure so that was good enough for me. I just said the responses in Spanish quietly
I’m ashamed to say I do the same when I go to English mass because I don’t know the responses in English lolI’m not against Latin at all, in fact I can understand a lot of it especially if it’s written since I speak Italian i just don’t understand why some people here want to jam it down people’s throats.
C
choliks
Guest
I respect those who prefer the TLM. If I’d have the chance to assist in one, I’d probably learn to love it too. With that said, however, I have a question regarding this… Isn’t the Mass that something which everyone can recognize as Catholic? No matter what language the liturgy is in, no matter where you are in the planet, you would recognize a Catholic Mass if you’d see one.
I’m also thinking of a poor parish in very remote rural place in another country where a priest can only visit at least twice a month. They wouldn’t have the resources to learn English fluently, what more with Latin.
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe that the problem here is one of charity on both sides of the aisle. There were always individuals who mourned many of the changes after Vatican II. Whether these changes were necessary or not is the subject of many books. I don’t have time to write many books, so I’ll go to my point.
Those people who mourned the loss of many things that went by the wayside were often mistreated in many ways. They were ridiculed, ignored, told to be quiet, or punished. Such treatment was certainly contrary to charity. That’s not the way to deal with people who are grieving. You have to validate their feelings. The way to do that is to listen. You go from there. Some things you can recover and some you cannot, but you can explain so that the person understands. Even if the person still feels upset about it, at least he feels that someone cares enough to listen and explain or listen and rectify.
I think that many of these people were not validated. Therefore, they hardened and became militant. It reminds me of the Black Movement, the Women’s Movement and other movements. Originally, these were people who were hurting for different reasons. They were not treated with charity and respect. They hardened and they united into movements that often became very antagonistic and went over the top. I think this has happened to many people who label themselves “Traditionalists”. Many are very militant and antagonistic. It’s the age old truth. “The oppressed often becomes an oppressor.” When someone who is not a Traditionalist walks into some of these crowds, he’s attacked before he can say, “Hello.” In other words, sin generates sin.
The good news is that most people who label themselves Traditionalists are not militant and antagonistic. They don’t have an ax to grind and they are not trying to shove anything down anyone’s throat. These are simple people with a simple faith. They are looking for a space in the Church where they can worship and serve in a manner that meets their spiritual needs and nurtures their soul. They have a right to that space.
Those who deny them that space are reacting and being as militant as the Traditionalist who goes on the attack. Except, this person comes from the opposite direction. I think that the militant Traditionalist is coming from a position of self-defense, using a strategy that does not work. I also think that the antagonist to the Traditionalist is coming from the same position of self-defense. He believes that the Traditionalist poses some kind of threat to his worldview and his spiritual needs.
At the end of the day, the real issue is more about charity. The cry about abuses is as old as the Church. It is naïve to say that there were no abuses in the Tridentine Form or any of the rites of the East or West. I can make a list longer than my arm. If the entire Latin Church were celebrating only the Tridentine Form, there would be abuses. The abuse is not built into the form. It comes from the individual.
Abuses come in many forms. Just to give you some that may not appear to be abuses, but were. If you have ever watched the mass on EWTN, you will hear the friars chant parts of the mass. It’s not Gregorian chant. It’s a very plain chant. The reason is that Francis and Clare banned Gregorian chant from the mass and the LOTH. Gregorian chant was associated with monasteries, cathedrals and all the places where the wealthy worshipped. At the time when the Franciscan family was founded, those who could not perform Gregorian Chant did not have a vocation to the religious life or to the secular priesthood. Francis and Clare, wanting to open up the religious life to the common man and to put distance between their community and the middle and upper classes banned Gregorian Chant. The austere mass was consistent with the austere way of life of the Franciscans.
I believe it was Pope Leo XIII who had to intervene to protect the Franciscans from many bishops who invited them into their dioceses and demanded that they use Gregorian Chant. It may not seem like it to many people, but this was a form of liturgical abuse. This was not the Franciscan understanding of the mass. The Franciscans were no small group. In 1897 they numbered almost 2 million.
There were other abuses. There was an “inside joke” which I don’t think is funny. Priests often bet each other on who could get through the 6:30 am mass the fastest. They actually had competitions in rectories. That’s another form of abuse.
Monasteries of women were not allowed to have scholas, but they could have a choir. That’s not an abuse, but it’s silliness. What’s the difference? The schola was male and the choir could be female. Good gravy, in a women’s monastery there are no males. The choir did for the women’s monasteries what the schola did for the parish, but they were not allowed to use the term, “schola”.
Priests who served religious houses often abused the religious. The religious would approach the priest for Holy Communion and the priest would nod, “No”. They would be deprived of Holy Communion for weeks. These religious were not public sinners. Often, these were priests who were on power trips. The religious were bound by a vow of obedience and they had no other mass except the conventual mass. It was easy for any priest on a power trip to abuse their control over the Eucharist. Finally, the Church had to intervene and prohibit this practice.
Those people who mourned the loss of many things that went by the wayside were often mistreated in many ways. They were ridiculed, ignored, told to be quiet, or punished. Such treatment was certainly contrary to charity. That’s not the way to deal with people who are grieving. You have to validate their feelings. The way to do that is to listen. You go from there. Some things you can recover and some you cannot, but you can explain so that the person understands. Even if the person still feels upset about it, at least he feels that someone cares enough to listen and explain or listen and rectify.
I think that many of these people were not validated. Therefore, they hardened and became militant. It reminds me of the Black Movement, the Women’s Movement and other movements. Originally, these were people who were hurting for different reasons. They were not treated with charity and respect. They hardened and they united into movements that often became very antagonistic and went over the top. I think this has happened to many people who label themselves “Traditionalists”. Many are very militant and antagonistic. It’s the age old truth. “The oppressed often becomes an oppressor.” When someone who is not a Traditionalist walks into some of these crowds, he’s attacked before he can say, “Hello.” In other words, sin generates sin.
The good news is that most people who label themselves Traditionalists are not militant and antagonistic. They don’t have an ax to grind and they are not trying to shove anything down anyone’s throat. These are simple people with a simple faith. They are looking for a space in the Church where they can worship and serve in a manner that meets their spiritual needs and nurtures their soul. They have a right to that space.
Those who deny them that space are reacting and being as militant as the Traditionalist who goes on the attack. Except, this person comes from the opposite direction. I think that the militant Traditionalist is coming from a position of self-defense, using a strategy that does not work. I also think that the antagonist to the Traditionalist is coming from the same position of self-defense. He believes that the Traditionalist poses some kind of threat to his worldview and his spiritual needs.
At the end of the day, the real issue is more about charity. The cry about abuses is as old as the Church. It is naïve to say that there were no abuses in the Tridentine Form or any of the rites of the East or West. I can make a list longer than my arm. If the entire Latin Church were celebrating only the Tridentine Form, there would be abuses. The abuse is not built into the form. It comes from the individual.
Abuses come in many forms. Just to give you some that may not appear to be abuses, but were. If you have ever watched the mass on EWTN, you will hear the friars chant parts of the mass. It’s not Gregorian chant. It’s a very plain chant. The reason is that Francis and Clare banned Gregorian chant from the mass and the LOTH. Gregorian chant was associated with monasteries, cathedrals and all the places where the wealthy worshipped. At the time when the Franciscan family was founded, those who could not perform Gregorian Chant did not have a vocation to the religious life or to the secular priesthood. Francis and Clare, wanting to open up the religious life to the common man and to put distance between their community and the middle and upper classes banned Gregorian Chant. The austere mass was consistent with the austere way of life of the Franciscans.
I believe it was Pope Leo XIII who had to intervene to protect the Franciscans from many bishops who invited them into their dioceses and demanded that they use Gregorian Chant. It may not seem like it to many people, but this was a form of liturgical abuse. This was not the Franciscan understanding of the mass. The Franciscans were no small group. In 1897 they numbered almost 2 million.
There were other abuses. There was an “inside joke” which I don’t think is funny. Priests often bet each other on who could get through the 6:30 am mass the fastest. They actually had competitions in rectories. That’s another form of abuse.
Monasteries of women were not allowed to have scholas, but they could have a choir. That’s not an abuse, but it’s silliness. What’s the difference? The schola was male and the choir could be female. Good gravy, in a women’s monastery there are no males. The choir did for the women’s monasteries what the schola did for the parish, but they were not allowed to use the term, “schola”.
Priests who served religious houses often abused the religious. The religious would approach the priest for Holy Communion and the priest would nod, “No”. They would be deprived of Holy Communion for weeks. These religious were not public sinners. Often, these were priests who were on power trips. The religious were bound by a vow of obedience and they had no other mass except the conventual mass. It was easy for any priest on a power trip to abuse their control over the Eucharist. Finally, the Church had to intervene and prohibit this practice.
J
JReducation
Guest
We should not be naïve about the past, nor should we be threatened by tradition. On the flip side, we must not be naïve about the present either and pretend that there is nothing to fix. Fixing the problems is not the same as forcing everyone to adopt one form or the other, when the Church does not require this. I’ll close by giving an example of a mass that I attended this week. It was an OF and it was horrible. It was not horrible because it was the OF. It was horrible because it was poorly planned. However, I got a lot out of it. I had just gone to spiritual direction and was very eager to meet the Lord in the Word and Eucharist. I arrived very excited to be there. When everything started to go downhill, I sort of jerked and then I smiled to myself and said, “OK, here is your chance to practice what your spiritual director told you. ‘Surrender the control to God.’ “ What could have been a very distracting experience turned out to be a profound experience of Evangelical poverty.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status