EF Mass Preferers now demand "right" of all sacraments under "old form"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Once again, misleading.

Yes, there was a new Psalter…though quite heavily indebted to its predecessor.

Yes, there were some antiphon issues in the Psalter as a result.

But again…you could STILL USE THE OLD BREVIARY, with a new Psalter (hence the publication, which even says…for convenience of use with the old books).

The lessons…THE SAME. The ordinary…THE SAME. The festal offices…THE SAME.
 
Brendan_64 said:
And again the same criticism can be made of some who can seem to see Vatican II as the beginning of some sort of springtime with all the dusty old stuff from the past washed away and a new more vibrant form of Church emerging. The criticism cuts both ways.
Click to expand...
You are still seeing my point as criticism at the level of “appeal”, “suitability for the times”, “fresh”, “dusty”. No, I’m interested in none of that. I am only railing against those who fault the substance, the inherent goodness, of one form - who insist out of more than mere preference that they access only a particular form. Invariably, that is only a criticism made of change, rather than the status quo, whereas the superficial criticisms cut both ways. And I don’t suggest it is common - most with an objection to either form object on the superficial grounds I mentioned.
 
Last edited:
The main advantage to the Latin Mass is that the people that are in attendance at Latin Mass had to make a special decision to be there. The great mass of ordinary Catholics-who vary in the amount of piety and commitment- never darken the door of a TLM site.

A self selected group, committed to the rituals of the Latin Mass, is naturally going to be more reverent that the hoi polloi, the masses at the vernacular Masses.

If the Latin Mass was the only Mass available, it wouldn’t always be so reverent.
 
I wonder how long this thread would have lasted if instead of bashing “EFMPers”, you were bashing “NovusOrdoers”? This forum never ceases to amaze!!!
 
Last edited:
True!

Which is why the Novus Ordo in the vernacular at the Trappist Monastery I go to, is very reverent.

I can’t compare the Mass their to that at my home parish where there are different levels of faith and of course, many children.

Jim
 
KMG said:
Once again, misleading.
Click to expand...
The psalter is the heart of the Office.

It is not misleading to say that the Pius X Office is not traditional because its psalter is different. It is simple reality.

Saint Benedict devotes 12 chapters to defining the Divine Office, most of it relating to the psalter, the rest revolving around the basic structure, when to say the Pater, and the like. He doesn’t produce an antiphonary, nor writes collects.

Given that a monk’s main job is to recite the Divine Office, it is clear that the psalter is front and center in the Office in the way St. Benedict approaches it.
 
Our diocese (Arlington VA) offers Confirmation using the Extraordinary Form rite.
 
These factions you describe have a lot of energy and spare time. Where do you find them all?. Every time I go to a EF mass I note the majority are young tired workers after a week’s work, and many are elderly, There are young families who simply are grateful for the privilege of being in the presence of our Lord and desire to join Him so he won’t be alone on Sunday. After mass, stepping out into the sun where more are gathered, no secret subversive group can be found plotting the next intellectual battle with another faction. Disgruntled people are nowhere to be found at my parish, they’re too concerned with their neighbor who’s in a hard way. One is asking “is Mary out of the hospital yet?” Their collective composure is varied. One can hear a small group laughing, and elsewhere an old guy, probably me, is coochie cooing a baby in a stroller. Yeyy, I just gotta smile and that is surly something I can take home with me.

That’s another thing, all the kids are very happy, none withdrawn or spoiled. If this is the ideal breeding ground of the next generation of discontents, there would be none formed from this parish. It’s odd though, and maybe we should post a thread on why the sun always seems to be shining on these parishes.
 
whyeyeman said:
You know the results of both, judge for yourself. I happen to think the EF is infinitely more beautiful.
Click to expand...
I prefer the OF mass in English, since I do not speak Latin very well.

For about two years, during the transition period when I was a litle kid, I served the Latin mass, I remembered we merely just memorized them as we dialogue with the priest during the whole mass. To memorise without understanding them was quite a feat.

There was no meaning at all to us. We only knew roughtly what we said was just a Latin version (of say, the Our Father) but did not understand the words spoken. We were just parroting our reply, like a chore that we had to do.

Guess that presented some mystery to the mass and probably that is why many people like it that way. Not me though. I prefer something I know and understand when I pariticipate in it.
 
commenter said:
The English translation of several years ago greatly improves the OF.
Click to expand...
But English Masses comprise only a small percentage (about 5%?) of the world’s Catholic Masses. (Spanish Masses are more common actually.)

I read however the real reason for the revised English translation was that there were many vernaculars (such as 20+ in Nigeria alone) which didn’t have Latinists to translate but only had English speakers to do it. So it behooved the Church to be as literal as possible in going from Latin to English. The old dynamic 1973 translation simply would not work to translate going forward. So in that sense the 2011 English translation improved the OF, although it is debatable among the Anglophone crowd whether the understandability in English was improved. (e.g. consubstantial, etc.)
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
What is organic in this context? Usually the term means “from within” and in the case of the Mass , it has been that. Change requires some conscious decision in the present - and probably a committee and someone to approve what is done. Is that not organic? The text you quoted was entirely reasonable. If changes have been made contrary to those guidelines, that is not good.
Click to expand...
Organic also means that it has to be in harmony with what has gone before. We don’t expect to pick cherries from pear trees.

Quite a bit of what was added in the post-conciliar rush was the opposite of organic; indeed foreign to the existing Catholic experience. Some things were simply outright borrowed from non-Catholic sources and imposed on the Faithful.

An example of this would be the bare walls of modern church buildings (or ruined old ones). A church without sacred art is foreign to the Catholic experience. Sure, we have the cliche “we can have Mass anywhere” but that was never (not ever or anywhere) the Catholic experience. Churches were always designed and decorated as sacred places—not bare, empty, lifeless rooms. So, the turn to iconoclasm in some instances was anything but organic—it was an abrupt break.

The new “Book of Blessings” represents an extreme break from Catholic practice. Almost every blessing of an object was completely removed and replaced by prayers offered for the people who use those objects. It’s so awful that a while ago, the Holy See sent out a letter telling priests “when you use the Book of Blessings, add a blessing to what you find there” (paraphrased).
 
A missal existed which had the Latin and English on the same page. I understood every word I was saying.

Pope John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia, 1962
Code: 
"The Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic and non-vernacular."
Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 1963
Code: 
#36 "The use of Latin, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin Rites."

#54 "Nevertheless care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."
Pope Paul VI, Sacrificium Laudis, 1966
"The Latin language is assuredly worthy of being defended with great care instead of being scorned; for the Latin Church it is the most abundant source of Christian civilization and the richest treasury of piety... we must not hold in low esteem these traditions of your fathers which were your glory for centuries."
 
Thank you, Fr. David.
BTW, have you read Peter Kwasnewski’s Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness? I’m going through it for a second time now and it’s really quite informative.
 
Spyridon said:
Mass from being used - totally suppress both the Tridentine and Pauline Masses in favor of the Franciscan Mass.
Click to expand...
This would cause so much scandalization that it would seem extremely unwise, and indeed I think basic charity would convince the Pope to refrain from something so drastic. If you want to see a real Schism, this is the best way to do it.
 
As I recounted, not me. I am sure many people know Latin. I am sure it can be learned as well and that the language itself is not much a problem for many Catholics.

However, for others it is a problem. More so, in countries that do not have any Latin tradition. I had travelled extensively, sometimes together with Catholic missions to third world countries. It would be easier if you can communicate with them in the langauge that they can understand. …
 
No point in continuing this…you have a clear agenda, which is entirely wrapped up in your preference for the Monastic Breviary…which is entirely your privilege.

I am talking about the Roman Breviary, not the Monastic.

Where you are out of line is in saying the Roman Office after 1910 is not “traditional”. That is simply false.

Again, your prejudice is entirely rooted in your clear sense that the Monastic Breviary is better. That’s your prejudice, and you’re entitled to it.
 
Last edited:
Also, for anyone who wants to use Benedict’s Rule on the Psalter to judge if an Office is “traditional”…there’s this quote from Benedict:

“We strongly recommend, however,
that if this distribution of the Psalms is displeasing to anyone,
he should arrange them otherwise,
in whatever way he considers better,
but taking care in any case
that the Psalter with its full number of 150 Psalms
be chanted every week
and begun again every Sunday at the Night Office.”

This prescription is followed by the Roman Office until Liturgia Horarum of 1970, which innovated with a 4 week system and decided to cut 3 psalms and many verses of others.

The Roman Breviary has every Psalm, and a 1-week cycle.
 
I attend the EF every week, so I guess that makes me an “EFMP”. I can tell you from personal experience that there are some OFers (not all but more than just a few) who seem to despise the TLM who make trying to share a Parish a rather miserable experience for all involved. Our community was recently told to leave the Parish we were sharing because of complaints from the rank and file OFers. They didn’t seem to recognize the TLM as another valid and acceptable form of the Roman Rite. Are there some TLM people who treat the OF the same way? Sure, but it’s a two way street. Why is all the onus on the TLM folks?
 
Rau said:
You are still seeing my point as criticism at the level of “appeal”, “suitability for the times”, “fresh”, “dusty”. No, I’m interested in none of that. I am only railing against those who fault the substance, the inherent goodness, of one form - who insist out of more than mere preference that they access only a particular form
Click to expand...
I’m not. There are indeed people in parishes who would appear to think that post Vatican II practices are indeed superior to what went before, not just superficially better, but better spiritually. Of course there are also those who think the reverse, as you point out, but it applies to both mindsets.

So long as someone is not denying the validity of either form of the Mass, then we ought not to get too upset about people’s views on this. But to say that it is only among traditionalists where there is an issue with regarding one form as being spiritually better is to look at the issue myopically.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top