EF/OF Moratorium

[Thomas_Casey]

There is increasing hostility, AGAIN, in discussing the EF and OF. This forum is not the place for that. The rules for discussing the two forms of the mass are very clear in the sticky above. If there is more complaining about either form of the mass, more denigrating the OF, more resistance to the EF, more sarcasm in the discussion of the Holy Mass, we may have to put a moratorium on the subject.

We are not prepared to allow anyone to speak about the Holy Mass as if they were speaking at political convention about the opposition. It is not the Catholic thing to do.

Furthermore, anyone who makes one negative comment about either form of the mass will be banned, no questions asked.

There is a difference between agreeing and disagreeing and using terms such as “pagan, sacrilege, heretical and even banal.”

Unless you’re a theologian with a good background in liturgy, a Canon Lawyer, a bishop or an abbot, you should be humble enough to avoid making such statements. You run the risk of using such terms incorrectly or inconsistently with how the scholars use them.

Anyone who fails to comply will forfeit their account.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is increasing hostility, AGAIN, in discussing the EF and OF. This forum is not the place for that. The rules for discussing the two forms of the mass are very clear in the sticky above. If there is more complaining about either form of the mass, more denigrating the OF, more resistance to the EF, more sarcasm in the discussion of the Holy Mass, we may have to put a moratorium on the subject.

We are not prepared to allow anyone to speak about the Holy Mass as if they were speaking at political convention about the opposition. It is not the Catholic thing to do.

Furthermore, anyone who makes one negative comment about either form of the mass will be banned, no questions asked.

There is a difference between agreeing and disagreeing and using terms such as “pagan, sacrilege, heretical and even banal.”

Unless you’re a theologian with a good background in liturgy, a Canon Lawyer, a bishop or an abbot, you should be humble enough to avoid making such statements. You run the risk of using such terms incorrectly or inconsistently with how the scholars use them.

Anyone who fails to comply will forfeit their account.

Amen. And we could add, read the Catechism and the Documents of Vatican II,

 

[april32010]

thank you:thumbsup:

 

[robwar]

amen and thanks again.

 

[Lormar]

Yes, thank you.

How about Communion in the hand vs. Communion on the tongue too? And anything else that could divide or keep us divided?

 

[TrueLight]

Yes, thank you.

How about Communion in the hand vs. Communion on the tongue too? And anything else that could divide or keep us divided?

So we shouldn’t discuss anything where there might be disagreement? Is that what you’re saying?

 

[OraLabora]

So we shouldn’t discuss anything where there might be disagreement? Is that what you’re saying?

Given that they’re both licit options, what purpose does disagreement over the issue really serve other than to cause acrimony over what boils down to personal preference?

 

[Boulder257]

Yes, thank you.

How about Communion in the hand vs. Communion on the tongue too? And anything else that could divide or keep us divided?

You’re being sarcastic right?

 

[ringil]

Given that they’re both licit options, what purpose does disagreement over the issue really serve other than to cause acrimony over what boils down to personal preference?

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you here. Nothing to argue about.

 

[Lormar]

You’re being sarcastic right?

Pardon?

 

[TrueLight]

Given that they’re both licit options, what purpose does disagreement over the issue really serve other than to cause acrimony over what boils down to personal preference?

There can be differing points of opinion without acrimony. We are not robots. We have opinions and we have preferences, and we have intellect.

Just because something is licit does not mean it is the ideal way. There are clergy and bishops who have varying opinions on the topic. Since the communion on the hand is a practice, practices change. I don’t see anything wrong with discussing why one prefers one over the other. It obviously would be wrong to say “You’re a heretic” or “You don’t respect our Lord”.

I’m not so sure I want to continue this conversation in the moratorium post. I’m just saying that over the centuries, people have discussed issues, sometimes vociferously and still remained friends. The number one rule is charity in my opinion.

 

[ringil]

There can be differing points of opinion without acrimony. We are not robots. We have opinions and we have preferences, and we have intellect.

Just because something is licit does not mean it is the ideal way. There are clergy and bishops who have varying opinions on the topic. Since the communion on the hand is a practice, practices change. I don’t see anything wrong with discussing why one prefers one over the other. It obviously would be wrong to say “You’re a heretic” or “You don’t respect our Lord”.

I’m not so sure I want to continue this conversation in the moratorium post. I’m just saying that over the centuries, people have discussed issues, sometimes vociferously and still remained friends. The number one rule is charity in my opinion.

I guess the issue is that some posters have shown they just can’t be, or are unwilling to be charitable. Yes, people should be civil, but what does one do when they will not?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There can be differing points of opinion without acrimony. We are not robots. We have opinions and we have preferences, and we have intellect.

Just because something is licit does not mean it is the ideal way. There are clergy and bishops who have varying opinions on the topic. Since the communion on the hand is a practice, practices change. I don’t see anything wrong with discussing why one prefers one over the other. It obviously would be wrong to say “You’re a heretic” or “You don’t respect our Lord”.

I’m not so sure I want to continue this conversation in the moratorium post. I’m just saying that over the centuries, people have discussed issues, sometimes vociferously and still remained friends. The number one rule is charity in my opinion.

If the Church allows for something what is the purpose of disagreeing with someone who prefers that available option?

My opinion is that others opinions (other than those who I have chosen to follow as superiors, mentors, and spiritual directors) as to what I legitimately choose are of no interest to me.

Yes, by all means tell us why you choose what you choose but let me choose as I choose.

 

[Boulder257]

Pardon?

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your post.

 

[Lormar]

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your post.

That’s all right, Boulder.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

So we shouldn’t discuss anything where there might be disagreement? Is that what you’re saying?

No, but thank you for asking, because it allows for further clarification. Please read on.

There can be differing points of opinion without acrimony.

Very true.

There are clergy and bishops who have varying opinions on the topic.

Here is your answer. None of this men call other people “Modernists”, shove papal documents in each others faces, because they know that it will not be tolerated. All agree that the pope has the last word. They speak to each other with reverence and respect and about other clergymen with reverence and respect. They express their opinions, but acknowledge that their opinions have no validity unless the Holy Father shares the same opinion. It’s really an academic discussion for them. They do not discuss it in the hope of getting anything changed. Only the pope can invite to such a discussion and they realize this. This discussion is strictly an academic exercise for them.

If people on TC Forum can speak as these men speak, by all means disagree on anything that you want.

I’m just saying that over the centuries, people have discussed issues, sometimes vociferously and still remained friends. The number one rule is charity in my opinion.

This is no longer allowed in today’s Church. Canon Law is clear that any difference, concerns, suggestions, complaints and ideas that the faithful wish to contribute they have a right to do so, but they must meet two criteria. It must be within their area of competence and they must speak to clergy and religious with reverence. Bl. John Paul eliminated vociferous by putting in “with reverence” into the universal law of the Church. It is in the canons of the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches as well.

We at CAF abide by the rules of the Holy See and the bishops of the United States.

 

[robwar]

I have a quick question to the moderator. How does this apply to the type of threads that are about liturgical abuse. Usually they seem to run like this: someone visits another parish not their own and during mass they see something that they think might be abuse, then they come one CAF and ask about it and it seems like these thread get pretty heated. What concerns me is that someone is making a judgement on a one time visit to a Church and want others to be upset with them on what happen or didn’t happen based on one visit.

 

[JReducation]

I have a quick question to the moderator. How does this apply to the type of threads that are about liturgical abuse. Usually they seem to run like this: someone visits another parish not their own and during mass they see something that they think might be abuse, then they come one CAF and ask about it and it seems like these thread get pretty heated. What concerns me is that someone is making a judgement on a one time visit to a Church and want others to be upset with them on what happen or didn’t happen based on one visit.

I’d like to take a crack at answering this.

Prudence is a virtue. First, we don’t make a judgment of a priest or a parish community based on one experience.

Second, we don’t generalize. The number of parishes and priests that celebrate the OF are in the thousands. The number of alleged abuses are far far less.

Third, often, people label as abuse that which is not an abuse. There are actions and omissions that are contrary to the rubrics. These are wrong, but they do not constitute liturgical abuse. Roman Law does not work like English Law. In Roman Law, for you to be culpable of something you must be persistent in it even after having been corrected. It must be something that the Church considers grave, not the man in the pew.

Fourth, we should never respond to such posters, because we don’t know if we’re getting the whole truth. The person believes that he’s telling us the truth. In reality, we’re getting his perspective.

Fifth, getting ugly over things like this shows how we’re not truly living the mass in our daily lives. Of what use is the most reverent mass in the world when we treat each other with grave irreverence?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[robwar]

I’d like to take a crack at answering this.

Prudence is a virtue. First, we don’t make a judgment of a priest or a parish community based on one experience.

Second, we don’t generalize. The number of parishes and priests that celebrate the OF are in the thousands. The number of alleged abuses are far far less.

Third, often, people label as abuse that which is not an abuse. There are actions and omissions that are contrary to the rubrics. These are wrong, but they do not constitute liturgical abuse. Roman Law does not work like English Law. In Roman Law, for you to be culpable of something you must be persistent in it even after having been corrected. It must be something that the Church considers grave, not the man in the pew.

Fourth, we should never respond to such posters, because we don’t know if we’re getting the whole truth. The person believes that he’s telling us the truth. In reality, we’re getting his perspective.

Fifth, getting ugly over things like this shows how we’re not truly living the mass in our daily lives. Of what use is the most reverent mass in the world when we treat each other with grave irreverence?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

a very big thank-you for your post! those were my thought exactly and those are the threads that bother me the most.

 

[Cat]

No, but thank you for asking, because it allows for further clarification. Please read on.

Very true.

Here is your answer. None of this men call other people “Modernists”, shove papal documents in each others faces, because they know that it will not be tolerated. All agree that the pope has the last word. They speak to each other with reverence and respect and about other clergymen with reverence and respect. They express their opinions, but acknowledge that their opinions have no validity unless the Holy Father shares the same opinion. It’s really an academic discussion for them. They do not discuss it in the hope of getting anything changed. Only the pope can invite to such a discussion and they realize this. This discussion is strictly an academic exercise for them.

If people on TC Forum can speak as these men speak, by all means disagree on anything that you want.

This is no longer allowed in today’s Church. Canon Law is clear that any difference, concerns, suggestions, complaints and ideas that the faithful wish to contribute they have a right to do so, but they must meet two criteria. It must be within their area of competence and they must speak to clergy and religious with reverence. Bl. John Paul eliminated vociferous by putting in “with reverence” into the universal law of the Church. It is in the canons of the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches as well.

We at CAF abide by the rules of the Holy See and the bishops of the United States.

Our first Pope said exactly the same thing: “But sancify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to every one who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence…” (I Peter 3: 15–italics mine)