R
ReConverted
Guest
Sleep well, everyone! God’s peace be upon you all.
- Status
T
TheDoctor
Guest
I think they are both two equally beautiful ways to worship the Lord and with my fellow brothers and sisters. Not the same, but equal.
T
Tommy_Joe
Guest
eelpis,…after contemplating what JReducation said, and re-reading your posts this morning,…perhaps I was a little hasty in giving you advice.
My assumption that your opinion of your daily Mass was similar to my opinion of the OF in general was incorrect. Therefore my suggestion to “take a break” from daily Mass was probably ill-advised.
JReducation,…it now appears obvious that you understood eelpis’s situation better than I did. I wasn’t taking into consideration how much he/she (forgive me) felt the need for daily participation in the Mass. You were right.
I should not have based my advice on the problem that I had when I disliked what was taking place at Mass. I sat there disgusted and distracted and therefore got very little out of it.
But that was my problem.
(
By the way, I’ve always enjoyed your posts.)
My assumption that your opinion of your daily Mass was similar to my opinion of the OF in general was incorrect. Therefore my suggestion to “take a break” from daily Mass was probably ill-advised.
JReducation,…it now appears obvious that you understood eelpis’s situation better than I did. I wasn’t taking into consideration how much he/she (forgive me) felt the need for daily participation in the Mass. You were right.
I should not have based my advice on the problem that I had when I disliked what was taking place at Mass. I sat there disgusted and distracted and therefore got very little out of it.
But that was my problem.
(
By the way, I’ve always enjoyed your posts.)
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
The opportunity for daily mass, is a gift which far too few partake. We all can come up with excuses why we don’t go daily, including myself. Where I live, there are masses available from 6 AM, 8 AM 9 AM 12 Noon, 5 PM and 6 PM, everyday of the week, with the exception of Saturday. Then it is mostly the Sunday Vigil Mass starting from 4 - 5 - or 6 PM. All are within a 40 minute drive of my house. None of us have an excuse to not go if we so choose, and are physically able. If we all go more often, we would all be so much better, regardless of the form of the mass especially if we held each other up in prayer. .
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
J
Joe_5859
Guest
By all means, please do not give up daily Mass over this! I can understand what you’re going through. My personality can border on OCD at times, and I know enough about what the rubrics should be to be bothered by deviations. But, quite frankly, having the priest go shake hands with everyone is hardly the worst liturgical abuse that is out there. I agree 100% that it’s bad form, and it does get on my nerves, but I certainly wouldn’t give up daily Mass over it. And EMHC’s may be bothersome at times, but they are allowed.
I agree with the following poster:
This is similar to my experience as well. I used to get much more irked at deviations from the rubrics (sometimes, they were only what I thought were probably deviations, even when they actually weren’t). I finally realized that I ought to spend more time reflecting on the Holy Mysteries of the Mass rather than in analyzing the priest’s every move and checking it against my own understanding of the rubrics. It really was a freeing experience, and it had the side benefit of helping me be less judgmental (in the bad way of judging other people to be less holy).
J
JReducation
Guest
Tommy,eelpis,…after contemplating what JReducation said, and re-reading your posts this morning,…perhaps I was a little hasty in giving you advice.
My assumption that your opinion of your daily Mass was similar to my opinion of the OF in general was incorrect. Therefore my suggestion to “take a break” from daily Mass was probably ill-advised.
JReducation,…it now appears obvious that you understood eelpis’s situation better than I did. I wasn’t taking into consideration how much he/she (forgive me) felt the need for daily participation in the Mass. You were right.
I should not have based my advice on the problem that I had when I disliked what was taking place at Mass. I sat there disgusted and distracted and therefore got very little out of it.
But that was my problem.
(
Not a big deal. Thanks for complimenting my posts. Last night, when I wrote that one, I was dead tired. Now, I’ve reread it and saw all kinds of typos in it. But I hope it hit the spot for the OP.
I know that we want the Lord to be treated as he deserves. I’m reminded of a line from St. Francis, “Love is not loved.”
Unfortunately, we can’t alway move people to change in the direction they should go or as fast as they should. We have to balance things.
We have to work toward change. As St. Benedict called it, we have to work for “conversion of manners” in others and us.
But as Deacon Ed said in his post, the daily Eucharist is available to us for our sanctification. If Christ humbles himself to be there for us, regardless of how he’s treated, we should take the OP’s example and rush out to worship him and receive him in the Eucharist as often as possible.
When you get to be my age, you look back on life and you see one problem replaced by another. I don’t hide my head under a basket, but I have learned that this too shall pass. If we roll up our sleeves and do the work it takes to have the most beautiful and reverent liturgy in either form, it will happen.
I strongly disagree with the term superior. But I can see how one would feel that there is one form of the liturgy that is more beautiful. In fact, my favorite form of the liturgy is the Greek Orthodox. I have no idea which of their many rites I was at. But when I was in Europe I had the opportunity to attend Divine Liturgy at a Greek Orthodox church. Majestic is probably the best word that I can use to describe it. I would not say that it’s superior to our form; but I would say that it was the most beautiful liturgy I have seen in many years. The point is that there is beauty in liturgy and some find more beauty in one form than in another. That’s OK, as long as we allow everyone to appreciate beauty without argument or conflict.
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
E
eelpis
Guest
If you had been to a Pontifical High Mass in the EF I think that you would be more impressed than by the rites of schismatics.Tommy,
Not a big deal. Thanks for complimenting my posts. Last night, when I wrote that one, I was dead tired. Now, I’ve reread it and saw all kinds of typos in it. But I hope it hit the spot for the OP.
I know that we want the Lord to be treated as he deserves. I’m reminded of a line from St. Francis, “Love is not loved.”
Unfortunately, we can’t alway move people to change in the direction they should go or as fast as they should. We have to balance things.
We have to work toward change. As St. Benedict called it, we have to work for “conversion of manners” in others and us.
But as Deacon Ed said in his post, the daily Eucharist is available to us for our sanctification. If Christ humbles himself to be there for us, regardless of how he’s treated, we should take the OP’s example and rush out to worship him and receive him in the Eucharist as often as possible.
When you get to be my age, you look back on life and you see one problem replaced by another. I don’t hide my head under a basket, but I have learned that this too shall pass. If we roll up our sleeves and do the work it takes to have the most beautiful and reverent liturgy in either form, it will happen.
I strongly disagree with the term superior. But I can see how one would feel that there is one form of the liturgy that is more beautiful. In fact, my favorite form of the liturgy is the Greek Orthodox. I have no idea which of their many rites I was at. But when I was in Europe I had the opportunity to attend Divine Liturgy at a Greek Orthodox church. Majestic is probably the best word that I can use to describe it. I would not say that it’s superior to our form; but I would say that it was the most beautiful liturgy I have seen in many years. The point is that there is beauty in liturgy and some find more beauty in one form than in another. That’s OK, as long as we allow everyone to appreciate beauty without argument or conflict.
JR
I always wonder why this “hatred” for the EF and the the warm fuzzy feelings for the “orthodox”? I’ve met it in many corners of the Church.
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
In my opinion, it’s because people can dismiss the Orthodox because they are not part of our Church. When they see the Tridentine Latin Mass, they associate it with a movement that seeks to stiffen dogma. The traditional Mass is a signal that there can be no revolution, and it’s disturbing to some people who are uncomfortable with that kind of confident, assertive religious experience.
Just my opinion.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Thank you for your kind words. :blushing: That means a lot to me coming from you, JR.You’re a wise man.
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
I have been at several Pontifical High Masses in the extraordinary form and I have no hatred for the extraordinary form. I never said I did. I simply said that I attended a Greek Orthodox liturgy and it was the most beautiful liturgy that I have ever attended.
Personally, I find the Byzantine form of the mass to be very beautiful, Orthodox or Unitas. I don’t know if I would want that to be my daily mass. That’s another question.
I don’t believe there are as many people out there who hate the extraordinary form as one thinks. I have found more of that negative reaction here on CAF than in parishes. I’ve never heard people in parishes say they hate it and I’ve worked in parishes for many decades now.
Hope this clarifies my point better.
Fraternally,
JR
C
consumedconvert
Guest
I also love the Byzantine Form. We will be vacationing at my wife’s parent’s home in a week or so, and we’ll have the opportunity of visiting a nearby Byzantine Rite Church (we don’t have any near our area). I eagerly await.I have been at several Pontifical High Masses in the extraordinary form and I have no hatred for the extraordinary form. I never said I did. I simply said that I attended a Greek Orthodox liturgy and it was the most beautiful liturgy that I have ever attended.
Personally, I find the Byzantine form of the mass to be very beautiful, Orthodox or Unitas. I don’t know if I would want that to be my daily mass. That’s another question.
I don’t believe there are as many people out there who hate the extraordinary form as one thinks. I have found more of that negative reaction here on CAF than in parishes. I’ve never heard people in parishes say they hate it and I’ve worked in parishes for many decades now.
Hope this clarifies my point better.
Fraternally,
JR
P
pray4peace
Guest
Yes, dear friend I think it would be bad to give up daily Mass. The Eucharist is everything to a Catholic.
Yes, indeed it is a test. Do not let such things keep you from Jesus.
Blessings
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
Can you back up this with an argument based on textual analysis?
I know posting citations means absolutely nothing on this forum, where triteness and a childish outlook prevails, but I guess I will post this again, in the hopes that some clear-thinking person will read it:
“The amusing thing is that conservatives are intent on upholding the authority of the Pauline Missal against the traditionalists. One well known priest once wrote, “I actually see no real difference between the two missals,” which was a great discredit to his reputation as a scholar. The line is that the New Mass is not really New, despite the fact that a careful reading of Bugnini’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy reveals that it is all new and that the so-called restorations are questionable indeed and the work was written in fact as a justification for the unjustifiable.1 The liturgists realize the New Mass is new, the liberals realize the New Mass is new, everyone in the Church realizes the New Mass is new except for the conservatives.”
J
JReducation
Guest
If you read the Motu Proprio you will find three important points.
- The extraordinary form and the ordinary form are to be the same rite and there should be not debate out the merits of either. They both sanctify the Church.
- The external differences are noted. However, the ordinary form has the right to exist given to it by the Holy See. The Holy See is the supreme authority on liturgy.
- The extraordinary form may be celebrated at any time by any priest, except religious who are bound to the authority of their superiors. However, the extraordinary form may not be celebrated during the Easter Triduum, except by religious who are not bound to the diocese. It is obvious that in the mind of Pope Benedict XVI the ordinary form is so sacred that it is to be the ordinary celebration of the Easter Triduum, which is the highest holy day in the liturgical calendar.
We must tell people what the Motu Proprio says and allow them the freedom to choose the form that nurtures their soul, not mine or yours. Each of us has different spiritual needs. Kindness and justice require that we recognize this.
Fraternally,
JR
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
You are misinterpreting some things.If you read the Motu Proprio you will find three important points.
We should not, in charity and justice, pit the two forms against each other. That only confuses people and hurts the Church.
- The extraordinary form and the ordinary form are to be the same rite and there should be not debate out the merits of either. They both sanctify the Church.
- The external differences are noted. However, the ordinary form has the right to exist given to it by the Holy See. The Holy See is the supreme authority on liturgy.
- The extraordinary form may be celebrated at any time by any priest, except religious who are bound to the authority of their superiors. However, the extraordinary form may not be celebrated during the Easter Triduum, except by religious who are not bound to the diocese. It is obvious that in the mind of Pope Benedict XVI the ordinary form is so sacred that it is to be the ordinary celebration of the Easter Triduum, which is the highest holy day in the liturgical calendar.
We must tell people what the Motu Proprio says and allow them the freedom to choose the form that nurtures their soul, not mine or yours. Each of us has different spiritual needs. Kindness and justice require that we recognize this.
Fraternally,
JR
First of all, you are clinging to the Triduum to support the OF. The truth is that 1962 Communities used the 1962 Missal during the Triduum.
I also didn’t read the part of Summorum Pontificum where debate about liturgy was squashed for all time.
And yes, the Ordinary Form has the right to exist by decree of the Holy See. That does not mean that liturgical scholarship and criticism has to cease. There are plenty of liturgical scholars, some of them important Bishops, who are arguing for traditional practices.
I hate to use a harder tone on these threads, but I am completely frustrated by a lack of engagement on the pertinent issues. I’m also frustrated by the continued desire to twist my arguments into something they are not.
First of all, I never denied the validity, nor the sanctity, of the Novus Ordo. When I talk about the Novus Ordo’s “sanctity,” I’m talking about the intrinsic qualities of the text itself. There’s nothing explicitly “wrong” with the Novus Ordo.
When I say that the Novus Ordo is inferior to the Tridentine Mass, I mean that it is inferior in a theological sense- that it expresses less clearly everything both you and me believe, and I believe that a textual comparison evidences this.
This ends up being twisted into proposing that I deny something, that I deny the validity of the Eucharist of the Novus Ordo, that I deny that it is intrinsically holy, that I deny that the texts themselves are Orthodox, and frankly, none of this is true in the least.
I assert that the Tridentine Mass is superior, not that the Novus Ordo is* wrong* in some way.
And while I admire your tone and level of charity, there is simply too much fire in my belly to be patient when arguments, citations, etc. are routinely ignored in order to feed an ultramontane perspective that is not only defensive, but so filled with reactionary fear that it can never adequately deal with pressing problems, such as the de facto schism running rampant in many countries in the West.
As for respecting peoples’ choices, I’ve never claimed to be anyone’s spiritual director or confessor. To the contrary, when it comes to liturgy I want to discuss the subject itself, not any particular individual experiences.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Textual analysis has nothing to do with it whatsoever. If a mass in any form is infinite in merit, which it is, they are equal. Anything else is just a discussion on prose. At mass, we go for the Eucharist, not words. (that smacks of protestantism) If all you are concentrating on is the words and not the one who is coming, you are sorely missing the graces that are available to you. To borrow a pre Vatican II term for a mass, a low mass was and is equally meritorious as a Solemn High Mass. Otherwise the merits of a mass would not be infinite. There are no degrees in infinite.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
E
ethelzguy
Guest
I just love this post. After reading so many hundreds of posts as to how the Latin Mass is “soooooooooo superior”, it always struck me funny that so many Latin fans never differentiated between the “high” and “low” Latin Masses, but were so quick to point out the differences with the NO.
Thanks for making my day.
J
JReducation
Guest
We often forget that the language of the mass in whatever form or rite is not a matter of theology but an expression of faith and a matter of liturgical art. Even the best liturgists are clear that their job is to write. What they write has no impact on the infinite merit of the mass, which stands on its own. You cannot change the reality of the mass through the words that you put on paper or the gestures that you build into it. What you are doing is creating a dramatic structure for the drama of the cross. But the drama of the cross stands on its own merit. It is meritorious at a low mass, high mass, the ordinary form, the many Byzantine and Orthodox forms. That is not affected by the choreography and the poetry that we build into it.I just love this post. After reading so many hundreds of posts as to how the Latin Mass is “soooooooooo superior”, it always struck me funny that so many Latin fans never differentiated between the “high” and “low” Latin Masses, but were so quick to point out the differences with the NO.
Thanks for making my day.
One of my professors in Sacred Liturgy, Kevin Seasoltz, OSB who is one of the most well respected liturgists in the Church made this statement in our class at one time.
If anyone is interested in his works, here is a good site with all of his works. You would probably have to go to a booksite to order them.
csbsju.edu/sot/about/facstaff/seasoltz.htm
Fraternally,
JR
E
eelpis
Guest
What you state is not true, at least not according to St Alphonso de’ Liguori, the graces that we can recieve from the Holy Sacrifice are greater the more solmenly they are celebrated. The objective reality is that the mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary, so objectively the graces are infinite from any mass. But the graces we can recieve are greater if the the mass is celebrated with more solemnity and reverance.Besides to compose anything for mass is the prerogative of Saints, not experts.We often forget that the language of the mass in whatever form or rite is not a matter of theology but an expression of faith and a matter of liturgical art. Even the best liturgists are clear that their job is to write. What they write has no impact on the infinite merit of the mass, which stands on its own. You cannot change the reality of the mass through the words that you put on paper or the gestures that you build into it. What you are doing is creating a dramatic structure for the drama of the cross. But the drama of the cross stands on its own merit. It is meritorious at a low mass, high mass, the ordinary form, the many Byzantine and Orthodox forms. That is not affected by the choreography and the poetry that we build into it.
One of my professors in Sacred Liturgy, Kevin Seasoltz, OSB who is one of the most well respected liturgists in the Church made this statement in our class at one time.
If anyone is interested in his works, here is a good site with all of his works. You would probably have to go to a booksite to order them.
csbsju.edu/sot/about/facstaff/seasoltz.htm
Fraternally,
JR
- Status