The Mass isn’t a baseball [or hockey or football etc] game where fans are cheering for their favourite team. Sometimes on this forum it sure seems that certain people treat it that way. If one truly believes in the Real Presence, instead of just giving it lip service, then I fail to see how anyone can even dare to take it upon themselves to cast a personal judgement on one form of the Mass versus the other.It seems most NO fans object to people stating the TLM is a more reverent form of worship and then the whole inferiority complex bursts out. There is no need to ignore history nor pretend both forms are equally reverent. The NO and adjacent ‘spirit of V2’ robbed many Catholics of their entitled heritage and religious life. It should be no surprise there is a little bitterness in the pews.
What there is no need for is to belittle the opinions of others by using words like “pretend.” What there is a need for is to understand the difference between opinion and objective reality.There is no need to ignore history nor pretend both forms are equally reverent.
I have never came across one modicum of bitterness in the pews. The only bitterness I have come across is here. I understand the frustration, especially when one is in a parish or diocese where it seems ones desires, and the instruction of the Holy Father, are thwarted. However, there is not need to insult the Holy Mass with satire, wherein Heaven is joined to Earth and Christ becomes present in the Eucharist. There is no need to attack one’s fellow Catholics as more ignorant, less holy or more protestant. All of these things I have seen here. Such “kicking of the dog” reveals only the heart of the one running others down. It makes for poor arguement.It should be no surprise there is a little bitterness in the pews.
You are right. I hope I would still maintain charity, though no one knows for sure. SInce such things do not bother me as much, I do not think it would be an issue.Both above opinions are easy to have when it’s your preferred form of liturgy that’s “Ordinary”. When your Mass is relogated to “Extraordinary” status and effectly banned for nearly forty years see if you are as charitable.
That too is an opinion I do not hold.The decline in church attendance and Catholic practices is directly correlated to the Novus Ordo. As a faithful Catholic I have a problem with that.
No, and that is not for you to say. May I remind you that the topic here is not the TLM. It is the Mass I attend I comment on, not Traditional Catholicism. I have no dislike for anyone’s opinion but when opinion is presented as fact, I will feel free to point that out.If you don’t like Traditional Catholic opinion then stay out of the Traditional Catholic forum.
If that were true there would be no new form of Mass. In fact, even the Low Mass had “winners” over those who preferred the High Mass or vice versa even before Vatican II.The Mass isn’t a baseball [or hockey or football etc] game where fans are cheering for their favourite team.
Actually not. Many changes can be attributed to other reasons, and most changes were in place (i.e. in schemas) before the Protestants came on the scene.I don’t know if anyone saw this, but there was a great editorial in, of all places, The New York Times this past Sunday on the Latin Mass. Had some very interesting facts in it.
nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29wolfe.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=latin%20mass&st=Search
Did you know that Protestants had a hand in developing the NO? And that it was done to please the Protestants:
Yes, but why is it that so many people, religious and priests who grew up with the TLM suddenly went beserk? Why is it that bishops who could consecrate countries to the Immaculate Heart one day, would switch faster than weather vanes in a decade to participate in ridiculous liturgies? Why is it that priests who had formation for years and years suddenly threw all this out of the window and went along, or that seminarians who were having Holy Hours and daily Masses suddenly decided they only wanted one Mass a week? I sometimes muse about where this mentality came from - was it just hidden and repressed, with no one saying what they really thought? Granted many of the “conservative” elements were often ridiculed and silenced, but nonetheless…pnewton wrote:
Quote:
The decline in church attendance and Catholic practices is directly correlated to the Novus Ordo. As a faithful Catholic I have a problem with that.
That too is an opinion I do not hold.
Then your opinion is not grounded in fact, pnewton. The irrefragable facts (I can go through the list, if you like–they’re all documented on the internet and elsewhere) are that at the time of John XXIII’s call for “a council!” Mass attendance, converts to the Faith, belief in the Real Presence, etc., were at an all-time high. Also, seminaries were bursting at the seams with young men who wanted to devote their lives to the priesthood of Our Blessed Lord. Annulments? They were almost non-existent. Catholic family life was wonderful—I know because I lived it (I’m giving away my age here). Only someone who’s been living in a cave for the past 40+ years would be oblivious to the carnage wreaked on the Church since Vatican II.
I’ve found that, no matter how many facts are brought to bear on the matter, talking with some Novus Ordoans about this issue turns inevitably into a dead end. It gets down to this: they see the pre-Vatican II Church as mean-spirited, cranky-old-priest dominated, sexually repressive and stunted, and, to put it summarily, NOT FUN. When you get down to it, that’s the issue, IMHO. With them it’s all about caring a lot and smiling a lot. They want to feel good about things (who doesn’t? and they don’t see how they could feel that way in the TLM. It’s the whole “Springtime of Vatican II” thing, I guess. Some “springtime!”
Protestants and others comprised a lot of the “observers” at Vatican II. Saying that they had absolutely no effect on the new liturgy or the theology behind it is like saying the home crowd never has effect on a concert or a sports event. I’m not making that call.Actually not. Many changes can be attributed to other reasons, and most changes were in place (i.e. in schemas) before the Protestants came on the scene.
Not to mention all the faithful TLM (or near-enough) attendees of the Reformation era who overnight became rabid heretics. How many Novus Ordos did Henry VIII or Martin Luther - or their millions of followers - attend that their faith was so weakened that they broke with Rome?Yes, but why is it that so many people, religious and priests who grew up with the TLM suddenly went beserk? Why is it that bishops who could consecrate countries to the Immaculate Heart one day, would switch faster than weather vanes in a decade to participate in ridiculous liturgies? Why is it that priests who had formation for years and years suddenly threw all this out of the window and went along, or that seminarians who were having Holy Hours and daily Masses suddenly decided they only wanted one Mass a week? I sometimes muse about where this mentality came from - was it just hidden and repressed, with no one saying what they really thought? Granted many of the “conservative” elements were often ridiculed and silenced, but nonetheless…
The Catholic Church is still being ridiculed on its indulgence teachings, belief in purgatory, Creation beliefs, birth control, and other matters not necessarily changed by Vatican II or its “spirit.”Not to mention all the faithful TLM (or near-enough) attendees of the Reformation era who overnight became rabid heretics. How many Novus Ordos did Henry VIII or Martin Luther - or their millions of followers - attend that their faith was so weakened that they broke with Rome?
The damage done to the Church by post-Vatican 2 ‘experiments’ is absolutely nothing compared with what happened then.
I’m missing the point, probably, but who cares whether the Catholic Church is being ridiculed? It’s supposed to be ridiculed by “the world.”The Catholic Church is still being ridiculed on its indulgence teachings, belief in purgatory, Creation beliefs, birth control, and other matters not necessarily changed by Vatican II or its “spirit.”
The question is how much came in from the outside and how much was let out from the inside. We’ll never really know the answer, I guess.Vatican II was hailed by John XXIII as “Aggiornamento,” an opening to the world. We see what came through the door when we opened it. Yeah.
LOLThen your opinion is not grounded in fact, pnewton"
but if we look at the condition of the Mass today, i dont think this has ever happened before. i for one know few people that stop going to Mass after they saw the strange Mass. they lost respect for the Mass. Reverence to no reverence at all.LOL
We have discussed this many a time here. My opinion is grounded in* logic*. I see a post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy written all over this. The two facts my opinion is based on is that Church attendence was already declining and, more importantly, everyother major denomination has experience similar declines, without changing to the Catholic Mass. Therefore, I see the causality as being something else.
In case anyone is sleeping or not yer born, the cnange of the Mass is not the only event that occurred in the sixties and seventies.