Has anyone changed there mind here?

[theistgal]

Today I was reminded of the Words of Christ when He said, “Whatever you have done to the least of these my brethren, you have done to Me.” I think a lot of Catholics will be very surprised at their judgement when they try to explain to the Lord that they were trying to defend the Blessed Sacrament, and Jesus tells them, “But by hurting these “little ones”–the ones weak in faith–with your harsh words and insistence upon letter of the law, you have actually hurt ME.”

I think that’s a very profound observation. Bless you for it.

 

[water]

I think that’s a very profound observation. Bless you for it.

Many times, we tend to overlook the little thing which is the biggest thing in God’s eye.

 

[TNT]

This Forum is for exposing minds, not changing them.

 

[ac_claire]

A baptized Catholic who attends the Novus Ordo and has an understanding of the faith as taught in most parishes post-Vatican II, with virtually no knowledge or catechesis as it was taught prior to the council.

Who is doing that? I have no problem with Byzantines or Copts defining their spirituality by their rite within the Church. This is an internal Roman rite issue. The question is whether or not there have been corruptions in the Catholicism of those that attend the Novus Ordo (Lex Orendi, Lex Credendi) can only be determined by a comparison with a pre-Vatican II understanding of Catholicism.

That’s the only way Vatican II can be understood in an orthodox manner and it’s the only way a “Novus Ordo” Catholic would actually know whether they have “the fullness” of the Catholic faith to use EWTN “lingo.”

I actually agree with you here. What I struggle with is the extreme generalization and assumption inherent in applying the Novus Ordo Catholic label (as you define it) to pretty much an entire generation of Catholics…These people filling up the pews can’t just all have the same beliefs, backgrounds, motivations…It’s using a too-broad brush to paint on a too-vague label.

Oh you mean when people refuse to even consider that there are astounding differences in ecclesiology, sacramentology and even dogma between these two groups of roman rite Catholics?

Between who and who, specifically? Again, too broad of a brush. For example, you know what mass I attend, but you can’t just therefore assume that I reject traditional Catholic spirituality or devotions in total. You don’t know how I pray, how I was raised in the Faith, who my heros and examples are.

You don’t even seem to see the open antagonism towards traditional Catholics.

I have seen it, I know it is real.
On these sub-forums, I’ve also seen a bitter antagonism from traditional Catholics towards, well, pretty much everything.
(Note that I don’t think all or even most of the TCs here fit this description…so if you’re not one of those who I’m talking about, please don’t be offended.)

I’ve ignored most of the wailing about how “traditional Catholics” do this or that. It all boils down to “traditional Catholics don’t act like us. If they did, we would all get along.” That’s very generous, that traditional Catholics have to capitulate the militant Catholicism that defines them in order to get along with those that they see as having a great defect in their Catholicism because they’ve been raised or conditioned to be deficient in that Catholic spirit of militancy.

I don’t think any of these things so I can’t really say anything in response to this.

And It’s not about validity. Cain and Abel, both made valid sacrifices to God. One was pleasing to God, the other was not. One sacrifice had an intrinsic problem with it. It wasn’t the best the Cain was able to offer.

I have to agree with peregrinator…we need to first define the standards that you’re holding the liturgy up against.

Funny since you are the one making the personal attacks.
You came out of nowhere and wrote: “I think the way you’re expressing yourself here is a perfect example of the repellent attitude others have described on this thread. It is arrogance.”

I apologize. I meant that your statement was arrogant; not you personally. But I can see how this isn’t clear from what I wrote.

 

[ac_claire]

There are more than preferences at stake here. Doesn’t it make you question something by the fact that you were completely lost? How is it that a Catholic of the Roman rite would be completely lost in their own rite?

It was the Latin itself, and the fact that I coudln’t hear it. And the fact that I couldn’t see any of the slight gestures of the elderly priest either, to correspond with the missal. I understood that I was at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and that’s about all I understood.

The Eastern rites are so similar to the TLM that you can know they are “kissin’ cousins” in age and dignity and effectiveness at conveying the faith.

I understand the Maronite liturgy more because a.) it’s mostly in English and b.) not only were the Hebrew and Aramaic clearly translated in the book (missal?) I was given, but everyone around us seemed to know we were new to this and offered their assistance.

When I went to the TLM for the first time, I was expecting far, far more similarities than I encountered. I’d always been lead to believe that the mass was simply translated from Latin to English and the priest had been turned around. “Prayers at the Foot of the Altar”? What the heck are they? What’s “the Last Gospel” Why am I crossing my forehead lips and heart again? Why genuflect at these moments?

'Oh it corresponds to the Old Temple and the priests unworthiness," Oh, that’s a beautiful summation of THE mystery of Faith (transubstantiation–not "Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again, or “when we eat this BREAD…etc…” “Oh, I’m stating that I’m going to proclaim the Gospel in my thoughts and words and with my whole heart,” "Oh, we’re genuflecting at the moment when we proclaim the fact of God becoming Man. "

When I realized how ancient the rite is, how profound the prayers are, how humbling the experience is, how engrossing the symbolism is, how you are participating in the same witness of the action at Calvary that innumerable Catholics over 2000 years have engaged in, I discovered how robbed we are of our patrimony.

I like your description/defense of the TLM. You explained yourself really well in this post, (even if we aren’t on the same page, otherwise.)

 

[ac_claire]

Oh you mean when people refuse to even consider that there are astounding differences in ecclesiology, sacramentology and even dogma between these two groups of roman rite Catholics?

What do you mean by differences in dogma?

 

[fhansen]

Has anyone come to love the TLM and or turned from happy clappy parishes because of this Traditional Forum?

I’ve changed in that I’m now more convinced than ever of the correctness of the OF and the “conciliar church”, even though I think the EF is great as well.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Alright, let’s take it to the next step then. Are there objective criteria which determine the nature of some things?

And if there are criteria of characteristics which determine a thing’s nature; is a diminishment of those characteristics from the thing a deficiency?

OK. I’m not entirely sure I understand you.

1. I don’t know about “objective criteria” or “criteria of characteristics,” but there are qualities or characteristics (I’ll take that word) which determine the nature of a thing. Mind you, not all qualities or characteristics determine the nature of the thing; some are merely accidental (e.g. having spots is a characteristic of cats, but not one that determines the nature of a cat.)
2. Yes, diminishment of those qualities that determine the nature of a thing is a deficiency.

Particularly if it less clearly defines the nature of the thing?

No, here I disagree. A deficiency has to be a lack in something that determines the nature of the thing.

I’ve omitted the rest of your quote, but I think the language of fact vs. opinion is a red-herring. However, you are right to distinguish between kinds of qualities, as I have also done above. (This discussion is sounding the Philosophy forum, but that’s not a bad thing.)

So, if someone says that it is wrong to claim one rite is deficient without examining the evidence of that argument is using a club?

So, in the case of the roman rite would the newer “form” to use your terms be judged by it’s comparison with the TLM since both “forms” have the same purpose?

I don’t fully understand the two statements above. What I mean by using an argument as a club is: having decided that you already know the truth, repeating your assertions over and over again without responding to your interlocutor.

By your second statement, do you mean that you think that, since both the EF & OF are forms of the same Rite we should try to judge them against each other?

I’m all for comparison, but doing so when you’ve already decided that the EF is inherently superior seems a bit pointless. Would it not be more productive to discuss what you think the nature and purpose of liturgy are first?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Since this thread has been derailed by some of the forces bemoaned above, I decided to depart from my SOP and not read all the posts. Rather, I’ll just jump in to giving my take on the actual topic of the thread.

I think the life of the forums has seen a development in the sort of threads posted. When I first started coming to the forums, I was able to learn a lot from posts about various rubrical and canonical points on which questions were asked. If nothing else, a thread with a poor debate might still point me to a new document that shed important light on the issues at hand. As time has passed, though, the regulars on the boards have grown tired of rehashing old themes, so the more informational threads get either overlooked or actively brushed aside (e.g., "another thread on X? why don’t you run a search) while at the same time a new crop of posters have entered that seem far more keen on agenda than on sharing information. Correspondingly, the level of argumentation has gone down.

I am pretty firmly convinced that my generation (I’m 24) was not just cheated out of our heritage but actually duped about its contents. In my case, this was done rather mildly, but I was still never exposed to certain treasures and was given the impression that certain innovations or even exceptions were “preferred” practices. It was this growing suspicion of being duped, arising out of personal study, that led me to sites like this in order to get more info. But if I hadn’t come with that disposition, I certainly agree that certain posters would have made it much harder to appreciate what I consider the objective and compelling evidence in favor of traditionalism. St. Francis de Sales was no modernist, yet when confronted with his own maxim that you’ll catch more with a bit of honey than a lot of vinegar, some rebut this with the position that calling a man an ignorant SOB is lovingly calculated to have some sort of salutary effect. He is an ignorant SOB, after all.

My proposal is that we all resolve to resist the temptation of rabbit holes on threads, and that we not feed trolls. If a thread on head coverings prompts a post on the Ottaviani intervention…ignore it! Ignore the poster on that thread. If a post on reception of communion prompts a post on what my Aunt Sue heard during a homily…ignore it! Ignore the poster on that thread. To support this, we also need to resolve to call each other out on it. Threads should be able to develop. But every single thread should not have to rehash the same tired distractions thrown in when one side or another feels it has run out of evidence/argumentation.

If people come into contact with solid information, they will be positioned to make a solid decision on the matter. If the information is coated in a candy shell of “the guy promoting this hasn’t offered a bit of rational argument and has done nothing but distract from the question,” the reader will be poorly positioned. It’s that simple. If you think your position is the best, staying on task will work in your favor. That holds true no matter what side of an argument you’re on.

 

[Cat]

Since this thread has been derailed by some of the forces bemoaned above, I decided to depart from my SOP and not read all the posts. Rather, I’ll just jump in to giving my take on the actual topic of the thread.

I think the life of the forums has seen a development in the sort of threads posted. When I first started coming to the forums, I was able to learn a lot from posts about various rubrical and canonical points on which questions were asked. If nothing else, a thread with a poor debate might still point me to a new document that shed important light on the issues at hand. As time has passed, though, the regulars on the boards have grown tired of rehashing old themes, so the more informational threads get either overlooked or actively brushed aside (e.g., "another thread on X? why don’t you run a search) while at the same time a new crop of posters have entered that seem far more keen on agenda than on sharing information. Correspondingly, the level of argumentation has gone down.

I am pretty firmly convinced that my generation (I’m 24) was not just cheated out of our heritage but actually duped about its contents. In my case, this was done rather mildly, but I was still never exposed to certain treasures and was given the impression that certain innovations or even exceptions were “preferred” practices. It was this growing suspicion of being duped, arising out of personal study, that led me to sites like this in order to get more info. But if I hadn’t come with that disposition, I certainly agree that certain posters would have made it much harder to appreciate what I consider the objective and compelling evidence in favor of traditionalism. St. Francis de Sales was no modernist, yet when confronted with his own maxim that you’ll catch more with a bit of honey than a lot of vinegar, some rebut this with the position that calling a man an ignorant SOB is lovingly calculated to have some sort of salutary effect. He is an ignorant SOB, after all.

My proposal is that we all resolve to resist the temptation of rabbit holes on threads, and that we not feed trolls. If a thread on head coverings prompts a post on the Ottaviani intervention…ignore it! Ignore the poster on that thread. If a post on reception of communion prompts a post on what my Aunt Sue heard during a homily…ignore it! Ignore the poster on that thread. To support this, we also need to resolve to call each other out on it. Threads should be able to develop. But every single thread should not have to rehash the same tired distractions thrown in when one side or another feels it has run out of evidence/argumentation.

If people come into contact with solid information, they will be positioned to make a solid decision on the matter. If the information is coated in a candy shell of “the guy promoting this hasn’t offered a bit of rational argument and has done nothing but distract from the question,” the reader will be poorly positioned. It’s that simple. If you think your position is the best, staying on task will work in your favor. That holds true no matter what side of an argument you’re on.

You raise a lot of good points.

But we have to remember that people from many backgrounds are constantly joining these forums and starting threads. To them, it isn’t “rehashing,” it’s brand new stuff.

I think we should be courteous to people and recognize that they aren’t deliberately baiting or trying to start up an old fight. They’re asking honest questions about a topic that they they want to learn more about.

If I saw a mention of the “Ottaviani intervention,” I wouldn’t know what it was. Just because you are familiar with something ad nauseum doesn’t mean that everyone else is familiar, too.

A lot of people that come here are like little children trying to learn to tie their shoes. Does an adult tell a little child, “No, I’m not going to explain it again to you. I’ve already explained it to other kids, and I don’t want to keep rehashing the same explanation.”

If old members are able to link inquirers to old threads, that’s great. (I’m actually terrible at that skill–I can never find the threads that I’m looking for, and end up getting all side-tracked and wasting a lot of time!)

But I see nothing wrong with re-visiting and re-discussing issues. As people mature in their faith and gain more knowledge, they undergo changes and gain fresh perspectives that they can bring to a new discussion about an old topic.

 

[GerardP]

I actually agree with you here. What I struggle with is the extreme generalization and assumption inherent in applying the Novus Ordo Catholic label (as you define it) to pretty much an entire generation of Catholics…These people filling up the pews can’t just all have the same beliefs, backgrounds, motivations…It’s using a too-broad brush to paint on a too-vague label.

Actually it’s two generations of Catholics. “Children of Winter” is a book by James Demers where he chronicles the abandonment of values (particularly in Catholic schools) leading to the corruption of children in the schools themselves. Part of the long term plan of undermining the faith has been a period of abandonment, People raised in the 50’s received one kind of Catholic education (flawed but at least foundational) In the 60’s changes were introduced, in the 70’s new emphasis was placed on socialization, humanism and secularization. This continued through the 1980’s and into the 1990’s. Now Catholic education is being taught again, but it is a watered-down Catholicism and these children can’t go to their parents (like I could) in order to find the missing elements of their education.

 

[GerardP]

I’ve changed in that I’m now more convinced than ever of the correctness of the OF and the “conciliar church”, even though I think the EF is great as well.

What specifically has convinced you of the correctness of the Novus Ordo?

 

[Brother_John]

Actually it’s two generations of Catholics. “Children of Winter” is a book by James Demers where he chronicles the abandonment of values (particularly in Catholic schools) leading to the corruption of children in the schools themselves. Part of the long term plan of undermining the faith has been a period of abandonment, People raised in the 50’s received one kind of Catholic education (flawed but at least foundational) In the 60’s changes were introduced, in the 70’s new emphasis was placed on socialization, humanism and secularization. This continued through the 1980’s and into the 1990’s. Now Catholic education is being taught again, but it is a watered-down Catholicism and these children can’t go to their parents (like I could) in order to find the missing elements of their education.

Talk about a broad brushed generalization !

I did not go to Catholic Schools. My Children did. I went to public schools and CCD. My youngest is now 15. I never had any problem explaining anything to him. Now that he is in public high school, his youth group/CCD teacher is doing a wonderful job, and even teaching apologetics.

 

[Brother_John]

What specifically has convinced you of the correctness of the Novus Ordo?

um…that it was passed down from Rome?

 

[GerardP]

What do you mean by differences in dogma?

For one example would be the idea of membership in the church.
The Catholic Church has always taught precisely who is part of the Catholic Church.

During and after Vatican II, “the people of God” term showed up. From this vagueness comes the idea of “the anonymous Christian” and “partial communion” and all sorts of boundaries and definitions have gone out the window. Vatican II undefined things, when the Magisterium’s power is to define things.

Some of the explanations in the post-Vatican II period can be reconciled with previous teaching (eg. a Lutheran family baptizes their babies, they are Catholics until they hit the age of reason and accept Lutheranism)

 

[GerardP]

um…that it was passed down from Rome?

Couple of issues:

1. Aren’t liturgies disciplinary issues? It’s not something that binds the whole Church since it doesn’t affect the Eastern rites.
2. Are you sure the promulgation of the Novus Ordo was done in a legal matter and the suppression of the TLM was legal?
3. Are you aware of the facts of the implementation of the new mass?

As Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote: * "MY CONCERN is not with the legal status of the changes. And I emphatically do not wish to be understood as regretting that the Constitution has permitted the vernacular to complement the Latin. What I deplore is that the new mass is replacing the Latin Mass, that the old liturgy is being recklessly scrapped, and denied to most of the People of God.

I should like to put to those who are fostering this development several questions: Does the new mass, more than the old, bestir the human spirit – does it evoke a sense of eternity? Does it help raise our hearts from the concerns of everyday life – from the purely natural aspects of the world-to Christ? Does it increase reverence, an appreciation of the sacred? "*

 

[GerardP]

Between who and who, specifically? Again, too broad of a brush. For example, you know what mass I attend, but you can’t just therefore assume that I reject traditional Catholic spirituality or devotions in total. You don’t know how I pray, how I was raised in the Faith, who my heros and examples are.

I’m confused by the “in total” part of your reply. What traditional spirituality and devotions do you reject and why?

I have seen it, I know it is real.
On these sub-forums,** I’ve also seen a bitter antagonism from** traditional Catholics towards, well, pretty much everything.
(Note that I don’t think all or even most of the TCs here fit this description…so if you’re not one of those who I’m talking about, please don’t be offended.)

Aren’t you using the broad brush here?

 

[GerardP]

Quote:
I’ve ignored most of the wailing about how “traditional Catholics” do this or that. It all boils down to “traditional Catholics don’t act like us. If they did, we would all get along.” That’s very generous, that traditional Catholics have to capitulate the militant Catholicism that defines them in order to get along with those that they see as having a great defect in their Catholicism because they’ve been raised or conditioned to be deficient in that Catholic spirit of militancy.

I’m just curious as to whether or not you catch this attitude among conservatives that "if only Trads would do such and such…(ie. do what we do…) they would be so much better off.

I’ve seen that in Protestant circles so often where the “safe” position is to assume that no Church is the one true Church and no religion has the whole truth. I thought, “That’s great, Protestants think it’s perfectly reasonable for Catholics to abandon their beliefs in favor of Protestant beliefs and we’ll all get along.”

 

[Joannm]

For one example would be the idea of membership in the church.
The Catholic Church has always taught precisely who is part of the Catholic Church.

During and after Vatican II, “the people of God” term showed up. From this vagueness comes the idea of “the anonymous Christian” and “partial communion” and all sorts of boundaries and definitions have gone out the window. Vatican II undefined things, when the Magisterium’s power is to define things.

Some of the explanations in the post-Vatican II period can be reconciled with previous teaching (eg. a Lutheran family baptizes their babies, they are Catholics until they hit the age of reason and accept Lutheranism)

The Church still teaches who is part of the Catholic Church. Where did you get that Lutheran babies are Cathoic until they hit the age of reason? That was never taught. They are Christians yes, but not Catholic.

 

[GerardP]

The Church still teaches who is part of the Catholic Church. Where did you get that Lutheran babies are Cathoic until they hit the age of reason? That was never taught. They are Christians yes, but not Catholic.

Baptism doesn’t make one a member of the Lutheran Church since in reality there is no such thing as a Lutheran Church.

There is only one Church that a valid Baptism gives entrance to, the Catholic Church.

If a Lutheran Baby is validly baptized and dies, he or she will go to Heaven directly. They don’t have original sin, they have the Baptismal mark. They have no mortal or venial sins.

There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. They are baptized Catholics though they don’t know it and even though their parents don’t know it.