Has anyone changed there mind here?

[GerardP]

I don’t think I have anything to worry about, GerardP.

I would still recommend that you do research, you might be surprised.

First, it sounds like the Siena Institute is run by the Dominicans, who are orthodox Catholics.

By what standard are you measuring their orthodoxy?

Second, I haven’t seen anything come out of our diocese or from our bishop warning us against the Siena Institute or against Sherry Weddell. Usually our bishop is on top of things that are dangerous or harmful, and he boots them out.

Bishops are very busy and sometimes, they don’t always catch everything or in some cases, they have some errors in their own thinking.

(Happened about a year ago when one of the schismatic Catholic groups tried to rent a facility in a town near ours–Bishop Doran made sure they didn’t get the facility.)

If they truly were schismatics, why did he deny them their religious liberty? Does he work against the Orthodox?

Third, I haven’t seen anything in the more conservative Catholic media, including Catholic Answers, warning Catholics about Ms. Weddell.

Again, you are just looking at sources that have a certain ideology. I’m suggesting you supplement that with the arguments of orthodox Catholics with another ideology. That way you can weigh the differences.

Fourth, I’ve heard nothing on Catholic Radio or EWTN warning against her.

Same as above. I’ve never heard a prelate say anything about Eileen George but she has said some pretty odd things in her time.

What I’m trying to say is that the Catholic Church seems to be supportive of this movement, and that’s the important thing.

Clinging fast to the tradition of the Church and the faith whole and entire is the only thing that will save your soul.

The Arian heresy once seemed to be supported by the Church. It wasn’t in reality but not everyone knew that.

I will do as the Church says, even if it doesn’t meet with my personal preferences. As long as Ms. Weddell’s work is receiving the endorsement of the Catholic Church, I’m fine with it.

You have to distinguish between the Church and Churchmen.

When they issue warnings against it, I’ll walk away.

But what if they don’t and it is actually not good for you or your soul?

I’ll start a thread in the Apologist Section asking for opinions, and I hope you’ll follow it, too.

Send me a PM when you start it.

My daughter got involved with the Redemptorist parish in her home city because her diocese recommended that she attend it for RCIA because they were the only parish that does RCIA on Sunday mornings instead of the evenings, and this is the only time she could go (she’s a professional stage manager and works almost every evening.)

Her diocese seems to be a fairly traditional diocese, and I don’t think they would advise a young convert to attend a “suspect” church.

They might not have the full picture. I’ve had priests say one priest in the diocese is a good priest until I tell them what the priest told me. (He didn’t believe in the Devil, The Filioque is incorrect, Transubstantiation does not work, Everyone is saved, There is no Hell etc. etc.)

I’d asked where he’d come to these conclusions and it turned out he’d been taught by Jesuits and his ideas had their root in Karl Rahner. The priest I told this to said, “Well, that explains it.” And he apologized to me as a priest on behalf of the apostate priest.

These are all diocesan priests by the way, not SSPX or any traditional orders.

 

[latinmasslover]

Probably those who prefer the jubulent style would take offense at your label of “disrespectful”. You should at least qualify that statement by saying “in my opinion”.

Why? If they think it’s okay to be jumping and clapping for joy as God Himself is be crucified, then they will likely be offended at anything. Can’t walk on eggshells because someone may throw a fit when their inappropriate behavior is called into question.

 

[latinmasslover]

I do think you make a good point… if my friend is being drawn to the Church, I shouldn’t think that it’s all up to me to make it happen. But, when she called me and wanted to talk to me, I was put in the position of being asked for advice or guidance. And, I just couldn’t bring myself to say, “Check out Catholic.com… they’ve got lots of information!”

Of course, with a URL like “catholic.com” she’s probably already found it on her own…

But CAF is for discussion, and therefore there will be many opinions here, some based on truth, others on opinion. If your friend wants to convert, the last thing she needs is differing opinion. She needs to study the facts: papal encyclicals, Catechisms, Councils, the Saints…Facts first, opinions later. I would never suggest someone come here who wasn’t sure of their Faith, only because the devil mixes the truth with a lie and leads astray that way. Not worth chancing the soul of a friend. That’s my opinion, anyway.

 

[Brother_John]

Why? If they think it’s okay to be jumping and clapping for joy as God Himself is be crucified, then they will likely be offended at anything. Can’t walk on eggshells because someone may throw a fit when their inappropriate behavior is called into question.

Um, I don’t think we celebrate the “Crucifixion” of Christ at the Mass…Aren’t we celebrating “The Liturgy of the Word”, and the “Liturgy of the Eucharist”? ie: celebrating “The Last Supper” as opposed to “The Crucifixion” ???

One event preceeded the other, but they are seperate, no?

 

[ac_claire]

Um, I don’t think we celebrate the “Crucifixion” of Christ at the Mass…Aren’t we celebrating “The Liturgy of the Word”, and the “Liturgy of the Eucharist”? ie: celebrating “The Last Supper” as opposed to “The Crucifixion” ???

One event preceeded the other, but they are seperate, no?

Those events were sequential, but they’re not separate in the mass. The mass brings them together in one Sacrifice. We offer Jesus’s Sacrifice by means of the Last Supper.

 

[Brother_John]

Those events were sequential, but they’re not seperate in the mass. The mass brings them together in one Sacrifice. We offer Jesus’s Sacrifice by means of the Last Supper.

Huh? We celebrate the Crucifixion at Mass? Guess I’ll have something to chat about with my pastor after Stations tomorrow night…

 

[ac_claire]

Huh? We celebrate the Crucifixion at Mass? Guess I’ll have something to chat about with my pastor after Stations tomorrow night…

OK Bro. John, I just did a lot of research to make sure I got the wording right, so I hope this was a sincere (as opposed to rhetorical) question!

It somehow sounds wrong to say we celebrate the crucifixion…But I think I get what you’re saying. Good Friday is our official commemoration of the actual crucifixion and death of our Blessed Lord. But every single mass is comprised of several different elements, all united in the one Sacrifice. The Last Supper was the first mass, when Jesus instituted the form that our celebration would take, and by which he would give us the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Here’s the CCC:

At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us. (1323)

The Catechism then goes into the different things we call the mass:

**The Lord’s Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with his disciples on the eve of his Passion **and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in the heavenly Jerusalem. The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meat when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the bread, above all at the Last Supper. (1329)

and then,

The memorial of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection.
The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering.

So, to reiterate, it’s all of these things.

And relating back to the discussion at hand, if joyous expressions are appropriate to the mass…? The Church’s definition of mass isn’t really helpful in this question, because the definitions span from “joyous, hopeful, celebration” to “solemn, sacrifice”…It seems it would depend on what specific expressions we’re talking about.

Do they fit within the norms of the culture (like the different feel of a mass in Africa, for instance), as well as within the rubrics of the GIRM? Do the expressions/behaviors convey a lack of understanding of the Sacrifice of the mass? Is it done for our own entertainment, or because it makes us feel good? I’d be suspicious of anything that’s done at mass that draws undue attention to ourselves. Or (obviously) anything that is done in disobedience to the GIRM, to the Bishop or to one’s pastor.

 

[stmaria]

Huh? We celebrate the Crucifixion at Mass? Guess I’ll have something to chat about with my pastor after Stations tomorrow night…

Brother John I don;t know if you have ever been to the Traditional Latin Mass but it is truly the sacrifice of the cross. You are in fact taken back in time. The congregation is at the foot of the cross.

Baltimore Catechism.
263. Q. What is the Mass?
A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.

264 Q. What is a sacrifice?
A. A sacrifice is the offering of an object by a priest to God alone, and the consuming of it to acknowledge that He is the Creator and Lord of all things.

"
But how is the Mass a sacrifice? It is a sacrifice because at the Mass the body and blood of Our Lord are offered to His heavenly Father at the consecration, and afterwards consumed by the priest. In offering up the body and blood of Our Lord the bread and wine are consecrated separately, and kept separate on the altar at Mass to signify their separation at Our Lord’s death in the sacrifice of the Cross, when His sacred blood flowed from His body. The Holy Eucharist is also a Sacrament, because it has the three things necessary to constitute a Sacrament; namely,

The outward sign–that is, the appearance of bread and wine.
The inward grace; for it is Jesus Christ Himself, the Author and Dispenser of all graces.
It was instituted by Our Lord.
The Holy Eucharist is therefore both a sacrifice and a Sacrament. It is a sacrifice when offered at Mass, and a Sacrament when we receive it and when it is reserved in the tabernacle.

266 Q. How is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?
A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the offering and the priest are the same–Christ Our Blessed Lord: and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross.

On the Cross the offering was the body and blood of Our Lord; the one who offered it was Our Lord; the reason for which He offered it was that He might atone for sin; the one to whom He offered it was His heavenly Father. Now, at Mass it is the same. The object offered is Our Lord’s body and blood, the one suffering is Our Lord Himself, through the priest; it is offered for sin, and it is offered to the heavenly Father. All things are the same, except that the blood of Our Lord is not shed, and Our Lord does not die again.

1. Q. What are the ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered?
   A. The ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered were: first, to honor and glorify God; second, to thank Him for all the graces bestowed on the whole world; third, to satisfy God’s justice for the sins of men; fourth, to obtain all graces and blessings.
2. Q. Is there any difference between the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass?
   A. Yes; the manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the Cross Christ really shed His blood and was really slain; in the Mass there is no real shedding of blood nor real death, because Christ can die no more; but the sacrifice of the Mass, through the separate consecration of the bread and the wine, represents His death on the Cross.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

With so many opinions going around on the Latin mass, the NO etc. thank God we have a Magisterium to follow and are not ruled by a democracy in the Church.
I like what post #4 had to say.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Sure]

Brother John I don;t know if you have ever been to the Traditional Latin Mass but it is truly the sacrifice of the cross. You are in fact taken back in time. The congregation is at the foot of the cross.

Baltimore Catechism.
263. Q. What is the Mass?
A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.

264 Q. What is a sacrifice?
A. A sacrifice is the offering of an object by a priest to God alone, and the consuming of it to acknowledge that He is the Creator and Lord of all things.

"
But how is the Mass a sacrifice? It is a sacrifice because at the Mass the body and blood of Our Lord are offered to His heavenly Father at the consecration, and afterwards consumed by the priest. In offering up the body and blood of Our Lord the bread and wine are consecrated separately, and kept separate on the altar at Mass to signify their separation at Our Lord’s death in the sacrifice of the Cross, when His sacred blood flowed from His body. The Holy Eucharist is also a Sacrament, because it has the three things necessary to constitute a Sacrament; namely,

The outward sign–that is, the appearance of bread and wine.
The inward grace; for it is Jesus Christ Himself, the Author and Dispenser of all graces.
It was instituted by Our Lord.
The Holy Eucharist is therefore both a sacrifice and a Sacrament. It is a sacrifice when offered at Mass, and a Sacrament when we receive it and when it is reserved in the tabernacle.

266 Q. How is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?
A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross because the offering and the priest are the same–Christ Our Blessed Lord: and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross.

On the Cross the offering was the body and blood of Our Lord; the one who offered it was Our Lord; the reason for which He offered it was that He might atone for sin; the one to whom He offered it was His heavenly Father. Now, at Mass it is the same. The object offered is Our Lord’s body and blood, the one suffering is Our Lord Himself, through the priest; it is offered for sin, and it is offered to the heavenly Father. All things are the same, except that the blood of Our Lord is not shed, and Our Lord does not die again.

1. Q. What are the ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered?
   A. The ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered were: first, to honor and glorify God; second, to thank Him for all the graces bestowed on the whole world; third, to satisfy God’s justice for the sins of men; fourth, to obtain all graces and blessings.
2. Q. Is there any difference between the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass?
   A. Yes; the manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the Cross Christ really shed His blood and was really slain; in the Mass there is no real shedding of blood nor real death, because Christ can die no more; but the sacrifice of the Mass, through the separate consecration of the bread and the wine, represents His death on the Cross.

And Brother John, just to be clear ALL of the above applies to the ordinary form of the Mass as well. The ordinary form of the Mass is truly the sacrifice of the cross. You are in fact taken back in time. The congregation is at the foot of the cross.

 

[rwoehmke]

This forum has not changed my mind about much of anything. I enjoy it because it has touches of nostalgia for me and I enjoy it like going to a museum or reading magazines like “Reminisce.”

It is also interesting in that it has helped me to understand some of the folks in my own parish. I may not agree with them (and I mean both the traditional and progressive elements), but I can better emphathize with them.

Some things I really agree on is that a lot of our post Vatican II music is terrible, but not all of it. We have a music minister who can scuttle the music of almost any era in the Church. Our priests have been reasonably abuse free, but a significant number of our laity don’t seem to have a clue, even with the vernacular Mass. No reverence. On the whole kind of lifeless, but not because the priests don’t do their part. On the other hand there are members of the parish who are “saintly” in their prayer and devotion and care for those in need. The lack of life in some members drags it all down. We are struggling to move from 24/5 adoration to 24/7. It is slow.

I did attend the 4 pm Saturday Mass at St. Mary’s in Marathon Wisconsin a few weeks back. A N.O. Mass. The priest sang certain parts, the people responded and sang well, the choir was strong, bells at the consecration, the old high altar, statues, and stations were still in place. My son drives 25 to 30 minutes from Wausau to be a member of that parish. He and his wife love it and I can see why. It was both reverent and alive.

 

[GerardP]

I did attend the 4 pm Saturday Mass at St. Mary’s in Marathon Wisconsin a few weeks back. A N.O. Mass. The priest sang certain parts, the people responded and sang well, the choir was strong, bells at the consecration, the old high altar, statues, and stations were still in place. My son drives 25 to 30 minutes from Wausau to be a member of that parish. He and his wife love it and I can see why. It was both reverent and alive.

The Novus Ordo only gains stability when it adopts the ceremonies and attitudes of the Traditional Latin Mass (a very stable Liturgy) When I first attended the TLM, it brought back memories of the Novus Ordo in my archdiocese circa 1973.

All of the other goodies in prayers and gestures in the TLM make it complete. I honestly don’t see why anyone would prefer the Novus Ordo with all of the losses it shows when compared with the most refined Liturgy, that took a thousand years to reach a height where it was codified by St. Pius V.

 

[ac_claire]

Interesting sidenote—> The significance of the bread and wine being concecrated and offered separately is sort of new to me. Trying to wrap my mind around it. And I’m pretty well versed in the Catechism. Yet that aspect is stressed in the short part of the Baltimore Catechism that was quoted above. Interesting.

 

[Brother_John]

So, some of you are saying that it is improper to be joyful, and express such at Mass? WOW

 

[leonie]

I am really attracted to the Traditional Mass and liturgies. I’m a regular Pauline Mass parishioner.

As a result of CAF,

I’m wear a kerchief when in presence of the Tabernacle.
**
I’m greatly annoyed by the music at my parish** (can’t really be too grateful for that )
**
I understand better liturgy and reverence in Mass. When I go to a really beautiful liturgy, I feel so joyful** (another mixed blessing because now, I’m often irritated during Mass at my parish by certain practices like holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer)

I feel better connected to the generations of Catholics who came before me.

Unfortunately, I have to admit that my opinion of Traditionalists has become more negative. I realize that the format of a message board is going to attract more negative comments born out of frustration, but I find many Traditionalists to be consumed with pride and vanity. When I meet a Traditionalists now–there are lots in my homeschool group, I assume that they are looking down upon me as an inadequate Catholic because I am not a Traditionalist.

So, probably on the balance, I would have been better off taking up a course of reading on the Tridentine Mass and Traditional practices rather than reading the boards here. It’s just easier and more fun here.

so lazy

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Here is a surprise for everyone. Those who prefer the Novus Ordo Mass over the Latin Mass are just as traditional in their Catholicism as those who prefer the Latin Mass. Each is infinite in merit. Its in what is in the congregations heart that determines how much grace is imparted to them.
Deacon Ed B

 

[stmaria]

I am really attracted to the Traditional Mass and liturgies. I’m a regular Pauline Mass parishioner.

As a result of CAF,

I’m wear a kerchief when in presence of the Tabernacle.
**
I’m greatly annoyed by the music at my parish** (can’t really be too grateful for that )
**
I understand better liturgy and reverence in Mass. When I go to a really beautiful liturgy, I feel so joyful** (another mixed blessing because now, I’m often irritated during Mass at my parish by certain practices like holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer)

I feel better connected to the generations of Catholics who came before me.

Unfortunately, I have to admit that my opinion of Traditionalists has become more negative. I realize that the format of a message board is going to attract more negative comments born out of frustration, but I find many Traditionalists to be consumed with pride and vanity. When I meet a Traditionalists now–there are lots in my homeschool group, I assume that they are looking down upon me as an inadequate Catholic because I am not a Traditionalist.

So, probably on the balance, I would have been better off taking up a course of reading on the Tridentine Mass and Traditional practices rather than reading the boards here. It’s just easier and more fun here.

so lazy

Please don’t misunderstand traditionalists. It is not about "pride and vanity’, We do not want to impose the TLM mass on anyone. We do want to impose reverence. God deserves that. I have found a “reverent” OF about 45 minutes from my house. I go there on Holy Days and sometimes with one of my daughters who lives close to that church.
But why is it reverent? Because it contains elements of the Traditional Mass. Greorgian Chant, traditional music with the organ, not guitars. Bells at the consecration. The priest says some of the prayers in Latin. Communion is received kneeling at an altar rail. On the tongue or in the hand.
The sanctuary is beautiful with statues, a huge golden tabernacle, a massive cross with the body of Christ.
I don’t believe that Traditionalists look down on anyone. They just are frustrated at the acceptance of the lack of reverence and sacredness by so many Catholics. They want you to have what they have found in the TLM. I get frustrated when I go to the OF at my neighborhood parish. I wish that they would wake up. Can’t they see how stripped down the sanctuary has become? They have been told not to genuflect when entering the pew. Why don’t they question this practice? It can only lead to a falling away of the faith.
It is not about ‘pride and vanity’. I want them to have what I have found in the TLM.

 

[leonie]

Please don’t misunderstand traditionalists. It is not about "pride and vanity’, We do not want to impose the TLM mass on anyone. We do want to impose reverence. God deserves that. I have found a “reverent” OF about 45 minutes from my house. I go there on Holy Days and sometimes with one of my daughters who lives close to that church.
But why is it reverent? Because it contains elements of the Traditional Mass. Greorgian Chant, traditional music with the organ, not guitars. Bells at the consecration. The priest says some of the prayers in Latin. Communion is received kneeling at an altar rail. On the tongue or in the hand.
The sanctuary is beautiful with statues, a huge golden tabernacle, a massive cross with the body of Christ.
I don’t believe that Traditionalists look down on anyone. They just are frustrated at the acceptance of the lack of reverence and sacredness by so many Catholics. They want you to have what they have found in the TLM. I get frustrated when I go to the OF at my neighborhood parish. I wish that they would wake up. Can’t they see how stripped down the sanctuary has become? They have been told not to genuflect when entering the pew. Why don’t they question this practice? It can only lead to a falling away of the faith.
It is not about ‘pride and vanity’. I want them to have what I have found in the TLM.

I do know some really humble and holy Traditionalists. But, I encounter more Traditionalists that will spend the whole conversation making disparaging and sarcastic comments about nonTraditionalists.

I think because of the message board format, posts tend to come off more negative. So, it reinforces my negative experiences with Traditionalists.

Also, I think that Traditionalists put alot of pressure on families in their parishes to conform to a certain standard.

 

[Aragorn1]

Please don’t misunderstand traditionalists. It is not about "pride and vanity’, We do not want to impose the TLM mass on anyone. We do want to impose reverence. God deserves that. I have found a “reverent” OF about 45 minutes from my house. I go there on Holy Days and sometimes with one of my daughters who lives close to that church.
But why is it reverent? Because it contains elements of the Traditional Mass. Greorgian Chant, traditional music with the organ, not guitars. Bells at the consecration. The priest says some of the prayers in Latin. Communion is received kneeling at an altar rail. On the tongue or in the hand.
The sanctuary is beautiful with statues, a huge golden tabernacle, a massive cross with the body of Christ.
I don’t believe that Traditionalists look down on anyone. They just are frustrated at the acceptance of the lack of reverence and sacredness by so many Catholics. They want you to have what they have found in the TLM. I get frustrated when I go to the OF at my neighborhood parish. I wish that they would wake up. Can’t they see how stripped down the sanctuary has become? They have been told not to genuflect when entering the pew. Why don’t they question this practice? It can only lead to a falling away of the faith.
It is not about ‘pride and vanity’. I want them to have what I have found in the TLM.

First, it’s not just about reverence. Tradiionalists go beyond merely speaking out against irreverence, as they often try to criticize the rite itself as promulgated officially by the Church. Most of the things that you express frustration over above are liturgical abuses and/or innovations by modern-day liturgists, and they have nothing to do with the OF rite as such. I agree with the traditionalists on this point; where I disagree is where they try to argue that the OF of the rite is in itself objectively inferior.

Second, many traditionalists (and I do not necessarily include you on this point) are indeed trying to impose the EF. Why else are they seeking the abolition of the OF? And if they are not seeking the latter’s abolition, then it is awfully logically inconsistent of them to spend so much time and energy critiquing it and protesting against it. The motu-proprio Summorum Pontificum liberated the EF, and yet most traditionalists are still dissatisfied. Why? Because they perceive SP as merely “a step in the right direction” (see, for example, John Vennari’s article in Catholic Family News shortly after the document was released). Traditionalists who write for publications such as The Remnant and CFN are indeed campaigning for the full return of the entire Church to the EF. And this necessarily involves the abolition of the OF and thus the imposition of the EF.

In so doing, the traditionalists (again, I’m referring here to the movement in general and to its spokespersons who have published their views) have misunderstood SP. It was meant only to make the EF available to those who want it, and to officially designate it as an alternative form of the same Roman Rite of the Mass. It was not meant to be a step towards abolishing the OF and setting up the EF as the universal Roman Rite. The OF is here to stay, along with the EF.

One final point: You write that "It is not about “pride and vanity’. . . . I don’t believe that Traditionalists look down on anyone.” Without making judgments about anyone on this thread, I think it’s safe to say that many traditionalists are indeed proud and do look down on others (at least judging from the writings of the leaders of the movement). Consider, for example, the use of the term “neo-Catholic” that is repeated ad nauseam throughout traditionalist literature. (It originated in Christopher Ferrara’s book The Great Facade, for my money one of the most arrogant and condescending books ever written by a Catholic.)

 

[1234]

I believe Traditional Catholic worship and doctrine are how God wants us to worship. I see great debate here on many topics, now it seems that some topics are to tough to arbitrate and we need to keep our debates to mantillas and why the Church does not eat meat of Fridays year round. If we can’t debate the challenging topics, is this of any use? It seems that there are staunch positions here held by the same people that never change. Has anyone come to love the TLM and or turned from happy clappy parishes because of this Traditional Forum?

Good question.

Also–has ANY one changed ANYone’s mind on the forum on ANY issue, period?

The answer is no.

The forum gives people an opportunity to ventilate and feel part of a community. Rarely to exchange useful information such as where to get a particular type of breviary.