Has anyone changed there mind here?

[TMC]

The TLM is beautiful but the attitude of some of the “traditional” guys is not.

Ditto and double dittto! These people are doing way more harm to the promulgation of the TLM than they are doing good.

I agree. This forum has actually had the opposite effect on me. I have always found the EF beautiful and meaningful, but now I have come to associate it with some of the hateful attititudes, and schismatic beliefs, that are put forward by some so-called ‘traditionalists’. I still feel the same about the liturgy, but knowing that so many (at least based on what I see here) want it back for all the wrong reasons makes me sad, and frankly makes me less likely to go out of my way to attend a Mass in that form.

 

[pacelli75]

Ladies and gentlemen: I’m not a traditionalist, I’m not a liberal. I am a Catholic. I am also an old-timer. I remember not only the Mass os John XXIII (hereafter J-23 for brevity), I remember the Mass of Pius XII. I remember the doctrinal shifts in the mindsets of various priests following the arrival of the Mass of Paul VI. “Jesus made many mistakes, and he was a failure much of the time. We can learn from his failure and mistakes.” I used homilies like these to justify my own sinfulness. When I indulged in wine, women and song, and that little voice told me “this ain’t right, fella,” I would just think of that “mistake riddled Jesus,” brought to me by priests saying the Paul VI Mass, and I would start to feel very comfortable in my own sins. “Well,” I thought, “if Jesus is such a loser, why am I wasting an hour every Sunday at mass?” So, I left the Church. After years of running in circles and going nowhere, I came back. I studied Theology for many years. Whenever I would insist that a priest show me in Sacred Scripture or in the writings of popes that Jesus that Jesus was so inept, as his homily would suggest, that would usually end the conversation, and I would promtly be put on his blacklist. When I started attending the Mass of J-23 again, all the reverence and beauty came back to me. The homilies were Catholic, and free of heresy. I knew WHY I should live a virtuous life, and the encouragement to do so permeated every fiber of my being through that liturgy.

I would ask that people use their common sense. I avoid the sites that claim there has not been a valid pope sincePius XII, and that LeFevre should be cannonized. I also avoid the sites that imply people who attend the Mass of J-23 are somehow deranged. I have noticed that most of the name calling has come from this second camp.

Some of you folks do well with the Massof PaulVI, and that’s fine. I overwhelmingly prefer the Mass of J-23 (to be known as the Mass of Benedict XVI if he makes any changes with it.) I thank Almighty God for Pope Benedict XVI, and I thank Pope Benedict XVI for Summorum Pontificum. God bless.

 

[GerardP]

I prefer the ordinary form. You prefer the extraordinary form. I think the extraordinary form is also great, I just don’t prefer it. You think the ordinary form is bad **or deficient. ** Why do feel the need to tear down the legitimate liturgy that I prefer? I don’t do the same to you? Why not extend the same courtesy???

Here is the key. It’s not about preference. I was perfectly happy with the Novus Ordo until I found out how deficient it was. Add to that a study of the theology and political motivations of the liturgical reformers and that adds to the scandal around the deficiencies.

Then, when you actually find out the teaching content within the TLM, you realize that the Novus Ordo is a deliberate deprivation of Catholics from their patrimony.

Forgetting preference factor, if the Novus Ordo is objectively deficient why in the world would someone want or even prefer a deficient liturgy?

 

[Brother_John]

I agree with SuscipeMeDomine.

Why would I want to talk to someone who thinks so negatively about any mass that I attend? I enjoy all styles of mass be it Latin mass, NO or the Anglican Use Mass. You can debate the styles all you want. But as my father told me “Jesus came to establish a Church not a Mass”. The truth is I go to mass not because of the style of mass but because my lord and savior has sacrificed himself for me and I am going to receive him into my body and soul. That’s what matters to me. Not your opinion of whither it’s the most correct or pure form of mass.

Exactly. I have only minor exposure to Mass in Latin. But after what I have read here over the last month, I’d more likely attend (and have attended) Life Teen Mass.

If the postings on CAF are in any way indicitave of the majority of people I might find attending a Latin Mass, I would find myself surrounded by hostile “Sister Bertha Better 'n You” people, who would make it an uncomfortable, rather than holy, experience.

 

[louey]

It seems that my question is answered. Nobody ever has come to be a Traditional Catholic as a result of the Traditional Forum. What a sad waste of time. To all the Traditional Catholics, we need to spend more time in the street, and less time on the computer.

You speak as if there are “types” of Catholic’s. What is a traditional Catholic? Is not one Catholic by faith?

 

[fhansen]

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?

I don’t like happy clappy stuff either but I do like to have what the majority of believers have enjoyed for the past two millenia-a Mass I can understand because its in my own language. I’m not sure why not understanding it should make the Mass more reverent.

 

[Joannm]

Here is the key. It’s not about preference. I was perfectly happy with the Novus Ordo until I found out how deficient it was. Add to that a study of the theology and political motivations of the liturgical reformers and that adds to the scandal around the deficiencies.

Where did you “study” the theology and political motivations of the liturgical reformers?

Then, when you actually find out the teaching content within the TLM, you realize that the Novus Ordo is a deliberate deprivation of Catholics from their patrimony.

How does something teach if you don’t understand what is being said…and I know you can “read along,” but that is not worship to me. I get a lot of catechesis from the liturgy of today. In fact, liturgical catechesis is emphasized.

Forgetting preference factor, if the Novus Ordo is objectively deficient why in the world would someone want or even prefer a deficient liturgy?

It is your opinion that it is objectivly deficient. I see no deficiency in it.

 

[peregrinator_it]

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

No, but I never was a member of a “happy clappy” parish. I’ve always (as far back I can remember) loved the liturgical patrimony of the Church- Latin and chant, smells & bells, traditional hymns, etc.

And I have no love for heterodoxy, disobedience, or misinterpretation of Church teaching and documents- from either side of the fence.

But I’m also no preferer of the TLM, though that’s not because of this forum. I’ve had greatly increased exposure to the TLM recently- most notably I’ve attended a Tridentine Low Mass bi-weekly for the past four years in the course of my job- and that has cemented my preference (and deep love) for the Pauline Mass in Latin.

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.

I’m a bit disappointed, not in this forum itself, but in the positive refusal of some of the posters to restrict debate to the matter at hand; that is, not to take out the “our Mass in inherently superior” club and whack others over the head (or the “the Pauline Mass in inherently irreverent” club- hate that one), not refuse to address legitimate arguments of those they disagree with, not to refuse to (my pet peeve) read things in context.

I don’t think debate, per se, is bad; in fact it can be very informative, even when not entirely charitable (I’m thinking of a discussion on the silent Canon on the old Liturgy board (before this one) that really helped me clarify my position on the subject.)

But until posters are here are willing to have an intellectually honest discussion, I’m afraid “debate” may just be restricted to “lighter” topics such as mantillas and meat…

 

[lovesMary]

Exactly. I have only minor exposure to Mass in Latin. But after what I have read here over the last month, I’d more likely attend (and have attended) Life Teen Mass.

If the postings on CAF are in any way indicitave of the majority of people I might find attending a Latin Mass, I would find myself surrounded by hostile “Sister Bertha Better 'n You” people, who would make it an uncomfortable, rather than holy, experience.

Hi, I’m wondering by you post if this discussion site is undermining your faith? Maybe it’s time to move on to something more edifying for you?

 

[peregrinator_it]

Having more carefully read this thread, I should also say:

As this forum tends to discuss matters liturgical and controversial more than morality/religious practices/spirituality, I don’t think it’s going to be much of a force in getting anyone to change their habits or beliefs, although it has the potential to help clarify issues.

But, most people are not converted through debate, so it would be unreasonable to expect this forum to accomplish that, anyway.

It’s important, I think, to remember that there are no quick fixes or magic bullets, for problems in the Church (or in the world.) Personal sanctity and prayer are the most effective means of change. Period.

 

[kwitz]

I agree. This forum has actually had the opposite effect on me. I have always found the EF beautiful and meaningful, but now I have come to associate it with some of the hateful attititudes, and schismatic beliefs, that are put forward by some so-called ‘traditionalists’. I still feel the same about the liturgy, but knowing that so many (at least based on what I see here) want it back for all the wrong reasons makes me sad, and frankly makes me less likely to go out of my way to attend a Mass in that form.

This is almost exactly how I feel (and expressed much more charitibly than I could’ve done). I had been wanting to attend an EF Mass but have actually been turned off by what many of the posts / posters here have said.

Kris

 

[lovesMary]

This is almost exactly how I feel (and expressed much more charitibly than I could’ve done). I had been wanting to attend an EF Mass but have actually been turned off by what many of the posts / posters here have said.

Kris

Hi Kwitz, I was looking on your profile. It says that you are into scrapbooking. I think the auto-censor thought that was something naughty!

 

[lovesMary]

Hmmmm, it didn’t put the asterisks in there for me…

Did you do that on purpose?

 

[ac_claire]

Here is the key. It’s not about preference. I was perfectly happy with the Novus Ordo until I found out how deficient it was. Add to that a study of the theology and political motivations of the liturgical reformers and that adds to the scandal around the deficiencies.

Then, when you actually find out the teaching content within the TLM, you realize that the Novus Ordo is a deliberate deprivation of Catholics from their patrimony.

Forgetting preference factor, if the Novus Ordo is objectively deficient why in the world would someone want or even prefer a deficient liturgy?

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. Poorly executed, irreverent, abuse-riddled OF masses are not the norm for a great many of us. It’s the Catholic mass for many of us. I’m sorry, but I just get so tired of this. I hear they’re developing a more accurate translation of the OF? Great, bring it on! When they do, the revised translation will be the Catholic mass for me.

I like the EF, too. I know the history. But so far I haven’t been to one that I prefer more than my favorite OF mass at the Cathedral.
Ultimately, I know my personal preference for either form of the mass isn’t all that important.

 

[GerardP]

I think the way you’re expressing yourself here is a perfect example of the repellent attitude others have described on this thread.

You think that. Others think differently. You might think differently at a later date.

Do you really “think” that no one sees the so-called conservative Novus Ordo catholics as expressing a repellent attitude?

It is arrogance.

Define arrogance. I think “conservatives” who ramble on endlessly about their “feelings” and try and present that as if it a reasoned argument is the height of arrogance.

I at least have facts that I point to. I express my personal opinions as just that. I don’t force others to accept it.

I’m also not demanding that everyone adopt a particular mode of thought. “I’m okay, you’re okay attitude.”

I also differentiate between what the Church really teaches from what is politically correct in the Church today.

Poorly executed, irreverent, abuse-riddled OF masses are not the norm for a great many of us.

That is not the point. I’m talking about objective deficiencies in the rite itself as promulgated by Paul VI.

It’s the Catholic mass for many of us. I’m sorry, but I just get so tired of this.

I hear they’re developing a more accurate translation of the OF?

It’s already been messed up by Cardinal Pell surprisingly. His interview with Raymond Arroyo showed his reprehensible attitude towards accuracy in the Novus Ordo.

Besides, that does nothing to correct the deficiencies in the Latin and the rubrics of the Novus Ordo.

Great, bring it on! When they do, the revised translation will be the Catholic mass for me.

Again I ask, why would someone want an objectively deficient liturgy? Don’t you want to give to God the best liturgy possible?

I like the EF, too. I know the history. But so far I haven’t been to one that I prefer more than my favorite OF mass at the Cathedral.
Ultimately, I know my personal preference for either form of the mass isn’t all that important.

What motivates your preferences? Do you preferences change? Why would you prefer a deficient liturgy?

 

[water]

I thought you guys are not supposed to compare TLM with the other and say this is better or the other is bad.

I might be wrong but check the forum’s rules.

 

[peregrinator_it]

That is not the point. I’m talking about objective deficiencies in the rite itself as promulgated by Paul VI.

Club alert!

There’s no such thing as an “objective deficiency.” There’s only such as thing as definciency in a thing qua thing; and one can only discuss deficiencies once one has agreed on a definition.

E.g. if you agree to define a human being as a “speaking, thinking, bi-ped,” you can then talk about lack of legs as a deficiency-- though even then I’d hardly call it an “objective deficiency”…

 

[GerardP]

Where did you “study” the theology and political motivations of the liturgical reformers?

Where did I study? Are you asking for a physical location? Or are you asking what I studied?

How does something teach if you don’t understand what is being said…

By example for one thing. How do babies learn anything?

and I know you can “read along,” but that is not worship to me.

A good question is, what is “worship” to you? Also, reading along is not necessary for the TLM. You can take your time and meditate on the event at the altar, the individual prayers or other devotions. There is much more freedom in the TLM. The Novus Ordo is so much repetition week after week that people don’t even know what they’re saying in the already watered down prayers.

I haven’t gone to two Novus Ordos in at least 6 years and I could still rattle off the whole thing.

I get a lot of catechesis from the liturgy of today. In fact, liturgical catechesis is emphasized.

So, why did the Kyrie get reduced from 9 invocations to six? Why does the priest no longer genuflect right after the consecration and before and after the elevation?

It is your opinion that it is objectivly deficient. I see no deficiency in it.

You see no deficiency because you obviously don’t want to know. It’s the purest and most arrogant form of prejudice and ignorance. A reasonable person would ask what it is they’re missing instead of being a defensive…(------)

 

[lovesMary]

Excuse me, I’m new here, what does EF and OF stand for?

 

[GerardP]

Club alert!

There’s no such thing as an “objective deficiency.” There’s only such as thing as definciency in a thing qua thing; and one can only discuss deficiencies once one has agreed on a definition.

What do you mean? Are you saying we don’t agree on what a “rite” is?

So as to not derail the thread, the point being made is the differentiation between people who believe the Novus Ordo is fine if said “by the books” but unfortunately the Novus Ordo in the context of either a response to the documents of Vatican II or as an accurate expression of the Catholic faith is objectively deficient since no organic development can be attributed to the promulgation of the Novus Ordo.

As pointed above, the purposeless 6 petitions of the Kyrie is deficient in the meaning and purpose of the 9 petition Kyrie.

E.g. if you agree to define a human being as a “speaking, thinking, bi-ped,” you can then talk about lack of legs as a deficiency-- though even then I’d hardly call it an “objective deficiency”…

Are you saying that a person without legs is not “objectively” without legs?