Has anyone changed there mind here?

[peregrinator_it]

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

An attempt at less agendized terms for the two forms of the Mass.

EF = Extraordinary Form (or Tridentine Mass)

OF = Ordinary Form (or Pauline Mass/Novus Ordo aka the form of the Mass that is the current norm)

 

[GerardP]

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.

“Better” and “Bad” are not being discussed, the “deficiencies” and the “sufficiencies” between the Old and New are being discussed.

One of the problems is the Pope himself has written accurately about the Novus Ordo in disparaging terms.

The other bit of confusion is the recent attempt to claim that the TLM and the Novus Ordo are the same rite in two different forms.

But in the Pope’s letter to the bishops accompanying summorum pontificum, he asserts they are the same form:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

"It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

Yet, further down in the letter, the Holy Father can’t seem to even convince himself of this argument. (emphasis mine)

“The total exclusion of the **new rite **would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”

 

[peregrinator_it]

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

No… I’m saying you can’t call a legless person “deficient” unless you have agreed that leg-edness is essential to being human.

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

I’m saying we don’t necessarily understand each other on what liturgy is; what the nature and purpose of the various types of prayer are. (Nor do we understand each other on “organic development,” etc., etc., etc., but that’s secondary to the prayer/liturgy questions.)

But, in order to come to an understanding, we’d have to put away the clubs. And you’d have to be willing to acknowlege the truth (if any) of opinions opposed to your own.

It’s impossible to understand the substance of a differing position, while simultaneously denying it categorically.

(It’s like trying to conduct a scientific study of insects while screaming and swatting at them…)

 

[GerardP]

An attempt at less agendized terms for the two forms of the Mass.

EF = Extraordinary Form (or Tridentine Mass)

OF = Ordinary Form (or Pauline Mass/Novus Ordo aka the form of the Mass that is the current norm)

Actually that is agendizing the situation in the Church. One form is nearly 2000 years old, the other is 38 years old.

The use of the word “Tridentine” is also inaccurate since it misleads people into thinking Trent invented that liturgy.

Also calling the rites as missals of St. Pius V and Paul VI was used for a while to give the impression that Paul VI did the same thing as St. Pius V.

Then, people began to notice that “Saint” in reference Pope Pius and that was viewed as an “inequality” since Paul VI is not canonized.

So now, it’s been changed to the Missal of John XXIII (a man of the council!) and Paul VI his successor.

I think the best descriptions are TLM “Traditional Latin Mass” and the Novus Ordo since that is how Paul VI referred to it.

 

[Sure]

Wow, Gerard. I didn’t imagine that you would come on here and prove my original point so well.

The ordinary form is “objectively deficient”???

Statements like that are exactly what will guarantee the extraordinary form remains rare. Good luck with that.

 

[ac_claire]

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

I don’t know. What is a Novus Ordo catholic? The repellent attitude I was talking about is defining Catholocism by a single form of the liturgy and denigrating other Catholics who either don’t agree with you or have no strong preference. I don’t understand the open antagonism, it doesn’t seem appropriate to the discussion of one valid form of mass vs. another. If you were responding to a personal attack in this thread, I’d understand it.

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 don’t anyone here’s who’s rambling on about their feelings any more than you are right now.

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.

Who are you talking about?!
Is someone pushing PC down your throat, or forcing you to accept something?
I don’t force anyone to accept anything, or care about political correctness, or any of these things you’ve listed. I don’t know if these criticism are directed at me in particular, or someone else…? Or is it everyone else?

What motivates your preferences? Do you preferences change?

Yeah, my preference can change.
Maybe if I go to the TLM more often, or to a different celebration of it, I’d prefer it. The one I’ve been to here…I was completely lost. The priest who offers the TLM is elderly and you really can’t hear what he’s saying even in English. I couldn’t hear enough of the Latin to even make out a random word here or there so I could try to find the correct place in the missal.

I should point out that I went alone both times, and it was before I got on CAF and had access to all the discussion of the TLM. So it was like being in a foreign country and missing your own. When I go again I’m going to at least find someone before mass to help me out with the missal.

On the other hand, I was raised w/ a reverent OF mass, so of course it’s my preference…There’s no reason why it wouldn’t be. I prefer being able to understand the language, hearing the Eucharistic prayer, the lectionary…But, again, I don’t think my preference is all that important. And my opinions on the TLM vs. NO mass are maybe not as strong as you’re thinking. I’ve never said the NO mass is superior, I’m just telling you why I prefer going to it.

 

[kwitz]

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!

Isn’t that funny that it *** my profile as “naughty” but I can write scrapbooking here without being bleeped. Depending on how much time/money I’ve spent, my husband might agree that scrapbooking is a bad word!

Kris

 

[ac_claire]

Isn’t that funny that it *** my profile as “naughty” but I can write scrapbooking here without being bleeped. Depending on how much time/money I’ve spent, my husband might agree that scrapbooking is a bad word!

Kris

Maybe when you typed your profile you accidentally left off the “s” in scrapbooking, and that’s why it bleeped you?

 

[GerardP]

No… I’m saying you can’t call a legless person “deficient” unless you have agreed that leg-edness is essential to being human.

Let’s bring your analogy back to the actual topic in order to better understand

“You are saying that one can’t call a deficient rite “deficient” unless it is agreed upon that the deficiencies are essential to the rite.”

I would say the existence of the deficiencies don’t affect the “essence” of the object.

So I argue that the essence of the rite does not discount it being a deficient rite.

Before we start getting into, being, essence and substance. How about if we define “deficient” before you state it can’t be used?

de·fi·cient adj.

1)Lacking an essential quality or element: *deficient in common sense. *
2)Inadequate in amount or degree; insufficient: *a deficient education. *
[Latin deficiens, deficient-, present participle of deficere, to fail, be wanting; see defect.]
de·fi’cient n., de·fi’cient·ly adv.

I believe you are taking definition one and I’m taking definition two.

I’m saying we don’t necessarily understand each other on what liturgy is; what the nature and purpose of the various types of prayer are. (Nor do we understand each other on “organic development,” etc., etc., etc., but that’s secondary to the prayer/liturgy questions.)

But you do agree that there is a thing outside of each of us called “liturgy” correct?

But, in order to come to an understanding, we’d have to put away the clubs. And you’d have to be willing to acknowlege the truth (if any) of opinions opposed to your own.

I want to know only the truth. I don’t even know what you’re talking about with regard to “clubs.” I’m suspecting that you are viewing “clubs” where I’m viewing objective truth.

It’s impossible to understand the substance of a differing position, while simultaneously denying it categorically.

So, if I’m following you, when I state that the rite has objective deficiencies as the problem and not merely liturgical abuse, no one will understand me who categorically denies this? If that’s correct, I agree with you.

(It’s like trying to conduct a scientific study of insects while screaming and swatting at them…)

Well, if that’s part of the experiment, I would think it’s fine as long as there is a control group. I would think “agreement” on your part would correspond to the “control group” concept?

 

[lovesMary]

Isn’t that funny that it *** my profile as “naughty” but I can write scrapbooking here without being bleeped. Depending on how much time/money I’ve spent, my husband might agree that scrapbooking is a bad word!

Kris

Ha ha, that’s funny!!!

 

[kwitz]

Maybe when you typed your profile you accidentally left off the “s” in scrapbooking, and that’s why it bleeped you?

I just checked my profile and it said s****booking but… I retyped it and now it says scrapbooking. I’m guessing that when I joined there was a different filter that pulled out even parts of words as “bad”. All is good now

 

[peregrinator_it]

You are saying that one can’t call a deficient rite “deficient” unless it is agreed upon that the deficiencies are essential to the rite.

I would say the existence of the deficiencies don’t affect the “essence” of the object.

• Snip *

Before we start getting into, being, essence and substance. How about if we define “deficient” before you state it can’t be used?

No, no, no, no, no, no.

I’m saying you can’t talk about deficiencies until you’ve talked abou the nature of the object. Period. Doesn’t matter which definition of deficiency you’re using. Otherwise, you literally don’t know what you are talking about.

But you do agree that there is a thing outside of each of us called “liturgy” correct?

Of course.

I want to know only the truth. I don’t even know what you’re talking about with regard to “clubs.” I’m suspecting that you are viewing “clubs” where I’m viewing objective truth.

If you genuinely want to know the truth, then you have to be willing to have an intellectually honest discussion. That means be willing temporarily setting aside your opinions and your conviction that you already know what the truth is, in order to examine your oponents argument… objectively.

Believing that you are correct and beating others over the head by repeating your opinions is using a club.

And I’m not sure your terminology is correct. We’re only discussing one rite; that is the Latin or Roman rite (as opposed to Melkite, for example.) There currently are two licit forms of the Roman rite under discussion.

So, if I’m following you, when I state that the rite has objective deficiencies as the problem and not merely liturgical abuse, no one will understand me who categorically denies this? If that’s correct, I agree with you.

No, I mean if you’re going to call a form of the liturgy “deficient,”
then we have to talk about what liturgy is. What does it do, what is it’s purpose, etc.

Well, if that’s part of the experiment, I would think it’s fine as long as there is a control group. I would think “agreement” on your part would correspond to the “control group” concept?

I don’t think I understand you. Please forgive me if I become a little slow to respond following this post, I have an errand or three to run.

 

[GerardP]

I don’t know. What is a Novus Ordo catholic?

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.

The repellent attitude I was talking about is defining Catholocism by a single form of the liturgy

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.”

and denigrating other Catholics who either don’t agree with you or have no strong preference.

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?

I don’t understand the open antagonism, it doesn’t seem appropriate to the discussion of one valid form of mass vs. another.

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

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.

If you were responding to a personal attack in this thread, I’d understand it. I don’t anyone here’s who’s rambling on about their feelings any more than you are right now.

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.”

 

[GerardP]

Yeah, my preference can change.
Maybe if I go to the TLM more often, or to a different celebration of it, I’d prefer it. The one I’ve been to here…I was completely lost. The priest who offers the TLM is elderly and you really can’t hear what he’s saying even in English. I couldn’t hear enough of the Latin to even make out a random word here or there so I could try to find the correct place in the missal.

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? 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. The Novus Ordo is an enigma when looked at objectively and compared to the others.

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.

Add to that the condemnations of the Church for many things that were adopted in the Novus Ordo.

Add to that Paul VI’s stated intention of “removing obstacles for Protestants.” Those obstacles were bullwarks for protecting the faith.

Add to that the similarities between what has been removed and what the reformers removed and I understood that the reformation had invaded the thinking of Churchmen.

I should point out that I went alone both times, and it was before I got on CAF and had access to all the discussion of the TLM. So it was like being in a foreign country and missing your own. When I go again I’m going to at least find someone before mass to help me out with the missal.

A better analogy would be finding out you’ve been stolen from your birth parents and raised by people pretending to be your parents.

On the other hand, I was raised w/ a reverent OF mass, so of course it’s my preference…There’s no reason why it wouldn’t be. I prefer being able to understand the language, hearing the Eucharistic prayer, the lectionary…But, again, I don’t think my preference is all that important. And my opinions on the TLM vs. NO mass are maybe not as strong as you’re thinking. I’ve never said the NO mass is superior, I’m just telling you why I prefer going to it.

I don’t mind if someone tells me why they think the Novus Ordo is superior if they do. That’s fodder for a good discussion. And I’d like them to give concrete reasons for their belief.

I’m simply stating my position is that the TLM is the real Roman rite for Roman rite Catholics and the Novus Ordo is not simply an alternative, it’s a deficient rite. Maybe Pope Benedict believes he can fix it, I don’t see or believe that he can. It only gains stability the more it mimicks the TLM.

But as it is now and as Paul VI promulgated it, it is deficient. And that has consequences for the faithful.

None of that has to do with my preference, it’s about our obligation to God and for the salvation of our souls.

 

[GerardP]

No, no, no, no, no, no.

I’m saying you can’t talk about deficiencies until you’ve talked abou the nature of the object. Period. Doesn’t matter which definition of deficiency you’re using. Otherwise, you literally don’t know what you are talking about.

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

If you genuinely want to know the truth, then you have to be willing to have an intellectually honest discussion. That means be willing temporarily setting aside your opinions and your conviction that you already know what the truth is, in order to examine your oponents argument… objectively.

Now we have to determine what constitutes an opinion. I’m stating things that are supportable with objective standards. Until you actually know that those supporting evidences are, you can’t claim some of my statement are merely opinion.

You can claim that a building is larger than a bicycle. That is not an opinion. Even though you may not have the evidence of the measurments handy. Saying the building is nicer or more noble than the bicycle is an opinion.

Believing that you are correct and beating others over the head by repeating your opinions is using a club.

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?

And I’m not sure your terminology is correct. We’re only discussing one rite; that is the Latin or Roman rite (as opposed to Melkite, for example.) There currently are two licit forms of the Roman rite under discussion.

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?

No, I mean if you’re going to call a form of the liturgy “deficient,”
then we have to talk about what liturgy is. What does it do, what is it’s purpose, etc.

I’m all for that.

I don’t think I understand you. Please forgive me if I become a little slow to respond following this post, I have an errand or three to run.

Gotta go myself. Catch you later. Good luck on your errands

 

[Aragorn1]

Now we have to determine what constitutes an opinion. I’m stating things that are supportable with objective standards. Until you actually know that those supporting evidences are, you can’t claim some of my statement are merely opinion.

. . .

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?

Not to intrude on this “debate” or anything, but it appears that your insisting that peregrinator_it should not make certain claims regarding your positions without examining the evidence for those positions is most unfair, as you have not brought forth any evidence whatsoever. It seems to me a simple case of shifting the burden of proof.

:twocents:

 

[Brother_John]

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?

It doesn’t undermine my faith in the Church at all. It does occasionally, undermine my faith in some of our members.

And I certainly don’t come here for edification.

 

[Cat]

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.

I agree with others. This is the effect that the Traditional Forum has had on me.

I have really cut down the time that I spend on CAF due to the damage that certain topics does to my faith. I try to stay away from these hot topics, but it’s like a dog returning to its vomit. I find them disturbingly fascinating. I’m sure that Satan is rejoicing because he can work through these debates to convince me that Catholics are just like Protestants–seeking their own personal preference rather than submitting to the Authority of Christ and His Church.

I think that the Moderators of CAF should come up with a “WARNING” flag for topics that may be harmful to the faith of new converts, potential converts, and inquirers. It is extremely hurtful to read how many people choose “correct rubrics” over “charity,” in plain violation of the teachings of our Lord and the Church.

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 hope this doesn’t sound mean-spirited. I have had a very bad Lent and have struggled with many of these issues. I love my Church, but I feel distrustful of its people because of the lack of charity. Jesus said that people will know His Church by their love for one another.

The only one I trust is Jesus and His ordained leaders–the Pope, the Bishops and priests, and the Deacons. Just as I no longer believe in sola Scriptura, I also don’t believe in sola GIRM or sola any Catholic documents about liturgy. It is not up to me to interpret Scripture or GIRM or liturgy documents–it is the Christ appointed job of His ordained leaders. Thank God for that because then I might become as uncharitable as some of the interpreters on CAF. As it is, I am not very charitable, which is yet another reason to stay away from CAF as much as possible. I don’t want to lose my soul at this point on the journey.

 

[Brother_John]

Try this one on for size…some use lables like “traditional”, “liberal”, “moderninst”, schismatic, etc…

I am a PRACTICAL Catholic

BIG and small “P/p”…

 

[Brother_John]

I agree with others. This is the effect that the Traditional Forum has had on me.

I have really cut down the time that I spend on CAF due to the damage that certain topics does to my faith. I try to stay away from these hot topics, but it’s like a dog returning to its vomit. I find them disturbingly fascinating. I’m sure that Satan is rejoicing because he can work through these debates to convince me that Catholics are just like Protestants–seeking their own personal preference rather than submitting to the Authority of Christ and His Church.

I think that the Moderators of CAF should come up with a “WARNING” flag for topics that may be harmful to the faith of new converts, potential converts, and inquirers. It is extremely hurtful to read how many people choose “correct rubrics” over “charity,” in plain violation of the teachings of our Lord and the Church.

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 hope this doesn’t sound mean-spirited. I have had a very bad Lent and have struggled with many of these issues. I love my Church, but I feel distrustful of its people because of the lack of charity. Jesus said that people will know His Church by their love for one another.

The only one I trust is Jesus and His ordained leaders–the Pope, the Bishops and priests, and the Deacons. Just as I no longer believe in sola Scriptura, I also don’t believe in sola GIRM or sola any Catholic documents about liturgy. It is not up to me to interpret Scripture or GIRM or liturgy documents–it is the Christ appointed job of His ordained leaders. Thank God for that because then I might become as uncharitable as some of the interpreters on CAF. As it is, I am not very charitable, which is yet another reason to stay away from CAF as much as possible. I don’t want to lose my soul at this point on the journey.

:yup: :tiphat: :bowdown: