Has anyone changed there mind here?

[ac_claire]

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

I’m not saying that.
It’s all about degrees, and not trying to call attention to yourself. I think this discussion was specifically about someone referring to waving hands and rock music at mass --not about expressing joy in general.

 

[Aragorn1]

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.)

Oh, and I almost forgot… Another shining example of the same is found on this very thread, of all places! Latinmass wrote, in the OP:

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?

To begin with, what do you mean by “Traditional Catholic worship and doctrine are how God wants us to worship”? (Emphasis mine) It seems that you are insinuating that the vast majority of today’s Catholics, including most on these forums, do not profess traditional Catholic doctrine. If so, on what grounds do you make such a claim? And by what authority do you assert that what you term “Traditional Catholic worship”, by which you mean the EF of the Roman rite of Mass, is how God wants us to worship, apparently to the exclusion of the OF?

But my chief objection to your post is your casual, off-hand use of the term “happy clappy”. Where did this come from? Do you dare to paint with the same brush all Catholic parishes that celebrate the OF? How many OF Masses have you actually attended, and at how many parishes? Has it ever occurred to you that your blatant generalizing has almost no basis in fact, and that what the vast majority of so-called “happy clappy” parishes actually offers as Mass is far from the stereotypical “clown mass” that we read about so frequently in fringe traditionalist publications but never actually see?

The term “happy clappy” is nothing but another epithet, designed to facilitate rhetorical victory in the debate between traditionalists and other Catholics. It deserves to be ranked as such with “neo-Catholic”, “Postconciliar Church”, and “clown mass”: terms that sound clever and witty but have either no objective definition or no realistic factual basis. The use of the term “happy clappy” is yet another example of the arrogance and condescension that is manifested in the words and behavior of many traditionalists (notice how I say “many”, not “all”). Even in a thread that attempts to tone down the intensity of debate and just ask a simple question, the OP still cannot refrain from throwing around epithets with no regard for truth or other people’s feelings. Go figure.

 

[lovesMary]

You make some good points, Aragorn. This is the first and only place I’ve ever heard the term “Happy Clappy”. It really sounds disrespectful. It really bugs me to read it for some reason.

One of the most devout women I know prefers a lively Mass. She is such a saintly woman, and it goes with her personality, which is effusive, expressive, and loving. She also prays the Rosary, follows all the Church teachings, and is always respectful of others. She’s a very loving person as well.

 

[Cat]

Back when I was still evangelical Protestant (through 2004), I heard the term “happy clappy” church applied to the churches that make use of “contemporary” worship.

However, In Protestant usage, the term doesn’t just refer to musical style or use of drama or hand-clapping. Many many very traditional Protestant churches have used rock music, drama, and other innovations in their worship services since the late 1960s.

And hand-clapping has been part of the non-liturgical Protestant churches for many many decades, especially the African American churches. I grew up in a Conference Baptist (Swedish) church, and hand-clapping was common during appropriate songs.

The term “happy clappy” refers to churches that aren’t very “deep” in their teaching.

There is rock music, and then there is “praise and worship” music. Rock music and other contemporary forms are often quite deep and complex, while much (not all) of the P and W music is very shallow and simplistic.

(At least on the surface. A song in which the phrase “Yes, Lord” is repeated dozens of times is not really shallow and simplistic, because as many of you know, saying “yes” to the Lord constantly is how we live our Christian life everyday. Many of the accusations of “shallow and simplistic” music fall apart when a person actually thinks about the words in the supposedly “simplistic” P and W songs.) .

But it is the teaching in the “Happy Clappy” churches that is most criticized. Much of the teaching is a very simplistic “positive” Gospel that is taught week after week after week.

The tough problems of life are never dealt with. No one talks about sin or death or hell or repentance or suffering (except to say that Jesus ends all of our problems and makes us happy). Family issues are covered, but not the tough potentially-polarizing issues like homosexuality or abortion.

And even though the churches claim adherence to sola Scriptura, the Bible is used sparingly at best. Many of the Christians in these churches have never read the Bible much, except for a few passages here and there, helter-skelter, in the New Testament, and a few Psalms. There is usually no attempt to do a systematic walk through the Bible to give people a complete picture of the story of God’s plan of salvation through Christ.

In many of these “happy clappy” churches, there is an equal amount of time spent on praise and worship, and preaching. I’ve seen articles that talk about “twenty minutes of Praise and twenty minutes of Preaching.” This is very innovative and still controversial in many Protestant churches, where the ratio is five to ten minutes of singing (spread out throughout the worship service in several hymns and a choir number), and 40 minutes or more or preaching.

My husband and I used to talk about the “20 minute worship workout,” and at one point, we wondered why they don’t just do an aerobic workout during the tweny minutes of singing (“boomer” rock music–i.e., pop-rock sung by 40 somethings) so that we Christians could make our “temples” stronger while we praise the Lord.

We were fortunate that most of the Protestant preaching that we heard was fairly heavy and sin was talked about along with hell and eternal punishment. But our daughters heard very little actual “Bible” teaching in their youth groups. At one point, my daughter asked the youth pastor if the youth group could please do a Bible study instead of talking about music, movies, and dating every week. He told her that no one would come to Youth Group if they did a Bible study.

I think that the term “happy clappy” as used by Protestants is inappropriate for even the most wild Catholic Masses. As long as Mass is valid and licit, even if it is “irreverent” (in the eyes of the beholder), the Lord becomes Truly Present in the Eucharist, and that miracle can never be simplistic or shallow.

I honestly think that many on this Board who criticize the Mass for irreverence have no clue just how irreverent “church” can be. To many Protestants who have come from true “happy clappy” churches, even a “clownish” mass seems steeped in ritual and ancient liturgy.

I think you need to be careful when using derrogatory terms to describe the gift of the Holy Mass. Just because parishioners smile and greet each other before, during, and after Mass, and just because parishioners clap during one of the hymns does NOT mean that the Mass is “sniff”–happy clappy." The Bible tells us to “love one another,” and to many, that means being friendly and verbally-welcoming in CHURCH. Also, the Bible tells us in many places to “Clap our hands to the Lord.” There is nothing irreverent about hand-clapping.

 

[Cat]

I would like to go back to the OP question.

I have changed my mind about TLM as a result of this Board. I used to be curious. Now I am not the least bit interested in TLM and would avoid it if possible.

However, I will admit that since coming to this Board, I have been more aware of my own attitudes during Mass and I try to be more quiet in my spirit. I don’t worry about the noise all around me, and about what others are doing. I try to retreat to a quiet place within myself and there, seek the Lord.

When I first became Catholic, I wanted to see more Protestant practices during Mass; e.g., people taking their coats off and hanging them up before coming into the sanctuary. Now I just live and let live. They’ve left those coats on for 2000 years. They’re not likely to change just because of little Miss Protestants like me. And that’s OK.

 

[GerardP]

I would like to go back to the OP question.

I have changed my mind about TLM as a result of this Board. I used to be curious. Now I am not the least bit interested in TLM and would avoid it if possible.

That’s a strange thing to write. I’m tempted not to believe it. Why let creatures come between you and your creator?

However, I will admit that since coming to this Board, I have been more aware of my own attitudes during Mass and I try to be more quiet in my spirit. I don’t worry about the noise all around me, and about what others are doing. I try to retreat to a quiet place within myself and there, seek the Lord.

Hmm…You’ll find that at the TLM. Debates on forums aren’t part of the Liturgy.

When I first became Catholic, I wanted to see more Protestant practices during Mass; e.g., people taking their coats off and hanging them up before coming into the sanctuary. Now I just live and let live. They’ve left those coats on for 2000 years.

No. They haven’t. Hanging up coats used to be fairly common depending on whether the heat was working and how the space of the Church was set up.

They’re not likely to change just because of little Miss Protestants like me. And that’s OK.

Why not? They changed so much already to attract Protestants.

Except when Protestants are attracted to the TLM.

 

[latinmasslover]

I would like to go back to the OP question.

I have changed my mind about TLM as a result of this Board. I used to be curious. Now I am not the least bit interested in TLM and would avoid it if possible.

However, I will admit that since coming to this Board, I have been more aware of my own attitudes during Mass and I try to be more quiet in my spirit. I don’t worry about the noise all around me, and about what others are doing. I try to retreat to a quiet place within myself and there, seek the Lord.

So, in other words, you choose to not like the TLM because the traditional Catholics do not like the NO and voice it?
Maybe it’s just me, but this doesn’t make much sense.
Essentially, you’re doing the same thing that the traditional Catholics are being accused of. Some would refer to that as throwing a fit.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

I use the term “happy clappy.” I don’t know where I got it from, but it’s a term I’ve used to describe liturgy with guitars and Gloria’s that have handclapping, and that sort of thing.

I do not care for clapping hands to the Gloria. But, I won’t go so far as to say that it’s wrong. I am not sure what I think of it. I think it makes Mass banal, but that may just be my opinion. There may well be people who go to Mass, clap their hands, and it brings them closer to Jesus.

I am a pretty conservative Catholic. I converted to the Church because I was attracted to the Magisterium, the infallible Pope, Tradition, etc. I came to the Catholic faith from non-denominational/not-even-particulary-Christian via High Church Episcopalian. I like “bells and smells.” For me, that’s what puts me in a prayerful frame of mind. I don’t need Latin to feel that way, though.

When I think about what I don’t like about a particular liturgical style, I try to examine why I have that reaction.

I see some things about the Novus Ordo rite that are, in my opinion, good. I like praying the Gloria and such and following the Mass. I like that the priest is facing me so that I can clearly see what is happening and focus on it. I like hearing what he’s say ing and understanding everything he says. But, I do think that there is just too much room for innovation. Or, maybe people just thought there was room for innovation and starting messing about with it. I think that most people have good intentions when they innovate, but I think that it generally goes wrong.

For example, I really enjoy going to the Vigil Mass at a local parish. It’s all very straight-forward and simple and I feel spiritually refreshed at the end of it. That same parish, however, does things differently at one of the Sunday Morning Masses. Specifically, they have the children go up to the altar to hold hands during the Our Father. I cannot say that this is a Bad Thing, the way I would if the altar servers started doing the chicken dance or something. I can see what they’re trying to do. I just… don’t really care for it. It seems kinda lame and “trying-too-hard” and I’d rather they didn’t. I think what bugs me about it the most, though, is that I just don’t know what I might run across, next. I’ve never seen a clown mass, or even liturgical dancing, but I feel a bit nervous to think that someone could just introduce something and I’d be sitting in the pew, with my jaw on the floor, wondering if I those altar servers are really doing the funky chicken and if I should maybe say something or not.

 

[Aragorn1]

I use the term “happy clappy.” I don’t know where I got it from, but it’s a term I’ve used to describe liturgy with guitars and Gloria’s that have handclapping, and that sort of thing.

Don’t get me wrong: of course the term can be applied justly to those celebrations of the Mass that really are objectively irreverent (e.g. “clown masses”, which actually have happened). But the above happens so extremely rarely as to make throwing the term around loosely to apply to all OF Masses ridiculous. My objection was not to the use of the term in principle, but rather to the generalizing of all “Novus Ordo parishes” as “happy clappy”: a generalization that is often seen in traditionalist publications and on forums such as this.

That’s a strange thing to write. I’m tempted not to believe it. Why let creatures come between you and your creator?

No one is letting creatures come between him and his Creator. It seems to me that you’ve confused the Mass itself with a specific rite of the Mass. If someone came on these forums and then decided not to go to Mass at all, then your objection would apply. No one is compelled to attend a specific rite (or form of a specific rite) of the Mass, nor is the decision not to attend the EF a sign that one has let creatures come between one and one’s Creator. We have two forms of the Roman rite, and both are allowed, thanks to Summorum Pontificum. (There are also several non-Roman rites to choose from.) If Cat for some reason prefers the OF and/or doesn’t appreciate the EF as much as you do, then who are you to say he should do otherwise? Do you truly believe that one can only enter into intimate communion with one’s Creator in the EF? The arrogance and self-righteousness on these boards is astounding.

 

[Cat]

After spending time on these forums, talking to older Catholics, and doing some reading about TLM, I just don’t find it very appealing. I like to understand what is going on.

And I happen to love the music of the St. Louis Jesuits, Marty Haugen, and all the rest. Not just like it, but truly love it. I really don’t like the tone that many people on this forum have towards these composers and their music.

Holy Mother Church has established the NO as the Ordinary Rite, and that’s good enough for me!

 

[Brother_John]

I would like to go back to the OP question.

I have changed my mind about TLM as a result of this Board. I used to be curious. Now I am not the least bit interested in TLM and would avoid it if possible.

Unfortunately, I feel the same way. I don’t believe for a minute that it is actual Church teaching that one form of Mass ranks over the other in the Body of Christ.

 

[ac_claire]

To Cat and Brother John,

Reading your last few posts, I just wanted to suggest that you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater re: the TLM. The dignity and worth of the form existed and still exists outside of any poisonous nonsense that we see on some of these threads.

Between the two forms, I prefer the OF…But I’m just as eager as ever to learn more and to attend the TLM at my parish on a more regular basis…I’m trying hard to separate the TLM itself from some of the negative representation it has.

 

[GerardP]

Between the two forms, I prefer the OF…But I’m just as eager as ever to learn more and to attend the TLM at my parish on a more regular basis…I’m trying hard to separate the TLM itself from some of the negative representation it has.

I was trying to think about how your statement applies from my perspective.

I don’t just prefer the TLM, I can’t tolerate the Novus Ordo.

When I drive past the local Churches and see the hootenany going on and the abominable mode of dress, when I see the lack of reverence towards Our Lord, the hubris of the people in front of God, the priests that “phone it in” or worse, the modernists making a mockery of Calvary, when I get past all of that, there is still the huge comparative lack of substance in the Novus Ordo.

The best Novus Ordo in Latin, facing the tabernacle, done with reverence is still a weak vehicle for devotion due to the content of the prayers and the less reverent rubrics. I don’t know how a priest can say both rites and treat Our Lord so carefully in one and so much less reverently in the other. "Today Lord, You are going to get far fewer genuflections from me, you are going to get weaker prayers, less gestures of devotion, my gaze will be at liberty, my voice will be loud, the translation may be wrong,so I will say you said things you never really said, but that’s the luck of the draw. I’m just following the rules and because of that, you’ll get less today. " Of course, no priest is thinking this, but that is de facto what is happening.

I have 34 years of ever deteriorating Novus Ordo masses clanging around in my head, I still have it memorized and I could never go back to it after finding out what our patrimony really is.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

My mind has not changed. I’ve always believed that the ancient and venerable EF, worthy of our respect and reverence, is terribly ill-served by a great many of its adherents and I still believe it.

 

[Aragorn1]

When I drive past the local Churches and see the hootenany going on and the abominable mode of dress, when I see the lack of reverence towards Our Lord, the hubris of the people in front of God, the priests that “phone it in” or worse, the modernists making a mockery of Calvary…]

Thank you, GerardP, for proving my point better than I ever could have done myself.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Priests who ‘phone it in’?

 

[Aragorn1]

there is still the huge comparative lack of substance in the Novus Ordo.

Do you even realize what you just said? “Lack of substance”? The substance of the Mass, whether celebrated according to the OF or EF, is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of Calvary re-presented in an unbloody manner under the appearance of bread and wine. The specific externals of the OF liturgy are what you object to… unless, of course, you really mean to say that the OF Consecration is invalid. Do you deny it is valid? If so, then God help you. If not, then you must forgive my lecturing you on your poorly worded opinion. Don’t traditionalists pride themselves on presumably understanding the theology of the sacraments and liturgy better (again, presumably) than do those they label “neo-Catholics”? What you have just said is, objectively speaking (i.e., without taking into account what you meant to say), tantamount to blasphemy. Do try to express yourself more clearly and accurately next time.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

To Aragorn 1 - Thank you
Deacon Ed B

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Do you even realize what you just said? “Lack of substance”? The substance of the Mass, whether celebrated according to the OF or EF, is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of Calvary re-presented in an unbloody manner under the appearance of bread and wine. The specific externals of the OF liturgy are what you object to… unless, of course, you really mean to say that the OF Consecration is invalid. Do you deny it is valid? If so, then God help you. If not, then you must forgive my lecturing you on your poorly worded opinion. Don’t traditionalists pride themselves on presumably understanding the theology of the sacraments and liturgy better (again, presumably) than do those they label “neo-Catholics”? What you have just said is, objectively speaking (i.e., without taking into account what you meant to say), tantamount to blasphemy. Do try to express yourself more clearly and accurately next time.

:clapping: :clapping:

 

[GerardP]

Do you even realize what you just said? “Lack of substance”? The substance of the Mass, whether celebrated according to the OF or EF, is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of Calvary re-presented in an unbloody manner under the appearance of bread and wine.

Allow me to clarify. Liturgical substance is what I was referring to, not always sacramental substance.

The specific externals of the OF liturgy are what you object to… unless, of course, you really mean to say that the OF Consecration is invalid.

Can you define what an external of a liturgy is and an internal for that matter?

Many Novus Ordo services are invalid due to defect of matter, form or intention. Ironically, one of the first places I ever heard this was while watching Fr. Corapi on EWTN.

Do you deny it is valid? If so, then God help you.

I believe the Latin Novus Ordo consecration is valid. I’m less certain about the English vernacular, I presume it is, but I won’t take communion at a Novus Ordo due to doubts depending on what I think the priests intention is as conveyed by his words and actions. So, when I watch the Pope give a mass in Latin, I believe with certitude it is a valid mass.

If not, then you must forgive my lecturing you on your poorly worded opinion.

You’re a bit strident but asking for a clarification is always good.
You could ask for it before bringing the hammers down.

Don’t traditionalists pride themselves on presumably understanding the theology of the sacraments and liturgy better (again, presumably) than do those they label “neo-Catholics”?

I don’t know and I would hope it’s not a matter of pride.

What you have just said is, objectively speaking (i.e., without taking into account what you meant to say), tantamount to blasphemy. Do try to express yourself more clearly and accurately next time.

It wasn’t blasphemy, it’s obvious that you are thinking of sacramental substance and I was thinking of liturgical substance. We should be straight now.