Has anyone changed there mind here?

[elt1956]

No, but that is the point. You are named after ‘latin mass’. It is a thing of the past, which does not communicate to the average Catholic of today. That is why the Church changed it, and offered us the same Sacrifice in our own language, so we know what the readings are, what are the prayers, and collects, and the various psalms read for the Introit, and Gradual, Offertory and Communion prayer. More importantly, the beautiful Canon is there for us to understand, to communicate, to pray, to participate. “Participate” - that is what the word was to the average Catholic back in the 60’s. The Mass of Participation.

Too long did the Catholic faithful have to be directed by 8 year old altar boys what to do, when to stand, when to kneel or sit, when to strike our breasts, when to adore, when to receive the Eucharist. We have sacrificed so much for the intelligible. We saw our Mass in history destroyed by the Reformers because it was in the language of priests, latin - not the language of angels. Nor the language of the people.

So, you won’t change my mind here. Convince, however, the hundreds of elderly priests, whom you would think, with the option available, that they would want to say the Mass in latin even for sentimental reasons. But no. They aren’t lining up to volunteer to say the Latin Mass, even when it is optional for themselves.

Convince them, then you’ve convinced me. If they do not see its value, how can I?

Awwwwwwww Dyspepsic. Nothing is in the past as long as we have memories. Nothing against the NO as I have lived with it since the 60s, but have you ever gone to a Latin Mass? I was raised with it, being a child of the 40s and 50s and it is quite beautiful. I know I am “old” and sentimental about the Latin Mass, but I truly do not remember being directed by 8 year olds as to when to stand, kneel, etc. They were at least 10. Just kidding. All kidding aside, it was/is a part of my life and nothing can take that away. I truly wish every Catholic would give both forms of the Mass a chance. I just don’t understand the bru ha ha about it having to be one form or another or one is not “truly” worshiping God in the proper way.The core of the Mass, the Consecration and Communion happen in both forms. Isn’t this the Mass??

I understand the culture shock of those Catholics attending a Latin Mass for the first few times. It would indeed be strange. Strange, but eventually appreciated. I suppose the NO wasn’t such a shock to me as it was in English so I adjusted to it, but it was also strange at first. Peace.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

There seems to be much question over the penitential rite during the mass. First, remember, it does not remove mortal sin. This requires sacramental confession. Secondly, the penitential rite removes venial sin, however it is said. And if one commits venial sin during the mass and receives Communion, that too is OK as Communion removes venial sin as well.
Deacon Ed B

 

[elt1956]

Or you were just that bit more wicked that venial sins were not a problem.

Yes, four years of an all girls Catholic High School education and I am sure you have heard about how “those” girls behaved. Just ask the guys that went to the all boys high school. We had fun, fun, fun. Peace

 

[Brother_John]

Until coming to CAF, I thought Latin was long since gone in my rearview mirror. In the four parishes I am associated with, I have yet to hear of anyone asking for a return of Latin.

In fact, since coming to CAF, I have ASKED numerous people, young and old alike, their thoughts…and have yet to find anyone that sees Latin as anything more than a novelty.

Since coming to CAF, I have come to view Latin and Communion on the tongue as symbolic of a “Sister Bertha Better-n-You” crowd that I didn’t even know existed within the church. My time at CAF has turned Latin from an interesting novelty, to something I would definetely avoid.

My pastor has even hinted that I perhaps spend too much time at CAF, to the detriment of my faith.

 

[elt1956]

Until coming to CAF, I thought Latin was long since gone in my rearview mirror. In the four parishes I am associated with, I have yet to hear of anyone asking for a return of Latin.

In fact, since coming to CAF, I have ASKED numerous people, young and old alike, their thoughts…and have yet to find anyone that sees Latin as anything more than a novelty.

Since coming to CAF, I have come to view Latin and Communion on the tongue as symbolic of a “Sister Bertha Better-n-You” crowd that I didn’t even know existed within the church. My time at CAF has turned Latin from an interesting novelty, to something I would definetely avoid.

My pastor has even hinted that I perhaps spend too much time at CAF, to the detriment of my faith.

Well let me tell ya Brother, as I was growing up, Latin Mass certainly wasn’t a novelty, it was a daily occurance. Yep, every school day, and Sundays, and during the summers I would “volunteer” to sing at Mass, including Requiem Masses. We had Missles with English on one side and Latin on the other. But I still remember “some” latin and its translation by heart. Because the Latin Mass was such an essential part of my childhood, I am saddened to hear it disparaged by those who have never experienced it. The awesome beauty of a Latin High Mass is breathtaking. I am also frustrated by those who think attending the Latin Mass is the “only” way to get to heaven. I understand your attitude toward the "Sister Bertha better-than-you group. I forgot about the host on the tongue thing. It is irritating to me to see how attitudes and mind sets get in the way of Christ-like behavior. I have attended several varieties of the NO Mass since the 60s. In particular, I love the guitar masses. Everyone expresses their love of God in various ways. I would sincerely hope that both forms of the Mass will one day be appreciated by every Catholic. Peace.

 

[pnewton]

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

Back to the original post, I am curious if anyone else had an answer. While my answer is “no”, I admit to having learned a few things, softening my opinion in some areas and even reversing my opinion in at least one area. Not that my opinion has any bearing of what the Church will decied, I think it is good to know that some here do try to keep an open mind.

BTW, the thing I nave changed my mind about is the orientation of the priest, facing east. That was largely because of a suggest that I read Spirit of the Liturgy a while back.

 

[stmaria]

Question, Question!! Are you saying that by attending a Traditional Mass, no confession, venial sins can be forgiven if one is contrite? Wow, have things changed since I was a kid, or I just never heard of it. Thanks. Peace.

No, just the opposite. This particular prayer that absolves venieal sins, if one is contrite, is in the Traditional Mass but has been changed in the New Mass

 

[ProVobis]

Sins are not borderline. Either they are, or they are not, serious

All sins are serious. You still need to be most worthy to receive.

You steal $10 from the collection plate. What, you think that by receiving communion, you are forgiven?

 

[Cat]

“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” (NO Mass)

Of course we’re not “worthy” to receive. We are worthy only to die in our wretched sinfulness.

Jesus makes us worthy to receive Him.

 

[stmaria]

=AJV;3430377]He does not have to make the sign of the cross, nor does he have to use the word “absolve”. “Forgive” is sufficient. It is, anyway, practically synonymous with “absolve” though a fine distinction could be drawn. The sacramental is the prayer. The cross is a further sacramental

.

Since 'forgive" is sufficient does this apply to the Espiscopal Church? They also have what they call the " Penitential Rite" in their liturgy which reads. “Bless the Lord who forgiveth all our sins. His mercy endures for ever”

Penitential Rite II [they also have options} goes even further.
The priest says, “Almighty God have mercy on you, **forgive you all your sins through our Lord Jesus Christ, strenghen you in all goodness, and by the power of the Holy Spirit keep you in eternal Life. Amen”

 

[ProVobis]

“Jesus makes us worthy to receive Him.”

If we play by His rules.

 

[stmaria]

Anyone out there want to try and explain why the Catechism does not use the same words of Consecration that are in the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Why is “for many” used and not “for all”? Why does the Catechism properly translate “pro mutlis”?

1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is “given up for us,” and the blood we drink “shed for the** many **for the forgiveness of sins.” For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

What I have been taught, and this goes back prior to Vatican II, is that the actual words of consecration were and are***, This is my Body ***(now in English or Latin) and ***This is the Cup of my Blood *** (Now in English or Latin.) With this in mind, it has never entered into mind to debate what is said after these words by the priest at mass, that would effect its validity. That said, that believed, what is the problem.?
Deacon Ed B

 

[MrS]

Until coming to CAF, I thought Latin was long since gone in my rearview mirror. In the four parishes I am associated with, I have yet to hear of anyone asking for a return of Latin.

In fact, since coming to CAF, I have ASKED numerous people, young and old alike, their thoughts…and have yet to find anyone that sees Latin as anything more than a novelty.

Since coming to CAF, I have come to view Latin and Communion on the tongue as symbolic of a “Sister Bertha Better-n-You” crowd that I didn’t even know existed within the church. My time at CAF has turned Latin from an interesting novelty, to something I would definetely avoid.

My pastor has even hinted that I perhaps spend too much time at CAF, to the detriment of my faith.

Is the summary of your thoughts perhaps this:
[1] You might have a pastor who “fears” the many traditional things which “traditionalists” long for. Those things would be a “detriment” to his faith(beliefs). Hence the hint to avoid them. (or perhaps he has not been told the whole story)

[2] You need the support of like minds to see your way clear to posting as you do. And your best support comes from EM who helps provide much strength with great references and reason to leave the past in the past.

I call your pastor and raise you two pastors… mine and any one of a dozen in the area who love the EF, and also love the NO - when it is celebrated correctly.

Hence, the bottom line…
is the disagreement over the virtues of EITHER the EF or the OF

or

is the disagreement over the virtues of the NO as intended by VATII and the many NOs with inovations that surround us these past 40 years.

.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Call me blind, stupid or nearsighted. When I go to mass, I concentrate on what it is, who comes down at the consecration and who I receive. What I see is argument over things that do not effect the validity of the mass. If something is extremely wrong, in actions or things said, I would report it to the Bishop/Archbishop. He and only he is the one who is in charge of his diocese/archdiocese. After that my job is to worship.
Deacon Ed B

 

[stmaria]

What I have been taught, and this goes back prior to Vatican II, is that the actual words of consecration were and are***, This is my Body ***(now in English or Latin) and ***This is the Cup of my Blood *** (Now in English or Latin.) With this in mind, it has never entered into mind to debate what is said after these words by the priest at mass, that would effect its validity. That said, that believed, what is the problem.?
Deacon Ed B

I am not questioning the validity. As you well know there has been great debate on the proper translation of “pro multis"going all the way back to 1969. At the Last Supper Jeusus used the words ‘for many’ not 'for all”.
I just find it odd that the Catechism would use the proper translation while at Mass the wrong translation is still used.
For the traditionalist proper translation is very important because those are the actual words of Christ.
Catechsim of Trent
“The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.
With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.
Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries, which by frequent meditation and study of sacred things, pastors will find it easy, with the divine assistance, to discover for themselves.”

 

[Aragorn1]

Anyone out there want to try and explain why the Catechism does not use the same words of Consecration that are in the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Why is “for many” used and not “for all”? Why does the Catechism properly translate “pro mutlis”?

1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is “given up for us,” and the blood we drink “shed for the** many **for the forgiveness of sins.” For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:

Hasn’t this already been corrected? (I haven’t been to an OF Mass in a while).

 

[Aragorn1]

I have been doing so much weeping over this **** thread that I am about to short out my keyboard. And this is my fourth or so draft of this post. The last few would not only have gotten me banned, but possibly in a state of mortal sin as well (if my anger hasn’t put me there already).

I am sick to death. Sick, sick, sick.

I am sick and tired of all the Catholic-bashing, going from other Catholics.

You don’t think we have enough attacks from the outside, without the baiting, insults and contempt within? I’m so bloody SICK of the supercilious, smug CONDESCENSION.

I go to a Novus Ordo/Ordinary Form/Vatican II whateveryoucallit Church. I have seen nothing but reverence from the parishioners that go, nor have I seen any irregularities or abuses that I can name; everything I see and do is in my Missal, and everything I sing is there or in my Catholic Book of Worship, approved by the CCCB.

So there you go. Judge me. I know you want to. Obviously I’m some sick liberal whose hell-bent (literally) to try and call Jesus on His “gates of hell” promise, right?

I was born after Vatican II and I was raised in the VII era. I never went to a Latin Mass because there weren’t any where I was.

My Mass is not wrong. My Mass is not invalid. My Mass is not deficient, defective, inferior, or whatever. Because Jesus is there. I can feel Him, I *know *He’s there.

There may be abuses or irregularities. That needs to be policed in the strongest, quickest, strictest possible way.

But if the Mass is being done correctly, then it is valid – and Jesus is there. And I know He is there, because I have seen Him.

So STOP ALREADY WITH THE INSULTS!!! You got your choice of names between Pre-Vatican II vs Post-Vatican II, TLM vs NO, EF vs OF…there’s no need to be with the “happy clappy” and the “clown mass” and the “kumbaya”. And when you insult the Ordinary Form in general, rather than just abuses which may occur, AFAIAC you are applying the same to the Lord who has deigned to make an appearance there: you are being, on this forum at least, at best patronizing, at worst outright contemptuous.

Perhaps you think that Mass is invalis…will you by your words trod on the Blessed Sacrament as has been ascribed to Photios’ chaplain? Is my Mass “the Eucharist of the Franks”?

I have (had) been thinking about going to a Latin Mass, but not because of these fora. As a matter of fact, the condescension on these fora is enough to make me not only not go to a TLM, but make a dive for the border to the Ukrainian parish down on Broadview. Or if the poisonous atmosphere on these fora is indicative of Catholicism in general, well, maybe I should abandon these poisonous fruits altogether.

I know Jesus Christ promised He would be with us till the end of time, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail….so I know that the Church will survive all this “smells and bells” vs “happy clappy” ****.

I just pray to God that I can.

I agree with most of what you say, but man do you need to calm down. You’re giving all the rest of us “non-traditionalists” a bad name!

 

[latinmasslover]

No, but that is the point. You are named after ‘latin mass’. It is a thing of the past, which does not communicate to the average Catholic of today. That is why the Church changed it, and offered us the same Sacrifice in our own language, so we know what the readings are, what are the prayers, and collects, and the various psalms read for the Introit, and Gradual, Offertory and Communion prayer. More importantly, the beautiful Canon is there for us to understand, to communicate, to pray, to participate. “Participate” - that is what the word was to the average Catholic back in the 60’s. The Mass of Participation.

Too long did the Catholic faithful have to be directed by 8 year old altar boys what to do, when to stand, when to kneel or sit, when to strike our breasts, when to adore, when to receive the Eucharist. We have sacrificed so much for the intelligible. We saw our Mass in history destroyed by the Reformers because it was in the language of priests, latin - not the language of angels. Nor the language of the people.

So, you won’t change my mind here. Convince, however, the hundreds of elderly priests, whom you would think, with the option available, that they would want to say the Mass in latin even for sentimental reasons. But no. They aren’t lining up to volunteer to say the Latin Mass, even when it is optional for themselves.

Convince them, then you’ve convinced me. If they do not see its value, how can I?

Ah, so the majority decides what is right. Better inform the priests for life.

 

[ProVobis]

With this in mind, it has never entered into mind to debate what is said after these words by the priest at mass, that would effect its validity. That said, that believed, what is the problem.?
Deacon Ed B

You don’t see a problem? Well, how would you like it if you willed your belongings to go to certain people but the state decided that you really meant for all to have it?

I think it’s an insult to Christ to change the fact that he “came not for the world.” Yet all you think about is validity? That’s pretty shallow if you ask me.