How Many Here Can Say With All Honesty They Are Split Between Catholic Traditinalist Mass & Novus Ordo

  • Thread starter Thread starter centurionguard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EasterJoy said:
God is not in one direction, but not another. Our attention and imagination, though, those are another matter. Consider the following:

If a priest were to say Mass with kind of a go-through-the-motions attitude, I think it would definitely be better if his face and hands were out of sight most of the time, and that he be speaking in a language which is only used for prayer. I’m not saying that the TLM attracts any priests like that. I am saying that, if they are out there, they would at least be far less obvious. (There had to be priests who at least had days like that before Vatican II, too.) Anyone who hoped he would be more attentive would not be so distracted by the facts of his actions, or the inflections of his voice.

Likewise, I think it is more difficult to be unswervingly reverent when facing the congregation and speaking in their native tongue. Carelessness is so much more obvious, every unguarded moment is likewise obvious, and carelessness is catching.

Reverence, however, is catching, too. If a priest says Mass facing you, and he is very reverent and attentive, if he does the work to infuse every word with prayerfulness, in every moment, as the Holy Father is, it seems more catching to me. This is just my sense of it. When in person, you know that he can better sense whether you’re paying attention, that bad behavior would be a distraction. If you are very attentive, he can also sense that better. Besides, you cannot even imagine that he isn’t paying particular attention. You can see otherwise, in detail. So there is that cooperativity, both to good and ill, IMHO. The OF puts more on both priest and layperson, then, I think.

My opinion doesn’t matter, though. That was just a thought, thrown out, and maybe it only seems that way to me. If someone finds one particular Mass available that inspires particular reverence, they should go with that. One shouldn’t imagine that even if the EF or the OF could be objectively proven to be more reverent that it would necessarily be so for every priest or every congregation. (And the distraction of other people who aren’t particularly paying attention is an issue with either Mass.)

The tempter prowls like a lion, looking for someone to devour. Go, not to the Mass that you like best, but to the Mass that keeps you most fully in a spirit of attentive reverence and that does the most to make you one in Christ with the rest of the Church. It is the effect a Mass has on you (and the Church as a whole) that counts. Even if it isn’t the one you like best, it is the best one for you. We each have to honestly discern that.

If you have the choice between two or more places and times to attend Mass that fulfill that necessity equally well, EF or OF, you are blessed indeed! Give thanks, and don’t look a gift horse in the mouth!
Click to expand...
Of course God is not confined to one direction over another. There is significant Catholic theology behind the practice of the priest facing “east” as opposed to facing the people. If the practice of facing the people is going to be retained then I believe the altars need to be set up in the “Benedictine” fashion with a large crucifix in the middle and six candles, three on each side. If the altar was too small, I’m sure four or even only two would be fine. This would still give the impression that the prayers and sacrifice are offered to the Father through Jesus Christ and would represent it more clearly than the priest directly facing the congregation, which always reminds me of a protestant service.
 
I’m split because I like the traditional latin mass, but I would prefer it to be in english. I can’t understand what’s going on when they say it in Latin. If they held it in english I would prefer it.

They even say the readings and gospel in latin at my local Latin parish!
 
Neil_Anthony said:
I’m split because I like the traditional latin mass, but I would prefer it to be in english. I can’t understand what’s going on when they say it in Latin. If they held it in english I would prefer it.

They even say the readings and gospel in latin at my local Latin parish!
Click to expand...
I think it would be great if the Ordinary of the Mass remained in latin with the propers in the vernacular. I could be wrong, but I think this is what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council had in mind in the first place.

I absolutely love the traditional Rituale Romanum with all the beautiful blessings and prayers and I wish that the priest could use a vernacular translation when using it. To actually hear and understand some of the blessings, especially the exorcisms, would be wonderful!
 
Timothysis said:
While I attend the Pauline Mass exclusively, I have nothing at all against the latin Mass and think that it should be preserved and continued because it is part of the Church’s Tradition. I have never advocated one form over the other, nor have I called for the elimination of one form or the other. Honestly, I don’t understand why it has to be an “either/or” situation.
Click to expand...
I agree, but for me at least it’s become an “either/or” just recently for practical reasons. My DH and I are part of a wonderfully active parish and are happy to attend the OF there, but we visit a nearby parish once every month or two for their EF because we love the traditional liturgy. It would be lovely to have all the things we like in the same parish, but oh well, right?

Well, we recently received a new pastor, and the first homily we heard from him sounded pretty post-modernist to our ears at least. I feel terrible critiquing clergy, and I’m more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until I’m more familiar with his teachings, but if we were perceiving things correctly, this doesn’t bode well.

My conscience is troubled. Should we attend a mass where we might continually be distracted by homilies that are philosophically indifferent to the truth of our faith, or go to where we know everything is doctrinally sound? Between the two of us, we’ve been blessed to have received solid catechesis, training in Bible study, and familiarity with Thomistic philosophy. Should we stick it out with our current community and hope to continue to be of some benefit to our peers, or go where we’re not really needed to be a little bit more well fed and comfortable? Are these questions too ridiculously prideful to even consider? There seem to be no easy answers.

We will be relocating for work in a few months anyway, but I know this will come up again wherever we move to. I think once our first child is born, we will take into consideration whichever environment will be the most beneficial to his or her faith formation.
 
RyanML said:
Of course God is not confined to one direction over another. There is significant Catholic theology behind the practice of the priest facing “east” as opposed to facing the people. If the practice of facing the people is going to be retained then I believe the altars need to be set up in the “Benedictine” fashion with a large crucifix in the middle and six candles, three on each side. If the altar was too small, I’m sure four or even only two would be fine. This would still give the impression that the prayers and sacrifice are offered to the Father through Jesus Christ and would represent it more clearly than the priest directly facing the congregation, which always reminds me of a protestant service.
Click to expand...
I am only saying that there are also practical ramifications when every little movement and facial expression of the priest is or is not visible to the people. Likewise, when the language used is exclusively a liturgical/Church language. Even if you understand every word, there is a difference between a prayer-exclusive language and the language in which you think and dream.
 
I like both forms of the mass and both are easily accessible to me. 😃
 
estesbob said:
I could not care less which I attend-both have their strengths, both have teir weaknesses. we are there to worship the lord-not a mass
Click to expand...
Now that’s a contradiction. The Mass belongs to the Lord.
But true both have their weaknesses considering the primitive human element.
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
 
EasterJoy said:
God is not in one direction, but not another. Our attention and imagination, though, those are another matter. Consider the following:

If a priest were to say Mass with kind of a go-through-the-motions attitude, I think it would definitely be better if his face and hands were out of sight most of the time, and that he be speaking in a language which is only used for prayer. I’m not saying that the TLM attracts any priests like that. I am saying that, if they are out there, they would at least be far less obvious. (There had to be priests who at least had days like that before Vatican II, too.) Anyone who hoped he would be more attentive would not be so distracted by the facts of his actions, or the inflections of his voice.

Likewise, I think it is more difficult to be unswervingly reverent when facing the congregation and speaking in their native tongue. Carelessness is so much more obvious, every unguarded moment is likewise obvious, and carelessness is catching.

Reverence, however, is catching, too. If a priest says Mass facing you, and he is very reverent and attentive, if he does the work to infuse every word with prayerfulness, in every moment, as the Holy Father is, it seems more catching to me. This is just my sense of it. When in person, you know that he can better sense whether you’re paying attention, that bad behavior would be a distraction. If you are very attentive, he can also sense that better. Besides, you cannot even imagine that he isn’t paying particular attention. You can see otherwise, in detail. So there is that cooperativity, both to good and ill, IMHO. The OF puts more on both priest and layperson, then, I think.

My opinion doesn’t matter, though. That was just a thought, thrown out, and maybe it only seems that way to me. If someone finds one particular Mass available that inspires particular reverence, they should go with that. One shouldn’t imagine that even if the EF or the OF could be objectively proven to be more reverent that it would necessarily be so for every priest or every congregation. (And the distraction of other people who aren’t particularly paying attention is an issue with either Mass.)

The tempter prowls like a lion, looking for someone to devour. Go, not to the Mass that you like best, but to the Mass that keeps you most fully in a spirit of attentive reverence and that does the most to make you one in Christ with the rest of the Church. It is the effect a Mass has on you (and the Church as a whole) that counts. Even if it isn’t the one you like best, it is the best one for you. We each have to honestly discern that.

If you have the choice between two or more places and times to attend Mass that fulfill that necessity equally well, EF or OF, you are blessed indeed! Give thanks, and don’t look a gift horse in the mouth!
Click to expand...
The tempter prowls like a lion, looking for someone to devour. Go, not to the Mass that you like best, but to the Mass that keeps you most fully in a spirit of attentive reverence and that does the most to make you one in Christ with the rest of the Church. It is the effect a Mass has on you (and the Church as a whole) that counts. Even if it isn’t the one you like best, it is the best one for you. We each have to honestly discern that.
Click to expand...
Thank you for making this excellent point.
I can’t add to this at all.
 
bkovacs said:
By looking at these pictures of Novus Ordo parishes. I’d say yes.
Images from The Crescat website a favorite website of Fr Zuhlsdorf (aka FrZ).

thecrescat.blogspot.com/2009/07/submissions.html
Click to expand...
the crescar blog site reminds me after having read the book Micheal S Rose’s (“Ugly As Sin”)
Seriously bad rotten to the core Catholic architecture. Have you ever gone to Fatima and seen the most horrifying ugly multi million dollar building put up in honor of the Blessed Virgin ? It resembles more like a evil Masonic Hall. Who was the Archbishop or Cardinal in charge of building that irreverent disgusting fiasco ? Not all Novus Ordo Churches have that architecture but regrettably I’ve walked into my fair share of new age Catholic Churches that are resemblance of less beauty and reverence than some Protestant churches.
 
I think it’s more about minimalism and stylisation. I noticed it as a child when the figures in my Bible had no faces; they were just simple line drawings. I remember it annoyed me. Not very inspiring, either.

One common theme I’ve noticed in Churches is a statue of the crucified Jesus hanging from an ‘invisible’ (missing) cross; a cheap visual trick. Also jagged, angular lines and pseudo-primitive sculpture.

I think the Orthodox have strict rules about icons; the Catholic Church might think about adopting a similar line.
 
I find it despicable that supposed Catholics are using these photos as a means of ridiculing and denigrating Novus Ordo churches and their faithful.

And there in lies the problem. The same holier than thou arrogance that allows people to judge others as “evil” based on the statues and art they choose to display in their church is what contaminates every thing they do in life.

Arrogance, pride, haughtiness and judgment… yes these are the values that Jesus taught. Or at least you would think so if you listened to a handful of people that seemingly spend there days on the “Traditional Catholicism” section of this forum judging other Catholics.

Kudos.
 
Fensterblau said:
I find it despicable that supposed Catholics are using these photos as a means of ridiculing and denigrating Novus Ordo churches and their faithful.

And there in lies the problem. The same holier than thou arrogance that allows people to judge others as “evil” based on the statues and art they choose to display in their church is what contaminates every thing they do in life.

Arrogance, pride, haughtiness and judgment… yes these are the values that Jesus taught. Or at least you would think so if you listened to a handful of people that seemingly spend there days on the “Traditional Catholicism” section of this forum judging other Catholics.

Kudos.
Click to expand...
Then shoot off an e-mail to the Crescat website and tell them your disapproval and that their not Catholic.
thecrescat.blogspot.com/
 
Ugly art has no place in a Catholic church. The statues, icons, altar and layout should inspire the faithful and give them a foretaste of Heaven.

The Orthodox use traditional styles and rules for their icons. It stops impious or egotistical elements getting in. Symbols have power. They provoke responses.

I wonder if those clergy or lay-people responsible for modernist churches actually prayed or meditated for long periods about what they should put in their church; a once-in-a-lifetime occasion?
 
Fensterblau said:
Arrogance, pride, haughtiness and judgment… yes these are the values that Jesus taught. Or at least you would think so if you listened to a handful of people that seemingly spend there days on the “Traditional Catholicism” section of this forum judging other Catholics.

Kudos.
Click to expand...
You’ve been here two days and you’ve worked out all that? Ugly art should not be put in a Catholic church. The smart move is to use tried-and-tested traditional art and leave experimentation to the art galleries.
 
I’ve been goign to Novus Ordo masses for about 20 years now, and it’s gotten to the point where the second option after traditional Latin Mass is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (in a Catholic setting). It wasn’t one signular factor, it’s been more of an accumulative effect, and frankly I’ve had my fill. I don’t have a problem with Mass in English and frankly, the SSPX people scare me. But I also prefer a traditional liturgy.
 
This thread has veered way off-topic, but I have to make a comment anyway:
Fensterblau said:
I find it despicable that supposed Catholics are using these photos as a means of ridiculing and denigrating Novus Ordo churches and their faithful.

And there in lies the problem. The same holier than thou arrogance that allows people to judge others as “evil” based on the statues and art they choose to display in their church is what contaminates every thing they do in life.
Click to expand...
Such thoughts bring to mind so-called art critics who are so hot-to-trot with “meaningful” (my but that word still brings a bad taste of the 60s) that they totally ignore the fact that art is a matter of taste.

This cradle Oriental finds most of the photos in the earlier link to be little more than a bad joke. Some of them are so hideous as to be funny. (The porthole “tabernacle” comes to mind here.) But that’s my taste. Others are free to think they’re better than the Mona Lisa (though I doubt there’d be much support for that position in this particular forum).

We are dealing with “religious art” which has its own unique sensibilities. Let’s take the elephant-manure fiasco of some 10 years ago as an extreme example: some critic thought it was “cutting edge” (or some such idiotic comment). Meanwhile, millions of honest, hardworking folk were disgusted by it. Remember, that was in a museum-gallery setting. What if that monstrosity were displayed in a church? Perhaps others might be more amenable, but to me, it’s (literally) sewage no matter where it might be displayed.

What is pleasing to the eye can be said to be pleasing to the spirit, and believe me, the images on that link don’t do either for me. I’ll add here that the same problem exists in the East and Orient, too, albeit (thankfully) to a far lesser degree.
 
Actually, what’s odd/interesting is the number of times people cast apersions on traditionalists who post in the traditional Catholicism sub-forum; not limiting themselves to refuting their arguments, mind, but commenting on their characters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top