I once asked about upraised hands during the "Our Father"

[Hound_Dog]

I occasionally get upset at attitudes and practices I see around me, at Mass and otherwise. Over the years I have discovered it is spiritually profitable to stop…and discern what it is that I am upset about, why I am upset, and whether I should be upset. And then to discern whether the issue is outside my scope of authority and concern, and whether it is profitable for anyone to pursue the issue. If not, then why am I upset? The answer usually is, willfull pride on my part. It seems to me that praying with hands raised, is not something to get upset about, even though you may see it as false piety or self aggrandizement.

The upraised hands is not ONLY during the OUR FATHER now. Whenever the response “and with your spirit” is said more and more are doing it.

I am 58 and I wonder if I will live long enough to see people speaking in tongues during mass.

 

[santoaugustine]

The Traditional Latin Mass provides that unity–that universality that we all desperately need.

Good idea Lorrie. Since you cannot keep your peace in a mass where people hold hands, you indeed should leave and join another mass where people share your sentiment.
I myself like holding hands with others.** It gives a tangible feeling of a unity that we desperately need**… what is interesting is that sharing Holy Communion is a much more intimate act with the Body of Christ - each other - than holding the hand of your neighbour during a prayer.

 

[thewanderer]

The Traditional Latin Mass provides that unity–that universality that we all desperately need.

This is not true for everyone

 

[santoaugustine]

Did you read my post thoroughly? I said that the modern Stations of the Cross as we know them today are an organic development of the medieval pilgrims who wished to re-create the Via Dolorosa for all those who could not afford to travel and follow the Via Dolorosa themselves and later when the Turks closed off the city and nobody could make the pilgrimage–throughout time, the re-creations, with great influence by the Franciscans, developed into what we now have today in our Catholic Churches. What part of what I said contradicts the history of how the stations came about?

Yes–I am a Gregorian Chant kind of man–I don’t like polyphony and I do not care for a piano over an organ. I also don’t have a lot of patience for Catholics who believe that Church History and Tradition can only be traced back to Vatican II.

Not the Via Dolorosa, but the devotional expression of it erected in churches, aka The Stations of the Cross. They have not always been inside Catholic Churches, though now it is difficult to find one without them. Again, the Via Dolorosa marks a specific geographic place while the Stations mark a devotional practice usually erected within a Church’s nave.

While your history I generally agree with, you still need to read a bit more deeply into it and you’ll understand that the Stations have not been common in all Catholic Churches until just a few centuries ago (in the 18th century). Yours is a common enough mistake to confuse the Via Dolorosa with the Stations.

If you reject one novelty, then you must reject polyphony – for it was innovation against monophonic chant (Gregorian chant). You must also reject the piano, a novelty when compared to the organ. Your list of novelites will be quite long, don’t you think?

 

[santoaugustine]

I guess they got it all wrong for 1500+ years then…

This is not true for everyone

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If someone says we are like robots, just tell them it is a dance. A beautiful dance. A dance we do when our souls are being nourished. Like synchronized swimming for everyone in attendance. Who needs special “liturgical dancers” anyway, when we all are part of the act?

http://sportsfordorks.squarespace.c....jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1336570844354

 

[Stylites]

The upraised hands is not ONLY during the OUR FATHER now. Whenever the response “and with your spirit” is said more and more are doing it.

I am 58 and I wonder if I will live long enough to see people speaking in tongues during mass.

Sounds wonderful. Speaking in tongues, going to regular confession year after year after year, upraising of hands.

 

[thewanderer]

I guess they got it all wrong for 1500+ years then…

no, not at all.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The Traditional Latin Mass provides that unity–that universality that we all desperately need.

If the TLM provides universal unity, then why is it such a hot button topic that so many of those who champion it exhibit such separatist behavior?

Why can’t they just say (and of course many of them do but not usually on threads like this) that they personally prefer this Mass and they find it more nourishing and leave it at that? Why do they have to find fault with others?

On this thread, the OP considers leaving Church entirely because others don’t conform sufficiently to a norm that may not even have ever been expressed to them … exclusive and divisive attitudes, group identification, labels – all the things Jesus tried to save us from. I bet 99% of those people who are “causing the problem” have no idea anybody even thinks it’s a problem.

I’m thinking part of it is none of us are ever taught to speak from the heart about what we want. We risk being “wrong” or “abnormal” so we call in outside authorities to make cases rather than just being honest to ourselves and each other. Another product of lousy early schooling for the vast majority of us, I say. We are taught what to think, instead of how to think.

Alan

 

[Diana_Catherine]

Sounds wonderful. Speaking in tongues, going to regular confession year after year after year, upraising of hands.

The speaking in tongues must have one to interpret or it is unintelligible utterance. (1 Cor. 14:6-12). That would be an interruption of what is going on at the sacrifice of the mass if we were to stop and interpret what the laity were saying during mass.

.

 

[Rich_C]

If the TLM provides universal unity, then why is it such a hot button topic that so many of those who champion it exhibit such separatist behavior?

You raise a lot of good points, Alan. I just wanted to answer this one since it’s a question.

I only discovered the TLM a year ago, but I know older Catholics who love the usus antiquor and they’ve told me how until 5 years ago they were belittled, excluded, pushed into liturgical ghettos by Catholics who were offended that they didn’t want the Pauline Mass and everything that came with it. It was like that for about 35 years and healing won’t happen overnight. Now there is an atmosphere of tolerance as long as trads don’t ask for too much, too fast. Separatist behavior is largely the result of being treated 2nd class.

Back to the OP: much tamer Masses have felt grating to my spirit, but I pray you won’t quit going to Mass. You know it’s a serious obligation. Will you be there long term? Set an end goal if need be. Research the nearest TLM and if you can’t make it often go for high holidays to refresh yourself. You can make it by humility, trust, and patience.

I’ll say a prayer for you.

 

[Maryann_C]

IF the Mass starts to become too “protestant” then I will cease to attend.

What would you consider “too protestant” where is your line?

 

[thewanderer]

The Traditional Latin Mass provides that unity–that universality that we all desperately need.

Let me explain further, the EF has never been nor will it ever be the sole universal liturgy of the Catholic Church, and so, one cannot claim that the universality of the Church comes through the EF. Some people find the fact that the EF is so ancient to be a wonderful sign of the unity of the Church, but this is only true for some Catholics and cannot be said of all.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

… belittled, excluded, pushed into liturgical ghettos … Separatist behavior is largely the result of being treated 2nd class.

That makes a lot of sense. I can understand a certain amount of wanting to vindicate myself, in a case like that, if not totally bowl over those who I perceived held me.

We even see this politically. Groups who have traditionally been put down, tend to get demanding and exclusive, even while supposedly seeking “equality.” Gays, for example, make the same sort of claims – belittled, excluded, pushed into “closet ghettos” – and now that they are starting to have a voice, they seek extraordinary preferences for their own demographic beyond any honest notion of “equality.”

Let me explain further, the EF has never been nor will it ever be the sole universal liturgy of the Catholic Church, and so, one cannot claim that the universality of the Church comes through the EF. Some people find the fact that the EF is so ancient to be a wonderful sign of the unity of the Church, but this is only true for some Catholics and cannot be said of all.

I agree it cannot be said for all. If the “universality” (which I take it to mean catholic-ness or inclusiveness) of the Church depends on whether or not some ignorant and/or disobedient Catholics lift their hands for a minute once or more a week during a ritual, then we might as well just cash in our chips now.

Alan

 

[Maryann_C]

It is always the converts that try to bring in things from their previous denominations. IF it was so good before you became a Catholic and want your protestant ways, why did you become a Catholic?

My dear Hound Dog your response is hardly charitable. If you consider it the beauty of the catholic Church is the diversity that is brought in by different cultures. We should all remember however that the Church liturgy was founded on the Jewish liturgical practices and indeed as we read in Acts the first Christians still worshiped at the synagog until they were kicked out for bringing their ‘new’ practices/teachings.

 

[Rich_C]

Let me explain further, the EF has never been nor will it ever be the sole universal liturgy of the Catholic Church, and so, one cannot claim that the universality of the Church comes through the EF. Some people find the fact that the EF is so ancient to be a wonderful sign of the unity of the Church, but this is only true for some Catholics and cannot be said of all.

True, but let’s not let that become a strawman. It was about as dominant within the approved Roman Catholic liturgies as the Pauline Mass is now, which is to say it encompassed nearly all the laity.

So don’t get hung up on that. I think the universality he speaks of is in the similarity of the traditional Mass wherever it was prayed. And there is a lot to be said for that. I’ve been to Mass in several foreign countries, and in the old days with my little hand missal I could have followed them all perfectly.

I remember reading about a British atheist, a communist, who was bedridden on Christmas eve one year in the late 40s, I think. He turned on the radio and heard Christmas Midnight Mass broadcast on the AM and kept turning the dial, from Prague, to Budapest, to Rome, Paris, and he said it was almost as if he never changed stations. He later converted, being drawn to that great unity of mankind he found in the Church.

It’s a strength of the old Mass, there’s no denying it.

 

[thewanderer]

True, but let’s not let that become a strawman. It was about as dominant within the approved Roman Catholic liturgies as the Pauline Mass is now, which is to say it encompassed nearly all the laity.

So don’t get hung up on that. I think the universality he speaks of is in the similarity of the traditional Mass wherever it was prayed. And there is a lot to be said for that. I’ve been to Mass in several foreign countries, and in the old days with my little hand missal I could have followed them all perfectly.

I remember reading about a British atheist, a communist, who was bedridden on Christmas eve one year in the late 40s, I think. He turned on the radio and heard Christmas Midnight Mass broadcast on the AM and kept turning the dial, from Prague, to Budapest, to Rome, Paris, and he said it was almost as if he never changed stations. He later converted, being drawn to that great unity of mankind he found in the Church.

It’s a strength of the old Mass, there’s no denying it.

I don’t see how the fact that it was predominate changes anything that I said. I was making a very specific response to a post claiming that universality comes from the EF, which, strictly speaking, is not true. I am in no way trying to belittle the EF, I think it is a beautiful form of Liturgy, however, my point is that universality does not come from the form of liturgy, rather it comes from the Catholic Faith itself, Christ’s 1 sacrifice on the cross, no matter what form this takes, whether it is through the Byzantine Rite,Dominican Rite, OF, or EF, it doesn’t matter, because it is still the very same sacrifice and it is through this one sacrifice and one faith that our unity and universality comes. No other kind of universality is important. It can be helpful, but ultimately it doesn’t matter. In heaven all we be one, no matter which rite they used. Sure there is a kind of universality, but only for those who attend that particular form of that parituclar rite! I would no more claim that the OF is the form of universality now than that the EF was the form then. I am not trying to construct a strawman, just trying to point out something to make sure it does not get missed.

 

[Rich_C]

I guess I read your post as unity “cannot be furthered through” the EF, since other rites always existed concurrently, which was not your point. You read my post as “liturgy is the foundation of unity,” which was also not my point. Classic Internet argument.

 

[BertBlyleven]

I don’t see how the fact that it was predominate changes anything that I said. I was making a very specific response to a post claiming that universality comes from the EF, which, strictly speaking, is not true. I am in no way trying to belittle the EF, I think it is a beautiful form of Liturgy, however, my point is that universality does not come from the form of liturgy, rather it comes from the Catholic Faith itself, Christ’s 1 sacrifice on the cross, no matter what form this takes, whether it is through the Byzantine Rite,Dominican Rite, OF, or EF, it doesn’t matter, because it is still the **very same sacrifice **and it is through this one sacrifice and one faith that our unity and universality comes. No other kind of universality is important. It can be helpful, but ultimately it doesn’t matter. In heaven all we be one, no matter which rite they used. Sure there is a kind of universality, but only for those who attend that particular form of that parituclar rite! I would no more claim that the OF is the form of universality now than that the EF was the form then. I am not trying to construct a strawman, just trying to point out something to make sure it does not get missed.

Absolutely. The point many trads bring up though is that many of the writers of the now-called Ordinary Form did not believe in Mass as a sacrifice at all, except in a very broad sense of spiritual sacrifice and a sacrifice of bread and wine. Not all believed Mass was a sacrifice in the sense of a re-presentation of Calvary, but merely a re-presentation of the Last Supper (a heterodox view, mind you). Their influence in the OF is apparent, and well documented (but hidden, thank goodness). Yes, they are still wrong, but undermining this fact is undermining the universality of the Church. Better yet, is the act of sacrifice conveyed to the assembly, or even to the priest? If not, then the universality of the rite (or specific celebration of) may be suspect.

 

[thewanderer]

I guess I read your post as unity “cannot be furthered through” the EF, since other rites always existed concurrently, which was not your point. You read my post as “liturgy is the foundation of unity,” which was also not my point. Classic Internet argument.

no problem. Yes. It is a lot harder to carry out a converation on line than in person! I’m glad we have cleared this up.

(Also… I was not originally replying to you, so I was not thinking that was your opinion. I was just clarifying what santoaugustine said to make sure people did not misinterpret it to mean the EF is the foundation of unity with the Catholic church. )