I'm at a loss: Differing Liturgies

[Image_of_God]

You are the second person that has suggested that my marriage may be in trouble over this. At no point did I suggest our marriage was having problems. I was merely asking for suggestions on how to deal with this difference in opinion.

I’m really sorry. I didn’t mean to make such an assumption. It was my mistake.

I was comfortable at the masses in our hometown. We only recently moved after getting married, and have been looking for a new parish. The parish we attended–the very same the grew up in–had a mostly traditional NO mass. The music was, in my opinion tastefully done, the priest kept things very deliberate and reverent, and there were none of the things that bothered me at the last parish I attended. It is only recently, since looking for a new parish, that this has come to a head.

I’m sorry. I made another assumption.
You were bound to run in to such a thing. Only so many Masses celebrate the NO “correctly.” Why do you think your wife enjoyed it?

 

[Manfred]

But there is definitely, according to the Catechism, a **community aspect **to Holy Communion. And according to the CCC, it is appropriate to refer to Eucharist as a “celebration.”

Did we abrogate the teachings of the Baltimore Catechism?

There are four purposes of the HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS; they could be easily recalled by the acronym “ACTS”; to wit,

(1) to ADORE God;

(2) to obtain from Him the pardon of our sins and the remission of their punishment (CONTRITION);

(3) to THANK Him for his favors;

(4) to ask graces and blessings for ourselves and others (SUPPLICATION).

If anyone attends or has attended an Eastern Rite Liturgy, could you tell us whether it is closer to the Novus Ordo or the Traditional Latin Mass?

 

[lak611]

If anyone attends or has attended an Eastern Rite Liturgy, could you tell us whether it is closer to the Novus Ordo or the Traditional Latin Mass?

I have been to Divine Liturgy twice. It is closer to the TLM. The major differences are no kneeling (standing instead) and Communion is in the form of leavened bread soaking in the wine in the chalice administered with a spoon.

 

[Cat]

I talked to my husband about this question.

He said to tell you to attend the parish that you are supposed to attend according to your diocese.

The diocese is divided into parishes, each with their own church. Which church you attend depends on which parish you are in.

Sometimes there are special considerations; e.g., in our city, there is an Italian parish and a Polish parish, and if you are of Italian or Polish descent, you are encouraged to register for and attend these parishes.

But you are SUPPOSED to attend and support the Catholic church in your parish.

When there are no children, it doesn’t matter too much. But when you have children and want to send them to a certain parochial school, it will become very important.

According to the leaders in our diocese, a person is not supposed to leave their parish church for another parish church. If they wish to do so, there have to be serious reasons before they will be given permission.

It’s OK to visit other churches, to attend Mass at other churches. But your money should be given to your parish.

My husband said that you should just attend your parish church, get involved in whatever ministries you are called to, baptize your children there, and deal with whatever kind of Mass is there, unless it is blatently abusive and un-Christian.

 

[Cat]

Did we abrogate the teachings of the Baltimore Catechism?

There are four purposes of the HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS; they could be easily recalled by the acronym “ACTS”; to wit,

(1) to ADORE God;

(2) to obtain from Him the pardon of our sins and the remission of their punishment (CONTRITION);

(3) to THANK Him for his favors;

(4) to ask graces and blessings for ourselves and others (SUPPLICATION).

If anyone attends or has attended an Eastern Rite Liturgy, could you tell us whether it is closer to the Novus Ordo or the Traditional Latin Mass?

I don’t know. Did we?

Some people on this thread seem to know more than the Magisterium. Are some of you saying that the current Catechism of the Catholic Church is in error?

I can only believe and practice what is in the Catechism. I’m not making this stuff up as I go along.

If you believe that the CCC is wrong, then have you or others been petitioning the Vatican to get it corrected?

 

[Cat]

Well, yes, we do quote documents that mention these rights: “the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline”, “the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms”, “the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium”, and the “right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church”. (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 11-12)

Yes, I sure do “enjoy a good Mass” every now and then… it’s right up there with a fine brandy. It’s up to the priest, I guess, to decide when the faithful can have their “good Mass, where the rubrics are followed”?

Since God has graced us with the opportunity not to go to Hell, the least we can do for Him is to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass in as reverent a manner as possible, in the manner prescribed by the Church itself. I don’t see why the desire of some of the faithful to go to a Mass celebrated as it ought to demonized by others.

I agree that the desire of some of the faithful to go to a Mass celebrated as it ought to be should not be demonized by others.

But when something is destroying a marriage, THAT should be demonized.

OP, you deny that your marriage is in trouble. Sir, I’ve been married for almost 30 years, and I can tell you that based on your OP, yes, your marriage could be in trouble. The honeymoon is over, and you and your wife are now dealing with real life, including church issues, which, IMO, should have been worked through before the wedding. But they weren’t, and there’s no use bewailing “should ofs.”

You have to resolve this, the first of what will be a constant litany of conflicts in your marriage. The answer is not “separate Masses.” That will lead to separate lives, and then divorce.

Do not be blind and do not deny that a problem exists in your marriage. Face it, overcome it, and your marriage will be stronger. Ignore it, and it will haunt you and your wife.

 

[Suudy]

I was initially going to respond to your first post, but I found the tone disturbing. Your emphasis on the turmoil of my marriage, for what is probably our first real fight in our marriage, is far reaching. But now, with continued emphasis on that point, I feel compelled to responde.

But when something is destroying a marriage, THAT should be demonized.

You have got to be joking. Singular instances of fights do not spell doom for a marriage. Granted I’ve only been married for a few months, but my parents have been married for 35 years, and they had plenty of fights.

OP, you deny that your marriage is in trouble. Sir, I’ve been married for almost 30 years, and I can tell you that based on your OP, yes, your marriage could be in trouble. The honeymoon is over, and you and your wife are now dealing with real life, including church issues, which, IMO, should have been worked through before the wedding. But they weren’t, and there’s no use bewailing “should ofs.”

Pardon me, but we were just fine at our old parish. There was not an “issue” at the time. Once we were wed, we moved. And now that we are in a new area, we are trying to find a parish. At what point should this “have been worked through before the wedding.” We planned our nuptiual mass together, and both loved it.

Do not be blind and do not deny that a problem exists in your marriage. Face it, overcome it, and your marriage will be stronger. Ignore it, and it will haunt you and your wife.

Why do you think I asked for advice on how to handle the difference in opinion? I’m not denying that a disagreement exists. In fact, I am looking for a solution. Our marriage is far from over because of this conflict. As you have been married for 30 years, I’m sure you are aware that conflict does occur. And it didn’t end your marriage.

 

[Suudy]

But you are SUPPOSED to attend and support the Catholic church in your parish.

Apparently there is some disagreement. Even Fr Serpa indicates there is no binding requirement to support your local parish.

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=162089
And forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=106296&highlight=different+parish

 

[jimmie]

The Roman Missal states what’s to be done and what’s not. Tambourines and other abuses you witnessed are either prohibited by the Missal or not mentioned. If it is not mentioned, then past precedent (spelling?) prevails. So tambourines would fall under past precedent, which would mean that they are not to be used in the Liturgy. That being said, to go against what the Missal says is disobeying Rome. Explain this to your wife and ask her if she would feel just as “clappy-happy” knowing she’s disobeying Rome.

Pong, you’re right, we should celebrate our faith. But since the Mass is the re-representation of Calvary (reason we have a crucifix over the altar), we should place ourselves in the positions that the Apostles and Mary were in. In fact, the only people who clapped and danced and were happy were the Roman guards, who killed Christ. Just keep that in mind.

Don’t we say at every mass - Christ HAS died. Christ IS risen. Christ WILL come again. That sounds like reason for celebration!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Excuse me? I’ve posted, what, 70 times since Sep 2004? Does that make me a frequent visitor? Are you suggesting that my time on this forum somehow detracts from my time with Christ?

I made this post to seek advice on how to deal with differences in liturgical preferences. Not to seek advice on my relationship with Christ. Not to seek marital advice. And certainly not advice on my forum habits.

I’m not questioning your faith, please to take it that way.

However, I was once where you are, and I understand how you feel. But I’ve gotten over it. You have to or else you’ll be easily distracted at Mass.

I came to learn that to know Christ is to live as Christ.

Be patient and understanding with others at Mass, like Christ would be.

Some people need a happy-clappy style of Mass. Its all they can relate to.

Others, like a Mass that is more contemplative in style and its all they can handle. Anything else in their mind is outrageous and abusive.

As long as there are no flagrant abuses, and there is a general respect for the Eucharist, thats all I can expect at a parish Mass.

Is Jesus less present at the so-called happy-clappy Mass, than at the contemplative style? I don’t think so. In fact, I believe that Jesus will be with the poorest and the happy-clappy people’s Mass, may have the spiritually poorest. Who am I to say otherwise?

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Manfred

There are four purposes of the HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS; they could be easily recalled by the acronym “ACTS”; to wit,

(1) to ADORE God;

Singing songs of Praise is Adoration

(

1. to obtain from Him the pardon of our sins and the remission of their punishment (CONTRITION);

Knowing that our sins are forgiven and our punishment removed, should make you want to shout with joy!

(3) to THANK Him for his favors;

Everyone has their way of saying thanks

(4) to ask graces and blessings for ourselves and others (SUPPLICATION).

And this is lacking how?

If anyone attends or has attended an Eastern Rite Liturgy, could you tell us whether it is closer to the Novus Ordo or the Traditional Latin Mass?

What difference does it make?

Jim

 

[YADA]

I posted earlier about if your new parish has more than one mass…have not seen an answer…many others have explained, as I did in mine, that various masses may have different focus and appeal to different tastes…

The other point I questioned was why you are passing judgement on a parish after only one mass? It seems that any person approaching joining a new [parish, organization, neighborhood, city, job] would take time to get a real sense of the many aspects that the new [insert what here] exists of and how you are to become a part of [not just the critical observer of].

A parish becomes our home, this is your family, it has many members of immense variety - all of which need to be nourished physically and spiritually…You have a right to be fed but so does your wife and the infant in arms in the cry room, the elderly in the front pews and the teenangers in the transcept…Your quiet traditional hymns need to be balanced with the more livelier [but reverent praise music].

I am sure Jesus, who knows us from our days in the womb, appreciates the differences we bring in tastes and fervor…He reaches out to all of us where we are and calls us to Himself…I am sure that He does not call me to be exactly like you or the guy next to me…He calls me to be the best Christian I can be as I am, me …

 

[Manfred]

Apparently there is some disagreement. Even Fr Serpa indicates there is no binding requirement to support your local parish.

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=162089
And forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=106296&highlight=different+parish

I’m with you, Suudy. Cat’s exhortation to “support your local parish” - right or wrong - was a bit over the top.

There are far too many modernist priests in the US today, our beloved shepherds are not keeping diligent watch over their flock, and, yes, some of us can and do outshine some parish priests when it comes to our understanding of orthodox Catholic theology and ritual. If this sounds arrogant, so be it.

 

[Manfred]

Singing songs of Praise is Adoration

I was thinking, “Gloria in excelsus Deo”, sung in Latin, with organ accompaniment. and definitely NOT “Glory and Praise to our God”. On Holy Thursday, the Pange Lingua still gives me goosebumps; the Dies Irae of the Latin funeral Mass is hauntingly beautiful. Most of the newer songs just give me gas.

Knowing that our sins are forgiven and our punishment removed, should make you want to shout with joy!

Slow down. This smacks of evangelical Protestantism to me. Ever hear of Purgatory? The Dies Irae of which I spoke above was all about our own impending judgment after death, not a feeling good because the deceased has “gone to be with the Lord”.

Everyone has their way of saying thanks

Then it’s not LITURGY, is it? For LITURGY is the Church’s public worship.

And this is lacking how?

Perhaps the Prayer of the Faithful covers this, but the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) has a Remembrance of the Living and a Remembrance of the Dead in the Canon of the Mass. What we now call “Eucharistic Prayer I” used to be the (Roman) Canon of the Mass, though the English translation thereof hardly does the Latin original justice.

What difference does it make?

In this same thread, Laura has posted that a particular Eastern Rite Liturgy she attended is closer to a TLM (in solemnity, dignity, reverence) than the Latin Rite’s Novus Ordo, particularly since the latter is almost always in the vernacular, with the most banal of translations, especially for the English language.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

Folks:

Just a reminder – those who prefer pre conciliar liturgy and traditions have for their use:

Traditional Catholicism Forum
forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=102

Those who wish to discuss other topics should feel free to join an already ongoing thread or initiate one of their choice in the appropriate forum.

To refresh your memory on the subject of this thread please see Post 1.

Thank you.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Manfred

I was thinking, “Gloria in excelsus Deo”, sung in Latin, with organ accompaniment. and definitely NOT “Glory and Praise to our God”.

Both hymns are beautiful, but fit according to the place the Mass is being celebrated. In my parish, we don’t have the level of talent and know how, to sing Gloria in Excelsus Deo as it should be. However, we do a great job on Glory and Praise to our God. Which hymn does God like better? One with classical expertise, or the lesser, which is sung in humility and thanks?

Slow down. This smacks of evangelical Protestantism to me. Ever hear of Purgatory? The Dies Irae of which I spoke above was all about our own impending judgment after death, not a feeling good because the deceased has “gone to be with the Lord”.

No it doesn’t. We are saved through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even those in purgatory are saved and have reason to rejoice. The understanding that God was willing to humble himself and become a man in Jesus Christ, and suffer and die on the cross to save us from our sins, should bring tears of joy to our eyes. It does mine, I’m not sure what’s wrong with your spiritual formation that you don’t have this joy?

Then it’s not LITURGY, is it? For LITURGY is the Church’s public worship.

So says you. The Liturgy of the Mass is Liturgy, regardless of your disrespect for who and how it is celebrated. Just because a Mass isn’t the old TLM, doesn’t mean it isn’t a liturgy with true worship of God.

Perhaps the Prayer of the Faithful covers this, but the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) has a Remembrance of the Living and a Remembrance of the Dead in the Canon of the Mass. What we now call “Eucharistic Prayer I” used to be the (Roman) Canon of the Mass, though the English translation thereof hardly does the Latin original justice.

The TLM is an extraordinary form of the Mass, not the ordinary. You prefer this Mass, fine. However, myself, having been raised with the TLM, I prefer the Novus Order, in my language. People who attend the TLM, are no more faithful or reverent than others who attend the Novus Order. Its the heart that matters, not the ritual.

Jim

 

[bkovacs]

Thanks for all the replies. I would like to clarify a few points.

She was raised Catholic. She attended a Catholic school through 8th grade, then went to a public high school. I was not raised Catholic. In fact, I was raised nothing–my father hates religion in general, referring it to a “refuge for the weak minded.” (I don’t know if that’s a quote or something he made up.) I attended an Assembly of God through high school and college, than eventually converted to Catholocism on Easter '04.

In terms of our catechesis, I am more read than she is. During my conversion, I read numerous books, sat through 2 years of RCIA (I didn’t get confirmed the first time around since I wasn’t sure), subscribe to and read a couple of Catholic magazines (This Rock is one). After all the preparation, I’ve found myself more in tune with the more orthodox. My wife had not, up to this point, found my orthodoxy a problem.

As far as our faith, there are differences. I’m far more cerebral. I think about my faith, and how to express it, more than she. I internalize a lot, and I find private expression of faith more fulfilling. I enjoy exploring the “how” and “why” of our faith, rather than just accepting it. For me, reverence is the best way I know and understand to glorify God.

She, on the other hand, is far more outgoing. She enjoys group prayer, finds more fulfillment in expression, and loves singing. The holding hands during the Our Father is very rewarding for her. Expression, especially expression in unity, of faith very important to her. For her, exuberant praise of God is the best way she knows to glorify God.

We have gone to 4 different parishes since moving. I have only found 1 I have liked, and she has found 3 she liked. Two of the 4 have no kneelers, so we agreed to reduce that list to one of 2–the one that I like and the one we went to today. She finds my favorite boring and depressing. I find her favorite too boisterous and irreverent.

You know, reading your responses, and thinking of my responses to them, has made me think of something. We both find our expression “correct” and feel the other person is “wrong.” Perhaps, if we can both accept the other’s style without judgement or irritation, we can both go to the same mass with the understanding that we both experience it very differently. I don’t like the idea of trading off parishes each week, because we both would like to settle on a single parish and become involved.

(Plus, it has helped to sit down and relax and think about it. My initial post was very soon after the argument.)

Go to a Tridentine Mass and ease your mind. It’s the Mass of Ages. The Mass of the early Saints. Gregorian Chant, incense and bells. Not the Mass of this age, guitars, and liberal Protestant practices.
Like you are unfortunately experiencing.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Mass of the early Saints. Gregorian Chant, incense and bells.

Actually it isn’t the Mass of the early Saints. The Novus Ordo is closer to the Mass of the early Church and the early Saints.

The TLM as we know it, didn’t develop until the Council of Trent, when the Church was 1500 years old.

One of the goals of Vatican II, was to bring us closer to the Mass and traditions of the Early Church.

Jim

 

[bkovacs]

Actually it isn’t the Mass of the early Saints. The Novus Ordo is closer to the Mass of the early Church and the early Saints.

The TLM as we know it, didn’t develop until the Council of Trent, when the Church was 1500 years old.

One of the goals of Vatican II, was to bring us closer to the Mass and traditions of the Early Church.

Jim

The Gregorian Chant, Galacian Chant, Byzantine Chant, insense, and bells, was used in the early church and Middle Ages. Not guitars, clapping your hands, and dancing at church. So yes the TLM is closer to the Mass of the early church than the NO Mass. Also the Orthodox Divine Liturgy is what an easterner would have experienced in the early church and Middle Ages as well. Read about the Liturgy before the sack of Constantinople. There was no extraordinary ministers giving out communion or female altar severs either. And the priest did face the tabernacle, not the people.

 

[japhy]

Actually it isn’t the Mass of the early Saints. The Novus Ordo is closer to the Mass of the early Church and the early Saints.

The TLM as we know it, didn’t develop until the Council of Trent, when the Church was 1500 years old.

One of the goals of Vatican II, was to bring us closer to the Mass and traditions of the Early Church.

And the Early Church didn’t have “churches”, and people were martyred left and right, and Christianity wasn’t even legal. Shall we revert to that? I mean, it’s how it was in the olden days.

The TLM is NOT only 500 years old; it has roots back to the 5th century. And it represented the logical organic evolution of the primitive Mass. The reforms of Sacrosanctum Consilium could have been applied without producing so different-looking a Mass; there are those of us who are hoping for a “reform of the reform” that looks to the actual documents of Vatican II, not the oft-usurped “spirit” of it.

Here is what Pope Pius XII had to say in Mediator Dei (1947) about this sense of “antiquarianism”:
61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

1. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
2. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
3. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the “deposit of faith” committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn. For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls’ salvation.