Is there anything you DO like?

[eelpis]

Yes, it being the sacrifice of Calvary renewed. I also like the gospel in the vernacular.

 

[Ghoti]

It FEELS like a schism.

My personal observation, and this is by no means an attack on anyone, is that traditionalists are far more harsh in their opinions of the OF Mass. I certainly understand why people are upset with this change, but I have to ask: if the Church says that both forms of Mass are equally valid, and that EF Mass may be offered as long as the participants acknowledge the validity of the OF Mass, how can we call one Mass an “abomination?”

The Mass in and of itself is not. It is the way it is said and conducted in many parishes that is.

Just off the top of my head (and I have personally witnessed all of these):

Glass water pitchers and cups or clay mugs for the Precious Blood; sweetened buns for the Host; skipping integral parts of the Mass (particular readings, Psalms, and in one case I witnessed, the Gospel); “liturgical dancers”; laypeople giving the sermon/homily; tabernacle at the back of the Church building behind the congregation; altar replaced by a table; pews replaced with comfy chairs; lack of kneelers; no Crucifix; minimalist/neo-primitivist art and architecture; everyone and their dog swarming about the sanctuary and altar; priest sitting with the congregation during the Liturgy of the Word; no genuflecting, bowing, beating of the breast, or signs of the Cross (other than at the beginning and at dismissal); inclusive language; changing the words of the prayers – including the Eucharistic Prayers, such that you can’t be sure that a valid Consecration has taken place; priest ordering the people to stand throughout the Eucharistic Prayer – including the Consecration – and after Communion; no time for quiet prayer or meditation; modern folkie hymns on guitars, saxophones, and drums; total abandonment of Gregorian Chant and Latin language; lack of reverence; the Mass being about “community” rather than “worship”; de-emphasis on personal piety, responsibility for sin, penance, etc, and emphasis of “I’m OK, you’re OK”, “don’t judge”, etc; emphasis on social activism, particularly with a socialist, anarchist, feminist, anti-establishment slant; etc.

A lot of this I did not know were abuses (e.g. the vessels for the Body and Blood). Others, when they happened, seemed “wrong”, but I wasn’t sure why (priest sitting in the congregation – my first thought was that it seemed to “demote” the priest). Others, like changing the words, always just bugged me, because I’m sometimes doctrinaire about the way things are written – I’ve never forgiven Charlotte Church for “changing” the words to “Carrickfergus”. In addition, I could never understand why no one ever beat their breast at the Confiteor, or bowed during the Creed – even though it expressly said to do so both in the Catholic Book of Worship hymnal and in the Living with Christ missalettes.

Now, I have been to all-English Masses which had none of the above problems that I could see – it seemed to depend on the priest. I remember the good Monsignor at one parish in Newfoundland who was, pardon the pun, by-the-book. Very no-nonsense. He ran a tight Mass, if you will, and brooked no disrespect for the Presence: he once physically retrieved the Host from a teenager who did not consume but brought it back to the pew and started playing with it. As an army officer once said of another soldier, “He has a temperament that would intimidate the Pope. I like him!”

More recently, I have been going to a Latin OF, said by the Oratorians of St Philip Neri. It’s done ad orientem, all Latin (except the First Reading and sermon, said in English, and the Second Reading and Gospel, both chanted), lots of Gregorian Chant and polyphony, incense, asperges, bowing and beating and genuflecting, proper chalices and patens, only the priest, deacons, and acolytes at the altar, communion on the tongue at the altar rails, zero variation from the Missal, silence before and after Mass for prayer, kneeling throughout the Eucharistic Prayer – and the Oratorians use the Roman Canon exclusively, the long form at that – Father told me when I spoke to him after assisting at my first ever Latin OF.

The only argument I have with the Latin Mass is that, even though the prayers are in the Missal both in Latin and English, so are the directions!!

Edit: Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I am not a “traditionalist Catholic”. Yet.

 

[WhollyRoamin]

Edit: Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I am not a “traditionalist Catholic”. Yet.

Give it time. If you’re becoming sarcastic and jaded, you’re two thirds of the way there. Next stop: cranky.

 

[Sarpedon]

The OF according to the rubrics is not the same as the various mangled masses that are in violation of church law. The OF is the “default” mass, and thus it gets most of the heretical and lax priests. The EF is celebrated by a self-selected group of traditionalists, so liturgical abuse is very uncommon. If the EF was the ordinary mass, then all of the heretical priests would be altering and changing the EF with the same vigor as is currently applied to the OF. It is not sensible to condemn the actual OF when all of the criticism is based off of OF masses that have been mangled, often to a point of being unrecognizable as OF masses.

 

[JRKH]

Yes, it being the sacrifice of Calvary renewed. I also like the gospel in the vernacular.

eelpis,
I love the quote in your signature. Could you provide the source?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The OF according to the rubrics is not the same as the various mangled masses that are in violation of church law. The OF is the “default” mass, and thus it gets most of the heretical and lax priests. The EF is celebrated by a self-selected group of traditionalists, so liturgical abuse is very uncommon. If the EF was the ordinary mass, then all of the heretical priests would be altering and changing the EF with the same vigor as is currently applied to the OF. It is not sensible to condemn the actual OF when all of the criticism is based off of OF masses that have been mangled, often to a point of being unrecognizable as OF masses.

I think you make a good point here.
In addition it would be harder in an EF mass, particularly a low mass, to know if the Priest has botched or skipped prayers.

The fact is that both masses, properly celebrated, are fine. What we need to do is focus on the abuses. Let the priest know that you know. Let HIs Bishop know that you know. And if need be let the Vatican know that you know.

In the meantime keep going to mass and participate as reverently as you can. Of course if the abuse is such that you doubt the validity of the mass you may need to change where you attend. If you do be sure your home parish knows why.

The day will come I pray when both forms will coexist in most parishes.

Peace
James

 

[malphono]

The OF according to the rubrics is not the same as the various mangled masses that are in violation of church law. The OF is the “default” mass, and thus it gets most of the heretical and lax priests. The EF is celebrated by a self-selected group of traditionalists, so liturgical abuse is very uncommon. If the EF was the ordinary mass, then all of the heretical priests would be altering and changing the EF with the same vigor as is currently applied to the OF. It is not sensible to condemn the actual OF when all of the criticism is based off of OF masses that have been mangled, often to a point of being unrecognizable as OF masses.

Yes, the OF is the “ordinary form” and is the default. It’s valid, no argument. So far, so good. Now to what I bolded.

The only way that would occur is if the rubrics in the Missale Romanum (1962) were abrogated and replaced by something in the post-conciliar “spirit of Vatican II” mode. Almost like the way the conciliarists reacted almost immediately after the appearance of the ill-fated “interim Missal of 1965” except they did what they did then when the rubrics were (technically) still in place.

Seems to me that those who speak against the OF do so not so much based on the Latin editio typica, but rather on what they themselves have experienced in the vernacular atypical edition. Except for the elusive “reform of the reform,” for the most part (in the US, anyway), that is hardly similar to what’s in the edition typica of the OF.

Personally, I don’t “condemn” the OF (though I don’t voluntarily attend it either) but I think it needs criticism, both for content and form (and that even in the Latin editio typica).

 

[Sarpedon]

The only way that would occur is if the rubrics in the Missale Romanum (1962) were abrogated and replaced by something in the post-conciliar “spirit of Vatican II” mode. Almost like the way the conciliarists reacted almost immediately after the appearance of the ill-fated “interim Missal of 1965” except they did what they did then when the rubrics were (technically) still in place.

If I were a priest and I wanted to abuse the EF rubrics, all I would need to do is simply not follow the books and make up my own phrases and content. I would not need to wait for an “abrogation of rubrics”, for liturgical abuse by its very nature is contrary to the actual proscribed rubrics.

 

[malphono]

If I were a priest and I wanted to abuse the EF rubrics, all I would need to do is simply not follow the books and make up my own phrases and content. I would not need to wait for an “abrogation of rubrics”, for liturgical abuse by its very nature is contrary to the actual proscribed rubrics.

No, you would not have to wait for the rubrics to be changed. But if you tried what you say, according to the disciplines in place in 1962 you would be summoned to the bishop to explain your actions and most probably suspended.

That sort of thing wasn’t tolerated then, nor, (IMHO) should it be tolerated now.

 

[Sarpedon]

No, you would not have to wait for the rubrics to be changed. But if you tried what you say, according to the disciplines in place in 1962 you would be summoned to the bishop to explain your actions and most probably suspended.

Have the regulations been officially suspended, or just more frequently ignored?

 

[malphono]

Have the regulations been officially suspended, or just more frequently ignored?

Are there actually liturgical regulations in the OF that are followed? If so, apparently they are not enforced. At least not in the US, and I’m sure elsewhere as well.

 

[Sarpedon]

Are there actually liturgical regulations in the OF that are followed? If so, apparently they are not enforced. At least not in the US, and I’m sure elsewhere as well.

Well, the language of the Missal lists exactly what the priest is supposed to do. Have the Tridentine-era regulations you have mentioned been abrogated or dropped? If not, then their infrequent application is due to disobedience or ignorace, as with the abuse of the OF, and not due to VII at all.

 

[malphono]

Well, the language of the Missal lists exactly what the priest is supposed to do. Have the Tridentine-era regulations you have mentioned been abrogated or dropped? If not, then their infrequent application is due to disobedience or ignorace, as with the abuse of the OF, and not due to VII at all.

The disciplines apply to the EF. What, if anything, is done in the OF is another matter entirely.

If there were/are liturgical disciplines in effect for the OF, and if the bishops actually enforce(d) the, I seem to doubt that “clown Masses” and “circus Masses” and other such touch-felly post-conciliar innovations would be the problem that they are and have been for 40 years.

Just MHO.

 

[cyberwolf001]

I like being able to take the Sacred Blood as well as the Body. The readings being done in English as well as the message that we lay types need to get off our collective rear ends and do our part to help spread the gospel and greater action from the laity than pray, pay and obey.

 

[Sarpedon]

If there were/are liturgical disciplines in effect for the OF, and if the bishops actually enforce(d) the, I seem to doubt that “clown Masses” and “circus Masses” and other such touch-felly post-conciliar innovations would be the problem that they are and have been for 40 years.

The existence of rules and whether individuals are willing to enforce them are different matters entirely. If the rules no longer apply, then fault could lie with VII. If the rules still apply, but individual ecclesiatical members choose to not follow them, VII and the OF are exonerated from any responsibility.

 

[cathguy]

It FEELS like a schism.

My personal observation, and this is by no means an attack on anyone, is that traditionalists are far more harsh in their opinions of the OF Mass. I certainly understand why people are upset with this change, but I have to ask: if the Church says that both forms of Mass are equally valid, and that EF Mass may be offered as long as the participants acknowledge the validity of the OF Mass, how can we call one Mass an “abomination?”

Again, not trying to be argumentative. I’m just learning. I hope you can see how this appears to a new convert. I want to attend a TLM but refuse to go alone (makes me nervous)…my sponsor said he will go with me in a couple of weeks.

Thanks again.

Given the fact that the tone seems to have improved somewhat on these forums I have decided to return after a long absence.

I can see how you would perceive that those attached to the E.F. are harsh towards the O.F. The reasons though are complex and you should be aware of them.

For a great deal of time (the entire past 40 years) those attached to the old Mass have been persecuted unjustly, even by the Church. While the Church is divine, and while it is indefectible, and while it does not teach error, there is also a HUMAN part of the institution which can be VERY ugly.

In any event, for most of the past 40 years those who attached to the old Mass have been treated in ways which are… well… terrible.

I could give you an earful of specific examples, but I don’t want to scandalize. Just know that the persecution of those attached to the Mass of the Ages (NO, I am not speaking of the SSPX here, but of those traditionalists in a regular canonical relationship with Rome) has been constant, aggressive, and mean spirited. What you are seeing is the vestiges of a very painful time.

Now that the Motu Proprio is out, now that there may be a healing of the rift with SSPX, things may calm down a bit.

I close with an analogy. The Catholic Church is a family. You are coming into the family now (in a way, “marrying in” as it were). You have just discovered that some members of your new family have been feuding for some time, and they yell at each other and say mean things a lot. That describes the situation very well.

Also know that those attached to the O.F. can be just as mean spirited.

 

[cathguy]

I like being able to take the Sacred Blood as well as the Body. The readings being done in English as well as the message that we lay types need to get off our collective rear ends and do our part to help spread the gospel and greater action from the laity than pray, pay and obey.

I like your zeal! However, I don’t get your post.

The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are present in the Eucharist itself. There is no reason to receive under both species if one understands this.

The message that we laity need to get off our buts and do our part is better communicated by the E.F. The new Mass ends with “the Mass is ended, go in peace.” What? That is the weirdest translation I ever say.

The old Mass, the Mass of the Ages, ends with “Ite Missa Est.”

“Go. It is sent.”

The gospel is read on the gospel side of the altar, facing the pagan north. The old Mass sends the gospel into enemy territory, and ends with a command to GO and SPREAD THE GOSPEL.

In the new Mass we see absolutely zero of this.

The new Mass is almost entirely ecumenical. I think it shows. I can’t agree with your post at all.

You seem to make fun of the old Church. You mention the shibolleth “pray, pay, and obey.” At the least the laity in the old days prayed and obeyed. If they don’t do that anymore, there may be a problem, yes?

 

[malphono]

The existence of rules and whether individuals are willing to enforce them are different matters entirely. If the rules no longer apply, then fault could lie with VII. If the rules still apply, but individual ecclesiatical members choose to not follow them, VII and the OF are exonerated from any responsibility.

No, they are not in fact. The competent authority is bound to enforce them. But, irrespective of that, you conveniently neglected the my opening statement;

malphono:

The disciplines apply to the EF. What, if anything, is done in the OF is another matter entirely.

Whether the old or any similar disciplines apply to the OF is not for me to say, nor will I attempt to address that issue. I’ll leave that to someone else.

 

[Sarpedon]

Whether the old or any similar disciplines apply to the OF is not for me to say, nor will I attempt to address that issue. I’ll leave that to someone else.

I am not aware of any restrictions enforced during the Tridentine period that were abrogated with VII. If you do not know either, this question cannot be answered by either of us and the OF and VII certainly cannot be charged with anything until evidence is presented (I am not saying you were accusing it).

 

[cyberwolf001]

I like your zeal! However, I don’t get your post.

The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are present in the Eucharist itself. There is no reason to receive under both species if one understands this.

I understand this but I know at one time it was common to receive under both during the old Mass. It’s a practice I’m glad to see brought back.

But rest assured I do not NEED it.

However I have wondered why do we have booth if only the Eucharistic wafer is needed.

The message that we laity need to get off our buts and do our part is better communicated by the E.F. The new Mass ends with “the Mass is ended, go in peace.” What? That is the weirdest translation I ever say.

The old Mass, the Mass of the Ages, ends with “Ite Missa Est.”

“Go. It is sent.”

Thinks I did not know this.

The gospel is read on the gospel side of the altar, facing the pagan north. The old Mass sends the gospel into enemy territory, and ends with a command to GO and SPREAD THE GOSPEL.

In the new Mass we see absolutely zero of this.

The new Mass is almost entirely ecumenical. I think it shows. I can’t agree with your post at all.

I do agree trying to get fellow Catholics in my area excited to do anything about spreading the gospel is next to impossible. I often meet the “Hey just doesn’t get it” lecture about how I don’t understand the “fullness of being a missionary” and how it is more than “going out and doing public acts” instead I should “take the little way of a few well said Hail Marys” rather than all these works to bring people in that I am so big on.



I still sat give me ten people that really want convert this town to the One True Faith and with the Holy Spirit we can do it!

You seem to make fun of the old Church. You mention the shibolleth “pray, pay, and obey.” At the least the laity in the old days prayed and obeyed. If they don’t do that anymore, there may be a problem, yes?

Amen!

I think wasn’t clear there. I lot of stories I hear from Traditionalists and Non-Trads is that in the old days all Catholics did was stick to there own kind and go to Mass, there jobs, Catholic hangouts and say a lot of prayers.

All missionary work, ministries and so on was done by the Priesthood and Religious.

Or to put it another way the Church is a ship. The Pope is Captain the Priesthood are the Officers the religious are the crew we are passengers.

Then new way I have been told is “The Church is a ship. The Pope is Captain the Priesthood are the Officers the religious are warrant officers we are the rank and file crew.”

However I could have been misinformed.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.