Is there anything you DO like?

[Annc]

I regularly attend such a mass, and with the correct propers (introit, offertory, recessional) chanted it’s a very beautiful, simple and reverent mass. Shame it’s so poorly attended where I am.

One thing I do like about the ordinary form is the readings in English, it doesn’t make sense to me to proclaim the epistles and gospel in a language people can’t understand, though I do appreciate the chanting of the gospel, have heard one priest do that in English, but only once.

I am a little confused…the post you were replying to referred to a "reform of the reform Mass said ad orientum and in Latin. You say that you attend such a Mass. My confusion is: is this TLM? Is NO in latin ad orientum (if there is such a thing).

Also, is this the Mass that Benedict XVI said recently? I believe it was on the Feast of the Epiphany but I could be wrong.

Thanks.

 

[malphono]

I am a little confused…the post you were replying to referred to a "reform of the reform Mass said ad orientum and in Latin. You say that you attend such a Mass. My confusion is: is this TLM? Is NO in latin ad orientum (if there is such a thing).

Also, is this the Mass that Benedict XVI said recently? I believe it was on the Feast of the Epiphany but I could be wrong.

Thanks.

Briefly, no, it’s not the EF. It is the OF and, with that in mind, you’re pretty much correct on all counts.

 

[Annc]

Briefly, no, it’s not the EF. It is the OF and, with that in mind, you’re pretty much correct on all counts.

Sounds great. I believe that this is the way Benedict XVI is moving us. I believe that we will see more support for the TLM and reform of the NO to become what you describe. At some point the NO that we grew up with and all its problems will fade away, I hope and God willing. The Holy Father has stated that there is room in the Church for both forms but is also clear that the NO as celebrated in this country has problems.

Thank you.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I hate to point this out, but your personal experience is belied by the objective data available. I am NOT saying your story is untrue, or invalid. Just that the empirical data available tell a different story.

Statistically speaking, Catholics and Protestants in the US began intermarrying in small numbers as soon as Catholics arrived on US shores. When Catholics arrived here they were greeted with prejudice, bigotry, and conversely, with offers to throw down the walls of the Catholic ghetto and integrate with society. Many did just that.

I see. And this applied to Catholic New Orleans how? Your demographics work for the rest of the United States but they don’t work for Louisiana which was a French territory, then sold to Spain, then returned to France and then sold to the US. We were Catholic from the very beginning. Both France and Spain monitored Protestant immigration and had laws barring the establishment of Protestant churches.

When I make a personal observation regarding my family, rest assured that I have the historical background, the anthropological background, and the genealogical background to warrant such a clearly labled personal observation. What Catholic ghetto in New Orleans or anywhere in south Louisiana? We Catholics were the majority. There was very little in the way of “Irish need not apply”. (That would only have come from the few Protestants that the US said must be admitted). The Irish were here already - from the beginning. Where else can you find a Spanish governor by the name of Don Alejandro O’Reilly? St. Patrick’s was the second parish founded in New Orleans years before Black '47.

There were no Italian or Sicilian ghettos here. Italians and Sicilians got farms and spread out precisely because we Catholics were the majority. So when I remark that my grandfather married my divorced Protestant grandmother, you better believe it was a huge deal.

Empirical data applies to the predominately Anglo-Saxon United States of that time. The empirical data for Louisiana and Texas is going to look a whole lot different precisely because of large established Catholic populations.

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I stand by my personal observations knowing that my ancestors have lived here since 1768 and knowing that so many of my “protestant” ancestors from the Anglo-Saxon US converted to marry my Catholic ancestors from Louisiana. (My sister and I have done the genealogy). Catholic ghettos, indeed.

 

[Annc]

You make a good point regarding the history of New Orleans etc. And I think that this statement :

When I make a personal observation regarding my family, rest assured that I have the historical background, the anthropological background, and the genealogical background to warrant such a clearly labled personal observation.

can’t be argued with after all it is your family history. I apologize if I offended you. I understand that the shift you saw after VII was huge and perhaps outweighed any negatives that others have noted.

Please understand that what we were trying to say is that one family history does not tell the whole story of the Church or Church teaching. Nor does what the Church really teaches always tell the story of what is really happening in the lives of the faithful. Things get so messed up in reality I guess because we are so imperfect in applying the Truth. The debate regarding the results of VII is another example of “what did the Church or Council really say and what do some people think it said?” I wouldn’t change back to the reality that your family experienced but I would change a lot of other things.

God bless and thanks for sharing.