Loving the EF but

[DavidPalm]

Once again, my point has been confirmed. For many, the expectation is that you will join them in their condemnation of the NO. When you do not, they want to argue with you, point out all the problems they have with it. They criticize the popes, the local bishops, sometimes vatican II when they feel like it. 1962 reigns above all, and everything after that is anathemized.

None of that happened here. With all due respect, I think you’re being a little over-sensitive. There has, after all, been a liturgical revolution in the Church. There are going to be strong views in the wake of that.

The issue is, none of these things were done in a closet. The NO mass had the approval of all the popes, including the current pope. The NO is called the OF by pope Benedict. That hasn’t changed. So to state otherwise is to reject the authority of our current pope and out current magisterium.

And no one here, that I can see, has said otherwise. So again, are you just projecting your other experiences onto this thread or, perhaps, are you being a little over-sensitive? These matters are fair game to discuss. If you want to see what’s permissible in terms of criticism of the NO, while still getting the glowing kudos of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, I suggest you get yourself a copy of Msgr. Klaus Gamber’s book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy. It is an absolutely devastating critique. Or read some of Dietrich von Hildebrand’s critiques of the new rite. There really are serious problems and these are permissible topics for discussion for faithful Catholics. To raise concerns, even serious concerns, should not earn one the mark of “unfaithful”. There is such a thing as the loyal opposition.

I am not comfortable with this kind of attitude. I do not want my kids to be infected by it either.

Fair enough. But I thought RUINATION’s prior point was excellent. Sometimes you have to “pick your poison” as it were. If you have to constantly “unteach” what’s going on at your local parish during the Mass, then perhaps it would be best to go to the TLM and just leave before any discussions with the grumpier of the attendees breaks out.

 

[utunumsint]

None of that happened here. With all due respect, I think you’re being a little over-sensitive. There has, after all, been a liturgical revolution in the Church. There are going to be strong views in the wake of that. And no one here, that I can see, has said otherwise. So again, are you just projecting your other experiences onto this thread or, perhaps, are you being a little over-sensitive?

Both most likely.

These matters are fair game to discuss. If you want to see what’s permissible in terms of criticism of the NO, while still getting the glowing kudos of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, I suggest you get yourself a copy of Msgr. Klaus Gamber’s book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy. It is an absolutely devastating critique. Or read some of Dietrich von Hildebrand’s critiques of the new rite. There really are serious problems and these are permissible topics for discussion for faithful Catholics. To raise concerns, even serious concerns, should not earn one the mark of “unfaithful”. There is such a thing as the loyal opposition.

I’ve read many criticism of the NO. Not the least of which from Cardinal Ratzinger.

Fair enough. But I thought RUINATION’s prior point was excellent. Sometimes you have to “pick your poison” as it were. If you have to constantly “unteach” what’s going on at your local parish during the Mass, then perhaps it would be best to go to the TLM and just leave before any discussions with the grumpier of the attendees breaks out.

This is your experience, and probably that of most who attend my church. I can’t argue with experience. I simply don’t share it.

The question is, how do you heal the wounds. Because realistically NO is not going away. The loyal oposition has to recognise that. A more consiliatory tone would be the smartest thing to do in the current situation with this current pope on their side.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

To be honest, my faith is being challenged right now for a variety of reasons, one of which is the constant sense of conflict in the EF parish I go to.

Appologies for overreacting.

God bless,
Ut

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

The question is, how do you heal the wounds. Because realistically NO is not going away. The loyal oposition has to recognise that. A more consiliatory tone would be the smartest thing to do in the current situation with this current pope on their side.

God bless,
Ut

UT, I think the point is, at least as far as I can see, that the “wounds” are more or less superficial due to do oversensitivity. You’re calling scandal where there is none. I know quite a few people who are stalwart OF types and view any criticism of the new liturgy as “schismatic.” This is just plain nonsense but to each his own. If you prefer the NO and they’re doing things the way they’re suppose to be done and there is no threat to your family’s faith then go for it.

I kindly disagree with you that the NO is not going away. It already is - in baby steps and in more than one way. Since it’s inception it’s been gradually reverting to something that resembles the TLM. With our current Holy Father the baby steps are becoming more brisk. But even with that the NO, and mainstream Catholicism, is undergoing a rapid decay which will leave a lot of parishes Priestless and with aging congregants. This cannot go on this way forever without significant change. So, the NO is going to go away on it’s own or be transformed to something that is not the NO as you currently know it. St. Padre Pio once said that the world could more easily exist without the sun than it could the Mass. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

To be honest, my faith is being challenged right now for a variety of reasons, one of which is the constant sense of conflict in the EF parish I go to.

Appologies for overreacting.

God bless,
Ut

Ut, I didn’t get a chance to see this post before I posted my other one. It sounds that maybe you should take a breather at your NO parish and maybe seek to understand things that you may not know a lot about. I’m sure there’s a lot of misunderstanding going on and I don’t mean to downplay your scenario - I’ve come across some people who hold some very strange views and I simply don’t agree with them. But there are other things which are true but are misunderstood which can be rectified by simply studying the different issues. If there’s oddballs at your EF parish - just avoid them. Try not to let individuals taint your worship of God. EF or OF you’re there for God and not the oddballs.

We’ll keep you in our family rosary tonight.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Yeah, I mean, after all, if there are hateful people they MUST go to the SSPX chapels, right??

didnt say that so DONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!
I know plenty of HATEFULL LIBERALS who hate the TLM and scoff at people like me for attending it.

Most of the NO bashing does seem to come from the SSPX. I am not a big fan of the NO and get worked up when I see it done with no reverence.

This kind of polarization is sad. Hateful people are everywhere, and if you’re going to base the quality of your Mass off of the people that attend it then you might wish to re-consider your priorities.

PS: People that go to the SSPX aren’t “outside of the fold.” Just FYI.

 

[Lujack]

I agree very much that both extremes are polarizing the middle. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the two extremes use the other extreme in order to polarize the middle. Those who want artificial birth control and liturgical dancing and such just love Bishop Williamson, because they can say “Look! Don’t be like those anti-semites who go to the Latin Mass!”, and thus try and pull moderates to their side. Schismatics just love WomenPriest or whatever because they can say “Look! Don’t be like those heretics who attend Mass in the vernacular!”, and thus try to pull moderates to their side.

Meanwhile, I think the vast majority of Catholics are like the ones that I know at my church here; they go to Mass in English, they celebrate it reverently, they smile and greet each other in the cafeteria of the school for brunch, and they’re just happy to have a community and worship God. Some of them make the drive once a month to a bigger church about a half-hour away and go to the Latin Mass at the seminary. Others do not, but neither group begrudges the other.

 

[Voradin]

I can understand the provisions against socialism, but if people feel drawn to the OR,
then I would keep the rite. Some others relate the the ER, the more traditional per say.
The one thing I do not care for is the over prudish atmosphere in some parishes,
I say this carefully, another thing I hate is the overly strict child rules, and overly strict silence.I understand a child screaming and running around being a nuiscanse but one giggle is hardly noise at all, and if something needs to be said like the collection baskets are missing then it is important.

Or you have the other extreme, I enjoy both rites,
though I tend to be more careful around the liberals in the OR,
although there are liberals as well in the ER.

 

[utunumsint]

UT, I think the point is, at least as far as I can see, that the “wounds” are more or less superficial due to do oversensitivity. You’re calling scandal where there is none. I know quite a few people who are stalwart OF types and view any criticism of the new liturgy as “schismatic.” This is just plain nonsense but to each his own. If you prefer the NO and they’re doing things the way they’re suppose to be done and there is no threat to your family’s faith then go for it.

If half the things you say are true, the magisterium has failed us totally. Vatican II was also a failure. You may be willing to believe this, but I can’t, because it would mean that the Catholic church was not built on a rock.

I kindly disagree with you that the NO is not going away. It already is - in baby steps and in more than one way. Since it’s inception it’s been gradually reverting to something that resembles the TLM. With our current Holy Father the baby steps are becoming more brisk. But even with that the NO, and mainstream Catholicism, is undergoing a rapid decay which will leave a lot of parishes Priestless and with aging congregants. This cannot go on this way forever without significant change. So, the NO is going to go away on it’s own or be transformed to something that is not the NO as you currently know it. St. Padre Pio once said that the world could more easily exist without the sun than it could the Mass. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.

Perhaps you are right. Lets hope you are not.

God Bless,
Ut

 

[Extempore]

didnt say that so DONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!
I know plenty of HATEFULL LIBERALS who hate the TLM and scoff at people like me for attending it.

Exactly, which is why I said:

This kind of polarization is sad. Hateful people are everywhere, and if you’re going to base the quality of your Mass off of the people that attend it then you might wish to re-consider your priorities.

Most of the NO bashing does seem to come from the SSPX. I am not a big fan of the NO and get worked up when I see it done with no reverence.

If by “bashing” you mean criticizing, then yeah, sure, it happens amongst most traditional congregations. However, I think it fair to say that in many cases, you’ll find a lot more hotblooded dissenting going on at a diocesan TLM since they’re in the midst of the fray.

For example, at the local diocesan TLM I used to attend, every other homily on Sunday had something to do with an internal parish matter or some kind of argument going on between the members of the congregation. Of course, this arose because the Church offered both the NO and the TLM and the two congregations were hardly amiable. After a while, all the politics got tiring.

These, of course, are the struggles that the diocesan parishes are going to have when they offer both forms of the Mass. Conversely, you are less likely to see this at an SSPX chapel due to the fact that they don’t offer a NO Mass and, therefore, don’t have to walk that political line of making both congregations get along.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I have definitely been in the OP’s shoes. It’s not just NO-bashing, but as some have said, every conspiracy theory under the sun, including the Jewish syndicate’s role in Bush bringing down the World Trade Center. I brought my daughter’s godfather to Mass with us and he had to suffer through an hour or so of persistent conversation with the most extreme person in the whole community. So I definitely understand why so many people get turned off by the very idea of traditionalists, but the faith and traditional liturgy are important enough to me that I just put up with it (we often aren’t able to stick around for doughnuts, anyway), and try to use every encounter to offer one small correction of the many falsities being espoused. The way I see it, many of the crazier traditional minds are simply not in a condition for wholesale disputation, but if I listen for the little points on which I can give irrefutable correction, maybe by the time I die one of them will have become less rabid.

 

[utunumsint]

I have definitely been in the OP’s shoes. It’s not just NO-bashing, but as some have said, every conspiracy theory under the sun, including the Jewish syndicate’s role in Bush bringing down the World Trade Center. I brought my daughter’s godfather to Mass with us and he had to suffer through an hour or so of persistent conversation with the most extreme person in the whole community. So I definitely understand why so many people get turned off by the very idea of traditionalists, but the faith and traditional liturgy are important enough to me that I just put up with it (we often aren’t able to stick around for doughnuts, anyway), and try to use every encounter to offer one small correction of the many falsities being espoused. The way I see it, many of the crazier traditional minds are simply not in a condition for wholesale disputation, but if I listen for the little points on which I can give irrefutable correction, maybe by the time I die one of them will have become less rabid.

Hahaha!!!

Thanks. I needed that. Maybe I should do the same.

God bless,
Ut

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

If half the things you say are true, the magisterium has failed us totally. Vatican II was also a failure. You may be willing to believe this, but I can’t, because it would mean that the Catholic church was not built on a rock.

Ut

Ut, there you go being oversensitive again I never said the magisterium, nor implied, the magisterium has failed and the gates of hell prevailed. Picture yourself living during the time of St. Athanasius - would you have thought the gates of hell prevailed then? Or during the reign of immoral Popes - would you have thought the gates prevailed? I in no way even hinted at such a heretical view as it cannot happen. The Church is in a sickened state right now - many a saint say the Church must follow in the foot steps of Christ: The early Church started out in a blood bath of persecution and martyrdom [the Holy innocents], then flourished [the life and preaching of Christ], now we are in the passion when Christ was crucified. Following this will be a Glorious Resurrection and the Church will be restored to an even more radiant splendore than past ages. The Church has always faced heresy and scandal - nothing is new. People are people; within and without the Church.

I think previous posters have recommended good books on the liturgy and Vatican II. Another objective (it’s been hailed as one of the most comprehensive histories of V2) is The Rhine Flows into the Tiber - TAN Books. It was written by a Priest who was the press secretary during V2. In it you can see the inner workings of the Council and how a lot of Catholic truths were downplayed in order to be unoffensive to non-Catholics and non-Christians. This book is just plain cold hard facts so it’s rather a dry read but interesting nontheless.

I think where people get confused, saddened, scandalized etc… is that many hold that everything taught at V2 was infallible dogma and this has been spoon fed by many conservative avenues such as EWTN, conservative periodicals etc. As a result of this when people hear any criticism they immediately think that one cannot be a good Catholic and criticize the liturgy or ambiguities in the council documents. The argument is based upon a false assumption; that V2 was infallible across the board which it is not as indicated by Pope Paul VI himself, the head of the council’s theological comission, Pope Benedict XVI etc. We have a right and duty as faithful Catholics to debate and question things that are imposed upon the faithful that are not a part of the Church’s deposit of Faith and that we feel may not be spiritually nourishing - Cardinal Ratzinger has said as much and this is simply what is being done. I’ve never met a Catholic, NO or TLM, who has thought the gates of hell has prevailed.

I for one think the NO was a mistake - it’s the FIRST time in the HISTORY of the Catholic Church that a commitee got together and fabricated a liturgy. There are some well established concerns that the faith as presented in the NO has diluted what used to be clear. You can read the Ottaviani Intervention for a better understanding of this as well as a host of other authors who are highly acclaimed by both this Pope and past popes such as Deitrich von Hildebrand, Michael Davies, et al.

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

There is no reason to be scandalized at all this. If the Church made a wrong move let’s correct it. It’s been over 40 years and we still don’t even have a worthy english translation of the New Mass so we likely won’t see a lot happen in our lifetime although I could be wrong seeing how Pope Benedict XVI seems to want to fast track a lot of these issues.

I honestly think that once you understand the meaning and intent of the Council and it’s pastoral nature you’ll begin to see how legitimate, and necessary, is the realm of debate on this important topic which many have lost their faith over. And just to clarify; just because a council is non-dogmatic [pastoral] does not mean that we are free to reject it. What is not binding and should be rejected are faulty interpretations of it [ie. “the spirit of the council”] it’s precisely the ambiguities that are being questioned and are requiring clarifications.

God decided for each of us to be born into this time and for a reason and I once read that Our Lady said that confusion was a punishment for sin and we are living in confusing times indeed when good is evil and evil is good as Our Lord warned.

 

[Seamus_L]

Traditional Catholics simply believe what the vast majority of Catholics believed 50 years. Nowdays though, the Church’s enemies are the ones who move the yardsticks that determine what is acceptable and unacceptable to say.

 

[Quarles47]

I recognize that the abbreviation “NO” (Novus Ordo) is the bastardize form that is use to refer to the Ordo Missale 1968 but I’m am not sure what is meant by “EF”. Could someone enlighten me?

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

I recognize that the abbreviation “NO” (Novus Ordo) is the bastardize form that is use to refer to the Ordo Missale 1968 but I’m am not sure what is meant by “EF”. Could someone enlighten me?

EF= extraordinary form (traditional latin mass)
OF= ordinary form (novus ordo)
TLM= traditional latin mass
NO = novus ordo

 

[ProVobis]

It seems to me there is some polarization going on.

No one asked me but I think a lot of this polarization is due to one side feeling forced to attend a rite or form in which they’re not comfortable. Feeling forced only results in hostility and ill-will. No one should feel so forced and I’m sure the Holy Father is the last person who wants to see any such polarization.

 

[Quarles47]

RUINATION_IPA:
Thank you, Ruination.

 

[malphono]

if the Mass could be the EF in the vernacular, with the priest audible throughout the entire Mass, and the congregation having specific responses, i would be happy as a lark.

The EF in the vernacular rather brings to mind the “interim Missal” of 1965 in its later stages (meaning after the various episcopal conferences had their way with it) when Latin became anathema. Which was the lead-in to what is now called the OF, where (with the exception of the all-too-rare “reform of the reform” that Ghoti is fortunate enough to have available) Latin is still anathema for all practical purposes, despite the “official” stand on the matter.

Personally, I’ve no problem with the EF missa recitata (aka “dialogue Mass”) nor with congregational participation in singing at High Mass. But I have major problems with this all vernacular business. Limited vernacular, maybe. All vernacular, no. The “all vernacular” way is a road already traveled, and IMO it hasn’t led to the right place.

 

[utunumsint]

Ut, there you go being oversensitive again I never said the magisterium, nor implied, the magisterium has failed and the gates of hell prevailed. Picture yourself living during the time of St. Athanasius - would you have thought the gates of hell prevailed then? Or during the reign of immoral Popes - would you have thought the gates prevailed? I in no way even hinted at such a heretical view as it cannot happen.

But unlike the situations you have described above, all the pope since vatican II have supported and defended the NO, although some like our current pope decry abuses and is moving to add latin back into some parts of the mass. Yet you say the NO is the source of all evil in the church today. If you are correct then all the popes since vatican II have failed.

The Church is in a sickened state right now - many a saint say the Church must follow in the foot steps of Christ: The early Church started out in a blood bath of persecution and martyrdom [the Holy innocents], then flourished [the life and preaching of Christ], now we are in the passion when Christ was crucified. Following this will be a Glorious Resurrection and the Church will be restored to an even more radiant splendore than past ages. The Church has always faced heresy and scandal - nothing is new. People are people; within and without the Church.

I hope that in the future there will be a return or a spring time in the church. But I don’t think the churches problems today are primarily liturgical in nature. The irreverence in our liturgy comes about through irreverence from the people, from popular culture, the media, a new outlook on life that emphasize self fulfillment as possible without reference to God, and in fact the only valid goal of existence. Also included in this is the birth of a reletavism never before seen or even possible in history, except for a very small subset of the intellectual elite. These attitudes have infected our priests, our parishes, and our religious orders.

I think previous posters have recommended good books on the liturgy and Vatican II. Another objective (it’s been hailed as one of the most comprehensive histories of V2) is The Rhine Flows into the Tiber - TAN Books. It was written by a Priest who was the press secretary during V2. In it you can see the inner workings of the Council and how a lot of Catholic truths were downplayed in order to be unoffensive to non-Catholics and non-Christians. This book is just plain cold hard facts so it’s rather a dry read but interesting nontheless.

To blame all the churche’s problems on liturgy is simplistic and involves a denial of the current reality in the world. In fact it represent for me a retreate from the world. A ghettoisation of what the church ought to be: a force involved in society, challenging it, and forcing it to look at the fulness of the truth even when society does not want to hear as is the case in this current culture of death. This cannot be achieved by isolating ourselves into the 1960’s.

In short NO masses are irreverent because the people have become irreverent and need to be challenged with the full message of the gospel.

God bless,
Ut