Loving the EF but

[ProVobis]

VERY well said.

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.

I think it’s more likely that the OF will have more Latin with perhaps more toned down audibility and fewer options. There is nothing wrong with this.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Can anyone give me advice on the following?

I truly love the EF of the mass. I have been going to an FSSP church since I married my wife. However, there seems to be a large subset of the parishoners who, in addition to loving the EF, also hate the NO, and they preach this hatred as though it were an essential part of the community and true Catholicism.

Now, I understand where they are coming from, and to be honest, I don’t particulary blame them for their feelings, but I simply do not share their experience, or their convictions about the NO, or vatican II. I also want to emphasise that they are not all like this, and the priest heading up the church is certainly not like this.

Unfortunatly, however, it came to a head, and my wife and I decided to leave the community to protect our children from being exposed to this kind of hatred, and ourselves as well.

Does anyone else here have a similar experience, and did you deal with it differently?

God bless,
Ut

By this logic, then, you will be leaving the Novus Ordo once you find the liberals that hate ANYTHING that mentions tradition, right?

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

• want to keep the vernacular, are afraid of a Mass they cannot understand; probably wouldn’t mind the EF in vernacular (“TLM” means “Talk Like Me!”). Linguistic nationalists I think are like this too
• Progressives and liberals who fear that a reintroduction of the EF will erode their control over parishes, etc: I think there are “lay ministers” who do not want to give up their “offices”
• Vatican-II babies who know nothing other than the OF, and are afraid of experiencing the same thing the pre-Vat-II crowd did – being outsiders in their own church

The pre-Vatican II crowd felt like outsiders in their own church?

Really? What proof do you have of this?

And, how do you explain the fact that older folks attend Mass at a higher percentage than any of their younger counterparts?

 

[utunumsint]

By this logic, then, you will be leaving the Novus Ordo once you find the liberals that hate ANYTHING that mentions tradition, right?

It depends on how outnumbered I feel and how easy it is to avoid them.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Its not that I don’t think liturgy is not importants, its just that liturgy must become the expression of the heart before it can become the pinical of our relation with God. This is not denying the objective reality of the Eucharistic sacrifice, but it must be internalized before it can truly start to transform us. A truly well done liturgy helps to embody that prayer from the heart, but it does not replace it, nor can it generate it. This is grace’s work. God’s grace working in our hearts.

God bless,
Ut

 

[DavidPalm]

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.

Two thoughts on this. First, the opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger:

I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: as though in the liturgy it did not matter any more whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us.

But if in the liturgy the communion of faith no longer appears, nor the universal unity of the Church and of her history, nor the mystery of the living Christ, where is it that the Church still appears in her spiritual substance? (From My Life: Remembrances 1927-1977, p. )

My second thought has to do with the clash of cultures. You claim (or at least seem to imply) that a return to the traditional Roman Rite is a sort of retreat from the fight, a ghettoization as it were. And yet, I cannot help but point out that confronting a sick and dying culture by aping that culture is doomed to failure. And that is what I see so often in modern liturgy, the aping of modern culture–in music, in liturgical translation, in art, in architecture, in abandonment of traditional liturgical gestures and postures in order to make modern people feel better, etc. But I believe that our culture can only be confronted by erecting a genuine, authentically Catholic counter-culture. And IMO the only possible foundation for such an authentically Catholic counter-culture is the very pinnacle of Catholic culture itself, the traditional Roman Rite. It’s not about 1962 as a point in time, it’s about centuries upon centuries of organic liturgical development. You can’t build a solid edifice on a shaky foundation. All other things aside, just what sort of foundation does the NO represent? What part of it is now or ever has been stable? I’m not trying to be clever or (God forbid) shake your faith. Just honest questions in search of honest answers.

God be with you.

 

[ProVobis]

It depends on how outnumbered I feel and how easy it is to avoid them.

God bless,
Ut

This is a good point. I’ll bet most attend services where they will find the most friends, people who think and feel the way they do, regardless of whether it’s EF or OF.

 

[Ghoti]

;4985787]The pre-Vatican II crowd felt like outsiders in their own church?

Really? What proof do you have of this?

I’m only going by what has been posted on these forums. I mean that the pre-VII parishioners felt like outsiders after VII took hold – the altar rails and Latin seemed to have been chucked in a matter of weeks.

BayernAnhaenger:

And, how do you explain the fact that older folks attend Mass at a higher percentage than any of their younger counterparts?

The older folks are more faithful?

I’m not sure exactly what you are asking, or what it has to do with what I said?

If you could rephrase, I’d appreciate it.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

;4985787]The pre-Vatican II crowd felt like outsiders in their own church?

Really? What proof do you have of this?

I’m only going by what has been posted on these forums. I mean that the pre-VII parishioners felt like outsiders after VII took hold – the altar rails and Latin seemed to have been chucked in a matter of weeks.

The older folks are more faithful?

I’m not sure exactly what you are asking, or what it has to do with what I said?

If you could rephrase, I’d appreciate it.

Ok.
To the first point, I mis-read you. I thought you implied that BEFORE the reforms in the 70s, the faithful felt not-at-home in their churches.

Mea culpa.

As to the second, ignore it, because it was dependent on my error in reading you.

 

[utunumsint]

Two thoughts on this. First, the opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger:

I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: as though in the liturgy it did not matter any more whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us.

But if in the liturgy the communion of faith no longer appears, nor the universal unity of the Church and of her history, nor the mystery of the living Christ, where is it that the Church still appears in her spiritual substance? (From My Life: Remembrances 1927-1977, p. )

This is a beautiful thought. As I said in the previous post, liturgy is important. Especially as it embodies the incarnated word made flesh in the Eucharist, and also as a means to internalize what is said in the mass. But do you think our Pope was advocating a return to the traditional mass?

My second thought has to do with the clash of cultures. You claim (or at least seem to imply) that a return to the traditional Roman Rite is a sort of retreat from the fight, a ghettoization as it were. And yet, I cannot help but point out that confronting a sick and dying culture by aping that culture is doomed to failure. And that is what I see so often in modern liturgy, the aping of modern culture–in music, in liturgical translation, in art, in architecture, in abandonment of traditional liturgical gestures and postures in order to make modern people feel better, etc. But I believe that our culture can only be confronted by erecting a genuine, authentically Catholic counter-culture.

I 100% agree. But I suggest that anyone who takes seriously what is written in the Catechism of th Catholic church and tries to live it is already counter cultural. The church does not pull any punches there. I think that between the council and the publishing of the CCC, there was a period of moral and doctrinal confusion, engendered by those who took advantage of the situation to advance their own heretical views. But since the CCC was written, we now have no excuss. I think that it will be the bulwark on which the confrontation with the culture of death will be made.

Liturgy also suffered from this doctrinal chaos, but it to will find its direction through our current pope, and within the next centuries, we will see a resettling of the church, rejuvinated by Vatican II, and reborn from the ashes that followed.

And IMO the only possible foundation for such an authentically Catholic counter-culture is the very pinnacle of Catholic culture itself, the traditional Roman Rite. It’s not about 1962 as a point in time, it’s about centuries upon centuries of organic liturgical development. You can’t build a solid edifice on a shaky foundation. All other things aside, just what sort of foundation does the NO represent? What part of it is now or ever has been stable? I’m not trying to be clever or (God forbid) shake your faith. Just honest questions in search of honest answers.

God be with you.

My honest opinion is that the two will slowly merge back into each other. The trial and error found in the NO will bow to some of the more beautiful and perfect formulations in the EF. And hopefully the EF will benefit from some of the better inovations in the NO. Only time will tell which of these innovations will stand the test of time.

This view of mine corresponds with the pope’s view I think. There is no rupture in tradition.

God bless,
Ut

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

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.

Ut, I would like to contribute further but when you deliberately jump off the deep end and put words in my mouth it makes it rather frustrating. I never said the NO is the source of all evil - go back and read what I said.

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.

Actually, the liturgy plays an integral role in society - I like the quote that was posted by Cardinal Ratzinger - but it’s basically the axiom lex orandi, lex credendi. The law of prayer is the law of belief = or how you pray influences what you believe.

You said that, "the irreverence in our liturgy comes about through irreverence from the people, " but that’s backwards. The people are not free to do whatever they want at mass. They can only do what is permitted by the priest and governed by the laws of the Church for worship. If the Church offically adopts forms that aren’t conducive to reverence then naturally the people won’t be reverent.

To blame all the churche’s problems on liturgy is simplistic and involves a denial of the current reality in the world.

You’re right - it is simplistic and as complicated as you would like it to be it really all boils down to the Church and how she is ministering to people. If the Church is sick then the world will be sick. If the Church is strong then the world will be strong. You’re implying that there is a force stronger than the Church which is false. The main point of contact that people have with the Church is through the liturgy which is THE most important act in the whole world! There is nothing more important in life than the Mass and the Church. And if one or both of these is weakened then we all are. This is basically the communion of Saints. Whatever one does; for good or for bad it influences the rest. St. Paul speaks of this; when one member suffers the entire body suffers.

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

Like I said, the people are not free to do what they want. The people are irreverent because the pastors tolerate it. If people talk before and after mass, after receiving Our Lord in communion, and it goes unchecked then it will escalate. If the Priest would go up to the pulpit after Mass if people are not showing due reverence and tell them to refrain from talking and pray to God who is still present in their hearts then it would get them thinking. The irreverence is from the top down not the bottom up.

 

[utunumsint]

Ut, I would like to contribute further but when you deliberately jump off the deep end and put words in my mouth it makes it rather frustrating. I never said the NO is the source of all evil - go back and read what I said.

You are right. I got four years of pent up frustration, and you’re getting the brunt of it.

The most you have said is that in your opinion, the NO was a mistake. I also cannot fault you for turning to the traditional mass when the NO parishes had failed you and your family so miserably.

My own experience was the church was a wasteland for my faith during my formative years, from the early 80s to the begining of the 90s. I also fell away from the faith, but found it again through a combination of the Catechism, and Eucharistic adoration. The TLM was not even on the radar as an option. I took a degree in Classical studies where I read Augustine, Anselm, Thomas, among others, so that gave me the intellectual background I needed to feel secure in my faith. I attended mass at the local basilica, so I was surrounded by beauty, and the bishop and priests were reverent.

I also began to participate as a leader for a youth group. I taught apologetics. At one point we had over 90 kids attending the youth masses. We often had thirty minutes of Eucharistic adoration, and confession was always available, and used. They were truly alive in the faith.

Then I met my wife who was from the traditionalist church I mentioned. I loved it at first, until I encountered a great deal of the negativity I mentioned in this thread. We were heavily involved in a couples group that served as a kind of TLM evanglization tool for the parish priest and some highly motivated couples.

I had enough when the priest who had been the leader of the community for the last three or four year I was there said in his going away speach that Vatican II had failed, even though it was legitimate, and there was no chance for people to keep their faith in the NO, and that we had to bring people into the TLM fold. We had to seek them out, and bring them in. This was his going away speach to the group, and there were more than thirty people there who all nodded their agreement.

I’m sure he was saying this with all conviction and with no malice in his heart, but my previous experiences in the youth group I mentioned, and in the greater catholic community all screamed that this was wrong. My experience did not bear out what he was saying. The priests I had known, since my conversion that is, were all extremely devout and faithful. They said the NO with reverence, and they taught doctrine, and spoke out on moral issues with courage.

Anyway. I’m not sure what this thread is achieving for me, but thank you for contributing.

God bless,
Ut

 

[peregrinator_it]

Deep sigh. I just typed out a long response, starting by stating that I’ve participated in too many of these types of threads. And maybe I have, because my reply vanished into the cyber ether when I tried to post it. Nonetheless, here’s the second try.

I share the OP’s botheration with his experience with those who support the EF. I’d also like to particularly address the (edited) exchange below.

Originally Posted by Ghoti

Full disclosure: I’m in Ghoti’s boat liturgically. I’ve attended a chanted Latin OF for most of my life (birth to 29 years) and while I’ve also attended the EF, I prefer the liturgy that has nourished me, taught me to pray and fixed me in the Church.

I notice that many of the EF supporters seem to forget that there is legitmate spiritual diversity in the (Western, even leaving aside the East) Church. Legitimate. Every person’s path to salvation is different (within the bounds of the Church) because every person is unique. And every method of prayer and spirituality is not equally effective for every person- (one thinks of St. Therese of Liseaux and the rosary.) If one method of prayer and spirituality were sufficient for everyone, we would not have Franciscans, or Anchorites, or Dominicans, or Benedictines, or Redemptorists, or Visidantines (sp?) etc…

Ruination_IPA, you say above that we should ask ourselves if “God was glorified” by our participation in the liturgy. God is glorified (by the lay people) not by any punctilious observance or outward expression of reverence, but our full particpation in prayer.

However, as has been noted above, some methods of prayer are not as effective for some people. I find that the EF ligurgy is often an obstactle to prayer for me- certainly I cannot pray it the way I pray the chanted (Latin) OF.

The Church grants us the privilege of a choice of liturgical form. Those who try to convert others from the EF assume that those who attend the OF are doing so out of ignorance, poor catechesis (…I don’t know???) and seem reluctant to acknowledge that they may be simply choosing the liturgy that better aids prayer.

 

[iowastate]

I have to travel to an outside parish because of the goofiness and abuse. I will NOT tolerate the Protestantism that has infiltrated the so called mass they celebrate here and if there were an SSPX in closer proximity I would attend more often.

A pack of long haired kids playing guitars - holding hands - singing - ugh.

After a few times I complained and told them if things were not brought to Vatican standards I would report them. Not worried - said local bishop has visited and is aware.

I am afraid much of the American Catholic church is in sad shape if that is the case, but I have wondered about our bishops in recent years.

 

[Penance94]

One often hears about how some folks at the EF hate the OF. There certainly are cases of that and we should pray for these people. My experience is that there are a lot more Catholics at the OF who hate the EF.

AMEN! once an elderly lady at my local NO church told a friend of mine ," That’s not the Lords way", in response to my friend mentioning his son serving an EF

 

[MikeDunphy]

I myself fall into the third category – altho’ I do not oppose the EF, I do have fears that I would feel the same as if I were suddenly teleported into an Eastern parish.

I do feel the same at a TLM & a Divine Liturgy: grateful for the privilege of worshiping at the types of Liturgies that spiritually formed the great saints. :heaven:

It is regrettable that the bitter comments of some keep others away from the TLM.

 

[dsulpizio]

My children and I attend the EF here in Houston and there is a small group of parishioners that have so alienated me that I no longer attend post-mass breakfast with them.

I’ve had women stop my girls (ages 10 and 12) to tell them that they are not dressed correctly for mass (not covering their heads or wearing skirts that reach their knees)…my girls dress in a way that I approve of and are in compliance with the signs posted at the church entrance. I have had a man comment (jokingly, but not really) about my girls not wearing skirts that are 2 inches below their knees. I have had a woman tell me that my children should come back from communion with their hands in a certain position. I have had a woman tell a total stranger who received in the hand that she should receive on the tongue, no matter that receivng on the hand is allowed. I’ve had a woman tell me that I wasn’t supposed to hug priests or attend a bat mitzvah, etc etc…even though none of her statements are supported in the Catechism.

I had a woman repeatedly tell my eldest (who was not sitting with me) that she should be kneeling (my daughter was not kneeling at all during mass because her knee was still sore from having dislocated out of it’s socket weeks before).

I find it amazing that these people like to express their OPINION as if it is canon law and I find it amazing that they act as if they are bishops. No matter how many good reasons exist for covering my head at mass or receiving on the tongue, I remain a Catholic in good standing without doing either.

A priest said that he notices this attitude particularly among parishioners that attend the EF. He said that their behavior towards me and my children is a reaction to their own, huge sinfulness.

Although there are many kind people that I have met at this parish, it was only at this type of mass that I have ever met people with whom I’ve had to stop socializing…I will continue to attend the EF because I prefer it, but I limit my interaction with these parishioners to “good morning”.

 

[PKinsale]

I don’t want to dispute your experience, but mine is most of us Novus Ordonians either have no knowledge or no interest in the EF. I am a member of one of the largest parishes in Chicago and we’re drawn to our parish BECAUSE of the way the liturgy is celebrated. If someone somehow comes up wondering about the EF, we (the ones who know) send them over to our nearby EF parish.

John: Then you are fortunate!

And what would your parish’s reaction be to someone who has more tradtional practices? Who wants to kneel to receive Communion or, if a woman, wore a chapel veil to Mass?

 

[ProVobis]

I am a member of one of the largest parishes in Chicago and we’re drawn to our parish BECAUSE of the way the liturgy is celebrated. If someone somehow comes up wondering about the EF, we (the ones who know) send them over to our nearby EF parish.

In Chicago, there’s not too much to know. There are more than average number of EF’s available.