Masses celebrated properly

  • Thread starter Thread starter hartleymartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OurLadyPerpHelp said:
I never stated that our new Mass was born from the Protestants.

My question seems very clear: based on Youtube, our new Mass looks very similar to some Protestant services. Do you know which came first?
Click to expand...
If this connection is true, then it has to be all about the language. I don’t hear too many saying the Polish OF is anywhere near Protestant.
 
OurLadyPerpHelp said:
What I don’t understand is why non-traditional Catholics contribute to a forum entitled, a discussion of traditional Catholic spirituality. I asked you this directly and you didn’t provide an answer. I have many questions surrounding the Latin and new Mass and come here to discover the traditional point of view. If I wanted the Eastern rites perspective I’d ask there. Do you understand this?
Click to expand...
Who are you referring to as non-traditional? Some of us may have a preference for the OF but that does not mean that we are not traditional or have any dislike or disdain for the Latin Mass. We have just as much right to participate on this forum as you. What are your questions about the Latin Mass?
 
OurLadyPerpHelp said:
What I don’t understand is why non-traditional Catholics contribute to a forum entitled, a discussion of traditional Catholic spirituality. I asked you this directly and you didn’t provide an answer. I have many questions surrounding the Latin and new Mass and come here to discover the traditional point of view. If I wanted the Eastern rites perspective I’d ask there. Do you understand this?
Click to expand...
Its not your place to say who can or cannot participate in the forums.

And again, where is the “Eastern perspective” you are accusing me of? I just said compare the OF with Eastern Liturgies to see what a Catholic Liturgy is as opposed to a Protestant Liturgy.
 
zab said:
Who are you referring to as non-traditional? Some of us may have a preference for the OF but that does not mean that we are not traditional or have any dislike or disdain for the Latin Mass. We have just as much right to participate on this forum as you. What are your questions about the Latin Mass?
Click to expand...
The person I addressed the question to identified him/herself as not being a traditional Catholic.

Thank you for your request as to my Latin Mass questions. I’ll post them when I have time. Currently I have a work project going on and just multi tasking by keeping an eye on this forum. I’m thinking about shutting it down however as instead of answers all I seem to be getting is argument.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Its not your place to say who can or cannot participate in the forums.

And again, where is the “Eastern perspective” you are accusing me of? I just said compare the OF with Eastern Liturgies to see what a Catholic Liturgy is as opposed to a Protestant Liturgy.
Click to expand...
I never said it was my place to determine who can participate in the forums. I asked you a question to which you still have not answered.

To be clear, I’m not a member of the Eastern rites nor have any interest in them at this time. If I find time and have the interest, perhaps I’ll start posting in the Eastern rites forum and be happy to hear your opinions there.

For now, it would be nice that if I post a question in the traditional Catholic forum that I get the traditional Catholic perspective. I don’t have time nor the inclinations to debate anything right now let along anything about the Church.
 
Oh, I see…you both are insinuating I am another person here. Interesting. Why would anyone do that?

Sirach, how about sticking to the topic at hand and not concerning yourself with the individual? Are you able to answer my question to you or not?

Perhaps you should re-read you quote.
 
OurLadyPerpHelp said:
What I don’t understand is why non-traditional Catholics contribute to a forum entitled, a discussion of traditional Catholic spirituality. I asked you this directly and you didn’t provide an answer. I have many questions surrounding the Latin and new Mass and come here to discover the traditional point of view. If I wanted the Eastern rites perspective I’d ask there. Do you understand this?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do understand it. I’ve seen many holy, well-catchized, knowledgeable Traditional Catholics leave this forum (& CAF) because of this tactic. It is a tactic you know & practiced not only by a FEW Eastern Catholics, but also by those that I call “Novus Ordo Catholics”.

Not all Catholics who attend the NO. Mass are what I have dubbed “Novus Ordo Catholics”. That description belongs ONLY to those who will not attend a Latin Mass, though our Pope has given it his blessing, those who will not even **try **to learn about the TLM. & last but not least, those who hold some “position” in their parish (Liturgist, EEM, or lector etc.) that wouldn’t be needed or practiced should the Latin Mass popularity continue to grow at the speed that it’s growing now. There is much fear of the Latin Mass.

BTW. This is not at all an attack on Eastern Catholics or Catholics who prefer the Novus Ordo Mass, for most of you are quite happy to discuss your faith on the Liturgy, Philosophy or Spritituality forums. It’s just a few who come here an accuse us of “being holier than thou” & who use obfuscatory means & attempt to get “Trad” threads off topic.

There are also many threads that are posted only to bait us into an argument & comparison of the two forms of the Latin rite Mass. This is forbidden by our moderators & it should be. Myself, I only ask that our Bishops & our fellow Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass, embrace & honor the TLM., as our Pope has done.
 
zab said:
While I am not so sure of the identiy of Lady, I also sensed a connection.
Click to expand...
Shame on you both Zab & Sirach. This thread is about “Novus Ordo Masses Celebrated Properly”. It’s not a place for those who want to do
detective work on another poster. If you suspect that a poster does not belong here, report it to the moderator.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program:

Our Lady of Perpetual Help, have you ever attended a Novus Ordo Mass that is celebrated properly? A way to check that out is to watch either one of the Pontifical Masses or one that’s held on EWTN.
 
I found this in the Rules section too:

“In addition, we are getting complaints about argumentative posts. An argumentative post is one where it is clear that the poster just wants to be oppositional, find fault, be critical, get the upper hand, be condescending, or trigger a debate about a subject, especially one that’s not on the table.”

Are the rules vigorously enforced here?

CradleCath, yes of course I’ve been to many Novus Ordo Masses celebrated properly. Fortunately I can’t say I have occupied much time thinking about whether the priest was saying the Mass properly, I just trusted he was. I have also been fortunate to not ever personally witnessed things like clowns, balloons, or waterguns squirting out holy water. However, since I began researching the liturgy I’m becoming more aware of how important obedience to the rubics is for everyone concerned. This research has also lead me to the Latin Mass and I’m very interested in it and the relationship between the two forms. That’s why I am spending time in this forum - to learn the traditional perspective. I’m not sure what some others are motivated by but hopefully they respect my time as everyone else’s.
 
40.png
CradleCath:
There are also many threads that are posted only to bait us into an argument & comparison of the two forms of the Latin rite Mass. This is forbidden by our moderators & it should be.
Click to expand...
You don’t call your post below “bait,” CC?
Or, against the rules, pitting the EF against the OF?
Did you believe your opinion was a valid reason to cause thread drift from the OP’s topic when he requested it in his post #34? “Just a side note here (I didn’t intend this to be a language debate!”)

Did you listen to him when you posted that bit from the wrong document Summorum Pontificum, concerning latin? This document was dated July, 2007, and vernacular was already in full use — lawfully!
40.png
CradleCath:
When the FORM of a Mass allows “creativity” & seems to foster a NEED for innovation, I’d say…with Pope Benedict…That a form of the Mass that appears to be a “banal on-the-spot product”, boring & mundane… INVITES innovation, almost demands it, in order to keep the attendance level somewhat stable.
Click to expand...
No wonder you want to shoo everyone out of this forum if they don’t attend the TLM, but I do not know of a single thing in the guidelines that say only these few people are welcome in TC. Many lovely threads are begun that have no bearing on the latin mass, and I find them very enriching, even though some of them might be better served in Spirituality.

I would ask any who are reading this post to please honor the OP’s thread, which began beautifully until some of you decided to adopt your own agenda. Kindly start a new thread if that is your wish.
 
OurLadyPerpHelp said:
Thank you for your time in responding, Mark. You are very blessed to have accumulated a working knowledge of our liturgy. May I trouble you for another question?

I have spent some time on Youtube looking at various liturgies. My own experience so far has been limited to our liturgy, or should I say the new Mass. What I’ve found so far is our new Mass looks very similar to several Protestant services whereas the Latin Mass looks very different. What came first, the Protestant services or our new Mass?
Click to expand...
Ignoring the argument of the last two pages, let me make a couple of brief points:
  1. The modern Mass can be expressed in a number of different ways. If you saw it in all Latin, with the priest’s back turned to the congregation, no hymns, and a Gregorian schola to provide the chant, I don’t think you would sense much similarity to a Protestant service. Most people who were not experts would probably have a hard time telling the difference between that and a celebration of the traditional Latin Mass.
  2. Obviously, that type of celebration of the modern Mass is rare – it’s generally in the vernacular, facing the congregation, with hymns for the people to sing and so on. There’s certainly a degree of sense to the point that what “came first” in this respect was the Protestant services, but the explanation is more complicated that simply to say that the modern Mass “copied the Protestants.” Most of the elements of a usual celebration of the current Mass, such as the use of the vernacular, proclaiming the readings to the congregation rather than to the wall, and so on, were adopted because people liked them and they seemed like good ideas. Unsurprisingly, those are also the reasons that the Protestants adopted them after the Reformation, when they were no longer locked in to following the dictates of the Vatican.
So it is not that the Church decided to “copy the Protestants” in, for instance, using the vernacular, it is that both groups decided it was a good idea to use the vernacular, and the Protestants happened to do it first. When we got around to it, the motive was not to “be like the Protestants,” it was to celebrate Mass in language the people could understand. If Protestants all suddenly switched to Homeric Greek, we would still keep using English, because we adopted the vernacular for reasons that had nothing to do with the Protestants – it just so happens that they were the same reasons that apply to the Protestants, which is why they made some of the same choices that we did (and did so much earlier). The same goes for many issues of congregational participation and the like.

One would expect some evolution in the say the liturgy meets the needs and concerns of a congregation over a four-century stretch of time. In the Catholic Church, that used to happen routinely, but after Trent (1570 to 1970) it did not. It only stands to reason to some of the same developments that the Protestants – who were not locked in to one historic expression of the Mass – saw as beneficial would be developments that we, too, would see as beneficial and would adopt of our own accord once we had made up our minds to allow changes to the Mass again, as we used to.

I have expressed in other (lengthy) posts my view that it was the fact that the liturgy was frozen for so long that caused such a flood of changes to burst forth after Vatican II. When you keep anything pent up for four centuries, that is abnormal – certainly an aberration in the twenty-century history of our Church – and it’s going to make a bit of a mess when you finally open the floodgates. We’re still in the process of cleaning up that mess, and it’s a tiresome chore, so tiresome that we sometimes can get deluded into thinking that it would have all been better if we had ignored it and kept everything pent up. I happen to disagree (and apparently so did the 2,147 bishops who signed Sacrosanctum Concilium calling for substantial changes to the liturgy of the kind that hadn’t been seen in centuries, so I guess I’m in somewhat decent company).
  1. And in fact the Protestants have copied our modern Mass in quite a number of ways. When we developed the modern Lectionary (the cycle of readings), for instance, it was adopted by a great number of Protestant churches who recognized its merits. Many Protestant congregations use our hymns, prayers, and general order of service as well.
 
Thank you Mark for such a rational and dare I say intellectual response. You have renewed my trust in seeking Catholic answers here.

I really like your theory of a thawed-out liturgy causing a flood in the church. That explains so much and gives new light to the term “Reform of the reform”. I also thought about a shaken soda bottle - when you open it you’ll spray half the contents on the walls, floor, and yourself. You still have the other half though and what we make of it is yet to be seen.

Unfortunately, we lost half the soda bottle and now I’m thinking of all those baptized Catholics who don’t go to Mass anymore. I know the pill gets a lot of the blame, but during an upheaval like the Sexual Revolution, we needed the stability of our faith the most. There had to have been a better way to release the liturgical tension of four centuries and not lose so many souls.

Your theory that we didn’t copy the Protestants is not as immediately solid and I’ll take some more time to dwell on it. It seems somewhat specious to contend something our neighbours were doing for four centuries we just happened to adopt because it made sense at the time. It’s true Protestants are not locked into one historical liturgical expression, but then again, perhaps that’s why there are so many denominations of them.

I’ve read some other perspectives that state the Protestant reforms to the liturgy were for deeper reasons than convenience and familiarity. Some contend that turning the priest around was to decrease the emphasis on Sacrifice, going away from a high altar onto a table furthered that direction towards a community meal. Switching to the native tongue from a sacred was to lessen the importance of the priesthood itself.

Of course I’m sure you’re aware of these counter-arguments. If I can rely on responses like yours then I’ll be encouraged to seek out more answers here. I greatly admire your knowledge and endeavor to build up the same some day.
 
OurLadyPerpHelp said:
I never said it was my place to determine who can participate in the forums. I asked you a question to which you still have not answered.

To be clear, I’m not a member of the Eastern rites nor have any interest in them at this time. If I find time and have the interest, perhaps I’ll start posting in the Eastern rites forum and be happy to hear your opinions there.

For now, it would be nice that if I post a question in the traditional Catholic forum that I get the traditional Catholic perspective. I don’t have time nor the inclinations to debate anything right now let along anything about the Church.
Click to expand...
Boy, you’re aggressive for a supposed to be newbie.

Again, the context of my response is about the OF on how to compare it with other liturgies. I wasn’t even directing my reply to you.

Besides, why bring up Protestant liturgies, this isn’t the Non-Catholic Forum.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Boy, you’re aggressive for a supposed to be newbie.

Again, the context of my response is about the OF on how to compare it with other liturgies. I wasn’t even directing my reply to you.

Besides, why bring up Protestant liturgies, this isn’t the Non-Catholic Forum.
Click to expand...
What does a “supposed newbie” mean?

If I appear aggressive to you then I suggest it is because I’ve been on the defensive since coming here looking for answers. Maybe I signed up for the wrong website and found “Catholic Arguments” instead.

Speaking of answers…I’m still waiting on one from you. Since I somehow doubt you are willing to provide it and since you have admitted to not having a traditional perspective, perhaps it’s best if I find out how to use the “Ignore List”.
 
40.png
ConstantineTG:
Besides, why bring up Protestant liturgies, this isn’t the Non-Catholic Forum.
Click to expand...
If you follow this person’s other posts, you’ll find innuendos conveniently sandwiched among her “questions” that have no bearing on the topic, but which are serving to swing the reader to her point of view. I would say she’s well prepared with volumes of research.
40.png
OurLadyPerpHelp:
I’ve read some other perspectives that state the Protestant reforms to the liturgy were for deeper reasons than convenience and familiarity. Some contend that turning the priest around was to decrease the emphasis on Sacrifice, going away from a high altar onto a table furthered that direction towards a community meal. Switching to the native tongue from a sacred was to lessen the importance of the priesthood itself.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you! You captured very well what I think but have had much difficulty articulating! :o
hartleymartin said:
I’ve read far and wide of the number of people who dismiss the Ordinary Form of the mass in favour of the Extra-Ordinary Form (Missal of 1962).

Now I just want to make a few opinions clear, and I believe to have obtained a reasonably balanced view.

1.) It isn’t the form of the mass which is problematic - it is the abuse of liturgy by poorly-trained priests or other clergy who decided that they would be “innovative” or “creative” with public worship.

2.) Latin isn’t a “sacramental” it is the official language of the Latin church. Don’t elevate it beyond it’s proper place in the liturgy. That said, I do like praying in Latin, but it isn’t a new level of holiness.

3.) When the Ordinary Form of the Mass is celebrated correctly, it is just as reverent as any mass celebrated according to any other edition of the missal.

4.) You can pray the Ordinary Form in Latin - In fact, the ordinary language of the Latin church is still Latin (except that readings and homily are to be said in the vernacular), with an option to pray the mass in the vernacular using an official translation. TRY IT!

5.) Don’t rubbish an entire church because of a few poor clergy.

6.) Be wary of committing a sin of spiritual pride, of believing yourself to be better or more holy than other people because you follow a particular form of the mass or piety.

7.) Don’t make Vatican II the scape-goat of all the problems that have existed in the church since the 1970’s. Many things done “in the spirit of Vatican II” went directly against the Vatican documentation and many people never even read Vatican II documents, passing off their own innovations as official Vatican II stuff.

8.) Many people today do things incorrect or rather badly because they were badly taught. A poor student is not to blame for having been taught by a poor teacher.

9.) Remember that we are all sinners in need of God’s grace and mercy.

10.) Remember that you will fail on your own strength, but with a devotion to God, relying on His strength, you can succeed.

Brothers and sisters, may the Grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ be with you all!
Click to expand...
 
Sirach2 said:
If you follow this person’s other posts, you’ll find innuendos conveniently sandwiched among her “questions” that have no bearing on the topic, but which are serving to swing the reader to her point of view. I would say she’s well prepared with volumes of research.
Click to expand...
Can you please provide examples rather than speaking of me in the third person. I can honestly claim to have pure intentions here, seeking answers, not provoking arguments.

Is there something wrong with bringing my research to this forum or do you prefer women to be seen and not heard?

Do these words sound familiar: be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top