My Statement

[Caesar]

Seperating the reforms from the abuse of the reforms, there is no demonstrable proof that the reforms have been destructive to the Church.

Ah yes, because we all know the Church is flourishing now. The new springtime is here.

The fact is that by tampering with the liturgy the reformers did untold damage to the Church. Most Catholics in North American today are unable to grasp even basic things that were considered common knowledge fifty years ago. Far too many Catholics don’t even understand what it means to be Catholic. The situation the Church is in today can be traced back to the the liturgical reforms. The liturgy was the face of Catholicsm, the physical embodiment of the faith. When the liturgy changed so did the Church.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Seperating the reforms from the abuse of the reforms, there is no demonstrable proof that the reforms have been destructive to the Church.

So playing a guitar and drums during Mass, having lay people touch the Eucharist, heretical statements from top Vatican officials, and an extreme decrease in the amount of Catholics in the world (1/4 of the whole world to 1/6) isn’t destructive to the Church?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ah yes, because we all know the Church is flourishing now. The new springtime is here.

The fact is that by tampering with the liturgy the reformers did untold damage to the Church. Most Catholics in North American today are unable to grasp even basic things that were considered common knowledge fifty years ago. Far too many Catholics don’t even understand what it means to be Catholic. The situation the Church is in today can be traced back to the the liturgical reforms. The liturgy was the face of Catholicsm, the physical embodiment of the faith. When the liturgy changed so did the Church.

With respect, it is NOT a fact. It is an opinion. My opinion is also that in some places they went too far. My answer to that would not be to go back to the EF as the only form, however. We differ in our opinion (though I recognize it as an opinion) and in our proposed solutions.

As for the Church flourishing, I cling to Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against Her and pray for her daily. Even when she isn’t fourishing, she flourishes, because, as the Greeks put it, that’s her “final cause.” She will triumph in the end.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So playing a guitar and drums during Mass, having lay people touch the Eucharist, heretical statements from top Vatican officials, and an extreme decrease in the amount of Catholics in the world (1/4 of the whole world to 1/6) isn’t destructive to the Church?

No, playing the guitar isn’t destructive to the Church. Check out the Los Angeles Guitar Quartet’s “For Thy Pleasure” if you think guitar music, particularly Track One if you think guitar music is, of its nature, inappropriate for Mass. Playing “Michael, Row Your Boat Ashore,” may well be embarassing for Holy Mother Church, but hardly destructive. I don’t know what heretical statements you mean, but I’d be pleased to learn of them, and while they might be harmful, no, I would deny that they are destructive (perhaps that’s an overemphasis on semantics, but words are important and I again refer to Christ’s promise). The amount of people IN the Church is hardly germane to the health or vitality of the Church (again, given Christ’s promise), though it certainly is to the eternal destiny of each person in question.

Sorry, must get to Mass. God bless.

 

[James0235]

No one has bashed any “traditionalists”, but this is also another trend I find disturbing: any observation not to their liking is regarded as “bashing.” It’s very nearly the same technique as used by homosexual activists or radical feminists, ie, anything which they remotely construe as negative (and no one has said ANYTHING at all negative about the EF or traditionalists AS A WHOLE) is “homo-phobia” or “sexism,” no matter how true the “offending” statement might be.

#1 Good to see you in this forum again. I can’t remember seeing you in here for some time now.

#2 I don’t think your comparison to homosexual activists really holds up. While I agree that any comment made about homosexuality is viewed as bashing by the gay activists it is not the same here.

Maybe not in this particular thread. But, in the forum in general, it is almost impossible for someone to write anything about the TLM without someone feeling the need to make derogatory comments. Bashing actually occurs here.

There was a troll who registered just yesterday seemingly for the sole purpose of bashing the TLM. Here are some examples:

PS Time is not on your side. The Latin-praying priests are all dead or dying.

**Yes, they are. They are teaching them to veer away from Latin. It is the language of dead Romans. The language is dead. So too the Latin Mass. It is time to give it a decent burial.

****It seems from the count, there is a latin mass for every one million catholics. Keep that number in your head. Yes, “lex orandi, lex credendi” is telling us that the latin mass is over, “Ite Missa est”. “Deo Gratias”.

** It is one thing to state an opinion. But, it is quite another to post asinine comments like these on every thread having to do with the TLM while contributing nothing of any substance to the discussion. That certainly qualifies as bashing. And it is not limited to just this one new troll. Long time posters occasionally do the same thing.

#3 The claim of bashing (and the bashing) goes both ways. I know there are trolls who can’t help but attack the NO every time it is mentioned.

James

 

[brotherhrolf]

J Kirk, I have no problems with a guitar quartet. Lord knows I have more than enough Romeros albums and would have loved to have heard Julian Bream live.

Holy guacamole Batman, James! Your views are absolutely breathtaking. Yo. I’m not dead yeat, I’m feeling better.

For forty years I have prayed and hoped for something like the MP. Now I’ve got to listen to all these folks who say it’s dead and time to be buried. When did 56 get to be so old?

 

[Brother_John]

Brotherhrolf makes excellent points, especially in pointing out that not everyone in his generation was happy with the Novus Ordo reforms.

Unfortunately I see this thread very quickly turning into a “lets bash the traditionalists” party.

While I admire and respect my friend, Brotherhrolf, let’s be honest here. How many posters come to CAF and bash the TLM/EF?

Now then, how many “traditionalists” (I’ve been trying to cut back on using that word) come to CAF and bash the OF?

Methinks the scales are heavily tilted toward the latter.

 

[James0235]

While I admire and respect my friend, Brotherhrolf, let’s be honest here. How many posters come to CAF and bash the TLM/EF?

Now then, how many “traditionalists” (I’ve been trying to cut back on using that word) come to CAF and bash the OF?

Methinks the scales are heavily tilted toward the latter.

While it is clear that a lot of bashing goes on both ways it seems to me that the scales are tilted toward the former.

James

 

[Caesar]

While it is clear that a lot of bashing goes on both ways it seems to me that the scales are tilted toward the former.

James

I agree. A lot more people come into this forum, the Traditional Catholic Forum, with the purpose of bashing traditionalists (thats really not a naughty word, we call ourselves that after all) then those who go over to the Liturgy and Sacraments Forum to complain about the Novus Ordo.

It is also clear that while many traditionalists will complain about the Novus Ordo itself, many neo-conservatives and liberals will take their grief out not on the traditional Mass but those who attend it.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I agree. A lot more people come into this forum, the Traditional Catholic Forum, with the purpose of bashing traditionalists (thats really not a naughty word, we call ourselves that after all) then those who go over to the Liturgy and Sacraments Forum to complain about the Novus Ordo.

I think this is funny because there is far more bashing of the OF done HERE than anywhere else! Is it a sense of preaching to the choir or safety in numbers?

 

[Brother_John]

I think this is funny because there is far more bashing of the OF done HERE than anywhere else! Is it a sense of preaching to the choir or safety in numbers?

Kinda what I was thinkin’ :yup:

 

[Indyann]

I agree. A lot more people come into this forum, the Traditional Catholic Forum, with the purpose of bashing traditionalists (thats really not a naughty word, we call ourselves that after all) then those who go over to the Liturgy and Sacraments Forum to complain about the Novus Ordo.

It is also clear that while many traditionalists will complain about the Novus Ordo itself, many neo-conservatives and liberals will take their grief out not on the traditional Mass but those who attend it.

Well, gee, do you think that might be because you just used two derogatory terms to describe the Catholics in the pews, that you know absolutely nothing about?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

#1 Good to see you in this forum again. I can’t remember seeing you in here for some time now.

#2 I don’t think your comparison to homosexual activists really holds up. While I agree that any comment made about homosexuality is viewed as bashing by the gay activists it is not the same here.

Maybe not in this particular thread. But, in the forum in general, it is almost impossible for someone to write anything about the TLM without someone feeling the need to make derogatory comments. Bashing actually occurs here.

There was a troll who registered just yesterday seemingly for the sole purpose of bashing the TLM. Here are some examples:

PS Time is not on your side. The Latin-praying priests are all dead or dying.

**Yes, they are. They are teaching them to veer away from Latin. It is the language of dead Romans. The language is dead. So too the Latin Mass. It is time to give it a decent burial. **

It seems from the count, there is a latin mass for every one million catholics. Keep that number in your head. Yes, “lex orandi, lex credendi” is telling us that the latin mass is over, “Ite Missa est”. “Deo Gratias”.

It is one thing to state an opinion. But, it is quite another to post asinine comments like these on every thread having to do with the TLM while contributing nothing of any substance to the discussion. That certainly qualifies as bashing. And it is not limited to just this one new troll. Long time posters occasionally do the same thing.

#3 The claim of bashing (and the bashing) goes both ways. I know there are trolls who can’t help but attack the NO every time it is mentioned.

James

Thank you, it has been some time since I posted.

I think the above (which IS egregious and awful) is a very rare exception and is inexcusable. That said, strictly in terms of the math, the bashing of the OF as opposed to the bashing of the EF is much, much greater. I think even the most cursory examination of the forums would bear that out. And please note, I’m not comparing “traditionalists” with either homosexual activists or radical feminists. I’m simply comparing their reactions to the same TYPE of observations.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It is also clear that while many traditionalists will complain about the Novus Ordo itself, many neo-conservatives and liberals will take their grief out not on the traditional Mass but those who attend it.

No, that’s also very inaccurate. Those of us who prefer the OF to the EF are roundly criticized for that preference, even obliquely (“why are you afraid of Latin?”, as an example), ie., it’s made personal for us, and far more often, than for “traditionalists,” as though there’s something wrong or misplaced within our minds or beings or whatever, simply because we would prefer, given the choice, to attend the OF.

 

[stevegravy]

For my money and I have been going back to a TLM only recently and so I offer these few comparisons and they are only my observations and opinions.

a.	Things I like about the TLM.

	i.	The priest back is to the congregation so no room for Fr. Dramaticus and all the theatrics
	ii. The vestments are more impressive and add a greater sense of reverence. especially if you knew what they sybolized.
	iii. The communion rail (Definite feeling of something significant going on not like a halloween candy hand out.)
	iv. The music makes you think your in church and tries very hard to be sublime.

b.	Things I like about the NO.

	i. The Priest faces you during the second and third elevation, each time reminding the             congregation this is the body of Christ. Something that surveys say a big portions of the congregation no longer believe.
	ii. Being in English I don’t have to read along to know what the prayers are saying to God. If all you had was the Latin words being said and no understanding of Latin the TLM sounds almost like a magical incantation  
	iii. The additional bible readings and the psalms.
	iv. The affirmation after the consecration.   

c.	Things I don’t like about the NO.

	i.  I don’t like having multiple versions for the liturgy. A long Roman version or the quickie versions favorite of Fr. Speedy. Gets them out fast. And furthermore the English translation of the liturgy is abominable when compared to the translation of the Latin in my 1963 St. Joseph’s missal. And I am talking about the long version Roman version of the liturgy.
	ii. Most of the songs stink sound like bad coffee shop failures. I mean they all are not bad but the music director at my parish has a knack of picking the obscure worse.
	iii. The priest facing us all through mass has given a new form of liturgical behavior...did I mention it before Fr. Dramaticus the frustrated thespian.

Too bad I don’t get to make my own liturgy but that is what I have the Bishops for. I do think if the prayers remain the same and the forms remain consistent there is no reason why the mass could not be in English or Latin. Regardless what language is used some reverence and decorum remains a prerequisite.

 

[JRKH]

**The changes were not wrong in 1969 **- I pray one day you see that and get some peace of heart. The Church was well within her rights.

After reading through nearly all the posts (except the “who bashes who most” ones) I want to try and make a little sense of this.

If one reads through the posts one can see the main debators begin to build up walls of misunderstanding to buttress themselves from the others percieved error/attack. The bolded section of the quote above is just a quick pointer to the kind of thing I am talking about.

Eilish, you are right. The changes were not “wrong”. The church authorized them. However, Bro’Wolf is also right in that we had our comfortable and beautiful liturgy yanked out from under us.
It wasn’t that the Church was wrong in authorizing the changes, or that the changes themselves were wrong, but the Bishops were most certainly wrong in HOW they implemented the changes. One week it was Latin, and the next week it was English. “Out with the Old and in with the new. What don’t like it? Well get use to it - Bishop says so. Must obey the Bishop” Maybe it wasn’t exactly like that but it sure felt like it.

Today, the “Traditionalists” are fighting for recognition and greater use of the EF. Not to the exclusion of the OF but at least on par with. They are fighting an uphill battle against prejudice and narrowminded or lazy bishops and liberals. Why do I say this? Because the Holy Father, who has instructed the bishops to accomodate those faithful who want the EF, has been mocked, and ignored by many bishops and by even more liberal lay catholics.
In the 60’s, when the liturgical changes occurred, there was no concern expressed by bishops about taking care of the older parishoners who were deeply troubled, deeply hurt and confused, by the changes. There was no accomodation made to help these people ease through the transition. No Latin mass in the morning and English the rest of the time. The Bishops made the Changes and that was that. Why? Because Rome authorized it and and that was that. In those days what Rome said carried a lot more weight than it seems to today.

Compare that to today. Immediately after the issuance of the MP on the EF, some bishops actually announced that no one in their diocese wanted it. - And this was after how much research?
The fact is that no one really knows how many people would prefer the EF because, up until recently, the only ones using it regularly were the SSPX and like churches, so there is a huge number of catholics who don’t know anything about the EF except it is said in Latin.
If the various diocese put even a modicum of resources into promoting the EF, the results would probably look something like this: After about 20 years roughly 20% would attend the EF almost exclusively, 20% would attend the OF almost exlusively and the remaining 60% would attend either one, based on timing of the mass etc. Of that middle 60%, 40% would “lean” toward the OF while the other 30% would “lean” toward the EF. (This is just my best guess)

I honestly don’t believe that most “traditionalists” want to see the OF replaced, I know I don’t. Each has it’s particular benefits. Both have the Eucharist.

Both are authorized and valid forms within the Catholic Church.

Peace
James

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Eilish, you are right. The changes were not “wrong”. The church authorized them. However, Bro’Wolf is also right in that we had our comfortable and beautiful liturgy yanked out from under us.
It wasn’t that the Church was wrong in authorizing the changes, or that the changes themselves were wrong, but the Bishops were most certainly wrong in HOW they implemented the changes. One week it was Latin, and the next week it was English. “Out with the Old and in with the new. What don’t like it? Well get use to it - Bishop says so. Must obey the Bishop” Maybe it wasn’t exactly like that but it sure felt like it.

Today, the “Traditionalists” are fighting for recognition and greater use of the EF. Not to the exclusion of the OF but at least on par with. They are fighting an uphill battle against prejudice and narrowminded or lazy bishops and liberals. Why do I say this? Because the Holy Father, who has instructed the bishops to accomodate those faithful who want the EF, has been mocked, and ignored by many bishops and by even more liberal lay catholics.
In the 60’s, when the liturgical changes occurred, there was no concern expressed by bishops about taking care of the older parishoners who were deeply troubled, deeply hurt and confused, by the changes. There was no accomodation made to help these people ease through the transition. No Latin mass in the morning and English the rest of the time. The Bishops made the Changes and that was that. Why? Because Rome authorized it and and that was that. In those days what Rome said carried a lot more weight than it seems to today.

Compare that to today. **Immediately after the issuance of the MP on the EF, some bishops actually announced that no one **in their diocese wanted it. - And this was after how much research?
The fact is that no one really knows how many people would prefer the EF because, up until recently, the only ones using it regularly were the SSPX and like churches, so there is a huge number of catholics who don’t know anything about the EF except it is said in Latin.
If the various diocese put even a modicum of resources into promoting the EF, the results would probably look something like this: After about 20 years roughly 20% would attend the EF almost exclusively, 20% would attend the OF almost exlusively and the remaining 60% would attend either one, based on timing of the mass etc. Of that middle 60%, 40% would “lean” toward the OF while the other 30% would “lean” toward the EF. (This is just my best guess)

I honestly don’t believe that most “traditionalists” want to see the OF replaced, I know I don’t. Each has it’s particular benefits. Both have the Eucharist.

Both are authorized and valid forms within the Catholic Church.

Peace
James

The MP does not speak of ‘promoting’ the EF - so I am not sure the 20% means much of anything if it is based on a bit of ‘promotion’.

I am not sure about you James but I have seen ‘traditional’ Catholics post about how there are so very many people ‘longing’ for the EF etc and since the MP was released suddenly it needs ‘promotion’?

As far as the way changes were implemented – did the Church have a prior history of making changes so the laity would be ‘comfortable’ with them? If not, what should make 1969 and the changes from Vat II the exception?

 

[Brenda_V]

(cut for brevities sake )

I honestly don’t believe that most “traditionalists” want to see the OF replaced, I know I don’t. Each has it’s particular benefits. Both have the Eucharist.

Both are authorized and valid forms within the Catholic Church.

Peace
James

James - great over all post but too long to quote entirely . I really wanted to comment on this last part anyway - I agree, I think the vast majority of the EF people (Traditionalists if you will) don’t want to have the OF replaced they just want to be able to go to the EF.

I also think that here on the CAF we have more vocal people than you will find in the average Parish so, if you don’t know anyone who wants the EF it is probably because they just don’t speak up or don’t “run in your circle of friends”. I personally don’t know anyone who wants the EF so bad that they will push for it - I will say that I belong to one of those wonderfully blessed Parishes where the OF is said reverently and most people treat it with reverence. If you polled the people in my Parish you would probably find a larger percentage who know about the evils of ABC, pre-marital sex, the Real Presence!

So, brotherrholf I do understand your frustration even if I did not experience it - I am about 8 years younger than you are so when Vat. II was promulgated I was still in grade school and the Sisters worked hard to teach us about the changes (so we could be the examples to the adults) and yes, we sang “Bridge over Troubled Waters” . As an adult I see how wrong that song is for Mass but as a child it was a “cool” song but not sung for many years, seems to have been that transition kind of song.

“Sing a New Church” is a song I haven’t sung for a long time (maybe after Easter) but the way I understand the song it is about the New Covenant, the New Church being the Christian Church Jesus founded, not a “new Church” after Vat. II. Maybe if you look at it this way brotherrhol you will see the song differently.

Brenda V.

 

[James0235]

While I admire and respect my friend, Brotherhrolf, let’s be honest here. How many posters come to CAF and bash the TLM/EF?

Now then, how many “traditionalists” (I’ve been trying to cut back on using that word) come to CAF and bash the OF?

Methinks the scales are heavily tilted toward the latter.

I think this is funny because there is far more bashing of the OF done HERE than anywhere else! Is it a sense of preaching to the choir or safety in numbers?

That said, strictly in terms of the math, the bashing of the OF as opposed to the bashing of the EF is much, much greater. I think even the most cursory examination of the forums would bear that out.

Just casually browsing through some current threads the only way this would possible be true is if you count every criticism as bashing. And definitely not the same as bashing the OF.

If you add up every post criticizing the Liturgical abuses (which are evil and gravely sinful), the use of Haugen,Haas and the St Louis Jesuits to the exclusion of Gregorian chant (despite what the Church says about sacred music), the abolition of Latin (again, the Church says we should be using it in the OF), and the use of a dozen “Eucharistic Ministers” for 100 communicants then you might have a point.

But, these are not criticisms of the Rite itself. These are criticisms of the poor way Mass is celebrated. Big difference there.

I think the fact of the matter is that for a lot of people here it is nearly impossible to find a Mass that even follows the GIRM let alone with the things the Church recommends (Latin, chant, etc.) And there is nothing wrong with complaining about that - especially when you are being ignored by your priest and your bishop.

I love the Mass - OF and EF. But, I could never stress enough how much I hate how the OF is celebrated in the majority of the parishes around me. I long ago gave up asking for any sense of the sacred in Mass. I just wanted one that followed the GIRM. When it became clear that that would never happen I just started attending Mass somewhere else. I have a couple of excellent options - OF and EF available to me. But, my impression here is that many do not.

James

 

[James0235]

And please note, I’m not comparing “traditionalists” with either homosexual activists or radical feminists. I’m simply comparing their reactions to the same TYPE of observations.

I did not think that you meant it that way.

And I am sure I could point out that same reaction to you when someone mentions something they would like to see changed in the OF in the future.

This thread is an example. The OP says:
**I here humbly offer four suggestions for a “reform of the reform” of the Roman Liturgy, to use the words of Pope Benedict:

**Most of suggestions are basically in keeping with what Vatican II said. And it is done very respectfully.

Another poster chimes in (post 9) with his suggestions. Again, a suggestion for reform very much in keeping with what Vatican II actually called for. And, again, very respectful. This poster actually ends with:** Other than those 4 suggestions, I like the N.O as it stands. The increased use of scripture is great and I like the fact that there is a better calendar.**

And then someone quotes this post and says:
Seriously, why is this thread here other than being another “bash the Ordinary Form Mass” thread.

Does this sound like what you wrote earlier:

another trend I find disturbing: any observation not to their liking is regarded as “bashing.” It’s very nearly the same technique as used by homosexual activists or radical feminists, ie, anything which they remotely construe as negative (and no one has said ANYTHING at all negative about the EF or traditionalists AS A WHOLE) is “homo-phobia” or “sexism,” no matter how true the “offending” statement might be.

if you change EF to OF and change traditionalists to non-traditionalists?

James