Not your "normal" Traditional Catholic

[Jeanette_L]

Actually, I’m a convert myself. Many years for me.

I guess it’s just varies from person to person. The first time I took my husband to Mass with me it was like he was home. He absolutely loved it. Loved the rituals, loved the gestures, loved the reverence. Now there were a few things he had to study of course to clear up in his mind…finding out that the things he had been taught about Catholicism were not true, but lucky for him, the rituals/gestures he loved. So now it’s on to RCIA for him.

Yes, I do understand what you’re saying. I just never had a problem with it as I never connected it to European courts or monarchs. Strangely enough I’ve studied European history for years (mostly British). I just always connected it to the “King of kings” if I may put it that way. Thank you for answering and I hope that you will become more comfortable as time goes on.

You know, it’s funny, because having studied everything thoroughly, as all Evangelicals must do to become Catholic (LOL), I had come to an intellectual understanding and was never in opposition whatsoever. I have always been in awe. But that doesn’t mean that on some deeper level I have not struggled with some things…

But, time will take care of all these things, as I love Christ, I love Him in the Eucharist and these cultural hurdles will not deter me.

I’m very happy for you and finally for your husband. I spent many years in the Assemblies of God, I’m well aware of the hurdles from there to here.

Blessings!

 

[LilyM]

Another objection is the banality and pedestrian nature of the prayers, especially in their current english translations as made by the ICEL (International Committee for English in the Liturgy). As an illustration, where a good translation of a prayer from the Mass might say “Lord, all things stand in awe before your supreme and ineffable Majesty. Allow us, through these sacred Mysteries, to have some share of your Divine essence.”, an ICEL-style translation would say “God, you are big. Help us to be big like you.” The english prayers of the Mass are neutered in this way, removing much of their beauty.

What a load of slanderous rot.

In every NO Mass I’ve ever attended I’ve heard the exquisitely beautiful prayer ‘By the mystery of this water and wine, may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled Himself to share in our humanity’.

Which expresses extremely well the sentiments of the prayer you’ve quoted - the emphasis on the mystery about to take place, acknowledging God’s ineffable grace and condescension in becoming incarnate so that we could share in eternal life, and acknowledgement that the Eucharist is the means by which this becomes possible. It’s a beautiful, brilliant and (not a besetting virtue of the TLM) succinct summary of what the sacrifice of the Mass is about.

 

[Dauphin]

What a load of slanderous rot.

In every NO Mass I’ve ever attended I’ve heard the exquisitely beautiful prayer ‘By the mystery of this water and wine, may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled Himself to share in our humanity’.

Which expresses extremely well the sentiments of the prayer you’ve quoted - the emphasis on the mystery about to take place, acknowledging God’s ineffable grace and condescension in becoming incarnate so that we could share in eternal life, and acknowledgement that the Eucharist is the means by which this becomes possible. It’s a beautiful, brilliant and (not a besetting virtue of the TLM) succinct summary of what the sacrifice of the Mass is about.

Just to be clear, I composed that prayer myself. I know it was an exaggeration, but I was making the point that a translation really does have to make a serious attempt at elevated language. The ICEL didn’t meet the standard on that score.

Of the prayer you quoted, I like the version from the 1962 Missal, which raises the creation and redemption, along with the doctrine of the Trinity:

“O God, http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/lmass/img/cross.jpg Who in creating human nature didst marvelously ennoble it, and hast still more marvelously renewed it: grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His Divinity who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.”

 

[LilyM]

Just to be clear, I composed that prayer myself. I know it was an exaggeration, but I was making the point that a translation really does have to make a serious attempt at elevated language. The ICEL didn’t meet the standard on that score.

Of the prayer you quoted, I like the version from the 1962 Missal, which raises the creation and redemption, along with the doctrine of the Trinity:

“O God, http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/lmass/img/cross.jpg Who in creating human nature didst marvelously ennoble it, and hast still more marvelously renewed it: grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His Divinity who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.”

But it doesn’t raise the ‘humbled himself’ aspect - that’s one of the most striking things of the more modern prayer, the emphasis on the mystery of the Incarnation.

No offence intended to the Holy Trinity or to the 1962 prayer, but many other prayers of the Mass end in invocation of the Trinity in the same way, while not many of them mention the Incarnation and link it with the mystery of the Eucharist in the way the modern prayer does.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

If only some of our traditionalist bretheren had your open mind.

Trust me, anything you say here can and will be used against you…

You certainly hit the nail on the head. With both statements.


Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[BSHoop96]

Very sweet about your husband’s immediate comfort level.
Thanks for posting it.

Since we are not face to face on the boards it’s sometimes hard to tell if something is sincere or sarcastic.

If it was sarcastic you may have thought I was somehow inferring that Jeanette’s problem was insignificant when I was pointing out that the feelings can range from one end of the spectrum to the other.

If it was sincere, thank you.

 

[BSHoop96]

You know, it’s funny, because having studied everything thoroughly, as all Evangelicals must do to become Catholic (LOL), I had come to an intellectual understanding and was never in opposition whatsoever. I have always been in awe. But that doesn’t mean that on some deeper level I have not struggled with some things…

But, time will take care of all these things, as I love Christ, I love Him in the Eucharist and these cultural hurdles will not deter me.

I’m very happy for you and finally for your husband. I spent many years in the Assemblies of God, I’m well aware of the hurdles from there to here.

Blessings!

I bet you have a great knowledge of Scripture too!

Let me just say that you, as someone who has come to the Church, has studied it and is obviously still working on it…will end up, IMO, with a great strength to your faith. God Bless.

Sorry for hijacking the thread. That might make an interesting thread. What was your hardest thing to accept in the Church when you converted (or reconciled as my pastor likes to say) …and where were you coming from? Or has it been done already? Anybody know?

 

[catharina]

Since we are not face to face on the boards it’s sometimes hard to tell if something is sincere or sarcastic.

If it was sarcastic you may have thought I was somehow inferring that Jeanette’s problem was insignificant when I was pointing out that the feelings can range from one end of the spectrum to the other.

If it was sincere, thank you.

I can’t imagine being sarcastic about your husband’s joy.

So, you’re welcome.

 

[CUAGRAD08]

Yea for Medievalists, a crazy, understudied part of history .
I’m saying forget 1500 years of Church History, I’m all for knowing where we have come from as a church. That being said, those 1500 years are very much rooted in the first 500, either by trying to forget them or by trying to be them.
I’m not saying bring back the early church, I rather like having running water and soda. However, I am saying that to understand where we are we need to understand where we came from. The Mass is much older than 1500 years, and it has changed much in 2000, if we think that it hasn’t then something is wrong. If we think the Mass came about in the 16th cent. something is very wrong, there is a much longer tradition.
I think that if you want to understand the Mass you must understand the whole of Human History, thats why there are Church historians for every part of history and that my dear is why historians rock my socks!

Sorry, I ment to say Im not saying forget 1500 years of history. I really should learn to proofread my posts!

 

[Graing]

Originally Posted by ethelzguy
If only some of our traditionalist bretheren had your open mind.

How sadly ironic. Don’t you guys have anything better to do than attack our “traditionalist brethren” with sweeping generalizations? I don’t understand why the “traditionalists” vex you so. There has been some great discussion on this thread on both sides. I consider myself “traditionally” minded (for whatever these labels mean) and yet I attend and love the Pauline mass. I respect those that prefer the Tridentine mass and even hope to pick up some Latin and attend some time. If the Pope has prescribed and approved each form, why can’t you just enjoy the form you prefer? Why the constant need to belittle or attack those that enjoy one form or another as “close-minded” or “traditionalist” or “liberal”? Voicing concern for liturgical abuses is one thing - but harping on people that prefer one form over the other is counterproductive to the union of the Church as one body. As a Catholic, is it not important to be obedient to the Holy See and act charitably towards each other? The Pauline and Tridentine masses can be equally reverent and respectful and great celebrations of Christ’s sacrifice.

Discussing Church history and theological details is great. But using them as a vehicle for ad-hominem attacks on the “other guy” is counterproductive at best.

 

[otjm]

How sadly ironic. Don’t you guys have anything better to do than attack our “traditionalist brethren” with sweeping generalizations? I don’t understand why the “traditionalists” vex you so. There has been some great discussion on this thread on both sides. I consider myself “traditionally” minded (for whatever these labels mean) and yet I attend and love the Pauline mass. I respect those that prefer the Tridentine mass and even hope to pick up some Latin and attend some time. If the Pope has prescribed and approved each form, why can’t you just enjoy the form you prefer? Why the constant need to belittle or attack those that enjoy one form or another as “close-minded” or “traditionalist” or “liberal”? Voicing concern for liturgical abuses is one thing - but harping on people that prefer one form over the other is counterproductive to the union of the Church as one body. As a Catholic, is it not important to be obedient to the Holy See and act charitably towards each other? The Pauline and Tridentine masses can be equally reverent and respectful and great celebrations of Christ’s sacrifice.

Discussing Church history and theological details is great. But using them as a vehicle for ad-hominem attacks on the “other guy” is counterproductive at best.

I notice you have only 115 posts, so that makes you a bit new to the forum. Welcome.

Yes, it would be nice if we all could manage to not snip and take potshots at one another. If you want to see the source of the comment you were making a critique of, you might want to examine some of the older threads in these forae; I think they will speak for themselves. There are traditionalists who have no problem with the OF, with the Magisterium, with the documents of Vatican 2 and the official (as opposed to unofficial) implementation of them (see, e.g. ecumenism), and simply prefer the EF and miss other aspects of the pre V 2 Church. Others - well, I will let the threads speak for themselves.

 

[edwest2]

If only some of our traditionalist bretheren had your open mind.

Trust me, anything you say here can and will be used against you…

“open mind” is not a productive term. It implies open to change, secular change. Pope Benedict is removing the folk singing. He is bringing people back to the Communion rails, kneeling. The last 40 years of abuse by secular minded forces is being reversed. Catholics will be heading Catholic institutions of higher learning again, so they can offer something authentically Catholic to their students.

I’m not saying don’t dialogue with the Church, but too much secular, worldly thinking needs to be examined against established truths held by the Church. Too many non-Catholics who do not know Church teaching seem to be the most eager to “improve” or change it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Graing]

I notice you have only 115 posts, so that makes you a bit new to the forum. Welcome.

Yes, it would be nice if we all could manage to not snip and take potshots at one another. If you want to see the source of the comment you were making a critique of, you might want to examine some of the older threads in these forae; I think they will speak for themselves. There are traditionalists who have no problem with the OF, with the Magisterium, with the documents of Vatican 2 and the official (as opposed to unofficial) implementation of them (see, e.g. ecumenism), and simply prefer the EF and miss other aspects of the pre V 2 Church. Others - well, I will let the threads speak for themselves.

Thanks otjm. Post count does not necesarrily mean anything. I frequently find that I don’t have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, and choose to learn by reading some of our great posters. I lurk.

I do understand the source. But I have also seen the two posters I quoted go out of thier way several times to attack those that are labeled “traditionalists”. I have seen this on both sides of the fence : EF and OF (Sorry Spiller, I know you don’t care for those designations). There is a general lack of charity and an overall animosity on the part of some posters on both sides and it’s just starting to wear on me. So I used the two qutoes in my previous post as an example (although I know there has been much worse on both sides previously). One of the things that Christ stressed was obedience. Yet it seems so many refuse to obey the Holy See and respect both forms of the mass and the people that prefer to attend one form or another.

Can you imagine - in this Year of St. Paul - if we took all the energy used to attack each other and turn it towards spreading the love and salvation of Christ to those that urgently need it? Those outside of the Catholic Church? I think both “trads” and “progs” (notice I didn’t say libs ) have great tools of evangelization that would appeal to those hungry for Christ and salvation, no?

 

[E.E.N.S]

I wasn’t stirring anything up intentionally. As the OP said, Trent was, and remains, the definitive Council of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s the “that was a long time ago” argument that gets old, no pun intended.

When you folks have a Pope who has been deemed a SAINT to quote from, then we can have a genuine debate. In the mean time, welcome to the Dark Side.

Traditional Roman Catholicism isn’t fun. It doesn’t feel good. It ruins all the pleasures we can gather from embracing the mundane. It ruins everything. But the reward is the greatest treasure we can seek. A happy death and salvation.

Read St Alphonsus’s Preparation For Death. We don’t have to be sour faced saints, but we don’t have a lot to smile about either. It’s a filthy world.

Actually it [Traditional Catholicism] doesn’t ruin anything at all, in only serves to shed light on that which is already ruined by sin. One my say that it actually brings joy. It brings joy because it gives us hope of a higher, truer, permanent Good which is our true end, not the corrupted things of this life.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe I understand what you are saying just fine, however we must make the ever important distinction that I made above so that we don’t end up calling that which is good, bad.

 

[BSHoop96]

“open mind” is not a productive term. It implies open to change, secular change.

I beg to differ. Open mind can also mean accepting either form of the Mass as the Pope and the magisterium want us to even if it involves change and is not our preference.

 

[BSHoop96]

Thanks otjm. Post count does not necesarrily mean anything. I frequently find that I don’t have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, and choose to learn by reading some of our great posters. I lurk.

I do understand the source. But I have also seen the two posters I quoted go out of thier way several times to attack those that are labeled “traditionalists”. I have seen this on both sides of the fence : EF and OF (Sorry Spiller, I know you don’t care for those designations). There is a general lack of charity and an overall animosity on the part of some posters on both sides and it’s just starting to wear on me. So I used the two qutoes in my previous post as an example (although I know there has been much worse on both sides previously). One of the things that Christ stressed was obedience. Yet it seems so many refuse to obey the Holy See and respect both forms of the mass and the people that prefer to attend one form or another.

Can you imagine - in this Year of St. Paul - if we took all the energy used to attack each other and turn it towards spreading the love and salvation of Christ to those that urgently need it? Those outside of the Catholic Church? I think both “trads” and “progs” (notice I didn’t say libs ) have great tools of evangelization that would appeal to those hungry for Christ and salvation, no?

I think you better go back and read the posts of the two you mentioned earlier. They are not a good example of posters who “attack” traditionalists. Unless by “attack” you mean their opinion differs.

 

[edwest2]

I beg to differ. Open mind can also mean accepting either form of the Mass as the Pope and the magisterium want us to even if it involves change and is not our preference.

Yes, you’re right. However, on this forum, the change most often discussed is not inspired by Christian principles but worldly principles. Were this a Catholics Only forum, there would be a lot less of that and, I think, a better understanding.

God bless,
Ed

 

[catharina]

I beg to differ. Open mind can also mean accepting either form of the Mass as the Pope and the magisterium want us to even if it involves change and is not our preference.

I agree completly with your take on this. Having been born in 1945, I was raised in the pre-Vatican II Church. My peers and I were ever reminded that we were to remain open to obedience to Rome in every circumstance.

 

[otjm]

“open mind” is not a productive term. It implies open to change, secular change. Pope Benedict is removing the folk singing. He is bringing people back to the Communion rails, kneeling. The last 40 years of abuse by secular minded forces is being reversed. Catholics will be heading Catholic institutions of higher learning again, so they can offer something authentically Catholic to their students.

I’m not saying don’t dialogue with the Church, but too much secular, worldly thinking needs to be examined against established truths held by the Church. Too many non-Catholics who do not know Church teaching seem to be the most eager to “improve” or change it.

God bless,
Ed

Given the disagreements that exist currently in the Church, I would have to say that open mind may indeed be a very appropriate term. Those who have sought to reinvent the Church in their own image and likeness need to have an open mind - open to the leading of the Church. Some of them (and not all) seem to have tha attitude of “my way or the highway”. They would make certain famous Protestant leaders, past and present look conciliatory.

And for those on the other end of the spectrum, and open mind - open to the leading of the Church, the Magisterium - is also advised, as some of them reject anything going back to their favorite pope, be that Pius X!!, Pius X, or whomever. They seem to be imbued with a spirit of discerment that has decided that teh Holy Spirit has, if not left the Church, most certainly taken a long vacation somewhere else in the universe.

And to the wag who wishes that no one would have a mind so open as to endanger their brains falling out, I would suggest that the two groups are more like steel traps already sprung.

 

[edwest2]

I did not understand your last sentence. Would you mind explaining?

Thank you,
Ed