OF Supporters Please Stand Up!

[catharina]

I have asked, and he said he’d get back to me. Said he was told about it during a lecture several years back. Seemed to think it was during medieval times, which was a period of many abuses.

I’ll poke around on line as time permits to see what I find as well.

Positive results from the Council of Trent were not automatic. All human efforts take time. Because reform in France was especially slow, St. Vincent de Paul was called by God to assist the Church in training men for the priesthood. His success was great. Following is part of a (linked) article reviewing Vincent’s work.

209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:sYmghZ_XabQJ:famvin.org/gsdl/collect/vincenti/index/assoc/HASHbcc9.dir/doc.doc+vincent+de+paul+congregation+of+the+mission,+reform+of+the+priesthood&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

"Seeing the necessity of a solid preparation to the priesthood and the introduction of some discipline to the clergy, the Council of Trent, on July 15, 1563, had ordered the foundation of seminaries. Vincent was convinced that this decree came from the Holy Spirit.19 In France, however, the Tridentine reform was introduced with a notable delay. The French Parliament accepted the ordinances of Trent on July 7, 1615.

…

  Vincent often underlined the importance of the spiritual formation of the clergy, he drew attention to the daily practices of piety: prayer, participation in the Eucharist, the Liturgy of the Hours, meditation and examination of conscience.  He wrote that formation consisted “particularly in the interior life, and in the practice of prayer and of the virtues; because it is not enough to demonstrate for them chant, ceremonies, and a little moral theology; the primary thing is to form them in a solid piety and devotion” (SV IV, 597).  The sacrament of Penance and the Eucharist held the principal post.  The saint underlined the necessity of the virtues necessary to the ecclesiastical state, in a special way of obedience and chastity:  “That which I wish to recommend to you, in the name of Our Lord, is to carry those in your charge to the interior life.  They will not lack knowledge if they have virtue, they will not lack virtue if they give themselves to prayer, that being well and exactly done, it will unfailingly introduce them to the practice of mortification, of detachment from goods, the love of obedience, zeal for souls, and the rest of their obligations” (SV VIII, 3).  The intention was to introduce the students to good participation in the liturgy, in ecclesiastical song, and in the teaching of the Catechism.  Then, taking into consideration their age, they had to study different subjects. 


  Vincent was convinced that the purpose of formation was not so much intellectual formation, but rather spiritual and pastoral formation.  From here comes the accent on the importance of pastoral practices.  The saint wished to educate good pastors who would know how to preach, catechize, administer the sacraments and resolve cases of conscience.  Summing up, he wished to form good pastors, pious, virtuous, and zealous.

…

  From 1633 until the death of the saint, over 250 names of participants in the Conferences were enrolled.  Many of them held important roles in the Church: 40 doctors of theology, 22 bishops, founders of religious communities, representatives in the Parliament, chaplains in the royal court, canons, and pastors. 


  The Conferences were founded at Puy (1636), Pontoise (1642), Angoulęme (1647), Angers, Bordeaux, and in other cities whose names are not noted.  They were also founded in Italy and in Ireland."

 

[japhy]

Hello again Japhy. Since I have not been witness to liturgical abuse that I know of, what do you condiser it to be? Other than the fact the NO does not have all of the same prayers etc. that the TLM has?

That (the bolded part) is not what liturgical abuse is about; that is simply the difference between the two forms.

Here are three blog posts I wrote about an abuse-heavy Mass I attended back in November: my initial reaction, the letter I sent to the priest, and the letter he sent me back.

Other liturgical abuse that I witness often is the pouring of the Precious Blood from one chalice to another, the changing of words in the Mass (often a small matter, but consistently done), and priests concelebrating but not being ministers of Holy Communion (but being replaced by extraordinary ministers instead). That last one really bugs me, especially because it happens on HOLY THURSDAY, the day on which the priesthood was instituted.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

It’s a start. but of course the liberals “p**sed and moaned” about going back to the correct translations. As I stated before, I would be happy to go back to the 1965 missal since it was what the council fathers had trully intended. The 1970 missal was created bya commission of people including protestants.

I’d like to ask, how many of you here feel that the “revised” Mass to be released in the next year or two will bring any significant relief to the traditional crowd? Or, is the Church unfortunately creating a “third” Mass?

Personally, it doesn’t matter to me. I lived through 65 and 69, and I’ll live through this one just Jim-Dandy too.

But, for the TLM/traditional crowd, is anything less than a full TLM going to bring any peace? I’ll be equally curious how the NO/OF crowd (if there is such a thing) will react?

TBL

 

[mitch2007]

It’s a start. but of course the liberals “p**sed and moaned” about going back to the correct translations. As I stated before, I would be happy to go back to the 1965 missal since it was what the council fathers had trully intended. The 1970 missal was created bya commission of people including protestants.

I say stay with the 1970 Missal!!! People who hanker after the past are truly pathetic. The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. Speaking as one previously “hooked” on the Tridentine Mass, all I can say is, it will never, thank goodness, become more than the private hobby of a tiny fraction of the Church. Maybe the Pope, sweet Jesus on Earth, will decree changes in the 1970 Missal, in which case we must heed and obey, whatever our tastes. Our opinions, thank God, do not matter! It’s what the Pope wants that counts. I maintain that the stiff-necked “trads” will be judged and condemned for their idolatry over that Mass. Fine, if you want to go to a Mass mumbled in a dead language by a man with his back to you, be my guest…I for one, am finally revelling in the gift of Vatican II, the Eucharistic Celebration in my own language, a plethora of lay ministries, a “user friendly” liturgy, warmth, joy, peace…thank God for the Ordinary Form! - but, as always, Peter’s Will be done!

mitch

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Well I would rather be labeld a “stiff neck trad” that goes to a mass “mumbled in a dead language” which was the mass for almost 2000 years.

I say stay with the 1970 Missal!!! People who hanker after the past are truly pathetic. The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. Speaking as one previously “hooked” on the Tridentine Mass, all I can say is, it will never, thank goodness, become more than the private hobby of a tiny fraction of the Church. Maybe the Pope, sweet Jesus on Earth, will decree changes in the 1970 Missal, in which case we must heed and obey, whatever our tastes. Our opinions, thank God, do not matter! It’s what the Pope wants that counts. I maintain that the stiff-necked “trads” will be judged and condemned for their idolatry over that Mass. Fine, if you want to go to a Mass mumbled in a dead language by a man with his back to you, be my guest…I for one, am finally revelling in the gift of Vatican II, the Eucharistic Celebration in my own language, a plethora of lay ministries, a “user friendly” liturgy, warmth, joy, peace…thank God for the Ordinary Form! - but, as always, Peter’s Will be done!

mitch

 

[japhy]

I say stay with the 1970 Missal!!! People who hanker after the past are truly pathetic.

The missal from 1970 is the past; the latest edition is from 2002!

And about those “who hanker after the past”, that was part of the reason for revising the liturgy (that brought about the current Missal) in the first place: a desire to return to some ideal ancient liturgy. So your statement is a little trickier than you might have thought.

The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. Speaking as one previously “hooked” on the Tridentine Mass, all I can say is, it will never, thank goodness, become more than the private hobby of a tiny fraction of the Church.

A “private hobby”? “Thank goodness”? But I thought you said “The Mass is the Mass is the Mass”! You’re being self-contradictory here, and – if I may say so – slighting the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Fine, if you want to go to a Mass mumbled in a dead language by a man with his back to you, be my guest./

Game over. That impression of the Mass has been refuted over and over and over again, even by the Pope himself. Should I talk of the 2002 Missal as “a Mass shouted in a politically correct language by a man (hopefully) whose face you can’t look away from”? Of course not, it’s entirely uncharitable, the wrong perspective, and belittles the very thing happening.

Vatican II never suggested that the entirety of Mass (or “Eucharistic Celebration”) be in the vernacular, never mentioned lay ministers in the Mass, and didn’t say that the 1962 Missal was not “user friendly” or lacked “warmth, joy, [or] peace”.

And as for laity exercising ministries in the Mass… that’s not really our duty. Our duty is the consecration of the world (consecratio mundi).

[/QUOTE]

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Do you all truly realize how you are describing a reenactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[MrS]

I say stay with the 1970 Missal!!! People who hanker after the past are truly pathetic. The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. Speaking as one previously “hooked” on the Tridentine Mass, all I can say is, it will never, thank goodness, become more than the private hobby of a tiny fraction of the Church. Maybe the Pope, sweet Jesus on Earth, will decree changes in the 1970 Missal, in which case we must heed and obey, whatever our tastes. Our opinions, thank God, do not matter! It’s what the Pope wants that counts. I maintain that the stiff-necked “trads” will be judged and condemned for their idolatry over that Mass. Fine, if you want to go to a Mass mumbled in a dead language by a man with his back to you, be my guest…I for one, am finally revelling in the gift of Vatican II, the Eucharistic Celebration in my own language, a plethora of lay ministries, a “user friendly” liturgy, warmth, joy, peace…thank God for the Ordinary Form! - but, as always, Peter’s Will be done!

mitch

I feel safe in saying that you :

1] Have no idea what Vat II intended for the Liturgy

2] Have no idea how much of the NO (as widely offered today) was NOT directed by Vat II but rather by laity such as yourself who want it your way

and

3] Have no idea what a proper NO really looks like. There would be little or no controversy without abuse-made-norm in the Church today.

God’s wrath is giving us what we want.
God’s justice is giving us what we deserve.
God’s mercy is not giving us what we deserve.

I need to continue to pray for His mercy.

.

 

[Our_Refuge]

=mitch2007;3754860]I say stay with the 1970 Missal!!! People who hanker after the past are truly pathetic. The Mass is the Mass is the Mass.** Speaking as one previously “hooked**” on the Tridentine Mass, all I can say is, it will never, thank goodness, become more than the private hobby of a tiny fraction of the Church.

You were never “hooked” on it, if fact you probably have never been.
.

I maintain that the stiff-necked “trads” will be judged and condemned for their idolatry over that Mass.

Idolatry?

Fine, if you want to go to a Mass mumbled in a dead language by a man with his back to you, be my guest

…

A man, in the person of Christ, **facing God in the tabernacle **NOT with his back to you.
It is clear that you know nothing about the Mass.

 

[PrayforMallory]

I say stay with the 1970 Missal!!! People who hanker after the past are truly pathetic. The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. Speaking as one previously “hooked” on the Tridentine Mass, all I can say is, it will never, thank goodness, become more than the private hobby of a tiny fraction of the Church. Maybe the Pope, sweet Jesus on Earth, will decree changes in the 1970 Missal, in which case we must heed and obey, whatever our tastes. Our opinions, thank God, do not matter! It’s what the Pope wants that counts. I maintain that the stiff-necked “trads” will be judged and condemned for their idolatry over that Mass. Fine, if you want to go to a Mass mumbled in a dead language by a man with his back to you, be my guest…I for one, am finally revelling in the gift of Vatican II, the Eucharistic Celebration in my own language, a plethora of lay ministries, a “user friendly” liturgy, warmth, joy, peace…thank God for the Ordinary Form! - but, as always, Peter’s Will be done!

mitch

So you’re the one following Peter?

What about the following statements?

“And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

“Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them.”

“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”

I’m not seeing the above sentiments displayed in your posts.

Don’t accuse other people of not following the Pontiff when you yourself are so extremely at odds with him.

 

[ethelzguy]

So you’re the one following Peter?

What about the following statements?

“And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

“Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them.”

“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”

I’m not seeing the above sentiments displayed in your posts.

Don’t accuse other people of not following the Pontiff when you yourself are so extremely at odds with him.

Sorry, I don’t follow your post. Who posted the quotes and how do they relate to the mitch2007 posts?

 

[Johndigger]

What I think Prayfor was trying to demonstrate was that Mitch, in his post, emphasised “It’s what the Pope wants that matters” and that “Peters will may be done” whilst actually having an ironic opposition to Pope Benedicts views on the Tridentine Mass, as shown by the Pope’s quotes which PrayforMallory kindly posted.

No doubt, Prayfor can defend themselves much better than I can, however, I’m simply saying that this was how I interpreted it and I think this was the meaning they were trying to communicate.

In Jesus,

JD

 

[PrayforMallory]

Sorry, I don’t follow your post. Who posted the quotes and how do they relate to the mitch2007 posts?

I was just trying to demonstrate that the statements posted contradicted his sentiments:

"Speaking as one previously “hooked” on the Tridentine Mass, all I can say is, it will never, thank goodness, become more than the private hobby of a tiny fraction of the Church. Maybe the Pope, sweet Jesus on Earth, will decree changes in the 1970 Missal, in which case we must heed and obey, whatever our tastes. Our opinions, thank God, do not matter! It’s what the Pope wants that counts. I maintain that the stiff-necked “trads” will be judged and condemned for their idolatry over that Mass. Fine, if you want to go to a Mass mumbled in a dead language by a man with his back to you, be my guest…

Not to condemn him or anything (I don’t know his personal situation), but just to defend the folks that like the EF.

 

[PrayforMallory]

What I think Prayfor was trying to demonstrate was that Mitch, in his post, emphasised “It’s what the Pope wants that matters” and that “Peters will may be done” whilst actually having an ironic opposition to Pope Benedicts views on the Tridentine Mass, as shown by the Pope’s quotes which PrayforMallory kindly posted.

No doubt, Prayfor can defend themselves much better than I can, however, I’m simply saying that this was how I interpreted it and I think this was the meaning they were trying to communicate.

In Jesus,

JD

Thanks. You clarified it perfectly.

 

[Praxis]

It has become painfully obvious to anyone who has been reading this forum over the last two weeks that a certain number of staunch OF supporters/anti-EF posters have been ignoring the responses of Traditionalists.

Certain posters have mocked Traditionalists who have used the principle of Organic Development to illustrate the superiority of the EF of the Mass. When asked to provide evidence for our claims we have turned to liturgical experts such as Cardinal Ratzinger, Alcuin Reid and Klaus Gamber. Our responses have either been ignored or posters have changed the subject.

So I have few questions for the OF supporters out there:

1. Do you recognize the validity of the principle of Organic Development and its importance to Catholic worship?
2. Please provide one historical example of an instance in which the liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has been reformed to the extent that it was in 1970 (the creation of the OF of the Mass)
3. Please demonstrate (using historical examples) how the creation of the OF of the Mass could be considered an Organic Development.

1.) I am indeed a STAUNCH lover of the OF. In NO WAY does that make me a “anti-EF.”

2.) Your “organic” argument is stultified. Claiming something is “inorganic” has largely taken the place of claiming something is “invalid.” Both terms are used incorrectly on this forum. The “invalid” chant finally died down after some who used it finally got an idea about just how wrong they appeared to others.

3.) The Pauline Mass is the OF of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. That’s reality.

4.) PLENTY of us traditionally-minded Catholics who PREFER the Pauline Mass.

 

[Praxis]

Oh dear.

I support the Holy Catholic Church, which includes all of her Rites and all Liturgical forms of the Mass approved by the Pope.

CC

YES!!!

 

[Praxis]

Okay, I’ll take your bait…

It is indeed, painfully obvious, that there is a definite core of folks at CAF, who spend countless hours looking for reasons to criticize the HMC and anything she has done since Vatican II.

It is also painfully obvious, that the traditionalist crowd clearly has a “us versus them” mentality. Apparently, any of us who are content with the post Vatican II church, even though we still hold many of our tradtions near and dear, are labeled modernists and liberals.

The traditionalist crowd just can’t let go of their obsession with the alleged “superiority” of the TLM over the NO. As I have stated previously, I have come to believe that many of the tradtionalist crowd have replaced Faith with Zealous Obsession.

So, on to your questions…

1. Of course, I recognize the validity of organic development. The Pope himself has discussed it. Why would I challenge such?
2. Historical examples are not needed or required. The HMC has the authority to do as she wishes, whether the traditional crowd (or any other crowd for that matter) likes it or not. She does not have to prove herself to us. It is the other way around.
3. See answer to #2. Pope Paul was not required to provide proof of “organic development” to the traditional crowd to justify the NO.

Pretty simple, isn’t it?

BINGO!!

 

[Robster7]

Folks,

I support the OF Mass (vernacular). I am not always happy with the things done with it (paraphasing Eucharistic prayers, omitting Nicene Creed when it is required, certain songs and styles of music courtesy of very talented but overenthusiastic music ministries (sometimes, it gets way too “Broadway”), comic homilists (dont mind humor, if a lite and occasional touch, but not when it’s a standup routine–what next, “Applause” signs? Makes you wonder if its all a big joke, not be taken seriously!). The current English translations do lack something.

But most important, I am an active participant, which is hard to do at a Latin Mass (EF).

Latin Mass, I like it especially with the choir and singing.
But even a low mass is good. Unfortunately, there is a habit of just
saying the Latin real fast which makes no sense to me. What’s the hurry? I believe it stems from the days when you had one mass every hour on the hour, and had to get done in time.

One latin mass I sometimes go to is at 130p Sunday, and there is nothing afterward they have to hurry to make room for. On the other hand, it is easier to follow since they say the prayers louder than the usual latin mass.

I would be more supportive and perhaps attend one more often if they made the following changes.
–Have priest pray prayers loudly in Latin, and do so a normal pace, not as if he has to catch a train or something;
–have the congregation, not just the server, make responses.

Any response?

 

[Our_Refuge]

=Robster7;3761114]Folks,

I support the OF Mass (vernacular). I am not always happy with the things done with it (paraphasing Eucharistic prayers, omitting Nicene Creed when it is required, certain songs and styles of music courtesy of very talented but overenthusiastic music ministries (sometimes, it gets way too “Broadway”), comic homilists (dont mind humor, if a lite and occasional touch, but not when it’s a standup routine--what next, “Applause” signs? Makes you wonder if its all a big joke, not be taken seriously!). The current English translations do lack something.

You sure have a lot of complaints

But most important, I am an active participant, which is hard to do at a Latin Mass (EF).

In the Latin Mass you participate by praying with the priest “in silence” That is the best part of the TLM for me. Silence to pray and prepare oneself for receiving communion.

Unfortunately, there is a habit of just
saying the Latin real fast which makes no sense to me. What’s the hurry? I believe it stems from the days when you had one mass every hour on the hour, and had to get done in time.

I have never experience that

I

would be more supportive and perhaps attend one more often if they made the following changes.
–Have priest pray prayers loudly in Latin, and do so a normal pace, not as if he has to catch a train or something;
–have the congregation, not just the server, make responses.

Any response?

It is forbidden to say the Canon aloud. The congregation does respond in the High Mass. I have never noticed the priest in a hurry

 

[EasterJoy]

Has one of these threads ever failed to degenerate into a series of put-downs of one or both forms? What is the point of trotting out these same arguments over and over and over?

It is the hope of the Holy Father that the two forms will enhance each other. Let’s do what we can to help him realize that hope, shall we?