Only priest ordained for Archdiocese of New York this year - his 1st. Mass is EF Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter prettiefly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Timothysis said:
The new pastor is a very devout and religious man who speaks latin since he served the EF in his native Malta but he never learned how to celebrate it. He started the process to learn and celebrate the EF at our parish but, according to this gentleman, made some mistakes in the beginning. This, in itself, was enough to cause certain “traditionalists” to leave this Church which has celebrated the EF since 1983. Attendance at the Latin Mass has gone from well over 200 to less than 120. Not only does it call into question the meaning of the term “stable group” but also supports the position that so called “traditionalists” care more about the liturgy than anything else.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the new pastor made any attempt to explain ahead of time that he is learning and that any errors are unintentional and will be corrected as he learns.

Of course, you could say he has no obligation to do so (if he didn’t), but it is a smart thing to do. There are those people who have been burned once**, so to speak, by priests messing around with the traditional mass and who therefore aren’t going to stick around to get burned again.

**as an example of the kind of thing I am talking about, there have been cases where a priest assigned to celebrate the traditional mass starts with the traditional mass but then begins a small-scale repeat of the 1965-1969 changes with (apparently) the goal of slowly “modernising” the latin mass community. Fortunately this kind of stuff seems to be on the wane since SP/UE.
 
Timothysis said:
I was talking recently to a gentleman who attends the Latin Mass at my local Church … The new pastor is a very devout and religious man who speaks latin since he served the EF in his native Malta but he never learned how to celebrate it. He started the process to learn and celebrate the EF at our parish but, according to this gentleman, made some mistakes in the beginning. This, in itself, was enough to cause certain “traditionalists” to leave this Church which has celebrated the EF since 1983. Attendance at the Latin Mass has gone from well over 200 to less than 120.
Click to expand...
It’s a bit off-topic, but I wonder what those so-called “mistakes” might have been?
 
Timothysis said:
I was talking recently to a gentleman who attends the Latin Mass at my local Church (I attend the OF). Prior to the current pastor, the much loved monsignor celebrated the EF and attendance to it increased during the years. He has recently been reassigned after the bishop allowed him to remain as pastor for the untypical length of 16 years. The new pastor is a very devout and religious man who speaks latin since he served the EF in his native Malta but he never learned how to celebrate it. He started the process to learn and celebrate the EF at our parish but, according to this gentleman, made some mistakes in the beginning. This, in itself, was enough to cause certain “traditionalists” to leave this Church which has celebrated the EF since 1983. Attendance at the Latin Mass has gone from well over 200 to less than 120. Not only does it call into question the meaning of the term “stable group” but also supports the position that so called “traditionalists” care more about the liturgy than anything else.
How does one justify such a position?
Click to expand...
Is that the whole story though?

If a priest makes mistakes and is open to learning how to celebrate the mass correctly, it would be a lack of charity to abandon the parish for that reason.

If the priest has no desire to learn the correct rubrics and wants to celebrate the EF in a way not in accord with the rubrics, then I would agree with the traditionalists.
 
Big_Feet said:
I feel by having a “Traditional Catholicism” forum on this site, it only encourages this feeling of separateness and exclusivity that should not be existent within the Church, especially within a specific Church (i.e. Roman Catholic Church). Since there are forums for Eastern Catholics, and those for Non Catholics, why not have one for “Roman Catholicism,” and understand that it is for discussion among and around the Roman Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying. However, there are traditional Catholics and hiding our heads in the sand will not change that.

The Holy Father also acknowledges such a group exists while not using the term “Traditional Catholic”, which is why we have Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae.

So to remove this subforum, would be ignoring a segment of Catholicism that does exist.
 
TrueLight said:
It is about more than language for the traditionalist, is it not?
Click to expand...
Well, I’ve often said the EF celebrated today is not like the Mass as it was before Vatican II.

For example, you see many unveiled women, more casual dress code, communion fast is only one-hour, priests may bow instead of genuflect, priest may even make the server response. They even have microphones at the altar. So the question would be if the person accepts all these at the EF, would he be a traditionalist in the true sense? Just asking.
 
Big_Feet said:
I feel by having a “Traditional Catholicism” forum on this site, it only encourages this feeling of separateness and exclusivity that should not be existent within the Church, especially within a specific Church (i.e. Roman Catholic Church). Since there are forums for Eastern Catholics, and those for Non Catholics, why not have one for “Roman Catholicism,” and understand that it is for discussion among and around the Roman Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
As far as CAF goes, having a “traditional Catholicism” forum is just a matter of practicality. It keeps other subforums from being swamped with threads related to traditional Catholicism.

As for discouraging a feeling of separateness and exclusivity, I am sure that traditional Catholics would support uniformity in liturgical practice and catechesis for all Roman Catholics as long as their preferences became the uniform standard. Surely that would be acceptable to you, in the name of unity among Roman Catholics? Right? 😉
 
wasserfall said:
I wonder if the new pastor made any attempt to explain ahead of time that he is learning and that any errors are unintentional and will be corrected as he learns…
Click to expand...
It was known that he was learning it.
 
ProVobis said:
Well, I’ve often said the EF celebrated today is not like the Mass as it was before Vatican II.

For example, you see many unveiled women, more casual dress code, communion fast is only one-hour, priests may bow instead of genuflect, priest may even make the server response. They even have microphones at the altar. So the question would be if the person accepts all these at the EF, would he be a traditionalist in the true sense?
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for every EF. I know there are parishes that try their best to adhere to the rubrics as we have them now in the 1962 missal since that is the missal we are allowed to use. It doesn’t mean everything will be perfect.
 
Melchior said:
So I guess the other 22something Rites and those pesky Anglicans who just got their own “Anglican Use” can never be a “traditionalist” Catholic?
Click to expand...
She said “cannot prefer the OF,” not “must prefer the EF.” I take it for granted all that the groups you mentioned to do not prefer the OF, so how is her statement problematic from the POV of Anglican-Use or Eastern Catholics?
 
TrueLight said:
Uh huh. That is the CAF way of saying “shut up”.

Anytime someone expresses an opinion, which a lot of posts are, which someone doesn’t like, then the “who are you to…” card is flashed.
Click to expand...
No one is telling you to shut up. You are saying that your interpretation of an undefined or even accepted term is the end all of the discussion (even Brother JR does not accept your position and he has credentials). It is the same as saying that one is not patriotic because their idea of patriotism is not as you choose to define it. While personal opinions are fine, they cannot and should not be used as a yardstick to critique the position or opinion of another.
 
Timothysis said:
No one is telling you to shut up. You are saying that your interpretation of an undefined or even accepted term is the end all of the discussion
Click to expand...
It’s not MY interpretation. It is what it is.
(even Brother JR does not accept your position and he has credentials).
Click to expand...
Brother and I often disagree and I don’t think he minds because I have my own mind. 🤷
 
wasserfall said:
As for discouraging a feeling of separateness and exclusivity, I am sure that traditional Catholics would support uniformity in liturgical practice and catechesis for all Roman Catholics as long as their preferences became the uniform standard. Surely that would be acceptable to you, in the name of unity among Roman Catholics? Right? 😉
Click to expand...
I NEVER said anything about uniformity in liturgical practice. I fully support all all currently approved liturgies of the Church, as I will support any approved liturgies of the Church in the future, even if it is reduced to one! I may have my preferences, but who doesn’t? They are all beautiful in their own way (beauty is in the eye of the beholder), and as long as mother Church says it is OK, then it is OK.
So, if mother Church says there is to be one, uniform standard for the Roman Catholic Church, and it happens to be what we now call the EF, yes, that would be acceptable to me, because I am CATHOLIC!
 
Big_Feet said:
I feel by having a “Traditional Catholicism” forum on this site, it only encourages this feeling of separateness and exclusivity that should not be existent within the Church, especially within a specific Church (i.e. Roman Catholic Church). Since there are forums for Eastern Catholics, and those for Non Catholics, why not have one for “Roman Catholicism,” and understand that it is for discussion among and around the Roman Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Your argument about the forum has logical grounds but I probably wouldn’t stick around if this forum were removed. I have felt unwelcome often enough in this forum. I think it would be worse if this forum didn’t exist.
 
TrueLight said:
I understand what you’re saying. However, there are traditional Catholics and hiding our heads in the sand will not change that.

The Holy Father also acknowledges such a group exists while not using the term “Traditional Catholic”, which is why we have Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae.
Click to expand...
That may be true, at least in part, but even so I don’t really believe it forms the entire basis for Summorum Pontificum. Those who classify themselves as “traditionalist” often have other criteria, which are not necessarily liturgical in nature, and often embrace a particular political and/or religious and/or social mindset. One must bear in mind that there is also a segment of the population which simply prefers the Usus Antiquior on its own merits for liturgical reasons, and without most of the accompanying baggage in the preceding sentence.
 
JReducation said:
Of course we have to stop and ask ourselves what are the social conditions that triggered the contraception mentality. In my Gospel of Life ministry I find that people are on fire when they discover that they have been duped by the media and the world around them into fearing children, parenthood, pregnancy and commitment.

When our brothers preached against contraception, the response was bland. The typical Traditionalist was on board. The mainstream Catholic sat there looking at us as if to say, “I didn’t expect you guys to say anything different.”

As we moved to create the Franciscans of Life, we began to spend hours, days and months studying the contraception mentality. Boy did we learn a lot. The competition is ferocious. Because the Church presents contraception in an ethereal manner. Secular culture presents it with concrete and allegedly positive results. But it fails to tell its marketing audience, it’s agenda.

We threw out the whole “Contraception is a mortal sin” message and we preached, “You’ve been duped and here is the who and the why. All falsehoods lead to sin.” That gets people’s attention.

Unfortunately, our community is very small, because it’s fairly new. But we reach about 600 families each year since we began doing this in 2009. These families come back for more education, more guidance and spiritual direction and many join us in our work

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV
Click to expand...
Brother, I would like to hear more about this because clearly “Contraception is a sin and you will go to hell” just isn’t working. Its the same old tired argument.

"You’ve been duped and here is the who and the why. All falsehoods lead to sin." That gets people’s attention.

Is there a source for one to access what you have learned? Theology of the Body? Is that the start? I would very much like to hear more of what you learned, how you learned it and how you teach it, about being duped and setting people on fire. It is something close to my heart. Are there others doing this in different locations? Is this specific to your community?

Have you written about your “Gospel of Life” ministry?

-Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top