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

[TrueLight]

Ask TrueLight.

Right. That’s what I said. I said it is a common theme. Whether every traditionalist/traditional Catholic believes that, is another question.

 

[wasserfall]

Ask TrueLight.

truelight:

Traditionalists tend to believe the EF is more efficacious etc.

Are you disputing that traditionalists tend to believe this? Do I need to prove that traditionalists tend to believe this?

Timothysis:

Then it can be said that “traditionalists” are sadly mistaken in their understanding of the Church and the sacrifice of the Mass.

Now you are making an unsupported assertion. You can either preface it with “in my opinion” or you should be prepared to support your assertion with evidence.

 

[TrueLight]

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 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.

I would agree it is more than liturgy. I don’t know many traditionalists who only prefer the liturgy. They tend to be more traditional in devotions, practices etc. I think that is the larger segment.

Even in my own parish which has both the EF and the OF, those who celebrate the EF tend to adhere to pre-Vat II practices such as Friday abstinence from meat, longer communion fast, women covering their heads and other traditional practices.

When you step into an FSSP or SSPX chapel, folks are more likely to observe traditional practices.

 

[malphono]

I would agree it is more than liturgy. I don’t know many traditionalists who only prefer the liturgy. They tend to be more traditional in devotions, practices etc. I think that is the larger segment.

Among those who call them “traditionalists” that may not be so true. It’s not only devotions, practices, etc but rather it’s also the political and/or social (added to my earlier post) aspects that come into play.

 

[TrueLight]

Sure. I’ve heard many protestants say the same in their condemnation of the Church. It is nice, though, to deal with objective fact.

You sound like a liberal.

Being called a protestant is also a way to shut people up, but if you’re hoping to offend me, no dice.

 

[jam070406]

Among those who call them “traditionalists” that may not be so true. It’s not only devotions, practices, etc but rather it’s also the political and/or social (added to my earlier post) aspects that come into play.

And this is a bad thing?

 

[wasserfall]

I would agree it is more than liturgy. I don’t know many traditionalists who only prefer the liturgy. They tend to be more traditional in devotions, practices etc. I think that is the larger segment.

One of the most important aspects of traditional Catholicism is the adherence to traditional expressions of Catholic doctrine. Traditional Catholics don’t have a problem with the teaching that contraception will send you to hell, as an example. They don’t need it expressed another way. They just accept the teaching and conform their lives to it.

 

[TrueLight]

One of the most important aspects of traditional Catholicism is the adherence to traditional expressions of Catholic doctrine. Traditional Catholics don’t have a problem with the teaching that contraception will send you to hell, as an example. They don’t need it expressed another way. They just accept the teaching and conform their lives to it.

Amen.

When I listen to audiosancto.com, I am amazed at how faithful the sermons are to traditional Catholic teaching. The priests are not shy about preaching about hell, modesty, fornication, etc.

 

[Timothysis]

Are you disputing that traditionalists tend to believe this? Do I need to prove that traditionalists tend to believe this?

If “traditionalists” do indeed believe “this,” then they are the ones who must prove it.

Now you are making an unsupported assertion. You can either preface it with “in my opinion” or you should be prepared to support your assertion with evidence.

My assertion is that the Latin Mass is NOT more efficacious than any other rite in the Church and my evidence is that the Church has never said that one rite is more efficacious than another. It is up to YOU to show otherwise.

Hint; Pope Benedict has said that the EF and the OF are two expressions of the *same rite. *

 

[TrueLight]

If “traditionalists” do indeed believe “this,” then they are the ones who must prove it.

My assertion is that the Latin Mass is NOT more efficacious than any other rite in the Church and my evidence is that the Church has never said that one rite is more efficacious than another. It is up to YOU to show otherwise.

Hint; Pope Benedict has said that the EF and the OF are two expressions of the *same rite. *

Okay, can we not turn this thread into which is more efficacious? That is obviously against forum rules.

My only point in bringing it up was to say that is a common theme, when we look at people who call themselves traditionalists.

I can be wrong because my experience is limited, but by going to different parishes including an FSSP parish, one finds common themes among those who call themselves traditionalists. And I’m mostly focusing on that term.

Traditionalist.

 

[Rich_C]

Is the definition of “traditionalist” really worth arguing over?

This forum is a great way to increase awareness and understanding of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and to help revive the traditional Catholic worldview.

How does this help?

 

[TrueLight]

Is the definition of “traditionalist” really worth arguing over?

This forum is a great way to increase awareness and understanding of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and to help revive the traditional Catholic worldview.

How does this help?

I agree that it is not the best thing to focus on especially since this thread is about celebrating an ordination of a priest whose first mass was an EF.

But the meaning of words is very important and if I don’t agree with a definition, I’m going to say so.

I will do my part and remove myself from this debate, so guys, especially Timothy and BigFeet, please don’t take it personally if I don’t respond to anything addressed to me.

 

[Rich_C]

I agree that it is not the best thing to focus on especially since this thread is about celebrating an ordination of a priest whose first mass was an EF.

But the meaning of words is very important and if I don’t agree with a definition, I’m going to say so.

I will do my part and remove myself from this debate, so please don’t take it personally if I don’t respond to anything addressed to me.

I respect you for insisting on objective meanings for established terms, but even more for knowing when to gracefully quit an Internet argument.

 

[TrueLight]

I respect you for insisting on objective meanings for established terms, but even more for knowing when to gracefully quit an Internet argument.

 

[curlycool89]

Are you disputing that traditionalists tend to believe this? Do I need to prove that traditionalists tend to believe this?

Now you are making an unsupported assertion. You can either preface it with “in my opinion” or you should be prepared to support your assertion with evidence.

sigh, fine we’ll do some logic for you.

First things first, TrueLight said

Traditionalists tend to believe the EF is more efficacious etc.

That is making an assertion that traditionalists believe this. He gave no justification for why they believe it, so it is an unjustified belief (“unjustified” simply means not justified). Traditionalists can believe this but they cannot present this is as a fact or knowledge without justification.

As for the logic I promised:
P1. Through the Mass, the people of God receive Grace.
P2. There are 2 forms of the One Latin-Rite Mass (OF and EF).
C. Therefore, the Of provides all the graces of the Latin-Rite Mass, and the EF provides all the graces of the Latin-Rite Mass.
(QED).

Ok, I’ll do a second trick for people using what’s called the Property of Identity of Indiscernibles (PII). PII says “if x has all the properties of y, and y has all the properties of x, then x is the same as y”. What we’re concerned about is grace, so lets look at what’s necessary for a Mass:

• sacred vestments (this goes back to Exodus)
• a priest (needed to act in persona Christi) with proper intent
• an altar
• rubrics (basically a standard way of doing things) and scripture readings (ex - lectionary or missalette)
• bread and wine (proper matter) and sacred vessels
• The Holy Spirit

Both the EF and OF have all these things that are necessary for a Mass, so both of them are the Mass. Since the Mass gives grace and both of these are the Mass, they both give graces that are associated with the Mass.

Just to be clear, I’m saying that both are good and that going to either is good (so I’m not pitting them against each other, on the contrary I’m pointing to the similarities). Go to the EF if that’s what you like, and go to an OF if that’s what you like. It doesn’t really matter in the end.

My only point in bringing it up was to say that is a common theme, when we look at people who call themselves traditionalists.

I can be wrong because my experience is limited, but by going to different parishes including an FSSP parish, one finds common themes among those who call themselves traditionalists. And I’m mostly focusing on that term.

But does it really make a good identity for traditionalists when it’s wrong?

 

[wasserfall]

If “traditionalists” do indeed believe “this,” then they are the ones who must prove it.

I agree that if a traditionalist were to say, as an assertion of fact, that the EF is more efficacious, then that traditionalist should be prepared to back up his assertion with evidence. However no one has made such an assertion.

The only assertion made was that traditionalists often believe the EF to be more efficacious. To me, that seems reasonably likely to be true. Do you dispute this assertion?

My assertion is that the Latin Mass is NOT more efficacious than any other rite in the Church and my evidence is that the Church has never said that one rite is more efficacious than another.

If you wish to assert as fact that the traditional mass is not more efficacious, then you need to provide evidence that the Church has said that the traditional mass is not more efficacious. The silence of the Church on the matter doesn’t prove your assertion.

I could say: “I assert that Wendys is NOT more delicious than Burger King and my evidence is that the Church has never said that one fast-food chain is more delicious than another.” That is the same “logic” you used and hopefully it’s pretty obviously to you now that it is flawed.

Pope Benedict has said that the EF and the OF are two expressions of the same rite.

That is entirely beside the point.

 

[curlycool89]

I could say: “I assert that Wendys is NOT more delicious than Burger King and my evidence is that the Church has never said that one fast-food chain is more delicious than another.” That is the same “logic” you used and hopefully it’s pretty obviously to you now that it is flawed.

Well, food choices and what counts as delicious is not a matter of faith and morals, while the Mass is.

That is entirely beside the point.

Why? Why is it besides the point?

 

[wasserfall]

First things first, TrueLight said

That is making an assertion that traditionalists believe this. He gave no justification for why they believe it, so it is an unjustified belief (“unjustified” simply means not justified). Traditionalists can believe this but they cannot present this is as a fact or knowledge without justification.

No one presented this as fact at all.

What was asserted was: Traditionalists often believe A
No one asserted A.

As for the logic I promised:
P1. Through the Mass, the people of God receive Grace.
P2. There are 2 forms of the One Latin-Rite Mass (OF and EF).
C. Therefore, the Of provides all the graces of the Latin-Rite Mass, and the EF provides all the graces of the Latin-Rite Mass.

This “logic” fails because it presupposes the same graces are received regardless of form, which is exactly the question theoretically under dispute by “traditionalists”.

Both the EF and OF have all these things that are necessary for a Mass, so both of them are the Mass. Since the Mass gives grace and both of these are the Mass, they both give graces that are associated with the Mass.

Assuming one accepts your assertion that both forms possess all the attributes necessary to a mass, then you have just shown that both are masses. That’s wonderful, but totally beside the point. No one claimed that either of EF or OF aren’t a mass.

You also seem to be confusing the graces inherent in a mass with those actually received by the participants, which are clearly two different things.

But does it really make a good identity for traditionalists when it’s wrong?

It isn’t clear that it is wrong. It may be, but then again, maybe not. I’m not aware that the Church has spoken on the matter at all.

 

[wasserfall]

Well, food choices and what counts as delicious is not a matter of faith and morals, while the Mass is.

Just as the Church has not spoken on the relative tastiness of hamburgers, the Church has also not spoken on the relative efficacy of the EF and the OF.

Why? Why is it besides the point?

Because the juridical declaration that the EF and OF are two forms of the same rite doesn’t say anything at all about the question at hand.

To be clear: I’m not arguing one way or the other. But I disapprove of the unqualified, unsupported assertions that “traditionalists are wrong”. As far as I can tell, they might be wrong, but not necessarily. Had Timothysis simply written “in my opinion, traditionalists are wrong” then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

 

[Big_Feet]

on the term efficacious from previous posts let me say this:

from Dictionary.com:

efficacious (ˌɛfɪˈkeɪʃəs)

— adj
capable of or successful in producing an intended result; effective as a means, remedy, etc

I would see that if one form of the liturgy was more efficacious than for another, it would be from a matter of preference, similar to beauty, no? Nothing is objectively beautiful, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, therefore beauty, as effication is merely subjective, even if many may hold the same to be “true” for themselves.