People who do not like traditional Catholicism

[LilyM]

Well… Damn!

Pomposity, Pride, Extravagance… Really? Reformers? Is the EF Satanic to you?

I don’t know how to address this post. To me, well, the beauty’s undeniable. Maybe we run in different circles. Pax.

Such language!

Maybe different people just look at the same thing and see it differently? Or did you expect everyone to think about it exactly as you do? You must be moving in very limited circles indeed if that’s the case.

I certainly don’t think that the EF is satanic or anything like, and I’m glad it’s been made more available for those who desire it.

I don’t, on the other hand, think it’s perfect or undeniably beautiful in all circumstances either, except inasmuch as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in all its forms, has an inherent beauty and perfection unless abused. Since beauty is undeniably a subjective thing.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Such language!

Maybe different people just look at the same thing and see it differently? Or did you expect everyone to think about it exactly as you do? You must be moving in very limited circles indeed if that’s the case.

I certainly don’t think that the EF is satanic or anything like, and I’m glad it’s been made more available for those who desire it.

I don’t, on the other hand, think it’s perfect or undeniably beautiful in all circumstances either, except inasmuch as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in all its forms, has an inherent beauty and perfection unless abused. Since beauty is undeniably a subjective thing.

Heh.

There is an objective beauty. God himself is the essence of beauty.

Why you gonna side with the reformers, dawg?

 

[elt1956]

Undeniable beauty? That’s a bit rich.

Where you see beauty others (and I’m not talking of my own experience here, although I don’t prefer the EF to a decently done OF) can and will see extravagance, pride, pomposity, needless and empty ornamentation, repetitious and verbose obscurity of language, and deathly dullness … none of which is beautiful.

More importantly, they will see nothing they can relate to, nothing which moves them or draws them in in any way, nothing that reveals God to them. In short nothing they can even begin grasp or understand, just a ritual that seems purpose-built to baffle, mystify and totally exclude.

Again, I’m not expressing my own opinions here, it’s what some Catholics I know who have plenty of experience of both the EF and the OF - as well as some non-Catholics who’ve experienced it - have had to say about it to me.

Not to mention it’s a form of the Mass which has actually driven people AWAY from the Church - the reformers of the 16th century among them - and INTO that secularism that you seem to think the TLM prevents.

Well, of course I do disagree with you, to a point. I don’t believe TLM drove people away. I think perhaps it was the understanding of the TLM and what it represented that left people feeling empty. TLM has always been a more overt and admitedly elaborate form of the Mass. And many people do not approve of what they see as the ostentation of this form of the Liturgy. Somewhat like the Catholic Church in Mexico lining the altars of the Church with gold while their congregants starved. As a Cradle Catholic and parochial school attendee of the 40s and 50s, I internalized the rituals of TLM and they are quite beautiful to me.

However, I do think comparison of the NO and TLM forms of the Mass are very unnecessary. People, go to the Mass which gives you personally the feeling of a greater connectedness to our Saviour. Attend the form of the Mass in which you are comfortable and which you feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. But do not place one form of the Mass one above the other. This could result in inordinate pride.

Go back to the history of the beginnings of the Church. St. Luke describes the early Christians as celebrating the sacrifice of the Mass in this way.“They devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teachings and the breaking of the bread”. Acts 2:42 A very simple celebration.

St. Paul describes in one of his letters. the Last Supper saying (approximately) “Christ took wine, consecrated it saying, this is my blood (which shall be shed for all). He and the Apostles then ate their meal, Sedar, then Jesus took the bread, consecrated it saying, this is my body, do this in remembrance of me”. He then broke the bread and gave it to the Apostles. (The quote may not be exactly the words of Paul, but you get the picture.) Many changes have ocurred in the form of the Mass over the last 2000 years.

Considerable scholarship (such as that of Fr. Louis Boyer in “Eucharist”) suggests the close affinity of the Roman Rite proper with the Jewish prayers of the synagogue, which also accompanied the Temple sacrifices. (Remember the Apostles were Jews, so why would they not combine some of the rituals with which they were familiar?) While the origin of the current Rite, even in the reform of Vatican II, can be traced directly only to the 4th century, these connections point to an ancient apostolic tradition brought to that city that was decidedly Jewish in origin. How is that for an eye opener?

Or, we can note:
There are three major groupings of Rites based on this initial transmission of the faith, the Roman, the Antiochian (Syria) and the Alexandrian (Egypt). Later on the Byzantine derived as a major Rite from the Antiochian, under the influence of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. From these four derive the over 20 liturgical Rites present in the Church today

Which of these is the most “pure” form of liturgy? Quite a large chunk to chew if one believes only one rite is the correct one.

 

[WILKM]

Since I’m cradle Catholic, I could be wrong about this, but this experience of “something” happening is more or less what a Protestant would call “born again.”

You can know all the prayers and all the rules… but that’s not faith - that’s religion. Faith is when that “something” happens.

I had 12 years of Catholic schooling, with nuns and the Baltimore Catechism (the “old days” ). I knew all the rules, and I was “clueless” how it all related to the free and unmerited gift of faith which I had in my heart. So far did I see the “head knowledge” from the faith in my heart, I stopped going to church – nothing… nada – from 7th to 12th grades. I never lost faith, I just didn’t see it in the Church.

When I was 15, I was “whacked in the head by God,” which got my attention, and then it took another two years before I was ready to return to Church and the Sacraments. This was in the early 70’s and when I returned, I returned “gung ho” - daily Mass, frequent Confession, involvement in parish life, etc.

These were the days of “Kumbaya” and “Blowin’ in the Wind,” dialogue homilies, teens gathered around the altar, self-reception of the Eucharist with plate passing… everyone around my age will remember these things. This was that famous pendulum swing which I think is only now starting to settle towards the center.

Why did the Church experience all the experiments and abuses of the 70’s? I don’t know. But I can tell you this: It’s how I came back. Good, bad or indifferent, the Lord used it - on me, on others I knew, and I’m sure on many others I don’t know.

He can use anything He wants to further His plan and goal: our salvation. Who knows how He may be using even the recent excommunication of those women “priests”? Maybe it will knock enough sense in them to repent and return to the flock… we don’t know and should not judge.

Jesus prayed, as His “Last Will and Testament,” as it were, that we would be one. His Body is not only now fractured into 30,000-40,000 denominations of Christians, but His One True Church is becoming divided. Let us all seriously look inside of ourselves and obey His command, His request, His wish: May we be ONE.

Beautiful post GemmaRose!

 

[pnewton]

While I do not dislike traditional Catholicism or traditional Catholics, I do not attend the Mass in Latin. I can answer the initial question from my own limited experience anyway.

I come here for only the topics that I find of interest, as I do any other sub-forum. Since this subforum is for the discussion of traditional Catholicism, not just the advocacy of TC, I believe all POV’s should be welcome. Some of the topics that I have engaged in, but do not support, are the SSPX, sedevacantism, the invalidity of the ordinary form of Mass and a mandatory TLM in every parish. Each of these will topics are separate and traditional Catholics may agree with one, but not another. On the other hand, some of the liturgical threads I use to glean information.

No one should ascribe some nefarious motive for my posting here. I come to this subforum for much of the same reasons I go to any. I rarely even check to see the subforum before I click on a thread.

 

[PrayforMallory]

While I do not dislike traditional Catholicism or traditional Catholics, I do not attend the Mass in Latin. I can answer the initial question from my own limited experience anyway.

I come here for only the topics that I find of interest, as I do any other sub-forum. Since this subforum is for the discussion of traditional Catholicism, not just the advocacy of TC, I believe all POV’s should be welcome. Some of the topics that I have engaged in, but do not support, are the SSPX, sedevacantism, the invalidity of the ordinary form of Mass and a mandatory TLM in every parish. Each of these will topics are separate and traditional Catholics may agree with one, but not another. On the other hand, some of the liturgical threads I use to glean information.

No one should ascribe some nefarious motive for my posting here. I come to this subforum for much of the same reasons I go to any. I rarely even check to see the subforum before I click on a thread.

I don’t know who would think you are nefarious.

I watched this forum for a while.

Seems kinda hostile.

 

[LilyM]

Heh.

There is an objective beauty. God himself is the essence of beauty.

Why you gonna side with the reformers, dawg?

Yes, God is the essence of beauty, and God is equally present in all valid and licit forms of the Mass and Divine Liturgy. For this reason what IS undeniable is that all forms equally possess His inherent perfection and beauty.

The beauty of the Mass is the beauty of God being present in it. Nothing about the form adds to or subtracts from this one iota, abuses apart.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Yes, God is the essence of beauty, and God is equally present in all valid and licit forms of the Mass and Divine Liturgy. For this reason what IS undeniable is that all forms equally possess His inherent perfection and beauty.

The beauty of the Mass is the beauty of God being present in it. Nothing about the form adds to or subtracts from this one iota, abuses apart.

That’s fine. I mean, I wouldn’t mind the OF once the gravitational pull of the EF comes into play. I’m not opposed to the OF in essence.

I just don’t like the jack-*** mentality that’s swept the Churches. That’s all.

All of y’all are really on edge on this site.

 

[Rosewith]

Would someone please explain to me why so many people who do not like traditional Catholicism frequent this sub-forum?

I think the real problem is not this, but the fact that what many so-called “traditional” Catholics present as “traditional Catholicism” isn’t.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Would someone please explain to me why so many people who do not like traditional Catholicism frequent this sub-forum?

I think the real problem is not this, but the fact that what many so-called “traditional” Catholics present as “traditional Catholicism” isn’t.

Care to explain?

 

[Cat]

Yes, God is the essence of beauty, and God is equally present in all valid and licit forms of the Mass and Divine Liturgy. For this reason what IS undeniable is that all forms equally possess His inherent perfection and beauty.

The beauty of the Mass is the beauty of God being present in it. Nothing about the form adds to or subtracts from this one iota, abuses apart.

LilyM, I really, REALLY appreciate your last few posts here. It took courage on your part to post them, but they are so wise.

I have posted in other threads in the past that I DON’T like “chant” because I think it’s spooky. Boy, oh, boy, some people here really don’t like to read that! But I can’t help it–it’s my background. Just last week I was watching an X Files episode (one of the John Doggett ones, which are the only episodes I watch) that had chant in the background, and it was SPOOKY! When I was a teenager (Protestant), I loved horror movies (they used to be a lot less graphic than they are now), and many of these movies used some form of chant, and I find them SPOOKY!

In the movie Conan the Barbarian, after the snake guy villain is dead, all of his disciples get in line and thrown their torches into a lake, and the music in the background is some kind of chanty thing that just sends chills up my spine.

That’s just my background! As a result of all these experiences in my youth, I don’t think chant is beautiful at all. It just goes to show the importance of limiting your experiences to what is good, but please–when I was a teenager, no one considered these horror movies “bad” except for the extreme separatist fundamentalist! I’m sure a lot of Catholics sat in that audience with me! We didn’t know. As for Conan the Barbarian–it’s a great movie, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is wonderful in it! The music is actually pretty grand and beautiful in a “blockbuster” tradition. (My husband’s synchro team skated to it for two seasons.)

As for other aspects of TLM, LilyM, you’re right–I don’t think I would consider it beautiful. I love the old churches, but I prefer a very stark architecture and decor. I get distracted by all the doo dads and then I don’t pay attention to what’s going on. Again, I’m not saying that I’m right and everyone else is wrong. It’s not a question of rightness and wrongness–feelings are not “right” and “wrong,” they just “are.”

Finally, to me, the Mass (or any church service in Protestant churches) is not beautiful because of what it looks like. It’s beautiful because of the love. In the Protestant churches, the love is from the other people. If there is no love, the service is a misery. But in the Catholic Church, the love is not only from the people, but from Jesus Himself in the Blessed Sacrament. To me, it is a delight to sit in Mass and know that the people all around me are loving people who are involved in various ministries and working to bring about Christ’s Kingdom here on this earth. I enjoy seeing my Christian brothers and sisters who have passed through trials and still honor and praise Jesus–this is living testimony that encourages me and helps me to have more faith. I enjoy listening to the priest and knowing that he has been through rehab and come out of it strong and humble. I love watching the young families and knowing their kids from children’s choirs.

THIS is beauty to me–the Body of Christ, not only in the Blessed Sacrament, but in His people. The Twila Paris song, How Beautiful, actually says, “How beautiful is the Body of Christ.” I agree. The externals don’t matter at all.

 

[Dauphin]

The externals don’t matter at all.

Where’s your parish? I’ll be sure to send this guy over:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[LilyM]

Where’s your parish? I’ll be sure to send this guy over:

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0209j.jpg

That’s an ABUSE, mate, TOTALLY contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the rubrics of both OF and EF, along with other things like liturgical dancing.

I don’t think any of us have either said or thought that abuses don’t matter, but don’t try to lump them in the same boat as legitimate variations in form.

 

[Dauphin]

That’s an ABUSE, mate, TOTALLY contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the rubrics of both OF and EF, along with other things like liturgical dancing.

I don’t think any of us have either said or thought that abuses don’t matter, but don’t try to lump them in the same boat as legitimate variations in form.

Just a little joke

I understand the point being made, but I still disagree. The prayers of the Mass are important. Liturgical continuity with Roman tradition is essential.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Where’s your parish? I’ll be sure to send this guy over:

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0209j.jpg

Haha.

I guess our Catholic culture, all our geniuses, all our “doo-dads,” all our pompous Latin, all our “spooky” reverence is just a bunch of meaningless arrogance, huh?

Seriously. Is Catholicism just a Baptist church service with the Eucharist for you guys? Does the culture of the saints matter at all?

 

[PrayforMallory]

I feel like I’ve just watched the 700 Club,

 

[GemmaRose]

Where’s your parish? I’ll be sure to send this guy over:

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0209j.jpg

Just curious… what IS that thing on his head?? It looks like a giant piece of swiss cheese! Was this a Mass for a community of church mice?

P.S. Thanks to all who complimented my post.

 

[Dauphin]

Just curious… what IS that thing on his head?? It looks like a giant piece of swiss cheese! Was this a Mass for a community of church mice?

P.S. Thanks to all who complimented my post.

He’s a fan of the Greenbay Packers, so he thought it would be hilarious to don one of their novelty cheese hats during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[japhy]

… From these four derive the over 20 liturgical Rites present in the Church today. Which of these is the most “pure” form of liturgy? Quite a large chunk to chew if one believes only one rite is the correct one.

I’ve never argued that the Roman Rite is better than the Byzantine Rite, or any Rite is better than another. However, changes within a Rite can be good or bad, and some changes can be organic while others are not.

In the Roman Rite, for around 1400 years or so, the tradition was a single Eucharistic Prayer, known as the Roman Canon. But 40 years ago, a model for the Eucharistic Prayer said by a Bishop at his ordination (the Hippolytan canon) was wrenched out of antiquity and updated and plugged into the Roman Rite. It had not been used in our Church for over a millenium, if indeed it had been used at all. It pales in comparison to the Roman Canon. On top of that, two other Eucharistic Prayers were invented. And then three for children. And then two for reconciliation. And then four in Switzerland. All 13 Eucharistic Prayers are in the 3rd typical edition of the Roman Missal. We went from one prayer to thirteen in less than a decade, and not in an organic fashion.

There was also not the optional of which Penitential Rite to use… the Confiteor was used, followed by the Kyrie. Today, the Confiteor is often not used, and a hybrid Kyrie that appears to be adopted from the Eastern Rites is often used instead. That wasn’t the Roman tradition.

I would argue that some of the changes to the Mass (and some of the changes imposed upon the Eastern Rites, the “latinization” of them) was an attempt at unifying the Rites into one, and I don’t think it was a wise move (neither during/after the council or even before it, as some popes had done).

And another thing about comparing them… if the Ordinary Form isn’t “better” than the Extraordinary Form (or is only subjectively better), then doesn’t that make the reform that produced it a failure? If there was something in the 1962 liturgy that needed reforming, and yet we cannot say that the liturgy of today is better than the 1962 liturgy, then what have we gained? Why should it have been changed at all? I think there are things in the 1962 liturgy that need reforming; I also think there are certainly things in the 1969/2002 liturgy that need reforming, but the direction of this reform is mostly towards the traditional liturgy of the Church.

So then, my point: if a Catholic says that the EF and the OF are not better or worse than one another, why doesn’t that Catholic attend both forms? Why are they showing (exclusive) preference to one form over another? I would surmise it comes down to a subjective quality (personal feeling) over an objective quality (intrinsic character), and if the two forms of Mass are really equal, then that person is simply not being fair.

 

[AJV]

I’m glad they didn’t pull Mary out of the Confiteor. I’d guess Michael is in there because he’s the captain of the heavenly host; Peter and Paul because they were the great Apostles of the Roman Church, having been martyred in Rome; and John the Baptist because he is Jesus’ kin and the messenger of the Lord. But hey, if they were removed, why not Mary?

St. Michael is there because he was regarded as the Angel of sacrifice (hence he replaced Gabriel at the prayer for the blessing of incense at the Offertory). Ss. Peter and Paul, because as you note, they are patrons of Rome and it is the Roman liturgy, St. John the Baptist because he was always named with the BVM (a pattern followed in all prayers of the Traditional Mass, apart from the embolism of the Our Father) having been born immaculate and as the greatest of the old. A semi-mystical reason can see the representation of all ‘classes’ as it were heaven, earth, the old covenant and the new convenant.

The blessed Virgin Mary is always named separately because of (1) the great merit of being the Birthgiver (2) hyperdulia