People who do not like traditional Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saint_Gemma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Absolutely. Anyone who would show up like that at an ordinary form Mass would be just as likely at any Mass. However, the picture was not an abuse if it was not a Mass or if it was not a Catholic priest. But the picture did remind me of one other thing I believe in doing: burning strawmen
 
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.
Just out of curiosity, if is totally wrong and inappropriate for Mass, etc (not that I’m advocating it), why is it called LITURGICAL dancing? 🤷
 
If you really feel that what was the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite for hundreds of years is extravagant, pompous, prideful, and deathly dull, has needless and has empty ornamentation, and repetitious and verbose obscurity of language, and that it caused the Protestant reformation, please write a letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI requesting that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite be abolished altogether, instead of being allowed.

I doubt that His Holiness will appreciate being told 261 of his predecessors celebrated a deficient Mass, but at least he will get a good laugh. (Just to let you know, I am almost as peeved by people who claim that four Popes celebrated an inherently deficient Mass.)
I think his reaction would be like his reaction to people who are bored by Mozart and Bach, only a lot more so. Nevertheless, there are a lot of people who find Bach in particular to be exactly those things: extravagant, pompous, deathly dull, full of needless and empty ornamentation…in other words, the not-nice meaning of the word “baroque.”

That doesn’t mean that the only difference between J.S. Bach and Paul McCartney is a matter of personal taste…and Paul McCartney would be the first to say so. There are some absolute truths, even in matters of aesthetics. (That doesn’t mean there’s no place in the world for the Beatles, either…folk music has its place, too.)
 
I think his reaction would be like his reaction to people who are bored by Mozart and Bach, only a lot more so. Nevertheless, there are a lot of people who find Bach in particular to be exactly those things: extravagant, pompous, deathly dull, full of needless and empty ornamentation…in other words, the not-nice meaning of the word “baroque.”

That doesn’t mean that the only difference between J.S. Bach and Paul McCartney is a matter of personal taste…and Paul McCartney would be the first to say so. There are some absolute truths, even in matters of aesthetics. (That doesn’t mean there’s no place in the world for the Beatles, either…folk music has its place, too.)
“too many notes” as the Emperor used to say to Mozart 🙂

Aesthetic superiority may automatically mean a superior form of music or art, but it does NOT automatically mean a superior form of worship. Art as used in worship has to have the effect of drawing us closer to God as well as, though not subordinate to, the aim of giving glory to God through sheer beauty.

If it fails to draw us closer to God it fails in its function, no matter its aesthetic qualities, which is why I dislike a lot of overtly modern stuff as well as a lot of the antiquarian, regardless of whether it works as art and architecture and music.

Abraham worshipped God on a makeshift altar on top of Mount Moriah on the occasion when he nearly sacrificed Issac, did he not? The Israelites in a tent (and not an especially nice one prior to God telling Moses to construct a new one either).

And the early Christians met in caves and catacombs (tombs) to worship, fer crying out loud. None of these would’ve been exactly the most aesthetically pleasing of surroundings, I’m sure, but nonetheless equally acceptable to God as a site for worship.
 
“too many notes” as the Emperor used to say to Mozart 🙂

Aesthetic superiority may automatically mean a superior form of music or art, but it does NOT automatically mean a superior form of worship. Art as used in worship has to have the effect of drawing us closer to God as well as, though not subordinate to, the aim of giving glory to God through sheer beauty.

If it fails to draw us closer to God it fails in its function, no matter its aesthetic qualities, which is why I dislike a lot of overtly modern stuff as well as a lot of the antiquarian, regardless of whether it works as art and architecture and music.

Abraham worshipped God on a makeshift altar on top of Mount Moriah on the occasion when he nearly sacrificed Issac, did he not? The Israelites in a tent (and not an especially nice one prior to God telling Moses to construct a new one either).

And the early Christians met in caves and catacombs (tombs) to worship, fer crying out loud. None of these would’ve been exactly the most aesthetically pleasing of surroundings, I’m sure, but nonetheless equally acceptable to God as a site for worship.
Yes, but you also remember the parable Jesus told, in which the man who showed up for the wedding improperly dressed was thrown out. When we can do better, we should make that effort.

PS That altar on Mt. Moriah might have been a permanent fixture that was very carefully seen to, when first erected. We don’t know.
 
Absolutely. Anyone who would show up like that at an ordinary form Mass would be just as likely at any Mass. However, the picture was not an abuse if it was not a Mass or if it was not a Catholic priest. But the picture did remind me of one other thing I believe in doing: burning strawmen
That’s not true. I’ve never seen a Tridentine Mass photo wear the celebrant was wearing a Cheese head.
 
Just out of curiosity, if is totally wrong and inappropriate for Mass, etc (not that I’m advocating it), why is it called LITURGICAL dancing? 🤷
I don’t know. You need to ask Pope Benedict. He and the other members of the Curia are the ones responsible for condemning it.
 
I think his reaction would be like his reaction to people who are bored by Mozart and Bach, only a lot more so. Nevertheless, there are a lot of people who find Bach in particular to be exactly those things: extravagant, pompous, deathly dull, full of needless and empty ornamentation…in other words, the not-nice meaning of the word “baroque.”

That doesn’t mean that the only difference between J.S. Bach and Paul McCartney is a matter of personal taste…and Paul McCartney would be the first to say so. There are some absolute truths, even in matters of aesthetics. (That doesn’t mean there’s no place in the world for the Beatles, either…folk music has its place, too.)
Folk music has its place…outside of Mass.

Also, the beatles suck! Don’t tell my dad I said that though.

We need to offer God the best we have!

Besides, you can enjoy Bach. You just have to work at it a little!
 
Folk music has its place…outside of Mass.

Also, the beatles suck! Don’t tell my dad I said that though.

We need to offer God the best we have!

Besides, you can enjoy Bach. You just have to work at it a little!
I do enjoy Bach, and I’ve never found it any work. I’m just lucky that way!
 
Folk music has its place…outside of Mass.

Also, the beatles suck! Don’t tell my dad I said that though.

We need to offer God the best we have!

Besides, you can enjoy Bach. You just have to work at it a little!
The Beatles and Elvis were/are overrated 😃
 
Yes, but you also remember the parable Jesus told, in which the man who showed up for the wedding improperly dressed was thrown out. When we can do better, we should make that effort.

PS That altar on Mt. Moriah might have been a permanent fixture that was very carefully seen to, when first erected. We don’t know.
Read the rest of the post - ‘better’ doesn’t always simply mean ‘aesthetically better’ when it comes to worship. :nope:

Wagner, for example, is aesthetically amazing, as is the castle of Neuschwanstein which was inspired by his works. Music in his style would be totally inappropriate for the Mass, though, and a building in the architectural style of Neuschwanstein would be totally inappropriate as a worship setting too. Because as brilliant as they are these styles DON’T lift the mind and heart to God.

And that’s why we’ve never had poets or professional authors contribute to writing the texts of the Mass, for one.
 
“too many notes” as the Emperor used to say to Mozart 🙂

Aesthetic superiority may automatically mean a superior form of music or art, but it does NOT automatically mean a superior form of worship. Art as used in worship has to have the effect of drawing us closer to God as well as, though not subordinate to, the aim of giving glory to God through sheer beauty.

If it fails to draw us closer to God it fails in its function, no matter its aesthetic qualities, which is why I dislike a lot of overtly modern stuff as well as a lot of the antiquarian, regardless of whether it works as art and architecture and music.

Abraham worshipped God on a makeshift altar on top of Mount Moriah on the occasion when he nearly sacrificed Issac, did he not? The Israelites in a tent (and not an especially nice one prior to God telling Moses to construct a new one either).

And the early Christians met in caves and catacombs (tombs) to worship, fer crying out loud. None of these would’ve been exactly the most aesthetically pleasing of surroundings, I’m sure, but nonetheless equally acceptable to God as a site for worship.
If the new Mass produced the fruits of the early Christians, you might have a point.

The aesthetics are important, well, because the Catholic Church is a beautiful institution. It’s the most culturally refined institution of all time, and why not show it?

Besides, it’s not like the enemy of the beauty of Traditional Catholicism is another form of beauty. It’s basically minimalistic, bourgeois, semi-secular art styles.

Who wants a hymn that sounds like Carly Simon?

It sucks!
 
You guys are blowin my mind.

From your posts, it seems like you have good taste.

I don’t know why you don’t want that as a part of the Mass?
 
If the new Mass produced the fruits of the early Christians, you might have a point.

The aesthetics are important, well, because the Catholic Church is a beautiful institution. It’s the most culturally refined institution of all time, and why not show it?

Besides, it’s not like the enemy of the beauty of Traditional Catholicism is another form of beauty. It’s basically minimalistic, bourgeois, semi-secular art styles.

Who wants a hymn that sounds like Carly Simon?

It sucks!
When the New Mass has been around for a few hundred years, let alone 2,000, then you’ll be in a position to truly judge its fruits. In the first 40 years of Christianity you had division (as instanced by the Council of Jerusalem), false teaching and lots of other problems that aren’t that dissimilar to today’s.

And lots of people, clearly, like Carly Simon, and plenty of people find that that style of hymn lifts their minds and hearts to God, which surely is the MAIN aim of worship, no?

If that’s what it does for them, and Gregorian or classical music or older-style hymns fail to do so, then clearly there is a need for more than one style.
 
That’s not true. I’ve never seen a Tridentine Mass photo wear the celebrant was wearing a Cheese head.
Why? What about the TLM would prevent a celebrant from doing something goofy if such a priest was forced to only celebrate the TLM. Lightening? Mob attack? There is a fallacy that blames the form of the Mass for the character of its adherents instead of the simpler solution that the more whacky priest will not celebrate the TLM, but rather the ordinary form.

Of course, this all assumes that the picture really is a Mass and the priest is a Catholic and not some other denominatin.
 
You guys are blowin my mind.

From your posts, it seems like you have good taste.

I don’t know why you don’t want that as a part of the Mass?
I guess I’d rather hear the St. Louis Jesuits done well than Bach done badly. Two forms of Purgatory, granted, but Bach (or Palastrina) done badly is in a deeper circle, to my mind.

Yes, SLJ done badly is the worst of all, by a country mile, but sometimes free musicians are of a quality commensurate with what they’re paid. They’re doing their best, and I was not given the talent to improve them. In that sense, if the music isn’t an outright abuse, I’ll take what I get.
 
Easy there, CradleCath, being gay doesn’t make you a pedophile, any more than being a pedophile makes you gay.

And, no, I’m no gay rights advocate, but I do understand the Church teaching on homosexuality.
Pedophile? 85% of the abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests was on pubescent & post-pubescent boys…that’s called pederasty, not pedophilia. I can understand why the media won’t tackle the gay priest problem…they will be ‘Politically Correct’ no matter what. However, a Catholic should enough have the intestinal fortitude to call the abusers by the “proper nomenclature”:
Pederasty (or Greek Paederasteia) is the erotic relationship between an adult male and a boy, generally one between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in which the older partner is attracted to the younger one who returns his affection.

And yes, I know the Churches teachings re homosexuality itself & acting on said sexual orientation. I agree with them totally. A gay man or a lesbian is a child of God, just as I am & beloved by Him, just as I am. They are to be treated with respect & dignity & their right to jobs that they are qualified for & housing should never be denied.However, since their sexuality is disordered, they cannot indulge in gay sex, period. Certainly not with an underaged boy, as that is a crime.

BTW., I’ve noticed several times on this board that, though I bring up several problems within the Church…poor Mass attendance, lack of belief in the Real Presence, etc., if I include the “problem” of homosexual abuse by priests…well, that’s the only one that the more liberal among us seem to respond to. Why do you think that is?
 
Just out of curiosity, if is totally wrong and inappropriate for Mass, etc (not that I’m advocating it), why is it called LITURGICAL dancing? 🤷
It is called liturgical dancing because it happens during a liturgy, even though it happens without the approval of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.
 
Pedophile? 85% of the abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests was on pubescent & post-pubescent boys…that’s called pederasty, not pedophilia. I can understand why the media won’t tackle the gay priest problem…they will be ‘Politically Correct’ no matter what. However, a Catholic should enough have the intestinal fortitude to call the abusers by the “proper nomenclature”:

And yes, I know the Churches teachings re homosexuality itself & acting on said sexual orientation. I agree with them totally. A gay man or a lesbian is a child of God, just as I am & beloved by Him, just as I am. They are to be treated with respect & dignity & their right to jobs that they are qualified for & housing should never be denied.However, since their sexuality is disordered, they cannot indulge in gay sex, period. Certainly not with an underaged boy, as that is a crime.

BTW., I’ve noticed several times on this board that, though I bring up several problems within the Church…poor Mass attendance, lack of belief in the Real Presence, etc., if I include the “problem” of homosexual abuse by priests…well, that’s the only one that the more liberal among us seem to respond to. Why do you think that is?
You do realize that the Pope himself made the distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia. He made a point of saying that he was not speaking of simple homosexuality, which he characterized as " a different thing" from pedophilia.
 
QUOTE=LilyM;3715497]What about the Reformation? Didn’t the clergy of England and Northern Europe en masse - almost TO A MAN - leave the Church then?
Uh…no. However, since you mentioned England specifically, a good portion of our priesthood in that country went underground & many were persecuted, some to the point of death. ; the Act of Supremacy made the King of England the ‘only supreme head on earth of the Church’ & Catholic priests, Bishops & laity were required to take an oath that they supported this Act. Any rebellion or disagreement was considered treason. It was under this act that St.Thomas More & approximately 160 Catholic priests were executed. Queen Elizabeth I’s scorn for Jesuit missionaries led to many executions at Tyburn. Since Ireland was under the rule of the Enflish Crown, the Irish were “punished” for the rebellion of 1641 & their priesthood was hard hit by persecution & execution…

A little study into the different orders of Catholic priests, especially in Ireland, would amaze you. In that country Priests, martyrs of the order of St. Augustine,during the Protestant “Reformation” are Peter Taaffe and Fulgentius Jordan, executed under Oliver Cromwell in 1649. Their cause is presently proposed for beatification.
William Tirrey was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1992. He was hanged in 1654 at Clonmel after appealing to the people to stand firm in their Catholic beliefe. Other friars remained in hiding or were scattered throughout the continent of Europe. In 1656 some took up residence at San Matteo in Merulana, thanks to the intervention of Pope Alexander VII and began the history of the Irish Augustinian community in Rome.
Your comparison of the Council called Vatican II & the Protestant Reformation really surprised me for a few minutes. However, considering that both have been very destructive to the priesthood…one murdering their bodies & one their vocations…it might just be appropos.
'Taint nothing new under the sun. The Good Book was the first to say so, so it must be true. :yup: :getholy: And your 66 years of experience is a mere blink of an eye in terms of Church time. Don’t be so shortsighted as to think because you’d never seen it before in your lifetime that it’s never happened before.
Well, considering the fact that I said that, “during my 66 years as a Catholic” it’s those years that I was talking about. However, giving you a little instruction re the Catholic priesthood & the Protestant Reformation has made it worthwhile to go a little farther back than my own lifetime.

BTW., Have you ever heard of St. John Fisher. He’s another Catholic victim of the Reformation:

A special commission for Fisher’s trial was issued, and he was arraigned in Westminster Hall on a charge of treason, in that **he denied the king to be supreme head of the Church. **Since he had been deprived of his bishopric by the Act of Attainder, he was treated as a commoner, and tried by jury. He was declared guilty, and condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, but the mode of execution was changed, and instead he was beheaded on Tower Hill.

**The martyr’s last moments were thoroughly in keeping with his previous life. He met death with a calm dignified courage which profoundly impressed all present. His headless body was stripped and left on the scaffold till evening, when it was thrown naked into a grave in the churchyard of Allhallows, Barking. Thence it was removed a fortnight later and laid beside that of Sir Thomas More in the church of St. Peter ad Vincula by the Tower. His head was stuck upon a pole on London Bridge, but its ruddy and lifelike appearance excited so much attention that, after a fortnight, it was thrown into the Thames, its place being taken by that of Sir Thomas More, whose martyrdom occurred on 6 July next following. **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top