People who do not like traditional Catholicism

[Cat]

In my twelve years of Catholic schooling, I was never instructed that the Mass was a Sacrifice, or that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. The Novus Ordo didn’t make it obvious to me.

I’m referring to what’s contained in the Mass itself, not the sermon. The prayers of the Traditional Latin Mass clearly and repeatedly identify the Mass as a sacrifice offered up for the sins of the living and the dead. This is omitted from the Novus Ordo.

I disagree.

The prayer “Help my mommy” would be perfectly appropriate for a child. However, if I said that prayer to God, it would be a mockery. I’m capable of offering much clearer intentions, so I should.

Likewise, the Mass cannot reflect the lowest common denominator. It must contain prayers of the highest nature - our very best. The prayers should fully clarify the intention of the priest and the faithful while completely enunciating Catholic doctrine about the nature of the sacrifice which is being offered.

Everyone’s “best” is different. My husband is an ice dancer, and so is Ben Agosto. But my husband’s “best” ice dancing performance is far far different than Agosto’s. That doesn’t mean my husband is “inferior,” just less skilled in ice dancing than Ben Agosto. Everyone’s best is their best. Someone’s “best” can’t be superior to someone else’s “best.”

If your “best” prayers are those of the TLM, that’s good.

I have a little bit of a hard time trying to figure out where this leaves Christians from other nations that are not European (e.g., Africa). Are they “inferior” because the TLM is even more foreign to them than it is to U.S. citizens?

I know that it is difficult for you and others like you to understand that to me, a “child’s prayer” is not at all an insult to God. He said that we need to come to Him as children. I think that it is not the words that God is concerned with, but the attitude of the heart and our humility. I do not consider it inappropriate for me to utter a child’s prayer if it reminds me to obey Jesus and come to Him as a little child.

 

[Dauphin]

Everyone’s “best” is different. My husband is an ice dancer, and so is Ben Agosto. But my husband’s “best” ice dancing performance is far far different than Agosto’s. That doesn’t mean my husband is “inferior,” just less skilled in ice dancing than Ben Agosto. Everyone’s best is their best. Someone’s “best” can’t be superior to someone else’s “best.”

If your “best” prayers are those of the TLM, that’s good.

No. I absolutely refuse to accept this relativistic idea of what constitutes “best”. The best the Church has to offer would be the finest, most reverent prayers, which fully elucidate Catholic doctrine. An example is the prayers of the Roman Canon codified by Pope St. Gregory the Great.

I have a little bit of a hard time trying to figure out where this leaves Christians from other nations that are not European (e.g., Africa). Are they “inferior” because the TLM is even more foreign to them than it is to U.S. citizens?

I’m quite sure that the TLM is just as foreign to U.S. citizens as it is to Asians and Africans. In fact, in some cases the whole idea of reverence during the liturgy is much more foreign to Americans than to those in the global south.

I know that it is difficult for you and others like you to understand that to me, a “child’s prayer” is not at all an insult to God.

?

This is ridiculous. That’s not what I said. I said that if I said that prayer, it would be a mockery of God. I’m capable of making my intentions much clearer. I also said specifically that that prayer would be perfectly appropriate for a child to say…

He said that we need to come to Him as children. I think that it is not the words that God is concerned with, but the attitude of the heart and our humility. I do not consider it inappropriate for me to utter a child’s prayer if it reminds me to obey Jesus and come to Him as a little child.

If you have an intention, include it in the prayer. Don’t deliberately conceal it in order to seem more like a child.

 

[kristie_m]

CradleCath;3707012:

What, you don’t journey? You have already arrived, then?

OK, OK, if it makes you vomit, that is reason enough to find a different way to say it.

faith passage, perhaps? Or “spiritual journey”?

 

[japhy]

Explain to me, please, what difference it makes if I list them seperately, or if I say “and I ask the Blessed Mary, ever virgin, ALL the angels and the saints, and to you my brothers and sisters…” If I say “to ALL the saints”, doesn’t that cover JTB, Peter and Paul?

But why was the traditional Confiteor prayer altered? How many Catholics over how many centuries prayed the Confiteor, invoking by name the great Archangel Michael, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul? Why was the prayer changed? What particular good came from it, or what need necessitated it?

Why am I confessing specifially to Mary, Michael, JTB, Peter and Paul to begin with?

For the same reason that we are confessing to the entire assembly present in the church: it is a public admission of our sin before the whole Church, on Earth, in Purgatory, and in Heaven.

 

[ethelzguy]

In my **twelve years **of Catholic schooling, **I was never instructed that **the Mass was a Sacrifice, or that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. The Novus Ordo didn’t make it obvious to me.

This statement totally lacks credibility.

 

[ethelzguy]

But why was the traditional Confiteor prayer altered? How many Catholics over how many centuries prayed the Confiteor, invoking by name the great Archangel Michael, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul? Why was the prayer changed? What particular good came from it, or what need necessitated it?

Perhaps because it contained needless repetition? The more I study the old missals, it becomes more and more clear why the NO came to be.

We are not mindless robots.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Perhaps because it contained needless repetition? The more I study the old missals, it becomes more and more clear why the NO came to be.

We are not mindless robots.

Personally, I have found my participation in the NO to be more robotic than what I do at EF. I know all the responses and I just spit them out without even thinking. I don’t have to think-the words just came off my tongue. I have to think at the EF, I have to remain engaged in order to understand what is going on. So, for me-the EF is a better form of worship. I’m less likely to just go through the motions there.

Not to mention, that in my experience the sermons at my EF chapel are much more intellectually stimulating than anything I had ever heard at the NO. I may be just lucky and have very intelligent priests at my EF chapel.

 

[japhy]

Perhaps because it contained needless repetition?

So naming Mary, Peter, Paul, John the Baptist, and Michael the Archangel is “needless repetition”, but the numerous invented repetitions (psalm settings that make the response repeat, Mass settings that change the “amen” into an “amen, amen, amen, alleluia, amen, amen, forever amen”, etc.) are needed?

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?

The nine-fold Kyrie (that is, a three-fold Kyrie, three-fold Christe, and three-fold Kyrie) also got the ax, although the triple invocation is strongly attested in the ancient liturgies. Was that a needless repetition? Why need it be repeated at all? Why not just say “Lord have mercy” once and “Christ have mercy” once (and not bother saying “Lord have mercy” again)?

The more I study the old missals, it becomes more and more clear why the NO came to be.

But if you study the older missals, you’ll see that there’s a pattern that the “NO” did not adhere to. It didn’t just “trim the tree”, it replaced it with an artificial tree!

 

[kristie_m]

Personally, I have found my participation in the NO to be more robotic than what I do at EF. I know all the responses and I just spit them out without even thinking. I don’t have to think-the words just came off my tongue. I have to think at the EF, I have to remain engaged in order to understand what is going on. So, for me-the EF is a better form of worship. I’m less likely to just go through the motions there.

Not to mention, that in my experience the sermons at my EF chapel are much more intellectually stimulating than anything I had ever heard at the NO. I may be just lucky and have very intelligent priests at my EF chapel.

That’s interesting. I’m just the opposite, actually. While I do find a certain beauty in the EF, I’m more inclined to “tune out” because I find it more difficult to follow than the NO. Though, I can completely see your point. I always get a chuckle out of people who seem to be waiting for their “cues” to respond with an amen or such, even when it’s completely inappropriate. It’s like the old joke about the priest who comes to the ambo, only to discover that the microphone is malfunctioning. He says, “There’s something wrong with this mic.” and the congregation dutifully replies “And also with you.”

As for having more intellectually stimulating homilies…that definitely depends on the priests. We’ve been blessed with excellent priests at my parish who consistantly give meaningful and thought provoking homilies. Even when I can only give them partial attention (due to the presence of my very young children) I always manage to come away with some tidbit that I can use to enrich my spiritual life.

 

[ethelzguy]

So naming Mary, Peter, Paul, John the Baptist, and Michael the Archangel is “needless repetition”,

Especially when it’s twice in the same prayer?

Mass settings that change the “amen” into an “amen, amen, amen, alleluia, amen, amen, forever amen”, etc.) are needed?

I am not familiar with such

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?

It is Catholic tradition, that Mary holds a high place. If I say “all the angels and the saints”, I think that pretty much covers everyone in the old prayer, and makes certain nobody was left out, as well…

The nine-fold Kyrie (that is, a three-fold Kyrie, three-fold Christe, and three-fold Kyrie) also got the ax, although the triple invocation is strongly attested in the ancient liturgies. Was that a needless repetition? Why need it be repeated at all? Why not just say “Lord have mercy” once and “Christ have mercy” once (and not bother saying “Lord have mercy” again)?

**Beats Me ** Keep in mind, that there are other alternates in the sacrementary.

But if you study the older missals, you’ll see that there’s a pattern that the “NO” did not adhere to. It didn’t just “trim the tree”, it replaced it with an artificial tree!

An opinion, which you’re certainly entitled to

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy;3707346:

faith passage, perhaps? Or “spiritual journey”?

I like your “work in progress”, personally…that is, instead of being on faith journeys, to talk in terms of progressing in faith. OTOH, I have a pretty strong stomach for “creative rhetoric”, so I’m probably not the best one to ask!

 

[japhy]

So naming Mary, Peter, Paul, John the Baptist, and Michael the Archangel is “needless repetition”,

Especially when it’s twice in the same prayer?

I grant you that, but why removal both instances of their names and replace them with “all the angels and saints”? They’re named for a reason!

The nine-fold Kyrie…

Beats Me Keep in mind, that there are other alternates in the sacrementary.

That’s another thing. The “alternates” are innovations. Yes, Penitential Rite “B” comes from Scripture (although the English translation messes with it a bit) and Penitential Rite “C” is based on the Kyrie, but the presence of the alternates does even more damage to the Confiteor by making it one of three options.

But if you study the older missals, you’ll see that there’s a pattern that the “NO” did not adhere to. It didn’t just “trim the tree”, it replaced it with an artificial tree!
An opinion, which you’re certainly entitled to

Yes, the same opinion which is shared by people who have studied much more than I have, such as Pope Benedict XVI and Msgr. Klaus Gamber.

 

[EasterJoy]

In my twelve years of Catholic schooling, I was never instructed that the Mass was a Sacrifice, or that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. The Novus Ordo didn’t make it obvious to me…

This statement totally lacks credibility.

Oh, how I wish that were true.

Now, to be fair to Dauphin’s catechists, I have nearly torn my hair out during reviews with my own students about what they got out of the lessons previously taught. It makes you wonder what planet they were on. This isn’t just religion classes. This is people taking chemistry courses they need to get into their chosen profession. So I’ll recognize that Dauphin’s memory may be somewhat less than 100% accurate. That would be the rule for most of us, in my experience…and as a whole, my students did pretty much the same on standard exams as students in all the other classes. It wasn’t just me.

It is possible, however, for a Catholic to attend Mass every week during their entire childhood and then have some Protestant convince them that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach this or doesn’t teach that, when it is right there in the Mass. The priest can say “This is My Body” and immediately genuflect to the Eucharist for year after year after year, and the kids don’t get it.

The Baltimore Catechism, as stilted as it is, hits you over the head with a 2x4 as to what the basic facts of the faith are. You cannot escape them. With clear catechesis as to what the Mass means, the Novus Ordo absolutely does match ritual and prayer to reality. The emphasis is different than the EF, but the whole reality–sacrifice offered for sins, the wedding feast of the Lamb, True Presence, the “sending out”–are all there in both forms.

There are a lot of people, however, who got the faith as the educational equivalent of a barrage of cotton balls. The difficult truths of life, such as sin and its wages, were soft-pedalled. As a result, the glorious truths of life–the gracious and necessary Sacrifice of Christ, the Immaculate Conception, the tremendous gifts of Eucharis and Reconcilliation, among others–lose their impact, as well.

Someone may have told Dauphin many, many times what the NO meant, but if Dauphin says it didn’t sink in, I can totally believe that.

 

[ethelzguy]

I grant you that, but why removal both instances of their names and replace them with “all the angels and saints”? They’re named for a reason!

Which is??? Help me understand, please.

That’s another thing. The “alternates” are innovations. Yes, Penitential Rite “B” **comes from Scripture **

You mean, kinda like the “Hail Mary” ?

 

[EasterJoy]

Back to the original question: Why do people who are not traditional come to the Traditional forum and post comments in opposition to what those who consider themselves “traditional” post?

1. They like the NO and are afraid it is going to be strong-armed out of the Church. Where traditional Catholics might see Benedict XVI and John Paul II as liberal, they see them little short of old-school patriarchal oppressors. Their attitude towards anything pre-Vatican II is “Goodbye and good riddance!” Absolutely, there is some of that. There might even be a desire among some to essentially remake the Roman Catholic Church into something like the American Anglican Church. This sentiment absolutely exists in places in the Church: “I want to remain Roman Catholic, but I want that to come to mean something totally different than it ever has in the past.” Traditional Catholics obviously oppose that “hope.” Therefore, traditional Catholics and their posts tend to drive the ones with that “hope” absolutely bananas.
2. They mistakenly believe that to be traditional is to be rigid, self-satisfied, self-righteous, and reactionary, to want to make women into 2nd class citizens, and so on. Do these apply to some traditionalists? Certainly. These adjectives or similarly un-Christian ones can be applied to certain Catholics across the entire spectrum of thought in the Church, by the admission of those who struggle with these faults. It is unfair and unjust to apply it just to one end of the spectrum, or to assume you know which hearts it describes.
3. They consider themselves traditional and don’t want to change the Church, but differ with others who consider themselves traditional on what it means to adhere to our sacred Tradition, and where the older forms fit in that.
4. They feel that there are unjust and untrue put-downs of the OF, the current heirarchy, and Vatican II posted here. I’m in that camp, sometimes, quite frankly.
5. They mean their opposition as a way to discuss their way to a clearer picture: in other words, not as a put-down of the EF itself, but as an objection to what they think is an incorrect depiction of the EF. Again, I find myself in that camp sometimes.

And so on. This is the place where traditional practices are discussed. It isn’t meant to be a mutual admiration society. As has been pointed out, there are mutual admiration websites for traditional Catholics on the Internet. This isn’t one of them. This one exists for education and the exchange of ideas. I think it is quite possible to do that in Christian charity: patiently, kindly, not rudely, intent on the truth, and everything else Paul described for that equation. I think we can do that, and not only evangelize but progress in our understanding and appreciation of our faith in the process.

That’s my take on it.

 

[kristie_m]

. This is the place where traditional practices are discussed. It isn’t meant to be a mutual admiration society. As has been pointed out, there are mutual admiration websites for traditional Catholics on the Internet. This isn’t one of them. This one exists for education and the exchange of ideas. I think it is quite possible to do that in Christian charity: patiently, kindly, not rudely, intent on the truth, and everything else Paul described for that equation. I think we can do that, and not only evangelize but progress in our understanding and appreciation of our faith in the process.

That’s my take on it.

:clapping: Well said!

 

[brockmac]

Its happening all over again. Each new thread almost always seems to gravitate to this discussion. Suffice to say, we should each be happy that we all have a niche in our Holy Mother Church where we can each be comfortable, whether it be the Novus Ordo, The Latin Mass, the Tridentine Mass, or whatever form is available. Each is the mass. None of us are any less or any more Catholic because of the Mass preference we do or do not like. What makes us less Catholic is picking and choosing that which we want to believe and not accepting everything that Holy Mother Church believes and teaches. This is our problem. Not the form of the mass we like. Calling people traditional, with each one having his or her own definition of what that may mean, certainly does not help the situation. Lets thank God for what we have and rejoice in it. Will we ever get rid of abuses, yes, when we stop being human. Utopia does not exist on earth. Our bickering over it does not bring us any closer. Do you think that if we stop bickering that maybe utopia might just be a bit closer. I would sure like to find out.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Amen to that Deacon Ed!

Quite honestly, I see very little bashing of traditional practices, liturgies, or Catholics who prefer these. Any bashing from the “liberals” (translation, anyone who likes the OF, receives communion in the hand, or accepts EMHC’s) is of “traditionalists” who insist that the “liberals” as defined above are somehow less Catholic or pious than the “traditional” Catholics.

I don’t recall reading a single post questioning the validity, licitness, reverence, or piety of the Tridentine Mass. There are more than I can count attacking the OF. It appears to me that in the minds of some, defending the OF (and the Magesterium) is somehow attacking the EF.

I have stated numerous times before that I am grateful that the Church is attempting to increase the availability of the EF for those who prefer it. I am also grateful that the OF is available for those who prefer it. Which ever of the two draws you closer to the Almighty is the one that is right for you.

If nothing else, if priests are trained to celebrate the EF, it may cut down on some of the abuses in the OF. I don’t think that Mass in the vernacular or the reformed order of the Mass inherently causes people to think they can take liberties with the order of the Mass, but something culturally in too many parishes has led to this, and perhaps exposure to EF will remind people that the order of the Mass is not something to be changed at the whim of any particular priest or liturgist.

 

[Dauphin]

This statement totally lacks credibility.

If you feel this way, you haven’t experienced Catholic schooling. I would venture a guess that none of my religion teachers believed the Catholic faith.

 

[japhy]

I grant you that, but why removal both instances of their names and replace them with “all the angels and saints”? They’re named for a reason!
Which is??? Help me understand, please.

I already mentioned why I think those particular saints are mentioned. You can read here and here for a history of the Confiteor and its relatives. The Confiteor as found in the Missal of Pius V (and up through the Missal of John XXIII) is attested to by the Third Council of Ravenna in 1314, Rubric 15. Another (Anglican) source records that the reason for the naming of particular saints is for reverencing them: “In the Roman Breviary confession is made ‘to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and to all saints,’ &c. This form was ordained for general use both in the Mass and in other offices AD 1314 by the Third Council of Ravenna canon 15 for the stated purpose of paying reverence to the saints as follows…” (Liturgies and Offices of the Church).

That’s another thing. The “alternates” are innovations. Yes, Penitential Rite “B” comes from Scripture
You mean, kinda like the “Hail Mary”?

Yes, like the “Hail Mary”. But that’s neither here nor there, so I don’t know why you’ve brought that up.

 

[ethelzguy]

If you feel this way, you haven’t experienced Catholic schooling. I would venture a guess that none of my religion teachers believed the Catholic faith.

I went to Catholic school, first thru eight grade. All nuns, my parents paid one dollar per month. (Of course, all the parents bought them groceries, supplies, you name it).

NONE of your religion teachers in TWELVE years believed the Catholic faith?