F
Freshman88
Guest
Traditionalists merely hold fast to all that is Catholic, if this creates division, then I’m worried for those who stand on the other side.
- Status
E
ethelzguy
Guest
I wonder if you would have made this post if Christ were standing over your shoulder?
You expect the Church to embrace your traditional values when you present them like this?
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Then you’re obviously confused as to what all is Catholic.
C
CradleCath
Guest
Maybe once in a while. But, since I’m a tradtitionalist, I wouldn’t have much in common with the people there…so…no, I wouldn’t regularly post/read there. I CERTAINLY wouldn’t go to that forum & start a thread called "People who do not like liberal Catholicism"a)
Tell me, honestly…if there were a “Novus Ordo and All Things After 1969” Forum, would you never be tempted to read it?
E
ethelzguy
Guest
As he dispersed with those building the Tower of Babylon…We’re needed to fend off heresy at our respective universities, friendGod distributes us traditionalists according to need.
C
CradleCath
Guest
Actually, What Seeker Jen wrote is more than silly. It’s downright sneaky & childish. If “you’ll be REAL NICE to me, I’ll come to “your” Mass”. The only reason that people should attend the Tridentine Mass, if they haven’t before, is to learn about it. To see what it is that they’re denigrating. It’s posts like hers that shows the real fear that many liberal Catholics hold. Geeezzzzz, Mass is not a popularity contest. The Tridentine Mass is not about “fellowship & community” nearly as much as it’s about the worship of God. Whether or not your neighbors in the pew “like you” or not may be a big deal at the Novus Ordo Mass, not so much at the Tridentine. All that matters there is whether GOD likes you as you are…sins, warts & all. (BTW. He does.)
F
Freshman88
Guest
That’s okay Ethelzguy, be as immature as you want to be. The fact of the matter is that Dauphin and I attend the finest academic institutions in Canada, and we are doing an enormous amount of good by representing Catholic values in and outside of the classroom in a very secular environment.As he dispersed with those building the Tower of Babylon…
If you can associate that with the tower of Babylon, I really don’t know what to say, except, grow up.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
So are you saying or implying that those of us who like the Novus Ordo and do not fit the “traditionalsit” mold that is in some peoples mind do not hold fast to all that is Catholic?. If not, why make that statement?
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B.
F
Freshman88
Guest
I stand by what I wrote. Traditionalists hold fast to Catholic traditions, practices and values. If by holding on to these values we have created division, then I will express no regret because all we have done is love our faith.
I never said anything about those who love the NO. Simply loving the NO does not put one into opposition with traditionalists.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
That, young fellow, is where you miss it altogether. You can study the Church til your eyes fall out. You can post here til your fingers fall off. That doesn’t mean that you will ever “get it”.
The posts over the last 24 hours by your little “trio” make quite clear who the immature ones are. Your representation of the faith will attract no one who is truly interested in obedience to HMC.
“Obedience” is apparently something you don’t yet understand. The Truth begets charity, not self-righteous arrogance.
H
HashemEchad
Guest
This is really my biggest problem with Catholicism, apart from the belief in Jesus, etc. The “obedience at all costs” concept.
In my religion we are taught to question everything. I question things in Orthodox Judaism, and when I do, I investigate and try to find out the “why” of it. I don’t blindly follow anyone.
When I hear some Chasidic Jews say things like, “Whatever our rebbe says, we do”, I get antsy because it just reminds me of Catholicism, and is a very unJewish way to think.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
What it comes down to is the understanding of truth. Truth is one, singular and immutable. It does not, has not and will not ever change. If we accept that, and you accept that your Church is the one true Church, obedience comes easy. This is because we believe we are under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit. A concept which non Christians cannot understand unless you believe in a triune God. i.e, three persons in one God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each individual, fully and totally God, but only one God. This is called a mystery of our faith. If you do not believe and accept that, then the concept of obedience to the Magisterium of that Church will seem, as stated in scripture, foolish.
Praayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B
F
Freshman88
Guest
Blind obedience is not what the Church asks of us. Familiarize yourself with Benedict’s XVI’s work, he insists that we use our God given reason.
I have never made any kind of self-righteous claim, I am a horrible sinner and face all sorts of problems, some of which I must work hard to conquer before I can enter the seminary, but that’s between me and my spiritual director.
Nor have I been arrogant, I present arguments with my claims. If you wish to meet me on those arguments do so.
And how dare you question my obedience, I am fully obedient to Holy Mother Church. If you are going to make such a strong accusation, provide evidence.
F
Freshman88
Guest
Blind obedience is not part of our faith. Many Catholics are mistaken on this point. Indeed, it is my questioning which has brought me to traditional Catholicism. I cannot reconcile some post-conciliar ideas with what is supposed to be the unchanging truth.
F
FAB
Guest
Who are you trying to convince? Everything I stated are historical reasons for the reforms in the church. They are also my answers to to the orginal post.
Peace,
FAB
J
japhy
Guest
What’s the problem with educating people? I’m grateful to have been educated about the Extraordinary Form (which I’ve attended all of two times), and I do believe that the Ordinary Form, when celebrated properly, still falls short in some regards to the Extraordinary Form. And yet, I also feel that the Extraordinary Form is in need of reform, and I would love to see Vatican II’s reforms applied to it in an organic and traditional manner.
For example, one of the EF Masses I attended seemed like a run-on sentence without punctuation or space for taking a breath, whereas Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 50 says that “[t]he rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.” Despite having a personal missal with me (and having a pretty good idea about the liturgical flow) I felt off-guard or a step behind because things were done in rapid succession so that it seemed (as I said before) like a run-on sentence.
But as for comparing and contrasting the EF and the OF, perhaps the more that (lay) people know about about the differences, similarities, and deficiencies (of both forms!) the more they will understand the reason that many Catholics are seeking a “reform of the reform”, and are very glad the EF has been liberated, and hope to see a gravitational (and traditional) pull exerted on the OF by the EF.
One such deficiency of the OF is that the prayers have been “censored”, so to speak. Names of saints (calling to mind the doctrine of the Communion of Saints) are removed (such as in the Confiteor, which is now just one of three options for the Penitential Rite), Purgatory is scarcely (if ever) mentioned, and the gravity of sin and the reality of Hell are often left unspoken.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
It isn’t a matter of “if you are real nice to me, I’ll come.” It is more a matter of what kind of witness you’re giving concerning the transformative power of what has become a largely unknown form of the Mass.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in the ingredient list. People have read Angela’s Ashes. They know life before Vatican II wasn’t all roses. You can say the EF is the superior form on paper. I don’t specialize in dissecting liturgies on paper; maybe it is. The question remains: what is it’s effect on those who attend it? Does it make them more kind, more humble, more patient, less rude, less prone to anger? Because if it doesn’t make you more loving, not in some new age sense but in the sense that the Apostles taught, then it is not silly to be wary of it.
You who love the EF are in debt to its graces! You who go onto public forums singing its praises make yourself its witnesses! If you want the EF to be more widely attended, if you want to make some dent in the unfair prejudices people have against it, take that responsibility seriously! Be apostles of the Mass!
And yes, the same can be said of those who love the NO, absolutely.
S
SeekerJen
Guest
Not intended to be sneaky or childish, but thanks for casting such negative aspersions on my character, and for once again proving my point. Right or wrong, many people do choose to associate with one parish over another based on how welcome they feel. It’s been this way for centuries; look at all of the “ethnic” parishes established here in the USA. If I encountered attitudes like yours in real life, I’d think twice about returning. Encountering this attitude on line makes me think twice about even trying it out. Childish, maybe. I’ve dealt with enough superiority complexes at NO parishes to knowingly subject myself to such attitudes again. It would be different if I were going in blind, but thanks to these boards, I’m not.
(FYI I’m not a liberal Catholic, but thanks for the libelous accusation and assumption about my faith, character, and morals.)
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Listen, then, to His Holiness, our wise and humble pastor: The existence of two forms of our one Mass should in no way be used as an excuse for division, for the opening of the EF to wider use was intended as a means for increasing our unity!** Both forms are holy and valuable, and gratitude demands that both should be treated as such.**
Exerpts from LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER “MOTU PROPRIO DATA” SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM ON THE USE OF THE ROMAN LITURGY PRIOR TO THE REFORM OF 1970:
….
**In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
This fear is unfounded.** In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite…
….I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988.** It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. **Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: “Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!” (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.
**There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. ** What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I have a modest proposal.
Perhaps some soul-searching is in order. Concerning those Catholics who find that they do not have the interior maturity to attend either the OF or the EF humbly, who find in their preferred form a temptation towards spiritual pride, pride over what is in reality the gift of finding great consolation and edification in one form of the Mass: perhaps they should ask themselves if they should not restrict themselves to the other form for a time in way of penance, as the choice which is both equally valid and which poses less of an occasion of sin. They might consider doing so until their gratitude for both forms is in keeping with the riches that each possesses and their charity towards those brothers and sisters who find greater consolation in the other form increases. Likewise, those who think they can categorize their brothers and sisters in holiness, fidelity, humility, or any other virtue, based on which Mass they prefer or what form of private prayer they use.
The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. If gratitude and charity for the sake of holy unity do not fall squarely under the heading of “the main thing”, I don’t know what does.
Just a thought.
Perhaps some soul-searching is in order. Concerning those Catholics who find that they do not have the interior maturity to attend either the OF or the EF humbly, who find in their preferred form a temptation towards spiritual pride, pride over what is in reality the gift of finding great consolation and edification in one form of the Mass: perhaps they should ask themselves if they should not restrict themselves to the other form for a time in way of penance, as the choice which is both equally valid and which poses less of an occasion of sin. They might consider doing so until their gratitude for both forms is in keeping with the riches that each possesses and their charity towards those brothers and sisters who find greater consolation in the other form increases. Likewise, those who think they can categorize their brothers and sisters in holiness, fidelity, humility, or any other virtue, based on which Mass they prefer or what form of private prayer they use.
The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. If gratitude and charity for the sake of holy unity do not fall squarely under the heading of “the main thing”, I don’t know what does.
Just a thought.
- Status