People who do not like traditional Catholicism

[CradleCath]

**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. **

WHOOPS. Forgot to give you a link re the life story of St. John Fisher:
newadvent.org/cathen/08462b.htm

 

[PrayforMallory]

Nice posts, cradle.

 

[elt1956]

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!

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.

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.

Remember an “opinion” doesn’t make any thing right, or wrong. It is just that, an opinion.

 

[elt1956]

Wow! Talk about great replies to Saint Gemma’s question. But - as a traditional Catholic myself - I will play “modernist advocate” - (God knows how I mean this) - if just for a moment. It’s a Catholic forum, and I guess the pros and cons are to be discussed.

Back on traditional ground - Traditional Catholics have been traditionally (pardon the pun) the first to be accused of being disobedient to the Pope when requesting return/reinstatement of the Tridentine Mass years back - hence, leaving those who preferred the Mass of the Ages with a guilt complex on a soul-searching expedition. Those of us who have found a Tridentine Mass somewhere have found spiritual peace and once indults or EF was publicly issued by His Holiness - less conscience problems than before.

The only issue I have with many replies is that we speak of the love of the Tridentine Mass, as if it’s sentiment. I understand how you mean it. But when Pope John Paul II issued the indult permitting limited celebration of the Mass, he cited it was for those who had sentimental (word may be incorrect) ties to it. It’s not just the sentiment of loving the Mass we grew up with and were used to…Modernists may be unaware that many of us had immediately switched to the New Mass once formalized in the 70’s - until we began to be educated and research ourselves about the changes and eliminations of terminology so well preserved and honored in the Tridentine Mass.

It was said about the introduction of the NO that people were asking for the vernacular (???) I never once heard that request or discussion amongst people, and it was only once the changes came that the Mass became a more disputed issue among Catholics (versus the theologians). Many Modernist Catholics don’t see a problem with the translations or eliminations in the Mass. (I don’t know why but I wish they did). But I’m supposing that they see us as a thorn in the side, and maybe that’s why they post whatever they do. Look at our world today - at how much we accept as the norm that we wouldn’t dream of as acceptable 30 years ago - Modernists in favor of the new Mass see just the Latin as an obstacle - but don’t go further seeing so many changes accomodating today’s world. They didn’t know it differently. – Deacons practically celebrating the Mass, while a priest is sitting there. Women inside the altar (I’m sorry… I don’t like it.) Communion in the hand - no reason for it. No kneeling for Communion - Do we know who’s IN that Host we receive? And, of course, for those of us who’ve done the research - that translation at the Consecration of the Mass (“pro multis” versus “for all”) sure put Traditionalists in a major tailspin. Modernists don’t know any differently but should extend to Traditional Catholics - the same Christian attitude they want us to project.
Sorry for running on a little off topic but I do get on my soapbox!

Having been floating “out there” someplace since the introduction of the NO, I once asked on a forum how the Tridentine Mass become submerged by the NO? Who said priests could no longer celbrate it and when was this said. The only answer I got was that “no one said the Tridentine Mass was forbidden to be celebrated”. Saying John Paul II gave permission for “limited” celebration leads me to believe that somewhere, sometime, this form of the Mass was forbidden. Can anyone explain what really happened? Thanks.

 

[Conservative]

I have been holding my thoughts & feelings back in order to be kind & gentle & give this forum a good impression of Traditional Catholics. However, when I read posts like the above…I realize that to do so is pointless. BTW., I’m not directing this post, except for the part about “driving people away” directly at you. . The “you” in this message is basically generic.

I’ve been a Catholic since birth…that’s 66 yrs… I’ve attended both Masses for years & it truly seems downright ignorant for those who have never attended a TLM. (or attended one, two or three) to even have the nerve to comment on it’s “beauty or ugliness”.

During this 66 yrs., I’ve NEVER seen any deffection from Catholicism that even comes close to the mass exodus during the 70’s. Priests left the clergy in DROVES. I just love the excuse given by liberals…they left to marry. No, they left because the ent & labor, priests & laity just disappeared to the detriment of the Ordained Priesthood…
…
As for “extravagant”, , billions of dollars were spent taking everything that resembled the Catholicism of centuries out of our Churches…Confessionals, Communion rails, statues, the votive candle stand, etc., ETC. And more Billions were spent paying off victims of abuse by gay priests, who were priests only because of American Bishops infidelity to the Vicar of Christ.

I’d say that people who are “worried” about what the Traditional Mass will do to “their” Church, had better start worrying about the fruits of Vatican II & the abuses that resulted in the deliberately ambiguous documents.

BINGO ! We have a winner !
CradleCath has said everything that I bit my lip (or held back my fingetips in typing) - all that’s on the minds of many Catholics (be they traditional or beyond…(I’ll leave the word “modern” out.)

I’ve clipped most of your quote - but have to comment. I’ve taken several pilgrimages with religious organizations - and surprised to find that some fellow women travelers - were nuns. I’d never have guessed by their dress (pants - without a religious symbol on them that I recall - to identify that they were religious). I was stunned at the time - and even told they didn’t live in a convent but now in a house - a more democratic order. (I’m pretty sure the word “democratic” was used…but don’t quote me! )

But you’ve quoted what I’ve been saying for quite some time regarding removal of Church items. We’ve always heard (even long before changes in the Mass) our priests begging for money to fix this or that, etc. Necessary upkeep, etc. WHY - Please, tell me WHY - at a time when congregations are dwindling, financial income disappearing but expenses climbing - would they add extra expense to remove / redo beautiful Churches (artwork, statues, altars, altar rails, tabernacles - I could go on)???

The only work I can fully applaud - is a handicapped ramp/entrance for those in need. THAT is worth it.

What’s most interesting - if you’ve gone to a shrine (particularly in Europe) - you’ll see gold, earrings, jewelry - whatever - left behind from years ago - by people who have received favors - and have left something of value at the Church / shrine in thanksgiving. Those items remain. It’s interesting that people have no problem of parting with something of value (in thanksgiving, in this case) voluntarily. What I’m saying is - people will give - what they consider as valuables - as best they can with their hearts - but if we see expenses on what appear unnecessary at a time when the necessities for Church upkeep are being begged for - we have to wonder. (Could it be many are withholding even more based on what we’re perceiving as the unnecessary expenses?)

Someone has suggested to me that perhaps the marble from the altars is being sold…Would appreciate anyone “in the know” to fill us in on that possibility. But that doesn’t account for removal of statues or putting them in the back of churches - moving Our Lord from the center of an already-exquisite altar to some side altar, etc.

I recently entered a local Church which used to be my parish - it was a skeleton of what it once was. Every penny counts - we all know this in our daily managing of household expenses. CradleCath - THANKS for saying here what I’ve been saying off the board - FOR YEARS!

 

[CradleCath]

Having been floating “out there” someplace since the introduction of the NO, I once asked on a forum how the Tridentine Mass become submerged by the NO? Who said priests could no longer celbrate it and when was this said. The only answer I got was that “no one said the Tridentine Mass was forbidden to be celebrated”. Saying John Paul II gave permission for “limited” celebration leads me to believe that somewhere, sometime, this form of the Mass was forbidden. Can anyone explain what really happened? Thanks.

I think so. First of all, the Tridentine Mass was never forbidden by any of our Popes/Congregations of the Sacred Liturgy, etc.

In fact in 1984, Pope John Paul II asked for the latest periodical report of the success/failure of the Novus Ordo. **Based on the requested **feedback world wide, the Holy Father sent out the Indult, Quattuor Annos, granting to all dioceses the right to offer the Tridentine Mass with certain conditions. One of the conditions was that a priest must first receive permission to do so from his Bishop. BIG PROBLEM there. So…following the issuing of the indult to pray the Latin Mass…after seeing the poor results of his request… Pope John Paul II, in 1988, called for a “wide & generous” use of the indult & urged the Bishops to make it easier for priests to receive permission to pray the TLM… Nothing happened… the results were just that…nothing changed. The short answer to your question is that many of the Bishops, Archbishops & Cardinals in the USA. do not LIKE the Tridentine mass or the theology that accompanies it. (mostly they don’t like the theology…you know, the actual mention of sin, the humility, the sacrifice, the pleading for mercy, etc. “Modern man” is above those things.)

However, when Pope Benedict took charge, one of his first efforts was to “free up” the Tridentine Mass of 1962, basically by going over the heads of the Bishops & taking this problem directly to the laity by means of the “Vatican newspaper”, Zenit.

Article 7 of his Motu Proprio is my favorite:

If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 §1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes

. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. ]

 

[CradleCath]

BINGO ! We have a winner !
CradleCath has said everything that I bit my lip (or held back my fingetips in typing) - all that’s on the minds of many Catholics (be they traditional or beyond…(I’ll leave the word “modern” out.)

I’ve clipped most of your quote - but have to comment. I’ve taken several pilgrimages with religious organizations - and surprised to find that some fellow women travelers - were nuns. I’d never have guessed by their dress (pants - without a religious symbol on them that I recall - to identify that they were religious). I was stunned at the time - and even told they didn’t live in a convent but now in a house - a more democratic order. (I’m pretty sure the word “democratic” was used…but don’t quote me! )

THANKS!

 

[Dies_Irae]

***So when He whacked me over the head and grabbed my heart, I did have the head knowledge to fall back on. Isn’t God great

***That’s why it’s important to teach those core truths taught clearly and concisely in resources such as the Baltimore Catechism, to the young’ns.

For these kids, If they’ve gone through the initial sacraments (Batpism, Confession, First Communion, Confirmation), then they’ have already received the initial Sanctifying grace of the sacraments and should be maintaining and strengthening them through the regular practice thereof (and there’s another area where the parents are so important).

Upon adulthood, or preferably adolescence, when the time comes to really make the faith “their own” and that have that second conversion so to speak, then the meat and potatoes are* already there* as a safeguard. I think the chances then of leaving for other religions/sects are greatly diminished with a thorough catachesis of them when they are young.

We can’t downplay the value of rote memorization - there’s an awesome value to it…even if it flowers later in life. The reason being, primarily, is that what they are remotely memorizing is nothing less than the very deposit of faith left to us by Christ and the Apostles.

God bless,

Dies Irae

 

[DustinsDad]

We can never lead the way so long as bickering and rudeness is apparent among ourselves. If I were a non Catholic and saw the things posted on this forum among fellow Catholics about one another, it would convince me to look elsewhere. We have got to start with ourwelves before we can convince others.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Actually, the discord and disconnect within the Catholic Church is one of the reasons I tend to focus more on talking with Catholics nowadays about traditional things (at least on this board) than in the real world.

In the real world, the worst thing that can happen is when you are talking to a non-catholic who is genuinely interested and being called to investigate the Catholic Church, and then have another catholic walk in the room or jump in the conversation with “oh, we don’t believe X, Y and Z anymore.” And then one of the most unique and important things about the One True Church, that is, unchanging Truth, looks like a sham.

I can give you a multitude of real-world examples if you wish, from my own personal experience.

We’ve got to all get on the same page here…and the truth is, unfortunately, we are not. Until this time comes again, many souls will be led astray by the mish-mash of contrdictions they see professeda mong catholics - even priests and bishops. Not to mention those non-Catholics who are educated enough to be familiar with pre-Vatican II encyclicals and teachings, and the seeming (and often professed explicitly) contradictions eminating from so many individuals within Holy Mother Church today.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Conservative]

**QUOTEOriginally Posed by Gemma Rose
Oh yes… Good Lord forbid that a woman, MADE BY GOD IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD, would go anywhere near an altar! We might be “unclean” or something. PUH-LEEEEZE! Disgusting! (Your opinion I mean.) UNQUOTE

The above could not be properly “quoted” due to its format - but I believe the quote is from poster, Gemma Rose, (and NOT SaintGemma).

Oh, PUHLEEZE, Gemma Rose - I said I didn’t like women inside the altar - nothing about "unclean"ness.

Perhaps you’re too young to remember that pre-Vatican II - ***women were ***always inside the altar - but the ONLY women allowed / given the privilege of going beyond the altar rail were the good sisters who maintained and cleaned altar cloths, etc. And I would think it’s an honor. I said nothing about “uncleanness” of women.

Women have a place. God has given them the most suitable role, if possible, and that’s motherhood - not the priesthood. But the fear here is that altar girls, women participating in Holy Communion distribution, etc., is not only unnecessary but I think is leading to the door opening to much more (as in female priests - otherwise, why?). We owe priests respect for they are imitating Our Lord at the Last Supper and Calvary - at every Mass. Our Lord ***did not have one female apostle amongst the Twelve ***- many followers may have been women but the Twelve Apostles, to whom He assigned the priesthood - were not women. It’s not a gender competition. It’s what was insituted by Christ - to the Twelve. When He said, “Do this in Memory of Me.” or “Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them” He spoke to the Twelve men.

The story of Adam and Eve - following woman’s creation - tells it all. You give an inch - they take a yard - they eat an apple and upset the applecart! It was a woman who convinced a man at the beginning of time - and you know the rest of the story. Now, we have women again - wanting more. Maybe, the Genesis story about the apple was God’s lesson / warning for us - for future times - I don’t know. It seems that men still don’t see it. And women just don’t get it.

But in Church, it’s the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and people have forgotten what it’s all about – Calvary - not a gender competition. The only women there were those weeping at the foot of the Cross.

(sorry for getting on a soapbox)**

 

[EasterJoy]

QUOTEOriginally Posed by Gemma Rose
Oh yes… Good Lord forbid that a woman, MADE BY GOD IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD, would go anywhere near an altar! We might be “unclean” or something. PUH-LEEEEZE! Disgusting! (Your opinion I mean.) UNQUOTE

The above could not be properly “quoted” due to its format - but I believe the quote is from poster, Gemma Rose, (and NOT SaintGemma).

Oh, PUHLEEZE, Gemma Rose - I said I didn’t like women inside the altar - nothing about "unclean"ness.

Perhaps you’re too young to remember that pre-Vatican II - ***women were ***always inside the altar - but the ONLY women allowed / given the privilege of going beyond the altar rail were the good sisters who maintained and cleaned altar cloths, etc. And I would think it’s an honor. I said nothing about “uncleanness” of women.

Women have a place. God has given them the most suitable role, if possible, and that’s motherhood - not the priesthood. But the fear here is that altar girls, women participating in Holy Communion distribution, etc., is not only unnecessary but I think is leading to the door opening to much more (as in female priests - otherwise, why?). We owe priests respect for they are imitating Our Lord at the Last Supper and Calvary - at every Mass. Our Lord ***did not have one female apostle amongst the Twelve ***- many followers may have been women but the Twelve Apostles, to whom He assigned the priesthood - were not women. It’s not a gender competition. It’s what was insituted by Christ - to the Twelve. When He said, “Do this in Memory of Me.” or “Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them” He spoke to the Twelve men.

The story of Adam and Eve - following woman’s creation - tells it all. You give an inch - they take a yard - they eat an apple and upset the applecart! It was a woman who convinced a man at the beginning of time - and you know the rest of the story. Now, we have women again - wanting more. Maybe, the Genesis story about the apple was God’s lesson / warning for us - for future times - I don’t know. It seems that men still don’t see it. And women just don’t get it.

But in Church, it’s the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and people have forgotten what it’s all about – Calvary - not a gender competition. The only women there were those weeping at the foot of the Cross.

(sorry for getting on a soapbox)

Since you mentioned Calvary, maybe it should be predominantly the females who are allowed to stand so near and assist during the Sacrifice of the Mass, since only St. John had it in him to stand as near to Our Lord as the holy women did at the Crucifixion. Whose work did he have to teach his Apostles to do, at the Last Supper? Women’s work. And who did our Risen Lord appear to first? A woman.

It was a man who blamed a woman for his sin, a woman who blamed the snake for hers.

Martha asked our Lord to require her sister Mary to attend to women’s work, rather than to sit at his feet. Our Lord told her, “Mary has chosen the better part, and shall not be deprived of it.” Those children who are drawn by the Holy Spirit to serve at the altar have chosen the better part, too. They should not be deprived of it because others are too proud or lazy to join them.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Please be patient and understanding as I ask this question in absolute honesty: What is this thread talking about? I have no clue about the “different” kinds of masses. I have grown up going to mass my whole life and never thought it was anything different than just a normal mass. What am I missing? I have been to mass throughout the US, Paris, Florence and Rome and they all the same - traditional - universal mass if you will. Maybe I just haven’t been exposed to what you are discussing. Could you please enlighten me. I am really being honest as I ask this. I am new to these forums and am trying to absorb the meaning and learn something from each thread that I happen to read. This one is really confusing for me. Thank you all for your understanding.

 

[Conservative]

Please be patient and understanding as I ask this question in absolute honesty: What is this thread talking about? I have no clue about the “different” kinds of masses. I have grown up going to mass my whole life and never thought it was anything different than just a normal mass. What am I missing? I have been to mass throughout the US, Paris, Florence and Rome and they all the same - traditional - universal mass if you will. Maybe I just haven’t been exposed to what you are discussing. Could you please enlighten me. I am really being honest as I ask this. I am new to these forums and am trying to absorb the meaning and learn something from each thread that I happen to read. This one is really confusing for me. Thank you all for your understanding.

Dear “AlwaysforHim” -

It depends how you mean that all the Masses are the same.
I will ask how old you are - not that you should answer us - just timeline.

The word “traditional” can at times be a bit misleading. It’s used to define the Tridentine Latin Mass, which had been celebrated for hundreds of years. In the early 1970’s, the Tridentine Mass underwent changes, and replaced by what is called the New Order (Novus Ordo or NO) of the Mass. Now, no longer in Latin but in the vernacular (i.e. language of the country). Further, a number of prayers were either abridged or removed.

You’d have to be a bit more specific as to what Mass you are attending in the various countries you mention. Are they in the language of that country? If you’ve never attended the Tridentine Mass, then to you, I’m guessing, the NO is the only Mass you’re acquainted with, and therefore, unaware of a different form of the Mass. If you give us more information, we can further address your question.
God bless you.

 

[Saint_Gemma]

Dear “AlwaysforHim” -

It depends how you mean that all the Masses are the same.
I will ask how old you are - not that you should answer us - just timeline.

The word “traditional” can at times be a bit misleading. It’s used to define the Tridentine Latin Mass, which had been celebrated for hundreds of years. In the early 1970’s, the Tridentine Mass underwent changes, and replaced by what is called the New Order (Novus Ordo or NO) of the Mass. Now, no longer in Latin but in the vernacular (i.e. language of the country). Further, a number of prayers were either abridged or removed.

You’d have to be a bit more specific as to what Mass you are attending in the various countries you mention. Are they in the language of that country? If you’ve never attended the Tridentine Mass, then to you, I’m guessing, the NO is the only Mass you’re acquainted with, and therefore, unaware of a different form of the Mass. If you give us more information, we can further address your question.
God bless you.

Actually, the official language of the Mass is still Latin.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Thank you for responding to my questions. I am 41. So, I guess you are correct in that I am only familiar with the NO mass. The masses in Europe were in Paris at Notre Dame - international masses, Florence at the Cathedral, in Italian, and Rome in Italian. They followed the “typical” mass I am used to. I was under the impression that the Roman Catholic Mass was supposed to be the “same” no matter where you went to mass anywhere in the world. I look forward to more information and will re-read these posts when I feel that I understand it a little better.

 

[Conservative]

Thank you for responding to my questions. I am 41. So, I guess you are correct in that I am only familiar with the NO mass. The masses in Europe were in Paris at Notre Dame - international masses, Florence at the Cathedral, in Italian, and Rome in Italian. They followed the “typical” mass I am used to. I was under the impression that the Roman Catholic Mass was supposed to be the “same” no matter where you went to mass anywhere in the world. I look forward to more information and will re-read these posts when I feel that I understand it a little better.

Dear Always -
Your comment: “Roman Catholic Mass was supposed to be the “same” no matter where you went to mass anywhere”, etc. has been one of the points often made by Traditional Catholics. Before the NO was instituted, it didn’t matter where in the world you were. The Mass was in the same language, and everything was done the same. There was no variation in the most significantly important parts of the Mass.

I, too, have traveled considerably in Europe - and while I know several languages, including French and Italian, I was amazed (during a Mass in Lisieux) watching an Italian pilgrim group. While I knew the language, they stood all through the Mass - including the Consecration - something I was shocked about but know that with the changes this is done in some NO parishes. One has to wonder - if the Mass wasn’t celebrated in a Catholic Church, would we know (sometimes) if it were a Catholic Mass, Anglican or ???

With the TLM - everything in the Mass was the same, no matter where you went. It was one thing you could be sure of. Uniform - ONE, holy, Catholic and Apostolic, the marks by which we define the Catholic Church. With so many innovations, we’ve become a hodgepodge of worshippers - everyone with their own rubrics.

 

[EasterJoy]

Would someone please explain to me why so many people who do not like traditional Catholicism frequent this sub-forum? Are they trying to convert traditional Catholics to less traditional Catholicism? I can understand trying to convert someone who thinks that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is illicit or invalid, but why would one want to convert someone who just prefers the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite? Most of the people who I know who prefer the Extraordinary Form would be happy liturgically if every Mass was just celebrated sans liturgical abuses. Why is this a bad thing?

Please be patient and understanding as I ask this question in absolute honesty: What is this thread talking about? I have no clue about the “different” kinds of masses…This one is really confusing for me. Thank you all for your understanding.

If it wasn’t quite clear to the OP before this thread started that this sub-forum is not now nor ever has it been a simple and genteel social gathering place for “someone who just prefers the Extraordinary Form”, it should be abundantly clear by now.

It was only a matter of time before we were back to the topics of homosexuality and pedophilia in the priesthood, whether the nuns are recognizable in public, how the churches are decorated, yada, yada, yada. In many threads, there is not only the implication, but sometimes even the blunt assertion that our Holy Mother Church would not have any problems, were it not for the NO and/or Vatican II…and this by people who consider themselves steeped in Church history. What nonsense.

Even if everything a “traditionalist” would define as a problem in the Church were even a problem–a point I certainly wouldn’t concede–the EF and the rosary wouldn’t be panaceas for these. The number of times assertions like that are made on this sub-forum would account for the number of posts that appear in opposition.

So, there you are! Now you know!

 

[brotherhrolf]

Dear Always -
Your comment: “Roman Catholic Mass was supposed to be the “same” no matter where you went to mass anywhere”, etc. has been one of the points often made by Traditional Catholics. Before the NO was instituted, it didn’t matter where in the world you were. The Mass was in the same language, and everything was done the same. There was no variation in the most significantly important parts of the Mass.

I, too, have traveled considerably in Europe - and while I know several languages, including French and Italian, I was amazed (during a Mass in Lisieux) watching an Italian pilgrim group. While I knew the language, they stood all through the Mass - including the Consecration - something I was shocked about but know that with the changes this is done in some NO parishes. One has to wonder - if the Mass wasn’t celebrated in a Catholic Church, would we know (sometimes) if it were a Catholic Mass, Anglican or ???

With the TLM - everything in the Mass was the same, no matter where you went. It was one thing you could be sure of. Uniform - ONE, holy, Catholic and Apostolic, the marks by which we define the Catholic Church. With so many innovations, we’ve become a hodgepodge of worshippers - everyone with their own rubrics.

We get French tourists here in my parish during the summer. They are riding the Mississippi River cruise boats and they stand during the Consecration despite the fact that all the rest of us are kneeling.

OTOH, I went to Mass in a little church in Rota, Spain back in 1973 and was able to fully participate. The Mass was still in Latin and it was the Mass I had grown up with. I could go to any EF anywhere in the world today and participate. I don’t believe I could say the same about the OF - even here in my own diocese.

 

[ethelzguy]

I could go to any EF anywhere in the world today and participate. ** I don’t believe I could say the same about the OF - even here in my own diocese**.

I just don’t understand how someone could say this. How could you not be able to “particpate” in an OF Mass in your own Diocese?

 

[Saint_Gemma]

I just don’t understand how someone could say this. How could you not be able to “particpate” in an OF Mass in your own Diocese?

Since “vernacular a” to “vernacular b” missals are rarer than Latin to “vernacular b” missals, and finding out what options are being used in a language that one does not know is difficult, sometimes even in ones own diocese fully participating in a Mass is impossible if the Mass is not in a language that one knows. I know that in my diocese there are many Masses in languages other than English where I find participating in the Mass difficult because I cannot figure out what options the celebrant is using, and there are no missals that translate from that language to English.