C
- Status
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
Regarding the masses I went to in Paris, Florence and Rome, I couldn’t understand the mass, but I could follow. I knew where we were and what was coming next. I understand mass needing to be said in the language of the country, that doesn’t bother me. But, I felt that it flowed the same as any other mass I have been too. Now, that I think about it, when we lived in Portland, OR there were two churches we went to there. We went to a very conservative “normal” church - must have been a NO mass, right? We decided to try the larger church and it was different, very liberal. Words were changed. Phrases were added here and there and it just seemed to change the meaning of the mass. Was that a NO mass as well? I didn’t think a priest could say " we are not going to say this prayer, let’s just sing." How could a mass be changed to be that different? Isn’t that a liberty that shouldn’t be available to the Catholic Church?
A
Always_For_Him
Guest
Saint Gemma, does “sans liturgical abuses” mean just arbitrarily changing the mass? That, I think, is what I am referring to with the liberal churches I have experienced. Let me expound on what I meant about masses being the same. I thought even though the language was different (which I am glad it is) the structure, order, exactness of the mass was supposed to be the same where ever you went. I enjoy hearing the mass in English. Unless you speak Latin, it would be lost on you. I am glad that the Church at least recognized the need to say the mass in the language of the people where they live. I think it really has to be unacceptable for a priest to add his own words, say things out of order, or just forego a prayer alltogether to sing. How could those types of changes be OK? That is akin to something that the Protestant’s do - their own thing. I know that is a very extreme statement, but the Catholic Church is supposed to look like a Catholic Church. When you are in mass, it shouldn’t be so dramatically different in structure, word usage, meaning, etc. I don’t know the specific differences between the EF, OF, NO, TLM form of masses. Is the NO the revised TLM? Is the NO pretty much the same, same words, same meaning, same structure, as the TLM, but just different languages? Changing the language of the mass where people could understand what is being said was a smart move by the Catholic Church. You can’t have people sitting there not knowing, understanding, feeling what is going on. There was somewhat of a mass exodus to the Protestant churches because they made it more enjoyable because you could feel the words, understand the meaning, etc, so it needed to be done. But besides the language change, didn’t it basically stay the same? What prayers were amended or omitted? I recall hearing a relative experienced the same thing where the congregation stood through the whole mass and didn’t kneel. Where did that come from? How could you not kneel through the consecration? I know I really am coming off so unknowledgable. It is because I am unknowledgable. I grew up going to mass, the same mass, living a sheltered little life going to a Catholic school and am just now realizing I KNOW NOTHING!!! So thank all of you for your continued teaching to me.
E
elt1956
Guest
As you can see from my post, which I hope was clear, no form should be held as more “pure” than the other as long as those forms are conducted with reverence by the priest and received by the congregation in like manner. I would gladly attend both forms of the Mass if they were available in my parish. I was raised on the food of the TLM, but adjusted somewhat to the NO Mass when it was introduced. I will admit TLM Mass included a “display” of more reverence with its additional rituals and prayers, but many Catholics who have never experienced, nor more importantly, lived during the age of “only” the Tridentine Mass seem to be happy with the NO. If that is their form of reverence with which they feel comfortable and familiar, if it is the form in which they can best reverence God, then so be it. Arguing about opinions and preferences is silly and divisive.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.
J
japhy
Guest
See, that was my opinion about a year ago, but the more I study the two books, the more I see that the Ordinary Form (in the official Latin) is a reduction of the Extraordinary Form both in content (prayers) and theology (more ambiguity). Not to the point of being heretical, of course, but to the point that, without sound catechesis, one could walk away from Mass with an un-Catholic understanding of the purpose of the Mass, who the Mass is for, and what happens at Mass. This is not to say that the EF doesn’t need catechesis with it, but the prayers of the EF are by and large far more explicit in their content and purpose, and decidedly Catholic. The two essays at LumenGentleman.com comparing the OF and the EF are quite good (although there were some arguments/observations that my own course of study leads me to disagree with).
Well, so long as the EF only has a “display” of more reverence, that’s a problem. As long as we’re concerned with “display” and not actual attitude, we’re hypocrites.
E
elt1956
Guest
I’ll try to clarify my spacy mind. By “display”, I meant an objective view, not subjective. That is, those who prefer the NO do not see the necessity for the display and have no idea what it means. Is that a bit more clear?
J
japhy
Guest
Are you saying it could be a matter of “why such a big fuss?” or “why all this reverence?” (referring to the specific rubrics about movements and gestures and “formality”).
S
Saint_Gemma
Guest
Yes, sans liturgical abuse means without using words that are not in the missal that one is celebrating, and without anything that the pope does not approve of, such as glass chalices.
S
Saint_Gemma
Guest
The 2002 (NO/OF) Mass is very different from the 2008 (TLM/EF) Mass, even when the OF is celebrated using the most traditional options (Latin instead of the vernacular, the celebrant facing the same direction as the people instead of facing towards them, Eucharistic Prayer I, etc.). The most striking difference is between the 2002 Good Friday prayer for the Jews and the 2008 Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. In the 2002 prayer, Jews are to be faithful to their covenant with God, i.e. the Abrahamic Covenant, while the 2008 prayer clearly calls for the Jews to recognize Jesus Christ as the Savior of all men.
The 1965 missal, on the other hand, is practically the 1962 missal translated into the vernacular, with the option of celebrating the Mass facing towards the people.
C
Conservative
Guest
Long story short - EF, OF, NO, TLM, old or new - pick your terminology. This thread spells it out - had the Mass remained as it was, the other problems would still be there - (i.e. the pedaphilia issue, modernism or whatever - it’s a world gone mad). Exceptions to every rule. First, it’s the vernacular, then you can go to Mass on Saturday to fulfill Sunday obligation…(Do they play an extra Superbowl game on Saturday - or do you sports fans make sure you’ve reserved your seat in front of the TV on SUNDAY!?) It’s amazing to me how some traditions we accomodate ourselves for - don’t we? With the Mass - We’ve gotten too accomodating - we had it all - we had The Mass of the Ages - the most perfect prayer - and I don’t remember ANYONE complaining about it - in Latin, kneeling, with all its traditions as it was for generations - never the controversies we’ve had since NO.
There was never this kind of disagreement amongst Catholics before the changes. We wouldn’t have this issue causing more confusion than we need at this time in our world’s/Church’s history - in the one place where Peace should abound - in Church, at The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Tradition - Some don’t like it?
I say it’s highly UNDERESTIMATED - I support it.
There was never this kind of disagreement amongst Catholics before the changes. We wouldn’t have this issue causing more confusion than we need at this time in our world’s/Church’s history - in the one place where Peace should abound - in Church, at The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Tradition - Some don’t like it?
I say it’s highly UNDERESTIMATED - I support it.
L
LilyM
Guest
Yeah right, the NO was promulgated even though no-one ever complained about the TLM - don’t make me laugh. Of course it was promulgated because people complained - priests who had to say it if no-one else.
And judging by the happy (not to say overenthusiastic) reaction of many people, both clergy and laity, to the NO, it’s not correct to say that they had no complaints about the TLM either. I’m not saying everyone was happy about it, but a sizeable section of Catholics certainly were.
Perhaps pre-Vatican 2 some of them were too scared or too accustomed to blind (as opposed to positive) obedience to voice their criticisms. Don’t mistake submission or silence for unanimous approval.
If no-one had complained no change would’ve happened. Change happened, and you know change in the Church never comes out of thin air, ergo it was as a result of dissatisfaction with the TLM in at least some quarters.
And of course the Thirty Years War, the Enlightenment and Napoleon’s many attacks on the Church weren’t controversies
and Church history between Trent and Vatican 2 is an uninterruptedly smooth tale of steady progress?Don’t shortsightedly assume that because you never became aware of criticism or controversy (and generally those who are very happy with something tend NOT to notice criticism unless it’s basically shoved into their faces) that it didn’t exist.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
You object to your posts being referred to as “yada, yada, yada”? Point well-taken…but you have to admit, in spite of whatever points you made, you didn’t answer the original question.
This was the post that started the thread:
Would someone please explain to me why so many people who do not like traditional Catholicism frequent this sub-forum?
It’s been 20 pages by now. Did I miss the post where you addressed that one?
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Because perhaps the sub-forum itself is mis-namedYou object to your posts being referred to as “yada, yada, yada”? Point well-taken…but you have to admit, in spite of whatever points you made, you didn’t answer the original question.
This was the post that started the thread:
Would someone please explain to me why so many people who do not like traditional Catholicism frequent this sub-forum?
It’s been 20 pages by now. Did I miss the post where you addressed that one?
E
EasterJoy
Guest
It says “Forum for discussion of traditional Roman Catholic spirituality” right under the title…Because perhaps the sub-forum itself is mis-named
Maybe some assume that should read “adulation” instead of “discussion”?
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Or it should be changed to "Bashing of the post-Vatican II Church.It says “Forum for discussion of traditional Roman Catholic spirituality” right under the title…
Maybe some assume that should read “adulation” instead of “discussion”?
There’s extremes to any issue or topic
C
CradleCath
Guest
My Posts?? If you’ll look back in this thread you’ll find that the message that made me yawn was addressed to St. Gemma & “Always for Him”…not to me. Actually the only reason that I responded was that your words were so predictible. All liberals seem to hate the Churches stand on the issue you listed first…that of homosexual acts. You then referred to the unprofessional way that nuns seem to dress now & inferred that you liked that.
I don’t know, did you? Just in case, I’ll let you know again, why I think that liberal Catholics throw such fits about the TLM. To many of them, it’s more than the Mass itself which disturbs them… It’s the theology of the Mass …which pleads for undeserved mercy, which admits that the Father REQUIRED the Sacrifice of His only Son…so great is His justice. In fact, many post-Vatican II Catholics really don’t consider the depth of meaning in the word “Sacrifice” & would rather not dwell on that. Which brings me, once again to the “reason that so many people who do not like traditional Catholicism frequent this thread”…they are afraid of Traditional Catholicism.This was the post that started the thread:
Would someone please explain to me why so many people who do not like traditional Catholicism frequent this sub-forum?
It’s been 20 pages by now. Did I miss the post where you addressed that one?
So, what we have had for the past 40 yrs. is a man-made, manufactured liturgy in which mention of the Sacrifice of Calvary has been insistently removed, as well as any sacrificial tone. We seem to be concentrating on the Last Supper, (Thursday) which was an important event preceding, preparing for & telling us how to recreate in the future, the more crucial event…the offering of the Son on the Cross. (Friday). The sacrifice.
This emphasis on the “banquet”, the laity on the altar, the stripping of our Churches…why would we need a Communion Rail…“modern man” considers him/herself above kneeling & does not mind a bit that they MUST take the Body & Blood of Christ into their own hands. And our Confessionals…they were all thrown out too. When did you last here a priest (whoops…presider) mention the neccessity of the Sacrament of Confession during a sermon (whoops again…homily).
So, what we have now is a manufactured Mass…a liitle bit of something that might resemble the Roman Canon. A dab of the Communion of Saints & Mary, the Mother of God…“these and all the saints”, .we don’t really need to name them anymore…who’s going to look up & read the life stories of Sts. Linus & Cletus. (Cletus was our third pope, Martyred for the faith in A.D. 91 & St. Linus was Pope before him, the successor to St. Peter. He was also martyred that the faith we have today might live on.) But, no need for their names to be mentioned in the Mass, right?? They’re just part of “all the saints”.
And what does it hurt if we “glad hand” just a bit more than we should during the misplaced “kiss of peace”. After all, we are present at a “communal meal” so it’s really important that we commune with our neighbors in the pews. And the prayers at the beginning of the Mass, well, we really can’t “go to the altar of God” for there is no altar, anymore…just a table for the “meal”.
Of course, the prayers after the end of the Mass. you know…the ones mandated by Pope Leo XIII… three Ave Marias, a Salve Regina followed by a versicle and response, and a prayer for the conversion of sinners and the freedom and exaltation of Holy Mother the Church, and a prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel be recited following a Low Mass celebrated with the people. Just who did Pope Leo think he was trying to tell “MODERN MAN” what prayers to say???
“We beseech You, that we may enter with pure minds into the Holy of Holies”. …not anymore. The Holy of Holies, the Tabernacle, can no longer be found in most Novus Ordo Masses. Maybe it’s in the “crying room”.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
My goodness, calm down.
That’s a nice theory about the TLM, and a popular one. The problem with it is that a great number of people posting here in defense of the OF either haven’t been to an EF and have never so much as read the translated text of it OR they rather like it. They couldn’t possibly be posting here because they are upset about how challenging and different the EF is from the OF. If you look back at the posts, most of them aren’t throwing fits about the TLM. They are throwing fits at the nonsense that TLM-lovers spew about the NO.
As for the thread that made you yawn, I couldn’t figure out why it was you that chimed in with that gracious notice of how boring the post was (true, but that usually doesn’t warrant notice) until I went back and read your several posts before that…aha. Priest scandals, the attire of nuns, and all the rest. Mystery solved. You’re right: I didn’t mean to post to you. It turned out, though, that I did, didn’t I?
Oh, and by the way: our pastor regularly reminds us during homilies, which only he or the deacon ever preach, why Catholics need confession. The same was true at the Catholic high school I went to. (By the way, you do know the difference between a sermon and a homily, right? Hint: one is solely the domain of the ordained, given during Mass. A great Catholic word, that.)
Honestly, that is what is the worst about this sub-forum, and the reason I can’t give tacit approval by letting this nonsense go out to the whole world on the internet without comment: the blanket abuse heaped on the NO, as if every one has a clown for a priest and half-naked liturgical dancers giving homilies set to music by the St. Louis Jesuits, the blanket abuse heaped on holy and reverent priests because they aren’t out doing the TLM, the blanket abuse heaped on the heirarchy because they aren’t disavowing Vatican II, the blanket abuse heaped on anybody who can see a single good thing about Vatican II, for that matter, who doesn’t equate obedience to anything that came out of the Vatican since 1970 as the spiritual equivalent of a hair shirt. As far as how the Holy Father is treated here, sometimes it seems as if we have a Pope and an anti-Pope who very inconveniently publish under the same name.
Yes, it is remarkable that any of us OF-lovers still post here. I guess it is because we are petrified that the world will think that this is the way Catholics talk, when they think no one else is paying attention. If there weren’t so much abuse of that which WE love, we’d probably get bored and wander away.
Testing that theory, though, is like getting to the center of the old Tootsie pop without biting…I fear that the world will never know.
E
elt1956
Guest
No Sir, I am not. As I said before, I was raised with TLM being the only form of liturgy available, so therefore it is NOT a display, or fuss to those who love it. What I AM saying is that not all DO love it, especially those who have not been raised, nor exposed to it. They feel no necessity for additional ritual to express their reverence. I think people should be able to attend the form of the Mass with which they feel comfortable. Clearer?
J
japhy
Guest
Ah, ok. I understand it better now; thank you for clarifying. People, being accustomed to the “level of ritual” (for lack of a better phrase) in the O.F. (and are comfortable with it) can be somewhat surprised (and perhaps confused) by the “level of ritual” in the E.F. Does that sound about right?
S
Saint_Gemma
Guest
Most posters here do not bash the post-Vatican II Church. Personally, because of Summorum Pontificum, His Holiness Benedict XVI is my most favorite pope after His Holiness Pius XII, who saved the life of my Jewish paternal grandfather, along with at least 799,999 other Jews, during the Sho’ah (Holocaust).Or it should be changed to "Bashing of the post-Vatican II Church.
There’s extremes to any issue or topic
Personally, I think that this sub-forum should be called “A Place for Radical Non-Traditional Catholics, Moderate Non-Traditional Catholics, Moderate Traditional Catholics, Radical Traditional Catholics, and HashemEchad to Yell at One Another”.
- Status