People who do not like traditional Catholicism

[GemmaRose]

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.

I truly fail to comprehend how anyone cannot understand how to participate in any Mass (except of course the EF which barely has any participation).

A friend and I once found it imperative to attend a Mass in Polish. (Long story short: week-end long attendance at a loved one’s wake left us in the position of realizing how late it was on Sunday and a Polish Mass was the last one “in town.” It was either Polish or missing Sunday Mass.)

We found absolutely no problem following any part of the Mass except, of course, the homily. For the readings, we both whipped out our trust Magnificats. When times came to pray either the Lord Have Mercy, Creed, Sanctus, etc., we prayed the prayers in English but prayed them softly. Did we pray the first Memorial Acclamation while the rest of the congregation prayed the second? We’ll never know, but frankly I don’t think the Lord cares and His is the only opinion that counts.

If one attends Mass frequently, one knows what’s going on and can fully participate. On the other hand, to go to Mass in a language that nobody speaks makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[japhy]

I truly fail to comprehend how anyone cannot understand how to participate in any Mass (except of course the EF which barely has any participation).

I disagree that the EF “barely has any participation”. Just because people aren’t constantly saying or doing something does not mean they’re not participating. The 1958 and 1967 instructions on sacred music explain the ways in which the faithful participate in the Mass. From the former (n. 22):
By its very nature, the Mass requires that all present take part in it, each having a particular function.
a) Interior participation is the most important; this consists in paying devout attention, and in lifting up the heart to God in prayer. …
b) The participation of the congregation becomes more complete, however, when, in addition to this interior disposition, exterior participation is manifested by external acts, such as bodily position (kneeling, standing, sitting), ceremonial signs, and especially responses, prayers, and singing. … When the papal documents treat of “active participation” they are speaking of this general participation, of which the outstanding example is the priest, and his ministers who serve at the altar with the proper interior dispositions, and carefully observe the rubrics, and ceremonies.
c) Active participation is perfect when “sacramental” participation is included. In this way “the people receive the Holy Eucharist not only by spiritual desire, but also sacramentally, and thus obtain greater benefit from this most holy Sacrifice”.
d) … adequate instruction is necessary before the faithful can intelligently and actively participate in the Mass…
And from the latter (nn. 5 and 15):
Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when it is celebrated in song, with the ministers of each degree fulfilling their ministry and the people participating in it. Indeed, through this form, prayer is expressed in a more attractive way, the mystery of the Liturgy, with its hierarchical and community nature, is more openly shown, the unity of hearts is more profoundly achieved by the union of voices, minds are more easily raised to heavenly things by the beauty of the sacred rites, and the whole celebration more clearly prefigures that heavenly Liturgy which is enacted in the holy city of Jerusalem. Pastors of souls will therefore do all they can to achieve this form of celebration. … Above all one must take particular care that … the active participation of the people is encouraged.

The faithful fulfil their liturgical role by making that full, conscious and active participation which is demanded by the nature of the Liturgy itself and which is, by reason of baptism, the right and duty of the Christian people. This participation
(a) Should be above all internal, in the sense that by it the faithful join their mind to what they pronounce or hear, and cooperate with heavenly grace,
(b) Must be, on the other hand, external also, that is, such as to show the internal participation by gestures and bodily attitudes, by the acclamations, responses and singing.
The faithful should also be taught to unite themselves interiorly to what the ministers or choir sing, so that by listening to them they may raise their minds to God.

If one attends Mass frequently, one knows what’s going on and can fully participate. On the other hand, to go to Mass in a language that nobody speaks makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

Wait, doesn’t your first sentence mean that, even if the language is (for instance) Latin, if you go often enough you will know what’s happening and you will be able to participate?

 

[brotherhrolf]

Gemma Rose, pardon me for disagreeing with you. I grew up with the “Dialogue Mass” before V II. The congregation participated pretty much as they do today except in Latin. We chanted the Kyrie, chanted the Gloria, responded to the Gospel acclamation; chanted the Creed; responded to the Offertory prayers; responded to Secret and Preface; chanted the Sanctus; responded to the Minor Elevation; chanted the Pater Noster, etc, etc,…pretty much like daily Mass on EWTN.

Was this every Mass? No. Main Sunday Masses? Yes. How many Masses did I serve when our new parish was being built and it was just Fr. and I in attendance?

I suspect you don’t like to hear this but I attended a weekday Mass in Spain when I was in the Navy in 1973. It was an OF in Latin :bigyikes: and I was able to be able to participate fully in Latin and not just say everything sotto voce in English. I could have fully participated in Latin in either an OF or EF Mass and not had to respond sotto voce in English.

See, this is what I do not understand. I grew up in the Church where we did respond, in Latin, and we knew what we were saying. I can attend either an OF or an EF in Latin and fully participate. We get French tourists through here during the summer. They stand throughout the Consecration in defiance of local norms and in defiance of all the rest of us kneeling. I could regard it as defiance, but I have to regard it as French arrogance. (Hey, don’t jump me, I AM French).

Can you see the disconnect here, Gemma? Forty years ago you would have been able to go to that Polish parish and RESPOND. Latin was and is a unifying factor not a divisive one.

 

[GemmaRose]

…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 is a wild figment of your own imagination. To accuse those of us who prefer the NO that Catholic theology “disturbs” us or that we are “afraid” of it, is your judgmental opinion. I thought Jesus was supposed to be our Judge, not you.

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.
When you say “man-made, manufactured liturgy” are you referring to the men who form the Magisterium of our Church? Do you not agree with them?

As for Sacrifice, is not the Eucharist itself a Sacrifice? Is not Almighty God Himself condescending to become our Bread of Life a Sacrifice? This is what happens every day on the altar right before our eyes.

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.
Again, all these changes, who promulgated them in the first place? Did congregations rise from the pews and hijack their Churches?

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).
This thread was started with the OP wanting to know why people who do not like traditional Catholicism would frequent this forum. Do you think there are many priests who don’t preach about Confession reading this thread? If I were allowed to preach, this would be one of my favorite topics.

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”.
I thought the Mass was all about Jesus and His Sacrifice. Isn’t that what you just were arguing? Maybe the theory behind the removal of the names of all of those Saints by the Magisterium was to focus upon the Sacrifice of Jesus.

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”.
You seem to have an awful lot of complaints. Have you written to Rome, to the people who felt such changes were necessary?

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???
Since these prayers are not technically part of the liturgy, there is nothing preventing them from being said after any Mass. Have you spoken to your pastor or bishop about having them said after the NO Masses in your parish or diocese?

“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”.
You are right on this one. I don’t like to play “hide and seek”, “come out, come out, Jesus, wherever You are!”

 

[japhy]

As for Sacrifice, is not the Eucharist itself a Sacrifice? Is not Almighty God Himself condescending to become our Bread of Life a Sacrifice? This is what happens every day on the altar right before our eyes.

The Eucharist is first and foremost the sacrifice of God the Son to God the Father. Yes, God deigns to be present among us under the forms of bread and wine, but to call that the “sacrifice of the Mass” is to place the focus on us (because God doesn’t become present in the Host and Chalice for His own health, He does it for our health).

The offering of Jesus, present in the Eucharist, to the Father also “happens every day on the altar right before our eyes”, just after the Memorial Acclamation in the middle of the Eucharistic Prayer. The priest says something along the lines of… “Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.” (EP III, Memores igitur)

 

[GemmaRose]

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.

:clapping: :clapping:

 

[GemmaRose]

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?

Japhy, elt1956’s post was perfectly clear. Why do you feel the need to reinterpret it with your own words?

Those who prefer the N.O. are not confused by anything nor are we surprised. We just prefer for N.O. Some of my reasons are personal, some of my other reasons are:

• I prefer a Mass in my native language. If I wanted to hear Mass in a foreign language, I would move to another country.
• I prefer a Mass where I can participate, as I should be doing. Reading from a missal is not participation. If I wanted to sit and read for an hour, I would do so at Dunkin Donuts over a large extra-light coffee.
• I prefer a Mass where I can respond, and not have an altar server respond for me.
• I prefer a Mass which is less wordy, leaving my concentration freer to worship. (Matthew 6:7 - “In your prayers do not babble as the gentiles do, for they think that by using many words they will make themselves heard.”)
• I prefer a Mass with more variety (and here I am speaking of the legitimate choices of Eucharistic prayers and others prayers which are found in the Sacramentary) so that the Mass, which is forever the same, can remain forever new.
• I prefer a greater variety of readings which the NO has as opposed to TLM.

Finally, can someone please tell me why must so many of those who prefer TLM insist on insinuating that those of us who prefer the NO are a group of unchurched morons?

 

[GemmaRose]

…So, you want to know “WHY would an intelligent, searching, growing Catholic not attend a Mass that is part of the Tradition & culture of Catholicism & has been allowed after 40 yrs. of suppression. I would think that one would WANT to see what “all the fuss is about”. Why would an intelligent Catholic, informed Catholic speak against a Mass & those who favor it, without, at least, investigating it?”

Let me be frank with you: Concerning my “investigations” at this sub-forum, I can tell you this: I am far less likely to seek out the EF after having read the posts here than I was before I came here…and by “posts”, I mean the posts of the adherents of the EF. Ditto! Really, I’ve tried, but it has gotten positively scary. OTOH, I know lots of Catholics in their mid-60’s and beyond who go to daily Mass, say the rosary every day, go to confession regularly, and fast on Wednesdays and Fridays who don’t want the TLM back. I know which group I want to be like…it is the reverent NO crowd, not the EF people. Me too! (And even though I’m 53, you can count me among that mid-60’s group you described.)

Many of the adherents of the EF apparently can’t read the text of the NO and get that it is the Sacrifice of the Mass. I got that in first grade! It seems that the same ones can’t turn to shake the hand of another Catholic at the very moment before they are to receive the Holy Communion that makes them one and see Christ. They see a distraction. Again, you are correct.

Many don’t think that a boy is going to want to be a priest if he has to serve Mass with a girl…never mind that the chancellor of that priest’s archdiocese might be a woman. Their memory is so short that they don’t remember that the Mass was ever rattled through as quickly as possible. I used to expect the Lone Ranger to come galloping in. The only thing that seemed to take forever was the “homily” about how much money we should be putting in the collection plates. They don’t remember that little kids used to sing things like “Harold has a snotty nose!” at the top of their lungs, thinking that was what was being sung. “Our Father, who art in heaven, Harold be Thy Name…”

They don’t seem to remember any high school kids hanging around the back of church, being as irreverent as they could get away with without incurring corporal punishment when they got home. They smear ecumenism, apparently because they don’t remember the Catholic and the Protestant kids insulting and fighting one another over how they understood…what, the love of God? (Yeah, those were the good old days. Bring those back.) Right again!

They seem to think we’ve all been using Latin at Mass since Pontius Pilate washed his hands. They don’t remember that it was Latin that was the vernacular, that Greek that was the holy language used in the Church, even when writing a Letter to the Romans. Anybody who doesn’t want the TLM to be the OF again must be either ignorant or indifferent, and if that includes the Pope, then so be it. That’s what the attitude seems to be. You sensed that attitude also?

I could go on, but I can tell you one thing for sure: the only thing that I’m afraid of is that you guys are unwittingly doing everything in your power to make certain that the EF never really catches on. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. This place doesn’t even have enough sugar to make a palatable sweet and sour. That’s too bad. :yup:

As I said, take that for what it’s worth. It won’t do any good to argue with me about what my impressions have been. I got the impressions that I got. I don’t think I’m alone. You certainly are not! If you think it is worth nothing, that’s your choice. In that case, I can see why you’d prefer just to post among yourselves.

Whatever.

 

[GemmaRose]

…
Wait, doesn’t your first sentence mean that, even if the language is (for instance) Latin, if you go often enough you will know what’s happening and you will be able to participate?

I think if one goes often enough in a language they can understand, one will know what’s happening and be able to participate.

I think if one goes often enough in a language they’re trying to learn (I’m trying to learn Italian and have gone to many Italian Masses), one will know what’s happening (I can usually understand a large portion of the homily; my knowledge of Scripture is extensive enough that I know what reading is being read and know what the reading says even if I don’t understand every word of it in Italian), and be able to participate (I can hold my own with responses in Italian ).

I think there’s more congregation reading than congregation responding in TLM and, I’m sorry, I just don’t see how reading from a missal constitutes participation.

 

[Indyann]

No, really. The all-caps “shouting” doesn’t help at all. Take that for what it’s worth.

So, you want to know “WHY would an intelligent, searching, growing Catholic not attend a Mass that is part of the Tradition & culture of Catholicism & has been allowed after 40 yrs. of suppression. I would think that one would WANT to see what “all the fuss is about”. Why would an intelligent Catholic, informed Catholic speak against a Mass & those who favor it, without, at least, investigating it?”

Let me be frank with you: Concerning my “investigations” at this sub-forum, I can tell you this: I am far less likely to seek out the EF after having read the posts here than I was before I came here…and by “posts”, I mean the posts of the adherents of the EF. Really, I’ve tried, but it has gotten positively scary. OTOH, I know lots of Catholics in their mid-60’s and beyond who go to daily Mass, say the rosary every day, go to confession regularly, and fast on Wednesdays and Fridays who don’t want the TLM back. I know which group I want to be like…it is the reverent NO crowd, not the EF people.

Many of the adherents of the EF apparently can’t read the text of the NO and get that it is the Sacrifice of the Mass. I got that in first grade! It seems that the same ones can’t turn to shake the hand of another Catholic at the very moment before they are to receive the Holy Communion that makes them one and see Christ. They see a distraction.

Many don’t think that a boy is going to want to be a priest if he has to serve Mass with a girl…never mind that the chancellor of that priest’s archdiocese might be a woman. Their memory is so short that they don’t remember that the Mass was ever rattled through as quickly as possible. They don’t remember that little kids used to sing things like “Harold has a snotty nose!” at the top of their lungs, thinking that was what was being sung.

They don’t seem to remember any high school kids hanging around the back of church, being as irreverent as they could get away with without incurring corporal punishment when they got home. They smear ecumenism, apparently because they don’t remember the Catholic and the Protestant kids insulting and fighting one another over how they understood…what, the love of God? (Yeah, those were the good old days. Bring those back.)

They seem to think we’ve all been using Latin at Mass since Pontius Pilate washed his hands. They don’t remember that it was Latin that was the vernacular, that Greek that was the holy language used in the Church, even when writing a Letter to the Romans. Anybody who doesn’t want the TLM to be the OF again must be either ignorant or indifferent, and if that includes the Pope, then so be it. That’s what the attitude seems to be.

I could go on, but I can tell you one thing for sure: the only thing that I’m afraid of is that you guys are unwittingly doing everything in your power to make certain that the EF never really catches on. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. This place doesn’t even have enough sugar to make a palatable sweet and sour. That’s too bad.

As I said, take that for what it’s worth. It won’t do any good to argue with me about what my impressions have been. I got the impressions that I got. I don’t think I’m alone. If you think it is worth nothing, that’s your choice. In that case, I can see why you’d prefer just to post among yourselves.

Whatever.

Well said! And for those who think so-called “liberal catholics” (someone please define this) “fear” the TLM, I can only speak for myself. I was raised and educated when the TLM was all that was offered.

The only thing I fear about “traditional Catholics” are the ones who are tearing the very Body of Christ to shreds. Yes, I fear them and fear for them.

 

[GemmaRose]

Gemma Rose, pardon me for disagreeing with you. I grew up with the “Dialogue Mass” before V II. The congregation participated pretty much as they do today except in Latin. We chanted the Kyrie, chanted the Gloria, responded to the Gospel acclamation; chanted the Creed; responded to the Offertory prayers; responded to Secret and Preface; chanted the Sanctus; responded to the Minor Elevation; chanted the Pater Noster, etc, etc,…pretty much like daily Mass on EWTN.

Was this every Mass? No. Main Sunday Masses? Yes. How many Masses did I serve when our new parish was being built and it was just Fr. and I in attendance?

I suspect you don’t like to hear this but I attended a weekday Mass in Spain when I was in the Navy in 1973. It was an OF in Latin :bigyikes: and I was able to be able to participate fully in Latin and not just say everything sotto voce in English. I could have fully participated in Latin in either an OF or EF Mass and not had to respond sotto voce in English.

See, this is what I do not understand. I grew up in the Church where we did respond, in Latin, and we knew what we were saying. I can attend either an OF or an EF in Latin and fully participate. We get French tourists through here during the summer. They stand throughout the Consecration in defiance of local norms and in defiance of all the rest of us kneeling. I could regard it as defiance, but I have to regard it as French arrogance. (Hey, don’t jump me, I AM French).

Can you see the disconnect here, Gemma? Forty years ago you would have been able to go to that Polish parish and RESPOND. Latin was and is a unifying factor not a divisive one.

What I don’t understand is why in 12 years of Catholic schooling (which began in 1961), I was never taught Latin. Not one class. Nothing. Nada. Zip. It wasn’t even an elective in high school that I could take.

In lieu of every single Catholic being well-versed in Latin, then what makes sense to me is Mass in the vernacular.

 

[Saint_Gemma]

I think if one goes often enough in a language they can understand, one will know what’s happening and be able to participate.

I think if one goes often enough in a language they’re trying to learn (I’m trying to learn Italian and have gone to many Italian Masses), one will know what’s happening (I can usually understand a large portion of the homily; my knowledge of Scripture is extensive enough that I know what reading is being read and know what the reading says even if I don’t understand every word of it in Italian), and be able to participate (I can hold my own with responses in Italian ).

I think there’s more congregation reading than congregation responding in TLM and,** I’m sorry, I just don’t see how reading from a missal constitutes participation.**

You are right. Reading from a missal does not constitute participation. Being present at the Holy Sacrifice of Mass and receiving Holy Communion constitutes participation.

 

[PrayforMallory]

What I don’t understand is why in 12 years of Catholic schooling (which began in 1961), I was never taught Latin. Not one class. Nothing. Nada. Zip. It wasn’t even an elective in high school that I could take.

In lieu of every single Catholic being well-versed in Latin, then what makes sense to me is Mass in the vernacular.

No offense, but your school doesn’t sound like a bad Catholic school. To the contrary, not even having Latin as an elective makes it seem like a bad school period.

Every school ought to have Latin as an elective, since so much historical documentation, scientific terminology, etc., contains a heavy dose of Latin.

Helps with other Romance languages, too.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Well said! And for those who think so-called “liberal catholics” (someone please define this) “fear” the TLM, I can only speak for myself. I was raised and educated when the TLM was all that was offered.

The only thing I fear about “traditional Catholics” are the ones who are tearing the very Body of Christ to shreds. Yes, I fear them and fear for them.

“Tearing the body of Christ to shreds?” That certainly was never my intention (nor do I think it was anyone else’s!). If anything tears the body of Christ to shreds, it’s this emphasis on multiplicity, 20,000 different kinds of vernacular Masses, crazy, particularistic liturgical developments, priests not following the catechism, etc.

A “liberal” Catholic, from my point of view, is pretty much someone who wants Catholic doctrine to mirror contemporary liberal ideology, i.e. universal salvation, Christ as social activist instead of divine savior, liberation theology, women “priests,” sanction of gay sexuality, sanction of divorce, etc.

A Catholic faithful to the Magisterium that prefers the Novus Ordo is not a liberal. Some people prefer the term “Neo-Catholic” for those people.

Of course, I wouldn’t even call myself a “Traditional Catholic.” I prefer the term “Classical Catholic,” if such a distinction needs to be made, which, most of the time it doesn’t.

 

[consumedconvert]

No offense, but your school doesn’t sound like a bad Catholic school. To the contrary, not even having Latin as an elective makes it seem like a bad school period.

Every school ought to have Latin as an elective, since so much historical documentation, scientific terminology, etc., contains a heavy dose of Latin.

Helps with other Romance languages, too.

The decline of Latin is a regrettable but universal phenomenon. There are some colleges that don’t even offer it, and not many high schools do. At issue is, of course, the fact that there are few Latinists around anymore, and those who devote so much time to that language are often overqualified to be high school teachers. So I wouldn’t be too tough on any school, even any Catholic school, which doesn’t teach Latin. One need not know Latin at all to learn to know and love the EF, and all Church documents written in Latin–at least all that I know of–have English translations. If I were a high school principle and had to choose between hiring a Latin teacher and a Spanish teacher, I would have to choose the Spanish teacher. Many today and tomorrow will find that Spainish is a very valuable language to know, esp. since so many migrants from Mexico are brother Catholics.

So I can see how teaching of the Latin language might be a low priority on the list of many Catholic school boards. Of course Latin courses would be a great thing to have at a Catholic school, if funding is adequate and finding the proper personnel is possible.

 

[GemmaRose]

No offense, but your school doesn’t sound like a bad Catholic school.
It was our parish’s school; staffed by Sisters of St. Joseph.

To the contrary, not even having Latin as an elective makes it seem like a bad school period.
I went to a very small Catholic girls’ diocesan high school (also Sisters of St. Joseph) where, upon entry, the classes were grouped upon scores received on the entrance exams. The two smartest classes were given French. The six slower classes were given Latin. I was in the smartest class. There was no option to switch classes, even for the one subject.

Every school ought to have Latin as an elective, since so much historical documentation, scientific terminology, etc., contains a heavy dose of Latin.

Helps with other Romance languages, too.
I agree 100% ! :yup: (Not to mention singing in the choir!)

 

[elt1956]

CradleCath:
Thanks so much for this nice post. You’ve done all that I ask …which is not to declare a Mass or it’s followers “bad” because of a few offensive people on an aol. message board & to give something & someone a try before you condemn it or them.


Hello Cradle Catholic. I could no more condemn TLM or its sensible followers than I could the NO and its sensible followers. I think Catholics should be able to attend the form of the Mass they understand and are comfortable with. I cannot believe some of the abuses of the NO Mass I have heard of sanctioned by the clergy and laity who performed and attended them. Peace.

 

[CradleCath]

I truly fail to comprehend how anyone cannot understand how to participate in any Mass (except of course the EF which barely has any participation).

WHOOPS, we, the “liberal” & “traditional” Catholics had made a little progress on this thread. So maybe we ought to be more careful about little jabs like the one above.

If one attends Mass frequently, one knows what’s going on and can fully participate. On the other hand, to go to Mass in a language that nobody speaks makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[Indyann]

“Tearing the body of Christ to shreds?” That certainly was never my intention (nor do I think it was anyone else’s!). If anything tears the body of Christ to shreds, it’s this emphasis on multiplicity, 20,000 different kinds of vernacular Masses, crazy, particularistic liturgical developments, priests not following the catechism, etc.

A “liberal” Catholic, from my point of view, is pretty much someone who wants Catholic doctrine to mirror contemporary liberal ideology, i.e. universal salvation, Christ as social activist instead of divine savior, liberation theology, women “priests,” sanction of gay sexuality, sanction of divorce, etc.

A Catholic faithful to the Magisterium that prefers the Novus Ordo is not a liberal. Some people prefer the term “Neo-Catholic” for those people.

Of course, I wouldn’t even call myself a “Traditional Catholic.” I prefer the term “Classical Catholic,” if such a distinction needs to be made, which, most of the time it doesn’t.

I was not referring to your post, but to hateful, sarcastic ones such as #293.

I agree with your definition of “liberal Catholic”, however, some apply that label to anyone who happens to prefer the N.O.

I do think that these types certainly do great harm to the Body of Christ. How can we ever hope to be one with other faiths, when we cannot even treat each others as brothers and sisters?

 

[japhy]

Japhy, elt1956’s post was perfectly clear. Why do you feel the need to reinterpret it with your own words?

To make sure I understand it, is all. elt1956’s response to the post you quoted was “Right on.” so I don’t think he took offense to my post. You are reading into my post.

Those who prefer the N.O. are not confused by anything nor are we surprised. We just prefer for N.O. Some of my reasons are personal, some of my other reasons are:

• I prefer a Mass in my native language. If I wanted to hear Mass in a foreign language, I would move to another country.

I suppose you won’t budge on this at all. I have absolutely no problem with a Mass in Latin (although I would certainly expect the homily to be in the vernacular).

• I prefer a Mass where I can participate, as I should be doing. Reading from a missal is not participation. If I wanted to sit and read for an hour, I would do so at Dunkin Donuts over a large extra-light coffee.

Please don’t slight those who use a Missal to follow along in the Mass. It is encouraged by the Church, and most parishes still have “missalettes” (often coupled with hymnals) that provide the readings, prayers, and antiphons for the Mass. It is an aid to worship. And please don’t compare following along with a Missal to reading some secular text over a donut and coffee.

• I prefer a Mass where I can respond, and not have an altar server respond for me.

At least as of 1903, the people were indeed encouraged (and perhaps expected!) to make the responses. The call for this level of participation (fostered by a renewal of Gregorian chant) was echoed in the following years, especially in 1958 and 1967 in the Instructions on Sacred Music.

• I prefer a Mass which is less wordy, leaving my concentration freer to worship. (Matthew 6:7 - “In your prayers do not babble as the gentiles do, for they think that by using many words they will make themselves heard.”)

I have to laugh a bit at this, for a couple reasons. First, I’ve heard Matthew 6:7 used by Protestants to equate prayers like the Rosary and litanies to saints to “babble” and “pagan prayer”. Second, while the priest does have more prayers in the E.F., the overwhelming majority are private and/or silent; compare that to the very wordy (and noisy) O.F., where nearly everything is spoken out loud, and practically everything the priest says requires some response by the people. That’s more “wordy” in my opinion.

• I prefer a Mass with more variety (and here I am speaking of the legitimate choices of Eucharistic prayers and others prayers which are found in the Sacramentary) so that the Mass, which is forever the same, can remain forever new.

There already were changing parts (the propers). Now there are an abundance of them to the point that you can’t say “This is the Mass”, because it could take so many forms. There are 3 (4, if you count the Bishop’s greeting) ways the priest can open Mass, followed by 3 introductions to the Penitential Rite (or an infinite number, according to the English Missal), followed by 3 possible Penitential Rites (or the P.R. can be replaced by the Asperges, which has options itself). That’s 27 potential different Masses before the Gloria!

• I prefer a greater variety of readings which the NO has as opposed to TLM.

I agree that the O.F. has “a greater variety of readings” than the E.F. However, it totally replaced the E.F.'s yearly cycle, which had a long history behind it. I don’t see why the E.F.'s yearly cycle could not be retained as one of the cycles in the O.F.

There’s also a problem that has been noted with some of the O.F. selections: they’ve been “sanitized”. Parts of Scripture are omitted in a rather suspect manner. The E.F. reading for Corpus Christi is 1 Cor. 11:23-29, which ends with the Blessed Paul the Apostle warning the Corinthians that “he who eats and drinks unworthily, without distinguishing the Body, eats and drinks judgment to himself.” Not a single one of the O.F. readings, in any cycle, mentions those last verses. Why?

Finally, can someone please tell me why must so many of those who prefer TLM insist on insinuating that those of us who prefer the NO are a group of unchurched morons?

When did I insinuate that?! Please read my post without prejudice. I’m sure a Roman Rite Catholic who is used to the Ordinary Form would have a similar reaction to the Extraordinary Form as he would to the Byzantine Rite (for example). It’s different, and the reasons for the differences are not immediately apparent. You might be surprised to see the priest genuflecting a half-dozen times or so, or puzzled why there’s so much stuff happening between the time when the priest receives Communion and when the rest of the people do.

It’s not an insult to say something surprises or even confuses a person. I meant absolutely no disrespect!