People who do not like traditional Catholicism

[japhy]

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.

Sounds like the problem a lot of priests had going through seminary. They simply weren’t taught Latin. Both you and those priests were shortchanged and deprived of what the Church calls for. Now, you can revel in the fact that you got through without having to know a single word of Latin, or you can be (rightfully) upset that those who taught you did not follow the Church’s instructions!

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

Catholics don’t need to be “well-versed in Latin” to participate in a Mass which uses Latin. You already know what is said in the Penitential Rite, in the Kyrie, in the Gloria, in the Credo (Creed), in the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy), and in the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God), right? (You don’t need to follow along in Missal for those, right?!) Therefore, if you learn to speak/sing/chant those in Latin (and throw in a couple other short responses, like “et cum spiritu tuo” and “Deo gratias”), you won’t be “well-versed in Latin” but you will know enough to actively participate in a Mass that uses Latin.

The “I’m not fluent in Latin” line of reasoning is a red herring and needs to be retired.

 

[elts1956]

It occurred to me as I read this interesting post that the same thing happens in Protestant churches all the time.

I know so many Protestants who have no idea what they believe, even though they appear to have their act together spiritually. They have “accepted Jesus into their hearts,” and that’s all they know. The term “systematic theology” means nothing to them. Although they speak of the Bible as their sole guide to God, they have never actually read it through, let alone studied the entire Bible. They’ve never done a study of the doctrine of their sect or of any Protestant sect. Many have never even read through one of the great creeds (Apostles, Nicene, etc.)

Some of this is due to bad teaching. Back in the late 1960s many Protestant churches stopped teaching “doctrine” and “Bible” to their people and started teaching “needs-based lessons.” Studies of music, dating, sex, movies, marriage, parenting, financial accountability, physical fitness, etc. replaced studies of the history of the Jewish people, the Proverbs, the New Testament survey, the Christian doctrines, etc.

But some of the “ignorance” is simply due to a lack of readiness of the person to receive the Gospel. They may have sat under gifted teachers, but the message flew right over their heads and they got nothing out of it.

I believe that the Holy Spirit will convict in HIS own time.

I think this same thing happens in the Catholic Church. Many Catholics have absolutely no clue about Catholicism and religion, even if the catechesis is excellent and the teachers are committed, fervent Catholics.

Then “something” happens, and these lackabouts become alive to what they believe in, and excited about their Church and their Lord. I’ve heard many Catholics give testimonies along these lines, including elderly Catholics who spent their whole lives just going through the motions until one day, the light came on and they understood what they believe as Catholics and why they believe it. I’ve also heard lots of young parents testify that they never understand the teachings of the Catholic Church until they had their own children, and THEN they started studying and understanding.

My point is that we sometimes have to wait upon the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth, and not blame poor catechesis for our lack of understanding.

Hello Cat. Yep, I am one of these “lackabouts”, love the term. After beginning to read/post on these forums I suddenly realized I knew nothing about the Catholic Church and I had been “going through the motions” all my life, way back since the 50s and before. Since I have begun studying "my Church and its foundations, I am continually pleasantly surprised to find that the Catholic Church has been the most correct throughout all its history as compared to any other denomination. I say most, because none of us will know the full story until we see the face of God. We Catholics may still be in for some surprises, don’t you think?

But in the meantime, I am thoroughly enjoying my late education about MY Church. Thanks to all posters who have helped me in this. You are wonderful people. Peace.

 

[elts1956]

It occurred to me as I read this interesting post that the same thing happens in Protestant churches all the time.

I know so many Protestants who have no idea what they believe, even though they appear to have their act together spiritually. They have “accepted Jesus into their hearts,” and that’s all they know. The term “systematic theology” means nothing to them. Although they speak of the Bible as their sole guide to God, they have never actually read it through, let alone studied the entire Bible. They’ve never done a study of the doctrine of their sect or of any Protestant sect. Many have never even read through one of the great creeds (Apostles, Nicene, etc.)

Some of this is due to bad teaching. Back in the late 1960s many Protestant churches stopped teaching “doctrine” and “Bible” to their people and started teaching “needs-based lessons.” Studies of music, dating, sex, movies, marriage, parenting, financial accountability, physical fitness, etc. replaced studies of the history of the Jewish people, the Proverbs, the New Testament survey, the Christian doctrines, etc.

But some of the “ignorance” is simply due to a lack of readiness of the person to receive the Gospel. They may have sat under gifted teachers, but the message flew right over their heads and they got nothing out of it.

I believe that the Holy Spirit will convict in HIS own time.

I think this same thing happens in the Catholic Church. Many Catholics have absolutely no clue about Catholicism and religion, even if the catechesis is excellent and the teachers are committed, fervent Catholics.

Then “something” happens, and these lackabouts become alive to what they believe in, and excited about their Church and their Lord. I’ve heard many Catholics give testimonies along these lines, including elderly Catholics who spent their whole lives just going through the motions until one day, the light came on and they understood what they believe as Catholics and why they believe it. I’ve also heard lots of young parents testify that they never understand the teachings of the Catholic Church until they had their own children, and THEN they started studying and understanding.

My point is that we sometimes have to wait upon the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth, and not blame poor catechesis for our lack of understanding.

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

Dear DD. Would you mind telling me what you meant in an excerpt of one of your postings regarding the difference between the theology of the NO and TLM? I am not asking this not as baiting, but want to really know. If you can’t tell me, where can I find info. on it. Thanks.
“There’s more to the question than simple liturgical “preference”…there are underlying theolgical issues involved.”

 

[CradleCath]

GemmaRose:
Once again, I can’t quote your message because of the way you chose to answer the OP. However, it was of great interest to me.

I attended a Sacred Heart high school that also used the entrance exams as a way to place their students in the proper “learning experience”. As you say, one had no choice of which course of studies to take. HOWEVER, they placed the ones who scored highest in a Latin, Algebra & general studies program & girls with the lower scores took French, Basic Math & general studies. Later in college, I took French Language Studies, as an elective & found that for me, at least, French is much simpler to learn than Latin.

At the time, the 60’s, French was thought to be a major second language. Sure wish now that I’d taken Spanish courses, but I’m still appreciative of my Latin. Because I still have a passing knowledge of Latin (it’s been 48 yrs. since I graduated), I can decipher almost any word in the English language without a dictionary.

 

[CradleCath]

From the 2000 book by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), entitled The Spirit of the Liturgy:

“After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters….[But] the pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy

 

[CradleCath]

If you go looking for the negative in things, you will surely find it. I could attend any liturgy with a negative attitude and I would find “evidence” to prove my point. If you go to the OF expecting abuses and lack of reverence, you’ll find it even at the most reverent and non-abusive liturgies. If you go to the EF looking for negativity and bitterness, you’ll find “evidence” of that too.

Your post reminds me of the old story about the two boys who entered a barn for the first time in their lives.

One saw a beautiful horse.
The other, a pile of manure.

 

[GemmaRose]

Once again, I can’t quote your message because of the way you chose to answer the OP. However, it was of great interest to me.
I find it easier to answer in this fashion because it’s easier to answer specific points. (If I use the multi-quote button, nothing happens. ) You can always just cut and paste.

I attended a Sacred Heart high school that also used the entrance exams as a way to place their students in the proper “learning experience”. As you say, one had no choice of which course of studies to take. HOWEVER, they placed the ones who scored highest in a Latin, Algebra & general studies program & girls with the lower scores took French, Basic Math & general studies.
This makes so much more sense to me than how they did it in my high school.

Later in college, I took French Language Studies, as an elective & found that for me, at least, French is much simpler to learn than Latin.

At the time, the 60’s, French was thought to be a major second language. Sure wish now that I’d taken Spanish courses, but I’m still appreciative of my Latin. Because I still have a passing knowledge of Latin (it’s been 48 yrs. since I graduated), I can decipher almost any word in the English language without a dictionary.
**I find the same thing now that I’m studying Italian. It helps me identify words in both Latin and Spanish, and so clearly shows the roots of so many words in English.

**

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

And I have been guilty of setting us back…

CradleCath, I’m sorry. I have made some very uncharitable posts, and in your direction. I have no excuses to offer. I hope you’ll forgive me.

I need to spend a lot less time on the forums, because I’ve been neglecting my domestic duties. I don’t want you to think that it is because of any of you.

 

[LSG]

Ever notice it is the traditonalists themselves that are attacked ? Tradition itself can’t be attacked without flirting with heresy, so they attack us.

It is a great sadness, that those who desire to love Jesus through the beautiful traditions, which honor our Bessed Lord and His Blessed Mother, are so often ridiculed. It is also a tremendous opportunity for lovingly praying for those who don’t understand. Perhaps ridicule is a painful indication that Traditional Catholicism is a visible, tangible challenge to modernism. It has been a wonderful blessing for me that when I explain Traditional Catholicism to those who question me, they seem find it at least interesting. It has been my experience that the more a person understands it, the less threatened they feel. I am grateful to have the opportunity to share what I am learning and how it has brought me closer to Jesus.

 

[GemmaRose]

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.
That may be, but it struck me as your putting in meaning that wasn’t there before (the “confused” and “surprised” part).

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).
You’re right… there’s no budging on this from me. I’m just not good with other languages - learning, speaking. Some people can naturally pick up languages. I’m not one of them. If I were attending a Mass in Latin, I would still be struggling with the Sanctus while everyone else would be up to the Agnus Dei! (By the way, I would feel the same way if the Pope issued a mandate that all Masses be celebrated in French, Mandarin, Urdu… it’s not Latin itself, it’s just that it’s not my language.)

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.
When I was attending liturgy classes, I was taught that there shouldn’t even be missals because Mass should proclaimed, not said or read; that missals should only be used by those who may have a hearing impairment,

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.
In the parish of my childhood, even when people responded, they did so in a strange sort of hushed mumbling, as though they weren’t sure what they were doing. They continued to respond in this fashion even when the Mass changed to English. It was as though they had never learned what the Mass is all about.

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.
But that’s one of the points – why should the priest’s prayers be private and/or silent? What is the rationale? If the priest is praying on my behalf, I’d like to know what he’s saying.

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!
It’s funny… we have completely different viewpoints. All these many (valid) differences delight me. They make the Mass new each day. On the other hand, I see the Mass as never changing. The Penitential Rite will always be where it is now: it’s never going to crop up at the end of Mass, just as I know we’ll never be singing Lamb of God as an Opening Song. I know that after singing Alleluia, I’ll be hearing the Gospel, not an excerpt from one of the Chicken Soup books, or the latest “How To” feel good/pray/you-name-it book. Most importantly, I’m always secure that Jesus will be present on the altar - it doesn’t make a difference what Eucharistic Prayer is used. The difference is in me, in what helps me to be and remain in prayer. Listening to a foreign language whispered in Latin does no do that for me.

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.
True. True. Good suggestion.

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?
I’m with you on this one. Why indeed?

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!
**Well, then I apologize. But please try and understand that to suggest that one who is not a fan of TLM may be confused or surprised comes off as condescending, as though our preference for the NO automatically means that we don’t know what we’re talking about.
**

 

[rlg94086]

Sounds like the problem a lot of priests had going through seminary. They simply weren’t taught Latin. Both you and those priests were shortchanged and deprived of what the Church calls for. Now, you can revel in the fact that you got through without having to know a single word of Latin, or you can be (rightfully) upset that those who taught you did not follow the Church’s instructions!

Yep. A lot of our visiting priests need to read the common prayers that we pray/chant in Latin at one of our Masses. One of our priests, he is in residence and will return to his home country this month , told me “I don’t want to do Latin…it’s too hard.” He is a fantastic priest who was the first to tell me that our family should have the Code of Canon Law and all of the works of Vatican II in our bookshelf at home. He is well-versed in Church teaching and very “orthodox” in his attitudes, but doesn’t like Latin.

japhy:

Catholics don’t need to be “well-versed in Latin” to participate in a Mass which uses Latin. You already know what is said in the Penitential Rite, in the Kyrie, in the Gloria, in the Credo (Creed), in the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy), and in the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God), right? (You don’t need to follow along in Missal for those, right?!) Therefore, if you learn to speak/sing/chant those in Latin (and throw in a couple other short responses, like “et cum spiritu tuo” and “Deo gratias”), you won’t be “well-versed in Latin” but you will know enough to actively participate in a Mass that uses Latin.

The “I’m not fluent in Latin” line of reasoning is a red herring and needs to be retired.

I agree. I don’t have all of the common prayers memorized in Latin, but nearly so. I have, in the process, learned the meaning of those words, even though “I’m not fluent in Latin.” It is hardly difficult to figure out, if you know the prayers in English. It has been really helpful to learn the prayers in Latin, so I’m not lost when, for example, the Pope prayed the Credo in Latin during his visit. As Catholics, we should learn the common prayers, as is called for in Vatican II documents and in letters from both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

 

[japhy]

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).
You’re right… there’s no budging on this from me. I’m just not good with other languages - learning, speaking. Some people can naturally pick up languages. I’m not one of them. If I were attending a Mass in Latin, I would still be struggling with the Sanctus while everyone else would be up to the Agnus Dei! (By the way, I would feel the same way if the Pope issued a mandate that all Masses be celebrated in French, Mandarin, Urdu… it’s not Latin itself, it’s just that it’s not my language.)

The Pope would never say such a silly thing! If anything, he would say Mass is to be said primarily in Latin, the language of the Latin Rite. And I’m sure you’ve heard this a dozen times, but Vatican II said that the Latin language should be retained in the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 36 and 54). And again, it’s not a matter of learning the language… you’d be reading words off a page (until you got to the point where you knew the words). Sure, the pronunciation would take a while to get, but after that, it’s just singing/speaking the words on a page.

Please don’t slight those who use a Missal to follow along in the Mass. It is encouraged by the Church…
When I was attending liturgy classes, I was taught that there shouldn’t even be missals because Mass should proclaimed, not said or read; that missals should only be used by those who may have a hearing impairment

Did your liturgy teachers back that up? I can understand the desire to have people listen to the Scriptures when they are proclaimed at Mass (my priest feels that way) but the Church has never spoken against personal missals; She has, in fact, praised them.

But that’s one of the points – why should the priest’s prayers be private and/or silent? What is the rationale? If the priest is praying on my behalf, I’d like to know what he’s saying.

Because they’re his prayers. Do you pray your own prayers out loud during Mass? Some of what he prays, he speaks so all can hear; other parts are his private prayers to God that we needn’t hear. The priest isn’t always speaking to us. And we can know what he’s saying because the Church hasn’t outlawed personal missals!

If first you say “get rid of the missalettes”, you inevitably end up saying “and make the priest say everything out loud” because the people will no longer know what he’s saying when he prays silently!

Most importantly, I’m always secure that Jesus will be present on the altar - it doesn’t make a difference what Eucharistic Prayer is used.

While all the E.P.'s validly confect the sacrament, I find E.P. II (the shortest one) to pale in comparison to every other E.P., not just the Roman Canon. It just can’t wait to get into the consecration! “Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” Two sentences and then the consecration. Speedy!

I don’t see why the E.F.'s yearly cycle could not be retained as one of the cycles in the O.F.
True. True. Good suggestion.

Others have suggested it too. And yet, is the current three-year cycle already too sacrosanct to change…? I would hope not. Vatican II said nothing about eliminating the traditional Scripture cycle.

There’s also a problem that has been noted with some of the O.F. selections: they’ve been “sanitized”…
I’m with you on this one. Why indeed?

I don’t know the answer; or at least, I’ve heard other people’s answers and hope they’re not right. What I do know is this “sanitization” a) was not called for by Vatican II, and b) happened with the promulgation of the Ordinary Form of Mass.

But please try and understand that to suggest that one who is not a fan of TLM may be confused or surprised comes off as condescending, as though our preference for the NO automatically means that we don’t know what we’re talking about.

Ah, there’s the misunderstanding! I said nothing of being (or not being) “a fan of TLM”! I was just talking about one who is accustomed to the Ordinary Form of Mass. Someone who grew up with the Ordinary Form (like myself), if they were to witness a Mass in the Extraordinary Form with prior preparation, might be confused. I’m sure I would have been.

 

[japhy]

I agree. I don’t have all of the common prayers memorized in Latin, but nearly so. I have, in the process, learned the meaning of those words, even though “I’m not fluent in Latin.” It is hardly difficult to figure out, if you know the prayers in English. It has been really helpful to learn the prayers in Latin, so I’m not lost when, for example, the Pope prayed the Credo in Latin during his visit. As Catholics, we should learn the common prayers, as is called for in Vatican II documents and in letters from both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Definitely. The Compendium of the CCC has Latin-vernacular prayers in the back. Very Cool (capital “C” for “Catholic”).

I’m learning the Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy in Latin. (By which I mean, learning the prayers in Latin by heart.) The Creed is the hardest thing for me to learn, simply because it’s so long.

 

[elts1956]

That phrase (calm down) has already been attempted by EthelsGuy & it didn’t work for him, either. Truth be told, an emotionally upset or angry person seldom writes a point by point explanation saying why they consider the Tridentine Mass a very in-depth celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass…AND…a more thorough representation of the whole of Catholicism. Those who base their choices on their emotions are more apt to be “uncalm”.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.
When I was attending liturgy classes, I was taught that there shouldn’t even be missals because Mass should proclaimed, not said or read; that missals should only be used by those who may have a hearing impairment,

There should be missals in the pews, and they should be annotated within an inch of insanity. Why?
a) Preparation. It is a great help to reflect on what will be proclaimed immediately before it is proclaimed.
b) Cathechesis. Lots of Catholics need catechesis about what the Mass means. Children also find the Mass easier to follow if they can listen and read at the same time.
c) Evangelization. We have Protestant and other guests who are intimidated by the Mass without a missal, or who might take away incorrect impressions without proper explanations being offered.

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.
In the parish of my childhood, even when people responded, they did so in a strange sort of hushed mumbling, as though they weren’t sure what they were doing. They continued to respond in this fashion even when the Mass changed to English. It was as though they had never learned what the Mass is all about.

That might be the impression, but it is unlikely to be why they did it. For example: all it takes is for one particularly holy and humble person in a parish to also be a mumbler, and before you know it, mumbling becomes part of what it is to be holy and humble!

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.
But that’s one of the points – why should the priest’s prayers be private and/or silent? What is the rationale? If the priest is praying on my behalf, I’d like to know what he’s saying.

When the prayer does not change from one Mass to the next, there are other ways to know what is being said. For instance, consider the Offertory prayers of the OF, which are said silently when there is an Offertory hymn. I know what he’s saying. Because of this, I can “hear” what he is saying silently! That is not to say that it is any distraction to hear the prayer said aloud. The prayer is “heard aloud” in my heart, so it subtracts nothing to add audio! Given the preference, I guess I would rather hear it…unless the priest mumbles or rushes. In my mind’s ear, it is always said just beautifully!

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!
It’s funny… we have completely different viewpoints. All these many (valid) differences delight me. They make the Mass new each day. On the other hand, I see the Mass as never changing. The Penitential Rite will always be where it is now: it’s never going to crop up at the end of Mass, just as I know we’ll never be singing Lamb of God as an Opening Song. I know that after singing Alleluia, I’ll be hearing the Gospel, not an excerpt from one of the Chicken Soup books, or the latest “How To” feel good/pray/you-name-it book. Most importantly, I’m always secure that Jesus will be present on the altar - it doesn’t make a difference what Eucharistic Prayer is used. The difference is in me, in what helps me to be and remain in prayer. Listening to a foreign language whispered in Latin does no do that for me.

I also don’t experience that as different Masses. I think most of us could say any of the options by heart. If you look in the hymnal, you might think, “Wow, there are hundreds of songs in here. Who could learn all these?” Then you page through, and well, it seems you not only know most of them, but there are a few favorites missing…which luckily, your music director can still do, because the whole parish knows them by heart!

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.
True. True. Good suggestion.

How would you do that? Our pastor ties what Matthew says this week with what that Gospel said two weeks ago and will say later on. I would not want to lose that. I wouldn’t mind seeing the EF have the option of habitually using either the EF cycle or the OF cycle, when the EF is offered every Sunday at a particular place, depending on what the pastor decided the pastoral need was at that Mass time at his parish.

I remember when the same readings used to come up every year for the same Sunday. I didn’t find the predictability to be a great thing; certainly not something so great that I’d trade the greater exposure to more of the Gospels.

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?
I’m with you on this one. Why indeed?

I don’t know. I suspect that the second reading was chosen for a purpose, and the omitted part was not within that purpose. In the set of readings you cited, for instance, the Gospel says that “if you do not eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you do not have life within you.” If you add in the thought from St. Paul that one may not do so unworthily, which might seem to add a Catch-22 to the whole question, then you’ve added in more than what one homily should be asked to tackle.

Likewise, sometimes the Gospel has a part which may be omitted (as an option) that can be seen as a kind of a side thought to the main theme of the shortest allowed version of that week’s Gospel reading. I’ve assumed that is where the decision to omit comes from.

 

[CradleCath]

And I have been guilty of setting us back…

CradleCath, I’m sorry. I have made some very uncharitable posts, and in your direction. I have no excuses to offer. I hope you’ll forgive me.

Already done!

 

[japhy]

There should be missals in the pews, and they should be annotated within an inch of insanity. Why?
a) Preparation. It is a great help to reflect on what will be proclaimed immediately before it is proclaimed.
b) Cathechesis. Lots of Catholics need catechesis about what the Mass means. Children also find the Mass easier to follow if they can listen and read at the same time.
c) Evangelization. We have Protestant and other guests who are intimidated by the Mass without a missal, or who might take away incorrect impressions without proper explanations being offered.

Excellent reasons!

japhy:

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.

Gemma_Rose:

True. True. Good suggestion.

How would you do that? Our pastor ties what Matthew says this week with what that Gospel said two weeks ago and will say later on. I would not want to lose that. I wouldn’t mind seeing the EF have the option of habitually using either the EF cycle or the OF cycle, when the EF is offered every Sunday at a particular place, depending on what the pastor decided the pastoral need was at that Mass time at his parish.

“How would you do that?” Gee, the same way they did it 40 years ago. (No snideness intended, simply resignation.) They ripped out the “Lectionary” (which was, back then, part of the same book as the so-called “Sacramentary”) and replaced it with a three-year cycle. The Tridentine cycle of readings was centuries old (and not just four centuries, mind you). But it was simply pulled out and replaced. Now the three-year cycle (with each year concentrating on a particular synoptic evangelist) has become ingrained in many Catholics, and I bet people would flip out if it was changed! The Lectionary has even been adopted by many Protestant communities.

The new Lectionary has only been around for 40 years; it’s not immune to change. There is some tension between it (in the O.F.) and the traditional Lectionary (in the E.F.) – you won’t necessarily hear the same readings if you go to an E.F. Mass and then an O.F. Mass (assuming the calendars line up for that day!). Hopefully there will be some unification of the Scripture cycle, but I don’t know when or how it’ll happen…

As for continuity in the weeks’ readings, the priest could simply talk about what is recorded earlier and later in the gospel according to St. Matthew, and invite the faithful to go home and read it themselves!

I don’t know. I suspect that the second reading was chosen for a purpose, and the omitted part was not within that purpose. In the set of readings you cited, for instance, the Gospel says that “if you do not eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you do not have life within you.” If you add in the thought from St. Paul that one may not do so unworthily, which might seem to add a Catch-22 to the whole question, then you’ve added in more than what one homily should be asked to tackle.

It’s not a Catch-22. The question then is: so how does one worthily eat the Body and drink the Blood? If the question is never asked, the answer will never be sought! Too many Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence, and too many Catholics receive Holy Communion unworthily. A frightened priest could even get away with not talking about it, if only he had to read what Scripture says about it!

The purpose of Corpus Christi 45 years ago is the same as the purpose today. Why did the reading from 1 Cor. 11 get sanitized? Eventually, the answer will be found to that question, because it’s being asked.

Likewise, sometimes the Gospel has a part which may be omitted (as an option) that can be seen as a kind of a side thought to the main theme of the shortest allowed version of that week’s Gospel reading. I’ve assumed that is where the decision to omit comes from.

Bracketed text within readings is also a post-Vatican II innovation as far as I have found, and it’s a whole other beast. Sometimes it’s for simply shorter readings, but sometimes it too allows a reading to skip over the ugly truth.

But this is not a case of optional omission. This was a deliberate omission by those who drew up the Lectionary for the Mass.

They did the same thing to Holy Thursday’s reading from 1 Cor 11, by the way! It went from 1 Cor 11:20-32 in 1962 to 1 Cor 11:23-26 in 1969. CENSORSHIP!

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy;3736817:

And I have been guilty of setting us back…

CradleCath, I’m sorry. I have made some very uncharitable posts, and in your direction. I have no excuses to offer. I hope you’ll forgive me.

Already done!

Thank you!

 

[EasterJoy]

“How would you do that?” Gee, the same way they did it 40 years ago. (No snideness intended, simply resignation.) They ripped out the “Lectionary” (which was, back then, part of the same book as the so-called “Sacramentary”) and replaced it with a three-year cycle. The Tridentine cycle of readings was centuries old (and not just four centuries, mind you). But it was simply pulled out and replaced. Now the three-year cycle (with each year concentrating on a particular synoptic evangelist) has become ingrained in many Catholics, and I bet people would flip out if it was changed! The Lectionary has even been adopted by many Protestant communities.

You miss my question. I mean, would you allow the parish to decide whether to be on the EF or OF cycle, or the diocese, would you abolish the OF cycles and go back to the EF cycle entirely, would you advocate that, say, the 10 am Mass be on the EF cycle and the 8 am on the OF cycle, would you leave it up to the celebrant at any particular Mass whether to choose EF or OF readings…that kind of logistics was what I meant. Who decides which cycle will provide the readings, and under what parameters?

Change or not, somebody will grouse about it, and those with the best reason to grouse can hardly be counted on to be the loudest. Of course nobody wants to upset people for no reason, but *with *reason, that is another story. As you wrote, the Church has already endured more drastic changes within your lifetime.

I would miss the three-year cycle, though. I really like it.

The new Lectionary has only been around for 40 years; it’s not immune to change. There is some tension between it (in the O.F.) and the traditional Lectionary (in the E.F.) – you won’t necessarily hear the same readings if you go to an E.F. Mass and then an O.F. Mass (assuming the calendars line up for that day!). Hopefully there will be some unification of the Scripture cycle, but I don’t know when or how it’ll happen…

As for continuity in the weeks’ readings, the priest could simply talk about what is recorded earlier and later in the gospel according to St. Matthew, and invite the faithful to go home and read it themselves!

This is true…and referring to texts not included already happens at our place, too!

It’s not a Catch-22. The question then is: so how does one worthily eat the Body and drink the Blood? If the question is never asked, the answer will never be sought! Too many Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence, and too many Catholics receive Holy Communion unworthily. A frightened priest could even get away with not talking about it, if only he had to read what Scripture says about it!

I realize it is not a Catch-22…that was a bad way to put it, you’re right. Nevetheless, I think there can be valid reasons to restrict which verses are included. Something tells me, though, that there was a great deal of discussion, perhaps rather heated, about what to leave in and what to leave out!

A priest that wants to touch difficult topics will not be deterred from telling you what the greater context says; a priest that does not will find a way to avoid it, even if it is included.

The purpose of Corpus Christi 45 years ago is the same as the purpose today. Why did the reading from 1 Cor. 11 get sanitized? Eventually, the answer will be found to that question, because it’s being asked.

Bracketed text within readings is also a post-Vatican II innovation as far as I have found, and it’s a whole other beast. Sometimes it’s for simply shorter readings, but sometimes it too allows a reading to skip over the ugly truth.

But this is not a case of optional omission. This was a deliberate omission by those who drew up the Lectionary for the Mass.

They did the same thing to Holy Thursday’s reading from 1 Cor 11, by the way! It went from 1 Cor 11:20-32 in 1962 to 1 Cor 11:23-26 in 1969. CENSORSHIP!

I have found that whether the long or short form is chosen has much more to do with whether it is a “fast Mass” place or a “short Mass” place, but that is a rather small sampling. I grew up in a very traditional “fast Mass” place, and locally we have some far more liberal “long Mass” places with priests that omit nothing…the longer the form, the better. That doesn’t tell you what you’ll hear during the homily, only how long that homily is likely to be.

I cannot say why a certain section was taken out or left in. After some recent foot-tastings brought on by attributing less-than-admirable motives where the real motives were otherwise, though, I’m not going there today!!

 

[nice2000]

It is a great sadness, that those who desire to love Jesus through the beautiful traditions, which honor our Bessed Lord and His Blessed Mother, are so often ridiculed. It is also a tremendous opportunity for lovingly praying for those who don’t understand. Perhaps ridicule is a painful indication that Traditional Catholicism is a visible, tangible challenge to modernism. It has been a wonderful blessing for me that when I explain Traditional Catholicism to those who question me, they seem find it at least interesting. It has been my experience that the more a person understands it, the less threatened they feel. I am grateful to have the opportunity to share what I am learning and how it has brought me closer to Jesus.

I haven’t read all the posts to this topic. This particular one caught my attention though.

Even though I was not raised Catholic and converted to Catholicism about 25 years ago. (i’m 49 yrs. old).

I always wondered why…

How come Catholic Priests allow us to take communion into the hand now?

(“Nowhere Mentioned in Vatican II In all sixteen documents of Vatican II, there is no mention of Communion in the hand, nor was it mentioned during any of the debates during the Council.”)
Source: John Vennari, Fatima Crusader, Pg. 74-77

How come we no longer kneel any more for communion?

How come the ladies do not wear something on their head during mass any longer?

Even in the Protestant Church that I attended while a young child, we knelt for communion. I remember each row would go up to the alter, and kneel while Paster handed us the Body of Christ and we grabbed the very small silver cups to drink the Blood of Jesus. I didn’t understand what it was back then until I became Catholic though.

By the way, out of respect for Jesus, I take my communion by mouth. I have been reading a lot on Catholic history in the past several years. I feel as though we should stick to tradition.

I noticed the more I pray the Rosary, I have a urge to want to so much kneel while taking my communion, but feel as though I will be ridiculed by my parishners if I do.

No, I do not wear anything on my head during mass. As I look back during my child hood, I now understand why the woman in the Protestant churchs wear hats to church. This tradition actually started in the Catholic church. The woman wore veils on their head.