Reasons Why I Prefer the Pauline Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spiller
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Spiller said:
To underscore two facts. First that someone may prefer the Pauline Mass and still be a traditionally-minded Catholic. Second to show that one may still love the Tridentine Mass while still preferring the Pauline Mass. All too many try to suggest that one may like one at the total exclusion of the other and that’s nothing but balderdash.
Click to expand...
Spiller, you are losing me here. Honestly, you confuse me to no end. You started this thread with your opinion regarding why you liked one Mass better than the other. Fine, and I had hoped you would see that other people’s opinions can be the reverse of your own without any animosity present. After all, you felt perfectly comfortable posting a thread about why you prefer one Mass over another in this forum, and so surely you are going to be reading the responses and considering the positions. But, your responses did not seem to follow any real pattern. You begin with your opinion, and then label anyone taking the other view as merely stating their opinion. You respond then that it is only what is legal or licit which matters, even though you certainly went beyond that to begin with. And now you go back again to something else. I really am having trouble following just what you meant to do in this thread, and what you hoped to perhaps get out of it.
:yawn:
Click to expand...
Spiller, please just make up your mind. Are you interested in talking about this or not? And while you are at it, perhaps you can decide whether a person can or cannot know what something is. You say that you are traditional, and then accuse others because they cannot know what is more traditional. That is absurd. Traditional is an observable, objective fact. Either something is tradition or it is not. No degrees are required to see this or comment on it. If you disagree, fine, make your case. And If you really don’t want to talk about these things, why keep bringing them up?

I think this is the most irritating thing I run into around here. I can judge your actions, but you can’t judge mine! I can tell you what is tradition, but can’t possibly claim to know that! I can say why I think the OF is a better form than the EF, but if you do then you are attacking the Mass which is equal in all ways! And it goes around and around, and whatever anybody says, you will simply switch the tactic and take it from the other side. If you think this kind of approach is worth taking, fine, but I honestly cannot see the point.
 
How can you say that when some of us are making real progress?

I think all cothrige needs is some intervention from the moderators, and he’ll shape right up. Obviously, right now, he’s still “liturgy police”, but I’m living proof that a person can recover and get back to what really matters - loving people.
 
Exactly. Nothing else matters. In fact, I’m starting to wonder if “converting” was even the right thing to do, since as a “separated brethren” I still had access to God’s saving graces. Maybe I should have stayed where I was, and been a “light from within” the Baptist Church (I no longer deny them the Big C, you see).

I have a lot to think about now that I’ve seen the light.
 
Spiller said:
In all actuality, your hit-and-run comment says more negative about you than anything else.
Click to expand...
Merely that I was hoping perhaps people would take a step back so that this thread could return to being an interesting thread that I enjoyed reading. Nonetheless, I am subscribing, so don’t worry about me. Pax et bonum!😃
 
cothrige said:
Spiller, you are losing me here. Honestly, you confuse me to no end. You started this thread with your opinion regarding why you liked one Mass better than the other. Fine, and I had hoped you would see that other people’s opinions can be the reverse of your own without any animosity present. After all, you felt perfectly comfortable posting a thread about why you prefer one Mass over another in this forum, and so surely you are going to be reading the responses and considering the positions. But, your responses did not seem to follow any real pattern. You begin with your opinion, and then label anyone taking the other view as merely stating their opinion. You respond then that it is only what is legal or licit which matters, even though you certainly went beyond that to begin with. And now you go back again to something else. I really am having trouble following just what you meant to do in this thread, and what you hoped to perhaps get out of it.
Click to expand...
I consider myself a traditionally-minded Catholic. I also prefer the Pauline Mass. The two qualities are not mutually exclusive – yet some here (not yourself necessarily) would like to suggest they are. Further, preferring the Pauline Mass is NOT to suggest a dislike for the Tridentine Mass and again, some here would like to suggest it is. Those are the reasons for my OP.
cothrige said:
Spiller, please just make up your mind. Are you interested in talking about this or not? And while you are at it, perhaps you can decide whether a person can or cannot know what something is. You say that you are traditional, and then accuse others because they cannot know what is more traditional. That is absurd. Traditional is an observable, objective fact. Either something is tradition or it is not. No degrees are required to see this or comment on it. If you disagree, fine, make your case. And If you really don’t want to talk about these things, why keep bringing them up?
Click to expand...
“More traditional?” Is that sort of like “more better?” You suggest that “Traditional is an observable, objective fact” and I suggest that is malarky because we really don’t even have a universal definition of what “traditional” means. I offered my own definition – what the word means to me personally in this context but it now doubt differs from other people’s definitions here. So what you observe to be “more traditional” might not be more traditional to me. It might even be less traditional. You can see especially this on a far cruder level with select other peoples’ posting. How they define “tradition.”
cothrige said:
I think this is the most irritating thing I run into around here. I can judge your actions, but you can’t judge mine! I can tell you what is tradition, but can’t possibly claim to know that! I can say why I think the OF is a better form than the EF, but if you do then you are attacking the Mass which is equal in all ways! And it goes around and around, and whatever anybody says, you will simply switch the tactic and take it from the other side. If you think this kind of approach is worth taking, fine, but I honestly cannot see the point.
Click to expand...
We should really ask CA to define “traditional” to put it as a stickie at the beginning of this forum.
 
cothrige said:
Yes, hit and run comments do seem to say a great deal about those who post them, don’t they?
Click to expand...
I think so.

They make absolutely no contribution to the dialog. They do nothing more that allude to one’s position and suggest the person lacks some quality(ies) to engage in discourse.
 
Spiller said:
I consider myself a traditionally-minded Catholic. I also prefer the Pauline Mass. The two qualities are not mutually exclusive – yet some here (not yourself necessarily) would like to suggest they are. Further, preferring the Pauline Mass is NOT to suggest a dislike for the Tridentine Mass and again, some here would like to suggest it is. Those are the reasons for my OP.
Click to expand...
So, why is one person’s preference for the TLM, or even for the “Pauline” Mass without all of the extra additions or options, somehow “untraditional”? Sure, a traditional Catholic can like, or even prefer, the OF, but as I have said before they cannot make the case that they are traditional simply because they do.
“More traditional?” Is that sort of like “more better?”
Click to expand...
No, it is like more traditional. If I mean better I say better, and if I mean traditional I say traditional.
You suggest that “Traditional is an observable, objective fact” and I suggest that is malarky because we really don’t even have a universal definition of what “traditional” means.
Click to expand...
Actually, we do. Tradition means just what it always has. Are you actually arguing that you don’t believe that tradition has a meaning, and so you have had to come up with one of your own? Is this like “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”?
 
cothrige said:
So, why is one person’s preference for the TLM, or even for the “Pauline” Mass without all of the extra additions or options, somehow “untraditional”? Sure, a traditional Catholic can like, or even prefer, the OF, but as I have said before they cannot make the case that they are traditional simply because they do.
Click to expand...
I never suggested it was “untraditional” – not by a long shot. Further in no way have I suggested I am traditionally-minded because I prefer the Pauline Mass. Quite the contrary – I have stated I am traditionally-minded EVEN THOUGH I prefer the Pauline Mass which some would suggest is impossible…
cothrige said:
No, it is like more traditional. If I mean better I say better, and if I mean traditional I say traditional.
Click to expand...
“More traditional?” How can that be?
cothrige said:
Actually, we do. Tradition means just what it always has. Are you actually arguing that you don’t believe that tradition has a meaning, and so you have had to come up with one of your own? Is this like “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”?
Click to expand...
I have certainly read postings where people have differing understandings of what “tradition” means. Some have it mixed up with Sacred Tradition. Some equate it to a handful of externals. Some quite literally pick and choose – what they like is “traditional” and what they dislike is “liberal.” There is more than a little confusion over the use of the term on this forum.
 
cothrige said:
ethelzguy,

You are a sad human being, and I can only feel sorry for you.

So, regardless of your reasons I will treat you as the cockle, and simply pray you find conversion.
Click to expand...
No, cothridge, you have it wrong.

Actually I am quite happy.

Happy in my Faith

Happy with my Church

Happy to go to Mass on Sunday

Happy to see the Pope come to my country, and not having to worry about what form of Mass, what language, or what direction he will face.

Happy to wake up every morning and read the obituaries and NOT see my name there.

I am actually a rather happy person. 🙂
 
Spiller said:
I never suggested it was “untraditional” – not by a long shot. Further in no way have I suggested I am traditionally-minded because I prefer the Pauline Mass. Quite the contrary – I have stated I am traditionally-minded EVEN THOUGH I prefer the Pauline Mass which some would suggest is impossible…

“More traditional?” How can that be?

I have certainly read postings where people have differing understandings of what “tradition” means. Some have it mixed up with Sacred Tradition. Some equate it to a handful of externals. Some quite literally pick and choose – what they like is “traditional” and what they dislike is “liberal.” There is more than a little confusion over the use of the term on this forum.
Click to expand...
Etymology: Middle English tradicioun, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French tradition, from Latin tradition-, traditio action of handing over, tradition – more at TREASON
1 : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)
2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3 : cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
4 : characteristic manner, method, or style

I agree that it is a good idea for us to define what the phrase “traditional Catholic” means to us. However, since you started this thread, I would say that you should be the first to do so.

Myself? I define a traditional Catholic- liberal Catholic by what they do, what they support. Words are easy to say, the proof is in the actions.
 
Spiller said:
I never suggested it was “untraditional” – not by a long shot. Further in no way have I suggested I am traditionally-minded because I prefer the Pauline Mass. Quite the contrary – I have stated I am traditionally-minded EVEN THOUGH I prefer the Pauline Mass which some would suggest is impossible…
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly won’t suggest that. Doing so would seem rather silly, since so much of the OF is in fact quite traditional. If it weren’t, it would bear no resemblance to what it followed.
“More traditional?” How can that be?
Click to expand...
Well, which is a more traditional Catholic practice? The Rosary or Transcendental Meditation? Or what about these: Rock and Roll or Gregorian Chant? Facing east or doing otherwise? Of course, this doesn’t automatically mean that the newer way is bad, or even itself “anti-traditional”. The Rosary at one time was new and yet was untraditional.

The question will often be how well a practice or form reflects and fits into the traditional Catholic life. The Rosary was always a very Catholic form of prayer, in every way, whereas TM is not. That is because the Rosary, while at one time itself a rather new form, was always a part of the living tradition of the Church and didn’t claim anything new or innovative about prayer, the object of prayer or the theology behind it. More to the point, it was actually rooted in a firm understanding of Catholic teaching about the saints, God and man. TM of course doesn’t at all share in the traditions of the faith, and is just something innovative that people have stuck onto the life of the Church because they thought it was cool.

I certainly enjoy Rock and Roll and can have long conversations about which particular album is best (Dark Side of the Moon, btw) and so on, but just because I like it does it become traditional liturgical music? Of course not. Not only is it not itself a tradition, it doesn’t even reflect traditional ideas about liturgical music or fit into the other traditional forms of prayer in Mass. Like TM, it is something forced in because people think it is cool.

While one can have some legitimate disagreement about just how traditional something is, I really don’t accept that this is an esoteric term without a clear meaning relevant to all of us. We as Catholics, if we bother to consider things a bit, can easily tell when one thing is more traditional than another and when something is not a traditional form at all.
I have certainly read postings where people have differing understandings of what “tradition” means. Some have it mixed up with Sacred Tradition. Some equate it to a handful of externals. Some quite literally pick and choose – what they like is “traditional” and what they dislike is “liberal.” There is more than a little confusion over the use of the term on this forum.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I don’t think that means that it is an irrelevant term or point of discussion. Most especially on a “Traditional Catholicism” forum. I also think that some of the difference lies in the fact that perhaps you yourself have a rather untraditional view of tradition itself. For instance, I have no objection that a very traditional Catholic could find great comfort in the OF. As I have said, so much of it is traditional, but admittedly some of it is much less so. The Roman Canon for instance is very traditional, and I much prefer it, but the other Eucharistic Prayers are much less so. But, you didn’t list the retention of the Roman Canon as why you liked the new Mass, and instead the addition of the other prayers. That is the least traditional aspect of the Eucharistic Prayers in the OF, and so doesn’t seem to reflect a “traditional” perspective of preference regarding the OF. This is why I have stated that I agree that a traditional Catholic can prefer the OF, but he cannot claim he is traditional because he does. That has, generally, seemed to be your basic approach.
 
cothrige said:
The Rosary at one time was new and yet was untraditional.
Click to expand...
Oops. That should have been "was new and yet was not untraditional. I wonder why there is no ‘edit’ option for that post? Very strange.

Patrick
 
Howard_Roark said:
How can you say that when some of us are making real progress?

I think all cothrige needs is some intervention from the moderators, and he’ll shape right up. Obviously, right now, he’s still “liturgy police”, but I’m living proof that a person can recover and get back to what really matters - loving people.
Click to expand...
I think cothrige’s posts are right on the mark. I couldn’t have said it better. I don’t find his/her comments “police-y” or uncharitable at all. 👍
 
ethelzguy said:
Ah, the old “complaining about the complainers” line again. The difference being, I am not complaining or criticizing my Church or her clergy, but rather my peers who do so.
Click to expand...
So you admit that you ARE complaining…
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
ethelzguy said:
Defending the Church and her Clergy against those who feel that they are above her authority…yesssssssssss!

👍
Click to expand...
Hey, I agree with you. There are some nutty people at both ends of the spectrum.

I can’t resist razzing you once in awhile- all in good fun! 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top