should we stick to traditional catholicism?

[TimothyH]

Phyllo, you may want to read the post about the Pope’s homily on Triumphalism.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11191426&postcount=6

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

When the Vatican allowed the Tridentine Mass and said it was extraordinary, that was the end of it - it was extraordinary because the Vatican said it was.

That is true but this wasn’t so before 2007. It was effectively suppressed in 1970 and “indulted” in 1984. I believe that was the poster’s point.

 

[ProVobis]

Most of the Evangelicals I know here in the deep south would distance themselves from the mainline Protestant denominations as fast as they would from Catholicism.

By forming their own denominations? Perhaps this isn’t the forum to discuss Protestantism but I recently attended a Lutheran memorial for my niece and didn’t see or hear significant differences between it and the English Mass. Just sayin.

 

[Cat]

By forming their own denominations? Perhaps this isn’t the forum to discuss Protestantism but I recently attended a Lutheran memorial for my niece and didn’t see or hear significant differences between it and the English Mass. Just sayin.

TimothyH is correct. Not only in the Deep South, but in many places in the U.S., Evangelical Protestants distance themselves from mainline Protestant denominations and their events and charities. Evangelical Protestants don’t do this through “forming their own denominations,” but rather, through staying away (separating) from the mainline churches.

The reason for the separatism is that many of the mainline Protestant denominations are/have been for decades actively teaching such things as abortion rights, gay marriage (some of the mainline denominations have been performing gay “weddings” for decades), ordination of active and proud of it homosexuals, ordination of females, various “left-leaning” political and economic platforms e.g. more government subsidy programs, and most disturbing, many liberal theological teachings such as “the resurrection of Jesus was not literal, but instead, spiritual–he is alive in our hearts” and “Mary was not a virgin” and “there is no literal hell” and “the Bible is a good book, but it is full of flaws and errors.”

There are exceptions among the mainlines; e.g., the Congregationalist denomination has autonomous churches, which means that each church is independent of any “denominational” Statement of Faith. The congregations each choose their own Statement of Faith, and some congregations have stuck with true teachings and an orthodox, traditional Protestant interpretation of the Bible and the Gospel message. (Yay!).

But many of the mainline not only teach these awful things, but if you read their Statement of Faith, have these things listed as part of their “official” teachings, which means that if you are involved with their church, you are implying acceptance of these teachings.

I was raised Evangelical Protestant (Conference Baptist) and we were taught about these mainline churches and taught to love their people, but stay away from their churches.

Sometimes, this made/makes it difficult to decide whether to become involved with various ecumenical events such as All-City Prayer Meetings, community concerts (e.g., the Lutherans in our city have been presenting Handel’s Messiah for over 65 years, and they invite all people of all faiths to participate in the choir), and various charitable activities (e.g. as homeless shelters, food drives, etc.).

Often, Catholics are more likely than Evangelical Protestants to join with mainline denominations when they put out the “All Are Invited” sign. Evangelical Protestants still tend to stay away from mainline churches.

I am involved with mainline people in several “All City” type events (e.g., that Messiah concert mentioned above).

I also support a few of their charitable outreaches. Many of the mainline churches in our city have remained in the “downtown” area rather than moving out to the wealthier (and safer) neighborhoods, and these mainline churches are faithful to reach out to the poor, help the homeless, feed the hungry, care for the children (before and after school programs), work with the unemployed and ex-prisoners and prostitutes, and help the sick and old to navigate their way through the myriad of government aid programs. The mainline churches have learned “street smarts” and they are not easily conned by fakers.

I honestly believe that God will take all these good works into consideration when judging the mainline Christians. They put Evangelical Protestants to SHAME when it comes to obeying the commandments of Jesus and helping those who are disadvantaged in some way. Evangelical Protestants move AWAY from the “bad” neighborhoods, and know nothing of the “streets.”

Catholics, of course, have their own excellent outreaches to the disenfranchised, and of course, I support these.

I am friends with quite a few mainline Christians because I am learning to play the organ, and many of these churches still use the organ regularly in their liturgical worship services. There are no Evangelical Protestants in our local organ group chapter, and only a few Catholics.

But I stay away from the mainline churches, and I would never attend any of their “teaching” events or seminars. Why would I want to listen to wrong teachings?

I hope this post clarified rather than confused!

 

[FAB]

That might have been true in the years after 1522 but most Protestants are not protesting anything. They are simply going to Church as they have always gone to Church and believing what they have always believed, “Through no fault of their own.”

My mom is a Methodist. You can call her whatever you want but she will be the first to tell you that she never protested against the Catholic Church in all her life. All the protestants married to Catholics are not “Protesting against the Catholic Church” just because they are Protestants.

-Tim-

I would suggest that you listen to protestant preachers. You will hear, perhaps in carefully chosen words anti Catholic rhetoric.
At an echuminical funeral service, the man’s mother was Catholic and wife was not, the man baptized Catholic and the mother wanted the confort of our prayers. After I finished my liturgy, the protestant preacher got up and said “we don’t need a structured set of prayers , we just need to pray God” a direct dismissal, protest of Catholic practices and doctrine.

 

[robwar]

I would suggest that you listen to protestant preachers. You will hear, perhaps in carefully chosen words anti Catholic rhetoric.
At an echuminical funeral service, the man’s mother was Catholic and wife was not, the man baptized Catholic and the mother wanted the confort of our prayers. After I finished my liturgy, the protestant preacher got up and said “we don’t need a structured set of prayers , we just need to pray God” a direct dismissal, protest of Catholic practices and doctrine.

that is too bad that happen to you. Protestantism is so wide ranging that the more mainline/liberal churches have nothing to do with the more conservative baptist style and visa versa. I was raised in the United Methodist Church which still had a formal liturgical service (roots from John Wesley being an Anglican minister) but definitely would have been considered liberal. I was fortunate that growing up there, I never heard a negative word about the Catholic Church, in fact my confirmation class was taken to the local Catholic church down the road in the name of understanding. But, yes there is a wide blend of anti-Catholic ideas out in Protestantism. I am sure that this protestant preacher would have looked down on not only formal liturgical prayers but infant baptism, liturgical service in general and all the rest and it is too bad that this happen.

 

[TimothyH]

I would suggest that you listen to protestant preachers. You will hear, perhaps in carefully chosen words anti Catholic rhetoric.
At an echuminical funeral service, the man’s mother was Catholic and wife was not, the man baptized Catholic and the mother wanted the confort of our prayers. After I finished my liturgy, the protestant preacher got up and said “we don’t need a structured set of prayers , we just need to pray God” a direct dismissal, protest of Catholic practices and doctrine.

Thank you for the suggestion. I have listened to many non-Catholic preachers.

Jonny Hunt from First Baptist Woodstock. I’ve been to Andy Stanley’s Northpoint Church and Dr. Charles Stanley’s Presbyterian Church. My parents took me to UCC and Methodist Churches when I was a teenager. I sometimes take my girlfriend to her non-denom church where her pastor is a member of my cycling club. I’ve been to messianic synagogues and orthodox Jewish services.

Some of them have taught me much. Other’s not so much. But I am well aware of what they say and do. Thanks you anyway.

 

[robwar]

By forming their own denominations? Perhaps this isn’t the forum to discuss Protestantism but I recently attended a Lutheran memorial for my niece and didn’t see or hear significant differences between it and the English Mass. Just sayin.

Provis,
Lutheran, Anglican and even some Methodists still have liturgical services which show their Catholic roots, not visa versa. The NO Mass is not a copy of them, they are copies of us.

 

[EphelDuath]

Well, the argument that Davies makes is that the things that Paul VI removed from the Tridentine Mass are what makes the OF “less Catholic, more agreeable to Protestants”. The shorter Eucharistic prayers and altered Offertory, compared to the TLM, firmly emphasize that the Mass is a memorial supper but de-emphasize that it is the Sacrifice on Calvary. On that count he is correct. But he fails to note all of the things still in the OF that make it very Catholic.

 

[robwar]

Well, the argument that Davies makes is that the things that Paul VI removed from the Tridentine Mass are what makes the OF “less Catholic, more agreeable to Protestants”. The shorter Eucharistic prayers and altered Offertory, compared to the TLM, firmly emphasize that the Mass is a memorial supper but de-emphasize that it is the Sacrifice on Calvary. On that count he is correct. But he fails to note all of the things still in the OF that make it very Catholic.

this is just an opinion, no basis in facts.

 

[EphelDuath]

He’s not wrong on that count though. Overall his argument is very flawed, but that point is a good one. Most people have no clue that the Mass is the Sacrifice on Calvary when they attend the OF, but it’s made painstakingly clear in the EF. Now, whether or not this was done with the Protestants in mind, I cannot say. But it is certainly an imperfection with the current text of the OF.

 

[robwar]

He’s not wrong on that count though. Overall his argument is very flawed, but that point is a good one. Most people have no clue that the Mass is the Sacrifice on Calvary when they attend the OF, but it’s made painstakingly clear in the EF. Now, whether or not this was done with the Protestants in mind, I cannot say. But it is certainly an imperfection with the current text of the OF.

I understand your point but wouldn’t that have to do with poorer catechism than anything else?

 

[Sirach2]

He’s not wrong on that count though. Overall his argument is very flawed, but that point is a good one. Most people have no clue that the Mass is the Sacrifice on Calvary when they attend the OF, but it’s made painstakingly clear in the EF. Now, whether or not this was done with the Protestants in mind, I cannot say. But it is certainly an imperfection with the current text of the OF.

I’m having a hard time trying to understand where you developed this error, that the OF does not throughout its Eucharistic Prayers state clearly that it is a sacrifice? Maybe you have never truly listened attentively to the words, or maybe you exclusively attend the EF and are willing to point fingers where none should be aimed.

Secondly, how do you arrive at the idea that “most” people have no clue? That is rather assumptive and may I say, offensive. One more classic example of trad-mania.

 

[FAB]

Thank you for the suggestion. I have listened to many non-Catholic preachers.

Jonny Hunt from First Baptist Woodstock. I’ve been to Andy Stanley’s Northpoint Church and Dr. Charles Stanley’s Presbyterian Church. My parents took me to UCC and Methodist Churches when I was a teenager. I sometimes take my girlfriend to her non-denom church where her pastor is a member of my cycling club. I’ve been to messianic synagogues and orthodox Jewish services.

Some of them have taught me much. Other’s not so much. But I am well aware of what they say and do. Thanks you anyway.

Most of these that you list, will at some time or another come out with anti-Catholic rhetoric.
A local Baptist Church offers once or twice a year offers “Catholic rehabilitation” to stayed faithful telling them that they don’t need all that structured liturgy and all those sacraments, I I’m sure that is not the only protestant church that does so.
Non-denomination church’s are even worse. All of them will tell our faithful that they have not personally accepted Christ if the were baptized as infant and as such must be re baptized. No my friend, the protestants are just as active against the one true church as they were in the 1500’s. This despite the efforts of the Church to reach out to them.
We will keep working at it, perhaps in time they will stop being protestants.

 

[robwar]

I’m having a hard time trying to understand where you developed this error, that the OF does not throughout its Eucharistic Prayers state clearly that it is a sacrifice? Maybe you have never truly listened attentively to the words, or maybe you exclusively attend the EF and are willing to point fingers where none should be aimed.

Secondly, how do you arrive at the idea that “most” people have no clue? That is rather assumptive and may I say, offensive. One more classic example of trad-mania.

Yes, it is the same as the comparison to the NO Mass being a protestant import, yet one certainly cannot point to a standard “protestant” worship service which run the gamut from the liturgy based like Lutheran, Anglican etc to Baptists to free form pentecostal. Likewise, the many who point to these ideas have never been or any clue about what may or may not go one in a Protestant service. What is even sadder is that I would have considered myself a traditional Catholic, I attend Mass, follow the Churches teaching, try to practice my faith in everyday life. But people are using traditional Catholic based solely on what kind of Mass one prefers or attends. What kind of Mass one prefers or attends doesn’t mean one is trying to be a faithful Catholic in their everyday life outside of Mass.

 

[EphelDuath]

I’m having a hard time trying to understand where you developed this error, that the OF does not throughout its Eucharistic Prayers state clearly that it is a sacrifice?

It’s really not very explicit though! EP2, the most commonly heard one, doesn’t even use the word “sacrifice” once; and refers to the consecrated Body and Blood as “the memorial of his Death and Resurrection”. The first epiclesis in EP3 can also easily be misunderstood so that the “pure sacrifice” that the priest is offering refers to the “people [gathered] to yourself”, since that’s what’s referred to in the clause immediately prior to the word “sacrifice”.

It’s exceedingly rare to hear EP1 or EP4 except in the most reverent of parishes. Even then: EP1’s translation refers to it as the “sacrifice of praise”, which can mislead the uncatechized into believing that the sacrifice isn’t Christ but rather the congregation’s prayers.

Maybe you have never truly listened attentively to the words, or maybe you exclusively attend the EF and are willing to point fingers where none should be aimed.

I don’t exclusively attend the EF. Perhaps instead of attacking my motive, you address my points.

Secondly, how do you arrive at the idea that “most” people have no clue? That is rather assumptive and may I say, offensive. One more classic example of trad-mania.

Anecdotal evidence, really. Plenty of people on this forum will testify to that, as will I. If you look into my search history, you’ll even find a thread that I myself made asking what “our sacrifice” in the Offertory meant (this was a while ago, before I started taking classes on sacramental theology and history). Even people who believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist frequently think that the Mass is a re-enactment of the Last Supper, rather than a presentation of Calvary. But that misconception almost never happens for the EF, which is a lot more explicit about what the sacrifice actually is.

Please stop with the accusations, thank you. I’m neither pointing fingers nor suffering from “trad-mania”. Perhaps you should try to be more charitable next time you reply to my post.

Yes, it is the same as the comparison to the NO Mass being a protestant import, yet one certainly cannot point to a standard “protestant” worship service which run the gamut from the liturgy based like Lutheran, Anglican etc to Baptists to free form pentecostal. Likewise, the many who point to these ideas have never been or any clue about what may or may not go one in a Protestant service. What is even sadder is that I would have considered myself a traditional Catholic, I attend Mass, follow the Churches teaching, try to practice my faith in everyday life. But people are using traditional Catholic based solely on what kind of Mass one prefers or attends. What kind of Mass one prefers or attends doesn’t mean one is trying to be a faithful Catholic in their everyday life outside of Mass.

Whoa, whoa, hold on there. I don’t know why you’re under this impression that I’m imposing judgment on you. But let’s be honest here: if the TLM had clear deficiencies and needed to be revised, then we must accept that liturgical texts aren’t absolutely flawless. The same is true of the Mass of Paul VI. One of its flaws is that it isn’t emphatic enough that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of Christ. This is admitted by almost everybody. This doesn’t mean the OF is bad or invalid, it just means that there’s room for improvement.

People on this forum are so quick to summon lightning bolts against overly defensive traditionalists, but then turn around and act like the OF is sparkly perfection and any criticism of it is schismatic and a total rejection of Vatican II. Come on now.

 

[Sirach2]

It’s really not very explicit though! EP2, the most commonly heard one, doesn’t even use the word “sacrifice” once; and refers to the consecrated Body and Blood as “the memorial of his Death and Resurrection”. The first epiclesis in EP3 can also easily be misunderstood so that the “pure sacrifice” that the priest is offering refers to the “people [gathered] to yourself”, since that’s what’s referred to in the clause immediately prior to the word “sacrifice”.

I don’t exclusively attend the EF. Perhaps instead of attacking my motive, you address my points.

I still do not see where you fail to discern that the language in the OF fails to indicate that it is a “sacrifice.” How about “Pray brethren, that your sacrifice and mine …” with its response, “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands…” Every liturgy has this clear language … and then some, but it seems your mind is made up, so I’m not going to do the homework for you.

Anecdotal evidence, really. Plenty of people on this forum will testify to that, as will I. If you look into my search history, you’ll even find a thread that I myself made asking what “our sacrifice” in the Offertory meant (this was a while ago, before I started taking classes on sacramental theology and history).

Of course. This is Catholic Answers, where people come to question and learn. That does not indicate that many such people have no idea or “clue” what the mass is all about. You accuse me of being uncharitable, but that comment of yours leaves a big hole in your argument.

 

[EphelDuath]

I still do not see where you fail to discern that the language in the OF fails to indicate that it is a “sacrifice.” How about “Pray brethren, that your sacrifice and mine …” with its response, “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands…” Every liturgy has this clear language … and then some, but it seems your mind is made up, so I’m not going to do the homework for you.

How can you possibly think “your sacrifice and mine” couldn’t result in a misunderstanding about what the sacrifice is? The grammar distinctly makes it sound as if the sacrifice is that of the congregation and the priest; not a third person, i.e. Christ. To know that this is referring to Christ, you have to already be aware what the sacrifice is. Not everybody is.

How about “the sacrifice at your hands”? When I first heard that line, I was thinking the sacrifice was the unconsecrated bread and wine, since that’s what the priest was holding his hands over as an offering.

Of course. This is Catholic Answers, where people come to question and learn. That does not indicate that many such people have no idea or “clue” what the mass is all about. You accuse me of being uncharitable, but that comment of yours leaves a big hole in your argument.

I’m sorry that I don’t have a study that will give you a firm statistic of people who think the Mass is, or at least invokes the imagery of, the Sacrifice at Calvary. That being said, you are fooling yourself if you think there’s barely a soul in the world who isn’t confused about the matter.

 

[Sirach2]

How can you possibly think “your sacrifice and mine” couldn’t result in a misunderstanding about what the sacrifice is? The grammar distinctly makes it sound as if the sacrifice is that of the congregation and the priest; not a third person, i.e. Christ. To know that this is referring to Christ, you have to already be aware what the sacrifice is. Not everybody is.

The burden of proof is on you, I’m afraid. I believe many are aware.

How about “the sacrifice at your hands”? When I first heard that line, I was thinking the sacrifice was the unconsecrated bread and wine, since that’s what the priest was holding his hands over as an offering.

You are just one person, and not a majority who do not come under the umbrella of your assertions. How many (100%, 75%, 30%) EF trads know the mass is a sacrifice and what that means? Where are your statistics for this?

I’m sorry that I don’t have a study that will give you a firm statistic of people who think the Mass is, or at least invokes the imagery of, the Sacrifice at Calvary. That being said, you are fooling yourself if you think there’s barely a soul in the world who isn’t confused about the matter.

Without said statistical evidence, then why propose it as solid truth? I am fully aware there may be pesons who are in need of catechesis, and I never indicated there is “barely a soul.” Those were words you put into my mouth.

What is offensive is the fact that you brought up the subject, as many trads often do… Do you ever see posts initiated from persons who attend the OF and make derogatory remarks about your form, pointing out how deficient it is? Your post was begun to let all of us know how inferior the OF is in comparison to yours. That will earn you a lot of disrespect.

 

[EphelDuath]

The burden of proof is on you, I’m afraid. I believe many are aware.

You are just one person, and not a majority who do not come under the umbrella of your assertions.

Well then! I apologize that I was exceptionally stupid and unable to pick up the implications of the subtle language while everyone around me was.

… because, after all, I never really said that it’s so unclear that nobody could understand it. I just said that it’s not emphasized enough to make it so clear that there can’t be misunderstandings. Do you think that’s untrue?

Without said statistical evidence, then why propose it as solid truth? I am fully aware there may be pesons who are in need of catechesis, and I never indicated there is “barely a soul.” Those were words you put into my mouth.

As I said, anecdotal evidence. I know of many, many people who had no idea that the Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary represented unbloodily; some of them also stated that it was clear to them when they went to the EF for the first time.

Though, my area could have been full of exceptionally stupid people like myself, in which case I ask for pardon for making undo generalizations.

What is offensive is the fact that you brought up the subject, as many trads often do… Do you ever see posts initiated from persons who attend the OF and make derogatory remarks about your form, pointing out how deficient it is? Your post was begun to let all of us know how inferior the OF is in comparison to yours. That will earn you a lot of disrespect.

What is “my” form? I attend the OF and EF about equally, I think they’re both valid forms of the Roman rite, which is the current position of the Holy See.

I didn’t bring up the subject, Phyllo brought up the subject. I critiqued his citation of Michael Davies heavily, who argues that the OF is “Protestantized”. I think that was preposterous and demonstrated why. Nevertheless, I maintained that one (1) point that Davies made was accurate. If you don’t believe me, go back two pages and see for yourself. So don’t accuse me of bringing up the subject. Don’t accuse me of initiating anything.

When did I make any derogatory remarks? When did I make a post talking about the inferiority of the OF? Actually, if you look above, I said that they both have deficiencies. To not accept that is to accept almost a flood of logical paradoxes, considering that the Missal for the OF has been revised by the Roman Curia several times now, indicating that it wasn’t absolutely perfect the moment it was promulgated. I added that I think one of its flaws, which is accepted by many (possibly only the exceptionally stupid, though), is the ambiguous language regarding what exactly the Sacrifice is. I don’t know why you’re so defensive over that point. If the CDW or Holy Father announced that clearer language about the Sacrifice were to be introduced to the Missal, would you actively object to their plan because it’s already clear enough? If not, then what’s wrong with me saying that it could be clearer, using the EF as a comparative example?

You’ve gotten extremely hostile and rude because you’ve made a handful of accusations and assumptions about me that simply aren’t true, and you can see that from the thread itself! So I would advise a change of attitude. God bless.