Someone I know told me the VII didn't create the OF

  • Thread starter Thread starter CarloMagnus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, language has nothing to do with it. Anti-Catholic bigotry still exists in those countries (as in this one), and Catholic less knowledgeable in the Faith are easily led astray by the constant repetition of false teachings and false accusations against the Church in the main-stream media.
Like some programming languages which do certain things some others do not, maybe language does have something to do with it. And maybe the bigotry is evidenced by the artificial selection of a language (barbaric) which is almost diametrically opposed to Rome’s langugage. (Possibly done by Cranmer and Luther et al.) This is what I believe Dom Gueranger meant when he said or wrote:
Since the liturgical reform had for one of its principal aims the abolition of actions and formulas of mystical signification, it is a logical consequence that its authors had to vindicate the use of the vernacular in divine worship. This in the eyes of the sectarians is a most important item. Cult is no secret matter. The people, they say, must understand what they sing.
Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the heart of all enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond of Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. They consider it the most efficient weapon of the papacy. The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of cult than the Protestant people.
At every hour of the day divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. (It had been that) The faithful Catholic who assists leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart from the sermons he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the latter does not hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning…
We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in destroying it, it would be well on its way to victory.
Dom Gueranger
 
Indeed there is a right time for everything. Just as no mention of Gods mercy is defective and an abuse, so is no mention of the consequences of sin just as defective, abusive and terribly dangerous…

You do recall just how often Jesus spoke about Hell do you not? He must have thought it fairly important that people were aware of its existance and just how easy it is to get there. From what I have seen, that particular truth has been practically banished in these enlightened and progressive times.
My point, which you mocked, was:
What is needed is more discipline, not a return to the fire-and-brimstone Church of parents which crushed hope, made us all feel depraved and built walls around our community.
Just as Jesus did speak of hell, so to did he eat with sinners, absolve an adulteress and a thief on a cross. When I was a kid, and in my parents time, we never heard much about this. We heard that we’d go to hell for just setting foot in a Protestant church; we heard that we’d go to hell if we didn’t produce a baby a year, we learned, in fact, that it was a pretty sure bet that we’d go to hell. What we didn’t get much of was genuine love and charity.

And what did Saint Paul say about faith without charity?

I have no interest in going back to those Jansenist days. I suspect many folk in Ireland (which had many similarities) feel the same way.

I didn’t learn to transform my life through rote recitation of the Catechism, nor through fire-and-brimstone sermons. I learned, through the monastery I’m affiliated with, the immediate salutary nature of conversatio morum, stability, obedience, and giving my life over to God.

I also learned through my parents’ mixed marriage (Catholic mother, Anglican father, I was brought up Catholic), the value of building inter-community bridges rather than building walls. Ironically, the walls of the Benedictine enclosure, while they serve to maintain a monk’s separation from the world, have this funny habit of welcoming all who show up within them as if Christ Himself walked through the door (see the Rule of St. Benedict). This is regardless of whether the person is Catholic or Protestant, saint or sinner, believer or non-believer. Those walls serve to draw in people of all walks, not exclude those who don’t think like we do. The monastery attracts with honey, not with vinegar. Those who dare enter, get a small foretaste of heaven. Does far much more for the soul than being told we’re depraved sinners bound to hell no matter what we do. Many have entered those walls as a very ill addict (alcoholics, drug addicts, sex addicts, criminals, you name it) and have exited on the beginning of a transformational and healing journey. There’s a great YouTube (in French) of one of the monks’ long-standing spiritual relationship with an incarcerated criminal.

All this serves me well as I too am married to an Anglican. I also work with observant Muslims, and very secularized Quebecers who have rejected the Church and mock her. I get much more respect, and have much more in common, with the Muslims than with the secular ex-Catholics.

It’s funny too that the monks rarely mention hell in their homilies. Oddly enough they have taught me to turn away from sin because I love God, not because I fear hell.

Turning away from sin for the love of God rather than the fear of hell, is called perfect contrition. Something I think was lost on the Jansenists, because they never taught us how to love God. The monastery, with nary a mention of hell, did just that.
 
Turning away from sin for the love of God rather than the fear of hell, is called perfect contrition. Something I think was lost on the Jansenists, because they never taught us how to love God. The monastery, with nary a mention of hell, did just that.
Tremendous post. 👍
 
:confused: Most traddie Catholics do acknowledge that it is a valid liturgy.
Technically to be a Catholic you must acknowledge that the OF and the EF are two forms of the Roman Mass and that both are valid.

Well, let me qualify that. The qualification would be that a “traddie Catholic” (whatever that creature is) would need to believe that they must believe what the Holy Father says.
 
Indeed there is a right time for everything. Just as no mention of Gods mercy is defective and an abuse, so is no mention of the consequences of sin just as defective, abusive and terribly dangerous…

You do recall just how often Jesus spoke about Hell do you not? He must have thought it fairly important that people were aware of its existance and just how easy it is to get there. From what I have seen, that particular truth has been practically banished in these enlightened and progressive times.
There is indeed a time and a place for preaching on Hell. Jesus did mention Hell a lot. He also usually followed that up by an example (either in word or action) about the love God has for people, and how God shows mercy upon persons.

Admittedly, I can only go on what I have read and been told, and I admit that does weaken my argument. However, from what I know, there was in the past much talk of hell fire and brimstone and judgement, and not much upon God’s love and mercy.
I am not saying it was absent, nor that it was not touched upon; rather, the focus seemed to be on sin and judgement rather than on grace and mercy.

I am saddened by the fact that there is little talk of Hell- it is necessary to talk and teach about. I am even more saddened when folks seem to think the remedy to this is to return to hell fire, brimstone, and a 99% chance of damnation (I am not directing this sentiment at you, by the way, but merely stating things I’ve observed). Again, I would say we must follow Our Lord’s example:

Talk about Hell. But even more, so forth God’s love and mercy.

If I am correct, it is considered enough to be sorrowful over sin out of fear of hell. But, is it not better to be sorrowful out of love of God? Does that make sense?
 
Technically to be a Catholic you must acknowledge that the OF and the EF are two forms of the Roman Mass and that both are valid.

Well, let me qualify that. The qualification would be that a “traddie Catholic” (whatever that creature is) would need to believe that they must believe what the Holy Father says.
When did anyone say otherwise?
 
What we’re speaking about here is balance. It can’t be all kumbaya and it can’t be all fire and brimstone.

It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
 
Frankly it doesn’t matter to me what is preached about as long as it is a good argument and isn’t just plain wrong. For example, my pastor says just about every Sunday that “everybody goes to heaven” and “you all need to start coming to confession.” I just sit there gobsmacked like I was punched in the teeth, thinking to myself, aren’t those two statements completely and utterly contradictory?
 
I love the word Gospel or evangelion: The GOOD news. the word can be misused to narrowly mean a presentation of doctrine: “the gospel truth”.
The real possibility of hell is not the good news. It is something to be aware of and Jesus gives us an appropriate awareness of it. But it is a small part of the gospel. It’s not good to dwell on the bad. 🙂
 
What we’re speaking about here is balance. It can’t be all kumbaya and it can’t be all fire and brimstone.

It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
Exactly. It’s why I’m enormously attracted to the Benedictines, they’ve made balance a way of life.

I’ll say one thing though: for many a broken person showing up at the doorstep of the monastery asking for help, there’s no need to preach about hell. They’re living it: addicts, the abused, broken relationships, you name it. By the time they show up for help they’ve often reached rock-bottom.

We need to stop thinking about heaven and hell as applying only to the afterlife. Just as our earthly lives can descend into hell, God can bring us a foretaste of heaven by living in His embrace.

We have a fellow oblate who is a terribly handicapped man, who can barely speak and is confined to a wheelchair with very limited dexterity, yet he exudes joy from every pore of his being when he comes to the monastery. It perplexed me for a long time how this can be so. I think I now understand.

That is what the Church is all about. Our salvation can begin in the here and now if we embrace God. Stripped of all pride pretense, is when we can finally meet God I think. It’s about coming home, finally free, not cowering in fear.

Paradoxically, it is when we are most broken by sin that I think we become most open to God; when we reach our nadir. I have been there myself. It is my sin that truly allowed me to meet God and let Him truly into my life.
 
Well on topic, the answer is that Vatican II did not create the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
 
Like some programming languages which do certain things some others do not, maybe language does have something to do with it. And maybe the bigotry is evidenced by the artificial selection of a language (barbaric) which is almost diametrically opposed to Rome’s langugage. (Possibly done by Cranmer and Luther et al.)
and what language prey tell did the people speak who provided all those wonderful opportunities for Catholic martyrdom during the first 3 centuries of the Christian era? Are you arguing that there was less anti-Catholic bigotry in ancient Rome than in Protestant England?
 
and what language prey tell did the people speak who provided all those wonderful opportunities for Catholic martyrdom during the first 3 centuries of the Christian era?
Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or Aramaic, I would imagine. Or whatever those languages morphed into. But we’re talking about the liturgy and liturgy wasn’t always in the vernacular; it was in the mutable language which the Church designed for the liturgy and preserve its documents mostly, Christianized Latin, at least in the West. I’m sure conversions and sermons and explanations of the faith were done in the morphed or barbaric tongues.
Are you arguing that there was less anti-Catholic bigotry in ancient Rome than in Protestant England?
Apples and oranges. Ancient Rome was full of pagans but who adapted well to the sacred languages of the Church. Protestant England was full of pompous individuals who thought they knew better than the established Church, throwing out their Latin, confiscating all Church property, and slaughtering the remaining Catholic faithful.
 
Many traditionalists prefer the 1962 Divine Office. Yet that Office was a radical change imposed by Pius X in 1910. Unilaterally, with no options except for monastics.
I doubt you will find a traditionalist who prefers the 1962 office, except in comparison to the modern liturgy of the hours. So right off the bat, I suggest that you are heading down the wrong path with this line of thought.

Now if you were to speak with a representative sampling of traditional Catholics about the relative advantages and disadvantages of the St. Pius X office versus the Tridentine office, you probably would be able to find some differences of opinion.

Most people who know something about the office recognize that the Tridentine office was in need of some help at the beginning of the 20th century for various reasons, with the major problem being calendar issues and the perceived difficulty of completing the obligation on some days. In that sense no one begrudges the fact that Pope St. Pius X undertook a reform of the office but many traditionalists are less than fully comfortable with the nature of the reform that was implemented. However, the personal sanctity of the Pope and his manifest intention to uphold the traditional faith rather than water it down is sufficient to mute any overt disquiet.
That strikes me as inconsistent, and makes me think that “traditionalism” is more nostalgia for a specific time and place. I may be wrong but that’s the feeling I get.
Based on the above I suggest that your opinion expressed is fully without merit.
 
Well, I won’t be able to go to mass tomorrow. Rather than get on the train, I think I will go to my territorial parish which is like 3 blocks away. It is a small little parish and it will be my first time going there.

I did happen to notice an advertisement somewhere for a charismatic service there. I hope the OF mass over there is Orthodox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top