Sometimes it is right to judge

[floresco]

I have lost count of all the allusions I have come across about “judgmental traditionalists” and sometimes it indicates a misunderstanding about judgment. Catholics are supposed to make judgments about what is right and wrong. We are supposed to identify the right thing to do and do it. We do not have to avoid making moral judgments. We are not being mean or judgmental when we say “that is good” and “this is bad.”

It is not judgmental to say that the Traditional Mass is superior to the new form. It is not judgmental to say that COTT is superior to CITH. One may disagree with people who say these things (although personally I think the evidence is overwhelming for both propositions), but there are no grounds for saying that the people who believe this are being judgmental.

The sort of judging that we are supposed to avoid is judging of people’s hearts and motives. If I say that it is better for women to cover their heads at Mass than to leave them uncovered, I am making an appropriate kind of judgment. If I were to say that women who go to Mass with their heads uncovered do not love God and want to rebel against authority, that would be being judgmental.

A fair bit of the discussion here, rather than being about whether various value judgments are right or wrong, seems to assume that value judgments are intrinsically inappropriate. This assumption is in fundamental opposition to Catholic thought. There is a difference between judging actions and judging hearts.

 

[Victorious]

I think the Mass of 1962 is superior to the Novus Ordo. I think this because I think the extraordinary form of the Mass more clearly illuminates the truths of the faith than the new Mass. I also like the fact that the Mass of 1962 does not have room in it for the arrant nonsense that so often prevails in the Novus Ordo. But I still recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo, and that to the extent a Mass is invalid, this is due to factors other than which rite it is celebrated in. If the Novus Ordo Mass were invalid, then I’d have a real problem, because I can’t attend the Extraordinary Form every Sunday.

What are COTT and CITH?

 

[DWC_RC]

I have lost count of all the allusions I have come across about “judgmental traditionalists” and sometimes it indicates a misunderstanding about judgment. Catholics are supposed to make judgments about what is right and wrong. We are supposed to identify the right thing to do and do it. We do not have to avoid making moral judgments. We are not being mean or judgmental when we say “that is good” and “this is bad.”

It is not judgmental to say that the Traditional Mass is superior to the new form. It is not judgmental to say that COTT is superior to CITH. One may disagree with people who say these things (although personally I think the evidence is overwhelming for both propositions), but there are no grounds for saying that the people who believe this are being judgmental.

The sort of judging that we are supposed to avoid is judging of people’s hearts and motives. If I say that it is better for women to cover their heads at Mass than to leave them uncovered, I am making an appropriate kind of judgment. If I were to say that women who go to Mass with their heads uncovered do not love God and want to rebel against authority, that would be being judgmental.

A fair bit of the discussion here, rather than being about whether various value judgments are right or wrong, seems to assume that value judgments are intrinsically inappropriate. This assumption is in fundamental opposition to Catholic thought. There is a difference between judging actions and judging hearts.

Stating that the Holy See is in error for changing the mass is wrong. Roma Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est. The authority of the Bishop of Rome is never in error. It had a purpose.

 

[Kassandra]

What are COTT and CITH?

COTT - Communion on the tongue

CITH - Communion in the hand

 

[Timothysis]

It is not judgmental to say that the Traditional Mass is superior to the new form. It is not judgmental to say that COTT is superior to CITH. One may disagree with people who say these things (although personally I think the evidence is overwhelming for both propositions), but there are no grounds for saying that the people who believe this are being judgmental.

When one puts forth statements such as “the Traditional Mass is superior to the new form” it is only a personal subjective opinion, something that cannot be proven true or false by any concrete measure. When one maintains such a position with an egotistical attitude of superiority against the opinion of another without respect to that person’s position, then that is judgmental.

The Holy Father loosened the availability of the Extraordinary Form for those who have a preference for it, not because it is “superior.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Before you judge CITH receivers, try walking in their shoes. For four weeks, take CITH, preferably from a lay woman.

It isn’t evil. It is not against Church rules. I would not challenge you to do anything I believe to be evil. Nor would I double dog dare you to do something I believed is evil.

Alan

 

[Victorious]

When one puts forth statements such as “the Traditional Mass is superior to the new form” it is only a personal subjective opinion, something that cannot be proven true or false by any concrete measure. When one maintains such a position with an egotistical attitude of superiority against the opinion of another without respect to that person’s position, then that is judgmental.

Well…I think the 1962 Mass is superior, and therefore I prefer it. Color me judgmental.

 

[Timothysis]

Well…I think the 1962 Mass is superior, and therefore I prefer it. Color me judgmental.

Your words, not mine.

Tell me, is the Consecrated Body and Blood of Jesus according to the 1962 missal superior to the Consecrated Body and Blood of Jesus according to the Pauline Missal?

 

[Victorious]

Before you judge CITH receivers, try walking in their shoes. For four weeks, take CITH, preferably from a lay woman.

It isn’t evil. It is not against Church rules.

Communion in the hand is permissible by virtue of an indult (and not a universal one at that). Indults can be revoked. What are you going to do when this one is revoked?

When just anybody can handle the Eucharist, does that tend to add to or detract from faith in the Real Presence?

I would not challenge you to do anything I believe to be evil. Nor would I double dog dare you to do something I believed is evil.

That’s a relief.

 

[Victorious]

Tell me, is the Consecrated Body and Blood of Jesus according to the 1962 missal superior to the Consecrated Body and Blood of Jesus according to the Pauline Missal?

Read my first post in this thread for the answer.

 

[Timothysis]

When just anybody can handle the Eucharist, does that tend to add to or detract from faith in the Real Presence?

If you know and understand the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then how does the handling of such by a minister add or detract from your faith in it?

 

[Major_Minor]

Well…I think the 1962 Mass is superior, and therefore I prefer it. Color me judgmental.

I think it would be judgemental if you told others they were “doing it wrong”, but if you

prefer< the traditional or the 1962 mass… it’s just a preference.

I prefer plain chant to the folky newer hymns but I don’t presume to tell anyone they’re “wrong” if they like the newer hymns.

 

[Timothysis]

Read my first post in this thread for the answer.

If you believe that Mass according to the 1962 is “superior” to Mass according to the current missal, then shouldn’t you believe that the effects of the one be superior to the other? Many others here have stated such an opinion, saying that the latin Mass is more “efficacious” than the current Mass. If that is true, is the consecrated host of a latin Mass “superior” to that of the current Mass?

 

[ljubim]

I AGREE! It’s very right to judge. Judging is different than pointing out something is wrong.

As for the TLM… (well my missal was printed in '55, so I’m not speaking of 1962 now )
-The priest says more prayers asking God that we all make it into heaven. (more efficacious)
-There is a larger centrality on our unworthiness, compared to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, which fosters reverence. (Domine non sum dignis 3x, the psalm ‘Judica Me’ at the beginning, more Confiteors.)
-We outwardly show more reverence to the Incarnation, and more reverence period (more kneeling, more genuflections, more signs of the cross)

That’s all I can think of at the moment. But this seems to be enough grounds to show the superiority of the Traditional Latin Mass, compared even to the Novus Ordo in Latin as done without liturgical innovation just as it was written.

 

[ljubim]

If you believe that Mass according to the 1962 is “superior” to Mass according to the current missal, then shouldn’t you believe that the effects of the one be superior to the other? Many others here have stated such an opinion, saying that the latin Mass is more “efficacious” than the current Mass. If that is true, is the consecrated host of a latin Mass “superior” to that of the current Mass?

Umm… no? Aren’t traditionalists the ones who cross themselves when passing by any Catholic church??

You’re being sarcastic… right?

EDIT: Btw I said in my post above about efficacious-ness… the priest asks God many more times for us to go to heaven. I didn’t read this anywhere, I noticed this one myself.

 

[Timothysis]

I AGREE! It’s very right to judge. Judging is different than pointing out something is wrong.

As for the TLM… (well my missal was printed in '55, so I’m not speaking of 1962 now )
-The priest says more prayers asking God that we all make it into heaven. (more efficacious)
-There is a larger centrality on our unworthiness, compared to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, which fosters reverence. (Domine non sum dignis 3x, the psalm ‘Judica Me’ at the beginning, more Confiteors.)
-We outwardly show more reverence to the Incarnation, and more reverence period (more kneeling, more genuflections, more signs of the cross)

That’s all I can think of at the moment. But this seems to be enough grounds to show the superiority of the Traditional Latin Mass, compared even to the Novus Ordo in Latin as done without liturgical innovation just as it was written.

So let me ask this; if the current Missal were revised incorporating more prayers than the TLM, more kneeling, more genuflecting and more signs of the cross, would that make it more “efficacious” than the TLM? Is “superiority” simply a numbers game?

 

[Timothysis]

Umm… no? Aren’t traditionalists the ones who cross themselves when passing by any Catholic church??

You’re being sarcastic… right?

EDIT: Btw I said in my post above about efficacious-ness… the priest asks God many more times for us to go to heaven. I didn’t read this anywhere, I noticed this one myself.

Sarcastic? You are the one who maintains that more kneeling and genuflections makes one Mass superior to another, and you ask ME if I’m being sarcastic? All the prayers in the world will never equal a soul in a state of grace receiving the consecrated Body and Blood of Jesus regardless of the liturgy.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Communion in the hand is permissible by virtue of an indult (and not a universal one at that). Indults can be revoked. What are you going to do when this one is revoked?

If my pastor tells me that CITH is no longer allowed, I will do whatever is allowed. There’s where the obedience comes in.

When just anybody can handle the Eucharist, does that tend to add to or detract from faith in the Real Presence?

In my mind, it doesn’t do either. When I consume the host, it is exactly the same sacrament whether an extra person handles it on its way to me or not. That is why I do not have a problem with anybody who wishes to receive either COTT or CITH.

Alan

 

[Timothysis]

In my mind, it doesn’t do either. When I consume the host, it is exactly the same sacrament whether an extra person handles it on its way to me or not. That is why I do not have a problem with anybody who wishes to receive either COTT or CITH.

An excellent answer.

 

[PJM]

=floresco;6741997]I have lost count of all the allusions I have come across about “judgmental traditionalists” and sometimes it indicates a misunderstanding about judgment. Catholics are supposed to make judgments about what is right and wrong. We are supposed to identify the right thing to do and do it. We do not have to avoid making moral judgments. We are not being mean or judgmental when we say “that is good” and “this is bad.”

It is not judgmental to say that the Traditional Mass is superior to the new form. It is not judgmental to say that COTT is superior to CITH. One may disagree with people who say these things (although personally I think the evidence is overwhelming for both propositions), but there are no grounds for saying that the people who believe this are being judgmental.

The sort of judging that we are supposed to avoid is judging of people’s hearts and motives. If I say that it is better for women to cover their heads at Mass than to leave them uncovered, I am making an appropriate kind of judgment. If I were to say that women who go to Mass with their heads uncovered do not love God and want to rebel against authority, that would be being judgmental.

A fair bit of the discussion here, rather than being about whether various value judgments are right or wrong, seems to assume that value judgments are intrinsically inappropriate. This assumption is in fundamental opposition to Catholic thought. There is a difference between judging actions and judging hearts.

Dear friend in Christ,

I really enjoyed your post and comments. But having been around the Forum for a while, I don’t personally find grounds for your final thought. But on the other hand, I never really thought of it in the same light your seeing. Intrinsic Evil is pretty heavy. :dts:

WELCOME TO THE FORUM!

God’s continued Blessings,

Pat