P
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
This seems rather intuitive. It would be like me asking if someone would rather have me explain nuclear physics in complex mathematical terms or in layman’s terms. 99.9% would probably want the layman’s terms, I’ll bet.
What does that prove, if not that it’s a matter of convenience? Human psychology (and marketing) always seems to favor the convenience aspect.
Yet in a large enough population, there are a significant few who would still rather have the inaudibility, the mystery and everything else associated with the old “inconvenience.” It’s not simply a matter of preference, as I see it. But that’s an area of psychology I’m not qualified to explain.
.
Z
zab
Guest
There will always be the mystery no matter what form of the Mass one attends. And there is also plenty of incense, beautiful vestments, even old style ones, beeswax candles, beautiful Liturgies , at least in our parish with the OF.
K
Kielbasi
Guest
Its been 50 years since most Catholics have heard a Latin mass, that’s a long time.
Its tough to gin up support for something that few left alive have ever seen.
Its tough to gin up support for something that few left alive have ever seen.
C
Casilda
Guest
may I live to see this day.
Z
zab
Guest
What is the point of your remarks?
K
Kielbasi
Guest
The first reference is the most interesting, as it shows the major difference with the Latin Mass. The idea of keeping quiet in church is one which would seem to be really foreign to modern, mainstream Catholics. Big difference between the quiet participation in Latin Mass and the vocal recitation of prayers which predominates in the vernacular Mass. Getting those who are used to the latter to get interested in the former, with no history of it, is the challenge of Latin Mass promoters.
O
otjm
Guest
You were there; I was there; but so were a lot of the members of Call to Action, and Catholics for a Free Choice. And you missed one major and very divisive factor - the Vietnam war. Out of my college seminary class, 9 were ordained; of those of us who did not continue on, one fled the U.S. to avoid the draft; two went to jail; several became C.O.s, several were drafted and several of us - me included - volunteered. I can remember a peace march in 1968, where the lead banner said “Kill a Commie for Christ”. That made for a tad bit of dissonance with my experience in meeting a soon-to-be-ordained young man whose family had attempted to flee North Vietnam @ 12 years earlier; some made it out to the South; some were in jail and some were executed, by the North Vietnamese.
But then, aren’t there always at least two sides to a story?
Oh, and SDS, and the Black Panthers, and the Weathermen. A prime example of an old Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times”.
O
otjm
Guest
Convenience? That comes across as a somewhat snide comment, which I am sure you did not intend. But given that anyone - world wide, so we are including people of every race, culture and language - who re members of the Roman rite, can pray the Mass along with their priest, just as they can pray the LOTH - the other Liturgy of the Church, along with any other prayer format they may use - the Rosary, personal devotions, personal prayers… and none of that denies the validity of Latin as the official language of the Church; nor does it deny the beauty of the prayers, chants, and other formats for liturgical song (Palestrina comes to mind). Greek was initially the primary language, and as the Church spread beyond the Mediterranean, other languages became common. The largest group of Catholics, however, seem to have been in the European area, and as Latin became more the common language, Latin became more common throughout those areas for Church language.
Eventually, Latin became the official language of Rome.
And the Church has seen fit to go back to its beginnings, and use the vernacular as it did early on, in the Liturgy. That obviously does not preclude the sue of Latin along with the vernacular - which in some areas is used more than in others. Worship is not rote; it is an act of the will, the mind and the heart. And the reaction world-wide to the vernacular has been overwhelmingly positive.
I have never heard anyone, anywhere, deny that. The OP’s question was why the reaction against the EF.
P
ProVobis
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
The Vietnam War had nothing to do with the topic. The young APC driver who was about to be sent over to Vietnam was taught to fight for God and country. I had a close friend who was a member of the SDS, which went nowhere. The Weather Underground was a small group of extremists that went nowhere quickly. Meanwhile, COINTELPRO was watching every potential threat, including war protesters. I recently met a young man whose father was a Black Panther. I asked him what happened to the movement. He calmly told me that once illegal drugs became prevalent, sharp minds were dulled and things fell apart, and poor blacks didn’t have the infrastructure to bring illegal drugs into the community.
We’re living in far more interesting times. More people living like pagans, a lack of community, radical individualism. A quick look over the last 40 years and I watched the wide road to death increase in size - more and more of the lost were on it. But God always leaves a faithful remnant - always.
Ed
C
commenter
Guest
Since my post was the origin of this split-new thread, I just want to reiterate that I wasn’t hoping for people to defend why the EF is good-for-all, or not-so-good-for-all. I was making a point about a lack of love for those individuals who appreciate the EF. I would urge those who see no value for themselves in the EF, to encourage their diocese to make available, as resources permit, this valid form of liturgy, for their brothers and sisters who do prefer it.
Yes, I have met persons who like the EF who can be demanding, hypercritical, disdainful of VII, and so on. I also have encountered people in the SSPX, and I won’t begin to discuss that group in this thread. But most of the people I know who like the EF accept the OF and all Vatican II as valid; they don’t judge or criticize their bishop; they are active in religious liberty and prolife. Many go to daily Mass in OF, since it is not available in our diocese.
We don’t require Catholics in the OF to be 100% orthodox, charitable, and friendly, so we shouldn’t require that of the EF folks, either. Let’s reach out to them a little more, expose young Catholics including seminarians to the EF, so they have a choice which form(s) they will choose later on.
Yes, I have met persons who like the EF who can be demanding, hypercritical, disdainful of VII, and so on. I also have encountered people in the SSPX, and I won’t begin to discuss that group in this thread. But most of the people I know who like the EF accept the OF and all Vatican II as valid; they don’t judge or criticize their bishop; they are active in religious liberty and prolife. Many go to daily Mass in OF, since it is not available in our diocese.
We don’t require Catholics in the OF to be 100% orthodox, charitable, and friendly, so we shouldn’t require that of the EF folks, either. Let’s reach out to them a little more, expose young Catholics including seminarians to the EF, so they have a choice which form(s) they will choose later on.
O
otjm
Guest
My apologies; your initial long paragraph in post #40 started with “People need to clearly understand the US in 1965.” I was simply adding to the list which you had, subsequent to that lead-in comment, all of which contributed to the rupture within society.
P
pnewton
Guest
I read his book Spirit of the Liturgy and he compared the changes in liturgy to cleaning off the whitewash of a fresco, not a rupture. I do not know what popes were referenced, but I bet Pope Benedict never said the new Mass was a “rupture.” I would be surprise to learn if it were Pope Francis, or even John Paul. Pope Benedict spoke against interpreting Vatican II with a hermeneutic of discontinuity. That is the closest thing I can find.
P
pnewton
Guest
In neither article did Pope Benedict say this. The author said this. Besides it was not the liturgy, but Vatican II that was addressed. He spoke of discontinuity as both a possibility and a movement of some and warned against it. He did not say the liturgy (or the Church) had ruptured or even that we are in a state of discontinuity.
I think this speech is one in which some traditionalist tore a page from the media and wrote more about what they wanted the Pope to say than what he actually said. Read the actual words of the Pope and you will see what I mean. This link has more quotes than anything I have found so far.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-media-helped-spread-misinterpretations-of-vatican-ii/
P
ProVobis
Guest
Pope John Paul II stated that Vatican II must be (or should be) interpreted in the light of tradition. Also he challenged the SSPX and other traditionalists on the some of the points but it escapes my memory on what they were. Maybe other posters remember or find a link. Pope Francis echoed Pope Benedict’s “Hermeneutic of Continuity.”
aleteia.org/2013/11/26/non-shocker-pope-francis-endorses-benedicts-hermeneutic-of-continuity-twice/
It is uncertain how much of Pope Francis’ statement, however, was directed at the Mass, if at all.
As far as Pope Benedict’s reference to this “hermeneutic of continuity,” we’ll have to take Archbishop Sample’s word that that “included” the reformed liturgy.and the way it’s celebrated. Like “banal” and “fabricated” this was not directed at the liturgy itself.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am having to say that more and more.
E
edwest2
Guest
I see where you’re coming from. What I was saying about 1965 was that most of us were too trusting, and very much surrounded by good. The wolves we did not recognize or judge properly, until it was too late. A kind of misplaced trust developed.
The war created not so much a rupture because I knew that once the protest was done for the day, the peaceniks went home, smoked dope and lived immoral lives. Yes, there were exceptions but the truth was this: the US left the war after dropping more bombs than were dropped on all of Europe during World War II, and testing new military hardware under battlefield conditions. Looking at it from a purely military perspective: there was no stated goal. There was no “we’ll risk the Chinese getting involved” like they did during the Korean Police Action. The leadership in the South and those living in the South were fighting bandits, later labeled Vietcong, who were displaced from the North and were simply trying to survive. What were the French doing in Indochina in the 1950s?
And once the war was over, what was left for the Hippies and Anarchists? Dope, sex outside of marriage, drinking and ignoring Christianity (with some exceptions), but “Hippie culture” was becoming a part of life. Peace did not end that, and I foolishly thought that their preaching to live like they did would end. THAT caused a rupture in society.
Dad: Son, if you love the girl, why don’t you get married instead of living in sin?
Look dad. Things are different now. You don’t understand.
Dad: Look, I didn’t teach you to live like that or your mother. The Church didn’t teach you that.
We got freedom, dad. Freedom to live how we want.
THAT WAS rupture. THAT meant “family” was on the target list. And what has Pope Francis been talking about? Family. Faith and Family.
Ed
- Status