SPLIT: Why so little support for the EF?

[otjm]

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

You and I were pretty much on the same page.

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

I lived in the back of beyond Australia in the the mid 1960’s. We were well behind the times as far as secular society, (music and other social trends) but we kept up with the changes in the church which is surprising in retrospect. Without the internet or any modern telecommunications, the Church was surprisingly universal in that time.

Just for fun this is me in 1966 at my first Communion with Sr Malachy (Presentation Sister) and Dean Carew (in our tiny outback Queensland town).

i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/Trishyliz/19690803%20-%20Tricia%20Dean%20Carew%20Sr%20Malachy_zps7jyqs0vu.jpg

 

[ProVobis]

Okay I give up. Why did you say this? Why didn’t you just say “dixerunt quod dixerunt”? Your use of the imperfect subjunctive definitely means something else. Not factual would be my guess but that’s not what you intended, I hope.

Disclaimer: Please don’t take this the wrong way. These questions in no way make me “superior” just curious.

I am having to say that more and more.

I’m going to have to start saying “it escapes my eyes” pretty soon too. I spot a lot of grammatical errors on my posts after time allotted for changing them.

Or is it “IN my posts”?

.

 

[zab]

This is my brother and me around 1956. Dad was practicing with his camera trying to get the right setting to take photos of the First Communicants, including my brother, for the next day. Photography was his hobby.

 

[HelenRose]

… I will continue to disagree with TLM supporters when they are wrong. But the opposition to the TLM also at times seems almost fanatic, irrational as well. Why?

There are fanatic, irrational people on both sides of any controversy. Part of the problem is the anonymity of the internet. People can rant and rave all they want without consequences. They remind me of the poem. “When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.”

Sane people on both sides of any controversy have a hard expressing themselves because they are so often shout down. Civil discussion is very difficult on the Internet and we all need to work on this.

Human nature makes it easy for us to recognize the irrational and nasty behavior on the opposing side. It is a little harder to recognize it when we kind of sympathize with the thought behind irrational and nasty behavior.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Just to add some perspective, here is a Jesuit priest recounting his visit to an EF mass. (His appraisal is not very positive.)

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/tridentine-mass-why-i-couldnt-go-back

 

[commenter]

There are fanatic, irrational people on both sides of any controversy. Part of the problem is the anonymity of the internet. People can rant and rave all they want without consequences. They remind me of the poem. “When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.”

Sane people on both sides of any controversy have a hard expressing themselves because they are so often shout down. Civil discussion is very difficult on the Internet and we all need to work on this.

Human nature makes it easy for us to recognize the irrational and nasty behavior on the opposing side. It is a little harder to recognize it when we kind of sympathize with the thought behind irrational and nasty behavior.

True, irrational and nasty behavior is fairly common on the Internet. It happens at times even on CAF, though much less frequently than other places. The best response it to pray before going online, express your own thoughts lovingly. The person reading your posts is a child of God.

 

[ProVobis]

Just to add some perspective, here is a Jesuit priest recounting his visit to an EF mass. (His appraisal is not very positive.)

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/tridentine-mass-why-i-couldnt-go-back

At least give them credit for allowing (or even inviting) comments.

 

[commenter]

At least give them credit for allowing (or even inviting) comments.

If a priest doesn’t want to offer the EF, well he shouldn’t have to offer it in that form. But what possible good can come out of writing an article - and this is the most important thing the magazine could find to print? - about why he doesn’t like it?

My understanding is that EF Masses are made available only if laity request them. I would be curious what other things he preaches or teaches about. If he opposes the rights of laity, and diversity of expression, in this article, does he oppose the rights of the laity and diversity in his day job? What does printing this say about the magazine, America? Suppose someone went to a Jewish or Islamic service and didn’t like it. Would they print that article?

 

[zab]

If a priest doesn’t want to offer the EF, well he shouldn’t have to offer it in that form. But what possible good can come out of writing an article - and this is the most important thing the magazine could find to print? - about why he doesn’t like it?

My understanding is that EF Masses are made available only if laity request them. I would be curious what other things he preaches or teaches about. If he opposes the rights of laity, and diversity of expression, in this article, does he oppose the rights of the laity and diversity in his day job? What does printing this say about the magazine, America? Suppose someone went to a Jewish or Islamic service and didn’t like it. Would they print that article?

Wow, your post is full of suspicion about a priest who gave his impression on attending a TLM Mass. I think he had some legitimate concerns which he expressed in a charitable way, unlike some of the comments to his article. Why does it bother you that it doesn’t appeal to him? He said that he knew that he would never offer the Tridentine Mass, he never said that he would not provide it for his parishioners if they asked for it. You’d think that those who give such uncharitable remarks against this priest should be improving in their growth in virtue and holiness and not make such judgmental remarks.

 

[otjm]

If a priest doesn’t want to offer the EF, well he shouldn’t have to offer it in that form. But what possible good can come out of writing an article - and this is the most important thing the magazine could find to print? - about why he doesn’t like it?

Wht good can ever come out of anyone ever expressing a personal opinion about anything, particularly if they say that they are not comfortable with whatever is being written about?

Or turn the question around a bit - are the only articles worth publishing those which only praise something?

My understanding is that EF Masses are made available only if laity request them.

That is correct; additionally, a priest cannot be compelled to say the EF; should a group request the EF, it is the priest’s duty to do what he can (given all the considerations, including stable group, and assumingly, size of it) to accommodate them; if he cannot, then he needs to request the assistance of the bishop.

I would be curious what other things he preaches or teaches about. If he opposes the rights of laity, and diversity of expression, in this article, does he oppose the rights of the laity and diversity in his day job? What does printing this say about the magazine, America? Suppose someone went to a Jewish or Islamic service and didn’t like it. Would they print that article?

Your questions seem to say that the priest is not allowed to have a spirituality that does not include the EF. Nowhere in Summorum Pontificum, nor in Benedict’s accompanying letter, is there even the slightest implication that priests are required, or even expected, to like the EF.

And if this priest’s spirituality is formed and conditioned at least in part by the LOTH and the OF, there is nothing in that fact that there is any implication of heterodoxy, which again, your questions seem to imply. He did not say that the attendees should not have the EF available; but he wondered what attracted them to the EF.

In a number of comments to the article, the lack of charity is palpable. He was not rude or nasty or lacking in charity concerning his reaction - he is not comfortable with the EF. But rather than taking the time to say positive things about the EF, the majority of responders took the opportunity to be negative.

 

[Elizium23]

Wow, your post is full of suspicion about a priest who gave his impression on attending a TLM Mass. I think he had some legitimate concerns which he expressed in a charitable way, unlike some of the comments to his article. Why does it bother you that it doesn’t appeal to him? He said that he knew that he would never offer the Tridentine Mass, he never said that he would not provide it for his parishioners if they asked for it. You’d think that those who give such uncharitable remarks against this priest should be improving in their growth in virtue and holiness and not make such judgmental remarks.

I think it was uncharitable and judgemental of Amerika to run such a highly negative article on the Extraordinary Form. It’s silly to say that it’s acceptable to say anything as long as it’s charitable. I can write an essay promoting abortion and be quite charitable to pro-lifers who disagree with me, I’d still be dangerously wrong.

Amerika’s agenda is to discredit traditionalists and all the things which we hold dear. They want to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about things like the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Not many people of this generation have experienced an EF Mass for themselves, so it is necessary for liberals to dredge up nasty old stereotypes and perpetuate them for as long as possible.

The EF and its adherents present a clear and present danger to many things that liberals hold dear: ad-libbing liturgical abuse, clown Masses, giant puppets, banal and heretical hymns. And I find it hard to be charitable to people who cling to these things like sacred cows.

 

[zab]

I think it was uncharitable and judgemental of Amerika to run such a highly negative article on the Extraordinary Form. It’s silly to say that it’s acceptable to say anything as long as it’s charitable. I can write an essay promoting abortion and be quite charitable to pro-lifers who disagree with me, I’d still be dangerously wrong.

Amerika’s agenda is to discredit traditionalists and all the things which we hold dear. They want to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about things like the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Not many people of this generation have experienced an EF Mass for themselves, so it is necessary for liberals to dredge up nasty old stereotypes and perpetuate them for as long as possible.

The EF and its adherents present a clear and present danger to many things that liberals hold dear: ad-libbing liturgical abuse, clown Masses, giant puppets, banal and heretical hymns. And I find it hard to be charitable to people who cling to these things like sacred cows.

America doesn’t need to discredit you. You are doing a good job of that yourself. Look at the way that you tried to insult the name by changing the spelling. There is a big difference between writing a “charitable” article about abortion and the priest’s comments in this article. How dare you compare the two.

 

[Elizium23]

America doesn’t need to discredit you. You are doing a good job of that yourself. Look at the way that you tried to insult the name by changing the spelling. There is a big difference between writing a “charitable” article about abortion and the priest’s comments in this article. How dare you compare the two.

Yes, I dare. Let’s compare abortion and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. One is the holiest thing that liberals can think of, a sacrament they will defend to their last breath. The other is the Mass. One has sanctified millions of people through the ages and sent countless saints to Heaven. The other is abortion.

I think that we should be even more careful of how we speak of the Holy Mass. Abortion is simply a human problem that will pass away with this fallen world. The Mass is a foretaste of Heaven and will endure forever and ever when Christ comes in glory.

 

[ProVobis]

Amerika’s agenda is to discredit traditionalists and all the things which we hold dear. They want to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about things like the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Not many people of this generation have experienced an EF Mass for themselves, so it is necessary for liberals to dredge up nasty old stereotypes and perpetuate them for as long as possible.

Not to mention perhaps unfairness. This comment especially got to me:

Then the lengthy preface of the Trinity, traditionally used for Sunday Masses.

Seriously? Our beliefs in a nutshell in a few sentences must be torture. Isn’t there such a preface in the OF which is just as long? (or short, depending on how you look at it)

The rest of the article overlooks entirely the fact that the Mass offers more contemplative prayer. I would have suggested the five part series written by the Latin Mass Society which I think is a little more discerning in that regard.

 

[ProVobis]

My understanding is that EF Masses are made available only if laity request them.

But they don’t have to belong to the same parish.

Say, for example, the typical TLM draws 100-150 people. In a diocese of, say, 125 parishes, that’s only about one per parish. No priest, trained in the TLM or not, normally will be willing to offer a weekly Mass to one person. If he indeed wants to say it, he could advise someone to form a stable group from neighboring parishes who are willing to commit themselves (provide altar servers, missals, altar cards, etc.) on a weekly basis to such a Mass. Summorum Pontificum gave a wider latitude for the priests to say the TLM on this basis without hurting his regular Sunday schedule.

.

 

[zab]

Yes, I dare. Let’s compare abortion and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. One is the holiest thing that liberals can think of, a sacrament they will defend to their last breath. The other is the Mass. One has sanctified millions of people through the ages and sent countless saints to Heaven. The other is abortion.

I think that we should be even more careful of how we speak of the Holy Mass. Abortion is simply a human problem that will pass away with this fallen world. The Mass is a foretaste of Heaven and will endure forever and ever when Christ comes in glory.

1. You don’t have to be a liberal to have a preference for the Ordinary Form of the Mass
2. There was not one thing that Fr. Schineller said that spoke negatively about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He said, “During the celebration I felt very uncomfortable. It was strange and foreign. Even though I was very familiar with the Tridentine Mass from my childhood, it seemed remote and distant.” He was referring to the Form of the Mass not the Mass itself.
3. There is nothing in the article that makes any reference to a support for abortion
4. **Be very careful that you do not misrepresent what this priest wrote! **

 

[ProVobis]

**Be very careful that you do not misrepresent what this priest wrote! **

Is this being represented correctly?

Although the altar servers remain kneeling, the people stand for the Pater Noster. **(I suspect that the congregation should have remained kneeling too, but maybe that is one effect of the new liturgy that has strangely carried over to the old.) **

I don’t think he has his facts straight. In the Old Mass people always stood whenever the priest sang (except for the Epistle). And now he credits the new liturgy for that?

Here’s another one:

The offertory prayers are not heard at all by the people.

I can’t remember the last time I heard any offertory prayers in many OFs I attended.

Hey, if you’re going to knock something, at least show some credibility and no "maybe"s.

 

[LongingSoul]

Just to add some perspective, here is a Jesuit priest recounting his visit to an EF mass. (His appraisal is not very positive.)

americamagazine.org/content/all-things/tridentine-mass-why-i-couldnt-go-back

I was born in '62 just prior to the start of Vatican II. I remember a fair bit of the old liturgy because we didn’t swap to the vernacular until the early 70’s. I have much the same feelings as this Priest though. The elaborate vestments and impersonal ritual made me uncomfortable. (I do like bells and incense though. They seem natural) The angry sermons and feeling of your utter wretchedness in that environment were not good for my mental health as a child and I spent a lot of energy keeping the reality of my hellbound life at bay. I think this is why Pope Francis message about Gods mercy I want so very much to be true. I want it to be true so much.

I’ve never really done anything tooo bad like sex outside of marriage or contraception or the like… but I still have to fight off the judgement of the haters who say I’m a progressive liberal and bad Catholic. I can’t wait for the Churches fuller perspective on the mercy of the Church towards sinners. I hope it silences those judges who feel so superior.

 

[bobballen_18]

Is this being represented correctly?
…I don’t think he has his facts straight
…I can’t remember the last time I heard any offertory prayers in many OFs I attended.

Indeed, I’m not sure he is actually trying to misrepresent, but simply doesn’t remember enough about the Old Mass so he is just in error here. Either that or common practice now with the EF is different than it was 50 years ago.

I noticed the same things when I was running through the article, especially about standing at the Our Father (which happens at all High Masses in the EF) and about not saying the Leonine prayers (which only happens at a Low Mass, never a High Mass).

I didn’t immediately catch the point about the Offertory prayers - but that’s a good point, because my current priest does a silent Offertory (in the OF) as well.