They hate us, they really hate us

  • Thread starter Thread starter marthaferretti
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Old_Medic said:
I do not, in any way, shape or form, hate the traditions of the Church. I do not hate the Latin Mass, the Tridentine Mass, the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, the Liturgy of the Hours, or any other prayers or celebrations of the pre-Vatican II Church.

I converted into the pre-Vatican II Church. I bother lo actually learn the Latin of the Mass (both the Propers and the ordinary. I sang in Choirs at Mass, Benediction, etc from LONG before I was baptized. I love the old liturgy, and in some ways, I miss it.

BUT, I also recognize that the vast majority of the world did not understand it, could not participate in it, and that it is MUCH better to have all religious services in the language that the people can actually understand.

I VIVIDLY remember what those old Masses were like. Most people either had a glazed look in their eyes, as they went through the motions of standing, kneeling or sitting as the bells told them to do; or they buried their noses in a Missal, attempting to read their way through the Mass, and the saw nothing and participated in nothing.

The people almost NEVER sang, unless the song was “Immaculate Mary” or “Holy God We Praise Thy Name”. They did NOT sing the Latin music, including at Benediction.

They didn’t even have a clue what the Priest was saying when he gave them a blessing. It might just as well have been in Urdu, for all the people knew.

Latin was appropriate when most of the people of the church actually spoke Latin.

What I hate, what I REALLY hate are the misguided folks that are attempting to reimpose Latin on the Church. Thankfully, they are a very tiny minority, and their influence is miniscule at best. (No I don’t really hate any of you.)

The VAST majority of those advocating a return to Latin were not even alive before Vatican II. They have no memory of a Latin Mass, they just know that it is beautiful (and it is), and can not see that part of its appeal is because it is NOT the norm.

It would be a whole different thing if every Mass, every day, was in Latin again. The vast majority of Catholics in this world would revolt (and rightfully so).
Click to expand...
You have clearly proven wisdom comes with old age ;).
 
The_Old_Medic said:
I do not, in any way, shape or form, hate the traditions of the Church. I do not hate the Latin Mass, the Tridentine Mass, the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, the Liturgy of the Hours, or any other prayers or celebrations of the pre-Vatican II Church.

I converted into the pre-Vatican II Church. I bother lo actually learn the Latin of the Mass (both the Propers and the ordinary. I sang in Choirs at Mass, Benediction, etc from LONG before I was baptized. I love the old liturgy, and in some ways, I miss it.

BUT, I also recognize that the vast majority of the world did not understand it, could not participate in it, and that it is MUCH better to have all religious services in the language that the people can actually understand.

I VIVIDLY remember what those old Masses were like. Most people either had a glazed look in their eyes, as they went through the motions of standing, kneeling or sitting as the bells told them to do; or they buried their noses in a Missal, attempting to read their way through the Mass, and the saw nothing and participated in nothing.

The people almost NEVER sang, unless the song was “Immaculate Mary” or “Holy God We Praise Thy Name”. They did NOT sing the Latin music, including at Benediction.

They didn’t even have a clue what the Priest was saying when he gave them a blessing. It might just as well have been in Urdu, for all the people knew.

Latin was appropriate when most of the people of the church actually spoke Latin.

What I hate, what I REALLY hate are the misguided folks that are attempting to reimpose Latin on the Church. Thankfully, they are a very tiny minority, and their influence is miniscule at best. (No I don’t really hate any of you.)

The VAST majority of those advocating a return to Latin were not even alive before Vatican II. They have no memory of a Latin Mass, they just know that it is beautiful (and it is), and can not see that part of its appeal is because it is NOT the norm.

It would be a whole different thing if every Mass, every day, was in Latin again. The vast majority of Catholics in this world would revolt (and rightfully so).
Click to expand...
Interesting that you say this, since from previous comments on other threads you seem to shun at the idea of any particular tradition from comming back. Most people really want it either have the EF available at most parishes, or that reverence makes a come back at all masses.
 
By many liturgists, the 1970 Mass is much closer to the Medieval Mass than the TLM, St Pius V made a radical change, forcing the reformed Roman Rite on the whole Catholic word (except a few dioceses as exceptions)
Click to expand...
We seem to be all over the place now. My understanding was that the intentions of the 1970 Missal were to be more antiquarianistic than that. In such earlier times, Masses were held in Aramaic or Greek or Latin, in the catacombs, and Christians were being martyred for their faith. But this was also before the barbarians and the Reformers (read, heretics) took hold. The Council of Trent rectified the situation but now you’re saying the 1970 Missal was supposed to undo all that?
 
ProVobis said:
We seem to be all over the place now. My understanding was that the intentions of the 1970 Missal were to be more antiquarianistic than that. In such earlier times, Masses were held in Greek or Latin, in the catacombs, and Christians were being martyred for their faith. But this was also before the barbarians and the Reformers took hold. The Council of Trent rectified the situation but now you’re saying the 1970 Missal was supposed to undo all that?
Click to expand...
I’ve pretty much heard the same as well. I’ve also hear that the EF in many of its practices can go as far back as Pope Gregory the great.
 
archangel04 said:
Interesting that you say this, since from previous comments on other threads you seem to shun at the idea of any particular tradition from comming back. Most people really want it either have the EF available at most parishes, or that reverence makes a come back at all masses.
Click to expand...
Interesting too that Latin is part of the tradition of the Roman Rite. Yet this tradition is not welcomed I suppose :rolleyes:
 
By many liturgists, the 1970 Mass is much closer to the Medieval Mass than the TLM, St Pius V made a radical change, forcing the reformed Roman Rite on the whole Catholic word (except a few dioceses as exceptions)
Click to expand...
Bunk. In the years (really two centuries) prior to Trent, the Roman Rite had, for a variety of reasons, already supplanted many of the “local” Rites. Those that had been in continuous use for at least 200 years survived Trent (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Bragan, and Lyonais) and still survive today. (The Sarum Rite would probably have survived as well had Queen Mary’s efforts at its revival met with success.) What was done in the wake of Trent and its “200 year” rule was to eliminate what I’ll call the “upstart rites” that had cropped-up here and there (mostly in Germanic central Europe) within that 200-year window and standardize the Roman Rite itself.
 
laszlo said:
By many liturgists, the 1970 Mass is much closer to the Medieval Mass than the TLM, St Pius V made a radical change, forcing the reformed Roman Rite on the whole Catholic word (except a few dioceses as exceptions)
Click to expand...
Pretty much none of what you said is true.
  1. Pope St. Pius V codified the Mass as it was already said in Rome at that time as the standard Roman Missal. There was very little change in Roman practice before and after the Missal was issued.
  2. Pope St. Pius V suppressed only those rites that were less than 200 years old. All older rites were untouched. But most of the world was already using Missals very similar to the Roman Missal. It was not a “radical change” for anyone.
  3. The 1970 Mass is in no way closer to the medieval Mass than the traditional Mass. Among the reasons why this is true are:
3a) The medieval Mass had a traditional offertory and used the Roman Canon. The 1970 Mass has a newly composed “preparation of the gifts” that replaces the traditional offertory and in addition to adding eucharistic prayers that have no history in the Roman Rite, modified the Roman Canon including changing the words of institution.

3b) The medieval Mass did not have edited propers, in which those topics felt to be uncomfortable for “modern man” (topic such as sin, death, judgement, hell) were systematically deleted.

3c) The medieval Mass put a great emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass and the awesome presence of God present upon the altar in the blessed sacrament. This awareness of the presence of God was so great, that medieval Catholics built screens to shield the altar from the direct view of the faithful. The 1970 Mass, on the other hand, plays down the notion of sacrifice - instead placing emphasis on the sacrificial meal, in which the fruits of the sacrifice are consumed, without actually making it clear that the Mass includes a sacrificial meal and not a social meal. This misleading aspect of the 1970 Mass has lead modern Catholics to remove anything and everything that seems to separate the altar from the faithful and even set the altar in the middle of the church and eliminate the concept of the sanctuary.
 
The_Old_Medic said:
I do not, in any way, shape or form, hate the traditions of the Church. I do not hate the Latin Mass, the Tridentine Mass, the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, the Liturgy of the Hours, or any other prayers or celebrations of the pre-Vatican II Church.

I converted into the pre-Vatican II Church. I bother lo actually learn the Latin of the Mass (both the Propers and the ordinary. I sang in Choirs at Mass, Benediction, etc from LONG before I was baptized. I love the old liturgy, and in some ways, I miss it.

BUT, I also recognize that the vast majority of the world did not understand it, could not participate in it, and that it is MUCH better to have all religious services in the language that the people can actually understand.

I VIVIDLY remember what those old Masses were like. Most people either had a glazed look in their eyes, as they went through the motions of standing, kneeling or sitting as the bells told them to do; or they buried their noses in a Missal, attempting to read their way through the Mass, and the saw nothing and participated in nothing.

The people almost NEVER sang, unless the song was “Immaculate Mary” or “Holy God We Praise Thy Name”. They did NOT sing the Latin music, including at Benediction.

They didn’t even have a clue what the Priest was saying when he gave them a blessing. It might just as well have been in Urdu, for all the people knew.

Latin was appropriate when most of the people of the church actually spoke Latin.

What I hate, what I REALLY hate are the misguided folks that are attempting to reimpose Latin on the Church. Thankfully, they are a very tiny minority, and their influence is miniscule at best. (No I don’t really hate any of you.)

The VAST majority of those advocating a return to Latin were not even alive before Vatican II. They have no memory of a Latin Mass, they just know that it is beautiful (and it is), and can not see that part of its appeal is because it is NOT the norm.

It would be a whole different thing if every Mass, every day, was in Latin again. The vast majority of Catholics in this world would revolt (and rightfully so).
Click to expand...
laszlo said:
Amen
Click to expand...
Interestingly it seems that both of you are older and you recognize that it is the young who are fighting for the traditional Mass.

I suspect your generation will lose this fight, but we’ll have to wait and see.
 
marthaferretti said:
To other traditional Catholics, do you have any theories for this hatred?
Click to expand...
Notice it didn’t take long for the thread to get a low rating ? What they don’t realize is that even one star draws attention to a thread lol. Let them click away 👍
 
Will_S said:
Interestingly it seems that both of you are older and you recognize that it is the young who are fighting for the traditional Mass.

I suspect your generation will lose this fight, but we’ll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Unlike you we saw the dark side of the Traditional Latin Mass.

The trend after 2007 for the TLM was fast growing, it slowed down considerably: less that 2% of all Masses in the US, and less then 1% worldwide. You must face the fact that an extremely low percentile of the people need the Latin and the distance from people.

With big probability there will be a widespread schism, between those who want the Mass to be a folk-feast and those who want to be the worship of God. The mass of this later group will be new form, in English speaking countries probably with Latin chant. (as the St John Cantius fathers celebrate the new form now). This perfectly unites the horizontal: toward God, and the vertical : daring the people, and represents the cross itself.
 
Hold on there folks. What lazlo says is true in a way.

One of the reasons the Mass was codified was precisely because village to village, the Mass was different due to local customs and such.

Haven’t we reverted to that with the OF ? Go to any metro area and visit several parishes. You will see differences. Some have guitars, some don’t, some have altar girls, some don’t, some stand during Communion after returning to the pews, some kneel, some have a mix of both.

Is this the wish of Rome ? Don’t think so.
 
The_Old_Medic said:
It would be a whole different thing if every Mass, every day, was in Latin again. The vast majority of Catholics in this world would revolt (and rightfully so).
Click to expand...
Wow, so fighting for the TLM is disobedient and radical, but worldwide schism for the sake of the OF is just ?

I love this. For years, trads were the bad guys. Schismatic, disobedient, radical. Now, the pope has freed the Mass of indult, and we have those among us telling us what Rome better not do ? Warning us what may happen ?

This is what’s it’s come to folks. Here it is, one of the fruits of the “spirit of VII”. Full blown division
:clapping:

I’ll take my chances with the words of Saints and Popes

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
Pope St. Pius X

“It is granted to few to recognize the true Church amid the darkness of so many schisms and heresies, and to fewer still so to love the truth which they have seen as to fly to its embrace.”
St. Robert Bellarmine

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
St. Athanasius

“The day the Church abandons her universal tongue is the day before she returns to the catacombs.”
Pope Pius XII ( I suppose this time around we’ll be running from liberal Catholics if Old Medic’s warning comes true)

“What if some novel contagion seek to infect the whole Church, and not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.”
St. Vincent of Lerins

“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
Pope St. Felix III

"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken him?”
Pope Pius XII
 
Traditional Catholicism is dark compared to Cafeteria Catholicism, but our souls are better for it imo.
 
Cider said:
Well it’s the magisterium that named the mass of Paul VI the Novus Ordo, so take it up with them. To assume that everyone that uses the shorthand NO is implying the word no is something only you can control in your mind.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It’s simply an abbreviation. Nothing more.
 
With big probability there will be a widespread schism, between those who want the Mass to be a folk-feast and those who want to be the worship of God.
Click to expand...
Yes, but theologically what’s worse, a schism or people staying away from Mass altogether (like they did in the 60’s when they were changing the Old Mass)? Remember, we’re a ecumenical church now.
it slowed down considerably: less that 2% of all Masses in the US, and less then 1% worldwide.
Click to expand...
Since most Catholics don’t even attend Mass, how is this information helpful? Do you have a better way of trying to get people back to Mass or even to church? Seems like you’re missing the big picture here of what the Church is doing by restoring the old Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top