TLM At the National Shrine

[Thomas_Casey]

Please remember to stick to the topic under discussion. Making any rude comment about the clergy, religious or the Church is not allowed. Nor should you talk about each other and disrespect each other.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[ProVobis]

It was Pope Benedict XVI who renamed the Pauline and the Tridentine masses FORMS. He wants us to understant that they are exactly the same Latin Rite mass in different forms. But intrinsically, nothing is different about them. The difference is external, not internal.

But prayer isn’t entirely external and this isn’t snow vs rain. Lex orandi lex credendi. If they lead us to different beliefs, then they can’t be the same internally. As I showed you before, Paul VI didn’t intend or make provisions for a Holy Sacrifice, not initially anyway. It’s true he later changed the definition but he didn’t change the texts so the change really didn’t have much teeth. It is no surprise, therefore to know that people don’t believe the OF is anything other than a meal. On these forums (fora) we can talk sacrifice all we want, but that’s not going to change their belief system.

 

[JReducation]

But prayer isn’t entirely external and this isn’t snow vs rain. Lex orandi lex credendi. If they lead us to different beliefs, then they can’t be the same internally. As I showed you before, Paul VI didn’t intend or make provisions for a Holy Sacrifice, not initially anyway. It’s true he later changed the definition but he didn’t change the texts so the change really didn’t have much teeth. It is no surprise, therefore to know that people don’t believe the OF is anything other than a meal. On these forums (fora) we can talk sacrifice all we want, but that’s not going to change their belief system.

I’ve never heard this said about Paul VI, but I’ll take your word for it. It’s not a catastrophic, because it does not change the Church’s teaching on the mass, which has been the same since the time of the Apostles. Paul says it best, we proclaim his death and resurrection unitl he comes again. What people choose to believe and what the Church teaches is not always going to coincide. If people read the CCC, they will see a very clear explanation of how the mass is both meal and sacrifice, because the victim offers himself as food. We can’t force people to accept this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

It does not seem right that ‘if the Ordinary approves it, it is not an abuse’. CITH started as an abuse, then got approval. It suggests there is no standard in our worship i.e. get enough people doing it, say ‘It’s the Holy Spirit at work amongst the people’ and you can get an indult.

If Jesus is present in the Host then changing a Roman Catholic diocese over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest to CITH, standing, from a laywoman makes no sense at all. Unless we laymen have become more holy, or the Host, less so.

 

[JMJ_coder]

If Jesus is present in the Host then changing a Roman Catholic diocese over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest to CITH, standing, from a laywoman makes no sense at all. Unless we laymen have become more holy, or the Host, less so.

What makes our tongue so much more holy than our hand? Indeed, we probably sin more often with our tongues than with our hands.

 

[Layman]

Symbolically, COTT, kneeling, from a priest, suggests we consider the Host very important. Sacred. Taboo.

Changing a Roman Catholic diocese over to CITH, standing, from a laywoman suggests we laymen are now more important or the Host, less so. Less sacred. Less taboo.

A Mass is full of symbolic acts and objects. It’s communal, not done alone, so outer appearances are very important. It’s a mystical rite, where sacred texts, actions, clothing, music and persons invite the Divine to grace us and they help elevate our consciousness to the Divine. Change the symbols and you change the meaning.

 

[Layman]

Let me bat the ball back to you: describe the spiritual benefits of changing a Roman Catholic diocese over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest to CITH, standing, from a laywoman.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Every Mass has Eucharistic Ministers, since every Mass has a Bishop or Priest.

If you mean an “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion” (the proper name given to them), then they are not an abuse, but something that is valid. The Pope and the Bishops – those who have the authority to regulate the Liturgy – have said that lay members of the faithful, if needed due to the large size of the crowds and the unavailability of a sufficient number of Ordinary Ministers, may be deputed to aid in the distribution of Holy Communion. This is the current law given by the divinely authorized law-givers in the Church.

Yeah, I mean the lay people giving Communion. But let me ask you this. If previous Popes before Vatican II spoke put against CITH, should we just ignore them? Pre-Vatican II Popes say it’s wrong, post-Vatican II Popes say it’s ok. They can’t both be right here. Either it’s right or it’s wrong, it can’t be both. We must go by Tradition to answer this question.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Whoah!

The Ordinary Form of the mass: let’s look at what you’re calling abuses.

COMMUNION ON THE HAND: not an abuse as long as it is approved by the local Ordinary.

EXTRAORDINARY MINISTERS OF HOLY COMMUNION: not an abuse as longs they are installed by the pastor or a major religious superior who has the same authority as a bishop, even if he’s not a bishop.

NO ALTAR: There is not such thing as a church without an altar.

NOVUS ORDO: Latin for New Order, does not mean new form of the mass. Order is an ancient word in the Roman Church. It is used to mean rule. That’s why we call some religious communities, religious orders, because they follow a rule. Those that do not have a rule, because they were never given one, are called religious congregations. The Sacrament of Holy Orders is called such, because each rank of the sacrament has rules and functions that are proper to that rank. A bishop is called an Ordinary because he sets the rules of his diocese. A religious superior of men is called an Ordinary, because he sets the rules for his brothers. The liturgical guide is called the Ordo, because it give you the rules for the LIturgy of the Hours and the Liturgy of the Mass. Novus ordo was a Latin phrase that means the new rules for the mass.

It was Pope Benedict XVI who renamed the Pauline and the Tridentine masses FORMS. He wants us to understant that they are exactly the same Latin Rite mass in different forms. But intrinsically, nothing is different about them. The difference is external, not internal. Unlike the the rites. They are different externally and internally. The Latin Rite and the Melchite are not the same externally. We can see the differences. They are not the same internally either. The hidden things such as the prayers of the priest, the canon, the liturgical calendar and even the words of the Creed are different. Most Eastern Rites do not have the Filioque. They can use it, but do not have to do so. There are so many internal differences and external differences between the Eastern Catholics and the Roman Catholics as to make them different rites. Even among the Eastern Catholics there are five rites. In the Roman Catholic Church there are four rites and five traditions.

Within the Latin Rite or the Tridentine mass, there were traditions:

Franciscan, Carmelite, Benedictine, Augustinian,and Roman. Each of them had variations.

Among the Franciscans you did not have kneelers, because we always stood during the canon. Communion on your knees was up to the superior of the house to decide. You never used Gregorian chant, because it was forbidden by St. Francis. It was introduced by Vatican II. You never had a distinction betwee the priest and the non ordained. It was forbidden by St. Benedict and by St. Francis. In Franciscan houses the altar was in the center of the sanctuary, but there were choir stalls on either side of the sanctuary so that all the friars were on the sanctuary at the same time. The laity sat on the pews facing the altar. The priest celebrated with his back to the laity, but the friars were looking at him sideways. It was only the chapels after Vatican II that took the choir stalls out of the sanctuary.

If you ask the Carmelites they’ll tell you about what they did in their houses that was different from what the laity saw in the parish. The problem here is that the laity often thinks that the Tridentine mass was homogenious. That is not the case. There was one way of celebrating it when lay people were present and another when it was only religious men present. When only religious men were present, whether they were priests or brothers, the rules that governed were the rules of the order. This was approved by Pope Innocent III who erected the exempt orders. These orders were exempt from many of the changes made to the mass by Trent and Pius V. They still enjoy exemptions today.

You have to be very careful to tell people that the EF is not as consistent as they think. It was never so uniform as to not have variation. It was never the only form of the mass celebrated in the Roman Church, even in parishes. If you had a parish run by Dominicans, you did not have the traditional Latin Rite mass at that parish. You had the Dominican Rite at that parish. The differences were small, but there were differences. St. Dominic built them in to protect his friars from creating a distinction between the friars who were priests and the friars who were lay. Mendicants have always avoided this distinction. This distinction was introduced in the late 1800s. It was accidental, not intentional.

Let’s keep it honest. We cannot prove or win an argument by telling people only part of the story. Yes, there were many abuses in committed by priests who celebrated the Tridentine mass. The biggest abuse or disrespect was racing through it. In some rectories they had running jokes about which priest could get through the morning mass the fastest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

CITH is an abuse. The early Church before Pius V realized that and stopped doing it. So are lay people giving Communion. There are indeed Churches without altars. They’re called altars but they are really tables. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Church you go to has a table instead of an altar. As for the Last Supper thing, saying the NO is a celebration of the Last Supper is NOT a heresy. Read the post ProVobis made. Paul VI was aware it was a Last Supper Mass and wasn’t afraid to admit it. I also would like you to elaborate on your comment about the TLM not being consistant. I didn’t get what you were saying there.

 

[Lujack]

CITH is an abuse. The early Church before Pius V realized that and stopped doing it. So are lay people giving Communion. There are indeed Churches without altars. They’re called altars but they are really tables. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Church you go to has a table instead of an altar. As for the Last Supper thing, saying the NO is a celebration of the Last Supper is NOT a heresy. Read the post ProVobis made. Paul VI was aware it was a Last Supper Mass and wasn’t afraid to admit it. I also would like you to elaborate on your comment about the TLM not being consistant. I didn’t get what you were saying there.

So what makes it a table and not an altar?

 

[JReducation]

CITH is an abuse. The early Church before Pius V realized that and stopped doing it.

Pius V stopped it only for Roman Catholics. He did not stop it for the entire Church The other 22 Catholic Churches were allowed to make their own rules on this matter. It was stopped among Roman Catholics because of the abuses, not that the communion in the hnad was an abuse. If that had been the case, it would have been stopped for the entire Catholic Church (all 23 Churches).

People were taking the hosts home and no one knew if they were adoring it or using it for witch-craft or whatever ungodly reason. There was no monitoring. This was stopped. But since the problem only existed in the Roman Church, the other Churches were allowed to continue with the practice unless the patriarchs decided against it.

There are indeed Churches without altars. They’re called altars but they are really tables.

The criteria for an altar has never changed. It must be blessed. It can be consecrated, but that’s not unecessary. It must be secure so that it does not collapse. It must have a flat surface. It can have relics in a stone or within the construction, but these are not necessary. It’s a tradition that most Catholic churches still apply. The altar can be moveable, such as the altars that the popes use when they celebrate mass in the open. Certain religious orders are also allowed to use foldable altars. They can fold and be carried in a bag. They are blessed, just like the altar in a church. This has been done since the 1500s when the first missionaries started traveling to the Americas. They carried boards that they had blessed for the purpose of saying mass. Today we put hinges on them so they can be folded in half and slip into a bag. According to canon law, these are all altars of sacrfice.

I

wouldn’t be surprised if the Church you go to has a table instead of an altar.

Actually, I live in a friary. We have a very different setup than what you would see in a parish. Our chapels follow the traditions of our order, just like the chapels of other orders of men.

As for the Last Supper thing, saying the NO is a celebration of the Last Supper is NOT a heresy. Read the post ProVobis made. Paul VI was aware it was a Last Supper Mass and wasn’t afraid to admit it.

That’s not the part that’s a heresy. The part that would be a heresy would be to deny that it is also a sacrifice, which Paul VI never denied. Just because he didn’t write it down, doesn’t mean that he denied it.

I also would like you to elaborate on your comment about the TLM not being consistant. I didn’t get what you were saying there.

As I explained above, it was not celebrated the same way in every church in the world. The uniformity was only for the laity. In religious houses of men there were different traditions that were allowed that the laity never saw, becauase they were not allowed inside the house.

Just some quick examples:

Capuchin Franciscans never had altar rails. They stood for the Canon and communion.

None of the Franciscan branches chanted Gregorian Chant. It was forbidden by St. Francis.

Francisan chapels did not have kneelers.

Most friaries and priories did not have sanctuary. The chapel was considered holy ground. They had choir stalls on borth sides of the altar so that you were looking at the priest from the side, not from behind.

Benedictines never had the tabernacle on the main altar or in the monastery church. It was always in another space called the choir.

Franciscans were the only ones who had tabernacles on the main altar. This was a practice that was spread through Europe by them. Later it was adopted by many parishes. Once it became common practice, it then became a law. There was no uniform rule here until later and there were people who were excused from it, such as monks.

The religious orders, not the religious congregations, only the orders, were allowed to have their own missal, lectionary, breviary and liturgical calendar from the 13th century to this day. Pope Innocent III made this law because the bishops wanted the religious to follow the Church’s calendar which meant using the readings, prayers and Divine Office of the Day. They said different prayers and had different readings at mass on those days that are holy days for the order, but not for the Church. They wore the color that their calendar required, not the same color as the rest of the Church.

For example a Carmelite celebrating the EF for the Feast of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, would not celebrate a feast day, he would celebrate it as a Solemnity with all of the parts of a solemn high mass. He cannot celebrate a low mass on that day. Everyone else can, because it’s not a solemnity for us. On the October 4, Franciscans celebrate the Solemnity of St. Francis begining wit the Transitus on October 3. It’s like the Easter triduum. If you use the EF, you must use the rites for a solemn high mass. The rest of the Church has a low mass, because it’s not a major holy day for the Church.

There are options and diversity granted to religious orders that the laity did not see until the religious orders began to taken on parishes in the late 1800s and early 1900s. We didn’t run parishes before this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

Well, JrEd, you keep telling us about variations that the religious orders have had. Fine. We are laymen. We wouldn’t normally experience them, I think, but we live in abnormal times.

Would you concede that the changes to the Roman Catholic rite, taken all together, in a narrow window of time, and their nature, represent a dramatic shift way from the sacred and towards the mundane, in terms of symbolism?

 

[JReducation]

Well, JrEd, you keep telling us about variations that the religious orders have had. Fine. We are laymen. We wouldn’t normally experience them, I think, but we live in abnormal times.

Let me speak to this point first, because it is important. It is true that the laity makes up the largest number of Roman Catholics. The reason that I bring up the orders is to dispel the myth that the Tridentine mass was uniform. It was never uniform. The Church did not have a problem with the variations. A better way of saying it is that it was uniform for secular clergy and congregations. Since most parishes are run by either secular clergy or congregations, very few Catholics would have come into contact with the way that the order celebrated the mass. It was not uniform, but it was fairly consistent. That’s a fair statement.

Would you concede that the changes to the Roman Catholic rite, taken all together, in a narrow window of time, and their nature, represent a dramatic shift way from the sacred and towards the mundane, in terms of symbolism?

I like the phrase “narrow window.” I think that the changes were too fast. It should have been planned out over a period of five to 10 years with proper catechesis for the laity and proper liturgical formation for the clergy. This did not happen. People got a memo and a book and told to begin. That was the worse management decision that was ever made. I have no idea if this was from the Vatican of if bishops just sent out the memos and new books without prep time. But someone dropped the ball.

The shift was not from the sacred to the mundane. The mundane was slipped in there by individuals. If we read the GIRM and the original documents by the Council one walks away with a feeling that the shift was from the “rich” to the “austere”. Both are very valid and very good. Some people thrive in a very rich liturgical enviornment. Other people, such as me, like the rich liturgical enviornment on special occassions. But I thrive on the simple and austere. When the Ordinary Form (OF) is celebrated according to the rubrics, it is very austere, but there is a beauty in that austerity. The rituals are very simple. The sanctuary, vestments and prayers are very simple, but you can put a great deal of solemnity and reverence into the simple just as you can into the rich. You can also do the rich without the solemnity and reverence so that it comes out looking like pageantry, rather than liturgy.

The extremes to be avoided are the pageantry and the mundane. In their purest state the two forms actually complement each other, because the spiritual life is both very rich and very austere at the same time. Look at the saints. There are the great doctors and thinkers. Then there are the noble simple workers. Thomas Aquians vs Mother Teresa. Aquinas is rich and Mother is austere.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Would you concede that the changes to the Roman Catholic rite, taken all together, in a narrow window of time, and their nature, represent a dramatic shift way from the sacred and towards the mundane, in terms of symbolism?

This is a perfect example of why I have such a problem with this “debate”

The only Mass I know is the Mass of Paul VI (OF).
I do not find it mundane, nor do I find it to be irreverant.
I will admit that there are times when abuses happen, but they have nothing to do with the Mass itself, it has to do with the HUMAN BEINGS who think that they can re-invent the wheel, and that all of life has to be FAIR!

When I read and hear such disparaging remarks about the OF, and those who prefer it, it literally makes my blood boil!

We are supposed to be ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC CHURCH!
BXVI has said that both forms are valid, and that BOTH are considered the “true sacrifice” of the Mass. And to be quite honest, I will take the word of the Holy Father over anyone else, for he is the "ultimate authority" in regards to these matters and if you don’t believe that then you cannot, IMHO, call yourself a Roman Catholic!

If you prefer the EF and have it available in your community go!
If it is not available, find some like minded people and approach your Pastor about getting one. Or work with others in your dioceses to get a stable group together, but ***DO NOT ***tell me that the Mass that I love is evil, the work of the devil, not valid, etc, etc, etc

 

[JReducation]

This is a perfect example of why I have such a problem with this “debate”

The only Mass I know is the Mass of Paul VI (OF).
I do not find it mundane, nor do I find it to be irreverant.
I will admit that there are times when abuses happen, but they have nothing to do with the Mass itself, it has to do with the HUMAN BEINGS who think that they can re-invent the wheel, and that all of life has to be FAIR!

When I read and hear such disparaging remarks about the OF, and those who prefer it, it literally makes my blood boil!

We are supposed to be ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC CHURCH!
BXVI has said that both forms are valid, and that BOTH are considered the “true sacrifice” of the Mass. And to be quite honest, I will take the word of the Holy Father over anyone else, for he is the "ultimate authority" in regards to these matters and if you don’t believe that then you cannot, IMHO, call yourself a Roman Catholic!

If you prefer the EF and have it available in your community go!
If it is not available, find some like minded people and approach your Pastor about getting one. Or work with others in your dioceses to get a stable group together, but ***DO NOT ***tell me that the Mass that I love is evil, the work of the devil, not valid, etc, etc, etc

I understand your frustration and possibly anger. All of us must be very careful of not falling into spiritual arrogance. “My mass is holier than your mass” certainly comes across as spiritual arrogance. I’m suddenly reminded of religious orders. From the Middle Ages to the late 1500s (about 300 years) religious orders had this rivalry between them. My order is better than your order. We’re poorer than you are. We’re smarter than you are and so forth. The end result was division, scandal, pain, and spiritual crisis. We lost thousands of religious men to the Protestant Reformation because of the internal bickering and spiritual arrogance. We learned a very hard lesson by a very hard way.

Today, we compare charisms and we try to complement each other. The Jesuits are better educators than the Franciscans. Let them run universities. The Franciscans have a greater commitment to poverty, let them live on the streetts and care for the homeless, while you let the secular priests run parishes, because they do not live a religiuos life so the work of the parish is not an intrussion on their lives as it is on the religiuos. The list goes on and one… There is alwasy a search for the good that the other brings to the Church.

I’m reminded of this sad chapter in the history of religious life and I wonder if the time is going to come when those who prefer the EF and those who prefer the OF will ever be able to do what the religiuos have learned, see the charism of each form and the good that it contributes to the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

I have simply stated facts about what’s happened to the rite. I think in 100 years Catholics will look back on this period as aberrant.

It’s the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Well, what’s holy about removing this text from the Mass, for example:

P: Cleanse my heart and my lips, O almighty God, Who didst cleanse with a burning coal the lips of the prophet Isaias; and vouchsafe in Thy loving kindness so to purify me that I may be enabled worthily to announce Thy holy Gospel. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

or this:

[The priest returns to the middle of the altar and bowing slightly, says:]

P: Receive, O holy Trinity, this oblation offered up by us to Thee in memory of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honor of blessed Mary, ever a virgin, of blessed John the Baptist, of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, of these, and of all the saints, that it may be available to their honor and to our salvation; and may they whose memory we celebrate on earth vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

or change this:

FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY SHALL BE SHED UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.

P: As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in memory of Me.

to this:

THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT, IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL MEN SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.

P: Do this in memory of me.

Or banning Latin, so now we have a babel of Masses? Not very unifying. The universality of language has gone.

The last quote above is strange. A cut down version of the original and a mis-translation. You’d think people who spent six years in a seminary could do better.

 

[JReducation]

I have simply stated facts about what’s happened to the rite. I think in 100 years Catholics will look back on this period as aberrant.

It’s the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Well, what’s holy about removing this text from the Mass, for example:

or this:

or change this:

to this:

Or banning Latin, so now we have a babel of Masses? Not very unifying. The universality of language has gone.

The last quote above is strange. A cut down version of the original and a mis-translation. You’d think people who spent six years in a seminary could do better.

Let’s not confuse apples and oranges. The Church has never been unified by her prayers or by her language. There are three Latin Rites and five Eastern Rites. There are 22 Catholic Churches that make up the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

These churches and rites have had diversity in their prayers, their languages, their rituals, even differences between the Roman Canon and the Eastern Anaphoras. Even the words of consecration are not the same for all the apostolic Churches, but they are valid.

Our unity is our communion with Christ which is made visible by our communion with his Vicar on earth and his bishops in every diocese where we live.

Our externals are sign of our unity, but they are diverse and have always been diverse. Our languages have alwasy been diverse. The entire Catholic Church does not use Latin. Latin has never been forbidden. I go to mass in Latin daily and it’s OF. Franciscans use a blend of Latin and local language. Some communities do everything in the local language and others in Latin.

However, other Catholics use Greek, Russian, Ruthuanian and Syriac. But they are fully Catholic and in full commion with the one Church.

For example, there are three anaphoras in the Syrian Church. There is another Anaphora in the Addai Mari. The Addai Mari do not say the words of consecration. However, the Church says that the anaphora is valid and the Eucharist is truly confected.

**The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision. **

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

Our unity as one church is through Christ and the apostolic tradition, not language and rites. We have never had one single language or one single way of celebrating the mass in the Catholic Church. Each Catholic Church has its language and there are three Western Rites and five Eastern Rites, but the one holy catholic and apostolic Church is made up of 22 Catholic Churches. This one Church is made up of 22 Churches in commion through sacraments, faith, apostolic succession, union with the bishops and union with the pope.

The points that you’re making are not essential to the unity of the Church. The words of consecration are the same for almost all of the Catholic Churches. The variations depend on the translation. In English we have mistranslation. We have “for all” where it should say “for the many”. But that only exists in English It’s correct in other languages It has been corrected in the new English missal that’s coming in 2011. I believe it may be for Advent.

This does not include the Orthodox Christians who are also in communion with us throug the sacraments and the apostles, although we are not in communion through Peter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[dmorgan]

Br, JR ,it is not simply the changes between the two Rites that concern myself and other Traditional Catholics, it is articles like this:
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-bug.htm
When I research these and other articles, and read the books and read the Documents availible at the Vatican archive site I have to ask myself, are these just the ramblings of disconcerted individuals or has Holy Mother Church been infiltrated? There are more than a few documents from religious and observers who attended the Vatican II conclaves that support these claims.
As a Religious, please tell me how one is to discern between the arguments supporting the changes and the sense of tradgedy at the loss of the Sacredness many of us feel when we see the state of the Church today? I ask this sincerely, I really am attempting to discern the truth behind what is occuring within the Church. In my 54 years I have seen a continual slide from Catholic faith to "c"atholic faith, from Sacred Liturgy to weekly get-together, from A Church community joined in Sacred Tradition and Holiness to just a social event,and I find it frightening. Thank you for your answer

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

So what makes it a table and not an altar?

Altars are supposed to have altar stones. Altar stones contain relics of saints. A table at a Novus Ordo Mass does not have an altar stone. Not to mention at a Novus Ordo Mass it’s just sitting in the very middle and isn’t up against a wall like it’s supposed to be. And when you have the lay people up there and the priest facing the people more you know it resembles a meal more than anything. You can certainly tell the difference.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

This is a perfect example of why I have such a problem with this “debate”

The only Mass I know is the Mass of Paul VI (OF).
I do not find it mundane, nor do I find it to be irreverant.
I will admit that there are times when abuses happen, but they have nothing to do with the Mass itself, it has to do with the HUMAN BEINGS who think that they can re-invent the wheel, and that all of life has to be FAIR!

When I read and hear such disparaging remarks about the OF, and those who prefer it, it literally makes my blood boil!

We are supposed to be ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC CHURCH!
BXVI has said that both forms are valid, and that BOTH are considered the “true sacrifice” of the Mass. And to be quite honest, I will take the word of the Holy Father over anyone else, for he is the "ultimate authority" in regards to these matters and if you don’t believe that then you cannot, IMHO, call yourself a Roman Catholic!

If you prefer the EF and have it available in your community go!
If it is not available, find some like minded people and approach your Pastor about getting one. Or work with others in your dioceses to get a stable group together, but ***DO NOT ***tell me that the Mass that I love is evil, the work of the devil, not valid, etc, etc, etc

The Novus Ordo is a valid Mass (although some question it’s validity) but validity isn’t all that matters. The Mass emerged from Vatican II, a Council that was in much question. Traditional Catholics aren’t trying to shoot you down for attending the NO, they’re trying to say what Archbishop LeFebvre and the SSPX have been saying all along. Traditionals still have respect for the Pope, but you’re allowed to dis-agree with him if his views are not Traditional. That’s not to say Traditional Catholics dis-agree with him on everything, but to say no Mass is better than the other is false. It doesn’t make any Traditional a non-Catholic, nor does it make them a sedevacanist. We’re just voicing our opinion. This is, after all, the Traditional section so Traditional Catholics really have more of a right to post on this section than anyone else. Our intent isn’t to offend people. I assure you that.

God Bless.