Traditionalizing our OF Mass

[archangel04]

I don’t agree with any of those…I support Church teaching on all those. I don’t pick and choose and yet there are those on the traditionalist side who seem to ignore what the Church does say…they seem to pick and choose…and think that they know better then the Church…go read post #93.

Post # 93 says: *“I don’t know what spirit of Revolution makes people insist that the priest show his back to God through the Mass, and that our Lord’s Body is to be passed out to unconsecrated hands. It makes me sad, though, and angry.” *

This is a HUGE difference between someone who disagrees with a certain form or practice, compared to a Dogmatic, or morally teaching of the Church. Did I mention that YOU don’t follow the teachings that I stated on my post? No, I was merely pointing out to Luger that he stated that some traditionalist disagree with certain forms of worship, like priest facing the people, COTH, or altar-girls, these are ok disagreements, and do not compare to some of the disagreements other catholics have with the Church like abortion or Papal infallibility. Statistically showing most of these “catholics” who disagree with these essential teaching attend the OF (if ever), most traditionalist even schismatic’s would disagree with abortion, contraception, or Papal infallibility (except for schismatic in this case). I do not blame the OF for these type of catholics, but I there is something wrong in our Church when all this creeps into out catechesis.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I did not see anything necessarily wrong with that post. Maybe the manner of expressing the opinion could have been tweaked, but, he does raise some valid points.

Ad Orientem is valid. In fact, Pope Benedict has always supported this posture for use in the Mass. Since St. Peter’s is oriented towards the East, he automatically assumes that posture. When he celebrates Mass in his chapel, he uses this posture. His personal secretary, Msgr. Georg Ganswein, also uses this posture. In fact, he employed it when he celebrated his Silver Jubilee Mass back in Germany earlier this year.

Ad Orientem was never done away with by the Church. The CDWDS has consistently supported this posture to the point of having to send letters to the bishops to remind them that this is a valid posture. The priest is not turning his back to the people; rather, he is leading us in prayer to God. That is actually how Moses prayed.

The OP’s pastor wants to use that. He is excercising a legitimate option. He is also helping to orient the faithful in the proper direction of prayer by turning towards the Lord.

Ah…but the OP did not say that the priest wanted to use that…he said traditionalize the OF Mass a little more. Correct me if I’m wrong…if the priest had wanted to do that–he could do it now…couldn’t he? Wouldn’t he have already done so? Now everyone is talking about ad orientem, COT and kneeling ONLY, ect… This is where people can get suspicious of a traditionalist agenda…or what they perceive as such. I would be equally in arms if someone said we shouldn’t allow people to kneel for communion. Do we know what others at the parish think? I personally think the OP could be headed for disaster if he tries to ramrod through an agenda.

It also is going to matter if the OP is coming from a charitable position or not. Clearly that other poster was not…“I don’t know what spirit of Revolution makes people insist that the priest show his back to God through the Mass, and that our Lord’s Body is to be passed out to unconsecrated hands. It makes me sad, though, and angry” Well…the church has spoken on it…so…what…other people can question that but dare to question ONLY kneeling for communion or ONLY ad Orientem and now you are a liberal nut job?

I know all the arguements about ad Orientem…yes…a valid position. But if I wanted that I would go to the TLM Mass. Did you not say “It was his intent that both the EF and the OF mutually benefit each other.?” Which I liked…mutually benefit each other…not replace each other.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Post # 93 says: *“I don’t know what spirit of Revolution makes people insist that the priest show his back to God through the Mass, and that our Lord’s Body is to be passed out to unconsecrated hands. It makes me sad, though, and angry.” *

This is a HUGE difference between someone who disagrees with a certain form or practice, compared to a Dogmatic, or morally teaching of the Church. Did I mention that YOU don’t follow the teachings that I stated on my post? No, I was merely pointing out to Luger that he stated that some traditionalist disagree with certain forms of worship, like priest facing the people, COTH, or altar-girls, these are ok disagreements, and do not compare to some of the disagreements other catholics have with the Church like abortion or Papal infallibility. Statistically showing most of these “catholics” who disagree with these essential teaching attend the OF (if ever), most traditionalist even schismatic’s would disagree with abortion, contraception, or Papal infallibility (except for schismatic in this case). I do not blame the OF for these type of catholics, but I there is something wrong in our Church when all this creeps into out catechesis.

Ah…but it seems that if a traditionalist disagrees with them…well, they are just pious…where if another Catholic is fine with them and even may like them…like the priest facing the people…well some people label you a liberal cafeteria Catholic…I’m just saying that is not necessarily true.

Age old question…In TODAY’s world…not back in the past…lots of things were different in the past…but in TODAY’s world…if the Catholic Church had only one Mass and it was traditional…do you really think we would have no Catholics that disagree with Church teaching? I’m not sure that there is an easy answer to this. Lots of things are different in this world then they were before Vatican II…no? Would anyone back then have even discussed gay “marriage”?

Besides…we are ALL called to be the Body of Christ…no?

 

[StevenDunn]

Ah…but the OP did not say that the priest wanted to use that…he said traditionalize the OF Mass a little more. Correct me if I’m wrong…if the priest had wanted to do that–he could do it now…couldn’t he? Wouldn’t he have already done so?

In a parish situation it’s never that easy. The priest can’t do whatever he wants. He’s bound by the pastoral realities of his situation. My priest is not opposed to it, but he has to avoid upsetting people who don’t understand. He also has no interest in saying Mass that way all the time, as his duty is to serve the entire congregation, and many of them(I’d guess about half) wouldn’t like it.

Now everyone is talking about ad orientem, COT and kneeling ONLY, ect… This is where people can get suspicious of a traditionalist agenda…or what they perceive as such. I would be equally in arms if someone said we shouldn’t allow people to kneel for communion. Do we know what others at the parish think? I personally think the OP could be headed for disaster if he tries to ramrod through an agenda.

I’ve repeatedly said(and I think in response to one of your earlier posts) that we have no intention of going to COT or kneeling only, as we have no authority to make such a change. To do so would be to overstep our bounds. We’re trying to do our best within the acceptable limits of the OF. Which is why I’m still surprised at the hostile attitude some have taken about this.

It also is going to matter if the OP is coming from a charitable position or not. Clearly that other poster was not…“I don’t know what spirit of Revolution makes people insist that the priest show his back to God through the Mass, and that our Lord’s Body is to be passed out to unconsecrated hands. It makes me sad, though, and angry” Well…the church has spoken on it…so…what…other people can question that but dare to question ONLY kneeling for communion or ONLY ad Orientem and now you are a liberal nut job?

I’m not some random guy trying to force changes on my parish. I was specifically asked to do this, with the consent of my priest. I mentioned that at or near the beginning of this thread.

I know all the arguements about ad Orientem…yes…a valid position. But if I wanted that I would go to the TLM Mass. Did you not say “It was his intent that both the EF and the OF mutually benefit each other.?” Which I liked…mutually benefit each other…not replace each other.

You are incorrect here. Versus populum was never intended to be a part of the NO Mass, but emerged as a liturgical abuse early on.

 

[Luger]

Choosing to include the approved options for the celebration of the OF Mass is not a matter of making the OF Mass more “traditional.” It’s about making it more solemn.

“Traditionalists” would like to make others believe that everything that is solemn (or at least what they perceive as being solemn) is “traditional” and that’s just a bunch of malarkey. Sadly I do think that’s one reason why some get turned off by elements of solemnity. Those that push elements of solemnity often do so under the banner of “traditionalism” and that’s a huge turn-off to many.

Some also get so fixated on adding things that they become a detriment the celebration of the Mass. It’s no longer about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It becomes a drive to somehow get the celebrant to wear a maniple or force everyone to receive on the tongue. On the other hand many “traditionalists” would be loathe to include other solemn elements (such as offering the cup to the laity) because it does not fit their personal definitions of what is “traditional.” Legitimate solemn elements (let’s say the use of incense or perhaps a beautiful Book of Gospels) should not be co-mingled with the cravings of some “traditionalists” (such as abolishing CIH or communion while standing.)

Finis.

 

[Luger]

Post # 93 says: *“I don’t know what spirit of Revolution makes people insist that the priest show his back to God through the Mass, and that our Lord’s Body is to be passed out to unconsecrated hands. It makes me sad, though, and angry.” *

This is a HUGE difference between someone who disagrees with a certain form or practice, compared to a Dogmatic, or morally teaching of the Church. Did I mention that YOU don’t follow the teachings that I stated on my post? No, I was merely pointing out to Luger that he stated that some traditionalist disagree with certain forms of worship, like priest facing the people, COTH, or altar-girls, these are ok disagreements, and do not compare to some of the disagreements other catholics have with the Church like abortion or Papal infallibility. Statistically showing most of these “catholics” who disagree with these essential teaching attend the OF (if ever), most traditionalist even schismatic’s would disagree with abortion, contraception, or Papal infallibility (except for schismatic in this case). I do not blame the OF for these type of catholics, but I there is something wrong in our Church when all this creeps into out catechesis.

There is also a HUGE difference between someone who quietly chooses to receive communion on their tongue and someone who publicly proclaims that communion in hand is an abomination.

 

[Luger]

As I’ve already posted, I’m not a fan of reactionary traditionalism. I think many of the traditionalists one encounters online have views that are indefensible. Which you would know if you took the time to actually read what I’ve written instead of putting traditionalist in scare quotes and talking to me like I’m the strawman you’ve envisioned.

I’m also not a fan of those, like yourself, that think they can pick and choose from the tradition as it suits them without any sense of the actual historical development of the Church. That’s cafeteria Catholicism, as well.

At least you didn’t use the term “organic.”

 

[stephraim]

Choosing to include the approved options for the celebration of the OF Mass is not a matter of making the OF Mass more “traditional.” It’s about making it more solemn.

“Traditionalists” would like to make others believe that everything that is solemn (or at least what they perceive as being solemn) is “traditional” and that’s just a bunch of malarkey. Sadly I do think that’s one reason why some get turned off by elements of solemnity. Those that push elements of solemnity often do so under the banner of “traditionalism” and that’s a huge turn-off to many.

But most of the solemn options are traditional.

Some also get so fixated on adding things that they become a detriment the celebration of the Mass. It’s no longer about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It becomes a drive to somehow get the celebrant to wear a maniple or force everyone to receive on the tongue. On the other hand many “traditionalists” would be loathe to include other solemn elements (such as offering the cup to the laity) because it does not fit their personal definitions of what is “traditional.” Legitimate solemn elements (let’s say the use of incense or perhaps a beautiful Book of Gospels) should not be co-mingled with the cravings of some “traditionalists” (such as abolishing CIH or communion while standing.)

I’ve never said we should abolish CIH or while standing, but those legitimate solemn options do stem from tradition. I like the use of the cup, though I accept the teaching of Trent (not to do so would be cafeteria Catholicism). I also believe that many of us who advocate making the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass more solemn with traditional elements do so to better bring to the senses the incredible gift Our Lord established. It’s also about ecumenism with our Eastern and Oriental Catholic brethren (and separated brethren). Every Divine Liturgy is solemn, including all those traditional elements such as incense. It might also be a way to reach out ecumenically to groups like the SSPX and traditional Anglicans.

I like to relate it to dressing up for Mass. Why go to Mass in shorts and tank tops when the greatest of mysteries is unfolding before us? Would you not rather wear something more dignified? In the same vein, why not make the Mass more solemn by adding these traditional (because face it, everything I’ve mentioned – incense, Gospel books, altar candles and crucifix – is traditional, dating at least 500 years) elements? Yes, I’m well aware that the Holy Sacrifice is amazing with or without the elements of solemnity, yet it’s like St. Francis’ attempts to always procure the most elegant, pure, rich and ornate articles for liturgical use: even though he himself vowed poverty and lived that way, he desired that churches use only elements worthy of the dignity of the Sacrament.