J
Jacafamala
Guest
Oh, when my husband gets home tonight I’ll tell him that we must move to Chicago.
Now that is a very lovely parish. Thank you for sharing.Edited to add: a big improvement over the “Modernist Horror” church, yes?
- Status
Now that is a very lovely parish. Thank you for sharing.Edited to add: a big improvement over the “Modernist Horror” church, yes?
R
RyanML
Guest
My sentiments exactly ! 
A
Antonius_Lupus
Guest
Thank you brother. I really needed to hear those words!
P
PrayforMallory2
Guest
I love how one little fragment of a record supposedly historically legitimizes the Mass of Paul VI. I’ve read the original and I don’t find a basis for altar girls, eucharistic ministers, broadway show tunes, etc…
We really, really, really, have to get past this early church mania present in Christian culture nowadays. The medieval developments happened for a reason. As a matter of fact, the Middle Ages were when Christianity had most deeply penetrated thought and society. We either need to come to grips with it, or give up Christianity, because 1,000 years of Christian culture can’t just be excised on a whim, papal or otherwise. It’s not only against theology, due to the fact that the majority of it was formally defined during those centuries, it’s against history in that those centuries provide the historical basis for even secular Western trends. Furthermore, it’s against reason, to somehow discredit the Church of 1,000 years, for some artificial renewal that did not happen. Bugnini was wrong when he believed there would be renewal. He was wrong.
If we’re going to go ga ga over the writings of Justin Martyr, and artificially imbue them with more credibility than any other saints’ opinions on liturgy, I’d love to see a return to Early Church penitential practices, just to help complete the set. Then maybe people would come to grips with their archaeologism. Hey. Why not go all the way? Why not forbid women and men to sit together in Church? If it predates Constantine, it must be good!
Hey! We could change the Creed itself! Take out all the elements that dealt with the heresies over the years. We want it just like the first Mass ever said ever!The Old Mass was formed with truth foremost in the minds of reformers. There was no attempt to cloud any “hard” teachings, no attempt to whitewash anything. The reason that the Modernists’ Masses are so banal and ugly is that they have a warped view of human nature, which is the core of Modernist philosophy. They believe that humanity underwent a qualitative change with the advent of “modernity,” that man had become “adult,” and that all these ritual symbolic actions, all the art styles, the music, etc., were no longer necessary because of humanity’s advanced state. Of course, we know now that they were wrong. It was evident they were wrong at the time. Hell, even know in the field of history, we know full well that modernist philosophical constructs about the nature of man were a load. Don’t buy into the idea that aesthetics don’t matter. They matter as much as anything else, because anthropologically speaking, they have a psychological impact on worshippers that aids us in conforming ourselves to dogma, instead of attempting to conform dogma to ourselves, which is the perspective that the symbolism of the New Mass has produced in the West (in other regions it has been the exact opposite). It would have been one thing if they had stuck to the texts, kept it in Latin, ad orientem, etc, but they didn’t. They believed we no longer needed all that “outdated stuff,” when humanity needs it in every age.
P
PrayforMallory2
Guest
If Catholics always stuck to the party line, then our Church would have stopped developing after the end of the Gospels. Ultramontanism means a mind that has been shut off. It’s a reaction to the fact that the intellectual momentum of the last 300 years has largely been with enemies of the Catholic faith. This sort of Ultramontanism wasn’t present in Thomas Aquinas’ day. With the rise of traditionalism, and the degeneration of liberal “Catholicism” into a Southpark-esque parody, I don’t think the fervor of past ultramontanists is necessary. If St. Ignatius had followed that path, we would have never had the Jesuits
They have had powerful effects. They have severed the Christian life from the cognitive aspects of the Christian religion. They are emotional shows, that captivate simple minds, and not much else. It’s just false religious therapy. Those elements are fads that will die out like all fads, ending in disillusionment .
No! This stuff is a scourge. It separates faith from reason, emotion from cognition. I went to this same kind of thing as a teen, and trust me, it was all about scoring girls. That’s it. Humanly speaking, sooner or later, the adults are just going to have to realize that teens are going to be teens, just like they were, and that minimizing religion into a few little sentimental ballads isn’t going to effect the kind of social change that is needed for the survival of Christianity as a viable alternative to secularism.
The heart of Christianity is Christ, as you said, but it’s lifeblood is dogma, which was codified and best presented in the aspects of the faith you listed above. The contemporary (and Vat II era) drives to change dogma are directly related to the desire to change the liturgy. Some of the theologians at the council even wanted to do away with Papal Infallibility! Don’t be ashamed. Your initial post was due to a real problem, which is the banalization and decline of Christianity in our society.
It sounds as though he’s been leading you to tradition, which I believe he is currently raising up to save the dogmas and liturgy of the Church from those that would destroy them.
You just need to find a Tridentine Mass or Divine Liturgy near you. Once you do, all of these problems seem like a bad dream. The mainstream just starts to appear almost “goofy” by comparison.
I wrote all of this not to bust you out, but to show you that you haven’t said anything that you need to regret. Your original post was genuine and praiseworthy. There is nothing you need to recant.
Stand fast!
F
fbl9
Guest
hi PrayforMallory2:Standfast to what? i ask.>>>is not the main reason we go to mass is the Eucharist?when i quiered certain well known TLM supporters,they responded that the Eucharist is valid in the" Pauline " mass.therefore the "Pauline"mass is proper.in my old ways.i could have easily attended a latin mass and a “Pauline” mass with the same self important ,arrogant ,sinning attitude i had and niether would have made any difference…by the grace of God i now give my whole to whorship and adoration at mass even if it is a “pauline” mass.
C
Cinette
Guest
Thank you for this post. I wish the moderators would copy this, word for word, on the other forums - especially on “Modernist Horror” and the other one on Vatican II.
You have the questions and the answers as well.
God bless you:yup:
P
PrayforMallory2
Guest
Of course the main purpose of the Mass is the Eucharist. And of course the Eucharist is valid at a Pauline Mass.
When I said, “Stand Fast,” I meant stand fast to the traditional doctrine, to the ritual forms that defend and proclaim that doctrine, and the general subculture surrounding the Tridentine Mass, in which no punches are pulled and doctrine is proclaimed from the pulpit with confidence and vigor.
C
Cinette
Guest
I love the Mass - pronto!
Whether it is the traditionalist Mass or the post Vatican II Mass. Everything , all the liturgy is bible based and beautiful.
I go to daily Mass at a Convent Chapel - some of the people who attend also work and it would be impossible to have a Mass with all the bells and whistles. What is important is the state of our hearts
F
fellowChristian
Guest
“You know whats wrong with the Mass it’s the____________.”
*]music is too loud
*]music too old
*]music is too new
*]cantor is off key
*]Extra Ordinary Ministers aren’t dressed right
*]lector can’t pronounce the words
*] people holding hands
*]people who don’t hold hands
*]people don’t say hello
*]people talk too much
*]priest should be turned away
*] bells
*]bells are missing
ect.
Does anybody else see what the real problem is?
The problem with the Mass is us.
How can we concentrate and meditate on the Mass,on the life of Christ, when we are taking inventory on what we think is wrong or with how we think things should be?
That would be like making a grocery list in your head while making love?!?
Stop making the grocery lists and show Jesus the love.
This reminds me of a story of a bishop not liking the new pope because the new pope was changing the the language of the Mass from Greek to Latin. Imagine that, upset because it was changing in to Latin and now we have people who are upset because It is not done in Latin.
C
Cinette
Guest
“You know whats wrong with the Mass it’s the____________.”
*]music is too loud
*]music too old
*]music is too new
*]cantor is off key
*]Extra Ordinary Ministers aren’t dressed right
*]lector can’t pronounce the words
*] people holding hands
*]people who don’t hold hands
*]people don’t say hello
*]people talk too much
*]priest should be turned away
*] bells
*]bells are missing
ect.
Does anybody else see what the real problem is?
The problem with the Mass is us.
How can we concentrate and meditate on the Mass,on the life of Christ, when we are taking inventory on what we think is wrong or with how we think things should be?
That would be like making a grocery list in your head while making love?!?
Stop making the grocery lists and show Jesus the love.
This reminds me of a story of a bishop not liking the new pope because the new pope was changing the the language of the Mass from Greek to Latin. Imagine that, upset because it was changing in to Latin and now we have people who are upset because It is not done in Latin.
Great post. You are absolutely right.
The focus must be on the Lord above everything :clapping: 
K
KingAlfred
Guest
I think a more ecumenical approach is appropriate. The strict traditionalism you seek should be available, which I think it is, but for the rest of us, a more open outlook is best, IMHO. The problem with ecumenism is that so much of the Christian world community still harbors and expresses hateful prejudices toward Catholicism. Just when I’m prepared to ‘go’, ecumenical, if you will, some Fundie will say something that offends me and changes my mind.
A
Antonius_Lupus
Guest
True.
I don’t know, it just seems like:
Unless I try to follow Rome and trust that She is doing what’s right, then I am in opposition to Rome.
I don’t ever want to go back to where I used to be when anything in accordance with Rome was evil (hence my Ultramontanist leanings).
S
strugglingalong
Guest
Yes and the opposite stance would be that everything that comes from Rome is good. Yes, the Extraordinary Magisterium is protected by the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church. But the Church can, in ordinary matters, make imprudent decisions. Not every ordinary decision is protected from error. The Concilium certainly wasn’t protected, that’s evident. In those cases we aren’t called to simply go along with it as if it were God’s will. As Dr. von Hildebrand says, we are to speak out even while maintaining our allegiance to the Pope. I’d highly suggest you read The Charitable Anathema by Dr. Von Hildebrand. I think in it one of his essays addresses this idea that we must say that everything Rome says and does is right and good. Not so (in ordinary matters of course).
Many orthodox Catholics are highly critical of the New Mass. I’m thinking of Alcuin Reid (who at least sees that a lot that occurred in regard to the New Mass violated the principles of organic growth of liturgy) among others. Tolkien, I was just reading today, was upset at the New Mass. Here’s a couple quotes from Tolkien that I think are right on:
Pax Christi tecum.
F
fbl9
Guest
thank you for your gracious reply prayforMallory2:i feel i do owe you an apology for i was not being kind to you in my post for that i am sorry…fellowchristian: with Cinette’s praise of your post is mine too…you nailed it on the head,“the problem with the mass is us”…there has been times when my priest has said things during the homily that seemed not right and i let these thoughts of mine run amuck,when i should have been focussing on why i was at mass in the first place…me will try to stop making that gorcery list.good anology lol…
M
muffinmojo
Guest
I hope some of you out there realize that there are some, if not most, traditional-leaning(I hesitate to use the term ‘traditionalist’) Catholics who see tradition in the way the Holy Father(from what I father) does. We don’t see things as inherently good simply because they are in Latin, or good simply because the priest faces a different way or wears fancy brocade vestments or rings bells. We see these things as good not of themselves(after all, does God care what style vestment the priest wears when offering His Son to Him?), but good of what they sow in the believers; in their fruit. These things, though not valuable in and of themselves, promote reverence and the true spirit of the liturgy as was intended by the Second Vatican Council, the Council of Trent, etc.
You are correct that many times people whine about things that are unimportant; but in your reaction to that ridiculousness, you seem to be taking the attitude that these things are not tremendously important. If there was ever any doubt, the 70s proved that it is often the most minute details of language and posture that affect what people believe in their worship- one should always, always avoid nitpicking or unChristian spirit when dealing with the liturgy, or legalism i suppose you might call it, but you must never, ever pretend that the divine liturgy is not, in fact, a real, substantial, physical, spiritual, and sacramental encounter with God Himself- and that the rubrics are there for a reason, and being precise, dignified, solemn and respectful in worship is a good thing.
You are correct that many times people whine about things that are unimportant; but in your reaction to that ridiculousness, you seem to be taking the attitude that these things are not tremendously important. If there was ever any doubt, the 70s proved that it is often the most minute details of language and posture that affect what people believe in their worship- one should always, always avoid nitpicking or unChristian spirit when dealing with the liturgy, or legalism i suppose you might call it, but you must never, ever pretend that the divine liturgy is not, in fact, a real, substantial, physical, spiritual, and sacramental encounter with God Himself- and that the rubrics are there for a reason, and being precise, dignified, solemn and respectful in worship is a good thing.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
Exactly!!! And lex orandi lex credendi, the rule of prayer is the rule of belief. Our faith is largely enshrined in the liturgy so to make sweeping changes is to alter how the Faithful view and understand that Faith. Those who attend a TLM and those who attend the New Mass get a different impression of the Faith, the former strongly reinforces the idea of a sacrifice being offered to the Faith to save us from our sins whereas the latter, while touching on that aspect maybe once or twice, focuses on a communal meal at a “table.” These are important differences that affect the spiritual lives of the Faithful.
The problem is us? Maybe at times it is but there are inherent issues with the formulation of the new liturgy. This principle - “the problem is us” - portends to say that if we’d only accommodate ourselves then we could basically worship God just as well with much of any liturgy. No, liturgy itself has objective standards and one thing can be more reverent or more fitting than another - and in that case of one being better, we are obliged to want the better one to better please and worship Our Lord! The problem is not always us.
The concilium of Paul VI made many wrong decisions - like it or not that is the case. They introduced some novelties. They made vast changes to the essential core of the liturgy. That is against the traditional way liturgy grows and matures. Liturgy is not something for a man, or a group of men, to design on their own. It grows organically in the bosom of the Church, which means that it doesn’t change radically into something new. That is the problem of the New Mass. The liturgical movement started out right but then got out of control.
Pax Christi tecum.
W
Windmill
Guest
No Mass is nirvana. Total rapture will only occur with the Beatific Vision. Keep that in mind when you attend Mass, or else you may never be happy.
That having been said, also realize that we are corporate beings. We are embodied souls. We are supposed to have bodies, and in our worship we cannot expect to be body-less. We are not seeking a purely spiritual experience at Mass. No, we accept the nature of our being and use matter to worship God. We use our bodies in the gestures and postures of reverence. We use incense to symbolize our prayers ascending to God. This touches our senses of sight and smell. We use bread and wine, which becomes Christ himself. These affect our sense of taste. Vestments, liturgical furnishings, chanting prayers, etc… In other words, we cannot minimize the effect that mediocre, exterior worship has on our interior worship. If you are going through the motions half-heartedly, your heart will not be in it. **But conversely, if the liturgical ambiance is mediocre it has the same effect. **
I’ve said this time and time again, but I’ll repeat myself:
No matter which form of Mass you attend, if you have to mentally convince yourself that, despite what’s going on in the sanctuary, you really are at a solemn sacrifice, then something is very, very wrong. The visible reality must mirror the invisible reality that is unfolding before you, or else it doesn’t jive with your intellect. If you experience a goofy Mass week after week, then you slowly start to come to one of two conclusions: Either 1) These people don’t believe that this is a solemn Sacrifice, or 2) They don’t care. Either conclusion leads to apathy.
That having been said, also realize that we are corporate beings. We are embodied souls. We are supposed to have bodies, and in our worship we cannot expect to be body-less. We are not seeking a purely spiritual experience at Mass. No, we accept the nature of our being and use matter to worship God. We use our bodies in the gestures and postures of reverence. We use incense to symbolize our prayers ascending to God. This touches our senses of sight and smell. We use bread and wine, which becomes Christ himself. These affect our sense of taste. Vestments, liturgical furnishings, chanting prayers, etc… In other words, we cannot minimize the effect that mediocre, exterior worship has on our interior worship. If you are going through the motions half-heartedly, your heart will not be in it. **But conversely, if the liturgical ambiance is mediocre it has the same effect. **
I’ve said this time and time again, but I’ll repeat myself:
No matter which form of Mass you attend, if you have to mentally convince yourself that, despite what’s going on in the sanctuary, you really are at a solemn sacrifice, then something is very, very wrong. The visible reality must mirror the invisible reality that is unfolding before you, or else it doesn’t jive with your intellect. If you experience a goofy Mass week after week, then you slowly start to come to one of two conclusions: Either 1) These people don’t believe that this is a solemn Sacrifice, or 2) They don’t care. Either conclusion leads to apathy.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I know we use “rapturous” to speak of something not quite the Rapture and “nirvana” to speak of things not even remotely Buddhist, but I’m still not so sure that “nirvana” is the word you want. Is using a Buddhist term so difficult to even explain in the terminologies open to Western language the best way to describe the Mass? It might obscure a lot more than it clears up.
Yes. As much as we must try not to judge, it is a lot to ask of ourselves to regularly attend a Mass that does not seem fully reverent to us. Goofy Masses exist, but I would go so far as to say the Mass doesn’t even need to be actually goofy. You only need to interpret or experience it that way.
If you are coming to the conclusion that your standards of reverence are inherently different and fundamentally more appropriate than those you worship with at Mass, you either need an attitude adjustment, remedial education, or a change of venue.
There are people who think the EF is boring, for instance, or that people who aren’t saying anything aren’t really praying. If such people can’t manage an attitude adjustment and find no relief in further education, they need to go elsewhere, for everyone’s sake.
- Status