H
HCC
Guest
CradleCath, Please check your inbox. Thanks
~HCC
~HCC
- Status
M
Momofmyangels
Guest
Often in your posts Annabelle Marie, you state your “pains” to see people bashing the OF. In all fairness, really read the posts. There is a huge distinction between admonishing the abuses that are very present in the OF (even if you do not see them in your area) and admonishing the OF itself. There is no “bashing” of the OF itself, although I know you will not agree, but rather the irreverence shown to Our Lord in many OF Masses. The Mass is valid, this we all agree on. Can you just see that people want the absolute best for Our Lord and Savior?
In stating that you think the EF is “prissy”, haven’t you just done that which you are “pained” about each and every time you hear someone bring up an abuse in the OF? Haven’t you just “bashed” the EF?
C
CradleCath
Guest
No, the scandal is about Pederasty. Adult homosexuals molesting pubescent & post-pubescent boys.
While I don’t agree with much that Roy says in his post, we have to give the “devil his due”.
Our priesthood is disproportionatelygay & I, a traditional Catholic, agree with him that some of our gay priests entered the priesthood to dodge the bullet, so to speak, of questions about their sexual orientation. However, during the 70’s, many were actively recruited by homosexuals in the American hierarchy. The Boy Scouts faced the truth. It’s time that the Catholics in the pews face it.
I do NOT believe that most homosexuals abuse boys, However, pederasty has always been the dark part of homosexuality. It does exist today, it’s not simply something that was done centuries ago.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty
"Anthropologists propose three subdivisions of homosexuality as** age-structured**, egalitarian and gender-structured.[2][3] Pederasty is the archetypal example of male age-structured homosexuality.[2] ".
What I find interesting is that priests who pray the TLM., are both young & masculine. Perhaps because the FSSP. actually follows the rules about ordaining homosexuals??
C
CradleCath
Guest
Please, please, PLEASE, don’t advocate messing with THIS Mass. We’ve seen enough “creativity” re the Mass.
T
Tamsulosin
Guest
Maybe it is a good thing that there are two valid ways of celebrating Mass.
What is perhaps important is that each of us find fulfillment in the the type of mass we attend.Having a choice will reach more people,which in the end may mean more souls
receiving the benefit of mass and communion.Otherwise,if someone is turned off by one type or other, he or she may stay home on Sundays using that excuse.
If I were a bishop, I would enforce the offering of both types within my diocese.
What is perhaps important is that each of us find fulfillment in the the type of mass we attend.Having a choice will reach more people,which in the end may mean more souls
receiving the benefit of mass and communion.Otherwise,if someone is turned off by one type or other, he or she may stay home on Sundays using that excuse.
If I were a bishop, I would enforce the offering of both types within my diocese.
F
FrancisB
Guest
I’ve just spent the better part of two hours reading through this maze of posts, and it leaves me once again feeling alone in the world. I prefer the extraordinary form in many ways, but I can see the problems in it: the very ones that St. Pius X and his successors through Bl. John XXIII tried to fix. I understand the purpose of the council; it was necessary. That said, the ordinary form is not what the council demanded and it ignores much of what the council said and treats special permissions (the vernacular, extraordinary ministers, &c.) as though they are the norm.
But when I attend mass every week I attend a mass said according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. It’s not that I can’t attend the older rite; it’s only a half-hour drive. In fact, I went last week because our bishop was in attendance as part of a celebration of the third anniversary of Summorum Pontificum. It reminded me why I don’t attend more often: I resent being stared at as though I’m an outsider and then being subjected to conspiracy theories and whispers that the pope isn’t really the pope and that there’s a great reckoning coming in the church. I resent the fact that although we were given permission to use the 1962 missal, the Confiteor before communion is used. I resent the fact that although the Leonine prayers were suppressed they are still recited after low mass. And don’t get me wrong; I don’t have a problem with the idea of the Confiteor being said before communion or with any part of the Leonine prayers. What bothers me is the incessant need for the people at my local Tridentine parish (and many, though not all, of the traditionalists on the internet boards) constantly refusing to submit themselves to the authority of the pope and the magisterium as though they know better than the church.
So let us be fair, there are plenty of liturgical abuses on both sides of the divide. They are certainly different types of abuses, but they stem from the same fundamental problem: hubris. It doesn’t matter if Fr. ad-libs some text because he is a better poet than the church fathers or if he instructs the altar servers to say prayers that they were told by Rome not to say. Either way, he has decided to ignore what he was told to do. Disobedience is disobedience.
And then there’s the old argument that the prayers are just better in the old form and that it emphasizes the sacrifice of Calvary. Now here’s the thing we have to keep in mind: both forms of the mass emphasize the sacrifice of Calvary. That’s why we go to mass. The whole reason that the mass is a sacrifice is because of the sacrifice that Christ made for us and for many (and that mistranslation is about to be fixed, so relax, my traditionalist brethren). If the Mass of Paul VI were not about the sacrifice on Calvary, it would not be valid. That is the central underpinning of the prayer. It doesn’t matter if it’s the Latin Rite Mass or an Eastern Divine Liturgy, it’s all about the sacrifice on Calvary.
One of the earlier posters made what I think is an insightful comment that he thought that our Holy Father had allowed for both forms to co-exist so that one form would naturally become the dominant form rather than a dominant form being thrust upon us. I think the poster was almost right. I think the true purpose of the dual-form usage is to allow the mass of Vatican II to finally take form. But I don’t think that mass will be either form. In fact I’m not sure that it needs to be one form. In the East they have more than one liturgy and still have no trouble being united. The West historically had more than one liturgy before Trent abrogated most of them. Perhaps it is time for us to return to the pluralist liturgical tradition of our past where the liturgies are all reverent, sacred, and God-centred, and cling to the best parts of our tradition (including our beloved Holy Tongue in places as well as the vernacular in others, the holy chant that we have been asked again and again to restore, and the best parts of our artistic and architectural achievements) while being unafraid of the liturgy developing, so long as it maintains its orthodoxy and a connection to the past. Let us not forget that the Tridentine Mass was not penned by a single author, but developed over the course of centuries, nor the fact that it was politics and not religion that caused the abrogation of many of the other Western Rites. And before anyone tries the old Quo Primum argument that the mass could never be changed after 1570, St. Pus V altered the Tridentine Mass the year after he signed Quo Primum. I doubt that anyone on these boards has ever hard the mass celebrated according to the rubrics of 1570, so let us not be absurdist.
But when I attend mass every week I attend a mass said according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. It’s not that I can’t attend the older rite; it’s only a half-hour drive. In fact, I went last week because our bishop was in attendance as part of a celebration of the third anniversary of Summorum Pontificum. It reminded me why I don’t attend more often: I resent being stared at as though I’m an outsider and then being subjected to conspiracy theories and whispers that the pope isn’t really the pope and that there’s a great reckoning coming in the church. I resent the fact that although we were given permission to use the 1962 missal, the Confiteor before communion is used. I resent the fact that although the Leonine prayers were suppressed they are still recited after low mass. And don’t get me wrong; I don’t have a problem with the idea of the Confiteor being said before communion or with any part of the Leonine prayers. What bothers me is the incessant need for the people at my local Tridentine parish (and many, though not all, of the traditionalists on the internet boards) constantly refusing to submit themselves to the authority of the pope and the magisterium as though they know better than the church.
So let us be fair, there are plenty of liturgical abuses on both sides of the divide. They are certainly different types of abuses, but they stem from the same fundamental problem: hubris. It doesn’t matter if Fr. ad-libs some text because he is a better poet than the church fathers or if he instructs the altar servers to say prayers that they were told by Rome not to say. Either way, he has decided to ignore what he was told to do. Disobedience is disobedience.
And then there’s the old argument that the prayers are just better in the old form and that it emphasizes the sacrifice of Calvary. Now here’s the thing we have to keep in mind: both forms of the mass emphasize the sacrifice of Calvary. That’s why we go to mass. The whole reason that the mass is a sacrifice is because of the sacrifice that Christ made for us and for many (and that mistranslation is about to be fixed, so relax, my traditionalist brethren). If the Mass of Paul VI were not about the sacrifice on Calvary, it would not be valid. That is the central underpinning of the prayer. It doesn’t matter if it’s the Latin Rite Mass or an Eastern Divine Liturgy, it’s all about the sacrifice on Calvary.
One of the earlier posters made what I think is an insightful comment that he thought that our Holy Father had allowed for both forms to co-exist so that one form would naturally become the dominant form rather than a dominant form being thrust upon us. I think the poster was almost right. I think the true purpose of the dual-form usage is to allow the mass of Vatican II to finally take form. But I don’t think that mass will be either form. In fact I’m not sure that it needs to be one form. In the East they have more than one liturgy and still have no trouble being united. The West historically had more than one liturgy before Trent abrogated most of them. Perhaps it is time for us to return to the pluralist liturgical tradition of our past where the liturgies are all reverent, sacred, and God-centred, and cling to the best parts of our tradition (including our beloved Holy Tongue in places as well as the vernacular in others, the holy chant that we have been asked again and again to restore, and the best parts of our artistic and architectural achievements) while being unafraid of the liturgy developing, so long as it maintains its orthodoxy and a connection to the past. Let us not forget that the Tridentine Mass was not penned by a single author, but developed over the course of centuries, nor the fact that it was politics and not religion that caused the abrogation of many of the other Western Rites. And before anyone tries the old Quo Primum argument that the mass could never be changed after 1570, St. Pus V altered the Tridentine Mass the year after he signed Quo Primum. I doubt that anyone on these boards has ever hard the mass celebrated according to the rubrics of 1570, so let us not be absurdist.
O
Ockham
Guest
What a wonderful world that would be.Maybe it is a good thing that there are two valid ways of celebrating Mass.
What is perhaps important is that each of us find fulfillment in the the type of mass we attend.Having a choice will reach more people,which in the end may mean more souls
receiving the benefit of mass and communion.Otherwise,if someone is turned off by one type or other, he or she may stay home on Sundays using that excuse.
If I were a bishop, I would enforce the offering of both types within my diocese.
If I were bishop I’d establish something like you envision too. Both forms have their merits. The Novus Ordo being a simplified liturgy originally intended to make it easier for Protestants to come back to the Church could co-exist with the TLM. One problem however is in the different calendars but I’m sure someone could figure out a solution to that.
L
Layman
Guest
In the TLM, the priest has ‘prompt cards’ as well as the text. Ad-libbing, in a foreign, yet simple language, like Latin, is something you’d have to deliberately do, I think. It’s just the nature of that Mass. Face front, and if you have a problem, beckon over the M.C.
With your back to the ‘audience’, it’s much less pressurised. You have time to get it right, without feeling self-conscious.
As for saying the old rite in English: that’s been done locally. The attendance dropped off and the Mass was stopped. I think we’ve had enough of being the guinea pigs of creative pastors, personally. The whole vernacular argument assumes the laity is ignorant and/or can’t read.
C
CradleCath
Guest
I don’t know about you, Annabelle, but I’m trying to follow the guidelines posted by our moderator. We’re asked to avoid labeling either people or the Mass that they “prefer”. (I don’t like using that word in reference to the Catholic in the Pew, because the only thing that should matter is what GOD prefers.) To me, calling the Mass “prissy” is not only indicative of the fact that a poster knows nothing of the TLM…it’s also using a demeaning word to describe a Mass.[QUOTE said:
.
That’s not what the poster said. He didn’t speak of sins of the priest, but of the rubrics of the Mass.
**
people here concentrate on all the “abuses” that they see in the OF. Sometimes I wonder if they just sit there looking for any variance…so are they not participating in the Mass?**
I find the above statement to be a passive/ agressive judgment on those of us who are devoted to the Mass of the Ages. Perhaps you didn’t mean it that way, but that’s how it comes across.
I also find that many who say things like this have never attended a TLM., nor do they know many of us who do. I, personnaly, try hard NOT to refer much to the abuses I’ve seen in the Novus Ordo Mass. I only slip when I’m angry, :banghead: & I’m trying harder now. However, whether abuse-free or not, the Mass you refer to is still the Novus Ordo & I don’t believe that it is the best form of the Liturgy offered today & I’ve attended both for long periods of time. I’m sorry if that upsets you, but I have to be intellectually honest & IMO., you keep pushing.
O
Ockham
Guest
Whether V2 was necessary or not is a matter for debate. Of course many of the changes we’ve endured these past forty years were never called for by the Council - a fact many Catholics are not aware of
It appears you have the unfortunate luck to have found a nasty congregation or perhaps paranoid. I’ve never seen such behaviour at any Catholic Mass regards of the form. Is it possible you are doing something to draw attention to yourself?
Who are these Catholics who refuse to submit to the authority of the pope? Sedavacanists?
Is there a Mass that you would be satisfied with?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Why? We already have masses for those who prefer the all-vernacular. Where is the evidence that the suppression of Latin helped them understand the Mass better? I think the direction of the Church is now going more to the Latin than to the ever-changing vernaculars, so I don’t know why you’re even suggesting this same idea that failed miserably in the 60’s.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I fail to follow you here. I’ve heard so many heavy accents and so many homophones in the English language that you would have to give me something to read to be able to follow what they’re talking about. I would much more quickly spot an abuse in the EF than the English OF.
F
FrancisB
Guest
They’re not unusual. The people in my diocese are much like the Traditional Catholics that I’ve conversed with in fora and in other areas. When I was in college and graduate school, I attended celebrations of the Traditional Latin Mass in both places, and I have been to them in three other cities in the United States and one in Italy, held by the FSSP. What I can tell you is the only place that I did not feel out of place, did not witness wilful disobedience, and was not subjected to comments that ranged from conspiracy theories to sedevacanist ramblings was at the FSSP church in Italy, and it wasn’t because I couldn’t communicate with them; many of them spoke perfect English. As far as my experiences have taught me, the FSSP is interested in doing what the pope wants with the mass and rest of the traditionalists are largely not. And I’m not talking about radical groups that have severed ties with Rome. I’m talking about the diocesan Traditional Latin Masses throughout the North East. And, as I said, the responses of self-labelled traditionalists on boards like this only reinforce this view.
M
malphono
Guest
No, the scandal is about pedophilia. To say otherwise discounts and disrespects the case of the woman in the UK, (among many others), who was raped as a little girl. I stand by my original remark. In any case, I exit this tangent of the thread. There’s no point in continuing this discussion.
A
Adeodatus
Guest
More calumny against traditionalists, just what we need.
In my experience, the traditionalists at our local diocesan TLM are among the most loyal Catholics you could hope to find. So I guess our anecdotes cancel each other out.
As far as the FSSP goes, they’re a truly wonderful organization. Our ‘evil, conspiratorial’ diocesan traditionalist community has already sent a couple of vocations their way.
M
malphono
Guest
I think I understand what you’re saying. Unfortunately, in most such cases, it’s the “vocal fringe” element in the congregation that determines that disposition. I know of one diocesan parish where the priest who normally offers the EF is actually quite normal, as is a good portion of the congregation. But the “vocal fringe” (which is anything but normal) runs the show. For example, they have a “coffee hour” after Mass to which only they are invited. (I suspect, as I’ve said before, that they merely tolerate the priest as a necessary evil.) Well, they can be a rude as they please, and can stare at me all they want. (Actually, they stopped the staring after a time, but are still rude.) Who cares? I don’t assist at Mass to please them.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
F
FrancisB
Guest
Don’t mistake me; I don’t mean that they are evil. Far from it. I know they mean well. And I am sure that the point about them being a vocal minority is likely the truth, but they are nevertheless the ones that I hear. As I said earlier, I love the traditional mass. I just do not wish to associate with radicals of either stripe. When the traditional mass is more readily available and populated by moderates, I will be there every week in the choir loft, singing the chant that is so dear to my heart. In the mean time, I will try my best to influence the ordinary form at my parish toward tradition and avoid those whose view of tradition is so legalistic that it misses the spirit of the law.
As an aside, have any of you been to the ordinary form celebrated according to the rubrics (in Latin, ad orientem, &c.)? I think seeing the OF said in its most traditional form might also do much to dissuade the fears of many traditionalists.
As an aside, have any of you been to the ordinary form celebrated according to the rubrics (in Latin, ad orientem, &c.)? I think seeing the OF said in its most traditional form might also do much to dissuade the fears of many traditionalists.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
I find the above statement to be a passive/ agressive judgment on those of us who are devoted to the Mass of the Ages. Perhaps you didn’t mean it that way, but that’s how it comes across.
I also find that many who say things like this have never attended a TLM., nor do they know many of us who do. I, personnaly, try hard NOT to refer much to the abuses I’ve seen in the Novus Ordo Mass. I only slip when I’m angry, :banghead: & I’m trying harder now. However, whether abuse-free or not, the Mass you refer to is still the Novus Ordo & I don’t believe that it is the best form of the Liturgy offered today & I’ve attended both for long periods of time. I’m sorry if that upsets you, but I have to be intellectually honest & IMO., you keep pushing.
First–read my response to MomofAngels regarding my use of prissy…I apologize to you too…It seems like frustration goes all the way around.:banghead:
I wasn’t trying to be passive/agressive and really it had nothing to do with people who attend the EF…because they don’t necessarily have a patent on it. I’m not refering to a true abuse…I refering to a word slip here or something there. And honestly a lot of comments I here are just opinions and don’t necessarily have to do with the basic form of the liturgy. I honestly don’t know if this refers to you or not.
So you prefer the EF? Big deal…that doesn’t upset me…I’m not saying that people can’t do that or have to like the OF…but just to stop pitting one against the other. And to be charitable in there postings. It just seems like one person will post something that they don’t like about the NO and then another one will be like “I SO AGREE WITH YOU” and it just snowballs into a mass thrashing.
Is it not a time for us all to step back and evaluate our intentions? I like what PNewton said about praying. I for my part will pray that we get more priests so there can be more offerings of the EF in my state.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
Well in my town…my daily parish has a Mass once a month that is the OF in Latin. That might be interesting to attend…
- Status