We Changed the Church and Regret It

[FrancisB]

Sorry to break this to you but there is indeed a difference between newer (OF ) churches and the tradtitional (EF). New churches are clamshell design, without a high altar and communion rails, not many statues, maybe have confessionals, tabernacle in a side chapel, no choir loft, etc. If you disagree then I can’t justify spending any more time responding to your posts.

Ockham, I didn’t say that there were no differences between older churches and newer ones. What I said is that there is no such thing as an EF or OF church. I have been in many churches that exclusively celebrate the OF that have a high altar with the tabernacle (although they have another altar in front of it), a choir loft, confessionals, statues, and even some with communion rail. Regardless of the building, though, either form of the mass can be said there. That’s what I mean. There’s not an EF church or an OF church building. There’s just a Catholic Church building.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Sorry to break this to you but there is indeed a difference between newer (OF ) churches and the tradtitional (EF). New churches are clamshell design, without a high altar and communion rails, not many statues, maybe have confessionals, tabernacle in a side chapel, no choir loft, etc. If you disagree then I can’t justify spending any more time responding to your posts.

Hmmm…my OF church was built before V2…its not in the shape of a cross…it doesn’t have a high altar or communion rails and no statues…how can that be?

But it does have confessionals…no choir loft…but an adoration chapel. Oh…and the tabernacle is NOT in a side chapel.

All this was pre V2…hmmm…

 

[FrancisB]

Reach out and build bridges? This is from the person who won’t attend a diocesan EF because of how evil the people who attend it are. Why would I want to build a bridge to that?

Some posts you like the EF, some posts you wish it would be abrogated. You’d attend if the people there were “moderates”, but there’s little indication of what that means.

Beyond employing your obscure and idiosyncratic viewpoint as a basis for denigrating traditionalists, what is it that you would actually like to discuss? I’ll have a discussion with you if you want to have one. Those usually don’t begin with you slapping me in the face.

So let’s start over. Hi, I’m Adeodatus. I like to attend a diocesan EF Mass. Everyone that I talk to there is a very loyal Catholic who loves the Pope. The lady that this thread is about admitted to trying to wreck the Church. We’re all sad that it was wrecked. What do you think about that?

I never said people at the EF were evil. In fact, I explicitly repudiated such a remark when it was suggested that I said any such thing. And of course I am disgusted by someone trying to wreck the church or its traditions.

Now I will say this again. I prefer the EF to the OF. I like it better. I do not attend it because of the caustic way that many vocal traditionalists treat people that attend the OF. I am well acquainted with the “it’s valid, but…” statements, even when they are veiled. What I mean by moderate is traditional enough to appreciate tradition and to want to preserve it where possible, but not so traditional to think that everything that happened since 1963 is “valid, but…”

I made one reference to the EF being abrogated. Perhaps you didn’t read it carefully. What I said is that I hope that at some point both forms will be abrogated in favour of a mass form that is the traditional mass that incorporates the decrees of the Second Vatican Council. From what I understand we had this before I was born, back in 1965. That’s what I’m talking about as moderate. The 1965 missal. The one that was the text of the EF, but reflecting the council. Something that embraces Vatican II and everything that came before it.

There’s nothing obscure or idiosyncratic about my view. It’s moderate, meaning in between the two polar view points: the one on the left that says let’s all hold hands and sing Kumbaya to our gender-neutral deity and the one on the right that says that even the addition of the name of St. Joseph into the canon of the mass is suspicious. That’s moderate. The problem is that the moderates in the church have been labelled as leftists by the right and conservatives by the left for so long that no one knows what moderate means any more. By the way, our Holy Father is a moderate and he uses the OF routinely, while not trying to reconcile it with tradition. The “reform of the reform” is a moderate view point, but it’s often not traditionalist enough in traditional circles.

 

[FrancisB]

Hmmm…my OF church was built before V2…its not in the shape of a cross…it doesn’t have a high altar or communion rails and no statues…how can that be?

But it does have confessionals…no choir loft…but an adoration chapel. Oh…and the tabernacle is NOT in a side chapel.

All this was pre V2…hmmm…

Right, and the church that I attend was built in the early 1900s, is a shell shape with banked seating like a theatre, has a choir loft, pipe organ, high altar with tabernacle, two side altars, a plethora of statues, and two fully functional confessionals. But they only say the OF there. Does that make it an EF or an OF church? Maybe that’s my confusion.

 

[Ockham]

Hmmm…my OF church was built before V2…its not in the shape of a cross…it doesn’t have a high altar or communion rails and no statues…how can that be?

But it does have confessionals…no choir loft…but an adoration chapel. Oh…and the tabernacle is NOT in a side chapel.

All this was pre V2…hmmm…

Your sarcasm isn’t helping your stated intentions. What could cause the discrepancy?

I didn’t say all chruches built before V2 were in the shape of a cross.

Why do you post here again?

 

[ProVobis]

There’s not an EF church or an OF church building. There’s just a Catholic Church building.

Yes, but when the architecture of the church doesn’t lend itself very well to the EF (no communion rails or communion kneelers), no kneelers in the pews, a square altar, etc. you have to admit a certain bias against the EF, no?

 

[FrancisB]

Yes, but when the architecture of the church doesn’t lend itself very well to the EF (no communion rails or communion kneelers), no kneelers in the pews, a square altar, etc. you have to admit a certain bias against the EF, no?

Oh certainly some churches that have been built in the last few years have been designed in such a manner as to make the EF difficult to celebrate. But that doesn’t make them “OF” churches, and not all of the churches built since 1970 have been built in such a way to make it difficult to say the EF of the mass there. The alter merely needs to be big enough to hold the required materials. Whether it is against the wall or not is irrelevant, as the design with the baldachin was used for centuries. The lack of kneelers, while sometimes found, was specifically condemned, as the practice of kneeling is common to the OF as well. And mass was said before there were communion rails. As long as the altar is on a raised dais, there’s a place to kneel. I don’t remember ever seeing an altar that wasn’t on a raised platform even in the most bizarrely modern churches.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Your sarcasm isn’t helping your stated intentions. What could cause the discrepancy?

I didn’t say all chruches built before V2 were in the shape of a cross.

Why do you post here again?

Why do you consider yourself the sensor? Am I not allowed to post because I question? With that line of logic then you shouldn’t post anywhere else on CAF…

 

[Layman]

Would it be totally acceptable to you that a priests mumbles through a Latin Mass? Mumbling words that sounds like, but it not quite the words that should be spoken. That is what my concern is. I think anyone, with an amount of familiarity speaking a language that is foreign to them, would fall into this problem.

What I would like is an edifying, solemn Mass, with beautiful music and pious lyrics which express our faith without deviation or blanding it out, in a church with stained glass, icons and many statues, said by a finely vested, holy man who focuses his attention on Who the Mass is directed to rather than who it is said for and a congregation who go out their way to avoid distracting other worshippers.

You’d think in rich, Western countries such a thing would be commonplace. We have the resources. Or used to.
**
A priest who mumbles his way through a Latin Mass has a problem. He knows that that is not right. A priest who thinks that ad-libbing a Mass is his right, as a consequence of Vat. II, is the Church’s problem.**

 

[Adeodatus]

I made one reference to the EF being abrogated. Perhaps you didn’t read it carefully. What I said is that I hope that at some point both forms will be abrogated in favour of a mass form that is the traditional mass that incorporates the decrees of the Second Vatican Council. From what I understand we had this before I was born, back in 1965. That’s what I’m talking about as moderate. The 1965 missal. The one that was the text of the EF, but reflecting the council. Something that embraces Vatican II and everything that came before it.

There’s nothing obscure or idiosyncratic about my view. It’s moderate, meaning in between the two polar view points: the one on the left that says let’s all hold hands and sing Kumbaya to our gender-neutral deity and the one on the right that says that even the addition of the name of St. Joseph into the canon of the mass is suspicious. That’s moderate. The problem is that the moderates in the church have been labelled as leftists by the right and conservatives by the left for so long that no one knows what moderate means any more. By the way, our Holy Father is a moderate and he uses the OF routinely, while not trying to reconcile it with tradition. The “reform of the reform” is a moderate view point, but it’s often not traditionalist enough in traditional circles.

That’s much more intelligible. Thank you.

I do think there’s an element of a straw man in it, at least from my own limited experience. I participate in my diocesan Latin Mass community (not as fully as some, but I’m there and on a first name basis with plenty of folks). I don’t know these people you’re talking about. I suspect some of them do exist, but they sure don’t show up for coffee and snacks with the priest after Mass. They’re not in Holy Name or the choir or any of that. So maybe there are a few rebels who show up… but I’d never know. That’s not who I think of when I think of our diocesan Traditionalist community. We love the Pope and we’re very obedient.

 

[ConstantineTG]

What I would like is an edifying, solemn Mass, with beautiful music and pious lyrics which express our faith without deviation or blanding it out, in a church with stained glass, icons and many statues, said by a finely vested, holy man who focuses his attention on Who the Mass is directed to rather than who it is said for and a congregation who go out their way to avoid distracting other worshippers.

You’d think in rich, Western countries such a thing would be commonplace. We have the resources. Or used to.

Well, we have the resources but the demand sadly isn’t there. Sad thing too is that the cost of everything today is up. The reason why we don’t have churches like we used to is not because we don’t want to, but because we can’t afford to.

While I love a well decorated church, I am not totally against churches that have less statues in them. I’ve seen people who are borderline idolatrers and I think they should be reminded that the statue is not the object of our worship or veneration.

**
A priest who mumbles his way through a Latin Mass has a problem. He knows that that is not right. A priest who thinks that ad-libbing a Mass is his right, as a consequence of Vat. II, is the Church’s problem.**

While I can’t offer proof either way, I can’t imagine it being too far of for some priests to be this way in the past. Especially if no one is to tell them otherwise.

 

[FrancisB]

That’s much more intelligible. Thank you.

I do think there’s an element of a straw man in it, at least from my own limited experience. I participate in my diocesan Latin Mass community (not as fully as some, but I’m there and on a first name basis with plenty of folks). I don’t know these people you’re talking about. I suspect some of them do exist, but they sure don’t show up for coffee and snacks with the priest after Mass. They’re not in Holy Name or the choir or any of that. So maybe there are a few rebels who show up… but I’d never know. That’s not who I think of when I think of our diocesan Traditionalist community. We love the Pope and we’re very obedient.

I’m very glad to hear that, but it hasn’t been my experience in my diocese or the dioceses surrounding mine. And the antagonistic way that people are treated for making peace with the OF even here is a sign of what I was describing, and it is much more so on boards that have an even larger traditionalist population. I never used the word “evil,” and yet it was put in my mouth to make me out to be an enemy of tradition, which I am not. I wish the EF were more widespread; I think only having one in a large diocese is part of what contributes to the problem, but this is all too often the case in the more liberal dioceses, and as a result the only people that are willing to travel from far and wide are the ones that have the biggest problems with the OF. That naturally leads to these communities being much more vocally anti-Vatican II and anti-OF, and thus alienating the very people they should be seeking to befriend: the people who might start to attract larger crowds to the EF and thereby create a greater need for it and perhaps create a second EF mass in the diocese, thereby generating more interest, &c.

The church made a similar mistake with the nascent Protestant movement. Instead of talking to Luther and trying to show him his errors while accepting the valid parts of his argument, he was ostracised. His message resonated with people because, honestly, the church was corrupt. The fact that he was right about the church being corrupt doesn’t mean that he was right about justification, sola scriptura, or a whole host of other ideas he had, but many people made that mistake. And they left the church for good. Instead of trying to reach out to these people and show them the error of their ways while acknowledging the things that the church had done wrong, they were condemned as heretics. It spiralled out of control. Then the Council of Trent came and the decision was made to batten down the hatches and protect the church from Protestantism by trying to keep it from ever being able to change. In essence, Trent was every bit as revolutionary as Vatican II, and every bit as disastrous. The Protestants were never corrected. They never returned.

In two hundred years, the church will have returned to its status quo. The question is whether or not this time we will have learnt to protect Her Traditions by reaching out and teaching them to the people that are in error or if we will just force them out of the church so that they can form new Protestant-like sects.

 

[FrancisB]

A priest who mumbles his way through a Latin Mass has a problem. He knows that that is not right. A priest who thinks that ad-libbing a Mass is his right, as a consequence of Vat. II, is the Church’s problem.

I’m not sure that I can agree with you there, much as I agreed with the rest of your post. I even agree with the latter half of this: a priest who thinks that ad-libbing is right is the church’s problem. But I’m not sure that every priest that mumbles his way through the Latin mass knows that he’s wrong. I’m not sure that every priest that says the EF was properly trained now, and I am positive that this was not the case in the past. There were mistakes in the past; otherwise there would have been no need for corrections to be published. There were heresies in the past as well, and I do not think that someone could possibly continue to believe something if he knows that it is wrong. The problem will be corrected again and again. Orthopraxy, like orthodoxy, is a matter of learning, which is a process. Things will be righted.

 

[HCC]

And this was the Church that I was raised in. You have said it well & I do wonder if those who grew up & know only the Novus Ordo Mass could have responded as well as many of us did.

I am so sorry. I can only imagine how traumatic and difficult that must have been. Even my mother, who is a mild feminist and liberal, said she ultimately left the Church because it had become something else. She grew up being taught the Church and all of its traditions could never change, whether others agree with that catechesis or not, many were taught that and it was painful to endure. My father stayed in the Church and endured. He doesn’t speak often about it, just went along with the changes, but I know he suffered and I know many people must have suffered a great loss in seeing the their traditions destroyed. **

For 15 years ** I tried to love the “New Mass”. After that I just endured & prayed. I really don’t think that many of our posters have any idea about the pain we felt, about the faith that kept us praying & PRAYING, about the anger we just swallowed rather than spread it around.

I do know what you mean. I tried to force myself to love the new Mass, even though for 16 years of my life, that is all I knew. Something inside me said, “there has to be more. There has to be something greater. After 2000 years-this is the best they could come up with?” Even after going to the Latin Mass on Sundays only, I had to endure the NO on weekdays. I certainly couldn’t speak to anyone about it, except for Our Lord. I know the lonely feeling that you speak of quite well.

I think that the hardest part was the fact that I had two choices…either to bring my children up in this Church that had become very strange in my eyes,

Yes, CradleCath, strange is the correct word. When I have to go to a NO parish, it feels very foreign and strange. Paul VI, upon seeing a demonstration of the NO Mass for the 1st time, when it was all being discussed, said that it produced a strange feeling in him and not in the positive.

or to bring them up in another faith. That wasn’t an option for either me or my husband, so they are “children of the Novus Ordo”. They know very little about Fatima, have probably never asked for a saint’s intercession & have never lit a votive candle in front of a statue.
They attended Catholic schools & we assumed they were being taught correctly. BIG mistake.

The Rosary, CradleCath, the Rosary!

 

[Layman]

Well, we have the resources but the demand sadly isn’t there. Sad thing too is that the cost of everything today is up. The reason why we don’t have churches like we used to is not because we don’t want to, but because we can’t afford to.

And yet the demand for 40" TV’s, booze and foreign holidays is still strong. We have the money. We just don’t want this or , thanks to Vat. II, a lot of people don’t know they could have it. Assuming their Bishop is not ideologically against it.

While I love a well decorated church, I am not totally against churches that have less statues in them. I’ve seen people who are borderline idolatrers and I think they should be reminded that the statue is not the object of our worship or veneration.

I think priests and bishops share your attitude. Is there a chance some people might go overboard in venerating icons? Then lets get rid of them, so no one can. Then no one can use them as springboard to contact with those they represent.

While I can’t offer proof either way, I can’t imagine it being too far of for some priests to be this way in the past. Especially if no one is to tell them otherwise.

That past is not even a memory for many young-ish Catholics today. Those bad old days, where churches were full and the faith was kept safe from mangling by being part-transmitted in Latin.

 

[MarkThompson]

I think priests and bishops share your attitude. Is there a chance some people might go overboard in venerating icons? Then lets get rid of them, so no one can. Then no one can use them as springboard to contact with those they represent.

Give them the old “Precious Blood heave-ho,” in other words?

 

[FrancisB]

Give them the old “Precious Blood heave-ho,” in other words?

I thought we went through that in the 8th Century. They tried to destroy all the icons because of the risk of idolatry. Many great pieces of sacred art were destroyed. People were saddened. Some thought the end was nigh. It was declared as heresy and we recovered. There is little that is truly new in the Church. They can take the statues and icons away for a little while, but they’ll return.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I thought we went through that in the 8th Century. They tried to destroy all the icons because of the risk of idolatry. Many great pieces of sacred art were destroyed. People were saddened. Some thought the end was nigh. It was declared as heresy and we recovered. There is little that is truly new in the Church. They can take the statues and icons away for a little while, but they’ll return.

What Mark was referring to was the decision by the Roman Church to withhold the Precious Blood from the laity to combat the heresy that the bread only becomes the Body of Christ and the wine only becomes the Blood of Christ, instead of each species of the Eucharist containing the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

 

[FrancisB]

What Mark was referring to was the decision by the Roman Church to withhold the Precious Blood from the laity to combat the heresy that the bread only becomes the Body of Christ and the wine only becomes the Blood of Christ, instead of each species of the Eucharist containing the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

Yes, I gathered that. And what I was referring to is the Iconoclast heresy where there was an attempt to remove all icons from the church in order to keep the faithful from falling into idolatry, which is a much closer parallel. My point was that there already was an attempt to get rid of the religious art in the church and it was defeated and condemned as heresy. To suggest that we need to do so again can be nothing other than heresy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And yet the demand for 40" TV’s, booze and foreign holidays is still strong. We have the money. We just don’t want this or , thanks to Vat. II, a lot of people don’t know they could have it. Assuming their Bishop is not ideologically against it.

Just compare the cost of a TV and a church

I think priests and bishops share your attitude. Is there a chance some people might go overboard in venerating icons? Then lets get rid of them, so no one can. Then no one can use them as springboard to contact with those they represent.

From where I come from, its not overboard. Check this video…
youtube.com/watch?v=jnONIqWD5E4
People push and trample each other so just they can have a chance of tugging on the rope that pulls the statue of the “Black Nazarene” believing that doing so will fulfill a wish.
Now, tell me again if my idea was going overboard.

That past is not even a memory for many young-ish Catholics today. Those bad old days, where churches were full and the faith was kept safe from mangling by being part-transmitted in Latin.

I don’t believe Latin is what kept the faith safe. Just look at all the distractions people have today, there’s nothing Latin could have ever done about it. In fact, the Ukrainian Catholic Church thrived amidst recent persecution and yet you cannot attribute that success to Latin.